St. Anselm Move Over--Here Come Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron!

St. Anselm's famous ontological proof of God's existence runs something like this:

    I can conceive of a perfect God.
    One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
    Therefore, God exists.

Unfortunately, some benighted souls (I among them) have found the argument somewhat less than convincing. However, Ray Comfort, author of the best-selling God Doesn't Believe in Atheists and ex-atheist side-kick Kirk Cameron promise to prove the existence of the Most High Lord in a debate in New York City on May 5. ABC television is recording the debate and will apparently broadcast it later on Nightline. Comfort claims: 

"Most people equate atheism with intellectualism, but it's actually an intellectual embarrassment. I am amazed at how many people think that God's existence is a matter of faith. It's not, and I will prove it at the debate - once and for all. This is not a joke. I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists." 

For more alleged proofs of God's existence than you can shake a stick at look here.

Disclosure: Some of my best friends are Christians.  

Comments

jimmydageek | April 26, 2007, 1:05pm | #

Disclosure: Some of my best friends are Christians.

Therein lies your problem...

montaigne | April 26, 2007, 1:06pm | #

As a christian from the conservative side of the church, I hate seeing these types of things. While Kirk and Ray may have good intentions, they're not elijah and fire is not coming down from heaven. So if they fail to prove God, then they've set the Christian community up for attacks and possibly turned folks away.

Fluffy | April 26, 2007, 1:11pm | #

I know philosophy professors who to this day assert that Anselm's proof is valid, and that if I have a problem with it I have a problem with logic.

Never mind the fact that the whole "one aspect of perfection is existence" part is nonsensical. Perfect at what? Perfect for whom?

ed | April 26, 2007, 1:11pm | #

I am; therefore, I'll think.

z | April 26, 2007, 1:12pm | #

The best "proof" that God exists is that so many people believe it to be true for so long a time. That's not to say they couldn't all be wrong, but there really is no way to prove it. My favorite goes is the old 'the universe is too complex to have been created by chance, therefore, God must exist'. But um, if God is capable of creating the universe, then certainly he is more complex than the universe, and therefore God could not have been created by chance, therefore, a meta-God must exist who can create Gods, and so on and so on.

jimmydageek | April 26, 2007, 1:14pm | #

...I will prove it at the debate...

I hope they check these guys and all of their equipment for explosives, WMDs, etc...

"You don't believe in God? I'll show you God, sons of bitches!"...KABOOM!!

As much as I despise her, Rosie had a point in saying that extreme "Christians" parallel extreme "Muslims".

Bhh | April 26, 2007, 1:16pm | #

I took a philosophy of religion class at a local college when I was still in high school. I thought Anselm's proof was pretty cool. Although I was 17 and baked at the time.

Grotius | April 26, 2007, 1:17pm | #

Ronald Bailey,

You should check this out.

ed | April 26, 2007, 1:18pm | #

OK, how about this:

I can't conceive of a perfect God.
One of the qualities of imperfection is existence.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.

joe | April 26, 2007, 1:21pm | #

Um, doesn't that just prove that St. Anselm can conceive of a God that exists?

Eryk Boston | April 26, 2007, 1:22pm | #

True Atheism is an irrational belief as it is an adherance to a negative. How does one prove that god does not exist?

Sal Paradise | April 26, 2007, 1:23pm | #

I'm not going to make up my mind until Boner weighs in on this matter.

Ron Bailey | April 26, 2007, 1:24pm | #

Grotius: Absolutely hilarious. Thanks!

Number 6 | April 26, 2007, 1:25pm | #

I'm not entirely sure one can conceive of a perfect God. All the conceptions I see are rather less than perfect. I'm also not sure what Anselm's definition of perfection is. That's two objections to the first part of the syllogism.
Given that perfection does not exist in the real world, and is almost always used as an abstraction or a yardstick against which everything fails, I'd suggest that non-existence could be considered a property of perfection.

So the premises are questionable at best. The conclusion must also be suspect.

scottp | April 26, 2007, 1:26pm | #

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Matt | April 26, 2007, 1:27pm | #

Eryk Boston,
do you believe in tooth fairys? Is it 'irrational' to adhere to the 'belief' that tooth fairys dont exist?

henry | April 26, 2007, 1:28pm | #

Which fucking god(s) are we talking about again? Oh yeah, the one these assholes already happen to believe in, "pre-logically".

Happens over and over--see Pasqual's Wager. Some bogus intellectual construct magically points to a god (supposedly), and it is always the same fucking god they already believed in. Otherwise how would you get to Jesus and his wacky sidekick, the Holy Ghost? And without them you might as well be a (gasp!) Jew or something.

Same shit, different day--the Christers can't help embarrassing themselves over and over.

Number 6 | April 26, 2007, 1:29pm | #

Eryck- One recognizes that those asserting the existence of god are making a claim that demands evidence, and suggests that the current evidence is not convincing.
In other words, atheism is not a belief in a negative, it is a denial of a positive statement.

biologist | April 26, 2007, 1:29pm | #

"a banana is just the right shape for a human mouth"

Grotius, you just know Comfort is going to be the next Christian conservative to be outed as a gay man, when the video of him fellating Kirk Cameron is posted on YouTube.

Sandy | April 26, 2007, 1:31pm | #

I like how this "debate" mentions no one on the opposing side. I can prove lots of things if left utterly unchallenged, too.

Rat Tomago | April 26, 2007, 1:31pm | #

"when God made man, glasses weren't invented...but look where He put our ears!"
~Benny Hill

Number 6 | April 26, 2007, 1:32pm | #

By the way: at this point, I've screwed up twice. I keep vowing to myself that I will not engage in discussions where everyone's mind is made up, and where dialog is fruitless. In other words, I'm out of this thread. Enjoy the shouting match.

Lupito41 | April 26, 2007, 1:35pm | #

"As much as I despise her, Rosie had a point in saying that extreme 'Christians' parallel extreme 'Muslims'."

Why? Because you can make up a scenario where they blow up NY? All the shameful abortion-clinic bombings combined don't equal one month of extremist Muslim terror. Your posts I've seen are thoughtful, so please beef up this claim for me!

