The Gooner Forum

GranadaJoe wrote:

DB10GOONER wrote:Just gonna leave this here to fuck with AtheistJoe's head!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

There's been a number of attempts at these ontological proofs over the years, but, in philosophical jargon, they're bollocks.

They do create some problems for atheists because the lines of reasoning are difficult to get your head round, but they basically rely on accepting all of his 'take these statements as true' axioms, e.g.multiple/infinite universes in which all possible things exist. There's no justification offered for believing the first part and the second part isn't logical. An infinite universe could exist but there could still be possible things that don't exist in it.

Additionally, the idea is that we can conceive of a God who is completely positive and that real things are better than conceived things so God must exist.

The theorem is valid IF you accept the hypotheses, but that's a pretty big ask. Most people would doubt the statement that because we can conceive of things they must exist.

Using his argument you could argue that we can conceive of women more beautiful than any woman ever seen, who is purely positive, so she must exist and be better than we can conceive. However, you'll probably still wake up with the missus tomorrow morning, not your perceived goddess.

If you can't afford drugs, read through some arguments for and against his 'theorum'. Your mind will end up well and truly scrambled.

With all due respect, mate - you are so full of shit.

Pinocchio's Paradox proves God exists. Pinocchio’s nose grows when he tells a lie, so what happens if he says ‘my nose will grow now’ – if his nose does grow that would mean he wasn’t lying, but if he wasn’t lying, his nose wouldn’t grow... but then his statement would be a lie… so his nose would grow... but then the statement wouldn’t be a lie… so his nose wouldn’t grow…

This proves God exists.

DB10GOONER wrote:

GranadaJoe wrote:

DB10GOONER wrote:Just gonna leave this here to fuck with AtheistJoe's head!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

There's been a number of attempts at these ontological proofs over the years, but, in philosophical jargon, they're bollocks.

They do create some problems for atheists because the lines of reasoning are difficult to get your head round, but they basically rely on accepting all of his 'take these statements as true' axioms, e.g.multiple/infinite universes in which all possible things exist. There's no justification offered for believing the first part and the second part isn't logical. An infinite universe could exist but there could still be possible things that don't exist in it.

Additionally, the idea is that we can conceive of a God who is completely positive and that real things are better than conceived things so God must exist.

The theorem is valid IF you accept the hypotheses, but that's a pretty big ask. Most people would doubt the statement that because we can conceive of things they must exist.

Using his argument you could argue that we can conceive of women more beautiful than any woman ever seen, who is purely positive, so she must exist and be better than we can conceive. However, you'll probably still wake up with the missus tomorrow morning, not your perceived goddess.

If you can't afford drugs, read through some arguments for and against his 'theorum'. Your mind will end up well and truly scrambled.

With all due respect, mate - you are so full of shit.

I said some people would find it difficult to understand.

GranadaJoe wrote:

DB10GOONER wrote:

GranadaJoe wrote:

DB10GOONER wrote:Just gonna leave this here to fuck with AtheistJoe's head!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

There's been a number of attempts at these ontological proofs over the years, but, in philosophical jargon, they're bollocks.

They do create some problems for atheists because the lines of reasoning are difficult to get your head round, but they basically rely on accepting all of his 'take these statements as true' axioms, e.g.multiple/infinite universes in which all possible things exist. There's no justification offered for believing the first part and the second part isn't logical. An infinite universe could exist but there could still be possible things that don't exist in it.

Additionally, the idea is that we can conceive of a God who is completely positive and that real things are better than conceived things so God must exist.

The theorem is valid IF you accept the hypotheses, but that's a pretty big ask. Most people would doubt the statement that because we can conceive of things they must exist.

Using his argument you could argue that we can conceive of women more beautiful than any woman ever seen, who is purely positive, so she must exist and be better than we can conceive. However, you'll probably still wake up with the missus tomorrow morning, not your perceived goddess.

If you can't afford drugs, read through some arguments for and against his 'theorum'. Your mind will end up well and truly scrambled.

With all due respect, mate - you are so full of shit.

I said some people would find it difficult to understand.

