God exists.

Discussion in 'Trolls & Lulz' started by Suiseiseki, Aug 12, 2011.

  1. Suiseiseki

    Suiseiseki
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Hero

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    497
    Prove me wrong.
     
  2. $$Trooper

    $$Trooper
    Expand Collapse
    I'm $$Trooper, a badass commie nigger.

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,697
    Occupation:
    Dank Memes professor of Dank Community College.
    Home Page:
    God has a pretty wild sense of humor; see Holocaust and the platypus.
     
  3. darren

    darren
    Expand Collapse
    Dramacrat

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    286
    He's hiding with all the leprechauns and unicorns.
     
  4. SPQR

    SPQR
    Expand Collapse
    8===D

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    507
    I have never seen god therefore he does not exist. Prove me wrong.
     
  5. SuperSpecialSuperStar

    SuperSpecialSuperStar
    Expand Collapse
    2011 Faggot of the Year

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,401
    Occupation:
    Frog Mercenary
    Home Page:
    Atheism and Theism is bullshit since there's no proof he exists or not.
     
  6. faggotmaximum

    faggotmaximum
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Hero

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,563
    Occupation:
    rape
    Establish the possibility first, fgt.
     
  7. Seku

    Seku
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,883
    Occupation:
    bad bich
    Home Page:
    [​IMG]FSM Rule 34
     
  8. CallMeMaggot

    CallMeMaggot
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    14,477
    Home Page:
    [​IMG]
    Done

    Easy pie
     
  9. Zaichata

    Zaichata
    Expand Collapse
    Here for the "Intellectual Debates"

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    810
    Occupation:
    Lazy college senior
    It's not up to us to prove you wrong. Humans have existed for 175, 000 years. Christian faith for about 2000-3000 years (if being very generous).

    You're the one imposing a new theory, we aren't.
     
  10. Suiseiseki

    Suiseiseki
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Hero

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    497
  11. robman33

    robman33
    Expand Collapse
    Dramacrat

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    555
    Occupation:
    Devout of the Church of Euthanasia
    The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absense. -Samuel L. Jackson
     
  12. Zaichata

    Zaichata
    Expand Collapse
    Here for the "Intellectual Debates"

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    810
    Occupation:
    Lazy college senior
    "St Thomas Aquinas rejected St. Anselm's ontological argument.[10] Likewise, some Catholic theologians have rejected[11] Gödel's revised version.[9] Bertrand Russell noted: "The argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."[12]However, Russell was also known to say: "Great God in Boots! — the ontological argument is sound!" as a parody,[13] including many others that parodied it, such as Gaunilo's Island. In Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant famously rejected existence as a property.[14]
    In David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, the character Cleanthes argues that no being could ever be proven to exist through an a priori demonstration:[15]
    [T]here is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.
    C. Anthony Anderson has said:[16]
    Consideration of the axioms, especially ... [Axiom 2], may tend to dampen one's confidence in ... [Axiom 3] and ... [Axiom 4] — that is, if one harbors any real doubt about self-consistency. I don't say that the argument begs the questions of ... [God's possible existence]; the charge is too difficult to establish. but observe that one cannot just tell by scrutinizing a property what it entails; one might be surprised at a consequence.
    There have been many other arguments against ontological proofs such as: Existence precedes essence; Gaunilo's island; Necessary nonexistence; Existence is not a predicate; andProblem of incoherence."

    That's a highly criticized theorem you give us. It hasn't been proven scientifically and it does not enjoy a general scientific consensus of its correctness. It is a speculative theoretical model. I do admit, the numbers and shit made me shit my pants for a minute there because I was so overwhelmed by your intellectual capacities, but next time, try to come up with something that is uncontested and makes sense to people who don't fap to linux source code.
     
  13. Zaichata

    Zaichata
    Expand Collapse
    Here for the "Intellectual Debates"

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    810
    Occupation:
    Lazy college senior
    Also, you probably don't know how theorems work there, but the key word that always comes with theorems is "proven". The theorem has not been proven and thus cannot serve as an argument we are supposed to invalidate.
     
  14. SPQR

    SPQR
    Expand Collapse
    8===D

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    507
    Niggers, logic they have not. -Yoda
     
  15. SPQR

    SPQR
    Expand Collapse
    8===D

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    507
    Wtf is this encoded homsexual cyber sex text.
     
  16. Suiseiseki

    Suiseiseki
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Hero

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    497
  17. SPQR

    SPQR
    Expand Collapse
    8===D

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    507
  18. faggotmaximum

    faggotmaximum
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Hero

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,563
    Occupation:
    rape
    the ontological argument is bullshit
     
  19. Seku

    Seku
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,883
    Occupation:
    bad bich
    Home Page:
    Penis
     
  20. SPQR

    SPQR
    Expand Collapse
    8===D

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    507
    Vagina
     
  21. Zaichata

    Zaichata
    Expand Collapse
    Here for the "Intellectual Debates"

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    810
    Occupation:
    Lazy college senior
  22. Seku

    Seku
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,883
    Occupation:
    bad bich
    Home Page:
    You've gone too far this time.
     
  23. Beefcake

    Beefcake
    Expand Collapse
    Best-selling author

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,302
    Although this argument is valid, it is not sound. There is no proof that any God-like being has always existed. Therefore, in temporal logic, the ontological argument does not work. Also, if God has not always existed then God would have a negative attribute, and could not be God.

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", as Carl Sagan so eloquently said. Thinking that a magical sky wizard did it, is very extraordinary.

    [​IMG]

    He's laughing at you.
     
  24. Rock

    Rock
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,645
    Occupation:
    Pretty boy swag'n
    Home Page:
    Can I borrow twenty bucks from you?
     
  25. Seku

    Seku
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,883
    Occupation:
    bad bich
    Home Page:
    You can take my money whenever you'd like.
     
  26. Suiseiseki

    Suiseiseki
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Hero

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    497
    God will never be proven scientifically. To ask for God to be proven scientifically would be to misunderstand what God is. God is not an object, like a chair or a table or a spoon. It's not an object like the black holes, galaxies, stars, etc. Whether you interpret God pantheistically or theistically, as an immanent or transcendent principle, it is either the ground of all reality or something completely outside of our reality. Therefore, it is wholly outside the scope of science.

    What does this mean? It means that is not a thing among other thing, but either the thing-ness of things, or no-thing, not a some-thing. The philosopher Martin Heidegger called this distinction the ontological difference.

    The ontological argument shows that God is rational. And whatever is rational, is real. There are many more things that are rational but can't be scientifically proven. I'm too lazy to type them, I'll link to a guy that lists some of them here:



    How does it feel to have your ass served on a plate? I can't even have fun debating atheists anymore, because it's too easy.
     
  27. Seku

    Seku
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,883
    Occupation:
    bad bich
    Home Page:
    God exists.
     
  28. Grapeluv

    Grapeluv
    Expand Collapse
    Ediot

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    82
    [​IMG]

    But my friends, isn't this all the proof we need that God exists?
     
  29. Beefcake

    Beefcake
    Expand Collapse
    Best-selling author

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,302
    Good job ignoring my post brah.
     
  30. Reginald

    Reginald
    Expand Collapse
    Dramacrat

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    245
    You are Pepsi to David's Coca-Cola.