"I'm not going to make up my mind until Boner weighs in on this matter."

I bow to your sublime allusion, sir.

TrickyVic | April 26, 2007, 1:35pm | #

""" I can conceive of a perfect God.
One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
Therefore, God exists."""

I guess this was St. Anselm's lame attempt at a syllogism.

joe | April 26, 2007, 1:35pm | #

"Is he able (to prevent evil), but not willing?
Then he is malevolent."

Hey, scottp just called libertarians malevolent!

Eryk Boston | April 26, 2007, 1:36pm | #

Matt, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you say there is a tooth fairy, you must show evidence. If you say there is none, you must do likewise. If you say there is no proof that there is a tooth fairy and that is highly likely to be nonsense you do not have the same burden as when you catagoricaly declare her non-existence.

If you say you have faith and that you choose to believe regardless of proof that is not the same as the stance of the atheist who does not merely say they doubt or that there is no proof but that god definitively does not exist. It is logically impossible to prove such a negative.

David | April 26, 2007, 1:37pm | #

Here's a link to a helpful article on ontological arguments:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

Fear Not! | April 26, 2007, 1:37pm | #

Fear Not Number Six!
the haiku brigade is here
To interrupt pain

Matt | April 26, 2007, 1:38pm | #

"Is he able (to prevent evil), but not willing?
Then he is malevolent."

If seen this phrased as "not omni-benevolent" Not the same thing as malevolent.

cant be allpowerful, allknowing, and allgood given the situation on the ground. Unless you believe the miserable and selfserving platitude 'god works in mysterious ways', when some bad S@#$ happens to you.

Reinmoose | April 26, 2007, 1:39pm | #

I'm so looking forward to watching this. I'll set my TIVO. I didn't have one before, but then I conceived one to be so perfect that it suddenly existed, and now I can watch this program. Thank you oh great TIVO.

Eryk Boston | April 26, 2007, 1:39pm | #

Number 6, "I don't know" or "I'm not/can't be sure" is the stance of an agnostic. "There is no god" is the stance of the atheist.

TrickyVic | April 26, 2007, 1:40pm | #

"""True Atheism is an irrational belief as it is an adherance to a negative. How does one prove that god does not exist?"""

How is it "negative"?

Those who claim something as fact have the responsibiltiy to support that claim and give evidence as to its truth. It is not the responsibility of the listener to dis-prove the claim.

If you claim God exists, you have the burden of proof. You are not right until proven wrong.

Grotius | April 26, 2007, 1:42pm | #

R.C. Dean,

Yeah, the banana claim left me speechless.

biologist,

I ain't even going there.

MP | April 26, 2007, 1:43pm | #

In other words, atheism is not a belief in a negative, it is a denial of a positive statement.

Well, if you by into the Strong vs. Weak paradigm, the Strong Atheists (such as myself) do believe in the negative.

Eryk Boston | April 26, 2007, 1:43pm | #

On balance, I should add that religious persons who insist on trying to prove god's existence are declaring that they need proof and are thus lacking in true faith which is supposed to be the cornerstone of practicing a "faith".

Grotius | April 26, 2007, 1:45pm | #

Alright, back to square one.

Agnosticism speaks to knowledge. I am an agnostic.

Atheism speaks to belief. I am an atheist.

I am an agnostic atheist.

Most people, whether they are theists or atheists, are agnostics.

VM | April 26, 2007, 1:46pm | #

Reinmoose,

wonderful! Welcome to the world of thinking like an economist.

[scene changes. desert island with a mechanical engineer, physicist, and an economist. They're trying to open a can of food]

ME: okay. I can build this rig that will cut at the exact angle to open the can.
P: well I can open the can by strking it at the exact angle
E: here's how we open it. Assume a can opener...

Matt | April 26, 2007, 1:46pm | #

Eryk, im going to post your original statement again.

"True Atheism is an irrational belief as it is an adherance to a negative. How does one prove that god does not exist?'

for the sake of arguement, I'll grant you atheism is a belief. your characterization of it as irrational is silly. Given the lack of evidence you yourself allude to in this statement "Matt, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim" it is quite rational to become an Atheist.

Prove to me that tooth fairys dont exist. Until then I will say that tooth fairys dont exist. I hope you'll agree people will think me the sane one.

TrickyVic | April 26, 2007, 1:47pm | #

Ahhh Eryk, I got ya. By a "true athiest" making the claim that no god exist he would have to support or prove that claim. I agree.

Jake Boone | April 26, 2007, 1:50pm | #

Number 6, "I don't know" or "I'm not/can't be sure" is the stance of an agnostic. "There is no god" is the stance of the atheist.

I see the terminology problem has arisen once more, with theists telling atheists what atheism means. Before this goes any further, please refer to my post here, so that we can get past problems of definition.

And by "we", I mean "you". My haiku brigade emergency pager just went off, so I have work to do.

MattXIV | April 26, 2007, 1:52pm | #

Eryk,

"How does one prove that god does not exist?"

Define for me "god" and I'll tell you how to determine if one is out there.

GILMORE | April 26, 2007, 1:55pm | #

Disclosure: Some of my best friends are Christians.

Unfortunately Ron that doesnt make your approach to the topic of religion any less consistently smarmy and condescending. It sounds like you're being nice to them by letting them live with illusions

Actually i normally get as much joy from your disclosures as reciting suras of the q'uran, but this one seemed a little gayzorz.

I can prove to anyone that God exists by taking them to Junior's for cheesecake and coffee.

JG*
*Not a christian, but personally think libertarians are more annoying and one-dimensional about religion than the bible beaters i went to college with. They at least saw a spectrum to it rather than the black/white nonsense about 'reason vs. religion'

TrickyVic | April 26, 2007, 1:55pm | #

Certainly no Syllogism would prove the existance of God, or the non-existance of God. Therefore it is an inductive argument. However if you look at the premises that either side could use, the non-existance of God would probably win. I would think there are far more true statments on the no god side than the pro god side.

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 1:55pm | #

"How does one prove that god does not exist?"

