MOH Forum: Prove God Exists and Get $1,000,000

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 15 of 24 pages ‹ First < 13 14 15 16 17 > Last ›
Timmo Member	Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 \| 11:59 AM But surely a man who knocks on a toilet door and says "Hello?" is being more scientific than a man who does not? Or a man who plugs in a computer to see if it works? He is not concluding (before experimenting) that the theory is false, but experimenting as if it were true to see if it is true. And surely we humans have a lot more to gain from God than we do from an empty toilet? (The experiment would not be conclusive if God hadn't promised to answer, but the records of Jesus say that He claimed to be God and claimed that somehow God coming into the universe as a living creature and dying and rising has made the universe compatible with God. And that He will answer whoever calls on Him or follows Him.) Not that it needs mentioning, but the law of the state should simply be that every individual may do whatever he/she wants on/with his/her own property
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 \| 12:30 PM Plenty of people over the years have claimed to be God. Jim Jones is a perfect example. Why don't you believe he was the incarnation of God on Earth as he claimed over and over. He even had followers. The reason is because you have the ability to demand proof before acceptance. Jim Jones didn't prove he was God, therefore most sensible people failed to believe in him. The question is, why do you believe Jesus was the son of God, and not Jim Jones? There is no proof for his divinity either, but you accept it as if there were. We just carry this one stop further. We fail to believe in God incarnating as a mortal, but we also tend not to believe in God Himself until there is proof of His existence. And before you say it, the Bible is not proof, it's a book.
Name Here	Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 \| 01:57 PM Thanks for your input Charybdis in Hell, Yes, the UHP. I too believe that it is highly inappropriate for people to give everyone a cross even if they don't believe in it. I actually didn't know that they were giving everyone a cross, despite their beliefs. It's sad really. I don't know if it's their intention or not but it's like their pushing religion down atheists or the likes throats. Again, in my opinion, it should be a symbol that the family wants. I disagree with the fact that they just choose a symbol and give it to everyone. It should be based on the choice of the family. No matter what, there will always be disagreements. We just have to accept that and not let our stubborn ways get in the way of everyone elses beliefs or Non. I say, if an atheist or a jew etc. wants their own symbol, then give it to them. You're right Chary, it should be like the National Cemetaries. Hell, if I want a stick of dog doo as my symbol, I better get one, and everyone better get use to it. (I don't worship poop)(I worship God) What does everyone else think? What about the National Anthem? You know what I'm talking about. I hope. Good day...
Cranky Media Guy	Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 \| 05:07 PM Timmo said: "But surely a man who knocks on a toilet door and says "Hello?" is being more scientific than a man who does not? Or a man who plugs in a computer to see if it works? He is not concluding (before experimenting) that the theory is false, but experimenting as if it were true to see if it is true." No, absolutely not. He is checking to see what the status of the bathroom or computer is. He doesn't know so he's trying to find out. You, on the other hand, want to start off by believing that there is a God, then move on to assembling the evidence that appears to prove that true while ignoring the evidence which proves it false. That's intellectually dishonest. "And surely we humans have a lot more to gain from God than we do from an empty toilet?" What you're engaging in here is a restatement of what's called Pascal's Wager. There are many refuations to that available on the web. You might want to read some of them.
Cranky Media Guy	Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 \| 05:12 PM Name Here said: "In my opinion, I think that a family with any set of beliefs may put up anything they want, to honor and remember their deceased loved one. It's the families choice. If he was jewish, then they should be able to put up the star. If they are atheists, then I think they can put up an obelisk or anything they want. But I don't know why it's even being argued over. It's a big waste of time in my view." How about this: no one should be able to put up a memorial to their dead loved one on a public road at all! You don't own the land and have NO right to erect anything on it. Period. Yes, it's sad that you lost someone you love but you don't get to put up an obstruction on a public road, sorry. Suppose I was driving down the road and your memorial blew in front of my car, causing me to have an accident. Do I get to sue you? If not, why not? Roadside memorials are a potential hazard and shouldn't be there.
