Only Twenty?

[Minimalist]

Let's face it. Someone who openly admits to being impressed by this shit



can't be taken seriously.

[max-greece]

Can we please refer to him as Kolbe.

[Cyberman]

I've got hundreds of similar proofs that piss all over his twenty:

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

I mean - twenty? N00b!

[Doubting Thomas]

And for fuck's sake, Pascal's wager is on there. It seems pretty desperate to include that on a list of arguments for god's existence, because not only is it a total failure, it doesn't even attempt prove god's existence.

Not only that, but Argument from Design is included, which a huge fallacious argument (life looks designed, therefore God exists). What makes it fallacious is that Muslims also use the same argument for their religion, and it can apply to any god, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Simon Moon]

I thought there were more:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/2...stence.htm

Isn't 20 fallacy laden arguments enough for you?


You'd think that 20 failures is already beyond what any self respecting person would want to endure. Why would you think there are more?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I agree with the OP. Only 20? Surely there's millions, all equally absurd and un-evidenced.

[Cinjin]

Shit, I wish Max would actually respond to these threads so I can tear into something reactive.

Max Kolbe

[Doubting Thomas]

Also, on that page the funny part is under the section "argument from miracles," they claim that there are "numerous well-attested miracles" which could only have happened because of God. Then they fail to mention any of them.

[Raven]

from the "20 proofs": So there is not really a proof from miracles. If you see some event as a miracle, then the activity of God is seen in this event. There is a movement of the mind from this event to its proper interpretation as miraculous. And what gives impetus to that movement is not just the event by itself, but the many factors surrounding it which invite—or seem to demand—such interpretation.

But miraculous events exist. Indeed, there is massive, reliable testimony to them across many times, places and cultures.

Therefore their cause exists.

And their only adequate cause is God.

Therefore God exists.

The argument is not a proof, but a very powerful clue or sign.

So even these bozos admit this is not a "proof". Why, therefore, is it included?

I remember back before I had the good sense to leave all this stuff behind me, that it was not uncommon for them to have a visiting priest take a special collection at Sunday mass (RC church of course). One I can remember clearly was this priest regaled us with the tale of "Our Lady" appearing to some peasant children somewhere in Europe who informed said kids that she was very sad because people insisted on committing blasphemy in the form of saying "For Christ's sake" and such. She was said because her Son was going to do the world in if we did not cut it out. So they should go home and inform everyone to be on their best behavior. So it got investigated (whatever that actually means) by the Church and declared to be a grade A, certified, genuine miracle by Holy Mother Church and we should all give an extra donation to help the upkeep on the site of said miracle. He got a pretty good haul as I recall.

[Doubting Thomas]

Oh for Christ's sake.