Skip to main content

Troy Brooks's "Perfect Proof" of God

Here is an example (thanks to Mike J) of the kind of weird insanity that religion can instill (n.b. I am NOT saying all religious people are insane!). This chap has a proof of God's existence and is offering $10,000 to anyone who can refute it.

If you would like to make an attempt to disprove the proof for God, there is a forum where you can do so. $10,000 in U.S. dollars (getting cheaper by the day) has been reserved and offered to the first person who can disprove God's proof of Himself. Thousands have tried but failed. Since I am a child of God and thus, set before God with authority in His kingdom and bound for heaven, you can't ask for a better arbitrator. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18.18). The proof of God has been loosed on Earth so it is loosed in heaven: well approved! Lots of attempts have been made on the forums, and also, read here.


Yes that's right the arbitrator and judge, stamped with Divine authority and approval, of whether you succeed in refuting the proof is, er, Troy himself. Well, good luck then....

Comments

Smaug said…
An analogy that anyone in the U.S. could understand would be a coach of a competing team also serving as the referee/umpire in a contest that his team engages in. I would say that the sports coach would probably be less biased.

Do these individuals not possess the slightest sense of irony? I'm always wary that these are parody sites, but for that a sense of satire would be necessary.
Kyle Szklenski said…
"Here is an example (thanks to Mike J) of the kind of weird insanity that religion can instill"

As opposed to the normal insanity that, say, being a soccer fan instills in you?
Anonymous said…
@ Kyle P

At least a soccer fan knows that his team lost, even if he believes that they didn't deserve to.
Kyle Szklenski said…
Codeword,
I wasn't trying to mock soccer fans, but you probably realized that. :) And good one - indeed a soccer fan realizes his team lost, and doesn't just deny it and look like a moron. That's why I like soccer more than religion.
anticant said…
Americans don't do irony.
Steven Carr said…
Troy Brooks has been banned from Internet Infidels under many, many guises, mostly for his inability to interact rationally with other people.

Of course, 2000 years ago people like Paul would write letters describing how an angel of Satan was plaguing them, and how the resurrected Jesus would speak to him telling him to grin and bear it.

And nobody would dream of questioning his sanity, not even when he described how he went to the third Heaven.

By the way, the Jesus character tells how the Queen of Sheba would be raised from her grave to fulfill the important duty of condemning 1st century Jews for not believing Jesus.

So obviously in the 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' trilemma, we can cross out Lunatic as a possibilty....
mjarsulic said…
@Steven Carr,

I agree. Troy had a tendency to jump around to various topics and refused to discuss the proof step-by-step. Eventually, he went off on a long preaching rant and I had to kick him from the chat room. In other words, I doubt it would be useful to open a dialogue with him.
Mr. Hamtastic said…
I guess I don't understand. Is it impossible to disprove this "proof" because he is judging it himself? If, say, a buddhist were the judge, would it then be possible?

If the need for an "objective third-party" to judge everything "fairly" exists, how can any subjective argument be won at all?
Mr. Hamtastic said…
A point about the guy's "proof": Everything in nature has a cause? Does this mean actions,"The dog bit me because I wore steak sauce cologne" or existence,"The dog bit me because thousands of years ago man domesticated a wolf or wolf-like mammal..."

Why do people assume that in the absence of an obvious cause for some tremendous event, it definitely was God or was not caused at all? One question I struggle with, as a christian, is this: if God came into existence with the big bang and is less than omnipotent, is He less of a God than that which should be worshipped? I know, this is sort of like the bully on the playground idea, but I do wonder sometimes. My point, isn't it sort of silly to say "definitely" anything about an event we really have no knowledge of? Isn't all such thought just "best guess"?
Anonymous said…
Step 4 of the 4 Step Proof for God disallows the argument that God could have a cause because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects not just in the natural but also in the supernatural, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does because of the exponential progression of conscience. Similarly the universe would be experiencing far greater heat death.
Unknown said…
What is the ultimate proof for Jesus being God?

Ultimate Proof

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist