Have a look at this here website:
http://proofthatgodexists.org/
Step through the 'quiz', see what happens. I'd be interested in seeing the 4-ch'ers responses.
they forgot the "maybe" button.
"Absolute truth"? What the hell is that supposed to be?
>>3
Objective correspondence with reality. Not just opinion.
omg.. my math-teacher would SOO beat the author of this website until he doesn't know anything..
people really seem not to know what a "proof" is
I don't usually send letters to reality. Please explain.
I got http://proofthatgodexists.org/no-morality.php
>You have denied that absolute moral laws exist but you appeal to them all the time.
Just because I appeal to them doesn't make them absolute. They're just popular opinion.
> If someone with enough power happened to like rape and molestation, what right would we have to impose our morality on him?
The right to withhold our contributions to his power base. That's perhaps the only right we have ever had. Natural rights are a nice dream, but a fallacious one; all 'rights' which attempt to restrict the actions of other people can only exist with their cooperation, as social constructs.
> Why do we condemn the Nazi society for following their self-imposed morals? Why did the Nazi society not have the right to break from the tradition of morality in western civilizations?
Because they felt the need to also impose their morality on other countries such as Austria and Czechoslovakia.
> "The majority of the people in our society participated in that evil deed." If morality was up to society, that sentence would never make sense, but we know that morality is beyond societies and such a propositon is possible.
No, because the average human is not a saint, and has other concerns they hold before morality. To borrow the Nazi example, many citizens cooperated with the effort to eliminate undesirables because they were terrified of the potential repercussions for themselves and their families should they have refused on moral grounds. Others, less respectably, simply found it easier to conform and to do what they were told then to protest against the perceived injustice.
Also, I found the site's assertion that 'rape is wrong' is a moral law rather amusing. Many historical societies (admittantly, often with mitigating factors such as social class) did not object to rape, and odds are that some of them worshipped the same god as this site owner does.
Uh, right.
> As Brian Petley has pointed out, it is conceivable that:
>
> (i) the velocity of light might change with time, or (ii) have a directional dependence in space, or (iii) be affected by the motion of the Earth about the Sun, or motion within our galaxy or some other reference frame.
Conceivable, if you have no idea whatsoever of scientific history, maybe. What the hell do they think Michelson and Morley were measuring, anyway?
>>1
So, this "test" basically asks a few questions and if you don't agree you are obviously wrong. Fine test that is.
The first screen has an obvious flaw, too: There is no way to say, for example
"The only absolute truth is that there is no abolute truth besides this."
or
"The only absolute truth is that we cannot know what the absolute truth is." (Bla bla only thing you cannot doubt are your doubts etc)
(And I'm not even really into philosophy, people who know a bit more about this topic could probably point out a few more things that are wrong here)
Generally, this test oversimplifies stuff which is really too complex to pack into multiple choice questions.
They're playing with semantics, especially with the words "law" and "rules". Then they assume that the universe conforms to common sense and causality.
I have no patience for this obfuscation.
>>12
you assume that the universe conforms to common sense and causality, too. if you didn't you would have no reason to post here.
What? The universe is counterintuitive, and causality stops being of any use when dealing with the Big Bang, for instance (it's built on thinking derived from language, which presupposes an inherently flawed model of the world).
I'll use common sense for the purpose it evolved: to help humans cope with eveyday events, on a human timescale. For everything beyond that, it's more trouble than it's worth.
If you click on "I don't care" you get redirected to Disney!
Anybody who studies physics knows that common sense is only common under certain, very limited, circumstances - namely, our everyday experiences. The world as a whole works significantly different to what common sense dictates.
>>16
I mean, seriously. Just take Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a wookie, but he lives on the planet Endor. Think about it! That doesn't make any sense!
>>14
the whole idea of the big bang is built on thinking derived from language. you claim that thinking derived from language "presupposes an inherently flawed model of the world". have fun untangling that mess. my theory of how the universe came to be the way it is may not be as popular as yours, but at least mine is internally consistent.
Hey a fellow presupper (Heaven)! Thanks for getting my back. I don't find many people that 'get' the site when I lurk these forums. Drop me an email via the site.
State your case, rather than make baseless assertions.
(You might want to let me know how you know that your human reasoning is valid while you are at it).
A slow start... but this is getting good. Yay.
Hey, it's you, the sitemaker! I'm the same guy who posted the link on IIDB some time back :)
>>22
Your "proof" is based on the assumption that you can actually prove things. Fun fact: The only thing you can prove without a doubt is that you cannot prove anything besides this without a doubt.
Think about it:
Side thoughts:
Logic does not help you here at all. Logic needs observations to prove anything besides 3)
Laws of mathematics are a definition. Nothing. More. If I wanted to make new laws of mathematics, I would just have to get enough people to believe me.
Laws of physics are all models based on observation. Basically, someone guessed that something might behave in a certain way, and since things actually behaved that way, people called it a Law.
Fucking little boys was generally considered to be ok in ancient rome (In most asian countries 100-1000 years ago too, I think). Modern western "Laws" of morality are something that developed out of christian religion sometime in the last 2000 years.
And yes, I do base my actions on math and physics, but this doesn't change anything. You still can't prove those. You can only hope that they are indeed correct.
> Laws of mathematics are a definition. Nothing. More. If I wanted to make new laws of mathematics, I would just have to get enough people to believe me.
Not even that. "Laws of mathematics" are just the laws of logic applied to an arbitary set of axioms. If you choose appropriate axioms, you end up with "everyday maths". However, you are free to choose any other set. No set of axioms is any more or less valid than any other - they are completely arbitary (with the caveat that they should not be contradictory, of course).
Also, those little word games with "absolute truth" are just childish, especially when you never define what "absolute truth" is even supposed to mean.
Your choice of morals there is also completely invalid. You ask if absolute morals exist, and then if somebody answers no, you ask question based on the presumption that absolute morals exist, just is marginally weaker sense. It's not a valid question, and thus meaningless.
>>23 Hey. I remember you, good to 'see' you again.
>>24 All you are saying is that according to your worldview, you can't know anything. Hey, I agree with you. If you wanna believe that 2 + 2 could equal 'penguin' if enough people agreed to it, that is up to you.
>>25 So, are the laws of logic, universal, immaterial, and invariant?
>>26 "Universally, objectively true."
Asking the further question just exposes the depravity of your position. So, could molesting children for fun be right according to your worldview?
> Asking the further question just exposes the depravity of your position. So, could molesting children for fun be right according to your worldview?
Please learn some moral philosophy, and stop going around making idiotic statements like this. If you do not believe that there are universal, absolute morals, that question is compeltely meaningless, because "right" does not mean anything.
Instead, it is replaced by:
I think that molesting children is bad, under pretty much all ciurcumstances (I'll grant that there might exist some highly pathological case where it would be for the greater good, but such a situation is not likely to ever occur in real life). I do not need to invoke any higher authority on this. My own opinion suffices.
However, I can easily see that another person would consider it to be right. That does not affect my own position that it is bad.
See, just because universal morals do not exist does not automatically mean you accept everything. This is not hard to understand. Using your own ignorance of the opposing side's worldview to insult others and paint yourself suprior just makes you look like a huge asshole.
Also,
> All you are saying is that according to your worldview, you can't know anything.
How can anyone know anything according to your worldview? If your god is omnipotent, he can deceive everyone all the time. You have no way of knowing that he doesn't.
> So, are the laws of logic, universal, immaterial, and invariant?
They may very well be. It is somewhat hard to tell. However, it is probably safe to proceed on that assumption.
> "Universally, objectively true."
Give an example.
>Hey, I agree with you.
Which makes your proof invalid unless people, you know, believe in stuff, which religion is kind of all about anyways. Belief, not "Knowledge".
Last time I checked, God wanted people to believe in him, not to make up strange arguments to decieve themselves into thinking that all other world views cannot be logically right, which actually seems very un-christian to me. Are you so weak in your beliefs you need your God proven to you?
>>27
Tell me, what makes you so sure that there is no world in which 2 + 2 is 'penguin'? It makes no sense to you or me, but the only reason for this is that we have been taught so. It might make sense to beeings who are wildly different from us, who have been taught that 2 + 2 does equal penguin, and these beeings might live without any problems, too. Just because you do not understand them would not mean that they are wrong.
God cannot be proven using logic anyways. If you actually think God is a beeing that can be explained and proven by logic, then tell me:
If God is omnipotent, can he create a Stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?
If God is omnipotent and caring like a father, then why does evil exist?
And if God is not omnipotent, how is he God?
God can only exist outside of all human logic.
> Please learn some moral philosophy, and stop going around making idiotic statements like this. If you do not believe that there are universal, absolute morals, that question is compeltely meaningless, because "right" does not mean anything.
Um, then neither does 'bad.' What is 'bad' or 'good' in a morally relative society?
> How can anyone know anything according to your worldview? If your god is omnipotent, he can deceive everyone all the time. You have no way of knowing that he doesn't.
Sure I do, I know His character as revealed in His Word. You can argue against my presupposition, but it is internally consistent.
> They may very well be. It is somewhat hard to tell. However, it is probably safe to proceed on that assumption.
Why?
> Give an example.
In base 10 mathematics it is absolutely true that 2 + 2 = 4
> Which makes your proof invalid unless people, you know, believe in stuff, which religion is kind of all about anyways. Belief, not "Knowledge".
All knowledge is faith based. However not all faith can be justified. Your blind faith in human reason has zero justification. Feel free to argue that point if you like.
> Last time I checked, God wanted people to believe in him,
God wants people to <i>know</i> him. The Bible teaches that everyone already 'believes' in Him. (Romans 1:18-20)
> not to make up strange arguments to decieve themselves into thinking that all other world views cannot be logically right,
Surely you do not believe that 2 opposites can both be right in the same way?!?
> which actually seems very un-christian to me. Are you so weak in your beliefs you need your God proven to you?
Nope, no one needs God proven to them. Check the website again.
> Tell me, what makes you so sure that there is no world in which 2 + 2 is 'penguin'? It makes no sense to you or me, but the only reason for this is that we have been taught so. It might make sense to beeings who are wildly different from us, who have been taught that 2 + 2 does equal penguin, and these beeings might live without any problems, too. Just because you do not understand them would not mean that they are wrong.
If you want to believe that somewhere in the universe there are 'beings' that say if you take 2 things and add 2 things to them the correct result is 'penguin,' that is totally up to you.
Lets see how sure YOU are about the universality of math the next time the bank teller hands you 25 penguins when you ask for change for a hundred dollars.
> God cannot be proven using logic anyways.
Prove this please.
> If you actually think God is a beeing that can be explained and proven by logic, then tell me:
> If God is omnipotent, can he create a Stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?
No. Omnipotence does not mean the ability to contradict yourself. If I was omnipotent I could walk through walls, I could not, however, walk through a wall and not walk through a wall at the same time in the same way.
> If God is omnipotent and caring like a father, then why does evil exist?
For a reason which is perfectly sufficient for God. Please show that God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for ordaining evil.
> God can only exist outside of all human logic.
Prove this please.
>In base 10 mathematics it is absolutely true that 2 + 2 = 4
You're still assuming things, like the english language.
>All knowledge is faith based.
That was about my point. Your "proof" is based pureley on faith. You might as well say "God exists because I told you so", which makes about as much sense.
>Lets see how sure YOU are about the universality of math the next time the bank teller hands you 25 penguins when you ask for change for a hundred dollars.
Are you dense? >>24 and >>25 said it already: Something makeing sense to a lot of people does not make it true, this is a logical fallacy. Cool people with Latin dictionaries call this "argumentum ad populum", appeal to majority. Next time, read posts before responding. Again, everyday math is an agreement between people to make life easier.
Another example for this is the value of money. People decided at some point in time to agree that paper with certain things printed on it is worth something.
>For a reason which is perfectly sufficient for God. Please show that God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for ordaining evil.
This is kind of cool. I quote:
>Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs.
You're contradicting yourself.
Oh by the way, please do tell me why >>28 was wrong when he said:
>I think that molesting children is bad, under pretty much all ciurcumstances (I'll grant that there might exist some highly pathological case where it would be for the greater good, but such a situation is not likely to ever occur in real life). I do not need to invoke any higher authority on this. My own opinion suffices.
>However, I can easily see that another person would consider it to be right. That does not affect my own position that it is bad.
I get the feeling that you can't, so you chose to only respond to a little out-of-context part of his post and hoped no one would notice. Remember, you are trying to proove something. You can not only respond to the things you want to.
Same goes for >>24:
>Fucking little boys was generally considered to be ok in ancient rome (In most asian countries 100-1000 years ago too, I think). Modern western "Laws" of morality are something that developed out of christian religion sometime in the last 2000 years.
> In base 10 mathematics it is absolutely true that 2 + 2 = 4
$ bc
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
ibase=3
obase=3
ibase=10
obase=10
2+2
11God can fit the whole world in a ping pong ball without making the world smaller or making the ping pong ball bigger.
answer: its your fucking eyes.
of course i don't believe in god...
> Um, then neither does 'bad.' What is 'bad' or 'good' in a morally relative society?
The terms do not exist as absolutes. That is the whole point. There is nothing magical about morals that say they have to be defined by some absolute outside authority. Humans can define their own morals just fine.
Also, moral relativism is a group term including many different views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
> Sure I do, I know His character as revealed in His Word. You can argue against my presupposition, but it is internally consistent.
The how is your position any more tenable than that of a raving lunatic who bases his worldview on voices in his head? How is it any more tenable than believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
>> Give an example.
> In base 10 mathematics it is absolutely true that 2 + 2 = 4
Maths is based on completely arbitary axioms. It is just as true that 2+2 equals something else entirely, if I just pick another set of axioms. The only thing that is special about the 2+2=4 case is that it has use in everday life, and thus those axioms are often used. They are no more true or false than any other, however.
An example: 2+2=1 in the S3 group. Group theory is also useful in everyday life in certain circumstances, and it is just as true.
(We need a /Religion/ board, it seems...)
> No. Omnipotence does not mean the ability to contradict yourself.
Ok. So we assume god cannot create such a rock, is that correct? Because such a rock would be a logical contradiction.
This means that there are principles God cannot break. Which ones are they, exactly? The laws of logic, it would seem. If the laws of mathematics are based on the laws of logic and the laws of physics on the laws of mathematics, does that mean that God cannot break the laws of physics, either?
Furhtermore: If God can break the laws of physics, can he transmit information faster than the speed of light? It is well known to any student of relativity that doing so would create a violation of causality. In other words, a contradiction.
Does this mean that God is limited to the speed of light? If so, how can he be omniscient? That would include gathering information from the entire universe, and that takes billions of years at light speed. If he is omnipresent, how can he retain an identity as a single being when information can take billions of years to permeate throughout him?
>>44-45
unless god is the one who first came up with the idea of causality in the first place and this whole universe only exists in god's imagination...
Then you are pretty much denying the laws of logic.
>>47
your "laws of logic" are baseless assumptions.
Don't argue with me, argue with creator of the site. He's presupposing that they are valid, and I am just arguing under those assumptions.
>>50
Urm, scroll up a few posts?
>>51
where? i don't see any evidence that the creator of that site has heard of 4-ch. i do see one person claiming to be him (>>19 - ID:/8TApbcR), and someone else posting with the same name (>>22,27,33-37 - ID:nkW6Ne55), but that doesn't mean that either of those people is actually him.
Sorry folks, been real busy lately. I'll get to your posts soon.
If you doubt, (or really even care), that it is really me, just send an e-mail through the site to confirm it. (contact@proofthatgodexists.org)
>>52
ID's are calculated from the IP, so they change from time to time for people with dynamic IP's.
Look, the site makes the assumption that you can grasp cosmology with common sense. That's ridiculous on its face, so OP should quit wasting his efforts.
The idea of a "first cause" for the universe or "universal laws" both betray a very naïve view of the physical world. You have to keep in mind that common sense developed to keep us alive in the savannah, not to help us ponder the mysteries of life.
>> 38
> That was about my point. Your "proof" is based pureley on faith. You might as well say "God exists because I told you so", which makes about as much sense.
However, my faith gives an account for the validity of my human reasoning, yours does not.
> Something makeing sense to a lot of people does not make it true, this is a logical fallacy. Cool people with Latin dictionaries call this "argumentum ad populum", appeal to majority. Next time, read posts before responding.
I was not proving the truth of the argument, I was showing the inconsistency of the person deny the universality of mathematics.
> Again, everyday math is an agreement between people to make life easier.
I must have missed the meeting. Thankfully we didn’t agree that 2 + 2 = 5.
> Another example for this is the value of money. People decided at some point in time to agree that paper with certain things printed on it is worth something.
Using your ahem agreed upon laws of mathematics and logic no doubt.
> You're contradicting yourself.
Prove this please.
>> 39
>Oh by the way, please do tell me why >>28 was wrong when he said:
>”I think that molesting children is bad, under pretty much all ciurcumstances (I'll grant that there might exist some highly pathological case where it would be for the greater good, but such a situation is not likely to ever occur in real life). I do not need to invoke any higher authority on this. My own opinion suffices.”
>However, I can easily see that another person would consider it to be right. That does not affect my own position that it is bad
However since your position that it is bad is totally arbitrary, it gives no reason why the molester should not follow his arbitrary morality that molestation is fine. (You also changed the statement to justifiable molestation when I asked if it was absolutely morally wrong to molest children FOR FUN)
>Humans can define their own morals just fine.
Including murderers, rapists, and molesters.
