There is definetely a god - apparently

[Puskas]

"Because we can conceive of such a supreme being, therefore blah etc"....I believe is what someone once said, I think. I really should have listened more in A-Level Theology to keep this argument alive. But anyway, apparantly you can't counter that with "because I can conceive of a 2.5 litre green Ford Cortina with nice alloys and furry dice it must exist" for some reason.

I think its on the point of faith that I have the biggest problem. By all means believe in/worship/genuflect whatever, but can someone explain to me whether god is either vengeful or forgiving, and if he's so god damn omniscient, why the f*ck didn't he spot evil coming a mile off? It all gets confusing, am I going to hell or not? Are the cheesemakers really blessed, or is it a reference to all manufacturers of dairy produce? Enough for me to suggest that whilst his PR department says he rested on the seventh day, I've a feeling he was being a little tinker, and confusing us all to his real motives.

And he must be a crap communicator, if so many people have 'interpreted' his message so badly. Or a bad designer for our failure to understand and agree. Surely if he knows and sees everything, he might pop by once in a while and say "one of us is talking sh*t, and it ain't me", you know, to avoid a few wars and stuff. Just not very supreme, omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent, really, IMHO.

the 'proof' I like is: god by definition is a perfect being in every way. One element of perfection is existence. Therefore god exists. Isn't that feckin great? defined into existence.

The ontological argument. Originates, I believe, with St Anslem (although the bish will be able to correct that, if I'm wrong, I suspect). It has two main flaws. One is that existence is not a predicate - study predicate logic, and you see that "there exists", like "for all" is a quantifier, which acts over predicates. Hence, existence could not be "defined into existence" by a puff of logic (to paraphrase Oolon Colluphid...). Also, I would suggest that modal logic - the study of necessary and possible truths - would tend not to support it being "necessarily true". It is, after all, possible to conceive of a godless universe without logical contradiction.

[Puskas]

and if he's so god damn omniscient, why the f*ck didn't he spot evil coming a mile off? It all gets confusing, am I going to hell or not?

There's always been a problem with granting god omnipotence and omniscience. If he knows everything, can he see the whole of time - in which case, he knows my future before I was born - indeed, before he created the universe - what happens to "free-will" then?
Omnipotence has been badly thought through by its inventors. They didn't know enough transfinite number theory, and, unless handled correctly, it falls to Russell's Paradox. Put simply, if god can do anything, can he create a stone that's too heavy for him to lift? If he can't, then he can't do everything, and if he can, then he can't lift the stone, and so can't do everything - contradiction. To get around it, you need to introduce a hierarchical god. So for all n, god_n can create a stone that he can't lift, but god_n+1 can lift it. GOD, therefore, can be thought of the union of all god_n, over n. These "n"s need to be extended transfinitely. God becomes, in set-theoretic terms, the totality of the cumulative hierarchy, and, as such, one cannot say anything about him, meaningfully. This, however, is probably too much like pantheism to be accepted by most traditional theists...

[thebish]

For people who don't believe in God, you sure spend a lot of time talking about him. One dismissal should be enough if you're that confident.

LOL. Not like you aren't assaulted by the absurd fairy tale on a very regular basis, is it? Especially at winter solstice time. Weeks of nauseating 'songs' in supermarkets, streets, mass media. and preachers galore. Keep him in churches and we atheists can get on with ignoring him.

can you ignore someone who doesn't exist?? Surely the very act of ignoring is kind of intentional and suggests there is someone to ignore?

god, of course, your grace, has a social existence, is an invisible but present entity, like toothache, and just as difficult to ignore. my suggestion is that it should, as a favour to us all, be limited to certain times and place, thus allowing the non-religious amongst us to get on without the almighty being inflicted upon us. your grace presumably took divine orders with a specialism in casuistry. i am lost in admiration at your command of the specialism.

ahhh - I see! So do you also assign your toothache a gender when referring to it/him/her??

[TANGODANCER]

ahhh - I see! So do you also assign your toothache a gender when referring to it/him/her??

I thought toothache came under Satanism?

[William the White]

For people who don't believe in God, you sure spend a lot of time talking about him. One dismissal should be enough if you're that confident.

LOL. Not like you aren't assaulted by the absurd fairy tale on a very regular basis, is it? Especially at winter solstice time. Weeks of nauseating 'songs' in supermarkets, streets, mass media. and preachers galore. Keep him in churches and we atheists can get on with ignoring him.

can you ignore someone who doesn't exist?? Surely the very act of ignoring is kind of intentional and suggests there is someone to ignore?

god, of course, your grace, has a social existence, is an invisible but present entity, like toothache, and just as difficult to ignore. my suggestion is that it should, as a favour to us all, be limited to certain times and place, thus allowing the non-religious amongst us to get on without the almighty being inflicted upon us. your grace presumably took divine orders with a specialism in casuistry. i am lost in admiration at your command of the specialism.

ahhh - I see! So do you also assign your toothache a gender when referring to it/him/her??

Is 'bastard' a gender?

[superjohnmcginlay]

"Because we can conceive of such a supreme being, therefore blah etc"....I believe is what someone once said, I think. I really should have listened more in A-Level Theology to keep this argument alive. But anyway, apparantly you can't counter that with "because I can conceive of a 2.5 litre green Ford Cortina with nice alloys and furry dice it must exist" for some reason.

I think its on the point of faith that I have the biggest problem. By all means believe in/worship/genuflect whatever, but can someone explain to me whether god is either vengeful or forgiving, and if he's so god damn omniscient, why the f*ck didn't he spot evil coming a mile off? It all gets confusing, am I going to hell or not? Are the cheesemakers really blessed, or is it a reference to all manufacturers of dairy produce? Enough for me to suggest that whilst his PR department says he rested on the seventh day, I've a feeling he was being a little tinker, and confusing us all to his real motives.

And he must be a crap communicator, if so many people have 'interpreted' his message so badly. Or a bad designer for our failure to understand and agree. Surely if he knows and sees everything, he might pop by once in a while and say "one of us is talking sh*t, and it ain't me", you know, to avoid a few wars and stuff. Just not very supreme, omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent, really, IMHO.

the 'proof' I like is: god by definition is a perfect being in every way. One element of perfection is existence. Therefore god exists. Isn't that feckin great? defined into existence.

The ontological argument. Originates, I believe, with St Anslem (although the bish will be able to correct that, if I'm wrong, I suspect). It has two main flaws. One is that existence is not a predicate - study predicate logic, and you see that "there exists", like "for all" is a quantifier, which acts over predicates. Hence, existence could not be "defined into existence" by a puff of logic (to paraphrase Oolon Colluphid...). Also, I would suggest that modal logic - the study of necessary and possible truths - would tend not to support it being "necessarily true". It is, after all, possible to conceive of a godless universe without logical contradiction.

[thebish]

The ontological argument. Originates, I believe, with St Anslem (although the bish will be able to correct that, if I'm wrong, I suspect).

yeah - it's not Anslem... it's Anselm!

(though it didn't ORIGINATE with him - most people attribute that to a muslim scholar who's name I can't be bothered to look up) Anselm was the first person (as Archbish of canterbury) to make a meal of it in a Christian sense...

It is - as Puskas rightly points out - a pile of donkeys giblets.... he thought of it while on holiday on Gaunilo's island....

descartes also liked his ontological arguments - very satisfying that summat is true simply by definition!

[thebish]

Is 'bastard' a gender?

no... but Gastard is a bender...

[TANGODANCER]

It's all a very long-winded and complicated way of saying "We don't really know" .

[thebish]

It's all a very long-winded and complicated way of saying "We don't really know" .

no - the ontological argument is precisely the opposite - it is an attempt to show that something is true "a priori" - that we DO know indisputably! which is why the ontological idea is/was attractive to theologians and philosphers alike - pure logic above having to bother with any "material" argument at all!

(and I thought you were bowing out!)

[William the White]

It's all a very long-winded and complicated way of saying "We don't really know" .

no - the ontological argument is precisely the opposite - it is an attempt to show that something is true "a priori" - that we DO know indisputably! which is why the ontological idea is/was attractive to theologians and philosphers alike - pure logic above having to bother with any "material" argument at all!

(and I thought you were bowing out!)

He's resisted for nearly 24 hours... Be fair...

[Hoboh]

He dosn't exist!

Told me last night in a dream.

[TANGODANCER]

It's all a very long-winded and complicated way of saying "We don't really know" .

no - the ontological argument is precisely the opposite - it is an attempt to show that something is true "a priori" - that we DO know indisputably! which is why the ontological idea is/was attractive to theologians and philosphers alike - pure logic above having to bother with any "material" argument at all!

(and I thought you were bowing out!)

Oh, sorry. Okay, I'm gone.

[thebish]

It's all a very long-winded and complicated way of saying "We don't really know" .

no - the ontological argument is precisely the opposite - it is an attempt to show that something is true "a priori" - that we DO know indisputably! which is why the ontological idea is/was attractive to theologians and philosphers alike - pure logic above having to bother with any "material" argument at all!

(and I thought you were bowing out!)

Oh, sorry. Okay, I'm gone.

yeah... right!!

[superjohnmcginlay]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 832647.stm

More bus problems.

[Bruce Rioja]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 832647.stm

More bus problems.

So is a tee-totaller now allowed to say that he/she's not prepared to drive a bus because there's a wiskey advert on it?

[thebish]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 832647.stm

More bus problems.

So is a tee-totaller now allowed to say that he/she's not prepared to drive a bus because there's a wiskey advert on it?

there are no tee-total bus-drivers in London - they're all drunk all day....

[superjohnmcginlay]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 832647.stm

More bus problems.

So is a tee-totaller now allowed to say that he/she's not prepared to drive a bus because there's a wiskey advert on it?

there are no tee-total bus-drivers in London - they're all drunk all day....

I reckon thats true. My mate's a complete fooking soak and he's just been sacked for damaging one bus too many.

[Puskas]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 832647.stm

More bus problems.

So is a tee-totaller now allowed to say that he/she's not prepared to drive a bus because there's a wiskey advert on it?

there are no tee-total bus-drivers in London - they're all drunk all day....

I reckon thats true. My mate's a complete fooking soak and he's just been sacked for damaging one bus too many.

It can happen to us all. After a pub lunch, I could quite easily write some dodgy code. Dereference a non-aligned variable. Bus error. There you go.

[fatshaft]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7842769.stm

Well the ASA thought the objection was spurious and threw it out. Who'd have thought?