Religion is evil

[KarlMarx]

You wanted proof....

Anselm's Proof of the existence of God.

Note: Anselm's use of the term "Fool" is his, not mine. No personal attack is intended - KM

To be proved: God exists.


Proof by reductio ad absurdum

1. The Fool asserts that God does not exist.

2. What is called "God" is "a being than which no greater can be conceived."

3. The Fool agrees that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" exists in the mind, since he understands the words.

4. To say that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" does not exist is to say that such a being is only an idea--it does not exist in the mind and in reality.

5. But such a being, which exists in the mind alone, is in fact "a being than which a greater can be conceived" since it is greater to exist in both mind and reality than just mind alone.

6. So, the Fool believes that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" is "a being than which a greater can be conceived" which is impossible.

7. Therefore, since "a being than which no greater can be conceived" cannot exist in the mind alone (because that is self-contradictory) such a being must exist in both mind and reality.

8. Therefore, God exists.

 

[KarlMarx]

Another proof of God's existence

Entropy and Causality used as a proof for God's existence

Definition: The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.

The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."
If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.
It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size.
All events have causes.
There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state unusable energy, which it is not.
If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.
A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.
This uncaused cause is supernatural.
By supernatural I mean it is completely 'other' than the universe is not natural to it.
This would make the uncaused cause supernatural.
This uncaused cause is God.

 

[KarlMarx]

Another proof....

1. A Posteriori Argument

St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent., I, xiii) and after him many scholastic writers advance the five following arguments to prove the existence of God:

Motion, i. e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.

For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.

The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.

The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God.

The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

 

[KarlMarx]

Descartes' proof that God exists....

Necessarily, God is perfect (true by virtue of meaning)
If God didn't exist he would be less than perfect
Therefore God exists

 

[KarlMarx]

KarlMarx's proof of God

1. God is defined to be an unique entity which has the following properties, of which no other entity also possesses.
a. Is the cause of the universe
b. Nothing greater of which can be conceived
c. Is not subject to the laws of the universe.
2. kel-al exists
3. kel-al exists within the universe
4. kel-al has a mind
5. kel-al's mind is part of the universe.
6. If the universe were infinite in size or duration, the sky would be completely lit at all times, since this is not the case, the universe is of a finite size and has a beginning.
7. Since the universe exists and has a beginning, something caused its beginning
8. The cause of the beginning of the universe was not part of the universe, since the cause cannot be part of the caused.
9. Since the cause of the universe is not part of the universe, it is greater than the universe and is not bound by its laws.
10. Therefore, a cause of the universe exists, the cause is greater than the universe and is not bound by its laws.
11. Since kel-al's mind is part of the universe, it is subject to its laws
12. Since kel-al's mind is subject to the laws of the universe, kel-al's mind cannot conceive of something that is greater than the cause of the universe.
13. That thing, nothing greater of which can be conceived, also caused the universe and is not subject to the laws of the universe is defined as God
14. Therefore, God exists. Q.E.D.

Note: Q.E.D. - "quod erat demonstrandum" Latin for "thus it is proven"

 

[KarlMarx]

KarlMarx's 2nd proof of God

1. God is defined to be an unique entity which has the following properties, of which no other entity also possesses.
a. Is the cause of the universe
b. Nothing greater of which can be conceived
c. Is not subject to the laws of the universe.
2. Assume that God does not exist
3. If God does not exist, something else must have caused the existence of the universe (known as “the agent”)
4. That agent must either be subject to the laws of the universe or something greater can be conceived by kel-al, otherwise it would by definition be God.
5. The agent must be greater than the universe, since it is the cause of it.
6. Since the agent is greater than the universe, it is not subject to the laws of the universe
7. Therefore something greater than the agent can be conceived by kel-al
8. kel-al’s mind is part of the universe, thus subject to its laws, therefore kel-al cannot conceive of something greater than the agent
9. kel-al cannot conceive of anything greater than the agent because kel-al’s mind does not exist or kel-al does not exist
10. Since kel-al exists and has a mind, the agent which caused the creation of the universe, is not subject to its laws and of which nothing greater can be conceived also exists.
11. The agent has the properties of God.
12. Since no other entity can possess those properties, one must conclude that the agent is God.
12. Therefore, God exists. QED

 

[kal-el]

Okay Son...What prayer have you made that was not answered.

Hows about all the victims of 9/11, why didn't god intervene to help them? If you say he helps some, why favor some and not others? If he is omnipotent then he can intervene, and if he is omniscient then he would know what the terrorists are planning. And if he sat by and did nothing, that either proves he is blood thiorsty and sadiastic, or else not all powerful. Which is it?

..sometimes your prayers are answered yet you fail to see as they are not what you expected...ask away...lets see what happens!

What? Ok, lets say 3 Christians are playing cards. And they all simeltaneously pray for the winning card. There can't be 3 winners, so 2 of them will be sol (shit out of luck).

 

[kal-el]

Yet you dont believe in the Christian Jesus.

Uhh, when did I ever say that? Please stop putting words in my mouth. I believe a man named Jesus once walked the earth, but I don't think he was divine in any way. He dosen't get a free pass because he lived 2000 years ago.

The creator of Superman openly admits he created superman, and he doesnt exist.

Who dosen't exist? The creator of Superman, or Superman? Don't be so obtuse, everyone knows Supes is a fictional character.

Many of us have proof, but its not proof you would accept.

Really? Please enlighten me with your "proof". Or else please cease from making these wild assertions, thank you.

I know for a fact things about my house, but if I declare it to you, you might not believe it, and it certainly wouldnt be PROOF to you.

What the hell are you babbling about here?

 

[dilloduck]

Hows about all the victims of 9/11, why didn't god intervene to help them? If you say he helps some, why favor some and not others? If he is omnipotent then he can intervene, and if he is omniscient then he would know what the terrorists are planning. And if he sat by and did nothing, that either proves he is blood thiorsty and sadiastic, or else not all powerful. Which is it?



What? Ok, lets say 3 Christians are playing cards. And they all simeltaneously pray for the winning card. There can't be 3 winners, so 2 of them will be sol (shit out of luck).

Oh--I get it--you're mad because God doesn't do everything like you think he should. Your like a kid who doesn't understand why he should eat his vegetables.

 

[Said1]

Your like a kid who doesn't understand why he should eat his vegetables.

And everyone knows bad things happen to kids who don't eat their vegetables. Scurvey.

 

[kal-el]

Prove that He does not exist. It takes equal Faith to be 100% sure of his non-existence as it takes to believe in his existence.

Uhh, I beg to differ. That is really a stupid attempt on your part at leveling the playing feild, "athesism requires faith to non-believe). Non-believing is the default position. I simply fail to believe based on the overwhelming lack of evidence for a skydaddy. You don't have faith that the easter bunny dosen't exist, you just discount it because of the lack of evidence.

What kind of question is that? No human is eternal, only the spirit.

Uhh, that's even if we have spirits. That's yet to be proven. Stop being dishonest please.

If you believe in that religion you believe that you continue after death. The human machine is not what the angels would be protecting, it is the spirit. And each body has a 'time to die' at least according to the Bible. That your time might come in an accident doesn't mean that somebody was sleeping that day.

What the hell is this poetic nonsense? Please reword it, so you don't sound so stupid, thanks.

Plus, the existence of a Deity doesn't necessarily rely on a belief in the Bible.

Of course not, the bible has no bearing on Zeus, Lady Vanessa, or Osiris.

Cite the Verses with Book and Chapter. Let's read this in context and examine your hypothesis.

When I have more time later today I will, ok, ignoramus.

For me this is an intellectual argument. I need to know what specific reason you have to urge others to disbelieve?

Why believe if there is no evidence? I'm sorry, but just going on faith is not a very compelling reason to believe.

Why is it necessary that all believe as you profess to believe? If it is a mythical creature that they worship, how does it hurt you at all?

It can, as some (I won't mention any names) wage wars based on this entity's desires, and oppose all kinds of laws based on his morality.

 

[musicman]

Hows about all the victims of 9/11, why didn't god intervene to help them? If you say he helps some, why favor some and not others? If he is omnipotent then he can intervene, and if he is omniscient then he would know what the terrorists are planning. And if he sat by and did nothing, that either proves he is blood thiorsty and sadiastic, or else not all powerful. Which is it?

Consider a third possibility, Kal-el: You don't know everything. That ought to be easy enough for you to digest; start by attempting to debunk Karl Marx's most recent posts.

Humility is a good thing. Think of it as the path to wisdom.

 

[kal-el]

You wanted proof....

Yep, let's see it.

Anselm's Proof of the existence of God.

Uhh, who is that? And what proof does he have? A picture? A telephone conversation? Or just blind postulations.

Note: Anselm's use of the term "Fool" is his, not mine. No personal attack is intended - KM

Ok

To be proved: God exists.

Ok, I'm waiting.

Proof by reductio ad absurdum

1. The Fool asserts that God does not exist.

2. What is called "God" is "a being than which no greater can be conceived."

3. The Fool agrees that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" exists in the mind, since he understands the words.

4. To say that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" does not exist is to say that such a being is only an idea--it does not exist in the mind and in reality.

Please, save the hyperbole. That is not proof of anything, just stupid asinine liguistics, ok. If there were actual proof of a god, then it would be all over the news and just about everybody would become religious, atheism would be redundant, so your little friend's argument is moot.

 

[musicman]

Please, save the hyperbole. That is not proof of anything, just stupid asinine liguistics, ok. If there were actual proof of a god, then it would be all over the news and just about everybody would become religious, atheism would be redundant, so your little friend's argument is moot.

THAT's your argument? THAT'S your rebuttal? O.K. - I understand now. When faced with logic against which you cannot mount a decent argument, you simply dismiss that logic as "stupid asinine linguistics". You ought to go in to politics, man - you're a natural. You're going to be petulant, argumentative, and miserable - and nobody's going to talk you out of it. Fine - enjoy.

Your assertion, then, is that all existence is provable. Prove it.

 

[Annie]

THAT's your argument? THAT'S your rebuttal? O.K. - I understand now. When faced with logic against which you cannot mount a decent argument, you simply dismiss that logic as "stupid asinine linguistics". You ought to go in to politics, man - you're a natural. You're going to be petulant, argumentative, and miserable - and nobody's going to talk you out of it. Fine - enjoy.

Your assertion, then, is that all existence is provable. Prove it.

He's just a

 

[musicman]

He's just a

Poor little troll. Sad little troll.

 

[Said1]

Poor little troll. Sad little troll.

With scurvey. I'd be sad too, teeth are good.

 

[musicman]

With scurvey. I'd be sad too, teeth are good.

A lifetime with nothing to look forward to but gruel. I guess I'd be pissed, too.

 

[Annie]

Well I hope everyone has got him out of their systems now. :teeth: Annoying little critter.

 

[KarlMarx]

Uhh, who is that? And what proof does he have? A picture? A telephone conversation? Or just blind postulations.

"Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was the outstanding Christian philosopher and theologian of the eleventh century. He is best known for the celebrated "ontological argument" for the existence of God in chapter two of the Proslogion, but his contributions to philosophical theology (and indeed to philosophy more generally) go well beyond the ontological argument. In what follows I examine Anselm's theistic proofs, his conception of the divine nature, and his account of human freedom, sin, and redemption."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/

Please, save the hyperbole. That is not proof of anything, just stupid asinine liguistics, ok. If there were actual proof of a god, then it would be all over the news and just about everybody would become religious, atheism would be redundant, so your little friend's argument is moot.

If I were to produce a photograph of God, you would simply counter that it was a fake.

I'll assume that you don't have an informed argument that refutes what I said (several times).... so, if you have a position, read up on it, or admit defeat.

To address your claim that this doesn't prove anything. Apparently, you aren't familiar with mathematical proofs. This is how they are proven.

First, you define what you are proving (I did). Then, take a step by step process to arrive at your conclusion (I did). I have given you proof that God exists, now I challenge you to do the same to defend your position.

Frankly, good luck, it is much easier to prove the existence of something rather than its non-existence.