|
Prove God Exists and Get $1,000,000
|
Posted By:
Lord Lucan
in somewhere strange
Jan 12, 2005
|
<a href="http://www.thinkandreason.com/" title="Think and Reason">Think and Reason</a> is offering $1,000,000 if you can<b> prove</b> that God exists. There are conditions attached. But they do say: <i>"All you have to do is prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists. It is really that easy!"</i>
Is there really this money sitting waiting?
Supposing I said I was God - and prove I exist (should be easy) - is the money mine?
|
Comments
|
Page 24 of 24 pages ‹ First < 22 23 24 |
Paul
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 | 12:20 AM
If I prove that no man can prove God doesn't exist, is that the same? Will I win the money? |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 | 09:51 AM
No it isn't the same. We're all well aware that nobody can prove God <i>doesn't</i> exist, just as nobody can prove he <i>does</i>. |
Sam
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 | 07:22 PM
Who's "we"?
"We're all well aware that nobody can prove..." |
Andika
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 | 08:26 AM
it will proven when u die, if that time come, nothing u can do! |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 | 11:04 AM
<i>"it will proven when u die, if that time come, nothing u can do!"</i>
Not necessarily. If there is no god, you will never know it when you die. |
samba
|
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 | 10:59 PM
This is just conjecture.That's ok,but please dont pretend this is a scientific or particularly rational view,unless you have testable,hard data to back it up.
"it will proven when u die, if that time come, nothing u can do!"
Not necessarily. If there is no god, you will never know it when you die. |
Dasheng
|
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 | 05:33 AM
I don't think it's pretending to be scientific, but you're right, it isn't rational.
Whether there is a god or not has no bearing on whether there is an afterlife, or whether you are consciously aware in it, or what the extent of your perception is in it. |
samba
|
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 | 10:58 PM
Where's the testable data to support such a conclusion?
"If there is no god, you will never know it when you die" |
Dasheng
|
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 | 05:38 AM
Is it a conclusion? I thought it was an opinion. |
chauntay overton
|
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 | 09:31 PM
for half that amount, i can prove to you that god doesn't exist |
Sam
|
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 | 10:54 AM
So far in this discussion all I've seen are arguments about Sunday school stories for kids. Mytholgies are ways of talking about truth that have to do with humnas inner experiences of existing. To treat such stories as either "literally" true,or as lies is to misunderstand the function of stories. Unfortunately many essentially fetishize scientific approaches by failing to understand that scientific modeling,although it is more precise in describing the outer world,is also a form of storytelling,and as such neither true or false,mytholgies and modeling are both learning tools,neither true not false. Our abilities to imagine remember and communicate involve employing representationsof " reality" these representations are never reality. Thus far there seems to be no data suggesting it is possible to know wether God is real or not through such approaches. But historically mystics who don't tell sunday school stories about what is or isn;t real,have reported that it is possible to have experiences of inner light etc. If you want to know what God stuff is really about investigate the pssibility of such experinece. There are experiments showing nuns xen monks ,people in meditation and prayer having very distinct and unusual brain patterns. Some claim that this shows it's just imaginary ,but that's absurd, the same could be said for any other experience that shows particular brain patterning. |
Dasheng
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 | 07:53 AM
"There are experiments showing nuns xen monks ,people in meditation and prayer having very distinct and unusual brain patterns. Some claim that this shows it's just imaginary ,but that's absurd"
Wait, so science is "also a form of storytelling, and as such neither true or false", but as soon as a scientific study supports your a priori conclusion, to deny it becomes "absurd"?!
Do you want fries with that whopper double standard? |
Sam
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 | 10:06 AM
You seem to have rather badly misunderstood my position. My background is in logic and history and philosophy of science.I'm not arguing for or against the existence of god,or gods,I didn;t say science is a form of storytelling,I said scientific modeling is. Understanding that the map is not the territory,the menu is not the meal is crucial to any discussion either physics or metaphysics. I'm not opposed to scientific method,I am opposed to drawing conclusions based on incomplete data.Since we don't posses complete data we can only draw provisional conclusions.
I haven;t stated an a priori position ,but suggested an area of inquiry cogent to the question at hand. If you're just looking for starry eyed true believers to attack ,you're barking up the wrong tree. I would suggest you might profit from examining your own assumptions. |
chauntay overton
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 | 05:25 PM
hey sam, caaaaalm down, all of this is in good humor. hey million dollar man, if i can prove that my ask exist, will you give me 10000.00. im not greedy. s@*t! |
Dasheng
|
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 | 07:24 AM
All science involves scientific modelling, which is a fundamental and integral part of the scientific method. But if all science is hence based on storytelling, what is science if not just another story?
The concept of nothing being absolutely true or false in science is well understood and accepted, but to use that as a basis for any kind of argument is to invite solipsism. That no hypothesis is absolutely known to be true does not mean all hypotheses may claim equal validity.
