Over 300 Proofs of God's Existence

[JazzRemington]

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

I especially like number 666 at the bottom. :D

[Counter-Insurgent]

Until we get past mythology as a prime driver in our existence, we will not maximize our progress or self-actualize.

[drain.you]

oh my, you've convinced me, god exists..............


<_<

[NovelGentry]

All of these are based on false premises... for example one says "God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary"... God is completely unnecessary.

[Ian]

OPRAH&#39;S ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Check out this video segment.
(2) Now how can anyone watch that and NOT believe in God?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

[Hopes_Guevara]

ARGUMENT FROM EXCESSIVE STUPIDITY
(1) Some people are smart enough to be able to live without belief in God.
(2) I am not intelligent enough to live without belief in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

:P .

What I can refer from that is: The ignorant people is the ones who believe in God.

[bezdomni]

# ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

# ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

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


I recognize that these weren&#39;t meant to be taken seriously.

But the Ontological Argument is a little more complicated than this. Actually, the first version on it is an argument that I&#39;ve made about it. You can define God as anything, and as long as you can prove it exists you can prove that "God" exists. It&#39;s all semantics, no philosophy really.

However, the Ontological Argument is for some reason popular with theists, and this site offers poor examples of it (obviously out of satire).

That aside, the site is pretty funny,

[Bannockburn]

Kant destroys the ontological argument. This ontological argument is simply Cartesian. Existence is not a predicate, it does not add anyting to the subject. As a result, the ontological proof of God is not a valid.

[unite2fight1984]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:20 PM
All of these are based on false premises... for example one says "God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary"... God is completely unnecessary.

Hence the satire

[pedro san pedro]

ARGUMENT FROM MULTIPLICITY (III) (recursive internet edition)
(1) There exists a web page ( http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm )
(2) That page has hundreds of purported proofs of the existence of God.
(3) They can&#39;t all be wrong.
(4) Therefore, God exists.


:lol: :lol: :lol: