The Museum of Hoaxes
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?
Category: Money, Religion; Replies: 1406

Comments
Page 9 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›
lindsay
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 | 10:13 AM
cranky-

there are 4 articles. that one just starts it. their kinda long. but they have to explain it well so that everyone can understand it

there are reasons for believing God. there may not be hardcore proof but that does not mean that there is no reason.

theres plenty reason for me. but there are also reasons to conisder it. because it is possible that hell exists and that wouldnt be somewhere that you want to end up at.

yeah so im going though. unless someone wants to talk about the article then im off
lindsay
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 | 10:18 AM
"I agree. That's one BIG reason I object when people claim to "know" that there is a God and that He created the universe."

that isnt something we create of our own knowledge. that is something that we have seen in our life and we trust it rather than our logic. my point was that you cant only believe something that is explain in facts. surely you have theories on things. we cant explian everything. scientist and such have plenty of theories and it cant be proven that that is exactly what happened, but they still believe it. it makes sense to them. same with us, except that we have experinced God. its not just us trying to figure out the world on our own knowedlge. you may object to it, but its different than figuring out the universe. well never be able to. a higher being can. ive met this higher being. end of story. thats my reason, everyone has different reasons. well no..the fact that Jesus died for me would prolly be it lol. but those are a part of it
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 | 02:09 PM
Lindsay said:

"that isnt something we create of our own knowledge. that is something that we have seen in our life and we trust it rather than our logic."

I refer you to Rule Number Two:

"The sincerity of your belief in God is NOT proof of the existence of God."

Also, Rule Number Six:

"The fact that you
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 | 02:11 PM
Oh, I forgot Rule Number Seven:

"The fact that you (or someone you know, read or heard about) had some kind of experience that you or they can
lindsay
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 | 06:06 PM
lol dang cranky i wasnt saying it was proof. i was just making a statement calm down its ok i understand.

yeah so is anyone going to comment on the 4 articles? if not ima go. so tell me if youve got anything more to say.

my toe hurts
i kicked it
and idk y.
Carter S
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 | 06:12 PM
Cranky Media Guy,

I know I said that I was done with this site. But I am going to make a quick comment.

"Finally, an argument for the existance of God that doesn't violate one of my sixteen rules!"

Ok, that doesn't violate your rules. But it is one of the dumbest comments that I have ever heard.("fuck you therefore god exists.")

He obviously has no education. Honestly, when people have nothing else to say besides swearing, then you know you truly have heard white trash talk.

I am suprised a man of your intellect would even acknowlege that statement. But then again I have seen you right "ain't" in the past.

"Carter S said:

"I believe in God, despite the evidence against him."

That violates my Rule Number Two:

"The sincerity of your belief in God is NOT proof of the existence of God."

NEXT!"

Again man, you have no clue what I am saying. Just because I said that, does not mean that there is proof. I am not saying that my sincerity in my belief is PROOF.
If you were to take a remedial English class or would have had your wife read it for you, you would know that.

What my statement means is, I don't care about the things you say, nor anyone else's. So, by saying that I, or anyone else for that matter, can't prove God exists, means nothing. MY FAITH IN GOD DOES NOT NEED PROOF. I BELIEVE FOR MY OWN REASONS. OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE GOD. NOW BY SAYING ALL THAT, I AM SINCERE IN MY BELIEF. BUT MY SINCERITY IS NOT PROOF. OF COURSE. So how about you get it straight from now on.

It is my faith, no one and their theories can make me change. I know I can not change you, but that doesn't matter to me, because they are your views and you share them with many people in this world. Just as I share the views of myself with many other people in this world.

So enough. Either get it right or don't say anything at all.

You twist our meanings into what you want so that it's is easier for you to debate it.

Cranky I left this forum trying to close our debate with each other. Not because I lost or won. But I tried to close our debate with some dignity with YOU. I said have a good one, and you said take care. Then you come out write and that. I thought you had class but I was wrong. I also respected you. But I was too quick to judge.

Saying NEXT! doesn't mean you won the debate. Sorry.

And it doesn't prove anything.

I am gone from this forum, but I will visit to see your entries, every once in a while. If there is another stupid comment like "fuck you therefore god exists", I will just assume they're white trash, If there is another comment that twists our writings around then I will make a comment to that. Maybe.

Cranky, I am moving on, you should too, you are an adult. Act like one. Writing on this forum, when your like hmmmm..... 50 or so, is kind of weird. Most people on this forum are in their teens and late teens. That is normal!! and if they're not, then they are weird.

I am sure you, Hillbilly Jim, Cletus, or what have you, will have some good conversations, until he starts to tell you about his critters and the way he likes to cook them, then maybe you'll realize that he is a cretin. Maybe not, maybe you will exchange recipes.

But anyway.................

NEXT!!!



