I can prove that God exists

[Leeloo]

What if I say that I can prove that God exists?

Perhaps that can get the discussion going again

[ManaUser]

Pfht, that's easy.

1. Nonexistence is an imperfection.
2. God is the most perfect being imaginable.
3. Therefore God exists, and has many many tentacles.

[Churba]

Ah, but Proof Denies faith, and without Faith, god is nothing, therefore, if you prove he exists, he ceases to.

[Leeloo]

Pfht, that's easy.

1. Nonexistence is an imperfection.
2. God is the most perfect being imaginable.
3. Therefore God exists, and has many many tentacles.

Your second postulate is seriously lacking any kind of proof

[Warmachine]

Now you've got me started.

St. Thomas Aquinas is said to be a great theologian and philosopher but when I read his famous Five Ways or five proofs of God, I think he's just taking the piss. I'll summarize.

• Everything that moves was moved by something else. As there can't be infinite chains, there must be a first mover that started movement and this is God.
• Every cause is an effect of a previous cause. As there can't be infinite chains, there must be a first cause that started it and this is God.
• All things can exist or not exist and nothing can always exist as it must have not existed at some time. As everything can not exist, at some time, nothing existed. This is absurd as there'd be nothing to make anything exist yet we exist. The thing that can exist and doesn't need something else to make it exist is God.
• Everything has qualities in degrees, such as heat, which are mere poorer imitations of the best of the quality that caused it. There must be the perfect quality that caused all these poorer imitations and this is God.
• Things that lack intelligence almost always act to obtain the best result. As a non-intelligent thing can't direct itself, it must be directed by something intelligent, such an arrow aimed by an archer. All natural things are directed by God.

If we excuse Aquinas for being unable to think outside of Aristotlen physics and chemistry, this doesn't excuse him from arguing that something must exist and then providing no argument whatsoever that it's the same as the Christian god, let alone has any of the attributes associated with that god, such as personality, current existence, author of the Bible, listens to prayers etc. He doesn't even argue that the thing discovered in each of the proofs must be the same thing. When he argues something must exist, instead of giving it a new label, he gives it a pre-existing label and hopes no one notices this surreptitious tactic. There's probably a name for this logical fallacy but I can't be bothered to look it up. I'll just call it 'Taking the piss'.

[Warmachine]

One curious observation in those who advocate Pascal's Wager is they insult their god by suggesting he might be interested in them. Or rather, as a god is a construct of the believer's needs, if their god actually existed, using Pascal's Wager means losing that wager. Pascal's Wager claims it's better to inconvenience yourself in life by being Christian rather than risk losing out on infinite reward in the afterlife no matter how small the chance of that God exists. Of course, one flaw is the Christian god demands sincerity, not self-interest, and would reject such tactics. Another flaw is there is no way to decide which god or religion to follow.

You could convince yourself to believe in Christianity by faith but Pascal didn't suggest this and this leads to the bizarre decision of using logic to arrive at the best action and then abandoning logic. However, if you're going to start using logic and mathematics, infinity has no place in arithmetic. Comparing the expected benefits of following different religions is meaningless when they're infinity. Besides, infinity is a red flag that an advocate refusing to quantify their statements and is making it up.

Even if we use infinity, the biggest flaw is it fails to consider that the condition for the reward is not following the religion. If we suppose a god created everything, it is clear it is a sophisticated genius. The natural laws allow all manner of artistic, technological and social realms with laws that aren't apparent from these basic, natural laws. Those who study Quantum mechanics won't readily conclude the possibility of cyberspace, let alone the aspects of the Internet, for example. A designer that creates a set of rules that controls a stable system that changes over time without intervention is brilliant. A designer that creates a set of rules that controls a stable system that allows new, unrelated systems within it is a genius. Can you imagine such a being wanting to be surrounded by sheeple, those who are content to follow what's already being done? Would such a being not be bored witless within five seconds flat? Surely, such a being would only bother with the afterlife for those who discover and create within his creation. It would only bother saving the artists, the writers, the scientists, the visionaries, the leaders and the revolutionaries. Christianity, which considers being sheparded a virtue, would be a convenient reject label.

