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 16 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 | 02:18 PM
Name Here said:

"I stick by my responses. They are just as hazardous as billboards, signs, even less than the cars on the road with you."

Yes, those other things are hazardous. That's a reason there shouldn't be MORE hazards on the road. Adding things to the roadside only makes it more dangerous. How is that a good thing?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 | 03:09 PM
I didn't 'appreciate' the offer of prayer. It just didn't mean anything to me. I appreciate the concern that exists behind the offer, but the actual act is completely meaningless.

It's like telling a terminally ill patient "I know you're dying, so I want you to know that I'll be thinking of you while I'm watching TV". The concern is there, but the patient sure isn't the one who benefits from the action.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 | 03:30 PM
ok. At the moment I'm just trusting Jesus at His word and hoping He fills the gap as the records say He promised. I didn't get a BIG sign when I asked but I think I told you about the text I got from my bro. The gap was not magically filled then, but that was the time when God kind of asked for a yes/no confirmation. He tends to.

It was only after the summer holidays a few months later that I was handed a leaflet, which proposed that God living, dying and rising on this planet as Jesus has somehow allowed Him to fill the gap, and that He will do so for anyone who asks. I asked again a few times, and parts of this gap have been filled in fairly amazing ways since.
Name Here
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 | 06:17 PM
"I didn't 'appreciate' the offer of prayer. It just didn't mean anything to me. I appreciate the concern that exists behind the offer, but the actual act is completely meaningless."

Yes, your right. But at least he didn't say "I am praying for you" I don't know, kind of hung over.

Cheers!
Name Here
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 | 06:25 PM
"Yes, those other things are hazardous. That's a reason there shouldn't be MORE hazards on the road. Adding things to the roadside only makes it more dangerous. How is that a good thing?"

Well, I'm not saying it's a good thing or bad. I am in no concern as to which way it goes. Yes, it does cause extra hazards. But the main concern would be the cars next to you. Drunk drivers and inexperienced ones. Well, hopefully people will be good enough drivers to not hit these objects so far away from the roadside. (I think 40 yds) Not sure. Major headache right now, Until then good night.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 | 07:58 AM
I do make a point NOT to judge anyone I talk to about this or pray for. I hate the kind of people (at least, I hate their teaching) who go around condemning and judging and oooooh etc. I have no idea about people's lives and have no idea what God's gonna do, but I think He loves You with an unstoppable love.
Name Here, you said it would be better not to say "I AM praying for you now", but I have to say that I do pray for people. It is not that I think they have some kind of disease or that they are inferior to me. Also, I don't control others' free will. But it is just that if you find water in a desert, you are desperate to spread the Good News around. "Come on, everyone! Look at this!" And I just can't help but to ask God to help me spread it. Not that I know everything and you don't, but I am convinced God wants everyone to see this.

Love You (not judging you) and God bless,
Timmo
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 | 08:03 AM
You may have ideas about the water kind of being spiritual and deep and scary and not-allowed-to-laugh. Trust me: That is a religious myth! I don't know about "religion", but Man Alive, the water's Great!
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 | 10:07 AM
Timmo said,

"And I just can't help but to ask God to help me spread it.

I do believe you're spreading something but it's not love. Instead of wasting time praying for people whose only "problem" is not believing, why don't you pray for world peace, a cure for all diseases and an end to birth defects and tsunamis.

If you are successful at that, then maybe we'll have a reason to take you seriously.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 | 10:29 AM
Ah, but rather than spend the rest of my life praying for world peace I could pray half the time for other guys to come to God and half the time for world peace. Then we could all pray for the same thing all over again. The prayers for world peace would escalate dramatically then.

I have worked at Oxfam in the past, which was a great experience, but say I worked there for an infinite amount of time. Say I managed to cure all desease and all war. I conquered pain and death. Surely the world would be a bit pointless? No such thing as bravery, kindness, or free will? In fact, with no defects, the world would just be God.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 | 12:12 PM
Timmo,

I'm sure all the starving and disease ridden people in third-world countries don't mind being fodder for your occasional forays into kindness and bravery done at your convenience. Perhaps your attitude would be different if you were the one doing the suffering.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 | 04:33 PM
It probably would. I would be inclined to disagree with God if I was in a worse situation. But God is way smarter than I am. As He is infinitely powerful and the author of the laws of physics I am tempted to ask the question "Why can't God make a perfect world and somehow accomodate it with free will, etc." But then if God is infinitely powerful, He can do something to the world so that the suffering might as well have never existed. The suffering is within His control and He will somehow end it. Perhaps the fact that every object can be extended by the unstoppable argument (as I said in post 897) sways you?
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 | 04:36 PM
Take a look at the differences in beliefs between 1st and 3rd world countries.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 | 05:36 PM
Timmo says:

"God is way smarter than I am."

"He is infinitely powerful and the author of the laws of physics"

"The suffering is within His control"

"He will somehow end it"

How the hell would you know? This is all just speculative fantasy on your part. It only exists in your delusional mind to feed your planet-sized ego.

I think you need to trade places with some suffering person in Africa for a while. Then you'd have no time to sit around dreaming up this bullshit. You would be too busy trying to survive and finding out food and shelter doesn't come from prayer. I'm shocked your institution allows you access to the Internet.

P.S. So how long are you in for?
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 | 06:29 PM
Easy! I don't expect people to lick those beliefs up simply because I mentioned them just then. I have argued on this site before about my reasons for believing them. It is true that if someone on this site claimed to have seen Billy Bunter raised from the dead (with no evidence) I would speculate, as you are, that he had a screw loose.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 | 06:34 PM
Al, it sounds as if there are other objections you have to God which you don't want to mention on this site. If you want to, you can argue with me in private. My email is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (Ignore the L's; they are there to prevent any of my friends finding me here by googling my email address)
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 | 02:04 AM
Timmo said:

"God is way smarter than I am. As He is infinitely powerful and the author of the laws of physics I am tempted to ask the question "Why can't God make a perfect world and somehow accomodate it with free will, etc." But then if God is infinitely powerful, He can do something to the world so that the suffering might as well have never existed. The suffering is within His control and He will somehow end it."

You're employing the same false reasoning all believers use in debate. You're starting with the notion that there IS a God, then you look for the information that SEEMS to confirm your preconceived belief.

What you SHOULD be doing is looking at all available information and trying to determine which way it leads, to belief or non-belief.

Believers have so much emotional investment in the concept of God that it's difficult, if not impossible, for them to take an objective view of the question of His existance. Objectivity can be difficult, to be sure, but it's the only intellectually fair way to proceed.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 | 11:39 AM
Having being brought up with the idea of God, that is true in my case. As a boy I remember finding out God might be not there and the idea terrified me. Just as the prospect that your whole life, memory, and logic is a dream, and in fact you may not actually exist, probably terrifies you. As a teenager I actually went through that train of thought (a bloke called Descartes did as well, apparently) and wondered how I could mathematically prove that my senses, memory, and logic were serving me correctly. Most people can blot this thought out straight away as "Ridiculous!", but I remember thinking that the thought "Ridiculous!" was in fact coming from my logic, which is what I was doubting in the first place, so I didn't, in fact, have any evidence that the things which all of us animals trust so well (ie. senses, memory, etc) weren't lying to me.

I think all teenagers have a little pandora's box of worries like that. It bugged me for a few years before I finally got over it and allowed myself to think that my senses simply must mean something and the idea was indeed "Ridiculous!"

I am pretty sure that I have always believed in God and the prospect of no God does terrify me, but I do think that my reasoning for believing in God is fair (Just then I was only saying how I believe in God and in the universe's seemingly random suffering at the same time). It is events which happened to me in the real world rather than all the cosmological/ontological arguments I came up with as a teenager which sway me.
For example, a week before my brother commited suicide (I was too young to remember it) my Mum was in a church and she had an "experience". She felt as though God was lifting her up in terrifically strong arms, and the whole of human effort and war seemed nothing in comparison, and was saying that in a little while things would be hard, but later they would be Good. My Mum thought (my bro was starting a new school soon) "Great! He won't like starting his new school, but afterwards he'll get over it." It is the only time I am aware that she had an experience like that and she said it made a great deal of sense after Tom's death. She may have tried to kid herself that it was something small like school, but knew the experience meant more than that.
When that same brother was born apparently he went blue in the face and my Dad (who's a doctor) prayed harder than in any other time of his life saying "God, please let this child live." Dad said it felt like an eternity. But Tom stopped going blue and Dad (who was, by the way, the only person who noticed) only mentioned it after Tom's death. Now, I am not exactly sure what the medical nature of this "going blue" is, so I have to count it as a coincidence. But I would like to find out.
I think I told you about the text I got from my other bro, and there have been other when I have prayed for people who have said afterwards "Wow!", as if they should have known.

Yes, I admit I want God to be there. But it is extremely difficult for me not to believe in Him as well, because of how I've grown up.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 | 11:44 AM
Phew!
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 | 05:35 PM
Timmo,

Since God doesn't exist, I can't have any "objections to God". If you want to know my views you can see many of them by reading back in this thread. There's no need to argue in private emails, unless you have something to hide from everyone else. Since I would just repeat them here anyway that would be pointless.

I find it absurd you think you can avoid being terrified just by the thought there is no God. If there really isn't, then how does believing change anything?

About your camouflaged email address. Why do you have to conceal your presence here? Does your cult forbid you to discuss this subject or are just embarrassed to be seen with us?
Timmo
Member
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 | 05:58 AM
I do want to believe in God, Al. I also want to believe I am not a brain in a vat or whatever (I doubt many people can boast about being as careful with what they believe as I was as a teenager) But I do also have reasons which I think are fair and not in my imagination,

1 is that if we define God as a Perfect being, where "Perfect" means all-powerful, unrestricted by any laws outside it's control, (and thus something being imperfect means there are laws applying to it outside it's control) then anything that exists and is imperfect would imply a law outside it which it can't control. This means that the whole of existence has some kind of "ultimate control" behind it. Basically, either there is something outside the whole of imperfect existence (which would be Perfect, being outside imperfect existence) or there isn't, in which case you are saying the whole of imperfect existence as a unit is Perfect. Whatever hierachy is chosen, there exists something Perfect.

Now that is why I said that God is the author of the laws of physics. In fact it means He is in charge of all laws. That is why mathematicians often refer to their subject as "the language of God". This means that any law or standard which we humans think distinguishes "Good" or "Bad" behaviour must have been "invented" by God. In other words, Good is Good and Bad is Bad only because God says/thinks so, so to speak. That is 1 reason why I think God "loves" the world. For He hates badness and loves goodness.

2 is that if God is defined as a Perfect being, as unquestionably limitless, as un-stop*-able, then the idea in your head of this Perfection must exist, otherwise it has been stopped.

The * denotes any arguments you are thinking of now. So if you think this is a false argument, then you aren't thinking of the right idea.

(to exist means to be un-stop*-able actually and unquestionably. possibly 2 also shows God "loves" the world, as this argument can be used to say anything is Perfect, but then the conditions we attach to the Perfection are controlled by the Perfection, not the other way around. I have no idea what
God's going to do to everything)

Just thought I'd leave my reasons. I do not like rudeness, Al. I wonder about the universe just as you do. These arguments occurred to me before I properly turned to God. I am not a member of a "religion". I only believe the individual theories I find plausible. Jesus's claim to be God is one of them. I do not see the point in "religion". I do not see the point in being wrong, either.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 | 06:01 AM
"Phew!", again
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 | 09:50 AM
Okay Timmo, here goes...

For the sake of argument we'll accept your definition of 'perfect'. It'll do for this discussion. I'll also accept your understanding that there must exist something which isn't under the control of on outside law, even though there is no reason to believe this to be true. I've argued this before to no avail so I'll skip it this time. I can come back to it if you need re-clarification.

I agree that, using your definition and understanding, either the universe is perfect or there is something outside the universe that is perfect. Of course, since the definition of 'universe' boils down to "all that exists" such a concept as 'outside the universe' is meaningless, but we'll ignore that for now.

Okay, something perfect exists. So what? How does this equate to God? Just because something exists that isn't under the control of outside laws doesn't make that something God. It could have all laws completely self contained (as the universe seems to), but that doesn't make it omnicient or omnipotent. Hell, there's not reason to even assume it would be sentient or alive. It could be considered a giant rock.

<i>In fact it means He is in charge of all laws.</i>

No. Having no laws that control you isn't the same as being in control of all laws. They are two completely different concepts. If I'm stranded on an island somewhere all by myself for the rest of my life, then I have no other people that control me. I control myself. By your logic I would also control all other people, but that's obviously not true.

<i>2 is that if God is defined as a Perfect being, as unquestionably limitless, as un-stop*-able, then the idea in your head of this Perfection must exist, otherwise it has been stopped.</i>

Again, no. Something can only be stopped if that something has already started. I can't stop a car that hasn't been built. I can't stop Godzilla. I can't even stop Buck Rogers. Why? Because they don't exist. If God doesn't exist, then He can't be stopped. What you meant to say was "If God doesn't exist then He's not Perfect", which I've shown above to be senseless. You've never shown why existence is required for perfection. In fact, logic would dictate quite the opposite to be true. After all, something that doesn't exist <i>has</i> to be beyond all outside control. Have I just proved that God doesn't exist?

In fact, I like this one so much that I'm going to bring it up again every time you try to push the ontological argument.
NH
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 | 06:53 PM
Captian Al said:

"Since God doesn't exist, I can't have any "objections to God"."

So, how are you so sure? What makes you so smug to the fact that you can go around saying you know.

You can say, "since I don't believe God exists, I can't have any objections to God"

Don't you think that would be better? Because know one knows for sure. It's all a matter of opinion, unless Timmo comes up with something more solid than any other argument.

What I am wondering is why God can't exist, just because there is Bad in the world? You guys say, 'well God can't exist because their are tsunamis and hurricanes, death, disease, suffering, etc.'

I don't see how that would prove the Non-existence of God.

So it's all a matter of opinion. Thus making this argument a complete waste of time. It's going nowhere. Wouldn't you agree?
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 | 09:32 PM
NH,

How do I know God doesn't exist? Simple.

The concept of God was invented by men. Before 2000 years ago, no one had heard of the Christian god. The reason of course is it didn't exist. So if it didn't exist then, it can't exist now. Then there is the previous 98,000 years of homo sapien existance. Why didn't this god start communicating with its creations from the very beginning? Why would god wait 98,000 years to show up? The answer is of course, there is no God.

To help their case religions always promise good things. The gods will provide and protect. However history shows these promises are never kept. Nothing ever changes. Those in control live the good life and the rest get nothing, except hard work, tsunamis and hurricanes (just like there was no god; surprise!). Of course believers have an unlimited number of excuses to account for their god's failings.

And what about the previous 4.499998 billion years of the earth's existence? That's a long time for this "perfect", "all-powerful" god to sit around doing nothing. The answer is of course, there is no God. The thousands of religions before and after Christianity were nothing more than scams to gain money, power and control over people.

Often when someone wanted to take control, they simply invented a new religion claiming to be God's sole representitive on Earth and everyone who didn't believe was destined to burn in hell (a common theme). Look how many times leaders have outlawed the current religion and substituted their own. Two of the most notable examples were an Egyptian pharaoh and a French king in the middle ages, if memory serves me correctly. Obviously these events were dictated by men, not any god, so do you think their god really existed? The same principle applies to the God people refer to today.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 | 12:57 AM
NH said:

"I don't see how that would prove the Non-existence of God.

"So it's all a matter of opinion. Thus making this argument a complete waste of time. It's going nowhere. Wouldn't you agree?"

If the argument is a waste of time, it's because believers keep insisting on the existance of something for which there is NO evidence.

For what I hope is the last time, we skeptics do NOT have to prove that God doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on you who claim that He does exist.

I can't speak for others, but I don't believe in God for the same reason that I don't believe in flying pigs: there is NO evidence of their existance. I refuse to believe in something merely because it might be comforting to believe in it. That's how children behave. While it may be appropriate for a child, I think it's inappropriate for an adult.

Again, we don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. YOU have to prove that He DOES. Get it?
Timmo
Member
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 | 07:54 AM
Al, how do you know that the rest of space and the 14.9999 first billion years of the universe were "pointless", just becase there weren't any humans running around? Why do you assume that the sole care of God would be homo sapiens? The universe is amazing: You seem to know that more than I do. We humans only recognise a "point" for our existence because we're us.

Also, I do not believe that the whole of life in this universe except a small, and extremely recent, percentage of humans living on this planet is "eternally damned" or whatever, just because they've never heard of Jesus Christ. If God is who we say He is, then He would not have it so (that sounds right to me, anyway).

Say a Dad sacrificed himself to save his child yesterday. Now this Dad may have existed for a long time (though if God is limitless He does not even exist in time), and the kid for a short while. The sacrifice took place yesterday. Now this doesn't mean that the Dad never existed before Valentine's, does it?

Now, above I've shown that if anything in the universe is actually actually actually "Bad", then it is because this Perfection "says" it's Bad. All corruption and deceit in the universe done by humans is, most probably, actually Bad, but this doesn't show that God isn't there.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 | 07:59 AM
And Chary, the laws that apply for a man on a desert island and other men aren't all the laws that exist, think about it.

Yeah, fair enough, the idea in your head of this Perfection may not "exist", but the * does mean that it is Perfect actually.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 | 08:02 AM
Just out of interest, does everybody on this site think that there is adequate evidence to say that Julius Caesar existed?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 | 09:18 AM
<i>Al, how do you know that the rest of space and the 14.9999 first billion years of the universe were "pointless", just becase there weren't any humans running around? Why do you assume that the sole care of God would be homo sapiens? The universe is amazing: You seem to know that more than I do. We humans only recognise a "point" for our existence because we're us.</i>

Because almost all religions tell us that man is the most important of all the animals in existence? The more 'sophisticated' religions (in other words, Judeo-Christianity) tell us that the world (and universe) was made for man.

<i>And Chary, the laws that apply for a man on a desert island and other men aren't all the laws that exist, think about it.</i>

I'm thinking about it. I still don't see how being beyond control of something automatically give one dominion over that something. I used the island as a simplistic explanation as you seem to skip over my more, admittedly, ponderous ones.

Also, on saying "I believe..." - I don't say "I don't believe that Santa Claus exists". I don't say "I believe that Zeus is a mythological creation". Saying "I believe" implies that there is some room for doubt in our minds, which just isn't the case. All the evidence points to God being a myth created by man, just like thousands of other myths. Absolutely no evidence suggests otherwise.

On Caesar - yes, because there is an abundance of historical evidence for his existence. He is mentioned by many historical writers that either knew him or lived under his rule. God, on the other hand, seems only to work through men. God never had dinner parties and hosted dignitaries and ambassadors from neighboring religions, or made war on them. Men did (in 'His Name', which is simply a convenient excuse for slaughtering a people and taking their lands and possessions).

By your example I should doubt the existence of Jesus, but oddly enough I don't. I personally believe that he, or someone very like him (details tend to become warped over time) actually did exist. There's enough historical evidence that I tend to believe it. I just don't believe that he was anything more than a man. One of many hundreds, if not thousands, of people killed over the years for challenging the status quo. I don't see people worshipping most of <i>them</i>, however.
NH
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 | 02:07 PM
Al said:
"The concept of God was invented by men. Before 2000 years ago, no one had heard of the Christian god. The reason of course is it didn't exist."

Prove it.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 | 03:33 PM
Is there evidence Julius Caesar existed? Does anyone doubt it? I don't think so. Of course that is not proof. However we have a lot of documentation to back it up. Plus we know who his relatives were. We know exactly when he was born and we know exactly when he died. I believe there were coins cast with his likeness on them.

Compare that to Jesus. For someone who many claim to be the most famous person who ever lived, no one knows exactly when he was born or exactly when he died. There are no recorded images of him. If he was the "son of God", surely someone would have drawn a picture or cast a statue of him at sometime during his life. Writings about didn't seem to start until hundreds of years after he allegedly lived and of course the writers had never met him. Very suspicious.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 | 03:38 PM
NH,

Prove what? Prove god was invented by men? Prove no one had heard of the Christian god more than 2000 years ago? Prove the Christian god never existed?

As has already been mentioned, those that doubt the existence of god don't have to prove anything. It's up to the people making the claim to prove what they say.

So tell us, what proof do you have?
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 | 04:13 PM
Timmo,

I didn't say the first 14.99999 billion years of the universe was pointless. I said: What was the god you say exists doing during that time? Of course it was doing nothing since it doesn't exist until some power hungry humans had a need and invented it about 2000 years ago.

In any event, whether or not something is pointless is a subjective thing humans decide for their own purposes. Since the universe was there all that time and humans were not, the human decision of whether or not it was pointless is irrelevant. It was there like it or not.

You said:
"I do not believe that the whole of life in this universe except a small, and extremely recent, percentage of humans living on this planet is "eternally damned" or whatever, just because they've never heard of Jesus Christ"

Apparently most Christians disagree with you. To claim their "special status" they have stated in no uncertain terms, if you don't "believe" you are "eternally damned". So what about the 95 billion humans who walked the earth before the Christian god was invented? Surely they should have had a chance for "salvation". Why did this god not give them a chance? What was it waiting for? Why not start with the first humans instead of the last 5%?

Of course this just shows the inventors of Christianity were totally ignorant about geology, biology, astronomy, chemistry, physics etc,. They did not know about the previous 95 billion people who came before them otherwise they could have come up with a better story. Unfortunately for them, later scientific discoveries blew their whole story out of the water.

