Feeling bored?

[Avatra1]

I've been playing a web browser game called "Dead Frontier"

*http://www.deadfrontier.com/*

While stumbling around on the forums I came upon a awesome topic called "A problem for Atheists"

http://fairview.deadfrontier.com/onlinezombiemmo/index.php?topic=455150.0

Here's the main argument

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

Now isn't this the most beautiful example of philosophical masturbation you've ever seen?
(it has it all, god of the gaps, first cause argument, appeal to ignorance, special pleading etc etc)

Oh and I think that the moderator who made this argument stopped replying to the contra arguments.

 

[nemesiss]

still the old "shift the burden" argument.
indeed, one of the best proofs hat your opponent has no answers.

also: (∞) + (-∞) = 0 is wrong;

(∞) + (-∞) = ,±Ã¢Ë†Å¾

the reason is that infinity isn't an integer, but a Real number.
more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

You should tell Him that his math is faulty.

The only way to mathematically prove God is:

God = square root [-1] = i

xD

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

It is possible to prove the existence of "the Invisible Pink Unicorn", and further, that it is impossible for anything to exist without "the Invisible Pink Unicorn". "A-Invisible-Pink-Unicornism" is therefore rendered illogical, since it denies the only viable explaination of how anything is able to exist in the first place.

It must be noted that proving the existence of "the Invisible Pink Unicorn" does not necessarily validate the teachings of any given "Horseshit" or philosophy. The term "the Invisible Pink Unicorn" is inherently vague, and means different things to different people. The Invisible Pink Unicorn that I can prove to exist is broadly defined as being:

Responsible for the existence of the universe (the first cause)
In possession of "hooves" ("artiodactyls", "perissodactyls" or otherwise)
"Magic" in nature (transcends the physical world)

"The Invisible Pink Unicorn" is the "Magic" being responsible for existence of everything else; "The Invisible Pink Unicorn" must exist "before" anything else can.

Any given explaination or cause for the universe needs to be justified, yet all justifications must also be justified, which leads either to cirularity, infinite regress or simply ignoring the need for further justification, all three are illogical. The only way to avoid this is to start with the only state that, due to its inherent nature, does not require justification, nothing. Since any given thing needs a reason for being, only nothing can exist without prior cause.

In order to get from nothing to something, we must consider what nothing is, and how it can be manipulated. Consider the following equation:

(1) + (-1) = 0

The only way to get something from nothing is to divide nothing into equal and opposite parts. As long as these parts are kept "seperate" they can theoretically exist indepently. Consider that when matter is formed from energy, there is created an equal quantity of matter and anti-matter and if the two are ever combined (represented by the + symbol) they annihilate each other and return to energy.

This suggests that energy is equal to nothing. At first this might seem hard to understand, but consider what energy really is, possibility. Science recognises many types of energy; kinetic, heat, sonic etc. It also recognises potential energy, a ball at the top of a hill has more potential energy than a ball at the bottom of the hill, because of its potential to gain energy as it rolls down. All the other types of energy rely on a physical things (matter) in order to function, the idea of kinetic energy is meaningless if there is nothing to move. In a pre-creation universe devoid of any matter, the only form of energy that can exists is potential energy, for without any matter as a frame of reference, the others are all meaningless.

Nothing represents ultimate potential, ultimate possibility, since nothing can be divided into any number of things, provided there is a mirror image to match it. Consider the following:

(163) + (-163) = 0

(1,2,3,..., n) + (-1,-2,-3,..., -n) = 0

(∞) + (-∞) = 0

Thus within nothing is the possibility for everything and anything. But the only way for that possibility to manifest is for the two opposites to be seperated. And since no physical thing or process exists in a pre-creation universe of nothing, the only way this can happen is if "something" "hoofs it". This thing, being responsible for the creation of everything through thought alone, must be that which people call "the Invisible Pink Unicorn".

This suggests that "magical hoofs" are an inherent and transcendent aspect of existence, like mathematics or the laws of physics; indeed, they are superior to these examples, since the later arise from the former, not the other way around.

Without "the Invisible Pink Unicorn", it is impossible for something to come from nothing, and if you do not embrace nothing as your starting point, you must instead embrace circularity, infinite regress or foundationalism. In other words, either you must accept that "the Invisible Pink Unicorn" exists, or accept that the universe is inherently "un-hoofed". If the universe is "un-hoofed" then any hoofed attempt to understand it is futile, leaving "hoofism" as our only guide.

Belief in "the Invisible Pink Unicorn" has been shown to have many benefits, and from personal experience I know it can have a profound positive effect on our lives. Ironically, "a-invisible-pink-unicornists" must embrace "hoofism", which will more often than not lead them back to belief in "the Invisible Pink Unicorn". Furthere more, if the universe is "un-hoofed", then their is no reason to remain an "a-invisible-pink-unicornist" anyway, since the "hoofed" principles upon which "a-invisible-pink-unicornism" are founded no longer apply.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Heisenberg disagrees with him. 'Nuff said.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

It is possible to prove the existence of "Muffin-man", and further, that it is impossible for anything to exist without "Muffin-man". "Amuffin-manism" is therefore rendered illogical, since it denies the only viable explanation of how anything is able to exist in the first place.

It must be noted that proving the existence of "Muffin-man" does not necessarily validate the teachings of any given "pastry" or philosophy. The term "God" is inherently vague, and means different things to different people. The "Muffin-man" that I can prove to exist is broadly defined as being:

Responsible for the existence of the universe (the first cause)
In possession of flour (corn, all-grain or otherwise)
Magic in nature (transcends the physical world)

"Muffin-man" is the magic being responsible for existence of everything else; "Muffin-man" must exist "before" anything else can.

Any given explanation or cause for the universe needs to be justified, yet all justifications must also be justified, which leads either to circularity, infinite regress or simply ignoring the need for further justification, all three are illogical. The only way to avoid this is to start with the only state that, due to its inherent nature, does not require justification, nothing. Since any given thing needs a reason for being, only nothing can exist without prior cause.

In order to get from nothing to something, we must consider what nothing is, and how it can be manipulated. Consider the following equation:

(1) + (-1) = 0

The only way to get something from nothing is to divide nothing into equal and opposite parts. As long as these parts are kept "separate" they can theoretically exist independently. Consider that when matter is formed from energy, there is created an equal quantity of matter and anti-matter and if the two are ever combined (represented by the + symbol) they annihilate each other and return to energy.

This suggests that energy is equal to nothing. At first this might seem hard to understand, but consider what energy really is, possibility. Science recognizes many types of energy; kinetic, heat, sonic etc. It also recognizes potential energy, a ball at the top of a hill has more potential energy than a ball at the bottom of the hill, because of its potential to gain energy as it rolls down. All the other types of energy rely on a physical things (matter) in order to function, the idea of kinetic energy is meaningless if there is nothing to move. In a pre-creation universe devoid of any matter, the only form of energy that can exists is potential energy, for without any matter as a frame of reference, the others are all meaningless.

Nothing represents ultimate potential, ultimate possibility, since nothing can be divided into any number of things, provided there is a mirror image to match it. Consider the following:

(163) + (-163) = 0

(1,2,3,..., n) + (-1,-2,-3,..., -n) = 0

(∞) + (-∞) = 0

Thus within nothing is the possibility for everything and anything. But the only way for that possibility to manifest is for the two opposites to be separated. And since no physical thing or process exists in a pre-creation universe of nothing, the only way this can happen is if "something" "cooks" it differently. This thing, being responsible for the creation of everything through thought alone, must be that which people call "Muffin-man".

This suggests that "cookery" and "muffins" are an inherent and transcendent aspect of existence, like mathematics or the laws of physics; indeed, they are superior to these examples, since the later arise from the former, not the other way around.

Without "Muffin-man", it is impossible for something to come from nothing, and if you do not embrace nothing as your starting point, you must instead embrace circularity, infinite regress or foundationalism. In other words, either you must accept that "Muffin-man" exists, or accept that the universe is inherently "uncooked". If the universe is uncooked then any rational attempt to understand it is futile, leaving "cookery" as our only guide.

Belief in "Muffin-man" has been shown to have many benefits, and from personal experience I know it can have a profound positive effect on our lives. Ironically, "amuffin-manists" must embrace "cookery", which will more often than not lead them back to belief in "Muffin-man". Furthermore, if the universe is "uncooked", then their is no reason to remain an "amuffin-manist" anyway, since the rational principles upon which "amuffin-manism" are founded no longer apply.

 

[Avatra1]

Mwhahaha!

The moderators on the forum, deleted my topic "what evidence is there for Jesus"

I suspect it was deleted because the theists were crying like babies.

*Edit*

Got it reinstated.

Or it could be that I need stronger glasses.

 

[barboft]

I don't get it. It's not that I'm thick but what exactly is the argument?

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

I don't get it. It's not that I'm thick but what exactly is the argument?

From what I've gathered he is using assuming a false premise and bad maths to justify a Special Pleading Fallacy to justify a Switch in Burden of Proof,

 

[barboft]

I don't get it. It's not that I'm thick but what exactly is the argument?

From what I've gathered he is using assuming a false premise and bad maths to justify a Special Pleading Fallacy to justify a Switch in Burden of Proof,

Translation : He's starting out by assuming something that is highly doubtful, then he's doing his sums wrong to justify "oh come on, just believe me" and saying "you prove there's no god, I've done my bit"

?

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

From what I've gathered he is using assuming a false premise and bad maths to justify a Special Pleading Fallacy to justify a Switch in Burden of Proof,

Translation : He's starting out by assuming something that is highly doubtful, then he's doing his sums wrong to justify "oh come on, just believe me" and saying "you prove there's no god, I've done my bit"

?

Pretty much.

It's really just a rehashing of the First Cause "argument" - it's locked into a largely irrelevant philosophy of time (A series) which is at odds with what we know about physics.

 

[lrkun]

It is possible to prove the existence of God, and further, that it is impossible for anything to exist without God. Atheism is therefore rendered illogical, since it denies the only viable explaination of how anything is able to exist in the first place.

It is not possible to prove the existence of god nor is it correct to say the it is impossible for anything to exist without god.

Why?

1. The poster defines god as a spiritual being. Under our current technology, we have yet to devise a means to measure or quantify or demonstrate that such really exists.

2. We cannot turn back time, therefore we cannot, for certain, say that this spiritual being is created everything or that everything can't exist without this alleged spiritual being. The poster, instead, assumes that this event happens without grounds to back it up, which is, to my mind, does not conform with aristotle's theory of inference.

3. Atheism means the lack of belief in a god. It neither denies that there is an explanation for everything nor does it confirm such. What it is, is state from which a person can contradict a theist from one who lacks such belief.

If I were to choose among the three, I really love number two because it is logical as when logic and reason requires one to have a basis which in turn can be verified from a source, to wit, are facts.

I think, this person, like any other believers, feel the need to be superior to others who are unlike them. Just ignore him. What he thinks he knows, with respect to reality, reflects his imagination as well as his delusion as when he believes in such an imaginary being.

 

[barboft]

My take on belief in god has always been that it's one of the following :



* God exists, but I don't know for sure, although I like to think that it does

* God exists, and I happen to be able to perceive it

* God exists, but there's no way of knowing for sure

* God doesn't exist, and there's no way of knowing for sure

 

[lrkun]

My take on belief in god has always been that it's one of the following :



* God exists, but I don't know for sure, although I like to think that it does

* God exists, and I happen to be able to perceive it

* God exists, but there's no way of knowing for sure

* God doesn't exist, and there's no way of knowing for sure

Maybe the best way for you, since you're a believer, is to say that god exists because i believe he exists.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

(∞) + (-∞) = 0

(∞) + (-∞) = ,±Ã¢Ë†Å¾

∞ - ∞ is indeterminate. It's a mathematically meaningless statement.

http://www.philforhumanity.com/Infinity_Minus_Infinity.html