PS. Anything that you write in the future that is intended to offend me will only make me laugh and hope that you will think of something better in the long run, so that I can laugh some more. It would make my day.

Deepest Regrets, Carter S.
Carter S
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 | 06:31 PM
I will respond to Lindsay though.

Lindsay, the reason why people are avoiding writing about your website is because they know they're wrong.

They have no arguement against it, except. "my rules say this".

The next rule will be: 17. Websites are not acceptable, because I am closed-minded. Websites are wrong to me if they are right, so either way I don't have to debate it.

I enjoyed those four articles.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 | 02:24 PM
Carter S said:

"I am suprised a man of your intellect would even acknowlege that statement. But then again I have seen you right "ain't" in the past."

Oh, I was just being sarcastic. Besides, it DOESN'T violate one of the rules. 😊

As for "ain't," hey, sometimes I just like employing vernacular. That's how I roll (as the kids say).
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 | 02:29 PM
Carter S said:

"MY FAITH IN GOD DOES NOT NEED PROOF. I BELIEVE FOR MY OWN REASONS. OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE GOD. NOW BY SAYING ALL THAT, I AM SINCERE IN MY BELIEF. BUT MY SINCERITY IS NOT PROOF. OF COURSE."

Rule Number Two:

"The sincerity of your belief in God is NOT proof of the existence of God."

This entire thread is ABOUT proving the existance of God. Check the top of the page if you doubt that. It is therefore 100% relevant to expect people who claim to "know" that there is a God to PROVE it.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 | 02:33 PM
Carter S said:

"The next rule will be: 17. Websites are not acceptable, because I am closed-minded. Websites are wrong to me if they are right, so either way I don't have to debate it."

Well, as far as I'm concerned, websites are covered by Rule Number Three:

"The fact that what you believe is written in a book or books is NOT proof of the existence of God."

Do I REALLY need to add "website(s)" to that? I will if the absence of that word causes confusion. The mere fact that something is written or recorded ANYWHERE does not constitute proof of the existance of God.
lindsay
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 | 03:25 PM
cranky, stop. now youre over reacting. do not understand that its a theory? did i say it was a fact? no. i said that i was a theory that i believe in. my my. how difficult.

yeah so no on is responding to the articles. guess ill have to take that as carter being right. so w/e.


"I thought you had class but I was wrong. I also respected you. But I was too quick to judge."

ouch. hey lets not part ppl with words like that. i no, sometimes i want to do things like too. these debates get so agrivating. its hard to stay away from comments like that.

bye ppl hope that you do well.
Carter S
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 | 11:30 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

Sorry, one more thing, Maybe last entry. Who knows.


Carter S said:

"MY FAITH IN GOD DOES NOT NEED PROOF. I BELIEVE FOR MY OWN REASONS. OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE GOD. NOW BY SAYING ALL THAT, I AM SINCERE IN MY BELIEF. BUT MY SINCERITY IS NOT PROOF. OF COURSE."

Rule Number Two:

"The sincerity of your belief in God is NOT proof of the existence of God."

Seriously, can you not understand what that says?
I am saddened....


Here are my rules:

1. Your rules don't prove anything.
2. The people who have faith in God don't need proof. It's their faith and religious BELIEF. They don't care about your rules.
3. No one can say whether or not, that what we are saying isn't proof.
4. Anything can be proof.
5. If you are implying that there is no proof, then you might be God testing us. Because only God would know about the proof of his existence.
6. You are writing us, therefore YOU, God exists.
because you could be testing our faith in you.



*For anyone who took it wrong. God is the all mighty one to me. No one compares to him. There you go. saying that he may be God doesn't mean that he is compared to God.... whatever

And CMG sorry if I offended you.(which I am sure I didn't) But the reason why I was worked up is because it seemed as if you were implying "fuck you therefore God exists" was a better arguement, than what we were saying in our hearts.

Anyway though, sorry, good luck with everything, I hope the best for you and your family, your beliefs and your career.
And I also wanted to tell you that I scored a date with that chick!!! I told her that sylvia was a fraud and everything and was mad about the lies. But I have me a date!!!!

woooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 | 02:32 PM
Carter S said:

"1. Your rules don't prove anything."

I refer you to Rule Number One:

"If you are asserting the existence of God, the burden of proof is on you. No one is required to prove the NON-existence of God."

"2. The people who have faith in God don't need proof. It's their faith and religious BELIEF. They don't care about your rules."

This entire thread is ABOUT proving the existance of God. If you have no interest in that, why are you participating in it?

"3. No one can say whether or not, that what we are saying isn't proof."

Sorry, that makes no sense. OF COURSE things are either PROOF of something or not. Do you honestly think that ANYTHING at all can constitute PROOF of something? OK, you don't exist. Why? Because I say so.

"4. Anything can be proof."

Then you don't exist, for the reason given.

"5. If you are implying that there is no proof, then you might be God testing us. Because only God would know about the proof of his existence."