Unfortunately for us, some people's scientific thinking is still 2000 years behind and we're having a difficult time getting them caught up.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 | 07:49 PM
But that is because the evidence for various scientific theories has changed since 2000 years. Knowing about Jesus would not have given his friends instant knowledge of how to build stereos, DVD's, supernovae, etc. Most people on the planet now will all be proved wrong about most things in another 2000 years. I would recommend going into a library and looking at books for and against Jesus' theories rather than the internet (if you have been doing so)
Timmo
Member
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 | 08:08 PM
But surely, surely, 1 and 2 must at least raise your most nagging suspisions that God exists. I mean, 1 proves that there exists something Perfect (all-powerful) and in control (If you look at the argument, Chary, it shows there is a hierachy of laws under the "ultimate control") and 2 proves that something is unstoppable as well. Okay, maybe it doesn't exist, but it is nevertheless unstoppable. Surely you can't tell me that it doesn't scare you in the slightest?
Nate H
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 | 10:50 AM
So does that mean that just because a peasant from some village was never recorded in history that he or she never existed?

Just because somethings not recorded doesn't mean that it didn't exist or wasn't believed in.
Nate H
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 | 10:52 AM
that last post was for Captain Al.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 | 12:23 PM
No Timmo. 1 shows that, according to the rules of that discussion, something perfect exists. You assume that this object is all-powerful and in control. Please explain your reasoning for this assumption. I'm trying to take this logically, and step by step, but you're making unfounded leaps here. Being outside of the control of something doesn't equal being in control of that something.

2 - I've already said that you can't stop something that doesn't exist.

<i>Something that doesn't exist cannot be stopped.

God cannot be stopped.

God doesn't exist.</i>

There is an extemely fatal flaw in my argument here, but you're problem is that you seem incapable of seeing that flaw in your own arguments.

And please stop throwing around the word 'prove'. You haven't actually proved anything, not even in a 'most likely to be true' sense, let alone an absolute one.

Additionally, your argument can be used to validate my existence as God. Please don't just ignore this point. I'll come back to it again and again if you do.

This is my version of <i>your</i> arguement.

I can envision myself as a perfect being - God(and yes, I most certainly can).

One requirement for My Perfection is to actually exist as envisioned, otherwise I'm not perfect.

Since I can envision Myself as God, and I must logically then exist as God, I am God.

Do you see a problem with this?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 | 12:27 PM
<i>So does that mean that just because a peasant from some village was never recorded in history that he or she never existed?

Just because somethings not recorded doesn't mean that it didn't exist or wasn't believed in.</i>

And your point is...?

Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus perfomed miracles. Jesus was resurrected and bodily ascended into Heaven.

So how come nobody thought this was important enough to record for over a hundred years? Was it a busy time and Jesus was simply relegated to the back page somewhere? There were certainly a plethora of historical writers who existed during his lifetime. Why didn't they record any of this?

Maybe because it didn't happen and people only made it up after the fact.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 | 03:52 PM
Thanks Chary, my thoughts exactly.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 | 06:58 PM
1 shows that something is Perfect, but it is true that it may not want to control everything. Being, by definition, beyond all laws, it means it could control everything if it wanted (as there would be no law stopping it from doing so). As I mentioned before, I believe God allows you and I free will, and so there are things He doesn't control. I dunno why that only hit me just now. Point well made, I am forced to say.

Now, 2: Look at the argument I wrote carefully, "The idea in your head of something Perfect (un-stop*-able) must exist, otherwise it defies the *"

Where "exists" means "is actually unstoppable". Now, there are 2 possible ideas you can have of something un-stop*-able: One is, as you said, of something that doesn't exist, and therefore you've proved something doesn't exist, and another is of something where "un-stop*-able" means "all-powerful" (because there exists no law to stop it's power). I was referring to the second. The first I wouldn't dubb as "Perfect"

You also said you could prove anything is Perfect by this argument. But think about it; The idea in your head is something Perfect. Now an object like this computer, say, is by definition imperfect. Therefore if you extend the orignial idea of the Perfection by the conditions of this computer, it is the Perfection that controls the conditions which we attach, not the other way around. I do not know what God is going to do to everything.

In short, the * means any argument we come up with must be false.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 | 07:02 PM
Yeah, I know this isn't a check, mate, game, set, and match, and I won't get the million. But surely, surely this arouses your most niggling suspicions that "God exists"?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 | 09:37 PM
Nope, because you're still making leaps with no intervening logic involved.

All together now - "Being beyond the control of all laws doesn't put you in control of those laws".

You say that there is no law stopping God from being in control of them, but there is also no law saying that God <i>is</i> in control, either. In fact, by your definition, God would be beyond all laws, either for or against Him, making it a logical contradiction. Your 'proof' of God's existence requires that God not be bound by your 'proof', since it's a law, making that 'proof' invalid.

You've now managed to boil #2 down to "The idea in your head of something unstoppable must be of something unstoppable". I tend to agree with this. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean anything.

As for your last part about perfection, I have no idea what you're saying. It doesn't make sense. I'm still correct in saying that I am God, using your logic. Anything that invalidates My divinity also automatically invalidates God's divinity. It's a simple mathematical substitution.

I can imagine X. In order for me to be able imagine X, X must exist. X does exist.

Replace X with anything you want, the formula is equally valid (ie, not valid at all).

And just because I know you're going to mention it again, please explain step by step how you arrived at the conclusion that to be perfect, something must exist. Be as precise as possible, please.
Carter S
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 | 10:02 PM
I am officially not back. haha. May be in and out every couple weeks. meh. Like Cap'n said. "So long, for now"

I was just checking in and seeing if you guys were still at it, and you are.

I also came back for one of Cranky's Rules.

I'll get it started Cranky...."But God talks to me"..

One last time Cranky!! One last time.

Nice seeing you guys talk again Chary, cranky, and Captain.

Good luck Timmo, you're gonna need it dude!

Guys, take it easy on him. (I know you won't though)

Later
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 | 11:41 PM
Carter S. said:

"I was just checking in and seeing if you guys were still at it, and you are.

I also came back for one of Cranky's Rules.

I'll get it started Cranky...."But God talks to me"..

One last time Cranky!! One last time."

Oh, OK, but only because you insisted.

I refer you to my Rule Number Eleven:

"What you are told by the voices in your head is NOT proof of the existence of God."

How's that?
David B.
Member
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 | 01:23 PM
Timmo wrote:
1 shows that something is Perfect, but it is true that it may not want to control everything. Being, by definition, beyond all laws, it means it could control everything if it wanted (as there would be no law stopping it from doing so).

Now, 2: Look at the argument I wrote carefully, "The idea in your head of something Perfect (un-stop*-able) must exist, otherwise it defies the *" [...] Where "exists" means "is actually unstoppable".

If something (un-stop*-able) must exist, i.e. it cannot not exist, then there is a law (the law of its existence) that it is not beyond. Hence by your own definition it is not perfect.

Hence taking [1] and [2] together: if god must exist then he cannot be perfect. Hence god can only be perfect if he is allowed not to exist, hence it would not be possible to prove his existence.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 | 06:02 PM
1 shows that something is Perfect. That is, beyond all and any laws. Therefore there is no law to stop it from doing anything. There is no law to force it either. Such a law would have to be created by itself. It doesn't come much clearer than this.

I have an idea of something Perfect (un-stop*-able, where the * denotes any stops in your mind now), and this idea cannot be stopped (that is what I meant by "exist", sorry if I caused any confusion). If it is something stoppable, like X, then it can. This doesn't come much plainer either.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 | 06:11 PM
Look, it seems as if you have some idea that God is very unpleasant, and that if you let go for the tiniest second then something unpleasant will happen to you (like, I dunno, "Oooh! The wrath of our most deplorable Lord! Oooh! Chant! Chant!..."). That idea is not your fault; it is our fault. It is the fault of religious nutters who have no commonsense. Do not get involved with things like that. I get a lot more frustrated arguing with people like that than with you. If you do let it go and face God, then those ideas will be washed away like dust. You will find that God is totally different. That any ideas you have that are bad cannot, in fact, come from God. This is not something I can prove, but rather something you will discover for yourself if you allow God.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 | 06:13 PM
Just felt as though I should say that
Carter S
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 | 11:44 PM
You da man Cranky, You da man!

Where's chary and captain? No hi?

Cranky gave me his "hi"

alright... well I guess I'll be waiting....


ps. This is to everyone who wants to laugh... DON'T SEE DATE MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!! It is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. Not worth the time nor the money. I would rather eat shit, and get hit by a car, than watch that waste of film any day.

