Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

"Proof," of God's Nonexistance

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:27:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

Eh, 4 didn't jive right, otherwise it's fun.
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:43:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is alright. There are, however, lots of better arguments.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:44:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is pretty funny actually.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 5:31:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

3. is false; the greater the creation the greater the Creator.. Hence we honour Da Vinci for The Mona lisa more than we do those who paint Christmas cards with their toes.
The Cross.. the Cross.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 2:52:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

aka the argument from incoherence
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 4:22:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I

(1.) An extensional analytic sentence is one that, through substitution of synonyms for synonyms, results in a narrowly logical truth, e.g., a truth in standard propositional logic. The theorems of propositional logic are not sentences, but propositions that are expressible by sentences. Proof of (1): see my LANGUAGE AND TIME book.

(2.) The sentence-scheme "c causes e" analytically entails (but is not synonymous with) "c and e exist; e's existence stands to c in the relation of being the result of c's existence, such that this relation is not that of e being narrowly, logically necessitated by c." The reason there is no synonymy is that there are other features of the causal relation, features not mentioned in the entailed sentence. Proof of (2). See pp. 176-187 of my article "Causation and the Logical Impossibility of a Divine Cause," in PHILOSOPHICAL TOPICS, Volume 24 (Spring, 1996)

(3.) The sentence-schema "x is omnipotent" analytically implies "for any possible existent y, necessarily, if x wills that y exist, y exists."

(4.) The relation expressed by "x wills that y exist and y exists as a consequence of this willing" is a species of the relation expressed by "x causes y to exist."

(5.) If God exists, God is omnipotent and the cause of the universe that exists.

(6) If the universe is willed to exist by God and the universe does not exist, then it is the case that [by (3), (4) and (5)] (a) God wills the universe to exist and the universe exists and (b) God wills the universe to exist and the universe does not exist.

(7) The proposition expressed by the sentence, "God wills the universe to exist and the universe exists, and God wills the universe to exist and the universe does not exist," is a negation of a theorem of standard propositional logic, namely, that it is not the case that both p and not-p.

(8) Therefore, God narrowly logically necessitates whatever possibility he causes to exist.

(9) Therefore, it is not the case that the universe is caused to exist by God [from (2)].

(10) Therefore, God does not exist [from (5) and [9].

http://www.infidels.org...
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 4:28:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 2:52:34 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

aka the argument from incoherence


THATS THE TERM! I was looking for how to describe how this made no sense because there were so many logical disconnections but the complexity of it all was used to mask it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 4:30:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 4:28:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/17/2011 2:52:34 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

aka the argument from incoherence


THATS THE TERM! I was looking for how to describe how this made no sense because there were so many logical disconnections but the complexity of it all was used to mask it.

It wasn't supposed to be serious. It was a response to the just as incoherent ontological argument FOR God's existence.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 4:34:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Am I the only one who thought this argument was meant to be taken as a joke?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 4:37:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 4:34:44 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Am I the only one who thought this argument was meant to be taken as a joke?

I love this argument.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 4:38:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 4:37:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/17/2011 4:34:44 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Am I the only one who thought this argument was meant to be taken as a joke?

I love this argument.

Seriously. People deconstruct it, thinking they're really smart, even though it's a satire of the serious ontological argument, which makes no more sense than this.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 4:45:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 4:37:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/17/2011 4:34:44 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Am I the only one who thought this argument was meant to be taken as a joke?

I love this argument.

You have to admit, there is definitely some humor in there.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 4:49:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 4:38:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/17/2011 4:37:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/17/2011 4:34:44 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Am I the only one who thought this argument was meant to be taken as a joke?

I love this argument.

Seriously. People deconstruct it, thinking they're really smart, even though it's a satire of the serious ontological argument, which makes no more sense than this.

it just was not apparent that it was a joke, probably because I would expect an argument like that from a serious complete atheist (i.e Izbo)...its a pretty unfunny one at that.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 4:50:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 4:49:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/17/2011 4:38:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/17/2011 4:37:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/17/2011 4:34:44 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Am I the only one who thought this argument was meant to be taken as a joke?

I love this argument.

Seriously. People deconstruct it, thinking they're really smart, even though it's a satire of the serious ontological argument, which makes no more sense than this.

it just was not apparent that it was a joke, probably because I would expect an argument like that from a serious complete atheist (i.e Izbo)...its a pretty unfunny one at that.

