A new offer

Discussion in 'Archives' started by Shredderbeam, Jan 29, 2009.

A new offer
  1. Unread #1 - Jan 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM
  2. Shredderbeam
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Posts:
    8,579
    Referrals:
    15
    Sythe Gold:
    664

    Shredderbeam Hero

    A new offer

    If you can prove the existence of a God (an external, intelligent deity that it is appropriate for us to worship), I will pay you $10,000.

    Rules:

    - No trolling.
    - No copypasta.
    - No "ad ignorantium" arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
    - No telling me I have to accept it "on faith".
     
  3. Unread #2 - Jan 29, 2009 at 12:25 PM
  4. Damien0124
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Posts:
    1,851
    Referrals:
    1
    Sythe Gold:
    0

    Damien0124 Guru
    Banned

    A new offer

    You just had to keep pushing it, first $1000, than $5000 and now $10000.
    Son, this is a bet you're gonna lose, to me! I got real proof, not just some dumb theory, that there is a god, watching over us from the skies. The creator of Earth and everything on it.

    This will shock not only you, but every person on this planet, including YOU!

    Behold, the univetable proof that God exists and he's black!
    [​IMG]

    I took this picture myself with a 10 megapixel camera with 30x optic zoom, this is not a fake, it's not altered in any way.
    Now cough up the 10 grand!
     
  5. Unread #3 - Jan 29, 2009 at 12:53 PM
  6. Louis
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Posts:
    4,565
    Referrals:
    5
    Sythe Gold:
    0

    Louis MSN: [email protected]
    Banned

    A new offer

    this made me christian
     
  7. Unread #4 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM
  8. Shredderbeam
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Posts:
    8,579
    Referrals:
    15
    Sythe Gold:
    664

    Shredderbeam Hero

    A new offer

    Added a new rule.
     
  9. Unread #5 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:10 PM
  10. Rusty Napkin
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Posts:
    10
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0

    Rusty Napkin Newcomer
    Banned

    A new offer

    How did we all come to be? It must've been a higher power because if there was no higher power, how would the first human on earth come to be? There had to have been a first wave of people. The only logical explanation is through God.

    Explain pls.
     
  11. Unread #6 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:18 PM
  12. Shredderbeam
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Posts:
    8,579
    Referrals:
    15
    Sythe Gold:
    664

    Shredderbeam Hero

    A new offer

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
    http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm

    I'm adding a new rule - "no arguments from ignorance".
     
  13. Unread #7 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM
  14. T R 1 B A L
    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Posts:
    2,726
    Referrals:
    1
    Sythe Gold:
    0

    T R 1 B A L Grand Master
    Retired Sectional Moderator

    A new offer

    What do you believe was before the big bang Shredder?
     
  15. Unread #8 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:26 PM
  16. Shredderbeam
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Posts:
    8,579
    Referrals:
    15
    Sythe Gold:
    664

    Shredderbeam Hero

    A new offer

    I don't know.
     
  17. Unread #9 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM
  18. Anti-Virus
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Posts:
    995
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0

    Anti-Virus Apprentice

    A new offer

    Isn't that what you're doing?

    "Argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is false only because it has not been proven true.
     
  19. Unread #10 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:36 PM
  20. Shredderbeam
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Posts:
    8,579
    Referrals:
    15
    Sythe Gold:
    664

    Shredderbeam Hero

    A new offer

    No, I'm banning the use of this argument:

    User1: God must have created the universe.
    User2: Why?
    User1: Well what else could have done it?

    In empirical science, all things are presumed false or irrelevant unless they are proven otherwise.
     
  21. Unread #11 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:36 PM
  22. T R 1 B A L
    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Posts:
    2,726
    Referrals:
    1
    Sythe Gold:
    0

    T R 1 B A L Grand Master
    Retired Sectional Moderator

    A new offer

    Then surely you can't believe that the big bang was purely coincedence, with hydrogen and helium being created by chance, just from a random event, in virtually no time?

    I don't believe that there's only random occurrences and science to explain for how we live, and why we live.
     
  23. Unread #12 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM
  24. Shredderbeam
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Posts:
    8,579
    Referrals:
    15
    Sythe Gold:
    664

    Shredderbeam Hero

    A new offer

    Read the rules.
     
  25. Unread #13 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:39 PM
  26. Anti-Virus
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Posts:
    995
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0

    Anti-Virus Apprentice

    A new offer

    But yet, you disbelief in him/her/it, because of the lack of proof, right?
    (I didn't mean that you're using it now, but that's one of your reasons, for not believing in him/her/it at all, or so it seems.)

    It's like saying.
    User1: God doesn't exist.
    User2: Why not?
    User1: Because there's no proof.

    Anyways, I don't really have anything to add into this.
    As I don't really think there's a way of disproving nor proving it.
     
  27. Unread #14 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM
  28. Shredderbeam
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Posts:
    8,579
    Referrals:
    15
    Sythe Gold:
    664

    Shredderbeam Hero

    A new offer

    No, you are mixing up "believing that there is no God" with "not believing in God".

    I "lack belief" in Santa Claus, God, the Easter Bunny, and all things with no evidence to support their existence. I am not saying that the lack of evidence is proof that they don't exist, I am saying that the lack of evidence is a valid reason to disbelieve.
     
  29. Unread #15 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM
  30. Anti-Virus
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Posts:
    995
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0

    Anti-Virus Apprentice

    A new offer

    All in all, that sounded like the exact thing I was trying to say :p .
     
  31. Unread #16 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM
  32. T R 1 B A L
    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Posts:
    2,726
    Referrals:
    1
    Sythe Gold:
    0

    T R 1 B A L Grand Master
    Retired Sectional Moderator

    A new offer

    Shredder what i'm saying is that the probability of the random events occuring without a greater force behind them, or some kind of guide, is finite, but virtually impossible.
     
  33. Unread #17 - Jan 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM
  34. Shredderbeam
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Posts:
    8,579
    Referrals:
    15
    Sythe Gold:
    664

    Shredderbeam Hero

    A new offer

    So it would seem, yes, but again, read the rules.

    Also, do some research into the "recurring universe" hypothesis, and "grand multiverse" hypothesis. You may not have known about these - but then, that is the ultimate error made by the theist - they use the argument from ignorance.
     
  35. Unread #18 - Jan 29, 2009 at 2:41 PM
  36. rs nechryeal
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Posts:
    2,030
    Referrals:
    0
    Sythe Gold:
    0

    rs nechryeal Grand Master

    A new offer

    I looked into the multiverse hypothesis and this is what I pulled:

    But right under that it gives a third option.

     
  37. Unread #19 - Jan 29, 2009 at 3:11 PM
  38. Jesse
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    3,129
    Referrals:
    11
    Sythe Gold:
    10

    Jesse Grand Master
    Do Not Trade

    A new offer

    Pffffffffft

    lemme see the cash first
     
  39. Unread #20 - Jan 29, 2009 at 3:23 PM
  40. Shredderbeam
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Posts:
    8,579
    Referrals:
    15
    Sythe Gold:
    664

    Shredderbeam Hero

    A new offer

    The "multiple universe" hypothesis is essentially a multiverse that contains innumerable universes within itself. New universes are born inside older universes, inside black holes, and the child universe is a slightly changed version of the parent - its physical constants are different. The universes that reproduce are the ones capable of producing black holes. To be capable of producing black holes, the physical constants of the universe would have to be at the precise levels that they are now.

    That is only a possible explanation to illustrate the sort of thing I mean.

    I'm trusted, you go first, no MM.
     
< corky_24! Finaly caught? Scammed me, lots of proof. | need mm fast! >

Users viewing this thread
1 guest


 
 
Adblock breaks this site