Name Here	Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 \| 10:55 PM Cranky Media Guy said: "You don't own the land and have NO right to erect anything on it. Period." I can't tell whether or not you're being discourteous towards me, so I may sound a little irritated. NO. you (WE) don't own the land. But the state does, and they may do as they please with it. They decided to use a piece of land to dedicate it to deceased Highway Patrol Men. Now the issue is, whether or not they should have crosses on it or not due to personal beliefs. Charybdis already said his view. Yes, your view is to not have anything at all, I understand that. But, the main issue is about the crosses or other symbols. "Suppose I was driving down the road and your memorial blew in front of my car, causing me to have an accident. Do I get to sue you? If not, why not? Roadside memorials are a potential hazard and shouldn't be there." No, you wouldn't. Since I would not be the one putting it up. It is not my property, really it wouldn't be, it would belong to the state, and it is also on state property. If you were to sue someone over that it would be the state, especially since they failed to install it properly. Also, there are many things that are on the road side, such as speed limits, hazard signs, directions, billboards, all kinds of signs. Do you have a problem with those? They would be just as much hazard as let's say an obelisk or cross. Don't you think? How about other cars? They are much closer to you than any other thing on the road. Let's just hope that you're a good enough driver, and that those signs are nice and secure for you, so that they don't get in your way. I guess, according to you, cops should stop pulling people over on the road side too, since that would also be a potential hazard. Anyway, since that's not the issue, but the actual SYMBOL IS, what do you think they should do? Again, what does everyone think about the National Anthem? ("under God") Thanks for your input Cranky Media Guy. I can't tell if you're being rude or not, since, at times, it's hard to tell with computer communication. If you are, then let's try to keep this straight forward, without sarcasm, and childish games. We are all adults, Im sure. If Im wrong then I apologize ahead of time. Good night (^_^)
Cranky Media Guy	Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 \| 01:06 AM Name Here, I was talking about the issue of roadside memorials in general. Yes, in my opinion, if you put a memorial on the side of the road--which you do NOT own--I should be able to sue you if it causes a problem for me. I also believe that the state police have no right to erect memorials and that they, too, could and should be sued if something they put up on public land causes a problem for the motoring public. "[T]here are many things that are on the road side, such as speed limits, hazard signs, directions, billboards, all kinds of signs. Do you have a problem with those? They would be just as much hazard as let's say an obelisk or cross. Don't you think? How about other cars? They are much closer to you than any other thing on the road." All of those things can, of course, represent a hazard if they encroach onto the road. There is liability on the part of the owner of any of those things if that happens. If a billboard falls onto the roadway and causes me to crash, I have every right to sue the company that owns the billboard. Why should a roadside memorial be different? You create the hazard, you are responsible for any problems it causes. The fact that there are OTHER potential hazards on the road doesn't mean that the creator of a NEW one is exempt from liability. As far as religious symbolism goes, it's irrelevant to the issue of illegal road hazards. On a personal level, I think all religion is stupid.
Timmo Member	Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 \| 09:29 AM I don't like people using the word "Religion". Being of "religion A" implies believeing A1, and A2, and A3, drone drone drone, and "religion B" implies believeing B1, plus B2, plus B3, etc. It is as though believeing in the individual theory C17 implies all C's to be instantaneously correct and every other letter to be instantaneously incorrect. The law of the state should simply be that every individual should believe whatever (s)he wants, NOT that every "religion" should have equal rights. (Apologies, I had a really sexist teacher at school who would blame all the boys if 1 boy did something wrong and have thus grown up with something of a pet-hate for not judging the individual) It is true, as you said, that I want God to be real (I can't help my animal instincts) but I am being honest when I say that I still think the evidence points in His favour (I can help whether or not my animal instincts control my logic). I know everyone's reaction to this will be that my logic is unconscious, I don't control it and my brain is trying to keep me happy, but let me assure you it is as plain to me as your kids are plain to you: You have reason to believe they are safe now, and I assume you want them to be safe, yet it is extremely hard to explain to someone (who thinks the evidence blatantly points in the opposite direction, that they are in danger, and you are thinking wishfully) that you are being sane. That's how I feel explaining this.
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 \| 09:38 AM I hate to break it to you Timmo, but the vast majority of religions <i>do</i> believe that only they are correct and that everybody else is wrong. There are certainly individuals within each denomination that are open minded, but most religions, especially Judeo-Christian ones, teach that only they are correct and you're going to Hell if you don't believe exactly as they teach you. Power through fear. It's a time honored practice.
Timmo Member	Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 \| 09:41 AM Of course, if a group of individuals then want to own a bit of land to worship on because they all believe in a similar theory, then that's fine. I do go to a church sometimes, with other individuals who believe the same thing. But society where I come is very freedom loving. Not many of us believe in Jesus (but then there might be quite a few; I don't know, to be honest), but those of us who do don't feel oppressed by anyone else.
Timmo Member	Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 \| 09:50 AM Sorry, Charybdis, you must have posted that as I was writing the one above. Yeah, I guess, many of them do. But then that doesn't mean my belief of Jesus is wrong. A "religion" may teach that it is wrong to murder (I) and that everyone who wears glasses is going to Hell (II). I assume you believe (I), but not (II). Yet the existence of the "religion" does not mean theory (I) is incorrect.
Timmo Member	Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 \| 09:51 AM Or that theory (II) is correct
Timmo Member	Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 \| 10:03 AM I prefer to make up my own mind about things. For example, my Mum taught me as a child that Mary (Jesus' Mum) ascended into Heaven. I cannot experiment this theory in the same way I can experiment with the theory of Jesus. I have to say then, that I have no idea what happened to Mary.
Greg	Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 \| 12:46 PM Im 15. Its only obvious to me that the bible ia a mere book of fairy tales with no "COLD HARD EVIDENCE," as someone siad. Which is why no one will win the money in a million years for now. I SUGGEST PEOPLE OPEN THERE EYES. LOOK UO EVOLUTION. DINO BONES IS COLD HARD EVIDENCE. NOT THE FAIRY TALE OF THE ARK AND ADAM AND EVE. THEN AGAIN YOU RELIGOUS PEOPLE HAVE WAY TOO MUCH FAITH TOO BELEIVE ME. YOUR RELIGION MUST BE RIGHT. EVEN THOUGH THERE MANY RELIGIONS, YOURS OUT OF ALL OF THEM IS RIGHT SINCERELy 15 YEAR OLD GREG!!!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL
Name Here	Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 \| 12:59 PM Good, then you already got my apology in advance. "Yes, in my opinion, if you put a memorial on the side of the road--which you do NOT own--..." That's right we DON'T own that public land. The state does. I have already stated that. "If a billboard falls onto the roadway and causes me to crash, I have every right to sue the company that owns the billboard." Exactly my point. But you wouldn't sue the company that is being advertised on it. You would sue the company, which of whom produces the billboard. The memorials would be owned by the state. The families don't have to purchase them, the state does, and they are the ones who put them up. Also, the families do not make the memorials. So, the company who does would be at fault. "The fact that there are OTHER potential hazards on the road doesn't mean that the creator of a NEW one is exempt from liability." Of course not. I don't recall saying anything like that. Thanks for your input about the Symbols Cranky Media Guy.
Name Here	Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 \| 01:14 PM Greg, Yes,- as a believer in God-, I too believe the bible is nothing but a book of fairy tales. But Evolution does not make the theory of Gods existence wrong. In my opinion, evolution would not be possible without God. If you look at the bible they really like to make sure that everyone knows that men are more superior than woman(equality). They say that Eve was made out of the ribs of Adam. WTF?!?! That means that GOD, then Man, then Woman. Back then, women were inferior to men. So by preventing riots and protests from women, they say that the Bible is God's word, and since it's God's word, then the Adam and Eve story is true. So women believed it and let men of their era take advantage of them and so on. Really, I don't know how things came about. No one does. Also, Yes evolution has extremely hard evidence, but that does not mean that it is correct, in the sense that that's how we got here. But, my mind is completely open to any possibilities.
