1. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    15 Apr '09 18:32
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    As I pointed out previously the easiest solution is to prove that the definition of the God in question is incoherent.
    For example 'supernatural' is in itself an incoherent word and practically on its own renders most gods non existent.

    Have you watched that Monty Python movie (I forget which one) where God disappears in a puff of logic?
    That is no different than all things man gets wrong isn't it? We think
    X,Y,Z is true reality shows us it isn't so we dismiss X,Y,Z. If the Big
    Bang didn't happen has as much chance as being disproved as God
    between the ears of some, but the reality of both God and the Big
    Bang does not rest on what man thinks about them, the Big Bang
    either happened or it didn't, or God is alive or not, what we think does
    not add to or take away from either of those as far as reality is
    concern.
    Kelly
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 Apr '09 19:43
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    That is no different than all things man gets wrong isn't it? We think
    X,Y,Z is true reality shows us it isn't so we dismiss X,Y,Z. If the Big
    Bang didn't happen has as much chance as being disproved as God
    between the ears of some, but the reality of both God and the Big
    Bang does not rest on what man thinks about them, the Big Bang
    either happened or ...[text shortened]... ink does
    not add to or take away from either of those as far as reality is
    concern.
    Kelly
    Yes, Monty Python as always is illogical - intentionally so. It makes you think.
    Disproving the existence of God would not change reality nor make some entity disappear, all it would to is give us information about the facts - possibly disillusioning some of us.
    Even if my technique is used successfully it does not rule out all possible gods, but rather shows that a particular definition is incoherent and the person claiming that that definition reflects the properties of an existent entity is wrong. He may have some properties right, but he necessarily has some wrong.
  3. Standard memberPBE6
    Bananarama
    False berry
    Joined
    14 Feb '04
    Moves
    28719
    15 Apr '09 19:501 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Have you watched that Monty Python movie (I forget which one) where God disappears in a puff of logic?
    I do believe the movie you're thinking of is the old BBC version of the "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" (still a favourite, despite the low budget, somewhat spotty acting and underwhelming special effects 🙂). Nerd helmets on!! 😀

    *****

    Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this:

    "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

    "But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

    "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

    "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing.

    Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from making a small fortune from it in his best-selling novel Well That About Wraps It Up For God.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Apr '09 09:04
    Originally posted by PBE6
    I do believe the movie you're thinking of is the old BBC version of the "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" (still a favourite, despite the low budget, somewhat spotty acting and underwhelming special effects 🙂). Nerd helmets on!! 😀
    You must be right, I have got it mixed up, though for some reason I distinctly remember it happening after the killer rabbit in "The Holy Grail". I am not sure if I have even seen the BBC version of "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", but I have read the books and seen the more recent version of the movie.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree