Hundreds Of Proofs Of God's Existence

Diamond Cross · 12-15-2006, 09:22 PM

This document lists many of the the various arguments that people have used to argue for the existence of God. Many of them are quite humorous:

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I), a.k.a. DESIGN ARGUMENT
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

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.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists — it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY (My personal favorite)
(1) Maranathra!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
(1) God exists.
(2) I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF
(1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) This is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INSANITY
(1) No sane person could have thought up Christianity.
(2) Therefore, it must be true
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree.....
....
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is this going?
....
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J'' are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING?
....
(177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.

PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question.]
(2) [Atheist answers question.]
(3) [A lapse of time]
(4) [Christian repeats question.]
(5) [Atheist repeats answer.]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Christian repeats question.]
(8) [Atheist repeats answer.]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) Atheist, you never answered my question.
(11) Therefore, God exists.

The rest can be found here:

Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence

AVengeance · 12-22-2006, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

This document lists many of the the various arguments that people have used to argue for the existence of God. Many of them are quite humorous:

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I), a.k.a. DESIGN ARGUMENT
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

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.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists — it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY (My personal favorite)
(1) Maranathra!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
(1) God exists.
(2) I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF
(1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) This is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INSANITY
(1) No sane person could have thought up Christianity.
(2) Therefore, it must be true
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree.....
....
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is this going?
....
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J'' are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING?
....
(177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.

PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question.]
(2) [Atheist answers question.]
(3) [A lapse of time]
(4) [Christian repeats question.]
(5) [Atheist repeats answer.]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Christian repeats question.]
(8) [Atheist repeats answer.]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) Atheist, you never answered my question.
(11) Therefore, God exists.

The rest can be found here:

Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence

I guess people that can't get laid have to do SOMETHING with their spare time.

lew · 12-26-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

This document lists many of the the various arguments that people have used to argue for the existence of God. Many of them are quite humorous:

No it doesn't. It's a joke.

Diamond Cross · 12-27-2006, 02:05 AM

Yes it does.

Dumpy Dooby · 12-27-2006, 05:39 AM

It may be listing the arguments, but it's not being honest about it. Here are some ontological arguments that are intended to be a bit more serious...

Summarized examples:

I exist.
Therefore something exists.
Whenever a bunch of things exist, their mereological sum also exists.
Therefore the sum of all things exists.
Therefore God — the sum of all things — exists.

I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived.
If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived that exists.
I cannot conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived.
Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists.

It is possible that that God exists.
God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists.
Hence, it is necessary that God exists.
Hence, God exists.

[It is analytic, necessary and a priori that] Each instance of the schema "The F G is F" expresses a truth.
Hence the sentence "The existent perfect being is existent" expresses a truth.
Hence, the existent perfect being is existent.
Hence, God is existent, i.e. God exists.

A more verbose example:

God exists in the understanding but not in reality.(Assumption for reductio)
Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)
A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)
A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is greater than God (From (1) and (2).)
A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)
It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (From definition of "God".)
Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).)
God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.)
Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), (8).)

Pro Street · 12-27-2006, 05:27 PM

A God, or god, can be construed down to someone who has more knowledge than you.

plain and simple.

for example, Whites were first considered gods in the new world. Spaniards were considered gods to the Aztecs.

With the knowledge I have today, I could go back in time as soon as 100 years ago and use current technology to make myself appear to be a god.

Thus, to become the God, you must attain complete knowledge.

Diamond Cross · 12-28-2006, 01:09 AM

Intelligernce can only be created by intelligence, it cannot develop on its own.

We are intelligent.

Therefore God exists.

Pro Street · 12-28-2006, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Intelligernce can only be created by intelligence, it cannot develop on its own.

We are intelligent.

Therefore God exists.

what law or inclination does there need to be an intelligent factor to create intelligence?

If that was the case, people would never advance mentally like we have.

we are where we are because of 3 things:

opposable thumb
verbal language
abstract reasoning

Scrum · 12-28-2006, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Intelligernce can only be created by intelligence, it cannot develop on its own.

We are intelligent.

Therefore God exists.

Then you are saying god has a god who has a god who has a god.....ect?

I mean, something intelligent can't develop on its own right?

lew · 12-28-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Yes it does.

You're right. Christians and others use these arguments to "prove" God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
(1) God exists.
(2) I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Diamond Cross · 12-29-2006, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Then you are saying god has a god who has a god who has a god.....ect?

I mean, something intelligent can't develop on its own right?

God has to come from somewhere, doesn't he?

After all, even if he exists outside of time and space, he exists. So somewhere he had to not exist before he existed, and eventually he will cease to exist.

Dumpy Dooby · 12-29-2006, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

God has to come from somewhere, doesn't he?

After all, even if he exists outside of time and space, he exists. So somewhere he had to not exist before he existed, and eventually he will cease to exist.

Attributing temporal constraints to his existence suggests that he does not, in fact, exist outside of time. If God were atemporal, he would ALWAYS exist.

Kytro · 01-01-2007, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Attributing temporal constraints to his existence suggests that he does not, in fact, exist outside of time. If God were atemporal, he would ALWAYS exist.

This is one of things people often have trouble trying to conceptualize.

Pro Street · 01-06-2007, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Attributing temporal constraints to his existence suggests that he does not, in fact, exist outside of time. If God were atemporal, he would ALWAYS exist.

using this logic the answer can always be "proven" by remaining unproven.

in other words, how many fingers am I holding up?

I'll have my wife tell you it's 3, and someone else tell you none.

Dumpy Dooby · 01-06-2007, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

using this logic the answer can always be "proven" by remaining unproven.

in other words, how many fingers am I holding up?

I'll have my wife tell you it's 3, and someone else tell you none.

Did you miss the part about God being atemporal?

Pro Street · 01-06-2007, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Did you miss the part about God being atemporal?

no, that's what I addressed. You missed my point.

When you can claim an entity that does not need to apply to any law or dimension in the universe, its existance can be claimed. Any argument to such existance can be countered with that, and as such us being bound to those same laws cannot state otherwise.

This leads to the logical fallacy that Correlation doesn't apply to Causation, and that you cannot prove a negative.

Dumpy Dooby · 01-07-2007, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

no, that's what I addressed. You missed my point.

When you can claim an entity that does not need to apply to any law or dimension in the universe, its existance can be claimed. Any argument to such existance can be countered with that, and as such us being bound to those same laws cannot state otherwise.

This leads to the logical fallacy that Correlation doesn't apply to Causation, and that you cannot prove a negative.

I was quoting Diamond Cross and explaining the fallacy in his statement regarding something being atemporal whilst attempting to attribute temporal constraints (i.e., "before"). I wasn't attempting to say that the being is necessarily atemporal. It was a conditional statement.

But go you, I guess...

Pro Street · 01-07-2007, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I was quoting Diamond Cross and explaining the fallacy in his statement regarding something being atemporal whilst attempting to attribute temporal constraints (i.e., "before"). I wasn't attempting to say that the being is necessarily atemporal. It was a conditional statement.

But go you, I guess...

again, you quoted me... how were you quoting diamond cross?

haven't we gone over this before?

Dumpy Dooby · 01-07-2007, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

again, you quoted me... how were you quoting diamond cross?

haven't we gone over this before?

See posts #12 & #13.

I'm not too sure where you're going with this. If you mean to tell me that saying God is atemporal or alogical is a psychological fallacy (special pleading), then thanks, but I alread know that. If you're trying to prove mystatements wrong, then I would urge you to read them again. Like I said, I used a conditional statement ("IF God were atemporal...").