Name Here	Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 \| 01:27 PM Timmo, I hope that you can admit that YOU, or any other religion can be wrong. Timmo, I don't want to sway your faith or anything, but have you actually read the bible? Did you know that the bible has been revised hundreds of times (guess, but Im sure). Read it, and you can find all kinds of symbolism. It also contradicts itself. Many, many times. Timmo let me just say- the Past is Told by those who WIN. Think about it. Yes, we all have our opinions on how we came to exist. But no one should ever claim to know the answer. NO ONE! I was fortunate enough NOT to be born into a religion, so there was no brainwashing for me. My parents made me do my own research and own thinking, and let me decide whether or not to believe in a certain religion or non at all.
Greg	Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 \| 02:13 PM IM NOT SAYING IM RIGHT. IM Saying i beLEIVE THIS BECAUSE OF THE PERSUADING COLD HARD EVIDENCE. BONES! UNLIKE THE FAIRY TALE IN MY OPINION OF "GOD" SAYING "LET THERE BE LET". SORRY NOT TODAY. HOW WAS GOD FORMED? POOF OUT OF NOTHING.
Name Here	Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 \| 10:49 PM Greg, Im not saying that You said that you were right. I was addressing Timmo, and making sure that he knows that he could be wrong as well as myself and the non believers. "....SORRY NOT TODAY. HOW WAS GOD FORMED? POOF OUT OF NOTHING." Yes, it's hard to think about. The existence and origins of mankind. But I could also say 'How was this universe formed?' Many would say "the Big Bang", then I would say "How did the Big bang start and what started that and that and that?" Our human minds can't comprehend our life of origin. People have actually killed themselves over this. Pathetic! No one KNOWS! It's all just opinion. Good night
Name Here	Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 \| 11:22 AM Everybody wants limitless knowledge. But the more we know, the more we find we don't know. There is perhaps no satisfying extent to which our knowledge of the outside world would suffice when we stay ignorant to the inner world within us. But science and the search for knowledge isn't just about the outside world. Our inner world is part of the universe, and we are learning so much. The fact that we still have so much to learn is a plus. So sitting there attempting to gain knowledge of our origins could drive you to insanity. If someone tries to debate you about your religion, then let them, because I firmly believe that the single greatest gift one can give another is to make them challenge the way they think, to question those values they may hold dear. The resulting epiphany is sometimes nothing short of incredible. The only true freedom people have in life is the ability to figure things out for themselves. Faith is unconditional and you should embrace it whole heartedly (if you choose to do so) regardless of what your beliefs are but be ready to defend them in turn. I hope some of you will think about this. Great day today.....
Greg	Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 \| 11:35 AM I Rest MY CASE
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 \| 12:55 PM The difference between us is that when I think back over the beginnings of the universe I don't automatically add a God figure into the equation. One isn't necessary, and only adds a further level of complication - "Who created God?" It's a completely legitimate question. To assume that the universe had to come from <i>somewhere</i> but then accept that God Himself didn't seems absurd to me. Much cleaner, and more more in keeping with known facts, to not include God in the first place. We simply do not know what came before the Big Bang. In a very real sense, it appears that <i>nothing</i> did. Time itself wasn't created until the bang, so a concept of 'before' is meaningless. Better to accept not knowing the ultimate answer than to accept another unknowable (God) as the answer. You're just adding a redundant level of mystery to the equation.
Timmo Member	Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 \| 04:50 PM So the universe needs a cause, therefore the cause has to be God I know that looks frustrating, but if one defines God as a being who is in total control (Perfect), it must be so. For if something is not in total control (it is imperfect), then there are laws above it which it can't control. Now if the whole of imperfect existence has something outside it, then that thing is Perfect. If, on the other hand, nothing is outside it, then there are no laws that apply to it, so the imperfect existence as a whole would be Perfect. Whatever hierachy you choose, has to exist, something Perfect does.
Timmo Member	Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 \| 04:58 PM OK OK. I admit that this means any kind of formula X which creates the universe, or infinite series of big bangs, or whatever, is either part of God or under God's control, and in fact the whole laws of mathematics and logic are part of Him, or under His control, and therefore I haven't proven anything (as my brain works by logic), so we're back to square 1; We don't know whether God exists. But the argument above is still interesting though you might not find it persuasive, wouldn't you agree? I expect by this stage you'll be sick of me saying the only reason I know is because I tried the Jesus experiment, but there you are.
Timmo Member	Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 \| 05:21 PM No sorry. I shouldn't have been so cocky at the end of that last post. Please don't be bad to me back. I shouldn't have written it as such. Name Here, what you said is true. We human beings have been dumped here on this tiny planet; our minds, though highest in nature (and only even so far, we don't know about neanderthals yet) have NO IDEA WTF is going on! All anyone can say for sure is their name and where they grew up. And I know it sounds extremely arrogant for me to say something for sure, but I stand by what I wrote at the end of the last post, though I really honestly am sorry for writing it so sharply. Thank You.
Name Here	Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 \| 05:46 PM charybdis in hell said: "One isn't necessary, and only adds a further level of complication - "Who created God?" it's a completely legitimate question." It is, and it is one that I have thought about. The thing with me is, that I don't put God in the equation due to the fear of nothing and etc. I think it because, in my opinion, there is some intention behind our existence. Yes, I know that may not be true, but it makes sense to me. This is what fits best for me. As does the fact that Not believing works for you and many others. "...One isn't necessary, and only adds a further level of complication..." Yes, your right. But another added complication could be the fact that something came out of nothing. Which of course could be God, or the Universe itself. So I can see both sides of this complicated matter. I can say now that no one will be cashing in on the money. Even if God himself shows himself, I think people will try to look for a more logical answer. Don't get me wrong, that is the smart way of going about things. But I have one question for believers that are looking for proof and to the Non believers: To what extent do we stop looking for the existence of God? Until death? What would be satisfying in your view to make a conclusional judgement on the issue of Gods existence. I mean, No one, can claim to be right in the matter of his existence right? (Atheists and the religious). So I go back to the matter of all of this being opinion, but still someones opinion will be wrong. Greg said: "I Rest MY CASE" Ok, what post made you decide that you have proven your point? The way you COULD be right or wrong? or that we must find our inner knowledge before we look to outer knowledge of the universe? Timmo said: "But the argument above is still interesting though you might not find it persuasive, wouldn't you agree?" Yes, it is quite interesting, and only persuasive to the people who are easily susceptible to anything that may cross their path. "No sorry. I shouldn't have been so cocky at the end of that last post. Please don't be bad to me back. I shouldn't have written it as such" I didn't know that you were addressing me. hmmm?
Name Here	Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 \| 06:24 PM Timmo: Seriously, I wouldn't have even thought you were talking directly to me. But there's no need for apology, since I find nothing of what you wrote to be offensive. "I expect by this stage you'll be sick of me saying the only reason I know is because I tried the Jesus experiment, but there you are." To be honest I have no idea what you're talking about. If you would like to fill me in as to Where I am, I would like to see how offended I may become. But I never get offended. Just irritated at times. Go ahead and have all the confidence and arrogance in the world, but just know that no one is right all the time. ESPECIALLY, about our origins. As long as you can admit that, you will be able to fully understand the importance of analyzing your beliefs. What makes me write about "NOT KNOWING" is because of people and their smugness. As I told in an earlier post, I have a friend that has an actual religion. I don't. He found out that I wasn't baptized, so he told me that he was "praying for me". Yeah! I don't need to be prayed for. Although it was meant as a nice gesture, it wasn't, It was extremely condescending to me. I thought, now I know what atheists have to go through. I just got fed up with it, and said to him, "My religion is not a judgement for you to make, Back off". It's like people with religions think they are better than everyone. Now that is irritating, and something for me to be offended by.