The burdon of proof is on the one who makes the claim. I will not believe in gods unless somebody proves they exist just as I will not believe in elves unless somebody proves their existance to me.

Jake Boone | April 26, 2007, 1:56pm | #

Bananas prove God,
Comfort and Cameron say.
Explain pineapples.

VM | April 26, 2007, 1:58pm | #

Rallying to Jake!
Contributes much to these threads!
Definitions - key!

Different forms of Faith
Collide in religious thought
hard philosophy!

Matt D's DEMAND KURV
Cannot penetrate this thread
Moose no understand.

robc | April 26, 2007, 1:58pm | #

Pasqual's Wager

Is that one:

What are the odds that I-285 is a circle?

jimmydageek | April 26, 2007, 2:00pm | #

Lupito41 | April 26, 2007, 1:35pm | #

"As much as I despise her, Rosie had a point in saying that extreme 'Christians' parallel extreme 'Muslims'."

Why? Because you can make up a scenario where they blow up NY? All the shameful abortion-clinic bombings combined don't equal one month of extremist Muslim terror. Your posts I've seen are thoughtful, so please beef up this claim for me!

I meant that they see themselves committing murder in the name of their God. The quantity of lives taken becomes irrelevant as soon as a single human being is murdered in the name of whatever God you chose to believe in.

To elaborate further, the targets of extreme "Muslims" are usually members of another tribe or race who often congregate together in large numbers. If all abortion proponents and homosexuals did the same (congregate), extreme "Christians" would almost certainly resort to the same style of mass killings.

At least that's the way I see it...feel free to counter.

VM | April 26, 2007, 2:00pm | #

Banana - berry
Does fail the monkey test
BLUS residuals.

henry | April 26, 2007, 2:03pm | #

"It sounds like you're being nice to them by letting them live with illusions."

Uh, that is exactly what we are doing, to the extent we do it. See The Grand Inquisitor chapter of The Brothers Karamazov for a fuller explanation.

Reinmoose | April 26, 2007, 2:04pm | #

VM:
I love that joke, only I've heard it with the 3 people being in a hole and the economist says "assume a ladder."

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 2:07pm | #

"when God made man, glasses weren't invented...but look where He put our ears!"
~Benny Hill

George Carlin also pointed out how God made bugers brown so they could be camoflaged under wooden desks.

VM | April 26, 2007, 2:07pm | #

Rein -

agreed it's a fun one. In B-school I actually got to use it - we were teamed up based on concentration/ background. I was in a group with an MIS type, a marketing type, and an ACTG type. We had a blast. But for the presentation (each of us presented a unique solution based on our disciplines), that's exactly what I did, "assume a rescue helicopter"...

As usual, I was much more amused than the others there.

:)

Grotius | April 26, 2007, 2:09pm | #

VM,

Can you explain the inside joke behind "DEMAND KURVE?"

highnumber | April 26, 2007, 2:11pm | #

I just got the call.
Fools are arguing again.
Will they ever learn?

crimethink | April 26, 2007, 2:11pm | #

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim? That's a double-edged sword, friends and others.

Can you prove that the universe came into being without God? (I mean God defined broadly, ie as something/someone outside the universe and not subject to its laws.) Note that this entails not only proving that the Big Bang or something similar happened; you'll have to prove that something non-divine caused the Big Bang, etc.

And if you're going to quote Hume that causality is a meaningless concept, keep in mind that you're destroying the basis of science even more than that of religion.

dead_elvis | April 26, 2007, 2:12pm | #

This reminds me of
Opening Al Capone's vault
Call Geraldo now!

dhex | April 26, 2007, 2:12pm | #

http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/graphics/books/bambam.jpg

WHAT?

WHHAAAAAAAAT

man, it's so good it's nearly......god.

Stevo Darkly | April 26, 2007, 2:13pm | #

Um, doesn't that just prove that St. Anselm can conceive of a God that exists?

Yes, that's basically it.

The Jesuit priest who taught my logic class at Saint Louis U. introduced this "proof," then let us stew in it a bit. Then he explained why it was bogus. This is the day I learned the word "tautology."

Also: If it was possible to prove that God exists, then faith would no longer be a virtue, because faith would no longer have a purpose.

slugger | April 26, 2007, 2:13pm | #

O.K. I'm convinced by the argument.
Now what do I do about the people who think I believe in the wrong God? Or believe in the right one, but not in the right way? Or in the right one, in the right way, but wear a blue hat instead of a gray one?
Actually, my view is the same as Nietzchke's : the trouble with Christians is that you can't tell them from anybody else. The selfproclaimed don't act any better than the rest of us. I'll take talk of God seriously when the churched start behaving like it.

dhex | April 26, 2007, 2:14pm | #

and goddamnit one day we'll figure out a way to divide the rational and the pre-rational and have everyone be mildly happy. or at least back away from x-treme mountain dew ad hominems. our children will be slightly less foolish for it, or at least a little more polite.

i have the feeling we're going to need a giant bonfire though. and probably a lot of guns. and some labor camps! yeah! labor camps!

Grotius | April 26, 2007, 2:16pm | #

crimethink,

Can you prove that the universe came into being without God?

Would one have to? If one can discern a sufficiently reasonable explanation based on natural processes one wonders why God has to be involved in the process.

ktc2 | April 26, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Oh no! Not again!

I wish Douglas Adams were still alive to actually write those three philosophical blockbusters he referenced:

1) Where God Went Wrong
2) More of God's Greatest Mistakes
3) Who is this God Person Anyway?

VM | April 26, 2007, 2:18pm | #

Gro -

when there was all of those arguments about minimum wage, someone kept bringing up a demand curve, probably from poorly understood Econ 79 (not even 101!).

So that got turned, by Mr. Steven Crane and I, into Matt Damon's character in "Team America" saying "DEMAND KURV" instead of "MATT DAMON", because the guy's argument was basically retarded.

So it's an obnoxious catch all for the über simplistic "the market will take care of it" style of argument. (Especially when the current state, defined by the argurer as "free market" somehow incorporates a "might makes right" or a "big corporations do it. I'm for it. That settles it" theme)

The other day you (correctly) noted that it is obnoxious, in a little brother sort of way. I agree, but some of the snarking here merited a little "younger brothering".

