Evidence that God exists

[Edwardo Piet]

1. Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

2. If you don't, then are you irrational, and is the burden of proof on you, despite the fact you have no evidence for it so it's perfectly understandable to not believe in it? And assuming that that, is perfectly understandable - why don't you believe the same logic applies to God?

3. If you do believe in the FSM, I'm all ears.

EvF

[Rhizomorph13]

Maybe the Christian God is an emanation (Noodly appendage) of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't think he's worthy of the FSM, Rhizo.

EvF

[Dotard]

Well, it could be the noodly appendage the FSM wee-wee's out of.

---

Here's one:

1: God is by definition eternal - i.e. he could not come into existence or leave existence, since he is not a contingent being.

2: If God exists, his existence is necessary.......... (snip)

Seems this only works if one presupposes your version of God exists.

Wow.

1: Eternal Grumlins are by definition eternal - i.e.they could not come into existence or leave existence, since they are not contingent beings.

2: If Eternal Grumlins exists, they're existence is necessary.................

[Anto Kennedy]

1. Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

3. If you do believe in the FSM, I'm all ears.

EvF

I've already said this before, I do believe in the FSM. Just as the other gods were created by man, so was the FSM.

The FSM is an Image, a metaphor, representing (or satirizing) the bizarre logic of myth. It exists in the mind, and since it's creation it has taken on a life and meaning of it's own, distinct from what it was created to be.

In fact the FSM bears a marked resemblance to the typhonic sea beast, which is usually employed to signify chaos, disorder and of course in the case of the FSM, the illogic (apparent to the atheist) of religion. Being a myth designed to satire myth, maybe it's a meta-myth, yet it is still myth, and still exist in the minds, consciously and more importantly, subconsciously, of all who have become aware of it.

Fig A.


And the FSM's historical counterpart; was this similarity intended? The threat from the deep, the chaotic one that will drown you in irrational religious bullshit.

Fig B.


Intelligent Design is going to get you! And the Catholic priest will rape you're babies!

Fig C.


By the way, a thumbs up for introducing the FSM into the arguement, very rational indeed.

[Tiberius]

What exactly is irrational about bringing the FSM into an argument if the point of the FSM was to show that you cannot disprove its existence anymore than another god?

[Anto Kennedy]

What exactly is irrational about bringing the FSM into an argument if the point of the FSM was to show that you cannot disprove its existence anymore than another god?

It is believed by some philosophers (notably A.C. Grayling) and experts, that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.

It is quite evident from modern cognitive science and neuroscience, studying the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a complete psychopath with a massively damaged amygdala.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

It's irrational because while the FSM quite clearly exists, the debater's reason was comprimised by personal bias. This bias is materialism, monism or physicalism.

But I don't give a shit about being rational, who wants to join the Borg collective anyway? Reality is irrational.

[Tiberius]

Pray explain how that argument has a bias in materialism, monism, or physicalism. It's an argument about knowledge; if we accept that the universe is material, we can say that things can never be truly disproven. If we accept that the universe is immaterial, technically the only way of knowing things would be through omniscience through the very beings we are arguing about in the first place.

[Anto Kennedy]

if we accept that the universe is material, we can say that things can never be truly disproven. If we accept that the universe is immaterial, technically the only way of knowing things would be through omniscience through the very beings we are arguing about in the first place.

Therefore if God exists, the only way to find out is to "ask and it will be given you", "seek and you shall find".

Unless you make an effort to percieve god, you're being unscientific. Science is perception, if you can't perceive anything, try and try again untill your perceive "something".

There is no burden of proof for either side in the debate. However, the burden is on the atheist to see for themselves what all the fuss is about.

And if God does not exist, then you have to keep looking anyway, we aren't omniscient so we can never know for sure that God doesn't exist. If you give up, you're not being scientific.

Therefore, atheism, is unscientific ASWELL as being irrational.

---

God is Love

Love is the absolute moral authority, moral compass. If not, then it wouldn't be Love.
If atheists don't believe in God, they don't believe in Love.

If atheists don't believe in Love, and Love is the absolute moral authority, then atheists are immoral.

Love cannot be proven nor disproven. But those without Love will do everything in their power to find it. If you do not seek Love, you do not Love yourself. Which breaks the two greatest commandments, "Love yourself, as you Love others" and "Love Love (God)"


If you don't want Love, simply because it is irrational, I pity you.

Hope you find it.

[Dotard]

Therefore if God exists, the only way to find out is to "ask and it .....snip

Why they allow internet access in mental institutions is beyond me.

AK's statements are so far off in the deep end I am left to conclude either;
A.) AK really is posting from his confinement in a mental institution or
B.) He is really is an atheist posing as a theist in order to demonstrate the silliness, irrationality and, in some cases, downright stupidity of theistic arguements.