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 \| 08:55 AM Timmo, I can use your same argument to 'prove' that I am God, or that anything and everything is God. That's its fault, it's indisciminate. Back to stop one - The universe needs a cause. Why? Failing that, explain God's cause. If the universe needs a cause, so does He.
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 \| 08:58 AM <i>It is, and it is one that I have thought about. The thing with me is, that I don't put God in the equation due to the fear of nothing and etc. I think it because, in my opinion, there is some intention behind our existence. Yes, I know that may not be true, but it makes sense to me. This is what fits best for me. As does the fact that Not believing works for you and many others.</i> - Name Here So according to you God exists because you want him to?
Name Here	Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 \| 01:05 PM Charybdis in Hell said: "So according to you God exists because you want him to?" No, actually I said "...there is some intention behind our existence..." So even if I didn't want to believe in God, I would still think that there is some intention behind our existence. But even if I did just want to think he exists, what's the problem with that. If it gets me through life alright then you or anyone else should have no problem with that, and if they do then tough. But, no. Timmo, I am still wondering about why I should be mad. Please explain....
Timmo Member	Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 \| 04:40 PM I'm glad you're not mad. I thought the sentence "I expect by this stage you'll be sick of me saying the only reason I know is because I tried the Jesus experiment, but there you are." sounded unecessarily cocky. Not that people shouldn't be as persuasive and blunt as possible in their reasoning, but it is annoying when someone says "I'm right: Period" without giving reasoning (I proposed an experiment in post 801)
Timmo Member	Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 \| 05:35 PM You mistook me, Chary: My argument wasn't the childish "The universe needs a "cause", so it must be "God", and this "God" doesn't need a "cause" " What I said was that usually we humans say an object needs a "cause" because there are laws applying to that object which it can't control. That's where my argument started: I scrapped the word "cause"; It was then that used logic to get from "There exists an object which is beyond the control of another object" to "There exists an object with ultimate and unlimited control" (be it the whole of existence, or a something outside existence)
Timmo Member	Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 \| 05:36 PM go back and check
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 \| 09:43 AM That's all fine and well, but the argument remains the same - Adding God into the equation adds a redundant step. There is no reason to believe an object with ultimate and unlimited control must exist. The universe might be a self-contained object with nothing outside of it or in control of it. That doesn't make the universe 'God'.
Timmo Member	Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 \| 05:07 PM It would because then the thing with nothing controlling it would then be the whole universe. Therefore the thing that is Perfect would be the universe as a single unit.
Timmo Member	Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 \| 05:12 PM including all the laws of maths and the big bang etc. (That is why mathematics is sometimes dubbed the "mind of God". Obviously this part of the universe isn't Perfect. At least not obviously, or not yet)
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 \| 10:51 AM The 'Perfect' argument is extremely flawed. Basically, you only add what you want into the equation to reach the conclusion that you desire. Here's a simple example of how flawed it is. How can a perfect object contain imperfect objects? It can't, therefore the Universe (God) isn't perfect. And logic is not equivalent to mathemetics. Logic is open to interpretation while mathematics, to the best of anyone's knowledge, is universally consistant.
Timmo Member	Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 \| 01:06 PM Surely logic is identical to mathematics. If it's open to interpretation, then it's not logic. My argument does not necessarily show that 100% of the universe is Perfect, but that there exists something Perfect.
Timmo Member	Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 \| 01:07 PM Think about it.
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 \| 02:07 PM Of course logic is open to interpretation. What is logical to one person might not be logical to another. You feel your logic proves the existence of God while I feel that it doesn't even make any sense. Talking about a perfect being or object is, in itself, a troublesome concept. What is 'perfection'? How can you define it in a way that makes sense? It's an abstract idea that doesn't really exist. How can a perfect object contain or interact with imperfect ones. Wouldn't such association automatically make the perfect object imperfect? Logic isn't absolute, therefore it can't be used to 'prove' anything.
Timmo Member	Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 \| 02:22 PM i see you won't be cornered so what do you think of the ontological argument, then?
Cranky Media Guy	Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 \| 01:17 AM The state of Delaware has an official policy on roadside memorials. Go figure, they think they're hazardous: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060206-064512-2374r
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 \| 09:44 AM I don't see them as any more dangerous than billboards. In other words, extremely dangerous. As to ontological arguments, that's what we've been discussing all along. All the same flaws that I've pointed out, along with many other, still apply.
Name Here	Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 \| 01:22 PM "The state of Delaware has an official policy on roadside memorials. Go figure, they think they're hazardous" I stick by my responses. They are just as hazardous as billboards, signs, even less than the cars on the road with you. But I live in California and there really isn't any debate over this here. Well to the best of my knowledge anyway. I would join in on the Timmo/charybdis action, but looks extremely tiring. I may in a few days....
Timmo Member	Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 \| 06:36 PM But surely the ontological argument is the most straightforward thing in the world. It's what started me, anyway. It's simply saying that the idea in your head of something so absolutely Perfect must exist. Of something that is unquestionably limitless (call it un-stop-able) must exist, otherwise it's been stopped. (the denotes any arguments, or stops, in your mind right now, so if you think this is a false argument, you aren't thinking of the right idea)
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 08:42 AM You're assuming that existence equals perfection. Explain why this should be so.
Timmo Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 09:50 AM Oh come! The * means God is all-powerful.
Timmo Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 09:51 AM I don't know what is meant by "existence"
Timmo Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 10:15 AM Also, I could add any extension to this Perfection that I liked. But the Perfection is in charge of the condition I attach, not the condition in charge of the Perfection. Possibly this means God is uniting the universe and all things to Himself? But I dunno. What we know is that the * means God reigns absolutely. Therefore any argument you have against this must be wrong. Try me.
Timmo Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 10:18 AM (it is hard to communicate emotions over the web. sorry if i sounded cocky or angry; i'm not)
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 10:20 AM Okay, to paraphrase (badly) the basic ontological argument : <i>I can imagine a perfect being. To be perfect, this being must exist. Therefore, this perfect being does exist.</i> Going line by line - <i>I can imagine a perfect being.</i> Oh? First of all, what makes a being 'perfect'? How can you, as an imperfect being, imagine a perfect being? Isn't it impossible (illogical?) for an imperfect being to contain a perfect one, even if only in your mind? <i>To be perfect, this being must exist.</i> Why is existence required for perfection? Wouldn't existence sully perfection because everything else that exists is imperfect? <i>Therefore, this perfect being does exist.</i> Keep in mind, my logic arguing against this is no more vague than the logic used to argue for it. In order to be a valid argument you have to first define 'perfection'. Nobody seems to have done so to date. Second, you have to show why existence is required for perfection. Again, nobody as done so. Both of these points are simply assumed by the proponent. Ontological arguments have been shown to be without religious merit almost from the very beginning, but they still pose fascinating philosophical arguments. They just don't have any purpose in the real world, other than recreation and entertainment.
Timmo Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 11:20 AM We're not getting anywhere. I think the main reason I'll stop this (exhausting) argument is that my cousin in France has a mental age of about 8 and therefore cannot understand any of these things as well as you or I can. Yet she seems to have a more fixed belief even than me, because she did the Jesus experiment I proposed earlier. Though the Jesus thing only works once one has tried it, it is (in the majority of cases) more convincing than any of my arguments above. If you found them at all persuasive, you'll find the Jesus thing mega persuasive. Though my cousin is not intelligent she is scientific (These are not necessarily related: A professor at Oxford who hides from truth is less scientific than a dyslexic who faces facts). At least, not speaking French very well, I hope (and very much think) she is scientific.
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 11:28 AM I have prayed to God Timmo. Many years ago when I was just a kid, I prayed quite often. God never answered my prayers. God never showed himself to me.