Scientific models are storytelling in much the same way that building a house is "putting rocks in a pile". |
Sam
|
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 | 01:58 PM
I have a quibble with the idea that modeling is fundamental to science,I'd say it's a secondary level of development. I'm looking at the how sciece has developed over time. Observation is fundamental,making comparisons recording data,and then making and testig models are all developments of the fundamental process of observing nature. Nothing you've said changes the validity of the basic point,which if we mistake our representational systems for the reality being represented,we are no longer dealing with natural reality.This sort of mistake feeds the extreme environmental destruction currently taking place.
No one has really picked up on my assertion that studying and trying to replicate the experiences of people who reference god,spirituality,mystical and inner light experiences is the way to learn about what's going on.As opposed to quasi logical disputation,I'm suggesting actually applying scientific method. |
Dasheng
|
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 | 07:35 AM
"Modelling is an essential and inseparable part of all scientific activity"
-- Dilip Jha, Physical Chemistry (2009).
"[Models] should no longer be treated as subordinate to theory and data in the production of knowledge. Models join with measuring instruments, experiments, theory and data as one of the essential ingredients in the practice of science"
-- Mary Morgan & Margaret Morrison, Models as Mediators (1999).
Only the most trivial of observations are carried out directly, almost all now use proxy measurements interpreted by a mathematical model. A pertinent example of which would be brain scans such as the one referenced earlier.
Our so-called "powers of observation" are too limited to be of any use in finding out about reality. Unless we are to limit ourselves to our very meagre senses, nearly everything that can be known about the universe is obtained through proxy measurement and interpretation. The idea of "natural reality" is a myth, we have a scientific representation of reality and that's all we've ever had.
Scientific investigations into faith, spirituality, prayer, etc. have been going on for three decades in my experience. Recently, for example, it has been discovered that someone praying to God exhibits the same brain activity as if they were holding an actual conversation. The problem lies in stepping from observation to hypothesis, otherwise all you would be doing is gathering data for its own sake. |
Sam
|
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 | 02:12 PM
A model is just a model, an artifact of human minds, a tool for understanding outer |
Sam
|
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 | 02:39 PM
Modeling appears to be an extension of the same function as storytelling ,ie we seem to need for things to make sense. Part of visual functioning involves the eye scannimg collecting data which s assembled into a steady continuous picture of the outer world |
Dasheng
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 | 07:12 AM
Myth (noun):
1: a traditional story concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, typically involving the supernatural.
2: a widely held but false belief.
3: a fictitious person or thing.
(Source: OED) |
Dasheng
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 | 07:34 AM
"Modeling appears to be an extension of the same function as storytelling"
In much the same way that house-building is an extension of the act of putting rocks in piles. You might as well claim that mathematics is also just storytelling, since both frequently use pencils and paper.
Nearly all scientific hypotheses are expressed nowadays as mathematical models. The basis of the modern scientific method is falsifiability, which usually comes from making a testable prediction based on the current evidence and a speculative formal description of the effect to be tested. Hence a hypothesis will typically express an observable phenomenon in terms of a variable parameter that may or may not be controllable.
This is a model. It's not a story, or an expression of "inner" or "outer" realities, it is a simple, testable expression of a tentative scientific explanation of a set of phenomena.
And this is also frequently the weakness of scientific studies of religion/spirituality. The hypotheses that can be formed and tested are usually trivial or weak. In the recent example I linked to earlier, the hypothesis under test was that very religious people, who think of God as a real being, will use the same areas of the brain while praying that they do when talking to another individual. In other words, people who claim to think God is real often really do think God is real, and will talk (pray) to him like they would another real person.
Mildly interesting, yes. Ground-breaking, er, no. |
ibbirgil
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 | 11:38 PM
Some people will say answered prayer is the proof of God. But the skeptic has had no prayers answered. He doesn't believe that anybody ELSE has
I could give you the proof. History can give you the proof. Archaeology can proof it.
The existence of God can be scientifically proven. But prophecy is the real PROOF of God.
If One, in the Bible, speaking and claiming to be God, can make prophecies and tell what is going to happen in the future to nations, to cities, to empires, then if it actually happens in every case, and without a miss, you'll know that was a real God speaking. But prophecy is a taunting challenge that the skeptic dares not accept!
So I |
Lorraine E. Hattingh-Spurgeon
|
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 | 02:04 AM
I am the author of "The Lottery Code" which was
published for FREE on the Internet on December 23,
2010.
If you doubt that God speaks to people IN OUR TIME,
now you can read my book, "The Lottery Code", and
judge for yourself.
It is available as a FREE download from Website:
http://www.thelotterycode.net
But be warned, you will be fundamentally changed
by this book.
God bless you |
Johanan Raatz
|
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 | 03:53 PM
Prove God? Simple:
1.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing. (true by definition)
2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (Sir Roger Penrose's quantum mind model, Orch-OR)
Therefore the wave-function of the universe is a mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
And if you are curious to see that this mind also has all of the properties we would normally associate with God look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee2jtmhyO8Q 😊 |
Aboudy
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 | 01:56 AM
God definitely exists because who else would create the earth, your eyes, water and the whole universe |
Dasheng
|
Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 | 05:28 PM
"God definitely exists because who else would create the earth, your eyes, water and the whole universe"
In order, gravitational coalescence, evolution, oxidation and quantum fluctuation. |
|
Page 24 of 24 pages ‹ First < 22 23 24 |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