>The how is your position any more tenable than that of a raving lunatic who bases his worldview on voices in his head? How is it any more tenable than believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Neither has a cohesive worldview with a revealed word from God.
>Maths is based on completely arbitary axioms. It is just as true that 2+2 equals something else entirely, if I just pick another set of axioms. The only thing that is special about the 2+2=4 case is that it has use in everday life, and thus those axioms are often used. They are no more true or false than any other, however.
So 2 things plus 2 things could equal 5 things. Alrighty then, if that’s what you want to believe.
>An example: 2+2=1 in the S3 group. Group theory is also useful in everyday life in certain circumstances, and it is just as true.
Is it universally true that in the S3 group 2+2=1?
> Ok. So we assume god cannot create such a rock, is that correct? Because such a rock would be a logical contradiction.
>This means that there are principles God cannot break. Which ones are they, exactly? The laws of logic, it would seem. If the laws of mathematics are based on the laws of logic and the laws of physics on the laws of mathematics, does that mean that God cannot break the laws of physics, either?
This is a very good post. The principles which God cannot break are the ones which are part of His divine nature as revealed to us in His word. I would not say that the laws of physics are based on the laws of mathematics, but that they can be represented in mathematical terms. I would also say that the question of whether or not God ‘breaks’ laws of physics is not clear. Even atheistic scientists posit that the universe once had or can have many more dimensions, if this is the case, God, as the creator of these dimensions could be operating within them in such a way that physical laws are not broken even though they appear that way to us. Nevertheless, I have been working on a change to the site to encorporate this type of question.
>Does this mean that God is limited to the speed of light? If so, how can he be omniscient?
Again, I would posit that the laws of physics are a part of God’s creation, rather than necessarily reflect His character. Even so, the speed of light is not a factor since God is also omnipresent.
>your "laws of logic" are baseless assumptions.
What is the base for your assumption that the laws of logic are baseless assumptions?
>Look, the site makes the assumption that you can grasp cosmology with common sense.
Where?
>The idea of a "first cause" for the universe or "universal laws" both betray a very naïve view of the physical world.
Nowhere do I use the ‘first cause’ argument. I argue that one cannot even make sense of causality if God did not exist.
>You have to keep in mind that common sense developed to keep us alive in the savannah, not to help us ponder the mysteries of life.
Common sense is a myth. Is it common sense that common sense did not develop to help us ponder the mysteries of life?
>I must have missed the meeting.
You did. It happened a few thousand years ago.
>Thankfully we didn’t agree that 2 + 2 = 5.
If we had, then you would be totally going "OH BUT 2+2 CANT BE 4, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!!" on me.
>Prove this please.
I already did in >>38 and I'm not going to repeat myself just because you feel like playing stupid.
Look at the statement above that sentence. Then, look at the statement below that sentence. They say
>Using your ahem agreed upon laws of mathematics and logic no doubt.
Well, yes. Glad you finally understood this.
>However, my faith gives an account for the validity of my human reasoning, yours does not.
So, let me rephrase that: "If you don't believe what I say, what we both say does not make sense, because in that case nothing is provable.". Oh wait, didn't you just say exactly what I was trying to tell you?
By the way, read through >>24 again, and tell me: Which part this can you prove wrong without automatically proving yourself wrong? Since >>24 is only assuming logic, and nothing else, you would have to proove that there are no laws of logic. This leaves you with two possibilities: One, >>24 is right, which makes your arguments invalid. Two, >>24 is wrong, which makes your arguments, which are based on logic, invalid.
> 1. You obviously cannot trust your senses, they fool you all the time (Optical illusions etc...).
> 2. Because of 1), any proof that is based on observation can be doubted.
> 3. The only thing you can prove without observation, only using logic, is that you can doubt everything besides your doubt.
>I was not proving the truth of the argument, I was showing the inconsistency of the person deny the universality of mathematics.
Well, you should better start trying to proove that you are right instead of just repeating the things you said over and over again and playing "I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING", because quite frankly, you're doing an awful job right now. Your posts are 70% bla and 30% content. Just cut the useless stuff, I'm sure you can do better.
And you STILL didn't say anything about >>24's part about morals.
>Including murderers, rapists, and molesters.
Jup, they can. You might not like this, but rapists probably have a whole lot of fun raping people, and . Which does, of course, not mean that I agree to raping, molesting and murdering, since I am neither a rapist, nor a murderer, nor a molester, which brings us to STOP TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO SAY THEY LIKE FUCKING CHILDREN TO DISCREDIT THEM. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL WHO CAN'T BACK HIS SHIT UP ANY OTHER WAY.
>You did. It happened a few thousand years ago.
And your evidence for this would be?….
>If we had, then you would be totally going "OH BUT 2+2 CANT BE 4, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!!" on me.
Put your worldview where your mouth is. According to your worldview adding 2 things to 2 things could have equalled 5 things?!?
>So, let me rephrase that: "If you don't believe what I say, what we both say does not make sense, because in that case nothing is provable." Oh wait, didn't you just say exactly what I was trying to tell you?
Not quite, you could not make sense out of anything you say if my worldview were not true.
>By the way, read through >>24 again, and tell me: Which part this can you prove wrong without automatically proving yourself wrong? Since >>24 is only assuming logic, and nothing else, you would have to proove that there are no laws of logic.
Um no, >>24 is assuming lots of things
> You might not like this, but rapists probably have a whole lot of fun raping people, and . Which does, of course, not mean that I agree to raping, molesting and murdering, since I am neither a rapist, nor a murderer, nor a molester,
Never said you were, but since in your worldview morality is arbitrary there is no ultimate reason one should not rape, murder, or molest.
> Never said you were, but since in your worldview morality is arbitrary there is no ultimate reason one should not rape, murder, or molest.
The need to interact with other people who may not share your morality? Conformity, in essence.
>The need to interact with other people who may not share your morality? Conformity, in essence.
Which is also completely arbitrary.
>And your evidence for this would be?….
It is of the same type as this "His Word" thing you like to talk about.
>That your senses fool you ‘all the time.’
Seen any otical illusion lateley?
>That you can ‘obviously not trust your senses’ because of 1.
>That any proof based on observation can be doubted.
>That the sentence “The only thing you can prove without observation, only using logic, is that you can doubt everything besides your doubt.” is true.
Those are not assumptions, those follow from 1).
>That nature is uniform such that the words >>24 uses to construct his sentences mean the same things they did 5 seconds ago.
See, this is your problem: You are human too. Same goes for your words, so: If >>24 was wrong, you would be wrong too. If >>24 was right, you would still be wrong.
>According to your worldview adding 2 things to 2 things could have equalled 5 things?!?
Yes. I would not understand worlds where this is true, but they could exist.
> It is of the same type as this "His Word" thing you like to talk about.
Hardly. I can show you a Bible, show me your evidence for this
meeting you alledge.
>Seen any otical illusion lateley?
No. Optical, yes, but that is certainly not the same as one’s senses fooling them “all the time.”
>See, this is your problem: You are human too. Same goes for your words, so: If >>24 was wrong, you would be wrong too. If >>24 was right, you would still be wrong.
What you fail to realize is that according to my worldview God has made the universe uniform. I can account for the uniformity of nature, you cannot.
>Yes. I would not understand worlds where this is true, but they could exist.
Speak into the microphone.
>What you fail to realize is that according to my worldview God has made the universe uniform. I can account for the uniformity of nature, you cannot.
So: If you can proove that god exists, then he exists.
If you cannot proove that god exists, then he does not exist.
Therefore, god must exist?
That's rather weak. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the name of every single mistake you make, just google it)
>>The need to interact with other people who may not share your morality Conformity, in essence.
> Which is also completely arbitrary.
Really? I think social interaction with our own kind of one of the few things we can't deny, unless you're some sort of solipsist.
> Hardly. I can show you a Bible, show me your evidence for this
meeting you alledge.
I can write a book (or, alternately, liberally translate a 6,000 year old Sumerian text) that says it did. This carries about as much weight as evidence in a epistemological argument as the Bible does.
>Really? I think social interaction with our own kind of one of the few things we can't deny, unless you're some sort of solipsist.
I would say molesting children for fun, being absolutely morally wrong, is something we can't deny. But why should we care what each other thinks if morality is arbitrary?
> I can write a book (or, alternately, liberally translate a 6,000 year old Sumerian text) that says it did. This carries about as much weight as evidence in a epistemological argument as the Bible does.
I never asked what you could do, I asked for your evidence now. We will wait to compare until you produce it.
>I never asked what you could do, I asked for your evidence now. We will wait to compare until you produce it.
I, as in >>66, actually meant that like >>70 understood it, but well, if you feel like it you can look up the history of mathematics in any encyclopedia that is worth it's money. IIRC the earliest people started counting was about 70.000 BC, a little while before we used tools. This is shown by scratches which archeologists have discovered on the walls of the Blombos cave.
>No. Optical, yes, but that is certainly not the same as one’s senses fooling them “all the time.”
You serious? Alriiight, If you really want to play dumb, because quite frankly, I think you already know all this:
There, one for each sense.
>Speak into the microphone.
Me are and you is smart, also known as: Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker, so I don't understand what this means, but I guess this is some kind of sarcastic remark. Anyways, I guess that's basically admitting that I was right.
You said that the laws of mathematics were ‘agreed upon.’ I said ‘I must have missed the meeting.’ You said “you did, it happened a few thousand years ago.” I asked for your evidence of this meeting and you refer me to a book, which you have faith in, which says people started counting a long time ago. Thing is, I never asked that, I asked for your evidence about the meeting where the laws of mathematics were agreed upon.” Still waiting for that (not holding my breath though).
>You serious? Alriiight, If you really want to play dumb, because quite frankly, I think you already know all this:
Maybe you should read your posts, and my answers before you respond. I said that I have seen ‘Optical’ illusions, not this ‘otical’ illusion you referred to. I also said that the claim was that our senses deceive us ‘ALL THE TIME,’ is not proven by a few optical illusions. Surely you are not saying that EVERYTHING is an optical illusion?!?
>Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker, so I don't understand what this means
It means, if you want to say that 2 things plus 2 things could equal 5 things, that I want you to say it so everyone can hear. A ‘microphone’ is used to amplify one’s voice.
>I asked for your evidence of this meeting and you refer me to a book
Counting is the most basic form of mathematics. And I did not mean a literal meeting, obviously.
>ALL THE TIME,’ is not proven by a few optical illusions. Surely you are not saying that EVERYTHING is an optical illusion?!?
Everything might very well be an illusion - to prove that something is not an illusion, to prove that your senses do not lie, you would have to use your senses. Which is, again, circular reasoning.
>It means, if you want to say that 2 things plus 2 things could equal 5 things, that I want you to say it so everyone can hear. A ‘microphone’ is used to amplify one’s voice.
Like, in front of a lot of people I know? Already did, we even talked a lot about this, and they agree that there might very well be worlds where this is true.
>I said that I have seen ‘Optical’ illusions, not this ‘otical’ illusion you referred to.
It is said that when you have someone down to typo flaming, then you have basically won.
Hey, if you want to jump on his argument's bandwagon, be my guest :-)
> I would say molesting children for fun, being absolutely morally wrong, is something we can't deny. But why should we care what each other thinks if morality is arbitrary?
You were just told why. Morality is not arbitrary, but only because social interaction gives it meaning.
As for your requests for hard evidence on the math matter, the earliest that exists is probably http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/mathhist/plimpnote.html - the problem is that the development of arithmatic precedes that of writing, thus there can be no record of it. (Actually, the development of writing was very much driven by the need to do complex calculations.)
>Like, in front of a lot of people I know? Already did, we even talked a lot about this, and they agree that there might very well be worlds where this is true.
So 4 might = 5 in this universe, at the same time and in the same way. 'nuff said. And you even had people agreeing with you. Wow, what lengths you people will go to to run from God.
> You were just told why. Morality is not arbitrary, but only because social interaction gives it meaning.
So if it's not arbitrary, it's absolute right? So whose social interaction makes it absolute? (Try and give a non-arbitrary example).
> the problem is that the development of arithmatic precedes that of writing, thus there can be no record of it.
So the evidence is that there can be no evidence, where have I heard this before... oh ya 'Punctuated Equilibrium.' Good answer!
>>Humans can define their own morals just fine.
> Including murderers, rapists, and molesters.
Yes. So? Are you so weak in your convictions that you need to appeal to an authority, lest your own stance be weakened simply because someone else holds an opposing view? Are you incapable of forming your own convictions and supporting them against others?
> Neither has a cohesive worldview with a revealed word from God.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster people have just as much of one as the christians have.
> So 2 things plus 2 things could equal 5 things. Alrighty then, if that’s what you want to believe.
Mathematics is not about "things". Mathematics is about axioms and logical deductions.
> Is it universally true that in the S3 group 2+2=1?
The axioms of the S3 group imply 2+2=1. This fact has no meaning outside of those axioms, and those axioms are arbitary, and can be considered neither "true" nor "false".
> Again, I would posit that the laws of physics are a part of God’s creation, rather than necessarily reflect His character. Even so, the speed of light is not a factor since God is also omnipresent.
You do not seem to understand fully the implications of relativity. The speed of light is not simply an arbitary speed limit. The universe is of such shape, for lack of a better word, that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Doing so would violate causality. If god could observe an event at one location, and the act on it at another, and the two points in space-time were separated in such a way that information would have to travel between them at a speed faster than that of light, this would create a paradox, where causality is broken. Causality is a basic law of logic. Can God break causality?
> Um no, >>24 is assuming lots of things
> 1. That your senses fool you ‘all the time.’
Are you saying that god cannot fool your senses all the time? He is omnipotent, isn't he?
> Never said you were, but since in your worldview morality is arbitrary there is no ultimate reason one should not rape, murder, or molest.
Why do you need an "ultimate reason"? Why is your personal conviction not strong enough on its own to support your morals?
> So whose social interaction makes it absolute?
I'm sorry, I don't think that arbitrary and absolute are like black and white. By "not arbitrary" perhaps I should have said "slightly less arbitrary."
> Try and give a non-arbitrary example.
It's quite concrete if someone is arrested and imprisoned for molesting children. The laws used to justify the imprisonment may be arbitrary, but the consequences of those laws are not. The threat of imprisonment will dissuade most people from molesting children and make them reluctant to associate with those who do, much like this supposed morality.
>Yes. So? Are you so weak in your convictions that you need to appeal to an authority, lest your own stance be weakened simply because someone else holds an opposing view? Are you incapable of forming your own convictions and supporting them against others?
I like telling the truth. I like being able to say that torturing babies for fun is absolutely wrong, unlike you folks who have to contort your minds around the idea that it could be right.
>The Flying Spaghetti Monster people have just as much of one as the christians have.
Prove this please, then tell me if you believe it.
>Mathematics is not about "things". Mathematics is about axioms and logical deductions.
So when you add physical things, its not about math?!? The microphone is now yours.
>Causality is a basic law of logic.
This is getting better all the time. Prove this please, then tell me how you account for the laws of logic.
>Are you saying that god cannot fool your senses all the time? He is omnipotent, isn't he?
What God can do, and what He does do, as revealed in His Word, are two different things, but what does that have to do with >>24 's point that your senses fool you "all the time?"
Do you believe this?
>Why do you need an "ultimate reason"? Why is your personal conviction not strong enough on its own to support your morals?
Because if morality is arbitrary, the 'personal conviction' of the child molester carries just as much weight. Tell me, is torturing babies for fun absolutely wrong?
>I'm sorry, I don't think that arbitrary and absolute are like black and white. By "not arbitrary" perhaps I should have said "slightly less arbitrary."
Whose social interactions make it “slightly less arbitrary?” (Try and give a non-arbitrary example)
>It's quite concrete if someone is arrested and imprisoned for molesting children. The laws used to justify the imprisonment may be arbitrary, but the consequences of those laws are not.
That's why they all receive the same sentence right? Why should someone not molest children if they can get away with it, don't care if they get caught, or don't care what society thinks about them?
>The threat of imprisonment will dissuade most people from molesting children
Most non-child molesters you mean. Doesn't seem to stop the people who think child molestation is right.
I'm still waiting for your response. You had an awful lot of time to do so, and you responded to a different part of my post, so you obviously read it. I'll re-post it for you:
>ALL THE TIME,’ is not proven by a few optical illusions. Surely you are not saying that EVERYTHING is an optical illusion?!?
Everything might very well be an illusion - to prove that something is not an illusion, to prove that your senses do not lie, you would have to use your senses. Which is, again, circular reasoning.
>Prove this please, then tell me if you believe it.
It is written in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that he created the World. This is obviously true, since it is written in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which was given to us by His Noodly Goodness. All people who do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are just decieving themselves - because without his Noodly Goodness, it would not be possible for them to proove anything anyways!
Sounds ridiculous? Guess what, so do you.
> I like telling the truth. I like being able to say that torturing babies for fun is absolutely wrong, unlike you folks who have to contort your minds around the idea that it could be right.
So you agree that your beliefs are not strong enough to support themselves without appeal to authority? You can not argue the issue on its own merits, you have to invoke god?
> Because if morality is arbitrary, the 'personal conviction' of the child molester carries just as much weight.
And why do the convictions of a madman worry you so much? Neither he nor you exists in a vaccuum. You both live in society, and society gives weight to morals. Do you somehow think that a child molester's view of morality will affect society more than yours?
I think you are getting confused by this: Without absolute morals, there can be no morals that relate only to a single person. All morals have to be thought of in terms of interactions between people. I know how much christians love to apply morals to actions by individuals that affect nobody but themselves, so I can see why this worries you.