:)

Stevo - excellent post. As usual, your presence elevates the thread!!!!!!!

now a short haiku
roses are read (!) underground
THE JAM still is best!

A non sequitur,
nonsensical, fun haiku
makes for nonplussed group

jimmydageek | April 26, 2007, 2:19pm | #

If VT happened
Because "God was not let in"
One could postulate:

"In God We Trust" is
On all U.S. currency;
God is everywhere.

Surely, students in
Classroom had money on hand
When tragedy struck

VM | April 26, 2007, 2:22pm | #

but too much money
made fucking loon named cho
do all that killing


There once was a poster named Crane
Twaddlenocks' existence was he their bane
He cause many to grin
But their heads did spin
And they became batshit insane!

highnumber | April 26, 2007, 2:22pm | #

If there is a god,
I don't care and I don't care
if there is no god.

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 2:23pm | #

"If you say you have faith and that you choose to believe regardless of proof"

Is it a logical position to believe something just because you want it to be true? Is it a logical positition to believe something because somebody told you it's true even though they have nothing in which to prove it and you have nothing in which to prove it? That makes you a knee-jerk reactionary.

Number 6 | April 26, 2007, 2:25pm | #

Can you prove that the universe came into being without God? (I mean God defined broadly, ie as something/someone outside the universe and not subject to its laws.)
No. Personally, I've never made that claim. (If anyone insists on tagging my with a label, I propose Spinozan/Einsteinian weak deist agnostic.) But I can certainly prove that the literal interpretation of the bible (and therefore, of Yehweh) is almost certainly bullshit.

I'm not familiar with the Hume argument you mention, but I will point out that the Aristotelian Prime Mover argument (I assume you're headed that way) fails for reasons other than whether or not causation is meaningful.

And I've done it again. Ok. This time I mean it...I will no longer argue this point.

JasonL | April 26, 2007, 2:26pm | #

re: the ontological argument

joe:

There is a part missing in the description. The essence is :

A) God is defined to be something/someone greater than all else.

B) I can conceive of God.

D) That which exists is greater than that which does does not.

E) If God exists in my conception and God is by defninition greater than everything else and real existence is greater than imaginary existence, God must exist outside my imagination.

The real problem to me lies in A and B. You can't conceive of the infinitely "great" in any clear terms. You only have a fuzzy view of what you are talking about, so you can't take the next step regarding existence.

mediageek | April 26, 2007, 2:29pm | #

James Cameron
Claims to Have Jesus' Tomb
Kirk Cameron Wept

--------

The result of this
A new sitcom Cameron
versus Cameron

Grotius | April 26, 2007, 2:29pm | #

JasonL,

That's where the prophets come in. ;)

Jeff P. | April 26, 2007, 2:30pm | #

I can conceive of a perfect holiday fruitcake.
I can conceive of a halfway decent comic book or SF film.
I can conceive of Steve Hackett being part of the Genesis reunion, and only pre-Duke material being played.

None of the above exist.

bill | April 26, 2007, 2:31pm | #

I guess St Anselm never heard that "Existence precedes Essence".

Number 6 | April 26, 2007, 2:31pm | #

Jason- That version (which is the one I'm familiar with) also demands that we ask why "real existence" is greater than the alternative, and what sense it makes to describe a being that is by definition non-corporeal and outside of time (and therefore the physical universe) as possessing real existence.

Ok. Really. I'm done.

ed | April 26, 2007, 2:31pm | #

Jesus wept. I laughed.
I'm insensitive that way.
I also ate ham.

VM | April 26, 2007, 2:31pm | #

Cameron Cameron film:
Slashfic of epic levels
I'll be in my bunk

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 2:32pm | #

"Can you prove that the universe came into being without God?"

Can you prove that it did come into existence through God? How did he do it? Does he have a brain, hands? I can conceive of a multiverse that has always been here. Perhaps big bangs have been going on for an infinity. Saying a god created all this is to take it back unecessarily an extra step.

dhex | April 26, 2007, 2:32pm | #

"Is it a logical positition to believe something because somebody told you it's true even though they have nothing in which to prove it and you have nothing in which to prove it?"

do you believe in love?

(no, serious question. because love generally satisfies the above. i'm also presuming you're not ron hardin.)

NoStar | April 26, 2007, 2:34pm | #

Add this to the collection:
1. I sing off key
2. I sang "He's got the whole world in his hands."
3. My performance did not deserve an ovation from God.
4. We have not been flattened by hand clapping.

Therefore, God exists.

Silliness aside, I have been on both sides. I know I can't use my anecdotal experiences to prove something to anyone else, but since having been slapped up along side the head (to get my attention) and the presence of Ruach HaKodesh (Holy spirit) was revealed to me, my migraine headaches and depressions are cured within a few minutes of prayer.

Does anyone want to argue that the rational thing for me to do is to disavow my belief in God, stop praying, and start paying for ergotamine and elavil prescriptions?

mediageek | April 26, 2007, 2:34pm | #

"I can conceive of a perfect holiday fruitcake.
I can conceive of a halfway decent comic book or SF film.
I can conceive of Steve Hackett being part of the Genesis reunion, and only pre-Duke material being played."

But I can conceive of an alternate universe where all of the above exist.

Therefore, in an alternate universe, they exist!

biologist | April 26, 2007, 2:34pm | #

crimethink:

No, nor can we prove that God brought the universe into existence. One cannot use natural phenomena to prove OR disprove supernatural phenomena.

Popperian practitioners of science would also say that properly, scientists don't prove anything, we advance knowledge by disproving and eliminating false hypotheses.

God could have been responsible for the big bang, or not. There's no way to know.

dhex | April 26, 2007, 2:34pm | #

cheat answer: that's because the rational and the pre-rational are not the same thing. confusing the two leads to chest pain, constipation, headaches, nausea and kirk cameron.

Seamus | April 26, 2007, 2:35pm | #

"a banana is just the right shape for a human mouth"

I've always been much more persuaded by the correlation between the diameters of nostrils and those of forefingers.

