God? What do you think:

[HAL9000]

STFU... What's next, just because a fat bearded man running a toy factory at the north pole using elvin slaves for labor to produce fee toys for Europeans and Americans isn't logical or rational to you, you think you can just say he doesn't exist?

You are clearly overreaching sir.

Well that is different,

I met him. His name is Steve, Steve Jobs.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Ah but that is more than just incoherent it is impossible, it is by definition false. A bit more than just not making sense.

Those are all synonyms for eachother.

Incoherent = logically impossible = doesn't make sense = false

 

[HAL9000]

Those are all synonyms for eachother.

Incoherent = logically impossible = doesn't make sense = false

Yeah I guess they are pretty similar, I guess I just prefer being explicit.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

STFU... What's next, just because a fat bearded man running a toy factory at the north pole using elvin slaves for labor to produce fee toys for Europeans and Americans isn't logical or rational to you, you think you can just say he doesn't exist?

Strictly speaking, the idea of a "fat bearded man running a toy factory at the north pole using elvin slaves for labor to produce fee toys for Europeans and Americans" isn't incoherent like married bachelors or an all-loving, all-powerful, unnecessary evil-allowing god are.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

there are logical proofs that god exists. They have flaws, but none-the-less I would be proud to argue with a theist that uses one of these proofs to argue their point

There are no, zero, zip, zilch, nada logical proofs that an invisible man in the sky exists. There are some truly pathetic and asinine attempts at using logic to prove the king of the pedophiles, but they're all either word-wrangling or taking something on faith. If you argue with a theist and don't laugh at their wild-assed stabs at a logical proof of god you're as delusional as they are.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Your entire problem is you think the existence of God is theory or philosophy when it is neither. Evidence exists but you are wasting your time if you think you will find it on an internet forum. That isn't how people found dinosaurs.

No evidence of the type that is sufficient to prove that dinosaurs existed is sufficient to prove that God exists. Even the bones of biblical figures would only prove that they existed, not that any of the events depicted in the bible are true. If you're referring to some kind of internal, non-specific, spiritual, soul-searching method of "going out and finding God", then you aren't talking about anything other than brain-washing yourself into believing something you have no good reason to believe.

 

[Blackjack200]

I wish. I did that for a year and went dateless for a year. I switched over to putting up Agnostic/Spiritual and started seeing women again. Ahh the power of poon is greater than that of any god man can conceive

Yeah, it hasn't exactly worked out for me either. Guess I'll have to soften it up.

Stupid culture.

 

[Blackjack200]

Strictly speaking, the idea of a "fat bearded man running a toy factory at the north pole using elvin slaves for labor to produce fee toys for Europeans and Americans" isn't incoherent like married bachelors or an all-loving, all-powerful, unnecessary evil-allowing god are.

I see what you mean. It's absurd, but not internally inconsistant like a "benevolent" god that lets children starve to death is.

 

[HAL9000]

There are no, zero, zip, zilch, nada logical proofs that an invisible man in the sky exists. There are some truly pathetic and asinine attempts at using logic to prove the king of the pedophiles, but they're all either word-wrangling or taking something on faith. If you argue with a theist and don't laugh at their wild-assed stabs at a logical proof of god you're as delusional as they are.

I never said there were perfect logical proofs, I said they have flaws, but something like the Ontological Proof is excellent if it weren't for a slightly flawed premise. I'm not delusional I'm just interested in philosophy, which requires listening to all sides and making up your own mind, I've made mine up, i'm an atheist until such time as I hear that perfect logical proof I doubt it exists but it's worth asking, I'm happy to be proved wrong, if you aren't prepared to reason then are as delusional as a theist.

 

[Blackjack200]

I never said there were perfect logical proofs, I said they have flaws, but something like the Ontological Proof is excellent if it weren't for a slightly flawed premise. I'm not delusional I'm just interested in philosophy, which requires listening to all sides and making up your own mind, I've made mine up, i'm an atheist until such time as I hear that perfect logical proof I doubt it exists but it's worth asking, I'm happy to be proved wrong, if you aren't prepared to reason then are as delusional as a theist.

Can someone explain the ontological proof to me? All I've been able to discern is that 'god exists because we can conceive of him'

But that's just asinine, I must just be understaning it wrong?

 

[HAL9000]

Can someone explain the ontological proof to me? All I've been able to discern is that 'god exists because we can conceive of him'

But that's just asinine, I must just be understaning it wrong?

Essentially it's like this, the issue is you must accept the premise:

The Premise: God is that of which nothing greater can be perceived, I.e. you can't think of anything greater than god.

As an existent god is a greater conception than a non-existent one, God must logically exist because if he doesn't then the premise is wrong.

So if you assume the premise then God logically exists.

I love this argument, pure logic. However it has a faulty premise IMO.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Can someone explain the ontological proof to me? All I've been able to discern is that 'god exists because we can conceive of him'

But that's just asinine, I must just be understaning it wrong?

I can imagine things that exists and things that don't exist.

Things that exist = More perfect than things that don't exist.

God = Perfect (in my imagination)

Therefore God exists.

It's pretty stupid really.

 

[HAL9000]

I can imagine things that exists and things that don't exist

Things that exist = More perfect than things that don't exist.

God = Perfect

Therefore God exists.

It's pretty stupid really.

Yep pretty much this. Not so much perfect though, more the greatest concept.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Yep pretty much this. Not so much perfect though, more the greatest concept.

Yeah. I was phrasing it in the same sort of derisive way that Dawkins phrased it in "The God Delusion" to point out how stupid it is.

 

[HAL9000]

Yeah. I was phrasing it in the same sort of derisive way that Dawkins phrased it in "The God Delusion" to point out how stupid it is.

Yeah, fair enough, I agree the premise is flawed, but the logic is excellent.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Essentially it's like this, the issue is you must accept the premise:

The Premise: God is that of which nothing greater can be perceived, I.e. you can't think of anything greater than god.

As an existent god is a greater conception than a non-existent one, God must logically exist because if he doesn't then the premise is wrong.

So if you assume the premise then God logically exists.

I love this argument, pure logic. However it has a faulty premise IMO.

In terms of "pure logic" it is as "pure" as this:

1.) God is a blippty-blop.
2.) All blippity-blops must exist.
C.) Therefore God exists.

Ask yourself why you're so impressed with the ontological argument and not the one I just gave you.

 

[HAL9000]

In terms of "pure logic" it is as "pure" as this:

1.) God is a blippty-blop.
2.) All blippity-blops must exist.
C.) Therefore God exists.

Ask yourself why you're so impressed with the ontological argument and not the one I just gave you.

The reason is because coming up with something that must nessecrily exist and explaining why something is that thing is impressive. Saying blippty-blop isn't.

 

[HumblePie]

In terms of "pure logic" it is as "pure" as this:

1.) God is a blippty-blop.
2.) All blippity-blops must exist.
C.) Therefore God exists.

Ask yourself why you're so impressed with the ontological argument and not the one I just gave you.

LOL Cerpin. I'm so impressed with that logic structure! Can I have your babies!

In seriousness, this is basically the ontological argument really. I state A) and then I state B) I create a relation between A) and B) and use that relationship to support both. Because I can do that, then they both must be true!

It's like the logical argument that I have 11 fingers. I use this one on little kids and they are just as impressed with my logic. I mean look, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. then 10, 9, 8, 7, 6... add 6 and 5 and I got 11 fingers!

 

[HAL9000]

LOL Cerpin. I'm so impressed with that logic structure! Can I have your babies!

In seriousness, this is basically the ontological argument really. I state A) and then I state B) I create a relation between A) and B) and use that relationship to support both. Because I can do that, then they both must be true!

It's like the logical argument that I have 11 fingers. I use this one on little kids and they are just as impressed with my logic. I mean look, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. then 10, 9, 8, 7, 6... add 6 and 5 and I got 11 fingers!

All logical arguments are constructed that way look:

1+1=2

2+1=3

Therefore 2+3=5, as 1+1+1+1+1=5

 

[Nik]

You've been here longer than I; did anyone ever change their mind about their belief or disbelief?

Good debate or not (usually), these topics are always pointless in my experience and can bring out the worst in people (on both sides).

Yes, they did. Many talk about it. I'm one of them.

 

[HumblePie]

All logical arguments are constructed that way look:

1+1=2

2+1=3

Therefore 2+3=5, as 1+1+1+1+1=5

The difference between real logic and fallicy logic is backing up A and B before creating a relation.

Meaning neither A nor B need to support each other at all.

 

[Nik]

My biggest problem is people like you that think a debate decides what exists in reality. You have been wasting your life if that was your goal. It isn't logical or rational to think you can say something doesn't exist jsut because it doesn't make sense to you.

Nobody's saying that Christ didn't exist. People are arguing the whole being-god thing.

Jesus was a passionate, convincing social troll. There's no evidence whatsoever, anywhere, that Jesus was anything other than a man.

That's the problem! You WANT to believe he was god, but he wasn't. You WANT to believe something that has no supporting evidence. At all.

 

[HAL9000]

The difference between real logic and fallicy logic is backing up A and B before creating a relation.

Meaning neither A nor B need to support each other at all.

I agree, which is why the ontological argument is flawed. Aside from it's lone flaw it is an elegant argument.

please note, I'm not arguing it is correct. I'm arguing it is flawed. But it demonstrates how a logical proof could be constructed, it it were based on a valid premise.

 

[HAL9000]

Nobody's saying that Christ didn't exist. People are arguing the whole being-god thing.

Jesus was a passionate, convincing social troll. There's no evidence whatsoever, anywhere, that Jesus was anything other than a man.

That's the problem! You WANT to believe he was god, but he wasn't. You WANT to believe something that has no supporting evidence. At all.

I lol'd

 

[Malak]

No you're right, but if you are implying that I can dig and find god fossils then I look at you with a look of bemusement.

I'm sure you will accept the following premise:

God is (if he exists) outside of time and space, that is to say he is not restricted to a single time and is not comprised or restricted to matter, but rather exists outside of both.

As a result finding god using perception alone is impossible, we wont find an old man sat atop a mountain somewhere.

You make up qualities of an entity you say can't exist then claim you can't find him because of these made up qualities. In every post you still show you are close-minded. You can't find God because you don't know what you are looking for.