100s of proofs that god exists!

[ravergirl]

I did not mean my statement to be rude. YOU SIR are amusing. Dogs are purple. Your mother is a is a dog. Therefore your mother is Purple. That too is a logical statement. It's not true, But it is logical. If you can't understand that, YOU NEED TO EDUCATE YOURSELF. I'm not trying to insult you, please don't take it that way.

but this doesn't flow like that

If God exists, he is all knowing

To know if God exists, one must know everything

If someone says God doesn't exist, then they believe they know everything

If one believes they know everything, they believe they are God

Therefore there are no atheists

^ are just begings of logical statements.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Agreed.

But the flow from one idea to the next doesn't flow logically. even if the statements are logical conclusions or statements, they don't flow into a logical,um, block of statements.....like this

Fire Trucks are red

Because they've got 8 wheels and 4 people on them

8 + 4 = 12

There are 12 inches in a foot

One foot is a ruler

There was a ruler named Queen Elizabeth

A ship named Queen Elizabeth sails the seas

In the seas are fish

On the fish are fins

The Fins fought the Russians

And Russians are red.

the only flaws here are that the context of the words ruler and fin. You have used two different definitions of ruler in the statement. It is not logically sound. One foot is a ruler. the queen has a ruler. All queens have rulers. That is logically sound. Likewise with the fin statement. On the fish are fins. The fins are fish. the Fins have fins. That is logically sound. See?

[BlindMessiah]

I did not mean my statement to be rude. YOU SIR are amusing. Dogs are purple. Your mother is a is a dog. Therefore your mother is Purple. That too is a logical statement. It's not true, But it is logical. If you can't understand that, YOU NEED TO EDUCATE YOURSELF. I'm not trying to insult you, please don't take it that way.

You're incorrect. You're correct in saying that a chain of statements can be completely logical but reach a false conclusion, but that is only if the original assumption is false. This example of yours is an example of invalid logic.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

but this doesn't flow like that

If God exists, he is all knowing

To know if God exists, one must know everything

If someone says God doesn't exist, then they believe they know everything

If one believes they know everything, they believe they are God

Therefore there are no atheists

^ are just begings of logical statements.

It doesn't flow exactly the same way. But I believe it is still sound

I stand corrected it isn't sound. Although not for the reason messiah gave.

Here-

To know if god exists, one must know everything.

If someone says god doesn't exist, then they know everything.

If one knows everything, then they are god.

If an athiest knows there is no god, then they would be god.

There that's logically sound, but untrue.

I got caught up there when I saw it, because that sort of thing gets me excited.

[ravergirl]

It doesn't flow exactly the same way. But I believe it is still sound

I stand corrected it isn't sound. Although not for the reason messiah gave.

Here-

To know if god exists, one must know everything.

If someone says god doesn't exist, then they know everything.

If one knows everything, then they are god.

If an athiest knows there is no god, then they would be god.

There that's logically sound, but untrue.

I got caught up there when I saw it, because that sort of thing gets me excited.

If thats what gets you excited have I got some treats for you.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

You're incorrect. You're correct in saying that a chain of statements can be completely logical but reach a false conclusion, but that is only if the original assumption is false. This example of yours is an example of invalid logic.

It is valid, it isn't sound. well, the new statement anyway lol. maybe we are arguing for the same thing? i stand corrected. I always screw this up.. me tryin to be mr. smart pants and all. The arguments are valid, they are not sound. It's been several years since I took a logic course. Obviously the majority of it went in one ear and out the other

Edited December 4, 2008 by Dr. Peter Venkman

[The One Who Is]

You do not understand the difference between logically sound and true. Something can be logically sound and untrue. When using logic, whether the base statement is true or not is irrelevant. that's what the link was for. Educate yourself.

No sir, it is not logically sound, even when taking the two "given" statements as irrevocably true. There's actually one implied given necessary, too. Everything gets thrown off in the third statement.

Given: If God exists, he is all knowing

Given: To know if God exists, one must know everything

Implied Given necessary to determine belief in this scenario: Everyone knows about and accepts the previous statements.

Therefore: If someone says God doesn't exist, then they believe they know everything - Logically sound.

Therefore: If one believes they know everything, they believe they are God - Illogical. "If God exists, he is all-knowing" does not mean that if someone is all-knowing, he is God. Who says there can't be more than one all-knowing being?

Therefore there are no atheists - No way to determine whether the conclusion is correct or incorrect, since it was derived by faulty argument.

EDIT: Gah, you caught it already.

Edited December 4, 2008 by The One Who Is

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

No sir, it is not logically sound, even when taking the two "given" statements as irrevocably true. There's actually one implied given necessary, too. Everything gets thrown off in the third statement.

