Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Trolls & Lulz' started by Suiseiseki, Aug 12, 2011.
Prove me wrong.
God has a pretty wild sense of humor; see Holocaust and the platypus.
He's hiding with all the leprechauns and unicorns.
I have never seen god therefore he does not exist. Prove me wrong.
Atheism and Theism is bullshit since there's no proof he exists or not.
Establish the possibility first, fgt.
FSM Rule 34
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.
You say the burden of proof is on me, so here's the logical proof:
This is a proof elaborated by a great mathematician, Kurt Gödel. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof for further info.
So until you prove that wrong, God exists.
The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absense. -Samuel L. Jackson
"St Thomas Aquinas rejected St. Anselm's ontological argument. Likewise, some Catholic theologians have rejected Gödel's revised version. 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."However, Russell was also known to say: "Great God in Boots! — the ontological argument is sound!" as a parody, including many others that parodied it, such as Gaunilo's Island. In Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant famously rejected existence as a property.
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:
[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:
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.
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.
Niggers, logic they have not. -Yoda
Wtf is this encoded homsexual cyber sex text.
It's called predicate logic : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic
The moar you know.
Oh some bullshit thought up by some gay foreigner, no thanks im American.
the ontological argument is bullshit
Why are you ignoring my reply?
You've gone too far this time.
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.
He's laughing at you.
Can I borrow twenty bucks from you?
You can take my money whenever you'd like.
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.
But my friends, isn't this all the proof we need that God exists?
Good job ignoring my post brah.
You are Pepsi to David's Coca-Cola.