NoStar | April 26, 2007, 2:38pm | #

Rattlesnake,
Within my lifetime there were proponents of the "Steady-State" theory of cosmology. They held that the universe always was and was not created, therefore god was superfluous.

You should have seen the mad scramble to set up new barricades against god when the big bang was discovered.

NoStar | April 26, 2007, 2:40pm | #

Mediageek, Can you prove that you can conceive or is this just an unfounded assertion?

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 2:42pm | #

"do you believe in love?"

Love is a feeling that most of us have experienced so it's not a case of having to accept somebody's word for it.

dhex | April 26, 2007, 2:44pm | #

"Love is a feeling that most of us have experienced so it's not a case of having to accept somebody's word for it."

do you believe in reciprocal love, then? have you ever been wrong about it?

it's a kind of faith, no doubt.

Mad Max | April 26, 2007, 2:44pm | #

"The Jesuit priest who taught my logic class at Saint Louis U. introduced this "proof," then let us stew in it a bit. Then he explained why it was bogus."

You realize that today's Jesuits (at least in America) have pretty much gone native, and have become highly critical of Church doctrines and traditions? So a Jesuit criticizing a Father of the Church is about as shocking as Kenny Rogers smoking dope. Shouldn't even be newsworthy.

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 2:45pm | #

"since having been slapped up along side the head (to get my attention) and the presence of Ruach HaKodesh (Holy spirit) was revealed to me, my migraine headaches and depressions are cured within a few minutes of prayer."

Psychosomatics

JasonL | April 26, 2007, 2:47pm | #

Anselm's version was rough, Leibniz's was clear, and Goddel's was formal.

Goddel didn't publish his during his life IIRC because he was afraid it would be received as an attempt on his part to prove the existence of God in fact, which to his mind it did not. He was seeking only to formalize an ontological style argument.

brotherben | April 26, 2007, 2:48pm | #

I believe in God.
Some people don't.
I am okay with that now.
I truly wish everyone a beautiful day.


Just so you know, here is my philosophy:

I married,
therefore I drink.

Lupito41 | April 26, 2007, 2:49pm | #

jimmydageek:

Thanks for the extra beef. I get your point, but gay pride parades and N.O.W. rallies on the Hill have never been targeted by Christian terrorists. It seems to me -- not a bit Christian or Muslim myself -- that extreme Islam teaches in churches and schools the killing of "infidels", while for Christians it is the miniscule kook fringe, immediately disavowed by the moderate center. And even those kooks have been almost nonexistant in the last decade.

Perhaps, as you said, identifiable gay communities would be more readily attacked, but the evidence we have seems to indicate otherwise.

This threat has sprawled. Feel free to email me, or to simply look forward to another exchange in the future.

mister twister | April 26, 2007, 2:51pm | #

I can conceive of a perfect Burrito.
One of the qualities of perfection is Good Green Chile.
Therefore, Burrito's exist. And I'm having one for lunch

mediageek | April 26, 2007, 2:52pm | #

"Mediageek, Can you prove that you can conceive or is this just an unfounded assertion?"

Thus far in my life, I'm completely happy to have not conceived...

MacPimp | April 26, 2007, 2:54pm | #

Ah yes, Ray "Argumentum ad Banana" Comfort.

A banana is
Also the exact right shape
To put somewhere else.

mediageek | April 26, 2007, 2:55pm | #

Mister Twister-

Can God Himself microwave a burrito so hot that not even He can eat it?

(stolen from some movie or something.)

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 2:55pm | #

"do you believe in reciprocal love, then? have you ever been wrong about it?"

"it's a kind of faith, no doubt."

I'm not sure I know where you're coming from? There is reciprocal love, nothing supernatural about that. Sometimes there is nonrequited love. I've been there before. Nothing supernatural about that either.

Bhh | April 26, 2007, 3:01pm | #

How about the proof from nitrous oxide: I was having my wisdom teeth taken out and . . . wow, man.

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 3:02pm | #

"Thanks for the extra beef. I get your point, but gay pride parades and N.O.W. rallies on the Hill have never been targeted by Christian terrorists. It seems to me -- not a bit Christian or Muslim myself -- that extreme Islam teaches in churches and schools the killing of "infidels", while for Christians it is the miniscule kook fringe, immediately disavowed by the moderate center. And even those kooks have been almost nonexistant in the last decade."

The only reason Christianity isn't as bad as the Muslim religion now is that Christianity has been secularized. Thank goodness we are no longer living in medieval times.

Fluffy | April 26, 2007, 3:02pm | #

Changing the argument from "perfect" to "greater" doesn't really help it.

Unless the meaning of "greater" being invoked is "larger", we're ultimately talking about a value judgment.

Greater when applied to what end? Greater when compared to what state? Greater for whom?

Lupito41 | April 26, 2007, 3:03pm | #

jimmydageek:

meant to say this "thread" has sprawled, not "threat".

henry | April 26, 2007, 3:03pm | #

Oh, this No Star idiot again, with same argument:

Science is subject to change (i.e. falsifiable), therefore it is impermanent and may be "wrong"--unlike the "God" he conveniently found when his life got too pathetic. Since "He" is a belief beyond falsification, he can never fail! QED, God is better than science.

Zzzzzzz. Won't these losers ever shut the fuck up, for Christ's sake? And I mean that literally--these "dopes for Christ" are the worst imaginable advertisement for Him.

dhex | April 26, 2007, 3:03pm | #

referring to the original statement:

"Is it a logical positition to believe something because somebody told you it's true even though they have nothing in which to prove it and you have nothing in which to prove it?"

what i'm saying is that there's a line between the rational and the pre-rational (or intuitive or whatever you want to call it) that everyone engages in. some people take it a bit further and form communities around it, is all.

i mean, personally i'm a discordian apagnostic (and i'm not even sure about that).

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 3:04pm | #

"A banana is
Also the exact right shape
To put somewhere else."

Like a cigar?

NoStar | April 26, 2007, 3:08pm | #

#6,
But I can certainly prove that the literal interpretation of the bible (and therefore, of Yehweh) is almost certainly bullshit.

Well, you did put in that qualifier 'almost'.

