Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Three-hundred proofs for the existence of God   (godlessgeeks.com) divider line 701
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

26444 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2003 at 7:28 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



701 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-07-31 01:09:40 PM  
wow. i'm convinced

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define talking poo to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, talking poo exists.
 
2003-07-31 01:25:06 PM  
Never watched 'South Park,' eh? ;)
 
2003-07-31 01:28:27 PM  
had a feeling that one was coming
 
2003-07-31 01:30:35 PM  
Im convinced.
 
2003-07-31 01:36:00 PM  
#15 & Bevets. Separated at birth?
 
2003-07-31 01:38:56 PM  
Well, the first 10 were all fallacial, so I didn't bother with the other 290, since they're probably based on flawed reasoning also. (I know, I'm making a hasty generalization.)
 
2003-07-31 01:43:23 PM  
The funny thing is, you can not prove that god does not exist, and for people this is enough for them to claim proof of his existence. Even though their is not one bit of evidence to prove he does exist.
Faith is not proof but it is all anyone has, and apparently it is enough proof for them.

And people who say just because we don't have the universe figured out (yet), and that there are things we can not explain (yet), that a god must exist.

Please don't argue your proof in god through ignorance with me.
 
2003-07-31 01:44:58 PM  
1) If God exists, there won't be people who post: "OMFG!! THERE WILL BE A FLAMEWAR?!?! LET ME POST A PICTURE OF A FIRE! I AM TEH FUNYNETE!"

2) Wait till end of the thread.

3) Therefore... Boobies are cool
 
2003-07-31 01:45:18 PM  
"Phoebe Cates"

Not only proof of God - but proof that God is a guy.
 
2003-07-31 01:46:04 PM  
Only a simpleton would say that it is 100% provable that God exists. That said, not being able to prove something is not an indicator of whether or not it is true.
 
2003-07-31 01:46:30 PM  
I wish God were still alive to read this thread.
 
2003-07-31 01:46:59 PM  
You_mean_Im_gonna_stay_this_color,

#14 ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid atheists -- it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
 
2003-07-31 01:47:50 PM  
ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION(II)
(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.

Jesus must be spinning in his grave right now!
 
2003-07-31 01:50:07 PM  
bump and bolax got me beat.
I surrender.
 
2003-07-31 01:50:52 PM  
Actually this one is kind of interesting.

337. MODIFIED TRILEMMA ARGUMENT
(1) Jesus was either lord, liar, or lunatic.
(2) Can you PROVE He was a liar or lunatic?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

No, I didn't read them all, just scrolled to the bottom and worked up... So much of them are just utter horse shiat and not even proofs. This one though actually has some meat!
 
2003-07-31 02:00:11 PM  
I think its pretty clear if you read it that they are supposed to be horseshiat. I think that list was compiled by a bunch of atheists from some newsgroup, as a list of arguments they would frequently come across from religoids.
 
2003-07-31 02:00:32 PM  
My proof:

Do you believe in luck? Sure you do. There's freaky shiat that happens all the time, like karma or the God of luck craps all over some folks, and he rains great genetics and a sweet life on others -- but not you, ya loser.

See? I just said God and you went along with it. Psyche!
 
2003-07-31 02:02:44 PM  
"Does god exist? Yes- god exists...but he's gay. He lives in a Jaguar on Santa Monica Boulevard."

Lee Ving
 
2003-07-31 02:06:15 PM  
I'd like to believe God is a fat guy in a recliner drinking beer.

I could be God!

WORSHIP ME!
 
2003-07-31 02:06:54 PM  
Sweet, sweet circular reasoning. My favorite has always been:
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

1) I define magical flying horses with hot, horny, naked sluts on their backs to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, magical flying horses with hot, horny, naked sluts on their backs exist.
 
2003-07-31 02:10:22 PM  
Thales: Where might I find these magical flying horses with hot, horny, naked sluts on their backs.
 
2003-07-31 02:14:32 PM  
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.


Bwahahaha! Lame.
 
2003-07-31 02:18:03 PM  
johnz16
Thales: Where might I find these magical flying horses with hot, horny, naked sluts on their backs.