[Leeloo]

Plenty of good points. Yet, it didn't cause as many posts as I had hoped

OK, here's the trick... I didn't say which God. Anyone can make up their own religion, the whole point of freedom of religion is that nobody gets to decide which religions are approved and which aren't. So... In my religion, I am God I post here, thus I must necessarily exist Ergo, God exists

Quod Est Demonstatum

[Warmachine]

Ugh! Redefinition of an existing word is the same deceit that Aquinas used. Every time someone does that, I have this urge to reach through the Internet and beat the perpetrator around the head with a dictionary. Fortunately, you're joking.


Continuing my theme of irrationality that makes me angry. The Atheist's Nightmare. What makes me angry is, as the banana fits the human hand so well, it never crosses the presenter's mind that mankind made it like that. Now, a person can be forgiven for not being up to date with the latest, new fangled techniques but selective breeding has been known since the Stone Age! A person can be forgiven for not knowing obscure techniques but the applications of selective breeding can be seen from wheat to flowers to pet dogs. How the fuck can he miss those? I'm amazed he can understand the concept of video recording. If someone wishes to not engage his brain, that's his right but he should not think he knows anything and he should certainly not tell anyone they're wrong.

It's not the existence of the modern banana that gives this atheist nightmares, it's that someone like that might be allowed to set economic policy and start wars. No, wait...

[Aeridus]

Heh, I was just thinking about how in Sid Meier's Civilization, the Piety social policy and Rationalism social policy are incompatible with each other.

[Leeloo]

Ugh! Redefinition of an existing word is the same deceit that Aquinas used. Every time someone does that, I have this urge to reach through the Internet and beat the perpetrator around the head with a dictionary. Fortunately, you're joking.

Redefinition compared to which definition? The Christian definition? The Muslim? The Norse? Each religion has their own God or Gods, and each of them has just as many imaginary powers as I do in my religion.

Continuing my theme of irrationality that makes me angry. The Atheist's Nightmare. What makes me angry is, as the banana fits the human hand so well, it never crosses the presenter's mind that mankind made it like that. Now, a person can be forgiven for not being up to date with the latest, new fangled techniques but selective breeding has been known since the Stone Age!

That would be one way, but unless you post proof, I have believe it. Rather, we evolved from banana-eating apes, and are pretty well equipped to handle a banana. Even better, look at the flexibility of our hands. Anything of the right size fits pretty well.

And the part about it opening like a soda can... That's where it used to be attached to the tree, any fruit has that. It's just that on a banana it works pretty well for pealing it, and on other things it doesn't. Does that mean that God only intended us to eat banana, and not all those other things? That he actually intended us to be just another ape? You can't peal a cow that easily, does that mean God doesn't want us to eat cows?

Seems to me that guy is arguing for the claim that religious people didn't evolve from apes - and not for lack of ape.

[Aeridus]

All of evolution is an arms race to see who can best tentacle rape the other.

[Warmachine]

Clearly, Leelo, you understand how evolution can work but you really need to read some science books or bother to search Wikipedia. Living beings can evolve to better match their environment but in the case of the banana, it's a heavily domesticated species mankind modified for its convenience. The wild banana is an awful green thing.

I shall end with a link to a Mr Deity episode.

[Churba]

Seems to me that guy is arguing for the claim that religious people didn't evolve from apes - and not for lack of ape.

It doesn't help that he got it wrong - most simians, when eating a Banana, will open them from the "Bottom" - Ie, the blunt end, where it's not attached to the tree.

[Leeloo]

Clearly, Leelo, you understand how evolution can work but you really need to read some science books or bother to search Wikipedia. Living beings can evolve to better match their environment but in the case of the banana, it's a heavily domesticated species mankind modified for its convenience. The wild banana is an awful green thing.

Even so, it doesn't really matter. A banana is one out of how many million different fruits? Plenty of which will kill you before you finish eating the first one.

That's like saying that winning the Lottery can't be random chance, because that one person has the numbers that perfectly match

[ManaUser]

Pfht, that's easy.

1. Nonexistence is an imperfection.
2. God is the most perfect being imaginable.
3. Therefore God exists, and has many many tentacles.

Your second postulate is seriously lacking any kind of proof

You're right. That step was supposed to be "God is defined as the most perfect being imaginable." So technically that part doesn't need proof, I'm just explaining what I mean by God.

[Ghastly]

WHERE'S YOUR GOD NOW?

(Topic unlocked because I am a merciful and loving god).