Given: If God exists, he is all knowing

Given: To know if God exists, one must know everything

Implied Given necessary to determine belief in this scenario: Everyone knows about and accepts the previous statements.

Therefore: If someone says God doesn't exist, then they believe they know everything - Logically sound.

Therefore: If one believes they know everything, they believe they are God - Illogical. "If God exists, he is all-knowing" does not mean that if someone is all-knowing, he is God. Who says there can't be more than one all-knowing being?

Therefore there are no atheists - No way to determine whether the conclusion is correct or incorrect, since it was derived by faulty argument.

EDIT: Gah, you caught it already.

Lol!

[BlindMessiah]

No sir, it is not logically sound, even when taking the two "given" statements as irrevocably true. There's actually one implied given necessary, too. Everything gets thrown off in the third statement.

Given: If God exists, he is all knowing

Given: To know if God exists, one must know everything

Implied Given necessary to determine belief in this scenario: Everyone knows about and accepts the previous statements.

Therefore: If someone says God doesn't exist, then they believe they know everything - Logically sound.

Therefore: If one believes they know everything, they believe they are God - Illogical. "If God exists, he is all-knowing" does not mean that if someone is all-knowing, he is God. Who says there can't be more than one all-knowing being?

Therefore there are no atheists - No way to determine whether the conclusion is correct or incorrect, since it was derived by faulty argument.

Precisely. Although I think it's important to note that they didn't even get the definition of an atheist correct. But yes, you clearly demonstrated why I was right. Gotta plug myself ya know? The good news, Doctor Peter, now I can spend the evening enjoying myself, as there is obviously no need to educate myself.

Edited December 4, 2008 by BlindMessiah

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Precisely. Although I think it's important to note that they didn't even get the definition of an atheist correct. But yes, you clearly demonstrated why I was right. Gotta plug myself ya know? The good news, Doctor Peter, now I can spend the evening enjoying myself, as there is obviously no need to educate myself.

Lol, no need to educate yourself. I appologize to ya man. Thanks for the brush up!

[karl 12]

It reminds me of this little gem about love,suffering and happiness:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GSzLZbXBMsg

Edited December 5, 2008 by karl 12

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

It reminds me of this little gem about love,suffering and happiness:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GSzLZbXBMsg

Brilliant dialogue. Woody rocks.

[Guyver]

You know, since those are more like atheism arguments, it would have been altogether funnier had you replaced "God exists" with "God does not exist."

Good point. I think it would have been better if I used the phrase, "Therefore I'm an atheist."

I have heard alot of excuses from people in my time about why they wouldn't give their lives to a loving God; who reaches out to the whole world through Jesus Christ. Here's some of the obviously not well thought-out ones, and some overly thought-out ones.

1. I want to go to hell because that's where all the hot chicks are.

2. Therefore, I'm an atheist.

1. The bible is nothing but a bunch of do's and don'ts.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. All Christians are phonies.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. God kills more people than Satan does.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. The bible is an antiquated book written by men.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. Why would a loving God put the "bad" tree in the garden.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. If I become a Christian; I have to quit doing all the stuff I really like.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

And here's the number one, big Kahuna, all-time best excuse.

1. Evolution is scientifically proven.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

[churchanddestroy]

Good point. I think it would have been better if I used the phrase, "Therefore I'm an atheist."

I have heard alot of excuses from people in my time about why they wouldn't give their lives to a loving God; who reaches out to the whole world through Jesus Christ. Here's some of the obviously not well thought-out ones, and some overly thought-out ones.

1. I want to go to hell because that's where all the hot chicks are.

2. Therefore, I'm an atheist.

1. The bible is nothing but a bunch of do's and don'ts.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. All Christians are phonies.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. God kills more people than Satan does.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. The bible is an antiquated book written by men.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. Why would a loving God put the "bad" tree in the garden.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. If I become a Christian; I have to quit doing all the stuff I really like.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

And here's the number one, big Kahuna, all-time best excuse.

1. Evolution is scientifically proven.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

Whoever uses that as their logic to be an atheist is an idiot, IMHO. Of course, I've never actually heard anyone say "I'm an Atheist because evolution is true"....

[momentarylapseofreason]

Whoever uses that as their logic to be an atheist is an idiot, IMHO. Of course, I've never actually heard anyone say "I'm an Atheist because evolution is true"....

True, many people believe in evolution and god. I don't see why that should be a problem.

Another stupid assumption is when believers think people become Atheists so that they may sin. Ridiculous.

Anyone can claim they are a believer and still do whatever they wish and appear outwardly moral.

And to be honest, I have never seen a difference in behavior on a "moral" level between non-believers and believers (except for prayer at the dinner table & Church). I admire people that take action to help instead of hearing "well, I'll pray for you". Might as well blow me air kisses.

[ShaunZero]

Good point. I think it would have been better if I used the phrase, "Therefore I'm an atheist."

