Fun With Logic!

[Frozenwolf150]

This is a parody of various apologetics and proofs for God that I've come up with. If apologists can twist, distort, and outright mangle the rules of logic to suit their needs, let's see what else their line of reasoning can be used to prove. (Note that this differs from the list on godlessgeeks.com which focuses more on the original arguments.)

What God Looks Like

1. God is believed to be the ultimate source of all.
2. [Solid digestive waste] happens.
3. [Solid digestive waste] comes from an ass.
4. Therefore God is an ass.

And he expects his followers to kiss that ass if they expect to be saved!

God's Sexual Orientation

1. God is believed to be a personal deity with human traits.
2. In the bible God is portrayed as showing favoritism towards men, having an obsession with male genitals, and guaranteeing 144,000 male virgins to be with him forever.
3. Such traits would be characteristic of homosexuality in people.
4. Therefore God is gay.

Which should give you something to think about the next time you get on your knees for him.

Unintelligent Design?

1. The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
2. God is often described in unlimited terms.
3. In Isaiah 29:14 and in Obadiah 1:8 God is praised for destroying wisdom and understanding.
4. Stupidity is the antithesis to wisdom and understanding.
5. Therefore God is stupidity!

And his followers think he is so much smarter than they are. What does this say about them?

Pagan Exegesis

1. Christian apologists claim that God does not need a cause to exist.
2. If God does not need a cause then it’s possible for other uncaused gods to exist.
3. This implies that it’s possible for any number of uncaused gods to exist.
4. Therefore Christian apologists support polytheism.

That triune deity, after all, is a dead giveaway.

God in Psychoanalysis

1. The OT depicted God as a violent genocidal tribal war chieftain with little respect for human life.
2. The NT tried to depict God as a kinder and more merciful father figure, with its messages of peace, forgiveness, and redemption.
3. Christians claim that God does not change his nature.
4. Therefore God is bipolar.

So it’s no wonder that so many of his followers seem mentally ill.

Naturally Impaired

1. Christians often refer to God as a divine watchmaker.
2. God is love.
3. Love is blind.
4. Therefore God is a blind watchmaker.

Which means that Dawkins was right after all!

God Isn’t Everything

1. Theists often try to prove that God exists by naming a property that “everything” has.
2. They immediately exempt God from “everything” in order to suit their arguments.
3. This implies that God isn’t accommodated by the set of all things.
4. Therefore even theists don’t really believe that God exists!

Suck it, William Lane Craig.

Proof that God Does Not Exist

1. An omnipotent God could overcome any conceivable obstacle.
2. Non-existence is the greatest conceivable obstacle.
3. Therefore God does not exist.

So it looks like Voltaire had a point.


Finally, a redux of the three main proofs for God:

Cosmological Argument

1. That which is not God has a cause.
2. The universe is not God.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. God is the cause of the universe.

Teleological Argument

1. Some things in our world look designed.
2. This implies that everything in our world is designed.
3. And God doesn’t need a designer because he’s SPECIAL.
4. Therefore God is the designer.

Ontological Argument

1. I can imagine that God exists.
2. I have yet to outgrow my imaginary friends.
3. Therefore God exists.


If anyone can come up with any other logical proofs they'd like to add, feel free.

 

[blobru]

...
What God Looks Like

1. God is believed to be the ultimate source of all.
2. [Solid digestive waste] happens.
3. [Solid digestive waste] comes from an ass.
4. Therefore God is an ass.

5. "God" might be She, He, It, They: (by 3 & 4) causa sui (sewage?)

...
God's Sexual Orientation

1. God is believed to be a personal deity with human traits.
2. In the bible God is portrayed as showing favoritism towards men, having an obsession with male genitals, and guaranteeing 144,000 male virgins to be with him forever.
3. Such traits would be characteristic of homosexuality in people.
4. Therefore God is gay.

Near the Red Sea, God speaks to man through a burning bush, listing all the things he does that really upset Him (takes two tablets).
Therefore, God has PMS.

...
Unintelligent Design?

1. The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
2. God is often described in unlimited terms.
3. In Isaiah 29:14 and in Obadiah 1:8 God is praised for destroying wisdom and understanding.
4. Stupidity is the antithesis to wisdom and understanding.
5. Therefore God is stupidity!

Asked who He is, God says: "I am that I am."
God can't even remember His own name.

...
Pagan Exegesis

1. Christian apologists claim that God does not need a cause to exist.
2. If God does not need a cause then it’s possible for other uncaused gods to exist.
3. This implies that it’s possible for any number of uncaused gods to exist.
4. Therefore Christian apologists support polytheism.

Christian apologists do need a cause to exist.
God (mysterium) needs no explanation.
Therefore, Christian apologists don't exist.

...
God in Psychoanalysis

1. The OT depicted God as a violent genocidal tribal war chieftain with little respect for human life.
2. The NT tried to depict God as a kinder and more merciful father figure, with its messages of peace, forgiveness, and redemption.
3. Christians claim that God does not change his nature.
4. Therefore God is bipolar.

In "Revelation", God kills everyone He doesn't like, feeds them to vultures, brings the remains back to life, and sets them on fire.
God may want to change His prescription.

...
Naturally Impaired

1. Christians often refer to God as a divine watchmaker.
2. God is love.
3. Love is blind.
4. Therefore God is a blind watchmaker.

Time stands still for God (sub specie aeternitate).
So He's a crappy watchmaker, too.

...
God Isn’t Everything

1. Theists often try to prove that God exists by naming a property that “everything” has.
2. They immediately exempt God from “everything” in order to suit their arguments.
3. This implies that God isn’t accommodated by the set of all things.
4. Therefore even theists don’t really believe that God exists!

Pantheists are just theists who lack focus.

...
Proof that God Does Not Exist

1. An omnipotent God could overcome any conceivable obstacle.
2. Non-existence is the greatest conceivable obstacle.
3. Therefore God does not exist.

A non-existent God can do that trick in His sleep.

...
Cosmological Argument

1. That which is not God has a cause.
2. The universe is not God.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. God is the cause of the universe.

5. The Daily Eternal: "Universe Sues God for Lack of Probable Cause!"

Teleological Argument

1. Some things in our world look designed.
2. This implies that everything in our world is designed.
3. And God doesn’t need a designer because he’s SPECIAL.
4. Therefore God is the designer.

5. "The designer?" -- God is such a little bitch.

Ontological Argument

1. I can imagine that God exists.
2. I have yet to outgrow my imaginary friends.
3. Therefore God exists. ...

& for lonely adults, better than a blow up doll... God inflates you.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Nice.

I almost couldn't post these, at least not until I cleaned up the profanity a little. There was one I was going to include, because it still makes me laugh, even though it's not original. I forget where I saw this one.

1. Moldy bread is better than nothing.
2. Nothing is better than God.
3. Therefore moldy bread is better than God.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Gee, maybe I should have posted this in the Humor section instead. Nobody wants to add to this? Anyway, I now present...

Anti-Proofs for God:

Ontological Argument (previously posted)

1. An omnipotent God could overcome any conceivable obstacle.
2. Non-existence is the greatest conceivable obstacle.
3. Therefore God does not exist.

Modal Ontological Argument

1. I define God to be infinitely stupid.
2. I can conceive of an infinitely stupid God.
3. It is only possible for a God to possess maximal stupidity if it exists in objective reality, rather than as a concept alone.
4. Therefore God exists and is infinitely stupid.

Reverse Pascal’s Wager

1. Humans have believed in and worshiped millions of gods throughout history.
2. It is equally likely that any of these gods exist as for the probability that no gods exist.
3. Your chance of believing in the wrong god is one god less than 100%.
4. The one true god (assuming it exists) would be angrier with a theist for denying the true god AND for worshiping a false god, than with an atheist who denies all gods equally.
5. Therefore the safest bet is to disbelieve in all gods.

Cosmological Argument

1. That which begins to exist has a cause.
2. An infinite regression of causes / antecedents is impossible.
3. In order for God to be personal, it would have to decide to create antecedent to the act of creation.
4. God could not have had an infinite regression of antecedent processes.
5. Therefore God began to exist.
6. Therefore God has a cause.
7. Humans are the most likely cause of God.

Teleological Argument

1. The world appears to have been designed.
2. All design processes are evolutionary processes, and all designs are a product of the designer’s evolution.
3. Evolution is driven by natural selection.
4. If God designed the world then God would have to have evolved.
5. Therefore the world is still a product of natural selection, with or without a middleman.

 

[arthwollipot]

I like the reverse Pascal's wager.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence 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," says 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 thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

--Douglas Adams

 

[arthwollipot]

Someone had to.

 

[maatorc]

1. God is believed to be the ultimate source of all.

The basic premise is flawed: God is not the source of all, God IS the totality of ALL that IS.

 

[arthwollipot]

The basic premise is flawed: God is not the source of all, God IS the totality of ALL that IS.

Well, I'm convinced by your stunning application of logic.

 

[Radrook]

--Douglas Adams

Faith doesn't require absence of evidence. The psalmist had faith
because he perceived God's hand in the things he observed.

Psalm 148:5
Let them praise the name of the LORD,For He commanded and they were created.

In fact, people without faith are said to have no excuse for not believing because creation itself should convince them to have faith.


Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Neither is God denying or trying to convince us otherwise but openly takes credit for the things created.

Isaiah 45:18
For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: “ I am the LORD, and there is no other.

So if there is an argument here to toss around-it isn't a biblically-based one.

 

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Faith doesn't require absence of evidence. The psalmist had faith
because he perceived God's hand in the things he observed.

Psalm 148:5
Let them praise the name of the LORD,For He commanded and they were created.

Erm? How do we know the psalmist had faith because of that? Your quote says nothing about faith.

In fact, people without faith are said to have no excuse for not believing because creation itself should convince them to have faith.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Here the Bible is claiming that things will clearly see God's invisible attributes, sure, but it is not saying anything about faith. Or was there something about faith in there that I missed?

Neither is God denying or trying to convince us otherwise but openly takes credit for the things created.

Isaiah 45:18
For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: “ I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Once again... faith? Here, I'll help. An example of how to at least pretend to make some sense:

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Here the Bible is arguing that a special word is needed to denote reasons to believe something that is not immediately confirmable via sense (like eyes). "Faith" just means "why I believe Rome exists even though I'm never going to leave my village".

I admit I just made that up practically at random.

 

[Radrook]

Erm? How do we know the psalmist had faith because of that? Your quote says nothing about faith.

Ummmm, because the psalmist was King David a man extolled elsewhere in the Bible as a man of great faith.

Here the Bible is claiming that things will clearly see God's invisible attributes, sure, but it is not saying anything about faith. Or was there something about faith in there that I missed?

AMAZING!

Belief in God is being spoken of here.
To believe in God, is to have faith in God.
The book of James, equates belief in God as essential to faith.

Once again... faith? Here, I'll help. An example of how to at least pretend to make some sense:I admit I just made that up practically at random.

Pretend? Sense?

You are displaying a pathological inability to comprehend simple clear texts. You are also assuming that the scriptures are not relevant without really thinking about them within the context of the discussion. Disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing proves nothing except that the person wants to make a display of disagreeing. It comes across as annoying mindless droning actually.

I could just as easily take any atheistic text and claim not to understand the plain English it is written in. Proving what? NOTHING! Well, maybe that I can't understand clearly written English or that I am mentally handicapped in some way which prevents me from inferring what a non-handicapped person would readily infer.

I would also very likely arouse the strong suspicion that I don't want to discuss anything at all rationally but that I am simply intent on annoying via tagging everything read as incomprehensible and irrational and the writer as uninformed and ignorant of his subject. That, of course, might lead atheists to avoid me like a plague. A totally unexpected result of my dubious strategy but one which would be fully deserved.
IMHO

 

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Erm? How do we know the psalmist had faith because of that? Your quote says nothing about faith.

Ummmm, because the psalmist was King David a man extolled elsewhere in the Bible as a man of great faith.

You ask me to read, I ask you to read. What I asked is why your quote had anything to do with showing the psalmist had faith. You apparently think that because we know the psalmist had faith, we can infer that the quote gives evidence that the psalmist had faith. This makes no sense. I didn't say "this makes no sense to me", either.

Here the Bible is claiming that things will clearly see God's invisible attributes, sure, but it is not saying anything about faith. Or was there something about faith in there that I missed?

AMAZING!

Belief in God is being spoken of here.
To believe in God, is to have faith in God.
The book of James, equates belief in God as essential to faith.

Ah, see? There's an argument that might make some sense. What you'd like to say is something akin to:
a) Reference James. Belief in God is essential to faith.
b) Reference Romans. A claim that there is evidence to believe in God.
c) Therefore there is evidence that leads to something essential to faith.
d) Therefore by contradiction faith cannot possibly require the absence of evidence.

Maybe that's not the argument you were getting at, but please understand that if you do not actually give the argument, it's far more likely someone will not be able to read your mind and divine the argument in your head.

Instead of an argument, what appeared on my screen was a reference to Romans without any of the supporting chain of logic, just after you said something that indicates a random reader can't be confident of constructing a sensible chain of logic from your... clues, I guess. If you want to help people understand what you think is the truth, saying things that make no sense to them doesn't help your cause, whether you think those things should make sense to them or not.

YMMV, of course.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by Silentknight View Post
1. God is believed to be the ultimate source of all.

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
The basic premise is flawed: God is not the source of all, God IS the totality of ALL that IS.

Well, I'm convinced by your stunning application of logic.

You are not actually saying anything!

 

[m_huber]

OP is nominated.

 

[arthwollipot]

You are not actually saying anything!

Yes I am. I'm saying that what you posted had nothing whatsoever to do with logic. Of course, I said it sarcastically, for which I apologise. I should avoid using sarcasm to make a point. It's unbecoming.

 

[Beerina]

God is a Pervert

1. God exists

2. God knows everything, including things that never actually happened.

3. Like being Nicole Kidman, but with male genitalia the size of the Washington Monument, copulating with a porcupine who won the Nobel Prize for Studies of Russel Crowe's Grand Unification Theory (actual title of the prize, not the subject of physics for the physics prize.) He knows this experience, not just "about" it.

4. Therefore God is a pervert.

 

[Radrook]

Knowing is tantamount to doing.

I know Joe will commit adultery.
I am an adulterer.

I know that terrorist acts will happen.
I am a terrorist.

I know that someone somewhere will molest a child.
I am a child molester.



Strange!

 

[RobRoy]

This is a parody of various apologetics and proofs for God that I've come up with. If apologists can twist, distort, and outright mangle the rules of logic to suit their needs, let's see what else their line of reasoning can be used to prove. (Note that this differs from the list on godlessgeeks.com which focuses more on the original arguments.)

 

[RobRoy]

Knowing is tantamount to doing.

You missed the logic of the point.

For God, this would be the case, as "He knows this experience, not just "about" it." This is the trump to your counter, as you cannot know those experiences unless you've already done them, or you, yourself, are God. You can't be God, since God is all-knowing, and would have known that piece of logic.