Proof of God's existance

For a chuckle…

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF (1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him. (2) I believe in God. (3) Therefore, God exists
ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM (1) Telling people that God exists makes me filthy rich. (2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM FORMATTING (1) Behold, foolish atheists, I present you with an incontrovertible proof of the existence of God. (2) [Christian posts 10,000 word document without a single paragraph break.] (3) [Atheist's eyes implode.] (4) I see that nobody can refute (2). (5) Therefore, God exists.

Existance? Pretty lame arguments for existance lol. I think you missed the fun section though… :stuck_out_tongue:

ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II) (1) Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful? (2) Only God could have made them so beautiful. (3) Therefore, God exists.

aaaw shit. so he was right all along. fml.

Nice post Faerie, and funny too. Thanks.

Here is my contribution:
Infinity doesn’t exist.
Therefore God made the universe.

Heheh ;D

Perhaps the forum board should combine the religion section with the fun section rather than with the philosophy section. :stuck_out_tongue:

Now there’s an idea!!! ;D

I’m also in favour a religion-free philosophy section.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/arguments.html

Who need more of this kind of stuff. Did anyone read the last book of Victor Stenger?

Not so fast, supernaturalists1 Okease adduce evidence for His incoherent, conradictory attributes so that we can discuss what to me is just woo all dressed up in the finery of the Emperor! We rationalist should make supernaturalists squirm!Any theology revels in woo as much as any of the paranormal nonsence! Dresed up inthe finer dress of modal logic just doesn’t cut it!

Please adduce evidence for your woo! Sorry for the typos.

check out this link: ;D http://www.opposingviews.com/i/richard-dawkins-stumped-by-simple-question

can you repeat that in english?

Brian, please tell us what the question was that “stumped” Dawkins. I can’t view videos on my email because they eat my cap up too quickly.

Hey GCG - you are my HERO, well done on your new status.

spank you very much. who knew being an opinionated geek could earn hero-status?

Yes, it appears at the bottom of the video: "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evbolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" Dawkins then hesitates and looks quite lost and embarrassed and eventually answers that there is a common misunderstanding of evolution, i.e. that fish descended from reptiles, mammals from fish and we from apes etc. He doesn’t give the example asked for but in my view has answered in the sense that transformation and mutations took place eons ago and are still taking place and if we could have witnessed the first fish emerging from the water with fishy legs we would have seen it. His body language was certainly poor and his answer could have been more assertive and to the point.

The question is also predicated on a profound misunderstanding of what “information” actually means when information theorists use the term. There is a very common misunderstanding where people confuse or conflate “information” and “meaning.” Cretinists and IDiots especially are still fond of this self-serving little ruse, despite it having been repeatedly demolished. “Meaning” is contextually determined, whereas “information” isn’t. “Information” can be thought of as the simplest possible representation of data that will allow someone else to reproduce those data completely accurately. Thus, a string of random symbols contains more “information” than does an equally long string composed of the same symbol.

Still, here’s an example of how an effectively random copy error can increase information. Suppose you have a sheet of A4 paper with the string “1234” written on it 1,000 times, “123412341234…,” in fifty lines of twenty occurrences each. (Note that my description of it uses fewer than 150 symbols.) Suppose further that you want to impart this to another person. So you scan the sheet with an optical scanner using OCR technology. Owing to slight printing errors, blemishes on the paper and scanning errors, the scanner’s OCR software occasionally and haphazardly misrecognises a “2” for a “3” and vice versa, and ditto with “1” and “4.” The output from the document scan will contain more information than the original because it can no longer be as compactly described as can the original.

The analogy with genetic mutations and copy errors should not be too hard to appreciate.

'Luthon64

Dawkins answered that here for instance.

Are we saying, Dawkins appears to struggle for an answer, therefor God? That is cute.

These guys will try anything to prove their point. I suspected it was a setup. Dawkins, in their view is the Anti-Christ. How disingenious, thanks for the link Cyghost.

No worries, I remember it was discussed on dawkinsnet as well but that site is nauseating browsing the archives. Which is a pity, it was a library of information and wisdom.

IIRC, I think it was a setup. Very devious and wrong of these people, shame on them.

Dawkins’ reply on the other hand about information in the genome unfortunately was one massive argument from ignorance. Unsurprisingly, many people still think that reply is worth something. You can see him trying to sneak in philosophical arguments regarding “bad” or “sub-optimal” design e.g. his arguments about the information capacity of genomes or junk DNA. Very little science there and a lot of philosophical hot air. No-one knows for sure what the information content of genomes are, never mind comparing it. Dawkins relies on the ignorance of our knowledge about the information content of genomes to make bad philosophical arguments for “bad” or “sub-optimal” design. What is worse, many people fall for it. Shame on Dawkins…