Just some friendly advice. If you find it funny, then you have something wrong with you. People actually got up and left; more than half of the people did.

Just a warning.

Later!
Carter S
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 | 11:46 PM
sorry, back to the impossible........
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 | 08:56 AM
You're missing the point, Timmo. Such a perfect being (as per the definition agreed upon earlier) is not bound by your proof. It doesn't <i>have</i> to exist because then your proof would have control over it, and it's beyond all control. Therefore, it has the freedom to not exist.

It may or may not exist, but no proof can ever show that. Otherwise, it wouldn't be beyond control of all laws.

No matter how logical or sensible your argument is, it defeats itself instantly.

As to the unstoppable part. I agreed to your definition of perfect under argument #1. I never agreed that perfect = unstoppable. In fact, I've argued that you've never shown why this is true. Therefore, until you demonstrate why this would naturally follow (ie, being beyond all laws gives one dominion over those laws) I will simply ignore any further comments about unstoppable, other than to remind you that I've already proved* that A) God doesn't exist, and B) I am God.

*using your flawed arguments.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 | 08:57 AM
Oh, and hello Carter. Couldn't get enough of us, huh? 😉
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 | 09:45 AM
Carter, you're back! I thought your mother didn't allow you to associate with us.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 | 04:16 PM
It gives Him dominion over everything because no law can stop Him (or force Him)

You haven't proved you are God because you are going from the first argument (simply un-stop*-able) and attaching imperfect conditions (those of yourself). God is in charge of the conditions we attach, not the conditions in charge of God. So yeah, in a way, your argument is correct, because you (but actually God, not you) must exist. Think about this real hard.
Actually, get up, go and look at the doorhandle, which is imperfect, and think why this doesn't hold. You'll grasp it eventually.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 | 04:22 PM
And the word "exist" I used to mean "is unstoppable actually as well as in your idea".

As God is in charge of all laws, these proofs do not limit Him, because He is in control of them. The whole of mathematics He is in control of.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 | 04:36 PM
I've never had voices from God but hunches from God I think I have had, and you are correct in saying it's not proof. It is, however, evidence, if there is a reasonable correlation between what happens actually and what the "voices" say. As I've said, I have known people who have had "hunches"/"voices" with undeniable correlations.
David B.
Member
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 | 04:56 PM
Timmo wrote:
As God is in charge of all laws, these proofs do not limit Him, because He is in control of them. The whole of mathematics He is in control of.

Therefore he cannot be proved to exist. If he could be proved to exist then whatever empirical, logical or inferential argument did so would either (a) limit him to exist (hence he is not perfect) or (b) not limit him to exist (in which case he is not proven).

This is not to say he doesn't exist, it merely demonstrates that your argument is self contradictory. You start with an assumption that X is beyond all laws, then try to use these laws to prove the existance of X.

Do not pass go. Do not collect one million dollars.
Carter S
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 | 05:27 PM
Charybdis said:
"Oh, and hello Carter. Couldn't get enough of us, huh?"

Nope, I missed you guys too much. I had some withdraws and needed one of Crankys' Rules. 😊

Captain Al said:

"Carter, you're back! I thought your mother didn't allow you to associate with us."

Well, my mommy doesn't know, so don't tell her. I can't bear another time out. Just yet anyway......

thanks for your warm welcomes, feels like the old days eh? meh.

I suck at trying to "Prove God Exists" so I will just look at the things that I might have a chance on defending.

What can I say, it's a good website.

Later fellas!
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 | 11:32 AM
When I said the bible's authors were totally ignorant of science, implying there was no way they could have got their creation information from God, Timmo said:

"But that is because the evidence for various scientific theories has changed since 2000 years....Most people on the planet now will all be proved wrong about most things in another 2000 years."

Are you saying in 2000 years we will find out the Earth does not revolve around the sun? Will we find out the sun is not powered by nuclear fusion? Will we find out matter is not composed of atoms?

Scientific knowledge about a particular subject is in a constant state of change but the changes are not whole scale. They are usually just fine tuning the major areas already known. The authors of the bible did not get their story from any devine source, that is obvious by their ignorance of basic science. Real investigators had to fight, sometimes under threat of death, to prove religion wrong.

If these devinely-inspired authors really did have a connection with an all-knowing god, they would have known, among other things, the earth orbits the sun instead of insisting the opposite was true. How do you account for this obvious and embarrassing error?

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov
Page 16 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›

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