I have heard alot of excuses from people in my time about why they wouldn't give their lives to a loving God; who reaches out to the whole world through Jesus Christ. Here's some of the obviously not well thought-out ones, and some overly thought-out ones.

1. I want to go to hell because that's where all the hot chicks are.

2. Therefore, I'm an atheist.

1. The bible is nothing but a bunch of do's and don'ts.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. All Christians are phonies.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. God kills more people than Satan does.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. The bible is an antiquated book written by men.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. Why would a loving God put the "bad" tree in the garden.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

1. If I become a Christian; I have to quit doing all the stuff I really like.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

And here's the number one, big Kahuna, all-time best excuse.

1. Evolution is scientifically proven.

2. Therefore I'm an atheist.

Try: I have no more reason to believe in God than I do to believe in the tooth fairy!

[AlexG]

1. I see nothing in the universe which cannot be attributed to the laws of physics and which would require a god to exist.

2. Therefore, I'm an atheist.

[Guyver]

Anyone can claim they are a believer and still do whatever they wish and appear outwardly moral.

And to be honest, I have never seen a difference in behavior on a "moral" level between non-believers and believers (except for prayer at the dinner table & Church). I admire people that take action to help instead of hearing "well, I'll pray for you". Might as well blow me air kisses.

I can't agree with you on the bolded part. I don't know how anyone could do anything that they want and still appear outwardly moral. I guess if every immoral act you did was behind closed doors within the privacy of your own home.....well maybe. But at some point I would think that the neighbors would notice the goats...

But, there's also the part where some is never enough. So, your quest to do whatever you want would eventually lead you to a place of self destruction as you are never able to satisfy all your desires (even given the requisite discretionary time and income) and you would inevitably be bound by severe addictions.

As far as outward morality goes.....that's a whole other can of worms that could take days to discuss. I will tell a little story that I recently observed just to make a point.

A few weeks ago I was on vacation in the town of my alma matter. While walking downtown I noticed a group of about 15 - 20 college students with signs protesting prop 8. This was after the election mind you. What was interesting was their "human rights" take on the matter (expressed in their signs). This group of well meaning people marched through town on their human rights cause. As they passed by me there were two homeless people sitting on the curb with signs asking for help. The group of people walked by shouting their slogans carrying their signs and didn't even seem to notice the two people who appeared much in need. So, on the one hand they appeared interested in human rights, and were unified in their (at this point useless) quest to make a change in the world; all the while completely ignoring some people right in front of them that seemed to truly need some help.

[momentarylapseofreason]

I can't agree with you on the bolded part. I don't know how anyone could do anything that they want and still appear outwardly moral. I guess if every immoral act you did was behind closed doors within the privacy of your own home.....well maybe. But at some point I would think that the neighbors would notice the goats...

I don't know about that. My whole family suspects that my uncle (a minister) had his wife murdered or did it himself, because she wanted a divorce, and he is a money greedy b******. He always cheated on her too, and impregnated his 13 yr. old stepdaughter. Everybody thought he was a swell guy. Everything was kept secret for many years. Eventually if some things would catch up with him (except murder) and he would just move to another town.

The man was a genius-always was the best in his school (hence his very good income) and morally bankrupt. He supposedly seduced alot of women in his church I heard , he was very manipulating, and we think he practically could hypnotize people (possibly learned it). ( by the my uncle was not handsome looked like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons-I don't understand how he got them-but he could be very charming).

My ex-brother in law also was really heavy into church, and always preaching about god, and he started cheating on his wife as soon as they got married. They are phony Christians that's all-but i think most are not like them.

[Guyver]

I don't know about that. My whole family suspects that my uncle (a minister) had his wife murdered or did it himself, because she wanted a divorce, and he is a money greedy b******. He always cheated on her too, and impregnated his 13 yr. old stepdaughter. Everybody thought he was a swell guy. Everything was kept secret for many years. Eventually if some things would catch up with him (except murder) and he would just move to another town.

The man was a genius-always was the best in his school (hence his very good income) and morally bankrupt. He supposedly seduced alot of women in his church I heard , he was very manipulating, and we think he practically could hypnotize people (possibly learned it). ( by the my uncle was not handsome looked like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons-I don't understand how he got them-but he could be very charming).

My ex-brother in law also was really heavy into church, and always preaching about god, and he started cheating on his wife as soon as they got married. They are phony Christians that's all-but i think most are not like them.