Timmo Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 11:32 AM I'd like to make a suggestion: How about all of us on this site arrange a time or day on which to think about this whole thing honestly. When others shy away from truths which one finds attractive it is extremely irritating trying to talk sense to them. I know that being intellectually shy is something that I, for one, am often guilty of. For I am very imperfect. We all tell others to be intellectually honest but are quick to miss the mark ourselves. If a specific time was arranged, we could all do it. I know I would benefit from it (though it doesn't sound at all pleasant to me) and some others would benefit from it. It is astounding just how much we forget there is an actual answer while we're debating this. After all, what's the point in being wrong?
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 11:35 AM I'm sorry, you've totally lost me here. I've been as honest as I can here.
Timmo Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 11:39 AM Sorry Chary. You must have post the 10:28 am post while I was typing in the one above. You do seem like an honest bloke, I have to say. I didn't think so before those 2 last posts. The only thing I can think of saying is that my advice is, keep trying. I've seen it before. One day He will. In a way, my life still has things missing from it which I am waiting for. If it OK to ask (just tell me if it isn't), what kind of things did you pray for? If you want me to pray for you, just ask; I'd love it.
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 11:51 AM I prayed for the standard things. Passing tests, good health, people not to die, girls to like me. The usual. Now that I'm an adult, I see the futility of prayer. I recognize that God doesn't exist and that I alone am responsible for my life. I'm not going to spend my life worshipping Him and awaiting a sign any more than I would spend it worshipping trees and clouds. A myth is still a myth, no matter how much I play at pretending otherwise. Pray for me or not, it's completely irrelevant. Keep in mind, if God really does exist then it must be His will that I feel this way because it would certainly have been withing His power to make me believe, and He failed to do so.
Timmo Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 12:58 PM He may not want to give you a sign. He will give you enough so that if you want to believe you can, but if you don't you can leave it and go back to normal. My intention is not to boast here but I have to say I am exceptionally lucky. Other guys have told me that they think I'm good-looking, I'm pretty healthy, tests have been good so far, no one I know has died except my brother (when I was very young and didn't understand death, so my realisation of it was very gradual) and I was never that upset when my grandparents died. But there is still that gap in me which is hollering to be filled. Whenever anyone asks God to make you whole, or give you meaning, or whatever (I think you know what I mean), He does it, but very rarely as we expect, or as quick as we expect.
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 01:09 PM Again, it comes down to what you want to believe rather than what you can show to be true. I have never experienced any more evidence that God exists than that the tooth fairy exists. Therefore, I have the same amount of faith in His existence that I do Hers. None. Besides, everything you say about God is somewhere contradicted by someone else who believes just as adamantly as you do. Some believe that God doesn't answer prayers, ever. God does as He wills without input from us. Why should I believe one religion over the other, and how would I pick which to believe? It's more sensible to me to accept that they are all wrong and that God doesn't exist.
Name Here	Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 \| 01:58 PM Just want to add my two cents, not trying to enter your debate. If God exists and us believers say he's perfect.... then wouldn't he be understanding to the reason why Charybdis doesn't believe. I mean we say that he's a perfect God. So that means he's Not jealous and that he is tolerant and understanding. Well, I would think that those characteristics are more "perfection" than Jealousy would be. Right? Of course Charybdis has no reason to believe in God. A lot of people don't have reasons, but some Choose to believe and some don't. I have prayed and have had them answered, not right away, and not in the way I thought. That gave me a reason, besides the fact how nature works and that we can benefit from so many things. (but that's irrelevant). The reason why your debates aren't going any where is because philosophy is probably one of the most redundant useless things possible. It just exceeds what's necessary. Timmo, I would like to thank and praise you for asking Chary if it was ok to pray for him. That was good, and I'm sure Charybdis appreciated it. Now that I have stated some of the obvious, I bid you all a good day......
Page 15 of 24 pages ‹ First < 13 14 15 16 17 > Last ›

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