The Lords Prayer advert now banned in cinemas.

[TCIB]

Very happy with this news. It shows the general direction we are going with religion in civil society and it is great to see.

If for nothing else it sets a crappy mood. You are ready for your film and then you get some religious so and so trying to get their word across to a captive audience.
I do not want to see that nonsense and applaud the company for their stance.

 

[George Hannah]

That's funny, the ontological argument falls to pieces much earlier than that and doesn't need to get into barely explored areas of neuroscience to do so.

You know Anselm is a flame to a moth like me but I can't believe God would have provided us with invincible logical proof of his existence. Godel did though and I'm impressed it's that good an argument.

 

[EalingBlue2]

I for one don't want religion or politics thrust on my kids or I when we go to relax at Feb cinema. I would apply that equally to liberal, labour or conservatives and I would apply it to Scientology, Islam or Christianity.

I think there are all sorts of risks of false advertising and indoctrination.

Imagine the uproar if this wahibbi or EDL advertising not bring banned............

As for free speech - it is a myth , it isn't a reality and it is just used as a red herring. Free speech banned by dozens of laws for dozens of reasons

 

[The perfect fumble]

If you follow the rationalist argument to its logical conclusion there is no basis for any proposition to be reliably founded.(It's been said.)

Reliability or otherwise of any proposition does not trouble those who have faith. Not for them the rigours of logic and painstaking critical analysis. For those that have a spiritual conviction in Odin, Zeus or the Holy Ghost all that is required is to believe. Some might say it is a wilful disregard for ones critical faculties.

Perhaps that is why faith comes so much easier to those that are deficient in that department.

 

[aguero93:20]

You know Anselm is a flame to a moth like me but I can't believe God would have provided us with invincible logical proof of his existence. Godel did though and I'm impressed it's that good an argument.

I doubt you could explain the argument. However it relies on the previous modal argument by Leibniz with it's 'irrefutable' premise that God, by necessity, must exist. So essentially, if you accept that God exists, then he must exist. Not much of an argument and that's why no philosopher or theologist since has ever backed it.

Essentially "if everything that is positive (good) must be possible (remember this part) and everything possible exists, then God, being positive, must exist."

To some people, flying pink dinosaurs with eyes made of tv screens and balls of gigantic hydrogen flares are positive and under this argument must exist. We call these people irrational.

Some people also believe a sky fairy that is both omnipotent and omniscient also exists and he created the entire universe and everything in it, including us, whom he made in his own image, obviously leaving out all the things that make him God and therefore everything that would constitute 'in his own image'. These people are irrational also. As was Gödel.

 

[lloydie]

Lazy beggars, can't be arsed carol singing in the cold so put an advert out and how would it pass advertising standards anyway, it's hardly a verifiable claim.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Lazy beggars, can't be arsed carol singing in the cold so put an advert out and how would it pass advertising standards anyway, it's hardly a verifiable claim.

And Eric Cantona is not God...



Though clearly Andy Tate is the Archangel Gabriel.

 

[George Hannah]

I doubt you could explain the argument. However it relies on the previous modal argument by Leibniz with it's 'irrefutable' premise that God, by necessity, must exist. So essentially, if you accept that God exists, then he must exist. Not much of an argument and that's why no philosopher or theologist since has ever backed it.

Essentially "if everything that is positive (good) must be possible (remember this part) and everything possible exists, then God, being positive, must exist."

To some people, flying pink dinosaurs with eyes made of tv screens and balls of gigantic hydrogen flares are positive and under this argument must exist. We call these people irrational.

Some people also believe a sky fairy that is both omnipotent and omniscient also exists and he created the entire universe and everything in it, including us, whom he made in his own image, obviously leaving out all the things that make him God and therefore everything that would constitute 'in his own image'. These people are irrational also. As was Gödel.

I'm puzzled that you think possibly the greatest mathematician and logician to have ever lived was irrational but, to repeat myself, I don't think there is an irrefutable proof for the existence of God. Talk of sky fairies and flying spaghetti monsters etc in this context is pretty infantile and quite unfriendly actually.

 

[Blue&whitestripes]

Well, me for a start.

B-, must try harder.

 

[aguero93:20]

I don't think there is an irrefutable proof for the existence of God.

I can't believe God would have provided us with invincible logical proof of his existence. Godel did though

Logical proof is by nature irrefutable. Gödel's proof isn't logical, it uses two assumptions without factual basis. One when he fails to define what is 'positive' and assumes that this undefined group contains God, one when he assumes that everything positive exists (the infinite universe argument again, the universe is finite by the way, we really need to get that clear.) He uses two leaps of faith, if you will and as a result ends up with a weak hypotheses instead of a logical proof.

Oh, greatest mathematician that ever lived? Don't make me laugh, anyone with the intellectual ability to work in applied physics today would rip him to shreds.