I think they hang out with Odin.
 
2003-07-31 02:24:32 PM  
These proofs don't especially address the notion of faith. Christians (and others) care less about proving something than in believing something. That's what faith is all about. The notion of framing religious thought as "proofs" is off the mark, many believers will tell you. Regardless, the following proof (No. 234) probably comes closest to the mark.

ARGUMENT FROM LOGIC
(1) There are some things in logic that you can't logically demonstrate.
(2) Therefore you have to take them on faith.
(3) Your faith in logic is the same as my faith in God.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

-Chudstud

P.S.: Saying "let's approach God using scientific logic" is sort of akin to saying "let's approach mathematics using faith. ... Dear Lord, please solve this word problem for me. ..."
 
2003-07-31 02:28:27 PM  
This is some funny shiat...

ARGUMENT FROM SQUARE CIRCLES
(1) There is no such thing as a square circle.
(2) God is not a square circle.
(3) Therefore, God exists
 
2003-07-31 02:29:40 PM  
ARGUMENT FROM DOUGLAS ADAMS:

1) God refused to prove that he existed
2) The babel fish was a dead give-away since it is such an impossibility.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
 
2003-07-31 02:43:39 PM  
let me know when someone gets to meet him.
 
2003-07-31 02:47:14 PM  
Atticus FinchActually, the Ontological argument is the only argument that has thus far been impossible to disprove. It's a bit like pulling God out of a hat, but it's logically sound. This website only gives the abreviated version of the argument, however.

The argument originates from St. Anselm after a long fit praying to God for an irrefutable proof of his existence. Verbatim, it is:

"Therefore, Lord, who grant understanding to faith, grant me that, in so far as you know it beneficial, I understand that you are as we believe and you are that which we believe. Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined.

Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is.

For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his undertanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding.

And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality."

Boiled down into easy english:

There are real things and things that exist only in the imagination. Real things are greater than imaginary things because they have the positive quality of existence.

We are capable of conceiving of an entity that is greater than all other things in the universe. Thus, that entity exists in your imagination.

However, you can also conceive of that entity existing in reality, even if you don't believe that actually it does. An entity that exists only in your imagination is not as great as an entity that exists in your imagination and also in reality. That makes the real entity greater than the entity in your imagination. Thus, there is something greater (real greatest entity) than the greatest thing that you have imagined (greatest entity existing only in the imagination), which makes no sense, as the entity cannot be both the greatest and not the greatest. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that the entity exists both in your mind and in reality.

Focus all critique on Anselm's original; my simplification may have lost some of the finer details. Beware though; nobody has conclusively disproven the argument in a thousand years, and plenty of really great minds have tried.
 
2003-07-31 02:48:23 PM  
I like your magical flying horses with hot, horny, naked sluts on their backs, Thales, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2003-07-31 03:04:11 PM  
chakalakasp

The Ontological Argument has been disproved. All you have to do is plug pink unicorns in fuzzy purple sweaters into the argument in the place of god.
 
2003-07-31 03:09:56 PM  
ARGUMENT FROM RIGHTS
(1) The Declaration of Independence founded the U.S.
(2) Therefore, the Declaration of Independence is true.
(3) The Declaration of Independence says that our rights are "endowed by our Creator."
(4) George W. agrees with this.
(5) You have rights, don't you???
(6) Well where the f*** do you think they came from???
(7) Therefore, God exists.
 
2003-07-31 03:11:13 PM  
This has to be the best:

ARGUMENT FROM CLEVER USE OF VOCABULARY
(1) Many atheists will not be convinced by an argument with "Therefore, God exists" as its conclusion.
(2) Consequently, God exists.
 
2003-07-31 03:16:02 PM  
No, that refutation does not work. The argument applies to "that of which there is no greater" and only "that of which there is no greater". Unicorns, purple sweaters, and swiss toasters are not relevant to this proof.