The commonly accepted literal interpretation of the translated Bible is not worth defending. The Hebrew original given in several accounts are forms that should be recognized as poetry.

The word bara (bet, resh, aleph) translated as created actually means to fatten up or to fill a void such as grain fills a stomach. So, the Bible does not say that God created (in the western sense) the heavens and the earth from nothing. It is a poetic portayal that He expanded it and filled up the nothingness.

Five senturies before the doppler shifts were understood, a 15th century rabbi proposed an expanding universe based on his reading and understanding of Tenach.

Seamus | April 26, 2007, 3:11pm | #

So a Jesuit criticizing a Father of the Church is about as shocking as Kenny Rogers smoking dope.

Actually, not just Jesuits, but "the great majority of scholastic philosophers have rejected the ontological argument as propounded by St. Anselm and Descartes" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm#IBf).

And by the way, St. Anselm is a Doctor, not a Father, of the Church.

VM | April 26, 2007, 3:13pm | #

"The Hebrew original given in several accounts are forms that should be recognized as poetry."

definitely!

MattXIV | April 26, 2007, 3:14pm | #

Ugh, the love example.

"Love" is a cluster of emotions that share aspects of subjective experiences, behavioral responses, and neurological underpinings. It's existence is not an issue of controversy as it can readily be directly and indirectly observed by a variety of means, for personal experience to running an fMRI on people who are shown pictures of people they have some form of love towards vs those they don't know.

Lamar | April 26, 2007, 3:15pm | #

Kirk Cameron from "Groin Pains"?

JasonL | April 26, 2007, 3:16pm | #

I can conceive of underpants.

...

Profit!

cgee | April 26, 2007, 3:17pm | #

Never mind the shape of the banana...the important thing is to learn how to defend oneself from someone wielding a banana.

MadMax re. Jesuits in the U.S. - if by "gone native" you mean "apply rational thought to the study and practice of theology," then I guess I would agree. As someone who was educated by Jesuits during high school, I can attest to the high value the Society of Jesus places on intelligence. Sorry, but unlike yourself, I cannot perceive this as a flaw in the organization.

Lupito41 | April 26, 2007, 3:17pm | #

Rattlesnake Jake:

"The only reason Christianity isn't as bad as the Muslim religion now is that Christianity has been secularized. Thank goodness we are no longer living in medieval times."

Glad to see you agree that Islam is more dangerous than Christianity, since, indeed, we do not live in medieval times.

Reinmoose | April 26, 2007, 3:17pm | #

To believe in Love
all one need do is crouch down
and hug a beagle

VM | April 26, 2007, 3:20pm | #

cgee! Mr. Apricot Harrison warned us about that!

To believe in Love
all one need do is crouch down
and hug a brown lab

(pure potery there, Reinmoose. The cutest beagle lived across from us and would make really sincere, intense eye contact. very cute)

NoStar | April 26, 2007, 3:21pm | #

Oh, henry,

Your argument from rudeness
"Shut the fuck up" no more disproves God than any argument has proven him.

I was once where you are now. Believe me I understand your frustration. I feel your pain.

Number 6 | April 26, 2007, 3:21pm | #

Nothing more to say
except that the filter is
a beautiful thing

Name calling even by
people sort of kinda right
trip to nowheresville

Seamus | April 26, 2007, 3:22pm | #

Never mind the shape of the banana...the important thing is to learn how to defend oneself from someone wielding a banana.

What about a poin-ted stick?

TrickyVic | April 26, 2007, 3:23pm | #

The thing about God and religion is that God's existence is not about proof, it's about faith.

God does not need or want proof. God wants faith. There is no need to try to argue his existence because that is not his will. He demands that we surrender to him by faith, not by facts. Faith is the test. I'm not a religious man but I'm pretty sure the Bible backs me up on this one.

ANYONE that truly believes should feel no need to convince others. What others believe is not important. It's what you believe that matters.
Men of science will never have proof, God meant for it to be that way.

Number 6 | April 26, 2007, 3:24pm | #

Jesuits are the
Green Berets of Catholic Church
Mental Chuck Norris

Number 6 | April 26, 2007, 3:27pm | #

God does not need or want proof. God wants faith.
Ah, the old existential trap. God gives us reason, but doesn't want us to use it to question his existence. He set us up with every reason to disbelieve, and will punish us when we do doubt. By hellfire and eternal agony. Because he loves us.

Reinmoose | April 26, 2007, 3:27pm | #

my my Vic you are Tricky indeed

biologist | April 26, 2007, 3:28pm | #

the argument from nitrous
compelling but argument
from pot...where was I?

Jake Boone | April 26, 2007, 3:30pm | #

Would they still believe
If his name were thought to be
"Bearded sky fairy"?

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 3:33pm | #

"a 15th century rabbi proposed an expanding universe based on his reading and understanding of Tenach."

Now what is it in Genesis that can be interpreted in that way and where is the evidence that this is exactly what the rabbi believed was in the Tenach?

VM | April 26, 2007, 3:33pm | #

Vic - Stevo beatcha to it above :)

Bio's arguement
is from nitrus - didja see
the blower! BLOWER!

The nitrus blower!
last of the interceptors
kicks Knightrider's ass.

Jake Boone how about
bemerkined fairy sky man
I'll donate merkin!

crimethink | April 26, 2007, 3:34pm | #

The only reason Christianity isn't as bad as the Muslim religion now is that Christianity has been secularized.

I don't think it's so much that Christianity has become secularized, as it is that the appearance of devout Christianity has ceased to be a means of gaining power in most places. Any time people who want to exercise power over others find an advantage in professing a religion, that religion is going to be misused.

This is how Judaism, for instance, has been able to present itself as a peaceful religion, since it hadn't been a majority religion in any nation for milennia. Now that they actually do have a state of their own, it's become clear that Jews can oppress in the name of religion as well as anyone else. Mentioning this above a whisper, however, is bound to lead to accusations of anti-semitism, which I'm sure will be forthcoming here.

JasonL | April 26, 2007, 3:34pm | #

To fall out of Love
All one need only visit
Neighbor, hear beagle

Big Baaler | April 26, 2007, 3:38pm | #

God is full of love
but will make you burn for doubt
because he loves you.

God loves children
except ones who masturbate
they must suffer hell

God is forgiving
He showed his love allowing
his son to suffer

Not a single sparrow falls
That the diety doesn't knew about
So why do we get cancer?

TrickyVic | April 26, 2007, 3:39pm | #

I wouldn't call it tricky because I'm simply acknowledging what it is at the core of their belief.

I'm merely pointing out that a true follower of God could care less about the arugment of the existence of God. The concept of proof is irrelevent when following the doctrine.

That changes nothing. If you try to impress upon me the existence of God, I will still ask for proof, knowing I'm not going to get any. But if you tell me he exists, you still have the responsibility to prove it, Otherwise, I don't have to believe you.

s.m. koppelman | April 26, 2007, 3:39pm | #

HEY! I WANNA TRY!!!

I can conceive of a perfect flying pig that has a knack for writing catchy three-minute pop songs -- in Ladino, the language of medieval Spanish Jewry.
One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
Therefore, a flying pig that has a knack for writing catchy three-minute pop songs -- in Ladino, the language of medieval Spanish Jewry -- exists.

Whoa, it works.

Jake Boone | April 26, 2007, 3:41pm | #

Man is God's image
Man has merkin by nature
Therefore God has one

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 3:42pm | #

"I was once where you are now."

And I was once where you are NoStar. Christianity brought nothing but sorrow for me. Now I'm free!

henry | April 26, 2007, 3:43pm | #

NoStar,

I was not criticizing God--only you. You so easily conflate the two.

So, how big of a loser did you become before God bailed you out--Drunk? Dope fiend? Pedophile? You're not on Death Row, are you? That is a popular place for God to show up. God loves the losers, for sure--for they tell us so incessantly.

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 3:46pm | #

"He demands that we surrender to him by faith, not by facts. Faith is the test."

Why is this important? What is the value in it? What is the virtue in it?

TrickyVic | April 26, 2007, 3:50pm | #

"""Ah, the old existential trap. God gives us reason, but doesn't want us to use it to question his existence. He set us up with every reason to disbelieve, and will punish us when we do doubt. By hellfire and eternal agony. Because he loves us.""""

Close. My understanding is that God wants us to have freewill, to make our own choices, under our own motivations. That is the only way we can be free to choose him. Without freewill you would not have the choice to believe or not. The Bible says the choice must be yours to make.

It's not a trap at all, because it not about proof, it's about belief. Proof is not necessary for belief, that seems to be true for many of us in the secular world too. I can't say that's good thing. I personally need proof, and that seems to annoy alot of people in my life. :-) I will not apologize for that either.

TrickyVic | April 26, 2007, 3:53pm | #

"""Why is this important? What is the value in it? What is the virtue in it?"""

It's probably not important, has no value, or virtue to you, and no one should care it if does nor not. If your really interested in the answer, read the Bible.

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 3:53pm | #

"I don't think it's so much that Christianity has become secularized"

Actually, what I meant was that Western society has become more secularized, which has weakened Christianity. Christianity is no longer in power. We wouldn't stand for it in Western society. So Christianity has had to tone itself down if it wants to get any converts at all.

Nick M. | April 26, 2007, 3:54pm | #

MacPimp | April 26, 2007, 2:54pm | #

Ah yes, Ray "Argumentum ad Banana" Comfort.

A banana is
Also the exact right shape
To put somewhere else.

Like the back of a Volkwagen?

Detective Foster | April 26, 2007, 3:57pm | #

We're not going to fall for a banana in the tailpipe.

henry | April 26, 2007, 4:00pm | #

There is no free will with a omniscient, omnipotent Creator God. He made the universe knowing every jot and tittle in advance. Forever before creation He knew He would create a world just so it would produce a Hitler that would toss people into into ovens. If God knew all beforehand, then Hitler really had no other choice than to do what he did--the fact that he did it (and God knew about it before the world was wrought, yet wrought the world exactly that way) proves it.

We are all God's little poseable dolls--and we can adopt no pose he was not forseen and preordained by the very structure of His Creation.

Hallelujah!

NoStar | April 26, 2007, 4:00pm | #

Our senses and science can only detect what is in our 4 dimensional universe. I have read that gravition equations indicate that other dimensions do exist.

It is not so much that God demands our faith, it's just that there is no other way to probe into the other dimensions.

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 4:04pm | #

"My understanding is that God wants us to have freewill, to make our own choices, under our own motivations. That is the only way we can be free to choose him. Without freewill you would not have the choice to believe or not."

So God would rather us have free will than to save us from Hell. Why did he invent Hell? Why should we be punished for an eternity in Hell for not accepting a certain belief on faith? How is that such a bad thing that it deserves eternal damnation? I'm sorry, but there's no way that I can worship such a monster.

joshua corning | April 26, 2007, 4:06pm | #

and the joe six pack commenter anti-proof

I can conceive of a libertarian society
I once got pissed at a Christian once
therefor libertarians can't believe in god.

disclosure: I am an atheist.

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 4:09pm | #

"If your really interested in the answer, read the Bible."

I have, and it's nothing but nonsense. I can see where faith is important to some people because they have an emotional need to delude themselves, but when they entertain the belief that those of us who don't believe like them are going to suffer an eternity in Hell because of our nonbelief, I just don't see how any loving person can embrace such a monstrous philosophy.

henry | April 26, 2007, 4:10pm | #

"It is not so much that God demands our faith, it's just that there is no other way to probe into the other dimensions."

Uh, which "God" is that, by the way. I am goung to take a wild guess you are referring to the Christian conception of God (if singular one of those can be posited--a dubious notion).

But why should we limit ourselves to the Christian God? You made yourself Exhibit "A" here--offering up your life as some kind of proof of your God. But many Muslims could do exactly the same for Allah. There are untold masses who lead lives of misery, criminality, etc., until they found "the truth" through Islam. What should the rest of us choose your God over Allah? Because of the geographical accident of our births that makes your God more familiar to us? Christmas, Easter and that happy horseshit?

NoStar, believe any shit you like. Just stop believing you can talk meaningfully about your beliefs--you can't.

NoStar | April 26, 2007, 4:10pm | #

Oh henry,
None of those states of depravity laid me low. Truth is, my wife died. Her spirit came to me and not only comforted me, but she showed me where she had hidden some of her possessions that I didn't even know existed.

Then just before she left for good, she said, "There is someone I want you to meet."
As I felt her spirit leave, I felt the Spirit of God envelope me.

Since then God has shown me many ways how I have been blessed both before and after having saw the light.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | April 26, 2007, 4:16pm | #

For all of you christians that are trying the funz of logic today:

If each of you were born in Saudi Arabia, to Saudi muslim parents xx years ago, would you all still believe in your Christian god?

Rattlesnake Jake | April 26, 2007, 4:18pm | #

Another point along henry's reasoning is that if God is omniscient, he knew before he created us that some of us would not accept him on faith (I'm speaking of the Christian God), so why did he create us knowing that we would reject him and end up going to Hell? It seems cruel to have created us in the first place. This has led some Christian apologists to reject the concept of God's omniscience.

VM | April 26, 2007, 4:20pm | #

yes - cuz it's the SAME GOD!

TrickyVic | April 26, 2007, 4:22pm | #

"""He made the universe knowing every jot and tittle in advance.""""

Where in the Bible does it say that? Christians do believe God can change your/their life, I think they call it testifying. If their doctrine was so static, they could not hold that belief.

Of course the Bible is loaded with contadictions, that's why it's easy for seculars to tear it apart. I know a few people that went full blow athiest after reading it. It's not unreasonable to argue that something that contradicts its self, often, is not a reliable source for the truth.

ME | April 26, 2007, 4:22pm | #

Of course G_d exists. Because anything less would not have been able to create ME.

plunge | April 26, 2007, 4:22pm | #

crimethink "The burden of proof is on the one making the claim?"

Uh, yes. Why is this even controversial? At all?

You advance a claim and expect me to take it seriously, then you'd better provide reasons.

Note that for virtually any problem at all you claim to explain, resorting to God is always just creating a bigger problem to solve a smaller one. If something like God that deliberately chooses to create a universe that looks like ours can "just" exist, then there is no problem at all with having a universe that looks like ours just existing either, no extra help or explanation required. Either you are incredulous about why or you aren't, but you can't beg off a question like "why is what is the way it is" for God that you just demanded we explain for the universe.

GWB | April 26, 2007, 4:24pm | #

"It's not unreasonable to argue that something that contradicts its self, often, is not a reliable source for the truth."

Leave Harry Reid out of this.

Jake Boone | April 26, 2007, 4:25pm | #

I believed for years
Until I read the Bible
Turns out it's Made Up

NoStar | April 26, 2007, 4:26pm | #

Oh henry,
How can you talk meaningfully about a God that you cannot conceive of?

You might however appreciate this joke from Irish comedian Dave Allen:

The Pope and an atheist were arguing about God. The Pope threw up his hands in despair and said "Your situation is as hopeless as a blind man in a pitch dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there."

The atheist replied, "Then we are not dissimilar, for your situation is also like the blind man in a pitch dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. The only difference is, you think you've found it.

henry | April 26, 2007, 4:26pm | #

NoStar,

OK, you had what you perceived to be a mystical experience--one which lead you to the Christian God. I cannot argue "against" that--it is basis for belief that is not falsifiable. Or as Swift said, you cannot reason a man out of something he was not reasoned into to begin with.

However, as I said, many others can and do claim equally powerful experiences--which lead them to different gods and different beliefs. Why should I accept yours and not theirs?

In short, I say--enjoy your life with your beliefs. You seem happier for them. But quit kidding yourself about what your words about your beliefs can do. Perhaps "the witness" of your life might influence those who know you in the real world--but dumb arguments about the impermanence of science (which you have made here repeatedly) do more harm than good for your type.

Number 6 | April 26, 2007, 4:27pm | #

It's not a trap at all, because it not about proof, it's about belief.

Non Sequitur

VM | April 26, 2007, 4:27pm | #

"Us Crazy Humans Wrote it. Won't you take a look?"
hier

TrickyVic | April 26, 2007, 4:28pm | #

"""but when they entertain the belief that those of us who don't believe like them are going to suffer an eternity in Hell because of our nonbelief, I just don't see how any loving person can embrace such a monstrous philosophy.
"""

Sure, I agree. Not only do I not see how any loving person could embrace that, I do not see how a loving deity would force that condition on his "children".

Enter the Mormon's belief that everyone goes to some level of heaven. I just want to know on which level is the executive bathroom.

henry | April 26, 2007, 4:30pm | #

TV, Christers hold all kinds of contradictory beliefs--this is news to you?

Ask any born again type if God is omniscient. I don't contend any such thing--they do.

mikeyes | April 26, 2007, 4:30pm | #

The NSA decided to show the president their new computer which apparently was the world's most powerful becaue it linked all the computers in the world and contained all the world's knowledge.

"Just ask it any question", said the head of NSA.

"Is there a God?", asked the president.

The computer buzzed and whirred for a while and finally came back with a question of its own:

*Define God.*

"The all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe", wrote the president.

The computer buzzed and whirled for a little while longer and finally put this on the screen:

*There Is Now*

Number 6 | April 26, 2007, 4:33pm | #

Oh henry,
How can you talk meaningfully about a God that you cannot conceive of?

One could ask you the same thing.

NoStar | April 26, 2007, 4:38pm | #

BREAKING NEWS: This just in.

"Ayn" Rand does not exist. She admitted as much when she named herself Ayn which in Hebrew means "non-existant."

crimethink | April 26, 2007, 4:39pm | #

plunge,

You're quite right. In trying to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing, both the theist and atheist wind up at a point where they can't explain any further.

My problem is with those who claim that atheism should be the default belief, and anything else requires proof. I question why atheism should be granted such special status among opinions on this issue.

Reinmoose | April 26, 2007, 4:40pm | #

Where did God come from?

henry | April 26, 2007, 4:48pm | #

"[A] nothing would serve just as well as a something about wh