RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: It's all settled!...Proof God Exists!, Apparently, by asking the question does< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,07:46   

I ran across this web site that offers proof of God's existence. This is pure, uncut TARD so, be careful.

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

Apparently, by asking the question does God exists, we have proved his existance!...it's all there in a kinda twisted circular reasoning way.

Enjoy!

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,07:58   

Quote
The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.


priceless!  :D

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,08:16   

It's exactly as sound and well-supported as any other god proof I've seen.

I like the way it always ends up dumping you to the Disney site. I bet Disney will end up making them stop that somehow.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,08:28   

This is a snippet of one of his responses:

Quote
The existence of God is not based on 'circumstantial evidence.' It is actually because God exists that anyone can call ANYTHING 'evidence.' God is the necessary precondition for the proof or evidence of anything as both presuppose the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws, which cannot be accounted for outside of God, and are accounted for with God. You see Lisa, the very fact that you say that the site "really doesn't prove anything,' shows a precommitment to the very concept of proof which YOU cannot account for without God.

As far as you saying that it is "obvious to everyone" why I created the site, or basically, "It's true, because we all say it's true," I hope that's not your best argument, cause it that is a logical fallacy of "argumentum ad populum."

Sure lot'sof people say that "a god" exists, but it is usually not God at all, but an idol of their own making, so that they do not have to submit to the one true God of Christianity.


There...so, you can stop doing all the "sciencey" stuff.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10323
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:07   

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/negative-feedback.php

Quote
Here are a few samples of negative feedback I have been getting about the site, and my responses to them. Some have been sent via email, and some have occurred in various discussion forums.

I only include these rebuttals to expose the objections for their foolishness, and not to engage in argumentation with those who cannot account for the 'logic' they use in their objections.


--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
rossum



Posts: 186
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:15   

Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 24 2009,07:46)
Apparently, by asking the question does God exists, we have proved his existence!

So, the question is "Does the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist?"

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 809
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:16   

Sounds like typical Presuppositional legerdemain.

Blame Cornelius Van Til.....a Calvinist.

Like Heddle.

But CVT is dead.

Unlike Heddle.

So blame Heddle.

Who isn't dead.

But is one year closer.

Happy Birthday Heddle.

From an F1 fan.

:p

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:17   

"I don't know if absolute truth exists" choice gets you to

"I don't know if absolute truth exists"(again)----> "Absolutely true" or "False"

well, with a choice like that...  choosing "False" kicks you back to the first choice with the caveat "This is not a glitch:  think about it".  I thought about it and this is really dumb.

ETA  and "I don't care if absolute truth exists" gets you kicked to Disney.

fuck what a pile of stupid.  yes by all means let's blame heddle

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10323
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:24   

Quote
My name is Sye Ten Bruggencate. I'm 46 years old, single, and live in Ontario, Canada.


Hmmmmm

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:35   

Quote
My name is Sye Ten Bruggencate. I'm 46 years old, single, and live in Ontario, Canada.


left out

[qoute]...in the basement with my mom and dad.[/quote]

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:38   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 24 2009,09:17)
"I don't know if absolute truth exists" choice gets you to

"I don't know if absolute truth exists"(again)----> "Absolutely true" or "False"

well, with a choice like that... choosing "False" kicks you back to the first choice with the caveat "This is not a glitch: think about it". I thought about it and this is really dumb.

ETA and "I don't care if absolute truth exists" gets you kicked to Disney.

fuck what a pile of stupid. yes by all means let's blame heddle

He doesn't like being exposed for using circular reasoning so, he tries to reframe logic all together so, "...how do you know circular reasoning is invalid?"

Gawd!

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,11:00   

What's with all the Canadian creotards all of a sudden? It seems Denyse has been getting more ass than we previously imagined.

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

I was like Oh my God! Its Jesus on a banana!  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2162
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,11:23   

I blame the Olympics.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,11:33   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,11:23)
I blame the Olympics.

As in ..."Special Olympics"?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
paragwinn



Posts: 421
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,19:22   

Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 24 2009,11:33)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,11:23)
I blame the Olympics.

As in ..."Special Olympics"?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Sex Olympics.

Couldn't resist...therefore God exists.

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2009,06:30   

TARD (now in HD....;-) )....

Well, it turns out the gentleman has made a guest appearance on......Eric Hovind show!

Get your boots on!

http://erichovind.blogspot.com/2009....-1.html

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2009,14:57   

I've always wondered why, if God is God, he [sic] could not both exist and not exist. :)

Or, if we want to get into Andre Breton's surrealism, how the concepts of the surrealist object (existence is not something that just "happens" to a thing) and of the Marvelous throws a wrench into the theist worldview. (Cue VMartin posting somewhere in JAD's wake about my "confusion" in 3, 2...)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2009,18:39   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 28 2009,12:57)
I've always wondered why, if God is God, he [sic] could not both exist and not exist. :)

Or why he [sic] would trifle with something as puny and worldly as existence.  The truest testament to God's power is the effect he is able to have on human minds despite not existing.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2009,10:47   

Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 24 2009,08:28)
This is a snippet of one of his responses:

Quote
The existence of God is not based on 'circumstantial evidence.' It is actually because God exists that anyone can call ANYTHING 'evidence.' God is the necessary precondition for the proof or evidence of anything as both presuppose the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws, which cannot be accounted for outside of God, and are accounted for with God. You see Lisa, the very fact that you say that the site "really doesn't prove anything,' shows a precommitment to the very concept of proof which YOU cannot account for without God.

As far as you saying that it is "obvious to everyone" why I created the site, or basically, "It's true, because we all say it's true," I hope that's not your best argument, cause it that is a logical fallacy of "argumentum ad populum."

Sure lot'sof people say that "a god" exists, but it is usually not God at all, but an idol of their own making, so that they do not have to submit to the one true God of Christianity.


There...so, you can stop doing all the "sciencey" stuff.

But if God neccesary for water to exist, then why isn't he required for water to flow downhill?!?!?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2009,12:30   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2009,16:47)
Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 24 2009,08:28)
This is a snippet of one of his responses:

 
Quote
The existence of God is not based on 'circumstantial evidence.' It is actually because God exists that anyone can call ANYTHING 'evidence.' God is the necessary precondition for the proof or evidence of anything as both presuppose the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws, which cannot be accounted for outside of God, and are accounted for with God. You see Lisa, the very fact that you say that the site "really doesn't prove anything,' shows a precommitment to the very concept of proof which YOU cannot account for without God.

As far as you saying that it is "obvious to everyone" why I created the site, or basically, "It's true, because we all say it's true," I hope that's not your best argument, cause it that is a logical fallacy of "argumentum ad populum."

Sure lot'sof people say that "a god" exists, but it is usually not God at all, but an idol of their own making, so that they do not have to submit to the one true God of Christianity.


There...so, you can stop doing all the "sciencey" stuff.

But if God neccesary for water to exist, then why isn't he required for water to flow downhill?!?!?

You, sir, would have for this very question to engage the "gentleman" known as Erasmus. If all else fails, you can still adress your demands to Yodel Elf inc., although every and all courriers sent there never made it back...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2009,17:20   

Yeah that definitely begs the question. I prefer to look at the empirical evidence to support my conclusions. In reference to the empirical evidence, what are your thoughts on where the empirical evidence leads? Can we safely say that material mechanisms are responsible for all that we observe in our universe? Is there any room for some kind of mechanism that is immaterial or at least contrary to natural selection? I know these are rather broad questions. Maybe give me what you (anyone in this forum) think are the best arguments for your view either way.

  
khan



Posts: 1486
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2009,17:23   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 03 2009,18:20)
Yeah that definitely begs the question. I prefer to look at the empirical evidence to support my conclusions. In reference to the empirical evidence, what are your thoughts on where the empirical evidence leads? Can we safely say that material mechanisms are responsible for all that we observe in our universe? Is there any room for some kind of mechanism that is immaterial or at least contrary to natural selection? I know these are rather broad questions. Maybe give me what you (anyone in this forum) think are the best arguments for your view either way.

Show me your supernatural entities.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2009,18:01   

Quote
Show me your supernatural entities.


That's what she said.


(Can't.  Help.  Self!  Force.  Too.  Strong.)

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2009,21:54   

Okay, I meant to send a response to Khan but I wanted everyone to be able to see it.  So here it is a second time (I think the first one just went to khan). I'm not sure what you mean Khan by your statement. Also I didn't say where I stood. I asked what are the best arguments for either view. Do you or anyone else have an answer to the question? I'm trying to get a grasp on some of the best arguments for a strictly naturalistic universe and/or arguments that leave the door open to other possibilities.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2009,22:57   

christ.

come on it ain't that difficult.

Quote
show me your supernatural entitties.

we wanna see 'em waggle around

we ain't just playing skeptic cause we like the way it sounds!

ALL YALL GET YOUR ENTITTIES OUT

and put them in the air

let us see them like your gods made you

and show us that you care!


don't got any?  STFU with all yer damn noise about X Y and Z then

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,04:00   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 03 2009,23:20)
Yeah that definitely begs the question. I prefer to look at the empirical evidence to support my conclusions. In reference to the empirical evidence, what are your thoughts on where the empirical evidence leads? Can we safely say that material mechanisms are responsible for all that we observe in our universe? Is there any room for some kind of mechanism that is immaterial or at least contrary to natural selection? I know these are rather broad questions. Maybe give me what you (anyone in this forum) think are the best arguments for your view either way.

Was that a slip of the tongue?
Because, natural selection is an empirical fact.

To the rest of your question: That doesn't make sense.
Empirical facts stem from repeated observation.
Let's say I conduct a simple experiment and add a substance X to some cells and measure the growth rate. I find in repeated experiments that compared to cells that I left alone the cells grow faster after I've added the substance.
So, "substance X makes that cell type grow faster" is an empirical fact - but only, if I accept that the same would happen everytime someone would do the same. If a supernatural entity can interfere at random then I can never say that "substance X makes that cell type grow faster". I could only say that "substance X makes that cell type grow faster if the supernatural entity allows it". If someone repeated my experiments and those experiments failed to show a faster growth I could say that the supernatural entity had hindered the cells from growing in those experiments.
Sounds ridiculous? Definitely.
Because it's only possible to generalise observations if those observations are based on a "material" mechanism that works the same at all times.
Does that exclude that there's a supernatural entity around or specifically, that in my hypothetic experiment it wasn't a supernatural entity that makes my cells grow faster whenever substance X is around? No. But for all practical purposes we're better off if we assume that there is no supernatural entity or if there is that it doesn't interfere. How would you even go about testing a hypothesis if your results could either mean your hypothesis is right/wrong or a supernatural entity messed with your experiment?

All science procedes as if there isn't an interfering supernatural entity. It has to. Otherwise generalisations were impossible. Hypothesis testing were impossible. And the thing is - it works. Again, that doesn't mean that there isn't a supernatural entity or that the supernatural entity, if there is one, never interferes. You can't prove a negative.
But, it is an empirical fact that experiments are repeatable. All of science shows that. So, the parsimonious explanation for the time being is that there is no interfering supernatural entity.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Quack



Posts: 1802
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,04:51   

Quote
Sure lot'sof people say that "a god" exists, but it is usually not God at all, but an idol of their own making, so that they do not have to submit to the one true God of Christianity.


What a pity the one true God of Christianity is so reluctant to reveal himself to men.

Maybe he'd care to tell us how to detect the difference between idols and The God? Can we seduce God into unmasking himself or is he as deaf and blind as we have reasons to believe?

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,05:14   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 03 2009,17:20)
Yeah that definitely begs the question. I prefer to look at the empirical evidence to support my conclusions. In reference to the empirical evidence, what are your thoughts on where the empirical evidence leads? Can we safely say that material mechanisms are responsible for all that we observe in our universe?

As best anybody can tell, yes. Science does a great job with phenomena that operate according to regular rules which are discoverable; heck, there have been scientific investigations of the power of intercessory prayer, okay? The main reason so many people think science cannot do anything with "supernatural" or "immaterial" phenomena, is that these "supernatural"/"immaterial" phenomena don't seem to operate according to regular, discoverable rules.
Quote
Is there any room for some kind of mechanism that is immaterial or at least contrary to natural selection?

That depends on what you mean by "room for". If you're asking about whether there are any aspects of the universe that we know for certain are flatly incapable of being accounted for by any conceivable concatenation of material/natural/physical mechanisms, and therefore require some sort of immaterial/supernatural/nonphysical mechanism, the answer is "no". If, on the other hand, you're asking about whether there are any aspects of the Universe that we do not yet have a decent explanation for, and for which it is therefore conceivable that some sort of immaterial/supernatural/nonphysical mechanism might be required to account for them, the answer is "yes".
Quote
I know these are rather broad questions. Maybe give me what you (anyone in this forum) think are the best arguments for your view either way.

In my view, the best argument against supernatural processes is that there are lots of things which have, at various times and places, been deemed the result of supernatural processes... and every time someone figures out a way to test one of these things, it's always turned out to have a boring, ordinary, mundane, non-supernatural explanation. Lightning used to be a product of Thor or Zeus; now it's a natural weather phenomenon. The season of winter used to be the fault of Hades (see also: the story of Persephone); now it's a natural consequence of Earth's axial tilt. Earthquakes used to be caused by powerful entities like the Midgard Serpent; now they're the result of natural tectonic processes occuring in the Earth's crust.
Apart from the fact that all supernatural "explanations" thus far have proved to be either wrong or untestable, I find it compelling that the word "supernatural" doesn't really mean anything -- it's a word without a well-defined referent, which (as fas as I can tell) is, in practical terms, interchangeably synonymous with the phrase "something I don't understand".  If you think the word "supernatural" does have any meaning beyond "something I don't understand", great! Can you tell me what that meaning is, please?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,07:53   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 03 2009,21:54)
Okay, I meant to send a response to Khan but I wanted everyone to be able to see it. So here it is a second time (I think the first one just went to khan). I'm not sure what you mean Khan by your statement. Also I didn't say where I stood. I asked what are the best arguments for either view. Do you or anyone else have an answer to the question? I'm trying to get a grasp on some of the best arguments for a strictly naturalistic universe and/or arguments that leave the door open to other possibilities.

best argument I've seen against a god or gods or godesses...
http://scienceblogs.com/notrock....age.php

Personally, I agree with this.  It's amazing how 'god' allows things to occur in one culture, but not in another.  Or how one person can think one way and know it's the Truf and how another person can call the first a heathen because the second person knows the Truf and the two Trufs are different.

You'd think god would like a little less ambiguity in his followers... unless he/she/it likes watching holy wars instead of reality TV like the rest of us. [Isn't that a depressing though: The universe is just a reality TV show for a bunch of hyper advanced aliens.]

Anyway, as I've asked before... please describe the difference (how we can measure and expected values of said measurements) between a universe that was specifically designed and one that occured via naturalistic methods.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2162
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,14:44   

Y'all know where this "inquiry" is head, dontcha.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
  160 replies since Nov. 24 2009,07:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]