>> The Flying Spaghetti Monster people have just as much of one as the christians have.
> Prove this please, then tell me if you believe it.
Prove that you have one, and show where it is different from the FSM argument. Of course I don't believe their argument - the whole point of their argument is that theirs is exactly as absurd as the christians'.
>> Mathematics is not about "things". Mathematics is about axioms and logical deductions.
> So when you add physical things, its not about math?!? The microphone is now yours.
When you add physical things, you are applying maths that happen to correspond to what you are doing. The maths themselves exist independently of the physical objects you are adding, however.
This is one of the great achievements of modern mathematics - to disconnect the whole field from its physical origins, and letting it stand on its own legs completely independently of any particular physical model. Please read up on the history of mathematics to learn more about this
>> Causality is a basic law of logic.
> This is getting better all the time. Prove this please, then tell me how you account for the laws of logic.
You're the one who is presupposing the laws of logic, are you not? I am merely following your lead here, arguing within your own framework of assumptions. Are you now questioning your own assumptions?
>> Are you saying that god cannot fool your senses all the time? He is omnipotent, isn't he?
> What God can do, and what He does do, as revealed in His Word, are two different things, but what does that have to do with >>24 's point that your senses fool you "all the time?"
> Do you believe this?
First, you are assuming his word does not lie. You have not presented any convincing argument why this would be so. Remember, you are the one trying to make a logical argument, and thus "I believe" is not an acceptable argument.
Second, of course I believe this. I am a physicist, and I know very well that even the everyday world is extremely different from what our senses preceive. Our senses are limited, and our mental capacity as well, and thus input from our senses is an extremely heavily filtered version of what actually goes on in the world around us. It serves its purpose for everyday activities, but to think that it is an accurate representation of reality is extremely naïve.
And third, that was not even >>24's point. I'll restate his claim in a way you may find easier to follow: "Our senses often deceive us. This is well known and well documented. Therefore, we know our senses are imperfect. Thus, we cannot trust our senses, and the possibility exists that our senses deceive us even more than we realize."
We may not know of any process by which our senses would deceive us completely, but neither do we have any guarantee that they do not, nor can we find one because we would have to use our senses to do that. I'll add that while "we", as perfectly logical philosophers, may not know of a process, you do: You have an omnipotent god who could easily do so.
>Everything might very well be an illusion - to prove that something is not an illusion, to prove that your senses do not lie, you would have to use your senses. Which is, again, circular reasoning.
This is YOUR problem, not mine. I can rely on my senses to know things, as I know that my senses are a reliable gift from God, you cannot rely on yours for the reasons you state. Tell me, how is it possible for YOU to know anything?
You never told me whether you belived this or not. If not, how do you account for universal, abstract, invariant laws in your worldview? How do you account for the uniformity of nature? How do you even know that your human reasoning is valid?
>not mine
Yes it is. You can not trust your senses, because there is no God.
What? If you can presuppose that there is a God, then I can presuppose that there in none. That's just fair, or not?
>whether you belived this or not.
Well, of course I believe it, and I can not understand how you cannot, when you have been shown perfectly valid proof of his Noodly Goodness!
>How do you account for the uniformity of nature?
Because we have been given those by His Noodly Goodness, of course!
>So you agree that your beliefs are not strong enough to support themselves without appeal to authority? You can not argue the issue on its own merits, you have to invoke god?
If morality is arbitrary, what does it matter how strong anyone's beliefs are? If the child molester's belief that molesting children is right, is stronger than your belief that it is wrong, does that make it right???
>And why do the convictions of a madman worry you so much? Neither he nor you exists in a vaccuum. You both live in society, and society gives weight to morals. Do you somehow think that a child molester's view of morality will affect society more than yours?
So which society determines which morals are right? The Nazi German society? (Note: this is where you invoke the "World consensus society.")(Glad to help)
>I think you are getting confused by this: Without absolute morals, there can be no morals that relate only to a single person. All morals have to be thought of in terms of interactions between people. I know how much christians love to apply morals to actions by individuals that affect nobody but themselves, so I can see why this worries you.
Hey, you are the one who believes that torturing babies for fun could be right. (By the way, you beg the question when you state that an individuals actions affect nobody but themselves.)
>Tell me, how is it possible for YOU to know anything?
By your logic, "Because I said so" is a perfectly valid answer to this.
See:
If I didn't say so, I couldn't know anything.
I said so.
Therefore, I can know things.
Same argumentation with "me" instead of god.
>The Nazi German society?
Godwin.
> Yes it is. You can not trust your senses, because there is no God.
Prove this please.
>What? If you can presuppose that there is a God, then I can presuppose that there in none. That's just fair, or not?
Indeed, this is my very point. You presuppose that there is no God, and therefore lose the preconditions for intelligibility. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invriant laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature apart from God?
>Well, of course I believe it, and I can not understand how you cannot, when you have been shown perfectly valid proof of his Noodly Goodness!
As long as you, and everyone else who reads this thread, sees to what length you will go to to deny the existence of God, speak up mister. This just shows that you are out of arguments for positing logic and science apart from God.
>Same argumentation with "me" instead of god.
Hardly, unless you are now claiming omniscience. (Which I fully expect you to do to escape my argument).
>Prove this please.
I already did, presupposing that there is no God.
>You presuppose that there is no God, and therefore lose the preconditions for intelligibility. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invriant laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature apart from God?
Easy answer: I don't. Why would I need to? If they don't exist, I don't even need to proove that prooving God is not possible, since then it's impossible anyways. If they do exist, as you presuppose, then my argumentation is perfectly valid.
>>98
As long as you, and everyone else who reads this thread, sees to what length you will go to to deny the existence of His Noodly Goodness, speak up mister. This just shows that you are out of arguments for positing logic and science apart from His Noodly Goodness.
>unless you are now claiming omniscience.
What for? Tell me please, why would I need omniscience to simply say that I'm right?
> I already did, presupposing that there is no God.
Your presupposition is not proof, neither is mine. My proof is that without my presupposition one loses the preconditions for intelligibility.
> Easy answer: I don't. Why would I need to? If they don't exist, I don't even need to proove that prooving God is not possible, since then it's impossible anyways. If they do exist, as you presuppose, then my argumentation is perfectly valid.
If the law of non-contradcition does not exist, then it does.
That is what your worldview leads to. Your inconsistency is showing.
>>98
Your probably don't understand this, so here's a little explanation: The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a mock religion, which was designed to be just like Christianity, just with some completeley ridiculous stuff worked in. Basically, any of you arguments can be used for prooving that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, just by replacing a few word here and there. It was designed to show just how ridiculous things like "Intelligent Design" and presuppositional apologetics are.
>What for? Tell me please, why would I need omniscience to simply say that I'm right?
You don't need it to SAY that you are right, lots of people (child molesters, rapists, murderers) SAY that they are right, you need omniscience to KNOW that you are right.
>preconditions for intelligibility
Then please prove to me, without invoking the "God said so" argument, this intelligibility you speak of.
>If the law of non-contradcition does not exist, then it does.
Are you beginning to understand that this world might just not be as simple as you'd like it to be?
So now you don't believe it? Yet another inconsistency! How do you account for the uniformity of nature and the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic again?
>You don't need it to SAY that you are right, lots of people (child molesters, rapists, murderers) SAY that they are right, you need omniscience to KNOW that you are right.
And you have this omniscience you are talking of, and because of this, you know that there is a god, which you can pressupose to explain that you are correct.
>>107
Not same person?
>Then please prove to me, without invoking the "God said so" argument, this intelligibility you speak of.
God is the precondition for intelligibility, you cannot argue for it without Him.
>Are you beginning to understand that this world might just not be as simple as you'd like it to be?
Alright, this should wrap things up nicely...Does the law of non-contradiction apply to our arguments? (A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice).
>And you have this omniscience you are talking of, and because of this, you know that there is a god, which you can pressupose to explain that you are correct.
No, I can appeal to God, who is omniscient, for knowledge.
How can YOU know anything?
>God is the precondition for intelligibility, you cannot argue for it without Him.
Circular reasoning again, no proof - please try again.
>Alright, this should wrap things up nicely...Does the law of non-contradiction apply to our arguments? (A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice).
It does, since you are presupposing it. If you pressupose it, then I can use it.
>How can YOU know anything?
I cannot, and neither can you, because there is no God.
>God
Proove his existence to me, please. As long as you haven't, you cannot use him as precondition.
>Circular reasoning again, no proof - please try again.
All worldviews are necessarily circular, but not all are (read only one is) valid.
For instance, your ultimate authority is likely your own human reasoning, prove its validity without using human reasoning.
>It does, since you are presupposing it. If you pressupose it, then I can use it.
Exactly my point, you must borrow from MY worldview in order to maintain the law of non-contradiction. Thank you.
>Exactly my point, you must borrow from MY worldview in order to maintain the law of non-contradiction. Thank you.
So, let me get this straight: If I borrow from your worldview, then it can be proven that your worldview cannot be proven. If I don't, then your worldview can not be proven. Sound like a big fat "Invalid" to me.
>All worldviews are necessarily circular, but not all are (read only one is) valid.
You are denying the validity of ALL arguments, including your own? Which would mean that, you know, you cannot proove that you are right?
> I cannot, and neither can you, because there is no God.
Ha, do you know that you and I cannot know anything, and do you know that there is no God?
If you do, then you refute yourself, if you don't then why should I care what you think?
>You are denying the validity of ALL arguments, including your own? Which would mean that, you know, you cannot proove that you are right?
I deny the validity of your argument, not mine, as I can account for the validity of my human reasoning. How is it that you know your human reasoning is valid again, you conveniently neglected to answer that part.
Or are you the same person who can't know anything?
>why should I care what you think?
Same goes for you. I still have not seen proof that your god exists which does not presuppose god, thereby denying logic.
>Same goes for you. I still have not seen proof that your god exists which does not presuppose god, thereby denying logic.
If you keep skipping my questions, I will no longer respond to you. Do you know that you and I cannot know anything, and do you know that there is no God?
>I deny the validity of your argument, not mine, as I can account for the validity of my human reasoning.
See: By your argumentation "God exists because god exists" is a valid argument. So, in your worldview, all arguments of the type "A, therefore A" would have to be valid. That is pretty much denying that logic exists.
That is what I would call inconsistency.
>How is it that you know your human reasoning is valid again, you conveniently neglected to answer that part.
I don't, and I don't need to, because you oh so happen to be human, too.
>Do you know that you and I cannot know anything, and do you know that there is no God?
I will answer that question after you have proven to me that god exists. Deal?
>See: By your argumentation "God exists because god exists" is a valid argument. So, in your worldview, all arguments of the type "A, therefore A" would have to be valid. That is pretty much denying that logic exists.
That is what I would call inconsistency.
No, the argument is 'Intelligibility exists, and since God is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists.'
You of course can, and do deny intelligibility, yet you are here trying to argue intelligently. Go figure.
> I will answer that question after you have proven to me that god exists. Deal?
You can't prove anything to someone who can't know anything. Since you seek proof of something, you refute yourself.
You assume:
So:
A needs B
suppose A
Therefore, B!
>You can't prove anything to someone who can't know anything.
So, you can't prove nothing to me? I'm shocked.
> If morality is arbitrary, what does it matter how strong anyone's beliefs are? If the child molester's belief that molesting children is right, is stronger than your belief that it is wrong, does that make it right???
Because if there are no absolute morals, you have to actually convince people that your choice of morals is correct.
> So which society determines which morals are right?
The one you live in, and that can affect you? That's pretty obvious. If you disagree with it, you work to change it.
> (Note: this is where you invoke the "World consensus society.")(Glad to help)
Maybe you should save your gloating over the idiotic statements of your opponent until such a time that they actually make them.
> Hey, you are the one who believes that torturing babies for fun could be right.
No, I do not believe that, because I believe that even if morals are arbitary and decided by society, I also believe in the basic decency of man, and I can be fairly certain that no society would think this.
Also, you are ignoring >>89, but then again, you are showing yourself as very incapable of forming logical arguments already, and in other discussions here you seem to be incapable of understanding the arguments anyway.
Please, before attempting to construct a logical proof of god, first learn how logical proofs work. You are throwing fallacies left and right, and making non-sensical arguments.
It is fine if you want to believe in god, but give up on this idea of proving him logically. You are obviously incapable of doing so.
>Please, before attempting to construct a logical proof of god, first learn how logical proofs work. You are throwing fallacies left and right, and making non-sensical arguments.
>It is fine if you want to believe in god, but give up on this idea of proving him logically. You are obviously incapable of doing so.
You obviously believe that the laws of logic exist, how do you account for them in your worldview? Borrowing logic from MY worldview, to argue against MY worldview hardly makes sense now does it?
>Because if there are no absolute morals, you have to actually convince people that your choice of morals is correct.
Bingo. What is a 'correct' moral? (You'll get to the 'world consensus' soon enough, trust me).
>I also believe in the basic decency of man
What is 'decency' if morality is arbitrary?
>The one you live in, and that can affect you? That's pretty obvious. If you disagree with it, you work to change it.
Just out of curiosity, do you believe that your thoughts are mere by-products of the electro-chemical reactions of your evolved brain? If so, aren't your thoughts determined by these reactions? If so, how can you change your thoughts or other's thoughts?
> You obviously believe that the laws of logic exist, how do you account for them in your worldview? Borrowing logic from MY worldview, to argue against MY worldview hardly makes sense now does it?
This is how a logical argument works! The very fact that you somehow think there is something strange about this only shows how unfamiliar you are with the whole field! This is why I am requesting you actually try and learn something about it. Take some classes in philosophy and logic, or at the very least read some books on the subject.
A logical argument consists of a set of assumptions, and a set of derivations from these assumptions. To refute such an argument, you do or more of:
You seem to think that only the first is valid, which is entirely untrue. We have been mostly arguing using the last two.
>> Because if there are no absolute morals, you have to actually convince people that your choice of morals is correct.
> Bingo. What is a 'correct' moral? (You'll get to the 'world consensus' soon enough, trust me).
"Correct" is bad choice of words. Substitute "useful", or "appealing", or whatever.
>> I also believe in the basic decency of man
> What is 'decency' if morality is arbitrary?
No definition is needed, as none of my arguments are based on it. It is an entirely subjective term. You stated "Hey, you are the one who believes that torturing babies for fun could be right", and I said that I, personally, do no such thing.
> Just out of curiosity, do you believe that your thoughts are mere by-products of the electro-chemical reactions of your evolved brain? If so, aren't your thoughts determined by these reactions? If so, how can you change your thoughts or other's thoughts?
I believe the question is as yet unanswered, but since it appears that I and everyone else have free will, I will continue to act on that assumption unless convinced otherwise.
How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic in your worldview? (It's that light green question at the beginning of your post).
It's no use talking about them if you can't account for them.
I take it that you are not one of the people here who say that they cannot know anything then? If so, how is it possible to know anything according to your worldview?
If we were discussing a theory put forward by me, that would be relevant. We are not. We are discussing a theory put forward by you, and you are presupposing they hold, and I am merely arguing within that framework. Re-read what I just said in >>132, as it obviously did not register the first time.
I believe the question is as yet unanswered, but since it appears that I and everyone else have free will, I will continue to act on that assumption unless convinced otherwise.
Ha! How could you be convinced that your assumption was wrong?!? If your assumption is wrong, your thoughts are determined and you could not be convinced of anything!
What model of evolution accounts for non-determined thoughts? Or do you have faith that one will yet be found?
> Ha! How could you be convinced that your assumption was wrong?!? If your assumption is wrong, your thoughts are determined and you could not be convinced of anything!
This argument makes no sense. Even if my thoughts are perfectly pre-determined, what is to stop one of those pre-determined thoughts from being one where I think the world is pre-determined? More importantly, how would it strengthen your argument?
> If we were discussing a theory put forward by me, that would be relevant. We are not. We are discussing a theory put forward by you, and you are presupposing they hold, and I am merely arguing within that framework. Re-read what I just said in >>132, as it obviously did not register the first time.
You talk about logic as though you believe it to exist, yet you fail to account for it. Are the laws of logic, universal, abstract and invariant according to your worldview? If so, for the third time, how do you account for the laws of logic in your worldview? Ducking the question will not make it go away.
My worldview is irrelevant. We are discussing your worldview.
>This argument makes no sense. Even if my thoughts are perfectly pre-determined, what is to stop one of those pre-determined thoughts from being one where I think the world is pre-determined?
Nothing, but my question was, how could you be CONVINCED that your assumption was wrong and that your thoughts are in fact pre-determined? To be CONVINCED of anything is contrary to pre-determination.
Again, what model of evolution accounts for non-determined thoughts? Or do you have faith that one will yet be found?
> To be CONVINCED of anything is contrary to pre-determination.
Unsupported claim, and also completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
> Again, what model of evolution accounts for non-determined thoughts? Or do you have faith that one will yet be found?
Non-sequitor question, completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Evolution makes not a single claim about pre-determination or thoughts of any kind, nor really anything else that has been discussed so far.
Please stick to the subject.
>My worldview is irrelevant. We are discussing your worldview.
You are evaluating my worldview from within your worldview, which makes your worldview relevant. If you do not believe in logic, the uniformity of nature, or knowledge, then arguing with me shows that your worldview is inconsistent.
>Unsupported claim, and also completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Do you believe that a person whose thoughts are pre-determined can be convinced of anything? (or are you going to duck this question too?)
>Non-sequitor question, completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Evolution makes not a single claim about pre-determination or thoughts of any kind, nor really anything else that has been discussed so far.
So, you have no idea what thoughts are?!? You have faith that you have free will, with nothing to back up this notion. I understand why you don't want to discuss YOUR worldview.
> You are evaluating my worldview from within your worldview
No, in a logical argument the facts are all that count. The person making the claim is completely irrelevant. Arguing any different is an ad hominem fallacy.
This is why I would request you actually learn logic before trying to use it. If I have to keep explaining the basics of logic to you every other post, we will never get anywhere, especially when you don't seem to feel like accepting any of them.
I'll just leave this discussion here, with the following summary:
If you want to make a logical argument for the existence of god, you first have to learn logic, and apply it correctly.
When you have, feel free to come back for a second round. I really do mean it - go study logic and philosophy. There is much you can learn, and learning it will serve you well. Then maybe we can argue on equal ground. I would enjoy it.
Look, you don't have to agree with how I account for the laws of logic, but we are having a worldview discussion. How do you account for the laws of logic which you are using to evaluate my worldview? (Fourth time)
When you tell me how you account for the laws of logic which you are using to evaluate my worldview, I will be happy to continue this discussion.
I really do mean it. Study how your worldview accounts for the laws of logic. There is much you can learn, and learning it will serve you well. Then maybe you can see that you have no basis for arguing at all, and that there can be no equal ground.
Without logic, there can be no proof. Thus undermining logic will not allow you to prove that God exists.
I don't undermine logic. My worldview can account for universal, abstract, invariants such as the laws of logic. I want to know how the non-theistic worldview accounts for the logic used to argue against my worldview.
This thread is 150 posts long now. Go ahead, see how many times I have asked this, and see how many answers I have gotten.
Very well, I'll bite.
I didn't really want to bring evolution into this, but logic exists because it was an evolutionary advantage. At one point, reasoning such as "A squirrel was gathering edible nuts in a pile here, but they're gone now; there is no trace of them being eaten; they must have been hidden somewhere" translated to a survival advantage, allowing those who used such reasoning to procure more nourishment and procreate more effectively.
> Why do we condemn the Nazi society for following their self-imposed morals? Why did the Nazi society not have the right to break from the tradition of morality in western civilizations?
If killing Jews is unambiguously wrong and anyone with a clear head can see so, why did the Nazis do it in the first place? Was there a sudden, nationwide lapse of conscience, or did God abandon them for a couple of years and then God came back to Germany in 1945? Stupid, simplistic arguments like this absolutely fail to define morality. Obviously morality is created by social pressures just as much as individual reasoning.
What I want to know is, http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
>I didn't really want to bring evolution into this, but logic exists because it was an evolutionary advantage.
So the laws of logic reflect survival advantage and not truth?
The only reason A cannot be non A is for survival advantage?
Is this your position?
>If killing Jews is unambiguously wrong and anyone with a clear head can see so, why did the Nazis do it in the first place?
Obviously they disagree with your arbitrary view of 'clear headedness.'
>What I want to know is, http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
Prove this please. How do you know that God does not have morally sufficient reason for not healing amputees (of which my father is one by the way).
>>154
The website explains the details. Basically, God answers prayers, but he doesn't answer the prayers of amputees, and there's no logical reason why he shouldn't. Of course, that summary has a lot of objections, but they are all discussed on the website.
> Obviously they disagree with your arbitrary view of 'clear headedness.'
Of course my view is arbitrary! What I'm saying is, any individual working out morality for himself can see that torture is wrong for totally non-God related reasons. (How would you like it if YOU got tortured?!) But within a society, people can be made to change their minds, and believe something is perfectly rational-- for example, Spanish people believed that the torture of Jews was completely moral and in fact that God ordered them to do so. Why do you doubt their piety? And even in a society we all think is a free and unpressuring one, people disagree whether abortion is moral. Does life begin at conception? Who's right, and who's wrong? If you want to prove it one way or the other, you will have to consult directly with God, and we have no evidence God has ever spoken to anyone. Your website doesn't even discuss the Bible.
Oops, I'm wrong. Once I agree with your flawed conclusion that God MUST exist because someone has to dictate morality to us and we will be a nation of pedophiles if He doesn't (gee, if God's the only thing keeping you from molesting kids, I won't let my children anywhere near you!), you have this explanation on your page:
> Rather than use physical evidence to show that the Bible is most probably true, we again go back to intellectual evidence, and logical proof, to show that the Bible is necessarily true. We can know that the Bible is true because it claims to be true and proves it by the impossibility of the contrary! It is only because the Bible is true that we have justification for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws. It is only by God's revealing Himself to us through His word that we have grounds for rational thought. We use rational thought, therefore we can know that the Bible is true. Attempting to use logic to try to disprove the only possible source for logic would be self-refuting.
By this logic you should be a Muslim, because the Bible never says it is infallible, but the Koran does.
> The website explains the details. Basically, God answers prayers, but he doesn't answer the prayers of amputees.
Hmm it looks like an atheistic site to me. How would they know what God does since they claim not to believe in Him?
> Of course my view is arbitrary! What I'm saying is, any individual working out morality for himself can see that torture is wrong for totally non-God related reasons.
Um no, they can see that they do not like being tortured, but not that it is wrong. (And without God they cannot proceed with the assumption that they will not like being tortured the next time, since they cannot account for the uniformity of nature apart from Him).
>Spanish people believed that the torture of Jews was completely moral and in fact that God ordered them to do so. Why do you doubt their piety?
Because it is contrary to the teachings of Christ.
> And even in a society we all think is a free and unpressuring one, people disagree whether abortion is moral. Does life begin at conception? Who's right, and who's wrong? If you want to prove it one way or the other, you will have to consult directly with God, and we have no evidence God has ever spoken to anyone. Your website doesn't even discuss the Bible.
Well actually it does, but you have to navigate to the main page. I don't see the point in discussing the Bible with those who claim that God does not exist.
>Oops, I'm wrong. Once I agree with your flawed conclusion that God MUST exist because someone has to dictate morality to us and we will be a nation of pedophiles if He doesn't (gee, if God's the only thing keeping you from molesting kids, I won't let my children anywhere near you!).
Alright then, according to your worldview, is molesting children for fun absolutely morally wrong, or could it be right?
> No, in a logical argument the facts are all that count. The person making the claim is completely irrelevant. Arguing any different is an ad hominem fallacy.
> Alright then, according to your worldview, is molesting children for fun absolutely morally wrong, or could it be right?
And have you stopped beating your wife yet?
> And have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Not at all the same type of question, I assume nothing in my question.
The equivalent would be "according to your worldview is beating one's wife absolutely morally wrong, or could it be right?"
Nice try though.
In a discussion about worldviews, we lay both on the table and see which one comports with reality.
>You are assuming that absolute morals exist, due to your use of the phrase "could be right".
"Could molesting children for fun be right?" assumes nothing. The fact that you cannot answer this question is telling though.
>In a discussion about worldviews, we lay both on the table and see which one comports with reality.
Yours is starting to show.
>>164
Here's a question for you: Why isn't molesting children fun or right? Did God tell you so? What if God told me molesting children is my moral duty? How would we figure out who was right?
>>164
I hate to copypaste, but this kindSTOP TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO SAY THEY LIKE FUCKING CHILDREN TO DISCREDIT THEM. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL WHO CAN'T BACK HIS SHIT UP ANY OTHER WAY.
We are not discussing worldviews. We are discussing your claim to have a proof of god.
I believe that there is no absolute truth. I suppose that an absolute truth can exist in a logical system, but from observation alone I cannot tell whether the system in which we are actually behaves logically. In fact, 'system' is probably a misnomer because it already presupposes some sort of construct.
I am not a mathematician, but I suppose also that even in a logical system, if you introduce randomness, there can be no absolute truths.
This believe refutes me to say that it is absolutely true that no absolute truth exists (duh.) Annoyingly, the decisiontree of the site just regurgitates me within these constraints I have set out.
I haven't taken the time to investigate the other options of this prank except the 'I don't care' exit strategy. However, I agree with you that, once you constrain people to the axioms that absolute truth does exist, and that they don't know what these are, that you can then trick them into 'accepting' a proof for Gods existence.
Seems I'll be visiting Disney for a while
>Why isn't molesting children fun or right? Did God tell you so?
Child molestation is contrary to the Biblical command to love one's neighbour.
You are deluded. I have never once tried to get anyone to say any such thing. I merely point out the logical outworking of a morally arbitrary worldview.
I can see why you do not want to discuss your worldview.
>I believe that there is no absolute truth.
Is it absolutely true that you believe that there is no absolute truth?
Is it absolutely true that if you introduce randomness into a logical system, there can be no absolute truths?
Is it absolutely true that the decisiontree of the site just regurgitates you within the constraints you have set out?
I could go on, but for someone who believes there is no absolute truth, you sure make alot of truth claims.
So you think. I have absolutely nothing against discussing my worldview. It is simply not part of the topic, which is your claim to a proof of god. You are suddenly incredibly reluctant to stay on this topic, it seems.
Then again, I have already given up on that discussion ever leading anywhere.
> Is it absolutely true that you believe that there is no absolute truth?
> Is it absolutely true that if you introduce randomness into a logical system, there can be no absolute truths?
> Is it absolutely true that the decisiontree of the site just regurgitates you within the constraints you have set out?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
> I have absolutely nothing against discussing my worldview.
Sure looks that way.
> It is simply not part of the topic
I'm here to discuss worldviews. Mine is on full display at the website. Now I'd like to know on what basis you claim to logically evaluate my worldview. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature in your worldview? (sixth time).
Ha! You are the one making truth claims and yet denying that absolute truth exists. Your question begging does not conceal that fact.
> I'm here to discuss worldviews.
No, you were countering arguments made against your worldview, under your own assumptions, with arguments about the arguer's worldview. That is an ad hominem fallacy. If you were here to discuss other's worldviews, you should have said so. As it is now it just looks like you're trying to avoid a losing argument by switching the topic.
If you want to concede that you can not support your proof of god logically, I'll be more than happy to switch to another topic of discussion, however.
>No, you were countering arguments made against your worldview, under your own assumptions, with arguments about the arguer's worldview.
The logical argument for my worldview is on my website. I see people criticizing it here and I want to determine by which standard anyone here can contsruct a logical argument against my worldview. 178 posts later and no one here has given a non-theistic account for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.
Surely that should be taken as a concession that no one here can.
If you instead feel like actually getting back to that argument, tell me why this statement isn't true:
"Intelligibility exists, and since The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists."
> 178 posts later and no one here has given a non-theistic account for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.
> Surely that should be taken as a concession that no one here can.
To disprove one argument, one does not need to prove another, competing argument to be true, so this is immaterial. Furthermore, are you aware that there is such a thing as a statement that is both true and unprovable?
"Intelligibility exists, and since The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists."
Is that your worldview?
Just tell me why it is not true. Invoking my personal beliefs would be yet another ad hominem fallacy.
> To disprove one argument, one does not need to prove another, competing argument to be true, so this is immaterial
Except in this case you are using the alleged truth of your argument to argue against my worldview.
> Just tell me why it is not true.
If you don't believe it, why should I bother? Tell me what you believe and I will be more than happy to refute it.
> If you don't believe it, why should I bother?
To explain why it is different from your own argument. It is obviously untrue, is it not? Why is it different?
If you claim that it is obviously untrue, then (hopefully) you do not believe it. Tell me what you do believe and I will be happy to refute it.
Oh come on, don't you even understand a reductio ad absurdum argument? Answer the question already, and stop squirming away from it.
Stop quirming away from telling me what you believe.
I already said once that I would leave this argument, and I did not keep this promise. I see this was a grave mistake. You are obviously not interested in taking part in it in any meaningful way any longer. I asked for your answer to a signle question, and I get kindergarten-level parroting. There is nothing to be gained by this.
I'll repeat my previous invitation: Learn some basic philosophy and logic. Then come back, and argue your case. I will discuss this when you have the requisite skills to state your case properly.
I will be happy to refute anyone who comes here who believes something contrary to Christianity. I have no time for hypothetical spaghetti monsters (unless you claim to believe it).
Go ahead, run away, that is the common answer from those who cannot defend their worldview.
Ciao
And you are somehow not running away by refusing to answer a simple reductio ad absurdum challenge? Was it so easy to forget that I asked you a question, and you repeatedly refused to answer it? And when I give up trying to get an answer out of you, that is me running away?
Tell me what you believe and I will be happy to refute it. If I refute your hypothetical, you will just make up another. I'm not playing that game.
Do you really not understand what a reductio ad absurdum argument is?
Of course, it is a logical argument, which you cannot employ until you tell me how you account for the laws of logic in your worldview. Borrowing logic from my worldview, to argue against my worldview, hardly makes sense now does it?
Oh for crying out loud, I already explained this to you. Several times, but you are still stuck in your ad hominem fallacy and will apparently never get out of it.
Look, you will have to accept that arguments against your theory will be made within your theory. That is how it works.
Now stop squirming and answer the question, or shut up and concede defeat.
However accepting that argumentation is even possible is a concession that my worldview is true, unless of course you wish to posit another source for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature (which obviously you do not, and cannot)
If you were paying attention, I was arguing that your worldview does not provide a basis for intelligibility either. Therefore, we have to just take that as an assumption, and work from there.
Now answer the question.
Actually it does, you just don't happen to like it.
You see, if you really wanted to have a rational discussion, you would provide your basis for rationality even if you disagreed with my demand for it. The fact that you constantly avoid this request shows that you have zero basis for rationality in your worldview.
This is not difficult, you already have my basis for rationality. What is yours?
Do I have to ask you a seventh time to answer the question?
This was ineresting at the beginning, but now it's rather lame...
Indeed. This dodging game gets old fast.
Let's try this one:
> You see, if you really wanted to have a rational discussion, you would provide your basis for rationality even if you disagreed with my demand for it.
Ok, I base my rationality on the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I totally believe this now, I have seen the errors of my previous ways.
Now tell me why I am wrong.
>Ok, I base my rationality on the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I totally believe this now, I have seen the errors of my previous ways.
Very well, I need to know more about your worldview in order to properly respond. On what basis do you claim that your God, 'The FSM,' is the precondition for intelligibility. Please support your claim.
>>172 for me to not believe in absolute truth, it is irrelevant whether that is my belief is an absolute truth. You are pressing me to decide whether there is absolute truth even though I (in my only post here yet) already mentioned that I don't believe in that.
Maybe you are struggling with the concept 'to believe' or at least the way I used it here. I say believe, because with my limited understanding of the rules (assuming there are rules) of the realm in which I live I believe it is impossible to make strong statements. In the situation that I live in, I am thus not able to validate the existence of any absolute truth. Withouth at least the knowledge of an absolute truth, it is imho impossible to identify an absolute truth.
So your challenge should be - if you take this topic seriously, and if you wish henceforth to be taken serious here - to show how it is possible arrive at a certainty, when you're inside a world of uncertainty.
My worldview is the exact same as your except whenever you would say "god" I say "The Flying Spaghetti Monster", and if you should feel like referencing the bible, I reference the Flying Spaghetti Bible, which is constructed in a similar way.
Is it absolutely true that it is irrelevant whether your belief is an absolute truth?
Is it absolutely true that I am pressing you to decide whether there is absolute truth?
Is it absolutely true that you believe it is impossible to make strong statements?
Is it absolutely true that you are not able to validate the existence of absolute truth?
You can't escape it man. Denying absolute truth is self-refuting.
Please give the FSM Bible references, which explain the nature of the FSM, the precondition for universal, abstract invariants, and the justification for the uniformity of nature so I can examine them and propery respond.
Just take your own arguments and replace "god" with "FSM". I already told you.
Actually I use my Bible to support my claims, you use your Bible.
From what I can gather the FSM is a 'physical' being, with at least one component being 'spaghetti.' This already distinguishes it from God as God is non-physical, so interchanging God with the FSM does not work.
Please correct me if I am wrong, and give me the FSM bible references to support your claims.
You just don't understand this argument, do you?
The thing that I do not understand is your worldview. I need the details so I can refute it. Please give the FSM Bible references so I can examine them and refute them. Surely you didn't make up your claims?!? See, now you are just playing a new game of dodge. I have agreed to refute your claim, yet you will not provide details of it. You cannot support this worldview or the one you actually do hold.
In other words, you don't understand the argument.
I will spell it out for you: If one takes your worldview, and replaces "God" with an equivalent entity who is not the christian god, but has the exact same abilities, is that still a valid argument? If not, why not?
> I will spell it out for you: If one takes your worldview, and replaces "God" with an equivalent entity who is not the christian god, but has the exact same abilities, is that still a valid argument? If not, why not?
If the "God" in your worldview has the exact same definition, with the exact same attributes, as defined and justified by the exact same book, then you would believe in Christianity, except do so in your own 'language.' I would have no problem with that. You, however, use a different book, to define a different God, with different attributes. I am asking you to defend the God of your worldview, with your 'bible.' You just keep running away from the question. Please give me the FSM bible references which support your claims.
Again, it is glaringly obvious that you can neither support your fallacious belief in the FSM or in the worldview that you actually hold.
The exact same definition, except he says he's not your christian god, and that your christian god does not exist. It seems you still do not understand the argument.
And the "I'm not, you are" thing is getting pretty old. That's yet more childish parroting, and you should be capable of better than that if you had an actual argument.
>>213
lol, semantics.
uhoh, starts to feel like talking to |_|lrich again.
anyway, I think this is a nice prank, although a bit discomforting at first because I thought you actually had an idea where you were going to.