Following the above hypothesis in some universe somewhere, DB10 and OBG are not 4'2" dwarves, however this being an impossibility the hypothesis is broken and invalid..... Atheism wins by default

(Just saying)

GoonerMuzz wrote:Following the above hypothesis in some universe somewhere, I don't love cock, however this being an impossibility the hypothesis is broken and invalid..... Atheism wins by default

(Just saying)

Thank you for sharing...

I'm sure that most of us have had to dress up and appear in a nativity play, or go and watch our kids do it, and throughout Xmas various clergy will tell us the story we've been told a million times. But it's nonsense and they know it's nonsense.

The bible says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great and while Quirinius was governor. Herod died 10 years before Quirinius arrived in Syria.

Paul, who wrote a third of the New Testament, most of it before the gospels were started, never mentioned Jesus' birth, and neither did Mark nor John.

Matthew says an angel visited Mary, that Wise Men, guided by a star, visited Jesus, that Herod slaughtered all male children under the age of two, and that the family then fled to Egypt.
Luke says there was a census, no room at the inn, that shepherds visited and that the one month old Jesus was taken to Jerusalem and then Nazareth.
So they can't agree on much.

There are no records from any civilisation of a star as described in the bible.

The Romans did conduct censuses, but none involved travelling long distances to the place where your grandfather x40 was born. Can any of us go back 10 generations, let alone 42?
And why would the Romans want all economic activity to stop while 100s of 1000s of people meandered round the country to register in a place they didn't live?
Again, there is no mention of the census in any other records.

Likewise, no mention exists anywhere else of the slaughter of the innocents, despite contemporary histories putting the boot into Herod.

So no independent evidence of any of the story and the two accounts written c.100 years after the event have different events.

So the nativity story is a fantasy, that most clergy know can't be true. MERRY CHRISTMAS !!!

GranadaJoe wrote:I'm sure that most of us have had to dress up and appear in a nativity play, or go and watch our kids do it, and throughout Xmas various clergy will tell us the story we've been told a million times. But it's nonsense and they know it's nonsense.

The bible says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great and while Quirinius was governor. Herod died 10 years before Quirinius arrived in Syria.

Paul, who wrote a third of the New Testament, most of it before the gospels were started, never mentioned Jesus' birth, and neither did Mark nor John.

Matthew says an angel visited Mary, that Wise Men, guided by a star, visited Jesus, that Herod slaughtered all male children under the age of two, and that the family then fled to Egypt.
Luke says there was a census, no room at the inn, that shepherds visited and that the one month old Jesus was taken to Jerusalem and then Nazareth.
So they can't agree on much.

There are no records from any civilisation of a star as described in the bible.

The Romans did conduct censuses, but none involved travelling long distances to the place where your grandfather x40 was born. Can any of us go back 10 generations, let alone 42?
And why would the Romans want all economic activity to stop while 100s of 1000s of people meandered round the country to register in a place they didn't live?
Again, there is no mention of the census in any other records.

Likewise, no mention exists anywhere else of the slaughter of the innocents, despite contemporary histories putting the boot into Herod.

So no independent evidence of any of the story and the two accounts written c.100 years after the event have different events.

So the nativity story is a fantasy, that most clergy know can't be true. MERRY CHRISTMAS !!!

Holy baby Jebus - you really need to get a life, mate....

Which website did you copy and paste all that off...?

I'd just like to add - read the 9/11 witness statements, barely two people could describe the events in the same way after a couple of months, never mind years and then decades. Your post proves nothing either way, as does most Christian rebuttals. And that's the bit all atheists miss - there is no proof. People believe. And there doesn't have to be proof. It's only the arrogance of atheists that demands there must be proof.

Typical of all atheists (bullshitters, hipsters with flatcaps etc ) you present a very one-sided and subjective list of so called "facts".

Anyway, here, read some of the unproven Christian "facts" here;

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2012/PSCF12-12Nollet.pdf

https://coffeehouseapologetics.wordpres ... -augustus/

DB10GOONER wrote:

GranadaJoe wrote:I'm sure that most of us have had to dress up and appear in a nativity play, or go and watch our kids do it, and throughout Xmas various clergy will tell us the story we've been told a million times. But it's nonsense and they know it's nonsense.