This also makes no sense, because you are starting off with the assumption that God exists, which, of course, is the entire question under debate. You don't START with your conclusion in a reasonable investigation of something.

"6. You are writing us, therefore YOU, God exists.
because you could be testing our faith in you."

This is merely compounding the error of your previous error. Unless, of course, you are willing to concede that I am God. Are you really ready to make that statement?

Hey, that's cool that you got a date with that girl. Nice going!
lindsay
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 | 03:16 PM
haha wow i just realized that CMG = cranky media guy. :lol: yeah...im so stinkin smart. hehe

ok cranky plz stop repeating your rules. we all no what they are. we really do. sometimes we say things that are just a comment, just something to think about. not a cold hard fact or something that we believe to be proof.

i deeply resent when ppl push anything away. cranky im sry but one of the reasons that i cant write on here anymore is because you and a few other ppl always seem to take what they think makes sense and disregard the rest. thats not the wise way to go. you have to take everything into account and consider everything. when someone so sincerely believes in God, and you believe that God isnt real, then you need to find out why the believe is so sincere. you could make a break through .see what im saying? maybe something isnt a fact, maybe it is. but it doesnt matter. you still look into it one way or another. not just say "personal experince does not prove that god exists therefore im going to disregard it completely." better idea. try and understand. you dont have to believe, but you must consider it.

there i guess that if everyone else gets rules then i do as well

my only one is to consider everything, dont push it away because it doesnt sound right to you.

you wont always be right. you have to admit cranky, there are a lot of strong christians that have existed. whether or not were right doesnt matter. if were not then maybe you guys need to find the reason why were so sincere in our belief. maybe you should be finding out if the mind can really trick us like that

me, i dont believe so. i dont have one reason to. but why dont you figure it out instead of the way that youre going about it

also. you dont have a belief in the universe so its kinda of hard for you to just rule out God. remember you have to begin with all options open. you get down hard on christians. especially when you call our beliefs silly. when you find your opinion on how the universe started and can defend it in a 26 page long debate then maybe well get somewhere. but you said that you dont no..well i have a theory on it at least.

alright well i had to get that off my chest before i left

cranky dont quote me and direct me to your list of rules. i no what they say. if all that you can say is that them plz plz plz dont respond.

carter-

woot good job
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 | 06:50 PM
lindsay said:

"ok cranky plz stop repeating your rules. we all no what they are. we really do. sometimes we say things that are just a comment, just something to think about. not a cold hard fact or something that we believe to be proof."

When believers stop repeating the same NON-proof of the existance of God, it will no longer be necessary for me to repeat my logical refutations of those NON-proofs.

As my newest rule asserts, the repetition of the same NON-proofs does NOT constitute proof of the existance of God.

This entire thread is ABOUT proving the existance of God. If you and other believers are not interested in proving the existance of God, why are you posting to this thread?

Bottom line: if you guys keep repeating the same illogical arguments, I will keep reminding you that they aren't logical.
Carter S
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 | 07:36 PM
Cranky Media Guy,

Those rules are that of myself a Human of god, a child of God, I am the child of god, a child of god,a child of god, a child of god.

I know my rules didn't make any sense, But then again, maybe they did.......dun dun dun!!!!

No I don't think your god but who knows I could be God. I could be testing your faith in me. You never know..........dun dun dun!!!!!!

Lindsay has passed the test, ages ago.

Cranky will you pass my test?

Yeah, that girl is a cheerleader at my school. Extra hottnesssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!

Later,

I may respond again.. This website is freakin addicting ahahaahhahaha!!!

Previous!!!!!
I mean....
Next!!!!!
lindsay
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 | 07:44 PM
"Bottom line: if you guys keep repeating the same illogical arguments, I will keep reminding you that they aren't logical."

anything that can possibly be logical you dont respond to. like that article. you never responded to the whole thing.

and as i said, those are comments. something to think over. once again you have ignored what im erally saying and taken pretty much one line.

this site is addicting. just cuz im not good at walking away from things lol. i like to respond back when ppl talk..not good always
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 01:46 AM
lindsay said:

"anything that can possibly be logical you dont respond to. like that article. you never responded to the whole thing.

"and as i said, those are comments. something to think over. once again you have ignored what im erally saying and taken pretty much one line."

Do you really expect me to respond to every line in a fairly long article? I DID respond to what appeared to me to be the gist of the whole thing.

Tell you what, if you want, you can quote any part of it you like and I will respond to it. How's that? I would suggest that you choose carefully, though. If the part you pick violates one of my (now) Seventeen Rules, I will simply quote the relevant one(s). Speeds things up, you see.
Carter S
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 01:48 AM
They are doing it to piss us off. If we say, 'yeah I hear people believe in God'. Thus Making a simple statement. They will either ignore the fact that it was a comment, or pull out the rules.

Yeah, I just like to see what people put after my response to them. It's weird.. it's some kind of a human interaction. I think I will call it Kommunikayshun. Hopefully there is a better way to spell that. We will figure it out someday. But until then GOD EXISTS, GOD EXISTS, GOD EXISTS, GOD EXISTS!!!!! I LOVE GOD, HE LOVES ME. YEAH, HOW ABOUT THAT!!! PROOF,PROOF,PROOF,PROOF!!

Well, I have to go back and draw on Mr. Randi's picture. I still have about an hour and a half to go. whooopeeee!!!
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 01:51 AM
Carter S said:

"Those rules are that of myself a Human of god, a child of God, I am the child of god, a child of god,a child of god, a child of god."

I refer you to Rule Number One:

"If you are asserting the existence of God, the burden of proof is on you. No one is required to prove the NON-existence of God."

You call yourself a "child of God," yet you have yet to establish that there IS a God. Sorry, you don't get to skip over that little step.

I also refer you to Rule Number Sixteen:

"Repeating the same non-proof(s) over and over again is NOT proof of the existence of God."

Also Rule Number Seventeen:

"The fact that you think you have found a loophole in these rules is NOT proof of the existence of God."

NEXT!
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 02:05 AM
lindsay said:

"cranky im sry but one of the reasons that i cant write on here anymore is because you and a few other ppl always seem to take what they think makes sense and disregard the rest. thats not the wise way to go."

Lindsay, do you honestly think it's wise to NOT discard that which doesn't make sense? Really?

If you truly believe that, then you have absolutely NO reason not to believe in my all-purpose moon-roos. They don't make sense, but according to you, that isn't an impediment to belief. When may I expect your first donation to my Moon 'Roo Fund? $100 will do just fine.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 02:07 AM
Lindsay, I'm really not intending to be insulting here, but I can hardly think of a greater indictment of the mindset of believers than for one to say that humans should NOT reject that which doesn't make sense upon examination.

If you truly believe that, what, pray tell, is that "free will" for?
Carter S
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 03:00 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

Those rules are that of myself a Human of god, a child of God, I am the child of god, a child of god,a child of god, a child of god.


GOD EXISTS, GOD EXISTS, GOD EXISTS, GOD EXISTS!!!!! I LOVE GOD, HE LOVES ME. YEAH, HOW ABOUT THAT!!! PROOF,PROOF,PROOF,PROOF!!

"You call yourself a "child of God," yet you have yet to establish that there IS a God. Sorry, you don't get to skip over that little step."

Yes I can. Because I am the child of God. God
loves me and YOU. God exists. My repetitiveness is proof, my sincerity is proof, all of your rules give proof. So uh, how are you?

"If you truly believe that, what, pray tell, is that "free will" for?"

I refer you to what free will is on the sylvia page. That's what us believers feel free will is.
Carter S
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 03:02 AM
I forgot something................



NEXT!
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 09:44 AM
Wow, I've always wanted to be lectured by children on the existence of a god.

Carter S makes such a compelling argument it's hard not to blindly follow and drink the Kool-Aid.
Carter S
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 02:30 PM
Charybdis,

Good for you bud, You sure are smart.

Here, since you like to be lectured about it then here you go..

GOD EXISTS, GOD EXISTS, GOD EXISTS, GOD EXISTS!!!!! I LOVE GOD, HE LOVES ME. YEAH, HOW ABOUT THAT!!! PROOF,PROOF,PROOF,PROOF!!

Now do you understand?

I didn't know you liked Kool-aid too? Wow we have so much in common.


Wow!!!!


Bye Bye Now
lindsay
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 04:31 PM
cranky-

i said to consider things because just because something seems strange to you doesnt means its not true. maybe its not but you should look into it anyway. concider things. it means be open minded. u cant just brush things aside. like how so many ppl have such a sincere belief in God. if were wrong then maybe ppl shouldnt just put it to the side but figure out why something has caused us to have this sincerity. yeah. a smarter thing to do. not hard to understand

and im not quoting it. you responded to the first article. if obivously went farther than that there must have been more than nothing.

"Wow, I've always wanted to be lectured by children on the existence of a god."

so by that statement you imply that young ppl cant debate with you guys? why why? were not smart enough? well to say that age determines wsidom would have to be very ignorant. when would be the age that we get a brain? magically when we hit a certain year logic is born in our mind. psh w/e

hah kidding. well no i mean what i said, its my opinion. but what you said doesnt bug me that much i was just being obnoxious.

hey hey! im not a child! im a baby. carter is about what? 5 to 6 years older than me. so if hes a child then im a baby. plz get that right. i cant be a big gowal yet.

maybe someday i will be worhthy enough to speak to you about God.

how freakin old r u then? 40? 50?
lindsay
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 04:33 PM
wooo now you can say that youve been lectured by a baby about the existance of God!

carter i dont think that youre arguements are stupid. lol well maybe the last were brilliant. but they werent supposed to be.