But it looks like you don't know an answer yourself, either. You are stuck asking other people 'insightful' questions without being able to explain why we (in your opinion) don't seem to get it. I've asked you before to please explain that. These questions like 'is it absolutely true that proofofgodexists is a dweeb?' will not be answered by me again. <-- is not an absolute truth, its an approach to an absolute truth since I cannot tell the future. So try again, please.
As an alternative answer to you; fine you found a proof that god exists. Now you need to prove that your proof is valid. good luck, kid.
one more thing, out of curiosity I finally went inside your confined tunnel of 'proof' until I hit the 'absolute morality' wall. What ever made you think people even try to observe moral laws obediently, let alone following some moral laws that are coherent within a system that surpasses human behaviours? unless of course you say "well, duh, but where did those laws come from, then?" with the obvious answer "GOD uhuh, uhuh, uhuh..!" Of course I presume you wouldn't fall for such a simple cycling logic?
but I distract. please answer the >>215 first if you can.
203<<
actually, sorry, but forget about me. After more investigation it seems you won't be able to think along any lines other than your own lines of thought. Um, maybe you're just going too quickly for me, perhaps you're missing out a few steps that seem huge for me but insignificant for you.
And about the God thing, isn't it much more practical to just accept God in your life? I think I do, but He hasn't bothered to come by and say "thank you for being so open" and I haven't received any powers either (actually, unless I can't cause massive collateral damage with such powers, I'm not really interested) - still, the fact that there is currently no feedback (dead line?) at all doesn't worry me too much, cuz yknow, if He wants something from me, I'll notice that sooner or later, won't I?
There's no need for you to pray for me, that I may find God. He's everywhere, I don't need to waste my time looking for stuff that's omnipresent.
well, thats what I believe...for now......
>The exact same definition, except he says he's not your christian god, and that your christian god does not exist.
Look, I pointed out one huge difference already, your God being at least partially comprised of 'physical' spaghetti. The God I posit is immaterial.
You should be highly embarrased that the best you can do to attempt to refute my worldview is to claim Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. I ask you to support your claim and of course I get NOTHING, just like your previous worldview - ZIPPO.
If you continue in this useless vein, I will no longer reply to your posts.
Um ,is it absolutely true that it "is not an absolute truth, and that it's an approach to an absolute truth?
Is it absolutely true that you cannot tell the future?
These questions are not the proof of course, they merely point out the absurdity of denying absolute truth.
The proof is a 'transcendental proof,' i.e. proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Just like you would prove the validity of the laws of logic. In the site I demonstrate how the Christian worldview accounts for universal, abstract, invariants and therefore the necessary preconditions for the laws of logic. I challenge anyone to come up with an alternate explanation and justification for universal, abstract, invariant laws and the uniformity of nature. As you can see, no one has taken up the challenge.
>What ever made you think people even try to observe moral laws obediently, let alone following some moral laws that are coherent within a system that surpasses human behaviours?
What does the existence of absolute moral laws have to do with obedience to them?
>>218
It seems you do not really understand what >>213 is talking about (Please remember, not all persons are the same here).
>>213 is asking you why someone who believes in a god which is, in all characteristics, exactly like the christian god, with a book exactly like the bible, just that it also says that:
would be wrong, while you would be right.
>still, the fact that there is currently no feedback (dead line?) at all doesn't worry me too much,
Well since you cannot account for logic, or science without God (let alone your existence), I would say that everyone of your thoughts is feeback.
>if He wants something from me, I'll notice that sooner or later, won't I?
Absolutely, but might I advise you find out sooner, rather than later.
I'll bite. What part of your claim "Intelligibility exists, and since God is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists." states that God is not allowed to have a physical presence? Can he only be the necessary precondition for intelligibility if he is entirely immaterial?
(And if he is entirely immaterial, then what's the deal with Jesus?)
>>213 is asking you why someone who believes in a god which is, in all characteristics, exactly like the christian god, with a book exactly like the bible, just that it also says that:
He is not the christian god.
The christian god does not exist.
would be wrong, while you would be right.
No one has positted such a worldview here. If anyone would, I would be happy to refute it.
That was exactly what I posited. You really are not understanding the argument at all!
>>224
Ok. Go.
>I'll bite. What part of your claim "Intelligibility exists, and since God is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists." states that God is not allowed to have a physical presence?
No part of it.
> Can he only be the necessary precondition for intelligibility if he is entirely immaterial?
God IS immaterial. I would have to see an argument for a physical god being the necessary preconditions for intelligibility in order to evaluate the rationality of such a worldview.
(And if he is entirely immaterial, then what's the deal with Jesus?)
God in His dvine nature is immaterial spirit, but had physical elements in His human nature. Only the eternal nature of God is 'entirely' immaterial.
>That was exactly what I posited. You really are not understanding the argument at all!
No, you positted the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and did not defend how it or its bible is exactly like the God of Christianity, and our Bible.
>> I'll bite. What part of your claim "Intelligibility exists, and since God is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists." states that God is not allowed to have a physical presence?
> No part of it.
Then why did you bother talking about the FSM being physical, if it doesn't matter?
No, don't bother answering that. Just answer >>213 properly.
> No, you positted the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and did not defend how it or its bible is exactly like the God of Christianity, and our Bible.
I said, and I repeat:
I will spell it out for you: If one takes your worldview, and replaces "God" with an equivalent entity who is not the christian god, but has the exact same abilities, is that still a valid argument? If not, why not?
With the additional clarification:
The exact same definition, except he says he's not your christian god, and that your christian god does not exist.
Please try to keep up, and answer >>213 properly. Or just pretend it doesn't exist and answer >>224 instead. Either way.
>Then why did you bother talking about the FSM being physical, if it doesn't matter?
His claim was that his God was exactly the same as the God of Christianity, I pointed out a glaring difference. It had nothing to do with the justification for intelligibility (yet).
Surely you can see the problem with his argument?!? He says his god and his bible are exactly the same as the God of Christianity and our Bible. I asked him to support his claim, which he has not done, and obviously cannot do.
>I will spell it out for you: If one takes your worldview, and replaces "God" with an equivalent entity who is not the christian god, but has the exact same abilities, is that still a valid argument? If not, why not?
I would have to see the claim and the justification for it to answer properly. As far as I know such a worldview does not exist, so the argument is non sequitur. He (or you) was not positting such a god, and as I said, I will glady refute any real worldview which anyone here has which is contrary to the truth of Christianity.
Would you please try to understand that in a logical argument, such as the one I am trying to have with you no matter how hard you try to avoid it, one does not need to honestly believe everything one says in order to have it accepted? You can not dodge a question just because someone does not really believe it. If you want to have a logical argument, please abide by these rules. If you do not want to have a logical argument, please admit that your supposed proof of god is not logically sound and you can not defend it.
>Ok, I base my rationality on the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I totally believe this now, I have seen the errors of my previous ways.
This is what I am refuting. Once you tell me how you account for logic, and the uniformity of nature in your worldview, I will be happy to have a logical discussion with you.
Just because you cannot, you revert back to your old argument.
Should I take this as an admission that you will simply not abide by the normal rules of a logical argument?
I surely will, as soon as you give me the justification for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature, and tell me why anyone SHOULD 'abide by the normal rules of a logical argument,' according to YOUR worldview. Without that, you are just blowing hot air.
While you are at it, why don't you tell me what the "normal rules' of a logical argument are according to your worldview.
I don't think anybody but you will disagree if I here draw the conclusion that you are completely incapable of logically supporting your supposed proof of god, despite being given an incredible amount of time and patience to do so.
Instead, you make up rules of your own that are completely non-sensical to any student of philosophy and logic, and use them to dodge any question that threatens your position. You really seem to have no interest in arguing your case honestly.
In summary, you have completely failed to support your claims. Does anyone disagree, other than "Proofthatgodexists"?
They are the same as everyone else's, except maybe yours. Take my earlier advice and attend some classes in philosophy, or read some decent books on the subject, to find out more. I really do not feel like teaching you basic philosophy here. That really is your job to do before getting into the argument in the first place.
Okay, I've come back to this after a day and I see we've reached the point where you agree that your arguments rests on the Christian God being right and not just any God. This makes logical sense because logic was coming from just any old god, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then anyone could claim to be divinely inspired.
How about this, Proofthatgodexists: Let's forget about silly hypothetical things, because we don't need flying spaghetti monsters to disprove your argument.
I MYSELF know what is moral and what is not, but I do not believe in God.
How is this so? Because my morals come from myself. When I read the Bible, I see Jesus says a lot of smart things, but when I read Buddhist teachings or medieval Muslim expositions I recognize a lot of the same truths.
There are a few responses to this. The first is: "If you know which morals are correct, obviously you didn't come up with this yourself, because these morals came from the Christian God." No. Because the Christian God says things such as "an eye for an eye" and ordered killings of the Jews' enemies back in ancient times, and I don't believe those are moral.
The second, which I think is closer to what you're getting at, is: "Sure, you might think you know what's moral. But if you disagree with the Bible on anything, then you are wrong." How would you expect to argue logically with a Muslim on that point? He would say you're wrong, and you would say he's wrong, and you would resolve nothing.
You think you have divided up your argument into two separate things: first prove that God exists, then prove that the God is the Christian God. But actually you have proven nothing. What you have effectively proven is that "MORALS COME FROM SOMEWHERE," and if atheists say "morals come from the individual," making up silly hypothetical cases about child abuse is just as helpful to your eventual cause of converting us to Christianity as pointing out the immorality of jihad is to a Muslim.
And why is this so? Because while atheists recognize that child abuse is morally abhorrent, this does not conflict at all with our view that morality is determined by the individual and has numerous outside influences. In fact, it's helpful for us, because it allows us to view the judicial system as something that's supposed to remedy problems rather than punish people for disobeying God; and thus, murder is a high crime in agreement with the Ten Commandments, but rape (not mentioned in the Ten Commandments) is just as bad a crime, and adultery (mentioned in the Ten Commandments) is usually not a crime at all because we recognize that it is often its own punishment, and we feel no need to put someone to death for adultery just because God says so. And child abuse, or the Holocaust, are both crimes not because of Jesus or God, but because this is our society and we say so.
In summary, you have completely failed to support your claims. Does anyone disagree, other than "Proofthatgodexists"?
Um, that would be the logical fallacy of an 'argument ad populum.'
Look, I agree that the rules of logic are universal, my question is, and has always been, how do you account for this apart from God?
You cannot. QED.
> I MYSELF know what is moral and what is not, but I do not believe in God.
Of course according to the Christian claim, you know what is moral because God has 'written it on your heart.' If morality were arbitrary, you could not KNOW what was moral, you could only have a moral preference.
>Because the Christian God says things such as "an eye for an eye" and ordered killings of the Jews' enemies back in ancient times, and I don't believe those are moral.
In the progressive revelation in the Bible, the Old Testament Jews were under the 'old covenant,' and under God's direct command for war etc. Under the 'new covenant,' Christ died as the payment for sin, and Christians are commanded to seek peace.
The burden of proof was never on me. You are the one who claims to have a proof of god, and thus it is up to you to justify this. But you have repeatedly shown yourself unwilling to do this, and thus I can only conclude that you are unable to do so.
An argument ad populum would be if I said that you are wrong because most people think you are wrong. This happens to be the case, but I do not think it proves you wrong. I am asking other people's opinions merely to point out to you that you have failed to convince anyone that you are correct. As the burden of proof has always lain on you, failing to convince anyone would count as a failure.
>Because my morals come from myself.
The problem is, so do the morals of murders, rapists, and child molesters. If man is the measure of all things, which man?
>When I read the Bible, I see Jesus says a lot of smart things, but when I read Buddhist teachings or medieval Muslim expositions I recognize a lot of the same truths.
The problem here is that Buddha has zero authority, and the Muslims affirm that the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and the prophets are true, yet refute themselves by countering them in the Qur'an.
Here is another disproof, which you can deal with separately: Should we honor our fathers and mothers, as the Ten Commandments says, or should we hate our fathers and mothers, as Jesus clearly commands (Luke 14:26)? I am not mocking the words of Jesus, but he does say "hate." But obviously the answer is to respect our parents. Why is that? Because these are both subject to interpretation, and Jesus is clearly using hyperbole, whereas the Second Commandment is literal. Here's a Christian source to back me up:
http://www.equip.org/free/JAL014.htm
Proofthatgodexists, notice what this source says:
> How can we tell when a statement is hyperbolic? The test is easy: whenever a statement cannot be literally true in the way or to the degree to which the statement claims, it must be exaggerated.
WHO decides that it's hyperbolic? THE INDIVIDUAL DOES. There is nowhere in the Bible that says "by the way, this is hyperbole so don't actually hate your parents." There are other sources from the first century AD that use "hate" in a similarly hyperbolic sense, but the interpretation of that particular phrase, "hate his own father and mother," is ultimately up to the INDIVIDUAL.
So, here we have a case where Christianity fails us just as much as atheism does for the child abuse thing. But don't say "Christianity is still better because in every case except this one it gives moral guidance." I have disproven your statement for one case, so I have disproven it for every case. Do you see why this is? In this case, the individual has to make a decision. He decides that the Ten Commandments version is the literal truth and Jesus's words are the metaphor, because he is a rational person. How do we define "rational?" NOT in terms of the Bible! The Bible can't tell us which is rational because it uses both "honor" and "hate." Rationality, and morality, lies in the mind of the individual for this case.
Every line in the Bible is yours to interpret. How do you figure out which is right? Oh, you use common sense... and where does common sense come from? Oh, from God... and how do we know what God considers common sense in a sticky situation? Oh, we read the Bible...
Oops, you're fast! Let me read your comment.
Thanks for your response, although it simply goes back to what you said before.
> The problem is, so do the morals of murders, rapists, and child molesters. If man is the measure of all things, which man?
The Bible is no help here. A pedophile could justify himself by quoting Mark 10:13. And how do we know his interpretation is wrong? Well, we have the obvious line "Love your neighbor as yourself" which you quoted before. But can't that line be interpreted, too? Every line in the Bible can be misinterpreted! How do we know what's right? Well, our morals come from God. And how do we know what God thinks... etc...
According to what rule of logic is the burden of proof on me, and how do you account for that rule of logic in your worldview?
>Every line in the Bible is yours to interpret. How do you figure out which is right?
You interpret the Bible with the Bible. People will be held accountable for unrepentently interpreting the Bible for their own selfish gains. It is obvious from the rest of Christ's teachings that He was using hyperbole in that statement.
Tell me, what is your worldview, and how do you account for the laws of logic which you are attempting to employ in your attempt to refute Christianity?
Surely you would agree that someone who interpreted 'love your neighbour,' as 'rape children,' would be without excuse for such a selfish, fallacious, disgusting, interpretation?
I am a Buddhist. I believe that logic and morality are determined by myself. Now, I don't know where the laws of science come from-- if you'd like to prove that God exists maybe you should make a website pursuing that line of reasoning.
> People will be held accountable for unrepentently interpreting the Bible for their own selfish gains.
By who? By God? Not on this planet. If someone covets his neighbor's possessions, nobody cares here on Earth. And if you want to prove the Christian God exists by reminding us that he's going to judge us in the afterlife, you're going back to a rather medieval circular reasoning.
> It is obvious from the rest of Christ's teachings that He was using hyperbole in that statement.
Who says it's obvious? A schizophrenic person might think the "hate your parents" statement is perfectly logical. Who will tell him he is wrong?
>I am a Buddhist. I believe that logic and morality are determined by myself.
Can anyone make up their own law of logic such that it would be true? According to your worldview, what is good, what is bad, and why should anyone be good?
>Now, I don't know where the laws of science come from-- if you'd like to prove that God exists maybe you should make a website pursuing that line of reasoning.
Um www.proofthatgodexists.org (It's there).
>By who? By God? Not on this planet. If someone covets his neighbor's possessions, nobody cares here on Earth. And if you want to prove the Christian God exists by reminding us that he's going to judge us in the afterlife, you're going back to a rather medieval circular reasoning.
Yes, by God, whenever and however He pleases in accordance with his just nature. And no, the fact that God punishes sin is not the proof of His existence.
>Who says it's obvious? A schizophrenic person might think the "hate your parents" statement is perfectly logical. Who will tell him he is wrong?
Hey, If anyone wants to stand before God saying: "I thought by 'love your neighbour,' you meant 'rape children,' that is up to them. I would not suggest it however.
> Can anyone make up their own law of logic such that it would be true?
Sure. Maybe there is a rambling, illogical nutcase somewhere out there who is actually perfectly right and we'll never know. That's just something you have to deal with in life.
> According to your worldview, what is good, what is bad, and why should anyone be good?
Good and bad are determined by the individual. You can say they are rewarded by society, or they benefit you, but that's not always the case. It is your opinion alone that makes YOU decide whether you've lived a virtuous life.
There's another disproof of your argument, by the way. Whether you've been good is your decision! Obviously since you know God so well, you can say whether things are good or bad and you'll be right. But in this everyday world, nobody can stop other people from making incorrect judgements. Let's imagine you, the God-fearing Christian, live in a society that rewards the greedy and corrupt, and punishes the charitable. Everyone thinks this is a good idea. When will they realize they are evil? Only when God casts his final and undeniable judgement! Until then, "good" and "evil" are words used only by those corrupt people, and maybe they will even write a dictionary defining them the wrong way. Nobody will know how wrong they are until God comes out of the clouds and actually tells them.
In this way you can see that "good" and "evil" are sort of different words when you use them than when I use them. In your view, "good" is a virtue that was defined by God. But my definition need not include God.
> Um www.proofthatgodexists.org (It's there).
If I skip the moral thing and agree that the laws of physics are unchanging we come to "The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything." Uh... oh. I thought the word "God" came with a lot more baggage than just "something that makes science work." You need to work on that section. But I don't want to argue with you about that so let's ignore it.
> Yes, by God, whenever and however He pleases in accordance with his just nature.
So you're saying that God judges us here on Earth. Hey, that's a proof in itself! Forget all this dumb philosophical stuff, let's start talking about how God manifests himself to let us know which interpretation is correct.
> Hey, If anyone wants to stand before God saying: "I thought by 'love your neighbour,' you meant 'rape children,' that is up to them. I would not suggest it however.
Neither would I, but once again this presupposes that God exists!! We aren't even talking about that yet, we are still on Earth, wondering which interpretation to believe.
Oops, I just realized that you can easily ignore my second two statements and we might get into an argument about the first three, which are all kind of rambling and not really to the point.
My point is:
The Bible can be misinterpreted. But there is no obvious evidence that here on Earth, God punishes those who interpret it incorrectly. So, without dying and going to Heaven/Hell, how do we know which interpretation is correct? And how is that better than believing in no Bible at all?
>Sure. Maybe there is a rambling, illogical nutcase somewhere out there who is actually perfectly right and we'll never know.
Are the laws of logic universal, unchanging and immaterial?
> Good and bad are determined by the individual.
Can torturing babies for fun ever be good according to your worldview?
>It is your opinion alone that makes YOU decide whether you've lived a virtuous life.
Would the opinion of a child molester who believed he lived a virtuous life be true?
>But in this everyday world, nobody can stop other people from making incorrect judgements.
This does not mean that there are no correct judgements?
>Let's imagine you, the God-fearing Christian, live in a society that rewards the greedy and corrupt, and punishes the charitable. Everyone thinks this is a good idea. When will they realize they are evil?
They would already know that they are evil as God has written His law on their hearts.
>Until then, "good" and "evil" are words used only by those corrupt people
"Good" and "Evil" are meaningless words apart from an absolute standard. Those words are meaningful only because there IS an absolute standard.
>So you're saying that God judges us here on Earth.
I'm saying that He can judge us wherever, and whenever He pleases in accordance with His nature.
>Neither would I, but once again this presupposes that God exists!! We aren't even talking about that yet, we are still on Earth, wondering which interpretation to believe.
Logic, and rationality are impossible without presupposing that God exists. You could not wonder about anything if Christianity were not true. Contrary to your claim that the laws of logic are 'individual,' they are in fact universal, abstract, and invariant. This cannot be accounted for outside of God. I would be happy to discuss the nature of the laws of logic with you if you still disagree.
>The Bible can be misinterpreted. But there is no obvious evidence that here on Earth, God punishes those who interpret it incorrectly.
The evidence is clear within the Bible that God must and does punish evil.
>So, without dying and going to Heaven/Hell, how do we know which interpretation is correct?
We will be held accountable for any unrepentent interpretation which is contrary to the laws which God has written on our hearts.
>And how is that better than believing in no Bible at all?
Without believing in the Bible, you lose the preconditions for intelligibiliy, and the justification for logic, science, and morality. In effect, you could not know ANYTHING, if the Bible were not true. Also, the Bible tells us about the only hope we have to be put right with God.
> Can torturing babies for fun ever be good according to your worldview?
My worldview? No way.
> Would the opinion of a child molester who believed he lived a virtuous life be true?
According to me? No. How could we get an objective statement on this? Of course according to you God knows who's right, but if God doesn't exist nobody knows. And that's my belief. It might seem kind of odd to you but to me it is simply a lack of illusion-- when I judge people, I am judging them based on my own morals. Even if I believed in God I would pretend I could make judgements for him. Jesus told me not to.
> Logic, and rationality are impossible without presupposing that God exists.
I am not going to argue with you about logic because that's semantics. Logic, like morality and math, is something that exists only in our heads. You say that some higher power created it. Who cares? It is still only in our heads. If it's worth anything to you, I place my full faith in the laws of mathematics and logic. Does that mean I'm a Christian? I don't think so. I won't find any new revelations about logic or math in the Bible. No, what you want me to believe is that the Bible tells me how to live my life, and that is wholly within the sphere of morality.
> The evidence is clear within the Bible that God must and does punish evil.
How was Kim Il-Sung punished? He tyrannized his people for 50 years and died of old age, where is the justice? Don't say it's because he died-- that happens to everyone. Nor that he'll be punished in the afterlife-- I don't believe in an afterlife yet.
The fact is that God punishes evil in such mysterious ways that there is no hard evidence for it at all.
> We will be held accountable for any unrepentent interpretation which is contrary to the laws which God has written on our hearts.
Held accountable when? You are presupposing God again. I wish you would stop doing that. I know you're saying God is obvious, but you are trying to prove God's existence, not remind us how obvious it is.
> Without believing in the Bible, you lose the preconditions for intelligibiliy, and the justification for logic, science, and morality. In effect, you could not know ANYTHING, if the Bible were not true. Also, the Bible tells us about the only hope we have to be put right with God.
But I believe it's not true and I do know things. Oops! Am I just lying to myself? This is not an argument, it is a claim, and you need to back up this claim with an argument.
> Should we honor our fathers and mothers, as the Ten Commandments says, or should we hate our fathers and mothers, as Jesus clearly commands (Luke 14:26)? I am not mocking the words of Jesus, but he does say "hate."
just thought i'd point out that he doesn't say "hate". he says "μισει", which means "to detest (especially to persecute); by
extension, to love less".
here is luke 14:26 in wycliffe's translation:
If ony man cometh to me, and hatith [Note: that is, lesse loueth hem than God. ] not his fadir, and modir, and wijf, and sones, and britheren, and sistris, and yit his owne lijf, he may not be my disciple.
corrections:
"Even if I believed in God I wouldn't* pretend I..."
"...and that is wholly within the sphere of morality"-- this is wrong, you also want me to believe Jesus died for my sins and that's in the realm of spirituality = not something we can argue about.
> he says "μισει", which means "to detest (especially to persecute); by extension, to love less".
IANA Greek Scholar but that "extension" is actually a cultural possibility and is open to interpretation in each individual case.
>>261
yes, but it makes a lot more sense than the other possibility in that verse.
if someone says "4chan sucks", do you assume that by "suck" they mean "to draw (as liquid) into the mouth through a suction force produced by movements of the lips and tongue"?
No, but I'm a reasonable fellow, and the statement "4chan sucks" is not being read as the infallible word of God. Although it ought to be.
Okay, I've been talking for two hours so I need to go do other stuff now. I'll look back at what you have to say later.
Remember, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong to be a Christian. For all I know you could be right. But here's a parable for you:
I am a clueless non-religious person. Ten people come to my door. Each is carrying a scripture, pamphlets, etc. Each one addresses me thusly: "Sir, I would like to share some good news with you. I have a copy of our scriptures with me that tells the 'truth' about God, you, me, life, death, eternity, and everything." They tell me their stories one after another.
They all say that I know the truth deep down, as it is imprinted in my heart. If I have no previous knowledge of any of the religions, how do I tell who is right?
>My worldview? No way.
So, according to your worldview, torturing babies for fun is absolutely morally wrong. I thought morality was up to the individual?
>According to me? No.
Truth is not arbitrary.
>How could we get an objective statement on this?
Truth is objective. Feel free to try to refute this. (you might want to scroll up a few posts first though).
>if God doesn't exist nobody knows. And that's my belief.
If God did not exist, rationality would not be possible. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature apart from God. I see that you enjoy ducking this question as well.
>Logic, like morality and math, is something that exists only in our heads.
Something 'in our heads' cannot be universal or invariant, as the laws of logic are. Feel free to argue this point, I will be happy to respond.
>How was Kim Il-Sung punished? He tyrannized his people for 50 years and died of old age, where is the justice? Don't say it's because he died-- that happens to everyone. Nor that he'll be punished in the afterlife-- I don't believe in an afterlife yet.
What does your belief have to do with whether or not God punishes people in the afterlife? What is his punishment according to your worldview, and how do you know this?
>Held accountable when? You are presupposing God again.
When you employ rationality, logic and science, you presuppose God as well, you just do not admit it.
>But I believe it's not true and I do know things.
That's why the Bible teaches that you DO know God but are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1, 18-20)
>They all say that I know the truth deep down, as it is imprinted in my heart. If I have no previous knowledge of any of the religions, how do I tell who is right?
You do an internal critique of each worldview and test for arbitrariness, INTERNAL inconsistencies, illogical consequences, and whether or not they can support rationality.
> You do an internal critique of each worldview and test for arbitrariness, INTERNAL inconsistencies, illogical consequences, and whether or not they can support rationality.
...and christianity ends up somewhere at the bottom of the pile. You have to be pretty selective and creative in your reading to think it isn't completely internally inconsistent.
> When you employ rationality, logic and science, you presuppose God as well, you just do not admit it.
You have repeatedly failed to support this argument.
> You have to be pretty selective and creative in your reading to think it isn't completely internally inconsistent.
examples plx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_and_the_Bible
One very telling phrase is:
> The Roman Catholic Christian view (especially since the Second Vatican Council) holds that the Bible is inerrant only in the things that God intended to reveal, the inconsistencies being deemed not to belong to these, or being deemed to be figurative and/or allegory.
In other words, very selective and creative reading is required.
Maybe for Catholics, but not for me.
Besides, no one here has yet given justification for the rationality one would use to evaluate the Christian worldview anyway.
Nevermind that this is partially copypasted, but you just seem to always dodge answering this simple question.
Why would someone who believes in a god which is, in all characteristics, exactly like the christian god, with a book exactly like the bible, just that it also says that:
be wrong, while you would be right?
Important hints, since you didn't get it the last 20 or so times:
So, do not, yet again, dodge this question and blabber about how you have never heard about such a world view (It doesn't matter, you are not all-knowing), about how I cannot account for the logic I use (Someone who believed in this could make this exact argument against you), about spaghetti monsters of any sort (No monsters here), about how no one actually believes in this (How would you know?), or about how this is christian religion anyways (It is not, this religions god denies the existance of the christian god, and since when does god lie?).
Just answer the question. Why would this person be wrong, while you would be right?
So how do you explain away all the inconsistencies in the bible, then?
I interpret the Bible according to my presupposition that it is the inspired infallible word of God. What you interpret as an inconsitency, I would not. That is not say that I understand every facet of the Bible, but since it gives the only preconditions for intelligibility, and the logic with which one uses to argue against anything, I find myself on a firm epistemological foundation.
>It does not matter if someone actually believes in this. It is possible for someone to believe in this, that is enough.
It is possible for someone to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster too, but without justification for rationality, such a belief is irrelevant.
I deal with real worldviews. If you care to posit one, I will be happy to refute it.
>>276
DO NOT.
ATTEMPT.
TO.
DODGE.
THE.
QUESTION.
Read carefully:
So, do not, yet again, dodge this question and blabber about how you have never heard about such a world view (It doesn't matter, you are not all-knowing), about how I cannot account for the logic I use (Someone who believed in this could make this exact argument against you), about spaghetti monsters of any sort (No monsters here), about how no one actually believes in this (How would you know?), or about how this is christian religion anyways (It is not, this religions god denies the existance of the christian god, and since when does god lie?).
Then again, pretty much everyone who reads this has probably noticed that you either really do not understand the argument, or that you knowingly dodge the question because you cannot answer it.
So if you don't explain the inconsistencies away, do you then assume that any two contradictory statements are both absolutely true? I can see why you're having trouble with logic, if that's the case.
For reference, see >>271, or why not http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html.
PS:
> I deal with real worldviews.
No, you deal only in arguments you can defeat, and dodge those you can't.
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DODGE THE QUESTION.
The beauty of all you bold anonymous posters is that you can duck my questions and say "well that wasn't me you asked."
I am not dodging your question. I am telling you that it is irrelevant. Until you give evidence for such a worldview, all you are doing is positting an impossible hypotheitcal, and asking me if it could be possible. My answer is no. Such a worldview is not possible because it is contrary to the only worldview which gives justification for universal, abstract invariant laws and the uniformity of nature.
Why are you dealing in hypotheticals anyway, just tell me what you really believe and I will be happy to refute it.
> Such a worldview is not possible because it is contrary to the only worldview which gives justification for universal, abstract invariant laws and the uniformity of nature.
In other words... It is impossible because you are right and it is wrong? So basically you presuppose that you are right?
>So if you don't explain the inconsistencies away, do you then assume that any two contradictory statements are both absolutely true? I can see why you're having trouble with logic, if that's the case.
Look, you assume that the statements are contradictory because of your presupposition that the Bible is not infallible, I on the other hand look for the proper context and translation which shows that the statements are in fact not contradictory.
The difference is that I can account for the logic which says that contradictions are not allowed, while you cannot. Tell me why, according to your worldview, are contracictions not allowed? Once you do that, we can examine the texts.
Ok, then explain why http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html does not, in fact, contain any contradictions.
>So basically you presuppose that you are right?
No, I presuppose that God exists, and that the Bible is His infallible word. With such a presupposition I can account for 'rightness' and 'wrongness' and the very logic YOU use to try to argue against my presuppositions, while you cannot.
>Ok, then explain why http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html does not, in fact, contain any contradictions.
As soon as you tell me why contradictions are not allowed according to your worldview. You see if they are allowed, I would be wasting my time.
This is a very simple request, but I know why you ALL are avoiding it.
They are not allowed because:
This can't be right, now, can it?
>The beauty of all you bold anonymous posters is that you can duck my questions and say "well that wasn't me you asked."
And why would that matter? You are trying to argue against arguments, not against people, right? Also, the burden of proof is upon you, since you are trying to proove somthing, while people arguing against you are trying to disprove you. People who are not trying to prove someone wrong can ignore arguments and just try a new approach, one succesful approach is enough. People who are trying to prove that their argumentation is correct can not, since they have to show that each and every argument, even possible argument, is invalid.
Anyways...
Ok. You don't understand, that's rather sad but oh well. I'll make it clearer for you, if that is even possible.
I belive in what >>273 said, I was just converted. This means:
Why would I be wrong while you would be right?
Read the challenge again, I asked you to explain why contradictions are not allowed according to YOUR worldview.
I know why they are not allowed according to MY worldview. You demonstrate my point very well though, you cannot account for the laws of logic apart from my worldview. Thank you.
Are you questioning my faith? I am already having a crisis here since it seems that my beliefs mean God does not exist, are you trying to make this worse?
"People who are not trying" should be "People who are trying". Sorry, typo'd.
>Proof that god exists? There is none. So why such a long convresation about something we already know? Believing in a god takes faith, not fact or rational thinking of any kind.
How do you know that the reasoning you use to make this statement, is valid? I submit that you have blind faith in your ability to reason.
>Ok. You don't understand, that's rather sad but oh well. I'll make it clearer for you, if that is even possible.
I belive in what >>273 said, I was just converted
Support your worldview please. What is the name of your god, what is the Bible of your worldview, and what are the texts from your Bible which justify logic and the uniformity of nature?
>>293
As of all of this mattered, but ok, I'm going to go along with your little game of "me no understand".
>What is the name of your god,
>what is the Bible of your worldview
Your bible, with all names that would make it the christian bible changed to their reverse version, and >>273's statements added.
>and what are the texts from your Bible which justify logic and the uniformity of nature?
For that, you can just look at http://proofthatgodexists.org/ (Same changes as in my bible apply)
Same question.
Are you refusing to offer your guidance to a fellow christian in need, by not responding to >>287?
A christian is not allowed a crisis of faith? I am asking you for guidance to resolve this crisis and bring me back into the fold! Why do you deny me this?
If you just change the names, then it IS the God of Christianity but in a different 'language.' Not all languages say the name of God the same way. What was positted, however, is nothing like just changing the names, a denial of the God of Christianity was included. For that I would need to see YOUR bible, and the justification for it, so I could properly refute it.
300
>>300
And still no justification for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature outside of God, from anyone here.
How can you call yourself a Christian if you refuse to help those who come to you for guidance? Did Jesus ever turn away those who came seeking his help? You have stated that you can resolve this riddle that is causing me to turn away from God, yet you refuse to do so! Why?
>What was positted, however, is nothing like just changing the names, a denial of the God of Christianity was included. For that I would need to see YOUR bible, and the justification for it, so I could properly refute it.
Bla, bla, "me no understand", bla, bla. Basically, you're still dodging.
Here is an easy, step by step guide:
You have no excuse left. Answer.
By the way, where do you get the justification for your reasoning anyways? How can you logically argue against me without borrowing from my worldview? Remember, my worldview is the only worldview that give a justification for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.
I am not sure he even has a bible, he does not seem to be a very good christian!
> If God did not exist, rationality would not be possible. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature apart from God. I see that you enjoy ducking this question as well.
People have a tendency to agree with each other. What can I say? That's human nature.
> When you employ rationality, logic and science, you presuppose God as well, you just do not admit it.
If this is your belief, then you think we are all denying the existence of God whom we know exists deep down, rather than simply not believing in God. If that is so there is no hope in arguing with you do not believe we are arguing logically, so you cannot take our claims at face value. This explains why you didn't want to read http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ -- it is an atheist site so the author is obviously lying to himself.
What you need to understand is that no atheist thinks he is "denying" anything. I honestly believe my position to be morally and logically coherent. The mere existence of a generally agreed-upon system of logic and morals does not prove to me that someone had to create it. It says to me that people are smart. That's nice.