Well, I described it as "cheeky," and a "'proof.'" It was also created in the VERY early 1900s, when the ontological argument for God was getting popular.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 2:11:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lol, obviously not sound but sill quite funny.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 3:11:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 2:11:22 PM, phantom wrote:
Lol, obviously not sound but sill quite funny.

Gasking's version is very nice as pointing to the limits of ontology and analytical philosophy.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 3:12:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 2:11:22 PM, phantom wrote:
Lol, obviously not sound but sill quite funny.

Gasking's version is very nice as pointing to the limits of ontology and analytical philosophy, but of course has problems, as he himself highlights.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 4:36:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2011 5:31:25 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

3. is false; the greater the creation the greater the Creator.. Hence we honour Da Vinci for The Mona lisa more than we do those who paint Christmas cards with their toes.

Right!
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 5:18:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

is this a reversed ontological argument? Cuz with this, the premises can be switched and still work. Which means that I can use it to prove God as well.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 5:24:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

1st of all where does 1 come from?

marvelous achievement Is not the same as merit of an achievement.

Am I not right?
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 7:22:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 5:18:50 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

is this a reversed ontological argument? Cuz with this, the premises can be switched and still work. Which means that I can use it to prove God as well.

An argument in which itself is true and the reverse is true by necessity has a flaw. It can be regarding a false premise, a problem of validity, or, in this case, a misuse of epistemology (which makes its reverse flawed as well, for having the same problem).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 5:57:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 4:36:47 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 9/17/2011 5:31:25 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

3. is false; the greater the creation the greater the Creator.. Hence we honour Da Vinci for The Mona lisa more than we do those who paint Christmas cards with their toes.

Right!

Actually, the comparison to Da vinci would only be proper if you used an artist like christy brown, who could not control anything but his left foot and used it to paint masterpeices.

So, who was more impressive. Christy brown, who painted with nothing but his left foot, or Leonardo Da Vinci who painted with his hands?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 8:30:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 5:57:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 10/20/2012 4:36:47 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 9/17/2011 5:31:25 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

3. is false; the greater the creation the greater the Creator.. Hence we honour Da Vinci for The Mona lisa more than we do those who paint Christmas cards with their toes.

Right!

Actually, the comparison to Da vinci would only be proper if you used an artist like christy brown, who could not control anything but his left foot and used it to paint masterpeices.

So, who was more impressive. Christy brown, who painted with nothing but his left foot, or Leonardo Da Vinci who painted with his hands?

The fact that I've never heard of Christy Brown proves my point quite nicely..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2012 6:52:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 8:30:24 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/22/2012 5:57:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 10/20/2012 4:36:47 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 9/17/2011 5:31:25 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

3. is false; the greater the creation the greater the Creator.. Hence we honour Da Vinci for The Mona lisa more than we do those who paint Christmas cards with their toes.

Right!

Actually, the comparison to Da vinci would only be proper if you used an artist like christy brown, who could not control anything but his left foot and used it to paint masterpeices.

So, who was more impressive. Christy brown, who painted with nothing but his left foot, or Leonardo Da Vinci who painted with his hands?

The fact that I've never heard of Christy Brown proves my point quite nicely..

How so?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2012 9:39:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/24/2012 6:52:33 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 10/22/2012 8:30:24 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/22/2012 5:57:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 10/20/2012 4:36:47 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 9/17/2011 5:31:25 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

3. is false; the greater the creation the greater the Creator.. Hence we honour Da Vinci for The Mona lisa more than we do those who paint Christmas cards with their toes.

Right!

Actually, the comparison to Da vinci would only be proper if you used an artist like christy brown, who could not control anything but his left foot and used it to paint masterpeices.

So, who was more impressive. Christy brown, who painted with nothing but his left foot, or Leonardo Da Vinci who painted with his hands?

The fact that I've never heard of Christy Brown proves my point quite nicely..

How so?

Greater, not in the sense of overcoming obstacles (such as disability) but greatest as in more accomplished..

We may admire the overcomer more, but the finished Art is still inferior in quality.

So, 3 is semantic juggling..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 12:44:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:26:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, I stumbled across a bit of a cheeky "proof" of god's nonxistence by Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

You like it? lol

If you read through the thread you will see most athiests here consider this argument to be a joke.

The joke to me is that Dawkins mentions this proof in "God delusion".

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh