God exists: yet another proof
Offline Hello all,
I recently stumbled upon this website: SOURCE. It has a few HUNDRED proofs of God's existence. I haven't really looked at all of them yet but the first few seem okay. Give it a look, it might make you think. Anyway, I figure that the following argument should give you pause about being an atheist.
1. This website has many arguments for God.
2. An atheist cannot say with 100% certainty that any empirical statement is false.
3. Many of these arguments use nothing but empirical premises.
4. Therefore, many of these arguments have a nonzero probability of being true.
5. If these arguments are true, God exists.
6. Therefore, there is a nonzero probability that God exists.
Regards,
~Presuppositionalist
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
- Login to post comments
And so the agnostic-atheists shrug and say "We knew that."
So if the chances of there being a god is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001:1, what's the point of beliving? Or is this some variation on Pascal's wager?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Are you that stupid that you don't realize that site is a parody making fun of people like you?
This is untrue. Falsifiability is the essence of scientific empiricism. There are many empirical statements that are 100% certainly false.
There is a group of empirical statement that are immune to falsifiability. These are not scientific. This is exactly the sort of "empirical premises" presented on the godlessgeeks website. They cannot be falsified, and so are not subject to scientific scrutiny. As such, they belong in the realm of the purely-philosophic, and not in reality.
Many atheists would not dispute this statement. Many would claim the probability of God's existence is pretty close to zero, though.
Me, I'd say it's so effectively zero, it's indistinguishable from zero.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I vote for yes.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Seems like the name of the website would've given it away, yes?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I enjoyed their website for a long time. However, as an atheist I've always used it to destroy arguments of theists. Apparently you are unaware that it is run by atheists. LOLOLOLOLOLOL gawd I hope you are just shitting us because that is just too funny.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
I think he was serious. Presup just gave himself the reare self-PWN.
I was trying to get at this on the other post a little bit. So I have two other questions.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14897
1) If the probability for the existence of God with strong atheism is close to 0, what is the P(God) for weak atheism and agnosticism? This is given a very general definition of God like "something that has always existed"
2) If the universe was static I could see where we would just think its always been this way in some form. Why doesn't the big bang, the singularity at the beginning, reasoned from its expanding, and then maybe even the fine tuning arguments push P(God) up to like 10% or something for a rational person.
I can't make up my mind. This is either one of the most elegant self-mockings I've ever seen, or you don't think about what something says if you agree with what you think it says.
I will happily stipulate that the probability of a god existing is strictly greater than zero.
I will happily stipulate that the probability of all the oxygen molecules in the room in which you are now sitting will congregate in the lowest, most southerly corner of your room for a period of five minutes is strictly greater than zero.
Figuring out which event is more probable is left as an exercise for the reader. Please show your work.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
I believe an agnostic atheist would say that P(God) is undefined, for any definition of God.
As for 2), this is an argument from ignorance. Not your ignorance, but our collective ignornance. As we can only speculate about the events surrounding the start of the universe, there's no way that P(God) would be any more defined than in the agnostic atheist case.
For me, there is nothing to suggest that the start of the universe is any more supernatural than the existence of the universe. Therefore, it doesn't change P(God) to anything greater than 0.
As for the "fine tuning" (anthropic) arguments, there's again no reason to assume an external agent. For instance, Lee Smolin has presented the idea that universes evolve following principles similar to evolution through natural selection. He has some interesting books on the subject, and he's highly readable.
Anyway, that's my perspective.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
One of my favorites is number 30:
ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (II)
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(4) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
Thanks Nigel, I'll have to think about that...
This one if fantastic, and relevant.
(1) Jesus said that people would make fun of Christians.
(2) I am an idiot.
(3) People often point that out.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Those are both hilarious!
#23 is called "Dore's argument". Shouldn't it be IAGAY's argument?
(1) I forgot to take my meds.
(2) Therefore, I AM CHRIST!!
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
Do these sound familiar to anyone?
ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well?
(8] Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree.....
....
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is this going?
....
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J'' are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING?
....
(177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.
PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM ORIGINALITY
(1) I have written the following to demonstrate the existence of God.
(2) [insert entire text of a William Lane Craig article]
(3) Therefore, God exists.
PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM LIMITED VOCABULARY
(1) You use lots of big words.
(2) Therefore, I cannot possibly be expected to understand your refutation of my position.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question.]
(2) [Atheist answers question.]
(3) [A lapse of time]
(4) [Christian repeats question.]
(5) [Atheist repeats answer.]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Christian repeats question.]
(8] [Atheist repeats answer.]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) Atheist, you never answered my question.
(11) Therefore, God exists.
In all seriousness dude, look at the masthead of the frickin page. It says in big blue bold letters;
"From the Atheists of Silicon Valley Humor Page."
The webpage it is from is called www.godlessgeeks.com for crying out bloody loud.