In twenty words or less, the fact that people can agree upon things such as logic is not sufficient evidence for God's existence.
shitty thread wasshoi
>>307
Then why don't you use sage to add such insightful statements?
When the thread is already at the top, does it really matter whether people like >>307 use sage?
>The mere existence of a generally agreed-upon system of logic and morals does not prove to me that someone had to create it. It says to me that people are smart. That's nice.
So, according to your worldview, the laws of logic are not 'true' they are merely agreed upon.
I could go on, but surely now you can see the absurdity of postulating that the laws of logic are 'agreed upon.' One last question though:
7. Is the law of non-contradiction univerasally binding on our arguments?
> 1. Take your bible.
My Bible is for my worldview. If you wish to postulate another worldview, you will have to produce your own Bible.
>I am not sure he even has a bible, he does not seem to be a very good christian!
I have a Bible, and I never said I was a good Christian.
> 1. When was the meeting?
The "meeting" started at the beginning of human history and it is still in progress.
> 2. How could you determine what 'smart' was before the laws of logic were agreed upon?
Obviously before there were any humans to observe, no human thought anything was smart.
> 3. Could they have agreed that A could be not A at the same time and in the same way, or is the law of non-contradiction universally binding?
Someone could have agreed upon that. It would be silly and it would force me to think of them as illogical but there's nothing stopping them.
> 4. If enough people agreed that A could be not A at the same time and in the same way, would that law then be true?
According to me? No. According to "reality"? The problem with your thesis is that you think that reality includes human concepts such as logic and morals. There is no such thing as logic or morals in the objective bubble of reality, only material things which we can observe.
> 5. How many people does it take to agree upon a law of logic before it is valid?
Who will judge whether it is valid? Since God does not exist nobody can perfectly objectively say what is valid. I am doing the judging, so in my opinion, only I have to agree to make it valid.
> 6. Did the law of non-conradiction apply before humans came to this 'agreement?'
There are no immaterial things outside our minds. Therefore, the concept of a "law of non-contradiction" is something within our minds, and was invented when we first thought of it. This is a rather worthless statement about linguistics and you cannot in any way convince me that God exists with a reductio ad absurdum based on this.
Apparently not, since you refuse to help your brothers in their hour of need!
>>311
Which is it:
In any case, you have been given my bible, which significantly differs from your bible - after all, it says that there is no christian god - and you have been given my worldview. You have every little piece of information you asked for, even though that is not even required for my argumentation - remember, you have to defend against every possible argument, against every argument that could be made against you. All of this has been laid out for you on a level so low that your average 10 year old should be able to understand it. Tell me why I would be wrong while you would be right. If you can not do so, for whatever reason it may be, don't bother with more lame excuses, just shut up and get out.
>Someone could have agreed upon that. It would be silly and it would force me to think of them as illogical but there's nothing stopping them.
It would only be 'silly,' and 'illogical,' because you would be evaluating them according to the 'real,' 'universal' law of non-contradiction.
>There is no such thing as logic or morals in the objective bubble of reality, only material things which we can observe.
Is this true, and how do you know?
>Since God does not exist nobody can perfectly objectively say what is valid.
Is that statement valid? (By the way, you would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to know that God does not exist. In other words you would have to be God to say there is no God. A logical contradiction.
>There are no immaterial things outside our minds.
Prove this please.
>the concept of a "law of non-contradiction" is something within our minds, and was invented when we first thought of it.
Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before humans 'thought of' the law of non-contradiction?
How do you account for 'immaterial entities' which you claim are 'in our minds' in your worldview.
You also missed my last question. Does the law of non-contradiction apply to our arguments?
>In any case, you have been given my bible
No I haven't. Still waiting though.
>and you have been given my worldview
No I haven't. Still waiting though.
>If you can not do so, for whatever reason it may be, don't bother with more lame excuses, just shut up and get out.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
> Is this true, and how do you know?
I know because I think it's logical. Obviously you disagree. We have different opinions. Or is your opinion the only right one, because you are a Christian and I am an atheist?
> Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before humans 'thought of' the law of non-contradiction?
That doesn't make any sense because we weren't around to observe it, so nobody could have made that judgement.
> Is that statement valid?
I say so.
> How do you account for 'immaterial entities' which you claim are 'in our minds' in your worldview.
Do you think that everything we think about is actually something God came up with? That's creepy.
> You also missed my last question. Does the law of non-contradiction apply to our arguments?
Yes, because we both agree it exists.
The hillarity of this exchange is that we both know that you are lying. How embarrassing it must be to not be able to defend the worldview you really do hold. How do you sleep at night?
My worldview is out there for the world to see, and all you can do is come up with lame arguments to hide your own.
Funny, in a tragically sad kind of way.
The hillarity of this exchange is that we both know that you are lying. How embarrassing it must be to not be able to defend the worldview you really do hold. How do you sleep at night?
My worldview is out there for the world to see, and all you can do is come up with lame arguments to hide your own.
Funny, in a tragically sad kind of way.
(Also known as: "NO U" or "You do realize that the same works against you, do you?")
>You're not a Van Til or a Bahnsen
No kidding, but at least I expose myself and my worldview for all to examine and attempt to refute, while you hide your identity and your worldview. Typical.
> at least I expose myself and my worldview for all to examine and attempt to refute
This is not a true claim - for it to be true, you would have to understand what "refute" means, and you have repeatedly showed that you do not.
He seems to be done arguing and has moved on to proclaiming himself the victor and making ad hominem attacks.
He does seem to have given up. It's too bad, I actually had some hope he would stir up interesting discussion at first, but he turned out to be just another internet loudmouth.
Which "God" was being discussed here?
The force behind the Big Bang?
The problem is, no one here was interested in interesting discussion. Discussion goes both ways. Look at how many times I asked people here to state and justify their own worldviews. Look at how many answers I got. If people cannot justify logic in their worldview, or don't believe in logic at all, a logical discussion is senseless.
Ciao
Nobody else claims to have a logical proof of God. You do, thus the discussion is about you. But since you can't support your own claims, you try to turn the discussion to another topic, viz. other people's worldviews. But nobody's falling for it. You can't escape the burden of proof that easily. If you make claims, you have to support them.
PS: You still haven't answered >>287.
My worldview is perfectly logical, yours is necessarily illogical because you include God in it.
>My worldview is perfectly logical, yours is necessarily illogical because you include God in it.
Alright, for those of you who visit this thread, and don't want to read the whole thing to see what's going on, just read the claim in the above quote and watch the answers I get to my question.
What is your worldview, and how to you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?
P.S. Don't hold your breath expecting anyone to answer this, I surely don't.
You still haven't answered >>287.
Look, buddy, I already answered this for you. All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things.
> Look, buddy, I already answered this for you. All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things.
Is that statement absolutely true?
Absolute truth is an immaterial concept.
my worldview?
onano, ergo sum (i masturbate, therefore i am)
logic is logical (if only from a linquistical point of view)
I observe, but I am aware that my observations are not accurate identifications of what I observe.
Using the laws of logic, I can make general statements about my observations. Using various of such statements I construct an idea about my environment. I can test these statements with new observations, to change my ideas about the world. I a aware that, due to faulty observations, my worldview is prone to error.
I am capable of creating hypothetical systems in my mind. Here I have the luxury to use not generalizations as building blocks, but axioms. These axioms are absolutely true within my hypothetical construct.
I don't believe that I can use the concept of absolute truth outside hypothetical constructs and in the world that I observe.
This all in reaction to >>333
>What is your worldview, and how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?
>P.S. Don't hold your breath expecting anyone to answer this, I surely don't.
I think I have stated why I can't use the concept of 'absolute' on the real world within my worldview. I think it is fair to say that I can only think in my worldview. Until I expand my worldview - while keeping it coherent - I won't be able to use 'absolute' as a concept about the real world.
I recognize the possible existence of a God. However, without being able to observe this God, without being able to take notice of its existence, I cannot state anything about its existence. God will have to show himself to me.
Furthermore, I understand that I do not know the origin of the world, of myself, of the laws of logic. I do not know what they are made of either. Should I care? I don't know. I will only care once I know that the answers to these problems exist, and that they can be found by my own efforts. There is only one way this can happen: only by learning the answer will I believe there is an answer. A flawed option is to trust someone who I believe to have found such answers. I will not go that road.
perhaps I'm writing this as a tribute to the other people who showed interest in this thread, and who took effort in voicing their opinions. >>339, its not logic that convinces people, its the way you convey this logic. I advise you to read some books about logic if you want to continue this project. I advise you even more to take a course about logic in a college or university, because that generally helps more than books.
It's universally true in my mind. To you, I can only assume, it is not true, but for me it is perfectly true. I don't think you understand relative judgement yet.
>It's universally true in my mind.
This is a logical contradiction. Is it universally true, or is it only true in your mind? It cannot be both.
What if the universe exists only in my mind?
(lol solipsism)
>>342
Okay, I assume then that by "universally" you mean "everyone agrees upon it." Because I can't think of any other meaning for "universal."
In which case the statement, "Absolute truth is an immaterial concept," is not universally true. I know my dad for one thinks that absolute truth exists in some nether dimension which can be occasionally grasped.
>Okay, I assume then that by "universally" you mean "everyone agrees upon it."
No, that is actually the exact opposite of what I mean. Universally true means objectively true, or true for all people, at all times, despite personal opinion.
So is your statement: "All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things," universally true?
uhm, why are you avoiding >>340? you set up a challenge, you damn better not chicken out after somebody takes it.
How to win every argument, by Proofthatgodexists
Remember, the fourth step is crucial!
correct, let me expand it with the following frequently used technique to display suppreme logic.
"Is it absolutely true that" insert the main point of other persons argument here to make it sound that you are actually listening "is true?"
>>347
But is it universally true that the fourth step is crucial?
yes. given the possibility of reflection, future arguments may be lost, due to confusion. Then not every argument will be won.
>uhm, why are you avoiding >>340? you set up a challenge, you damn better not chicken out after somebody takes it.
Read the challenge again, I asked people to state their worldview and how they account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart form God. His 'masturbatory' worldview is not worthy of response, and he could not account for logic outside of God. This is my point. Those who claim logic exists, and use it, without acknowledging God, are trespassers on the Christian worldview. As you all will see, this trespassing is not going unnoticed.
Except that those who do acknowledge god as you do run into contradictions! Why is that?
I don't run into contradictions. Where did you get that idea?
The glaring problem with your assessment is that you must borrow logic from MY worldview, in order to criticize MY worldview. Look, I am not going to get into apparent Biblical contradictions here (none of which detract from the central message by the way), surely you people are internet savvy enough to Google them.
Some explanations I am satisfied with, some I am not. I, however, have faith that those I am not satisfied with can be resolved. You have faith in the logic you use to criticize my worldview. My worldview, at least, can account for this logic, yours cannot.
Why don't you direct me to the line where you account for the laws of logic outside of God, I can't find it.
I just read through the whole thread. Some of it was quite painful. But I'm glad I did. And this is still going on! Heheh. Now it's Spengbab time.
Hi, my name is Jason. And my world view is a bit of Objectivism, with knobs on. I speak only for myself. I can honestly agree to every stage of the argument on the proofthatgodexists.org site. Except the last step.
>How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic
Okay, here goes~
To be is to be something, to be self-identical. A is A, the rest follows from that. Non-contradiction flows from the fact of identity (A = A, so A isn't not A), and so on. 'Logical' and 'illogical' are adjectives that are properly applied to reasoning and ideas. A line of reasoning can break the law of non-contradiction. That makes it illogical. Logic is universal because existence is universal.
How do I know? I've seen it. I see (and hear and taste etc.) things in reality. Whatever they are, they're themselves. But... how do I know that fact is universal? Could it not happen, one day, that I encounter some rare and marvellous sort of thing that isn't itself? No. Never. For me to encounter such a thing it would have to be encounterable. Not not encounterable. This magic thing must be at least something. It must have an identity. Why not a self-contradictory identity, then? Consider the possibility of it being encounterable and not encounterable simultaneously. No, I don't have to consider thing because this is not a possibility. It's arbitrary nonsense. If anyone wishes to seriously put forward a case for this possibility... that would be interesting.
Eh.. that's enough for one post.
is it truly so hard to read beyond the first few lines?
your challenge was two parts.
1) give a differing worldview from yours
2) account for the laws of logic outside of god
I have provided 1, and I say that within my worldview it is impossible to answer 2.
However, I don't see failure at 2 as a failure of my worldview.
Ah yes, criticism of the site. The argument...
>The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
This premise:
>without Him you couldn't prove anything.
Can you prove this? Why accept this point?
> The glaring problem with your assessment is that you must borrow logic from MY worldview, in order to criticize MY worldview.
Please justify why this is a "glaring problem".
> Look, I am not going to get into apparent Biblical contradictions here (none of which detract from the central message by the way)
That's how they detract from your message. Now, please refute this argument.
> Some explanations I am satisfied with, some I am not. I, however, have faith that those I am not satisfied with can be resolved.
So in other words, your proof of god rests on having faith, and not logic. Right? Then why bother with the proof in the first place, when you could just have faith without building a faulty proof?
Thanks for your input.
>A is A, the rest follows from that.
The law of identity is not a given. Certainly in what most non-theists consider a random universe, A could be B tommorow.
>Logic is universal because existence is universal.
These naturally do not necessarily follow, even so, universal knowledge is reserved for the Omniscient, and those to whom He has revealed knowledge.
>It's arbitrary nonsense. If anyone wishes to seriously put forward a case for this possibility... that would be interesting.
Well, having read this thread, you would have seen at least one person posit that the laws of logic are NOT universal. (the rest have mostly been silent on the matter).
>I have provided 1, and I say that within my worldview it is impossible to answer 2.
However, I don't see failure at 2 as a failure of my worldview.
> Can you prove this? Why accept this point?
This is proven with transcendental logic, i.e. the impossibility of the contrary. God is the necessaroy precondition for universal, abstract, invariant laws and the uniformity of nature by the imposibility of the contrary. I am here to refute contrary proposals, but as you see they are few and far between.
There is no refutation necessary there. An "apparent" contradicition, does not a 'real' contradiction make. Naturally we will approach any interpretation of any apparent contradiction according to our presuppositions. You will seek the contradiction, I will seek the explanation. The difference being that only my worldview can account for the logic we use to talk argue about contradictions in the first place.
> No, that is actually the exact opposite of what I mean. Universally true means objectively true, or true for all people, at all times, despite personal opinion.
> So is your statement: "All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things," universally true?
LOL
Or, to put it less bluntly, of course it's not univerally true because the statement itself denies the concept of "universal truth" as you define it, and in fact it obviously isn't universally true anyway since you disagree with it.
Again, universal truth, has NOTHING to do with subjective agreement to what that truth is.
That would be like the math teacher saying there is no true answer to what is 2+2, because his students couldn't agree on the answer.
My question again: Is your statement "All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things," univerally true, or only true in your mind?
Formal logic is based on axioms. These are statements that are considered to be always true within the system. If there was room for doubt of these axioms, logic would be a pointless endeavor.
I suppose these axioms are God.
Of course, this means that we can create, destroy and manipulate God at will depending on the purpose we require Him for.
Oh, by the way, now your job is convincing me that the God of the axiom is the same entity as your Biblical God.
>Of course, this means that we can create, destroy and manipulate God at will depending on the purpose we require Him for.
Hardly.
> Oh, by the way, now your job is convincing me that the God of the axiom is the same entity as your Biblical God.
I have never believed, nor do I now believe, that I am capabable of convincing you of anything regarding God. The Bible teaches that you already know God, and that convincing you to submit to Him, is not my jurisdiction.
> Hardly.
Why not?
So was I.
First, since you apparently didn't bother reading them, I'll repeat the OTHER statements from >>361:
> The glaring problem with your assessment is that you must borrow logic from MY worldview, in order to criticize MY worldview.
Please justify why this is a "glaring problem".
> Some explanations I am satisfied with, some I am not. I, however, have faith that those I am not satisfied with can be resolved.
So in other words, your proof of god rests on having faith, and not logic. Right? Then why bother with the proof in the first place, when you could just have faith without building a faulty proof?
>Please justify why this is a "glaring problem".
That fact the one accepts that logical criticism of ANYTHING is even possible presupposes that my worldview is true.
>So in other words, your proof of god rests on having faith
All logical proofs rest on faith. My proofs rest on faith in God, while yours rests on faith in human reason. My faith, however, accounts for human reason, yours does not.
>>378 congratulations
you are the winner of the thread
you are the winner of life
<<want to play again? YES/NO>>
> That fact the one accepts that logical criticism of ANYTHING is even possible presupposes that my worldview is true.
You keep saying this. You have never once shown it to be true. Neither is it an answer to my question.
See, the argument "your worldview can't account for logic!" does not imply that your own can. You have to actually prove that first.
And I can just as well take the view that "logic exists", and thus be on equal footing with you, who claims "god implies logic and logic implies god". Both of us presuppose that we are right.
I could even claim, "logic exists, and god is contrary to logic", therefore, as logic exists (and you have to assume this or else you are not allowed to argue against me!), god does not exist!
(It is easy to see why the existence of god excludes logic - god is omnipotent, and can fool us into believing anything, thus we can never know if anything is true.)
> All logical proofs rest on faith. My proofs rest on faith in God, while yours rests on faith in human reason. My faith, however, accounts for human reason, yours does not.