JESUS IS REAL
lindsay
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 04:34 PM
that was a great arguement

cranky- you didnt give me very much info on your moon-roos. i cant make a valid opinion on them.
lindsay
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 04:38 PM
i meant werent before

and cranky, if someone geniunly believed in moon-roos then you no what i would do? i would hear them through, consider what they said, decide if they were crazy, and then idk, i guess i may have something to consider wouldnt i? after i got that down id think of how id debate them. if they were mistaken, then id figure out what led them to believe that. i would consider their personally testimonies and think about them. not brush them aside. so dont compare this debate to that. besides, theres alot more sincere believers in christ than one moon-roo believer. theyd be more inclined to be crazy than billions of ppl.
Carter S
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 08:34 PM
I HAVE TEETH IN MY MOUTH.

Now that was profound!

Ok back to some good comments.


Again Lindsay I commend you on your arguements.

I agree, they automatically dismiss something because they find it silly. I find that silly. I look at things first, then I come to my own conclusion.

Cranky, Maybe we do keep repeating our beliefs, but maybe you can try to at least talk to us about it. Can't you? Is it that hard? Maybe you could stop using your rules for a little bit. I mean, listen to us with an open mind, With no criticizm on our beliefs, just correct us if you have to if we are wrong about some actual FACT. But overall we just want to have a conversation with you. We are obviously interested in what more you have to say.

When you give out your rules, It feels like we are talking to a damn robot. Or a machine. Just give us a conversation. Let's think things through, then maybe we can all come to a conclusion on the subj, (our own of course, or the same who knows), and end this debate. But If you keep giving us your rules then it will never end.

Just give us a converstation with a person, not a machine. Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Carter S.

signature: C@RT3R S
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 01:14 AM
Carter S said:

"Cranky, Maybe we do keep repeating our beliefs, but maybe you can try to at least talk to us about it. Can't you? Is it that hard? Maybe you could stop using your rules for a little bit."

Why? You believers keep repeating the same NON-proofs over and over and over again as if the mere repetition of a NON-proof will magically turn it into PROOF. Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way. Perhaps you believers could try NOT repeating the same NON-proofs over and over again. I only ever mention the Rules when you guys say the same things over and over.

"I mean, listen to us with an open mind, With no criticizm on our beliefs, just correct us if you have to if we are wrong about some actual FACT."

That would be impossible since none of you ever employ an actual FACT when it comes to the discussion of whether or not there is a God. Essentially, you all keep saying, "I believe in God so that means there IS a God." Sorry, that isn't a FACT.

"But overall we just want to have a conversation with you. We are obviously interested in what more you have to say."

Well, when you guys say something new and different, my response will be different. Why would you expect a different response when what you say is always the same?

I, too, am interested in dialogue, but it's difficult at best to have one when one side keeps insisting that their NON facts are all that are required to support their side? Change the topic to anything other than God and you'll immediately see the truth of this.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 01:54 AM
lindsay said:

"cranky- you didnt give me very much info on your moon-roos. i cant make a valid opinion on them."

Why do you need INFORMATION? That would require FACTS and believers don't require those, as I have been informed more than once.

I DEFY you to prove that the moon-roos don't exist. No, you can't claim at this late date that one cannot prove a negative; after all, I've been challenged several times to PROVE the non-existence of God.

I believe in them and that means that they exist. Period. I feel SO sorry for you for not believing in them as well.
Scott
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 01:35 PM
Cranky

Please prove that the mater that was needed to creat the universe and the earth that we live on existed for all time and was present when the big bang occured. Also prove the big bang. Also prove why I need to believe in the big bang theory even though it is only a theory and not proven and no one was there when it happened.

As I see it there is only two options (as stated in Millers book on evolution) either you believe that a creator created or mater was present for all time. So if you don't believe in Creation from a creator then you must be saying that you believe that the Amino Acids that started it all where here for all time. Please prove that.
Scott
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 01:37 PM
Cranky

Please also tell me why my belief system has to fall under your rules of truth. This is a forum. A place to share ideas.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 01:49 PM
Scott said:

"Please prove that the mater that was needed to creat the universe and the earth that we live on existed for all time and was present when the big bang occured. Also prove the big bang. Also prove why I need to believe in the big bang theory even though it is only a theory and not proven and no one was there when it happened."

First off, I've never proposed such a thing. Please don't put words in my mouth. Second, this thread is about proving the existence of God. If you doubt that, please read the top of the page.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 02:06 PM
I'm curious Scott, why is it so much harder to believe that the material for the universe has always existed than it is to believe that God has always existed.

The universe hasn't necessarily always existed. Time didn't exist before the Big Bang, and possibly nothing else did either.

And before you say "It must have come from somewhere, and therefore God must have created it" remember that that is a false assumption. The existance of the universe is no more proof of God's existence than The Moon Roos. A creator isn't required for our understanding of the universe. It might very well have been self-generating for all we know.