You are correct in that it is absurd to say that just because I can imagine a unicorn, a unicorn must exist. But that has no implication to the Ontological Argument. A real unicorn may be greater than an imagined unicorn, but there is no logical crisis involved in this fact. The entire point of the Ontologocial argument is that that of which there could be no greater must, by nature, have no greater, and that imagining that of which there could be no greater creates this crisis, as the actual existence of that of which there could be no greater is greater than that which is in your imagination.

Pick up a Philosophy 101 type book.
 
2003-07-31 03:22:09 PM  
Here's a comprehendable english version:

1)It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).

2)God exists as an idea in the mind.

3)A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

4)Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).

5)But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)

6)Therefore, God exists.

The fallacy is in giving God the characteristic of being the greatest. This fallacy is what makes the Ontological Argument look sound at first, however just because I can imagine something doesn't mean it exists.


Disregard my pink unicorn example, that's the problem with Descartes' OA.
 
2003-07-31 03:25:19 PM  
Thales, I don't understand what you mean by "the fallacy is in giving God the characteristic of being the greatest". I doubt anyone else does, either.
 
2003-07-31 03:33:58 PM  
I should add, Thales that that's twice now you've simply declared the OA to be wrong or fallacious without explaining why. You are not correct just because you delcare yourself to be so, and it's rather boring entering to a discussion with someone who's only developed approach is a sense of detached smugness. Unless you come up with something useful, I'll just let Anselm's argument speak for itself.
 
2003-07-31 03:38:31 PM  
An entity that exists only in your imagination is not as great as an entity that exists in your imagination and also in reality. That makes the real entity greater than the entity in your imagination. Thus, there is something greater (real greatest entity) than the greatest thing that you have imagined (greatest entity existing only in the imagination), which makes no sense, as the entity cannot be both the greatest and not the greatest. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that the entity exists both in your mind and in reality.

If I understand correctly the argument is: If I imagine that the greatest thing I can think of is real then by imagining it is real it is greater than what I imagined. Since I am imagining the greatest thing it cannot be both the greatest and not the greatest and the only way for it to be the greatest is for it to be real. Do I understand correctly?
 
2003-07-31 03:42:10 PM  
Pick up a Philosophy 101 type book.

Pick up Kant.
 
2003-07-31 03:43:34 PM  
This page is a joke.

Some of the proofs are really used by religious people, but the page was making a mockery of it all. Duh. "Parental Argument?" I hope no one took this seriously.

Besides, a proof of God's existence would defeat the purpose of faith. Someone already mentioned Douglas Adams and the babel fish, but...yeah.
 
2003-07-31 03:48:44 PM  
Oh, what the hey...

What happens if we tamper with the adjective ("greatest") as opposed to the assigned result ("God")...

What if we used "smelliest"? Does the logic still work? And to what conclusion does it lead us?

I really don't know. I just enjoy a good discussion.

Devoutly Catholic,
-wm
 
2003-07-31 03:49:43 PM  
 
2003-07-31 03:51:21 PM  
The problem with the argument is the fact that it hinges on the subjective idea of "greatness". The proof moves forward under the assumption that something that exists is inherently greater than something that doesn't exist without actually ever proving it, which is why it's complete and total horseshiat.
 
2003-07-31 03:54:17 PM  
exick said what I was trying to say.
 
2003-07-31 03:56:41 PM  
Hey! I thought I said it...

-wm
 
2003-07-31 03:58:02 PM  
... but more politely...

-wm
 
2003-07-31 03:58:08 PM  
Watchman close to what I was trying to say, but exick hit it exactly.
 
2003-07-31 03:58:52 PM  
God is "real" because we love him. We all know that "real" isn't how you are made. It's a thing that happens to you. When somebody loves you for a long time and REALLY loves you, then you're real!

/skin horse
 
2003-07-31 03:58:55 PM  
poop...
 
2003-07-31 04:03:22 PM  
Argument from Weemill

(1)I bought TotalFark today.
(2)God grants me with ability to buy TotalFark.
(3)Drew created and allowed me to be a TotalFarker.
(4)Drew exists.
(5)Drew is God.
(6)Therefore, God exists.
 
2003-07-31 04:03:57 PM  
I did like your approach though.
 
Displayed 50 of 701 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report