The bible says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great and while Quirinius was governor. Herod died 10 years before Quirinius arrived in Syria.

Paul, who wrote a third of the New Testament, most of it before the gospels were started, never mentioned Jesus' birth, and neither did Mark nor John.

Matthew says an angel visited Mary, that Wise Men, guided by a star, visited Jesus, that Herod slaughtered all male children under the age of two, and that the family then fled to Egypt.
Luke says there was a census, no room at the inn, that shepherds visited and that the one month old Jesus was taken to Jerusalem and then Nazareth.
So they can't agree on much.

There are no records from any civilisation of a star as described in the bible.

The Romans did conduct censuses, but none involved travelling long distances to the place where your grandfather x40 was born. Can any of us go back 10 generations, let alone 42?
And why would the Romans want all economic activity to stop while 100s of 1000s of people meandered round the country to register in a place they didn't live?
Again, there is no mention of the census in any other records.

Likewise, no mention exists anywhere else of the slaughter of the innocents, despite contemporary histories putting the boot into Herod.

So no independent evidence of any of the story and the two accounts written c.100 years after the event have different events.

So the nativity story is a fantasy, that most clergy know can't be true. MERRY CHRISTMAS !!!

Holy baby Jebus - you really need to get a life, mate....

Which website did you copy and paste all that off...?

I'd just like to add - read the 9/11 witness statements, barely two people could describe the events in the same way after a couple of months, never mind years and then decades. Your post proves nothing either way, as does most Christian rebuttals. And that's the bit all atheists miss - there is no proof. People believe. And there doesn't have to be proof. It's only the arrogance of atheists that demands there must be proof.

Typical of all atheists (bullshitters, hipsters with flatcaps etc ) you present a very one-sided and subjective list of so called "facts".

Anyway, here, read some of the unproven Christian "facts" here;

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2012/PSCF12-12Nollet.pdf

https://coffeehouseapologetics.wordpres ... -augustus/

Your second link tries to conflate an eclipse with the star and you suggest my facts are subjective!! Which of my 'so called facts' are in dispute?

Also, along with most of the world, most of the time I prefer evidence to a vague 'belief' with no basis in evidence.

It seems likely that Matthew and Luke tried to cobble together a story to fit the bloke claiming to be the Messiah into some of the OT prophesies.

I'm guessing that in most of your life you demand evidence (when paying an invoice, visiting the doctor, employing somebody etc). Are YOU being arrogant demanding proof?
I just don't get how wanting evidence is arrogant. Surely it's sensible. If not, how is belief in a god or gods different to belief in fairies, ghosts or the Easter Bunny?

a lot of nerds think it likely we live in a computer simulation, so if our whole world is some kids toy, is that kid a God, or one that happens to have one hell of a powerfull iPad?

Very interesting thread. I study the Bible and have a lot of questions and opinions. .

JacobVR wrote:Very interesting thread. I study the Bible and have a lot of questions and opinions. .

Bible studies in itself is an interesting topic. Do you also study the many gospels and writings that were eventually excluded from the Bible. The Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Mary etc ? Someone described the Bible as a heavily edited Compendium rather than a book.

GranadaJoe wrote:

JacobVR wrote:Very interesting thread. I study the Bible and have a lot of questions and opinions. .

Bible studies in itself is an interesting topic. Do you also study the many gospels and writings that were eventually excluded from the Bible. The Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Mary etc ? Someone described the Bible as a heavily edited Compendium rather than a book.

The problem with any religious text is that ultimately it is written by and interpreted by man with all his inconsistencies, doubts, fears and prejudicies.

There are certain religions which over the years, and even now, take the word of 'God' as a reason to commit unspeakable acts but in reality it is purely the human interpretation of books written mainly by men in less advanced ages that cause an inordinate amount of grief to people around the world.

Religion works for many people on different spiritual levels but the problem is that far too many people in this day and age use it to justify their innate prejudice and hatreds.

Worryingly rather than seeing a drop in hatred due to 'religion', although too often this is purely an excuse, we are seeing an increase.