I dont' doubt what you say there. I've seen it myself. To be honest, I'm at a lack to be able to explain it. I know it's mentioned in the New Testament and those people are called false workers of Christ, whose god is their bellies and greed is their motive. They are always seeking to prey upon gullible women, etc. I find it sickening. You can still see some on tv at certain times. It's easy to see why people would not want anything to do with Christianity with these people as examples. I once knew a man like the one you described. The thing I now know thinking about it, he never showed Christianity in his private life. All the people who were close to him personally described the same types of things you mentioned. No one else could believe it. He was eventually led to counselling and it was discovered that he was a psychopath - in the truest sense of the word. I don't know what else to say about it. I'm not going to stop following Christ because there are a bunch of phonies out there. I'm sure that Jesus himself wasn't to happy with the inquisition.....It just makes me want to be a better Christian in whatever way I can. Regards.

[Guyver]

Sorry, I said psychopath and I meant sociopath. The inability to feel remorse for one's actions.

[momentarylapseofreason]

I dont' doubt what you say there. I've seen it myself. To be honest, I'm at a lack to be able to explain it. I know it's mentioned in the New Testament and those people are called false workers of Christ, whose god is their bellies and greed is their motive. They are always seeking to prey upon gullible women, etc. I find it sickening. You can still see some on tv at certain times. It's easy to see why people would not want anything to do with Christianity with these people as examples. I once knew a man like the one you described. The thing I now know thinking about it, he never showed Christianity in his private life. All the people who were close to him personally described the same types of things you mentioned. No one else could believe it. He was eventually led to counselling and it was discovered that he was a psychopath - in the truest sense of the word. I don't know what else to say about it. I'm not going to stop following Christ because there are a bunch of phonies out there. I'm sure that Jesus himself wasn't to happy with the inquisition.....It just makes me want to be a better Christian in whatever way I can. Regards.

There will always be some like this. I'm certainly not blaming religion in the least , but as you know, some people use it as a cover to be deceptive.

It's always good to watch what people do, not so much what they say.

[churchanddestroy]

I dont' doubt what you say there. I've seen it myself. To be honest, I'm at a lack to be able to explain it. I know it's mentioned in the New Testament and those people are called false workers of Christ, whose god is their bellies and greed is their motive.

I'm gonna steal that line for my poetry class.

They are always seeking to prey upon gullible women, etc. I find it sickening. You can still see some on tv at certain times. It's easy to see why people would not want anything to do with Christianity with these people as examples. I once knew a man like the one you described. The thing I now know thinking about it, he never showed Christianity in his private life. All the people who were close to him personally described the same types of things you mentioned. No one else could believe it. He was eventually led to counselling and it was discovered that he was a psychopath - in the truest sense of the word. I don't know what else to say about it. I'm not going to stop following Christ because there are a bunch of phonies out there. I'm sure that Jesus himself wasn't to happy with the inquisition.....It just makes me want to be a better Christian in whatever way I can. Regards.

Oh sure, for every dozen or so apples you pick from a tree, at least a few are bound to have worms in them, but that shouldn't change your opinion of apples in that they are delicious.

I liked this post Guyver.

[churchanddestroy]

True, many people believe in evolution and god. I don't see why that should be a problem.

Neither do I. I think thats a big part of the reason I get so argumentative about it, because for me it makes no sense to deny it. I mean whatever deity (if any) anyone subscribes to is not my business, and outside of these forums I don't debate people on religion, but that said and religion aside when I run into someone who tells me that Evilution is a lie and that scientists are in league with the Devil I get a knee-jerk reaction right away involving my face and my palm becoming one entity. I think my biggest pet peeve is when people make uneducated assumptions in anything, and thats why I get all upity about the whole Creation/Evolution debate. One of the Evangelicals I ran into at the county fair claimed to have been a Catholic, but said some pretty dumb things about Catholicism and the "Catholic version of the Bible" and how Catholics worship saints and have a Bible that is completely different than everyone elses. I really suspected that he had never been a Catholic and that he was just vomiting out anti-Catholic nonsense he picked up in Jack Chick pamphlets because as odd as many Catholic traditions are to Protestants, really, they believe the same things. And the "difference" between Catholic Bibles and Protestant versions is two books, one of them being Tobit. I went to Catholic school for 15 years, which involved going to mass at least twice a week (with the parents and with the school), and I have never heard a reading from the book of Tobit. /end rant.

Another stupid assumption is when believers think people become Atheists so that they may sin. Ridiculous.

Yeah, don't even get me started on this one. The impression that I've got from people who believe that is that they think that everyone knows that Jesus is God but that a lot of people decided to be a Muslim or Atheist or Buddhist out of spite for God, which is absolutely ridiculous.

Anyone can claim they are a believer and still do whatever they wish and appear outwardly moral.

But you can't judge a book by its shiny 'moral' cover...

And to be honest, I have never seen a difference in behavior on a "moral" level between non-believers and believers (except for prayer at the dinner table & Church). I admire people that take action to help instead of hearing "well, I'll pray for you". Might as well blow me air kisses.

You know, I totally agree with this.