The fact is, we don't know and are trying to learn, but that's not a valid reason for embracing faith.
Scott
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 03:46 PM
Hi Cranky

I was assuming that because this is a forum for proving the existance and you don't believe in God that you must believe in evolution and the big bang. Am I wrong?
Scott
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 04:01 PM
Hi Charybdis

You said:
"It might very well have been self-generating for all we know.

The fact is, we don't know and are trying to learn, but that's not a valid reason for embracing faith."

You are embrassing faith if you except theories that are not proven. ie: a self generating universe

You except earth's beginning without a creator by faith. And I except the earth beginning with a creator by faith.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 04:24 PM
Scott, I never said that I accepted theories that are not proven, including the universe's beginning without a creator. I specifically said that we don't know. I also specifically said that a lack of knowledge isn't grounds for embracing faith in a creator.

The evidence for the creation of the universe at the Big Bang is pretty comprehensive. There is no evidence that God created the universe.

Naturally, as a rational person, I'm leaning toward the more supported scientific viewpoint as the correct one, and am even willing to bet that the current scientific viewpoint, or some derivitive thereof, will eventually prove to be the correct answer. I am willing, however, to admit that I might be wrong in this.
Scott
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 04:59 PM
Hi Charybdis

You said:
"Naturally, as a rational person, I'm leaning toward the more supported scientific viewpoint as the correct one, and am even willing to bet that the current scientific viewpoint, or some derivitive thereof, will eventually prove to be the correct answer. I am willing, however, to admit that I might be wrong in this."

I totally appreciate your statement. I too might be wrong. Of course my belief system has more holes, but I can live with that. I have my reasons for believing (geology, archiology, etc.) that support the bible (in my mind). But... belief in God... that takes faith. Just like belief in a self generating universe.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 05:08 PM
Okay, let me make this abundantly clear.

I NEVER said that I believed in a self-generating universe. I said that I did not know where it came from and listed that as a possibility.

Additionally, belief in a completely unsupported idea is not equivalent to belief in an idea backed up by much evidence.
Scott
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 05:52 PM
Hi Charybdis

Didn't mean to infer that you did.
Carter S
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 07:29 PM
Charybdis,

I HAVE TEETH IN MY MOUTH!!

But anyway

"Time didn't exist before the Big Bang, and possibly nothing else did either."

Are you willing to prove that?


I don't care if you're a muslim, christian or jew, Hindu, or buddhist. No one is in the possession of the absolute truth.

We see through a glass dakly. You know it in part. That means that you might be wrong.


Here is my proposal, Let's say the Big Bang did create the Universe. Well there was something that would have had to exist to even make such a Bang. Like a star. So it can go back for a while.
Who created that star? and so on......
lindsay
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 08:31 PM
cranky-

dude ive put up a link that leads to four connected articles. that was new, you spoke an obvious fact about the first one. the first one covers pretty much nothing. no pun intended

charybdis-

http://everystudent.com/journeys/nothing.html

as the first article explains i dont believe that there could have ever been nothing. if youll be so kind, you may read all four articles. maybe someone will decide to comment on them. you guys wanted a theory that supports God, i give you one...and its ignored! woo. how can i debate you ppl if you pick and choice at what to comment about.

so that is why im leaving. take what you want from the article. you cant just ignore it. oh and the fact that faith is something that ppl must find for themselves. lol

cranky-

i no that the debate happened in the sylvia forum, but im quitting that one too so ill say it in here. you used the information that the bible provides to say that God didn't love us because of the world that we live in therefore the bible is wrong basically. well, if you will use the whole bible and not just pieces of it, youll see that it does not contridict that God loves us. i no that you guys think that the whole "the world sucks so god isnt real" this is a good arguement. but i can assure you, its not. im not really a bible scholar, ive never been in a class that studies the bible. im just your average jo christian, basic knoweldge. and i can see how ridiculous that is. as a summary of what i said in the other forum, right now the world belongs to the devil and the only way that God can do anything on it is if he is petitioned to do so. ppl pray, things get done. ppl dont pray, they dont get done. ppl must do the things that God has asked them to do or things wont get done. sometimes bad things happen not only because of the devil, but because of other ppls desicions. sometimes they come because of the worlds natural order. sometimes things such as disease happen because of sin. sin causes death and illness. we all sin. we have all of the sin that has ever been commited that will have a negative conciquence and that takes it toll over generations.

the basics. that comes from the bible. that is the studies of it just like that God loves us. as you can see if you look at the bibles persepective then crap doesnt happen because God doesnt love us, but because this is the devil's world and all the other junk i said.

its like a preacher at my church says today "sometimes God has gifts for ppl but those ppl never come and he is never able to give those gifts to them. it's not God's fault when the devil comes into your life and screws it up, its not his fault when his child screws up. he is always standing there waiting to love his child. because thats what he wants to do. he wants to love his kids with all of his heart." its paraphrased, summurized. but thats what my church believes and many other ppl.

also ppl have free will... plz stop using such a sucky arguement, it doesnt work. maybe i didnt explain it well enough but if i went into complete detail youd see why. go talk to a bible scholar and youll see why.

i no that wasnt completely relevent but im really tired of this debate. i wanted to make that clear because one of the most annoying things is when ppl dont read the bible right and then think that theyve found the answer to why God doesnt exist.
lindsay
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 08:32 PM
cranky-

as in information, i meant things about your supposed (false) religion. you no plenty about christianity, we no almost nothing about the moon-roos


and you no what. screw the moon-roos. its just your way to be an obnoxious jerk. we dont say "God's real cuz i said so." have more respect for ppl than thay. read through this debate. we arent freakin airheads and i deeply resent the medaphor that you made. actually id like an apology, i put up a better fight than that. if your that closed-minded then i feel sorry for you. have more understanding that that. youll never learn if you dont keep an open mind. im pissed...christians arent the mindless, crazy, idiots that you make us out to be.

..

:down:

im gonna go before i say something mean. i dont like to insult ppl. i dont think its right


also i meant irrelevent in the other post

carter- i commend you on your arguements too. its been fun debating with you. like ive said before, its nice to have someone believing the same thing on here lol.
lindsay
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 08:33 PM
cranky im sry, i shouldnt have said that it was your way to be an obnoxious jerk. though it is obnoxious, i cant take that back.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 01:26 AM
Lindsay said:

"cranky im sry, i shouldnt have said that it was your way to be an obnoxious jerk. though it is obnoxious, i cant take that back."

I'm not offended. I take your saying that I'm "obnoxious" to mean that you have trouble coming up with answers to what I say. Frustrating, isn't it?

NEXT!
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 01:30 AM
Lindsay said:

"cranky- you didnt give me very much info on your moon-roos. i cant make a valid opinion on them."

Why do you need any information about them? I said I believed in them; that should be enough for you. After all, how many times have I been told the exact same thing by Christians? Again, again and again, I have been told that faith is all the proof a person needs. In fact, I have 12 years of Catholic school behind me that taught me the same thing. Why are you suddenly changing the rules on me? I believe, therefore you just have to accept that and believe along with me.

I'll pray to the moon-roos for your soul.

NEXT!
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 01:35 AM
Lindsay said:

"and you no what. screw the moon-roos. its just your way to be an obnoxious jerk. we dont say "God's real cuz i said so."

Lindsay, believers both in this forum and elsewhere have been saying exactly that for thousands of years. Everytime I ask for ONE SINGLE FACT which would corrorborate the notion of the existence of God, I get told that faith is enough. That's just a nicer way of saying, "God's real cuz [sic] I said so."

Unfortunately for you, denying the existence of the moon-roos is a Mortal Sin in my belief system. Why? Because I said so. I'm VERY sorry to have to tell you this, but because of your sin, you are going to spend eternity in Hell.

Please do NOT tell me that many people believe in Jesus while I seem to be the only one who believes in moon-roos. As Rule Number Five clearly states:

"The number of people who agree with your beliefs is NOT proof of the existence of God."

I'll pray for you.

NEXT!
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 01:40 AM
Lindsay said:

"well, if you will use the whole bible and not just pieces of it, youll see that it does not contridict that God loves us."

Lindsay, I never said that any part of the Bible said that God doesn't love us. That's kind of my point. According to the Bible, God loves us, yet the evidence shows that God allows His creations to die via means completely outside the "free will."

Where is the "love" in that? At best, it looks like benign neglect. That's basically what the "God is dead" movement of the late 60's and early 70's said. I maintain it's FAR more likely that there simply is NO God. No God = no contradiction. Occam's Razor. Simple.

NEXT!
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 01:45 AM
Charybdis said:

"Okay, let me make this abundantly clear.

"I NEVER said that I believed in a self-generating universe. I said that I did not know where it came from and listed that as a possibility.

"Additionally, belief in a completely unsupported idea is not equivalent to belief in an idea backed up by much evidence."

Perfectly stated! I completely agree with every word.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 04:31 AM
Lindsay said:

"you guys wanted a theory that supports God, i give you one...and its ignored! woo. how can i debate you ppl if you pick and choice at what to comment about."

We DON'T want a THEORY about God. We would like a FACT, one single FACT that supports the notion of the existence of God.

Hey, I have a theory about moon-roos. Using your logic, you are forced to discuss them endlessly. You will say there are no FACTS to back up my theory and I'll say I have faith and that's enough. Do you REALLY want to take that merry-go-round?
Scott
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 09:02 AM
Yes this has become quite a merry-go-round. Cranky, I commend you on your steadfastness to your belief that God doesn't exist. Your parallel to proof with the moon-roos and God has some merit but For Me there is a deeper understanding of where the bible came from (and it is more than just saying "from inpired men of God"). There is history and archiology.

I believe, but that doesn't mean you have to.

Well... the merry-go-round is slowing down...

Chers

PS. Do you work with Media equipment that makes you cranky? Do you do your media work on a mac or a pc? (now that is another great debate - haha)
lindsay
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 03:04 PM
"I take your saying that I'm "obnoxious" to mean that you have trouble coming up with answers to what I say. Frustrating, isn't it?"

actually no, i dont think that i ever have trouble responding to you. whats really frusterating is that you seem to have a hard time understanding my point. you dont keep an open mind. thats what is frusterating.

im not bothering responding to the rest of it, im not even gonna read it. like i said im quiting the forum. thats the last straw cranky. i thought that you could be mature enough to have more respect for the ppl that you debate with than your moon-roo metaphor. but i guess not. its sad that you have to be that immature. if youre really going to believe that the reason that i think that ur being obnoxious is because i cant respond then w/e its your fault for chosing to be stupid. im not going to debate someone who doesnt respect me. your metaphor is condiscending and not even freakin right. you no i dont like being remembered as the illogical christian kid brainwashed by generations of garbage. but i dont always get what i want...

thanks cranky for showing me that intellegent adults can really be no more than little children on the inside.

you should respect ppls beliefs. see your metaphor is alot different than my belief and the debates that i have. same for carter. i hope that you can get wise enough to realize that.


and, cranky, you dont respond to everything that i say. you really dont debate very well. maybe you think taht you do, but nope. ive debated with you enough to see that. im not saying that im good at debating either btw. you never responded to the 4 articles that i put up there. and something that was bothering me is that you use rationalization to say that God doesnt exist, yet we cannot use it to say that he does. rules go both ways. and in the other forum you guys were saying that God doesnt exist because by the way the world is, he obviously doesnt love us. the thought that God loves us comes from the bible. so i can use the bible in my arguement. and as ive said, that arguement doesnt work. wether or not you realize this doesnt really matter. youll be the one who looks stupid when you start to debate an intellegent bible scholar and you say "God isnt real cuz ppl died in the hurricane" hahahahahaha. w/e i cant believe that you all think that works. i dont see why you guys dont understand that it doesnt. it makes me laugh. kids can realize the truth, its time that you do too. that arguement sucks.

fyi- no theories about the creation of everything can be proven. so dont look down on christianity because of that. i put up those articles because that is something that i believe in and see no other way around.but they were ignored. isnt that odd?

good life ppl.

id like to thank the ppl that have respected me. even if i am stupid, i still deserve respect.

Jesus loves you

even if hes just my imaginary friend.

and cranky, you prolly think that the reason that your moon-roos theory bugged me so much is because it stumped me. well no. think that if you want. but the reason is because its so insulting. its not even debatable. at least ours is. and you dont believe it anyway. i dont appreaciate having my religion trashed like that. my beliefs. w/e. i didnt want to leave this forum like this, insulting you. but you pushed it cranky.

grow up.
Scott
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 03:19 PM
"We DON'T want a THEORY about God. We would like a FACT, one single FACT that supports the notion of the existence of God."

Can I get a little Fact on the universe starting with the big bang?

Also, can anyone suggest a currently excepted book that covers the start of the earth and evolution?

Thanks.
lindsay
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 04:27 PM
dang it
Carter S
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 06:45 PM
Cranky,

Lindsay I hope you stay strong in your belief, for the rest of your life. Some people just don't want to look at the good arguments and they swerve rigth around them. Now that is frustating.

The moon-roos are not frustrating at all. Lindsay said it all.

Scott has some good points Cranky, how about you respond to them. I would love to see your answer.
lindsay
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 08:37 PM
i soo lost my cool
sorry cranky, i could have gotten my point across about you being disrespectful in another way. like i said, i wasnt in the greatest mood. however, i still believe that you have treated us wrong and i dont appreciate it. i just dont like to drop to such a level as to critize someones character. im sry that i did that too you.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 | 07:46 AM
Lindsay said:

"however, i still believe that you have treated us wrong and i dont appreciate it."

In what way have I "treated you wrong?"

It looks to me as if you may be frustrated because I have answered all your "arguments" in favor of the existence of God with logical counter-arguments.

That, by the way, does NOT make me "closed-minded." You have failed to convince me; that isn't my fault.

I was raised as a believer. Over time, I came to realize that it was all just rationalized nonsense.

As for my repeating my Rules, well, as I've said before, I only do that when a believer insists on repeating the same NON-proofs of the existence of God. I keep trying to point out that a NON-proof doesn't BECOME proof through repetition. If you folks would stop insisting on the magical power of repetition, I wouldn't have to point this out.
Page 9 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.