When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...
Sir, I'm aware that this was posted on an atheistic website. I suspect that they were trying to give the theistic point of view. Very democratic of them really.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
Wow. You really are stupid if you don't get the parody.
Well clearly you are illiterate in the language of Deadpan Sarcasm, IE;
"The act of saying something completely absurd or obviously playing off a piece of satire with no evidence given from the speaker of the Deadpan Sarcasm that it is unture, while giving every superficial indication that the speaker completely believes what they are saying is valid, locial, reasonable, intelligent, and relevant."
Here's a good example of something I posted as a comment on the YouTube video "What Richard Dawkins doesnt want you to know ..."
'Sorry, I hate to tell you this, but the bipedal Mechs are still in Beta. We've got the locomotive systems and the weaponry down pat, but the OS is still in Alpha and the Graphical User Interface is barely working. Right now we're essentially using a third party port of the Mechwarrior 4 Control System running on a Windows 98SE Platform.
The Quadrupedal mechs are fully functional, but I put the ETA on the Bipedal mechs at around 3-6 months for a working version."
-Me
This is easiest to get across in person so it would be understandable that most would be incapable of discerning it from actual seriousness in an internet setting, especially considering Deadpan Sarcasm requires that the speaker not hint at any possible humourous emotions, so smilies are unable to be used, but still. This is why you read through an entire article before you use it as a source, because if you had you would have noticed that after the first like 0 or so they all become nothing more than examples of theists making themselves look stupid.
Furthermore if they were intended to be used as actual proofs of god's existence then each one would have taken up at least a couple of paragraphs defining terms and making connections, none of these do so. They perposefully leave the points with no connections between them as a way of demonstrating that the points most theists raise to 'support' their position have no logical connections betwixt them.
Then again, perhaps you are literate in Deadpan Sarcasm....
When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...
Good evening, I hope you are well.
I also hope you forgive my ignorance. That is, I hope you will add a bit that leads you to :
I looked at 1-4 and to tell the truth, even putting 'em all together they looked nothing like 5.
Could you please connect the dots for this dog?
Thanking you in advance. i.e. tq
Good eve again and just a small side q:
Is there anything else you can tell us about this probable god?
I mean, existence is a kuhl thing.
I suspect for a god it might not be the only thing.
And you've kinda described it like it, existence, is indeed the only thing for a god.
If this is not true, would you please relay the other aspects of a god that you notice?
Thanks.
To be fair, the distinction between apologetics and satire is only the sincerity of the apologist.
Sorry Presup, but those arguments are obviously meant as jokes. Did you really think that they are valid arguments?
That explains why some people can believe in the bible if some people can believe that those proofs are real.
But to the point...
I am 99.99% sure that there is no god, as there is no evidence to even indicate that a god is necessary in our universe, let alone evidence for existence.
I am 100% sure that if there is a god it is not the god of any religion on this planet.
Therefore, if god exists, it would be a deist type god that does not require anything from us mere humans.
Therefore, it does not matter if I am wrong about that, because said god wouldn't care.
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
Because it doesn't follow from 1-4. The arguments in the link are arguments for God. Obviously, if they are sound, God exists.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
See the arguments. They demonstrate a few different aspects of his being, I think.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
I grant that the atheists clearly didn't do very much research on some of the arguments, but then again that's to be expected of an atheist. "The gist" of the arguments remains.
Hey, it's not my fault if they present the arguments poorly.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
those aren't arguments; they're assumptions. You can't use assumptions to conclude something exists, and they aren't proof of aspects of being. I can assume you like chasing after bludgers but that doesn't mean bludgers exist. In other words, assuming things doesn't make them so.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
I'm not sure why you're declaring them all assumptions. Is that easier than actually engaging the logic?
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
no, it's easier than accepting delusion and embracing insanity.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
Presup!!! They are not arguments!!! The whole thing is a Joke!!!
I can make one up:
1) Some christians are so indoctrined that they think everything points to the existence of god and are totally unable to take on new information, like a racehorse running in cirlces.
2) therefore, God exists.
That was a joke by the way!!!!
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
The webiste's a parody. Your attempt to use the website is itself a parody. Nice joke. Ha ha. Get on with your life please.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
I'm starting to wonder is presup a parody. I find it hard to believe anyone capable of typing in complete sentences could possibly be stupid enough to think those were meant as serious arguments for god.
By the way, this one's quite familiar:
ARGUMENT FROM FORMATTING
(1) Behold, foolish Atheists, I present you with an incontrovertible proof of the existence of God.
(2) [Christian posts 10,000 word document without a single paragraph break.]
(3) [Atheist's eyes implode.]
(4) I see that nobody can refute (2).
(5) Therefore, God exists.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
there are people out there that use that very argument, and yes, they call themselves christians. I should know, my fundie sister uses this technique quite frequently, and has the head lumps to prove it.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
TL/DR is the proper response to that argument. Note to Christians: Very few people are willing to read anything on the internet that can't be read at normal text size without scrolling. And use paragraphs for the Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake!
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I can't seem to force myself to read this whole thread. Has anyone mentioned that Presup is evidence of a corollary to Poe's Law? There are Christians who are so brainwashed that they cannot differentiate humor from actual attempts at apologetics.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Theism is neither delusion nor insanity. Ask any psychologist. Also stop taking your opinions from Dawkins.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
Then please demonstrate concrete evidence for the existence of God. Note: Please do not reference a web page where people are mocking you and claim that's proof.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
But you're getting your opinions from goat herders who have been dead for 2000 yrs
right?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Hey ronin I don't really like your argument, but it's much better than the ones you usually make. So, good work. Keep it up.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
What god?
Interesting in that theism has no empirical arguments. So theism is 100% fictitious? I"ve actually come to that conclusion.
Most of these arguments use imaginary premises. Thats why they are a joke.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Presupp:
Please provide evidence that the Earth was created in six literal days 6,000 years ago. If you can do this, I'll wear the troll avatar you so despise for the remainder of the year.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
533.
ARGUMENT FROM HELL AND ETERNAL TORMENT (ST. AUGUSTINE'S ARGUMENT FOR HELL)
(1) If there is no hell, then I can't watch souls punished for eternity.
(2) When I'm in heaven, I want to watch souls in eternal torment.
(3) God is necessary for heaven and hell to exist.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
466.
ARGUMENT FROM REPETITION
(1) God exists.
(2) God exists.
(3) God exists.
57.
ARGUMENT FROM LONELINESS
(1) Christians say that Jesus is their best friend.
(2) I'm lonely, and I want a best friend.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
666.
ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
If somehow you saw something in one or two of these assertions you thought was a valid statement but just presented poorly it says a lot why you believe. Just admit you jumped to a conclusion and misunderstood. I realize that's very hard for a theist to do.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Is that a promise? *grinning madly*
(Accidentally posted this as "Anonymous" earlier. If someone could kill that post, I would be grateful...)
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
Presup -
Regarding the quote in your sig; I'm not going to ask that you change it, or take it down. Cherry-picking statements and taking phrases out of context with magical ellipses is a time-honored tradition of spin. In the interests of adhering to the rules of that viewpoint, I note that you have provided the original source, thus allowing you to claim you are not trying to deceive. However, I think I must ask that you also include the specific sourcing on the second and third phrases, so as to avoid charges that you are claiming he says those things in the specific reply you have referenced. As things stand, you are sourcing your entire quote to that one reply, and should you continue to do so, that is fraud. Kindly list all of your sourcing, so as not to be mis-attributing statements and potentially open yourself up to issues of libel. Thank you.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
That quote has been removed. I have nothing but respect for Matt and would never perpetuate a conflict on this forum.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
Probably more than half of of my posts are a form of parody, as is my pen name.
The Christ and me are ONE, as all is connected, therefore God is atheist.
Gawed is a no-brainer, worthless waste of time stuck in the unfalsifiable "why" , as religion is loaded with brainless dogma, and in my opinion most dogma and superstition is falsifiable by elementary science.
In other words, arguing about gawed is largely pointless, where as arguing against religion dogmas is more to the point ..... ((( fix my words
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Anyhow, thanks for the very xlint funny site in the OP ..., me god ! Here it is again,
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Remember this guy ?!!! >>> "gisburne" , 10 min vid,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QYx3m-piLA
Atheism Books.
They ALL contain blatant, unsupported assertions.
For example:
1."If reason exists then God exists." This is close to some actual apologeticist arguments, but by itself is simply an assertion.
2. "If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause." This is a simple parody of the sort of statement often made in such 'proofs', not usually as blatant as this, but amounting to the same thing.
Logical arguments can be valid, but that does not make the conclusions true - that depends on the truth of the premises.
Most of the 'arguments' here contain unproven or irrelevant assertions in their premise, so whether or not they are logically valid they do not consistute proof. Many are not logically valid, or contain simple non-sequiters. This leaves zero actual proofs of God here, which is true generally. There are no sound or valid proofs of God, independently of whether he somehow actually exists or not. There is not even good suggestive evidence.
But one shouldn't expect awareness of what constitutes a proper argument from someone who presumably thinks Presuppositionalism is a respectable position.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
That works. Thankee.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
The most proves for god are logical fallacies or nonsense like
1.Shit is brown
2. Therefore god exists
3. god is real
O and for me god disproves himself go here to find out why
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15031
Warning I’m not a native English speaker.
http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download
Why do we give attention-seekers like Presup any of our time? He is obviously just saying stupid things to get a response because he doesn't have any friends. He is obviously a retard, a child or both.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov