Five hundred eighty proofs of God's Existence

Godslayer Jillian · 02-03-2009, 04:51 PM

I can proudly (or should I be ashamed?) say I have encountered and argued against over fifty of these arguments as if they were solid.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
But after seeing all the possibilities, I wish I could find new people that will try to use the other 400+ arguments

Albert Mond · 02-03-2009, 05:21 PM

Number 24 is perfect.

Godslayer Jillian · 02-03-2009, 05:39 PM

# ARGUMENT FROM ASSHOLE
(1) God exists, asshole.
(2) Therefore, God exists. Asshole.

Albert Mond · 02-03-2009, 05:42 PM

94's great, too.

ARGUMENT FROM TEEN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT
(1) God is so totally awesome, dude, and if you would pretend that Creed and POD were good bands, you would realize that.
(2) Also, our Youth Group leader Skip once, like, cured a broken leg using only the power of the almighty Lord.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Corpsey · 02-03-2009, 05:45 PM

Amusing...

This one was sad and true, however.

Quote:

ARGUMENT FROM SADISM (I)
(1) I enjoy beating children.
(2) I find some justification for it in the Bible.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Opteron_Man · 02-03-2009, 05:48 PM

There is not a single shred of hard evidence that any "God" exists. Atleast, none that I know of. Science is what we have. I don't want to insult anybody who does believe in "God",
In fact all of my family (except me) believes in God. But the theory that a supernatural being exists and created everything we have is just ridicules mumbo-jumbo and highly improbable.
If you believe in religion, fine, that is your call. I am not saying that you are bad, just misguided. I think the belief in a god or indeed any supernatural being is misguided and irrational. Don't be ashamed Godslayer Jillian, go do your research. Don’t rely on ancient stories; concentrate on hard facts and real science.I would like to apologize if I stepped on anybody’s toes here. That was not my intention at all.

This is a sensitive topic in the world particularly now.

Godslayer Jillian · 02-03-2009, 06:26 PM

Jesus Christ, you're a fucking idiot.

Slap Your Love · 02-03-2009, 07:51 PM

This statement provided on the Why Atheism page is
a complete failure:

"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

This is why Agnosticism>Atheism. There is not
enough proof to prove or disprove the existence of
a God. The rest is faith.

LaBelleDameSansMerci · 02-03-2009, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proof of God #4

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

I would argue that one of the qualities of perfection is non-existence. I don't think I'm capable of believing in a perfect god. I could believe in an imperfect one, but not a perfect one.

nis~sijai · 02-03-2009, 08:02 PM

*Captain Obvious to the rescue!*

Operton_Man: Jillian is saying that other people have used those reasonings as if they were solid and that he has argued with those people.

Godslayer Jillian · 02-03-2009, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

This statement provided on the Why Atheism page is
a complete failure:

"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

This is why Agnosticism>Atheism. There is not
enough proof to prove or disprove the existence of
a God. The rest is faith.

Actually you've just proven you are the one erroneous, because for all intents and purposes absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.
The old saying goes backwards, but there's no actual grounding behind it. Saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" really means nothing. What is the philosophical ground for believing that saying? It is entirely arbitrary.

Granted, the appeal to ignorance goes both ways. Not seeing evidence of something does not mean that that something is inexistent; it merely means that the evidence for it has not been found.
But if we were to postulate we have discovered all information and we still have no evidence for a ridiculous claim, then the absence of such evidence is inherently and invariably evidence of absence.

Agnosticism then is not philosophically sound nor temporally practical.

Godslayer Jillian · 02-03-2009, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

I would argue that one of the qualities of perfection is non-existence.

I agree!
I actually argued that in high school. One of the qualities of perfection is its non-plausability.
We can imagine a perfect pendulum - one with no mass on its connector so its motion is not stunted by mass other than the one in its end.
But in real life, if the connector had no mass, then it wouldn't exist. The less mass a connector in a pendulum has, the more it resembles the perfect pendulum, but it can never BE perfect.
Equally, if the point of a vehicle is to go from point A to point B as fast as possible, then the hypothetical perfect vehicle is one that reaches from point A to point B in no time. But a vehicle has to travel through time, however minimally, to travel through space, so it's all about how minimal that space is so that it might resemble its perfected ideal as much as possible.

gothicusmaximus · 02-03-2009, 08:14 PM

I remember this from my early youth. I think this one is my favorite:

ARGUMENT FROM A VIDEO I WATCHED WITH MY DAD
(1) Me and my dad watched this video where the Virgin Mary appeared on a building in Egypt. No, it was kinda blurry...lots of people saw it though and they were pointing at it.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

This is why Agnosticism>Atheism. There is not
enough proof to prove or disprove the existence of
a God. The rest is faith.

Why do people keep saying stupid shit like this? You can't proof that I don't have a pet afghani unicorn bigfoot that is invisible and incorporeal to all but me. That's why not being sure whether I have a pet afghani unicorn bigfoot > thinking I'm crazy.

Slap Your Love · 02-03-2009, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

No. Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. you can't disprove what is beyond the grasp of human knowledge. I can say there is a giant cookie in another dimension which cannot be seen by humans and I could neither prove it or you could not disprove it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Not seeing evidence of something does not mean that that something is inexistent; it merely means that the evidence for it has not been found.

Correct

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

But if we were to postulate we have discovered all information and we still have no evidence for a ridiculous claim, then the absence of such evidence is inherently and invariably evidence of absence.

One can never discover all information on anything. Ever. Therefore, again, no. absence of evidence is absence of evidence and that is all.

Agnosticism is completely practical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Why do people keep saying stupid shit like this? You can't proof that I don't have a pet afghani unicorn bigfoot that is invisible and incorporeal to all but me. That's why not being sure whether I have a pet afghani unicorn bigfoot > thinking I'm crazy.

Because you also cannot prove that you do have one dumbfuck.

Godslayer Jillian · 02-03-2009, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

Agnosticism is completely practical.

Someone accuses you of stealing their 34 kilogram diamond.
No one can concretely prove for certain that you did or didn't steal it.
What are you hoping the court will decide about that?

Agnosticism is NOT practical, and you yourself know all the reasons, as you yourself said them, but you refuse to construe these reasons in a sensible and grounded manner.

gothicusmaximus · 02-03-2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

Because you also cannot prove that you do have one dumbfuck.

... And you can't offer the smallest shred of proof that god exists. So the situations are perfect parallels.

Albert Mond · 02-03-2009, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

... And you can't offer the smallest shred of proof that god exists. So the situations are perfect parallels.

...Isn't that essentially what she said?

Godslayer Jillian · 02-03-2009, 08:38 PM

At least SYL is good enough to admit God has the same relevance than your hypothetical pet afghani unicorn bigfoot that is invisible and incorporeal to all but you.
It's dumb, but at least it's not hypocritical.

Slap Your Love · 02-03-2009, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Someone accuses you of stealing their 34 kilogram diamond.
No one can concretely prove for certain that you did or didn't steal it.
What are you hoping the court will decide about that?

Agnosticism is NOT practical, and you yourself know all the reasons, as you yourself said them, but you refuse to construe these reasons in a sensible and grounded manner.

You win the lottery but someone steals your ticket.
"No one can concretely prove for certain that" he/she did "or didn't steal it."
"What are you hoping the court will decide about that?"

Agnosticism is practical in the sense that nothing can be proved or disproved in the existence of [a] God[s] or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

...Isn't that essentially what she said?

That is EXACTLY what he* said.

gothicusmaximus · 02-03-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

...Isn't that essentially what she said?

He implied that, by his logic, believing in my pet afghani unicorn bigfoot that is invisible and incorporeal to all but me wasn't more practical than thinking me crazy.

Edited for gender.

Slap Your Love · 02-03-2009, 08:44 PM

I stated that you cannot prove you have one or disprove it.

Godslayer Jillian · 02-03-2009, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

You win the lottery but someone steals your ticket.
"No one can concretely prove for certain that" he/she did "or didn't steal it."
"What are you hoping the court will decide about that?"

Ok, let's go with that.
Answer the question then. Let's see how practical agnosticism really is.

Quote:

Agnosticism is practical in the sense that nothing can be proved or disproved in the existence of [a] God[s] or not.

Only of Gods?
An entire philosophical premise is only subordinate to your whimsical decision that it is only applicable in the stupidly arbitrary occasion that is attributing absurd divinity to an absurd concept?
That's absurd! Not practical at all and certainly not a defensible position for anyone that actually knows what they're talking about.

Godslayer Jillian · 02-03-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

I stated that you cannot prove you have one or disprove it.

So he should have it up to consideration?

gothicusmaximus · 02-03-2009, 08:47 PM

So then you're just as willing to believe that I do have a pet afghani unicorn bigfoot as you are to believe that I don't?
Well... all right.

Slap Your Love · 02-03-2009, 08:49 PM

An entire philosophical subordinate to where it works. That's
insane! I am a functionalist in all aspects of life. What works simply
works.

In terms of God it can never be proved or disproved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

So then you're just as willing to believe that I do have a pet afghani unicorn bigfoot as you are to believe that I don't?
Well... all right.

Belief brings in faith. I have faith in God but cannot prove it.