So both of us take human reason on faith. Then why should I need to invoke god at all, since both stances ultimately rely on faith? Why is "faith in A, which implies B" better than "faith in B"? Applying Occam's razor, the latter is the simpler theory that serves the same purpose, and thus better.
>So both of us take human reason on faith. Then why should I need to invoke god at all, since both stances ultimately rely on faith?
No, I do not have faith in my human reason. I trust its validity as a gift from God. You have blind faith in your ability to reason, as simply presupposing it accounts for nothing.
>Applying Occam's razor, the latter is the simpler theory that serves the same purpose, and thus better.
"Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed." ~ Paul Manata
> No, I do not have faith in my human reason. I trust its validity as a gift from God. You have blind faith in your ability to reason, as simply presupposing it accounts for nothing.
So? You still have to have faith in something, as opposed to being able to use reason all the way. Once you've taken that step, what does it matter which thing you put your faith in?
> "Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed."
Exactly. So if I want to account for the laws of logic, god is an extra entity that is not needed. You, of course, want him to exist, but that is not sufficient reason to require him in the argument.
>So? You still have to have faith in something, as opposed to being able to use reason all the way. Once you've taken that step, what does it matter which thing you put your faith in?
ALL reasoning BEGINS with faith. Your faith however ACCOUNTS for nothing. All you are saying is 'logic exists because it exists,' hardly an argument.
> So if I want to account for the laws of logic, god is an extra entity that is not needed.
Then how do you account for the laws of logic?
>You, of course, want him to exist
You of course don't want Him to exist because you want to be your own god, and don't like the thought of accountability to Him. If I were to invent a God, it would be one that would let me get away with my sin, not one that must punish sin.
> ALL reasoning BEGINS with faith. Your faith however ACCOUNTS for nothing. All you are saying is 'logic exists because it exists,' hardly an argument.
Neither does yours. Just because you derive something from something else that is implicitly assumed does not make it any more true than just implicitly assuming it directly. You still have to assume. And an argument does not become more valid by being more complex.
That is to say: An argument is only as strong as its weakest link, and the weakest link in both cases is taking anything on faith, and thus both arguments are just as valid, or invalid.
> You of course don't want Him to exist because you want to be your own god, and don't like the thought of accountability to Him. If I were to invent a God, it would be one that would let me get away with my sin, not one that must punish sin.
Entirely true, but I fail to see the relevance, unless you wanted to add another ad hominem fallacy to the list.
I'll give you one more: If I did believe in your god, I would not obey him, because from reading the bible, he sure is one big asshole and is not worthy of respect, much less worship.
(Incidentially, am I to take that argument as meaning that you refrain from sin merely because of fear of punishment, not of your own free will? Because I refrain from doing harm of my own free will.)
>If I were to invent a God, it would be one that would let me get away with my sin, not one that must punish sin.
But your God does let you get away with sin. You don't think you'll be punished, do you?
>That is to say: An argument is only as strong as its weakest link, and the weakest link in both cases is taking anything on faith, and thus both arguments are just as valid, or invalid.
The validity of the argument is based on the 'reasonableness' of the faith, and not in the faith itself. One can have strong faith in a 2 legged chair made of paper or weak faith in a sturdy 4 legged chair maid of steel to hold one up, yet the weak faith would be more reasonable. My faith in an eternal sentient being as the origin of logic, rationality, life, sentience, and morality seem to be far more reasonable than faith in eternal, invariant, abstract laws given what atheistic worldviews say about the 'random,' 'chance,' 'material,' nature of the universe, not to mention that these worldviews still do not account for matter, life sentience, morality etc. etc.
>I'll give you one more: If I did believe in your god, I would not obey him,
This is entirely in line with Biblical teachings that atheists do not object to God for intellectual reasons, but for their hatred of Him.
With this admission, my survey of atheists on this topic is still at %100 agreement.
>(Incidentially, am I to take that argument as meaning that you refrain from sin merely because of fear of punishment, not of your own free will? Because I refrain from doing harm of my own free will.)
I try to refrain from sin because I love God, and am thankful for what the creator of the universe has done for little ol' me.
You on the other hand, if you believe in evolution, cannot even account for free will. According to evolution your thoughts are the mere by-products of the chemical reactions in your brain which you could no more control than a shaken can of pop could control its fizz when you open it. According to the evolutionistic worldview, you simply fizz "God does not exist," while I fizz "God exists." Free will is not in that equation. How do you account for the free will you claim you have?
>But your God does let you get away with sin. You don't think you'll be punished, do you?
No one 'gets away' with sin. All sin is punished. Jesus Christ took upon Himself the punishment I deserve for my sin. Still, the consequences of my sin is separation from my maker. Thankfully the sacrifice of Christ brings me back to Him.
I have conditional faith: if God exists then I will believe in Jesus.
fixed?
I would advise you not to see how that works for you.
>>391 why not? don't I give respect to God?
Not if you reduce His existence to a hypothetical.
> The validity of the argument is based on the 'reasonableness' of the faith, and not in the faith itself. One can have strong faith in a 2 legged chair made of paper or weak faith in a sturdy 4 legged chair maid of steel to hold one up, yet the weak faith would be more reasonable.
"Reasonableness" does not exist as a logical concept. If you want to make a logical argument, things are either true, false or undecidable. You are of course welcome to claim that your belief is reasonable, but that is not part of any logical argument.
> My faith in an eternal sentient being as the origin of logic, rationality, life, sentience, and morality seem to be far more reasonable than faith in eternal, invariant, abstract laws given what atheistic worldviews say about the 'random,' 'chance,' 'material,' nature of the universe, not to mention that these worldviews still do not account for matter, life sentience, morality etc. etc.
Saying that something happened by chance is "accounting" for it just as much as saying it happened because of a god. You seem to be treating "accounting" as a synonym for "explaining by a theory I approve of".
> This is entirely in line with Biblical teachings that atheists do not object to God for intellectual reasons, but for their hatred of Him.
That would make sense if I believed in god and hated him, and thus stopped. That never happened. I was taught that god exists, and that he was good. I looked at what was claimed, and noticed it just did not add up. Thus, I stopped believing in him. Now that I could look at the belief system from the outside, I could see that he was not a very good god, if he existed.
But tell me, assuming he exists, why should I follow a god who tells his followers to kill their neighbours?
> I try to refrain from sin because I love God, and am thankful for what the creator of the universe has done for little ol' me.
Then what was that statement about creating a god that lets you get away with sin all about? Do you feel the need to sin?
> You on the other hand, if you believe in evolution, cannot even account for free will. According to evolution your thoughts are the mere by-products of the chemical reactions in your brain which you could no more control than a shaken can of pop could control its fizz when you open it. According to the evolutionistic worldview, you simply fizz "God does not exist," while I fizz "God exists." Free will is not in that equation. How do you account for the free will you claim you have?
I have already told you that I treat that as an as yet unanswered question. I know this, though: We do not know yet whether the laws of physics are deterministic or not, so we can not say whether the processes in our brains are deterministic. Furthermore, I know that deterministic systems are not necessarily predictable.
And as I sit here, I sure feel like I have free will, and that is enough. I do not feel the need to "account" for it. But I look forward to learning more about this in the future, as human ingenuity works to unravel the mysteries of the universe.
>You are of course welcome to claim that your belief is reasonable, but that is not part of any logical argument.
Never said it was.
>Saying that something happened by chance is "accounting" for it just as much as saying it happened because of a god.
Sure, just like saying that a fully functional 747 'happened' by the chance results of a tornado ripping through a junkyard, makes as much sense as saying someone made it.
You, however, are not even saying that the laws of logic happened by chance, you (or whichever Anon Scientist) are making the equally ludicrous claim that they are eternal - a concept completely at odds with most atheistic worldviews.
>I could see that he was not a very good god, if he existed.
Based on what stabdard of morality?
>But tell me, assuming he exists, why should I follow a god who tells his followers to kill their neighbours?
Which Bible were you reading?!? We are commanded to LOVE our neighbours.
>Do you feel the need to sin?
No, but my sinful fallen nature feels the desire to.
>I have already told you that I treat that as an as yet unanswered question.
That's the problem with you atheists, you live on faith.
God also lists numerous "death-worthy" crimes, including:
Talking back to parents
Homosexuality
Worshipping other gods
Witchcraft
etc
Plus, orders the Israelites to kill all Amalakites (musta worked, there are no Amalakites anymore), allows them to keep slaves and buy and sell forgein slaves, among other things.
That and pages of War. Lots of war.
Yeah, it says love your neighbors, but if you read the thing literally, I think you'd have a mighty small list of "neighbors".
I'm not saying there's no god, but I doubt this is it...
>That and pages of War. Lots of war.
You are confusing the "Mosaic Covenant" with the "New Covenant" under Christ. I could explain "Covenant Theology" to you, but then you'd just find another reason to reject God.
Again though, by what standard of morality do you condemn God, and what is your evidence that God did not have a morally sufficient reason for what he commanded?
>Yeah, it says love your neighbors, but if you read the thing literally, I think you'd have a mighty small list of "neighbors"
You must have missed the parable of the Good Samaritan.
> Sure, just like saying that a fully functional 747 'happened' by the chance results of a tornado ripping through a junkyard, makes as much sense as saying someone made it.
Oh come on, that old chestnut? That quote shows nothing but the utter ignorance of the person repeating it. I'll pretend you didn't say that.
>> I could see that he was not a very good god, if he existed.
> Based on what stabdard of morality?
On my personal standard of morality, of course.
>> I have already told you that I treat that as an as yet unanswered question.
> That's the problem with you atheists, you live on faith.
Admitting that you do not have the answers to every question is equal to "faith" now? That's a definition I had not previously encountered.
> Which Bible were you reading?!? We are commanded to LOVE our neighbours.
Joshua:
11:11 They struck all the souls who were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them; there was none left who breathed: and he burnt Hazor with fire.
11:12 All the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and he struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded.
11:13 But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn.
11:14 All the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey to themselves; but every man they struck with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any who breathed.
11:15 As Yahweh commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua: and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses.
Now, you can try and talk about "Covenant Theology", but I am pretty sure you yourself said the bible is absolutely true, and the bible quite cleary says there that god commanded Joshua to kill entire cities of innocents.
Is it possible that I have accepted Jesus already in my heart, but he's just not making it explicit?
> Joshua
>Is it possible that I have accepted Jesus already in my heart, but he's just not making it explicit?
I don't understand the question. What do you expect?
>Oh come on, that old chestnut? That quote shows nothing but the utter ignorance of the person repeating it. I'll pretend you didn't say that.
Perhaps you are pretending I did not say it because you cannot refute it? You certainly have not here.
>On my personal standard of morality, of course.
Of course, on an arbitrary set of morals which you deem better than God's. What is your standard of morality based on, and why should anyone else care?
>Admitting that you do not have the answers to every question is equal to "faith" now?
You have 'faith' that you have free will, and 'faith' that someday an explanation will arise that faith can be explained in an evolutionary framework.
>"that faith can be explained in an evolutionary framework."
Should read that 'free will' can be explained in an evolutionary framework.
>> Joshua
> 1. You and I are not the Old Testament Israelites.
> 2. The personal command to love your neighbours does not translate into the national command to the Israelites of the Old Testament to destroy their enemies.
> 3. No one is innocent. We inherit the sin of Adam.
Neither of these address the fact that god quite clearly told Joshua to kill all those people. You say god is eternal, so it would seem to me he's still that exact same god who told Joshua to slaughter innocents. I don't know how to make this any clearer, but I find that quite enough reason to distrust him.
I assume you think god is never wrong - would it then be right and just to slaughter a city of people like that, if god told you to?
>> Oh come on, that old chestnut? That quote shows nothing but the utter ignorance of the person repeating it. I'll pretend you didn't say that.
> Perhaps you are pretending I did not say it because you cannot refute it? You certainly have not here.
There is nothing to refute - it is a completely non-sensical simile, which can easily be dismissed as being completely irrelevant. It shows a complete lack of understand of the role of randomness in evolution. Evolution is not about "random parts suddenly flying together to create a perfect whole", it's about small, random changes guided by strong external pressures.
> You have 'faith' that you have free will, and 'faith' that someday an explanation will arise that faith can be explained in an evolutionary framework.
Neither of these claims is true. I have no faith whatsoever in the fact that I have free will. I just assume I have because it seems like I do, and it is the simplest explanation. Nowhere did I say I believe this will be confirmed. I said it may be answered, in either the positive or the negative. Either is fine with me. I will figure out where to go from there once I am given that answer.
Is it possible that I have accepted Jesus, and/or God already, without knowing it? Would Jesus tell me, if I believed in Him? Would He tell me if I didn't?
>>362
Oh I missed this. Thanks for responding!
>The law of identity is not a given.
It is immediately perceptually evident. Pretty much self-evident. And a cool thing about it is it'd have to be true for anyone to even deny it.
>Certainly in what most non-theists consider a random universe
I do not believe in a 'random universe'. Some atheists do, I know; that's their problem, not mine.
>A could be B tommorow.
Yes, change is possible. That is not a violation of identity. B is still itself.
>These naturally do not necessarily follow, even so, universal knowledge is reserved for the Omniscient, and those to whom He has revealed knowledge.
Is this not valid?
I don't need to be omniscient to know that everything that is, is.
>Well, having read this thread, you would have seen at least one person posit that the laws of logic are NOT universal. (the rest have mostly been silent on the matter).
Not my view, not my problem.
------
>>364
>This is proven with transcendental logic, i.e. the impossibility of the contrary.
That is what I'm asking for support for.
>God is the necessaroy precondition for universal, abstract, invariant laws and the uniformity of nature by the imposibility of the contrary. I am here to refute contrary proposals, but as you see they are few and far between.
You can refute contrary positions till the cows come home. But that won't show that a valid contrary position is impossible.
>Evolution is not about "random parts suddenly flying together to create a perfect whole",
Who is talking about evolution??? We were talking about the laws of logic.
>Neither of these claims is true. I have no faith whatsoever in the fact that I have free will.
Your belief in free will is contrary to an evolutionary framework, and is entirely without evidence, i.e. faith.
>No one 'gets away' with sin. All sin is punished.
But you, as an individual, get off the hook, correct?
Free will doesn't exist. Choose determinism today!
>Is it possible that I have accepted Jesus, and/or God already, without knowing it?
No, it is a conscious effort.
>Would Jesus tell me, if I believed in Him? Would He tell me if I didn't?
He's never told me. You should know what you believe and what you don't. There of course are assurances in the Bible when you take that step, and how it manifests varies among people.
>It is immediately perceptually evident. Pretty much self-evident.
But the normalcy of the perceiver, or the perception, is arbitrary in a non-theistic worldview.
>I do not believe in a 'random universe'.
Where did the 'order' come from. Who was the 'orderer?'
>Yes, change is possible. That is not a violation of identity. B is still itself.
Good point, but we still have the problem of the normalcy of the perceiver, and the unaccounted for means by which we interperet perception.
> But you, as an individual, get off the hook, correct?
I would not call separation from God, 'getting off the hook."
I would also not call having someone else punished in my place getting off the hook. I live with this fact.
If you call avoiding eternal punishment in Hell 'getting off the hook,' then yes, I get off that hook.
>Free will doesn't exist. Choose determinism today!
Hahahaha. Sadly that's about what these arguments amount to.
>>414 how can you be so certain? why should I believe you? If Jesus never confirmed to you that you actually believe in Him, how do you know that you aren't believing in something that's a lot like Jesus, but not exactly right?
Why does Jesus not communicate with me? Because I only have conditional faith?
So you just say about people "he/ she believes" because you see certain attributes from their behaviour of which the bible says these are behaviours of believers?
>But the normalcy of the perceiver, or the perception, is arbitrary in a non-theistic worldview.
A is still A. This has to be true for me to perceive anything, even if my self/perception is abnormal.
>Where did the 'order' come from. Who was the 'orderer?'
The 'order' of reality comes from the fact of things having identity and acting in accordance with that identity. There is no need for an 'orderer', reality just has to exist.
>Good point, but we still have the problem of the normalcy of the perceiver, and the unaccounted for means by which we interperet perception.
We use (hopefully logical) reason to interpret our perceptions, and identify the objects in reality. And we use concepts and memory and all sorts of nice things. I can't claim to understand it all quite yet ... but what's unaccounted for?
>>416 Okay, understood :)
>>417 I was actually being sincere :)
> how can you be so certain? why should I believe you?
Never said you should, but suggesting you might believe something and not know it, is kind of silly. Is it, for instance, possible that you could believe the moon is made of green cheese and not know that you believe this?
>how do you know that you aren't believing in something that's a lot like Jesus, but not exactly right?
I know Jesus as defined in the Bible, if my beliefs were contrary to the Bible, all bets would be off. Sure my perceptions may be off, but that does not mean I believe in someone different. If you had a wrong perception of your parents, would they cease to be your parents?
>Why does Jesus not communicate with me?
What are you looking for? I would say that Jesus communicates with all of us in every thought and experience we have. He also communicates with us through His word (the Bible). I would be in the camp that questions the sanity of those in this day who claim to hear voices.
>So you just say about people "he/ she believes" because you see certain attributes from their behaviour of which the bible says these are behaviours of believers?
Not at all. The Bible teaches that everyone, even Satan believes (and trembles).
>A is still A. This has to be true for me to perceive anything, even if my self/perception is abnormal.
But without a standard of normalcy, how do you know that A is A, when the person beside you says it's B? What determines who is the normal preceiver when 2 perceptions differ?
>The 'order' of reality comes from the fact of things having identity and acting in accordance with that identity.
Are the laws of logic universal? How do you know? How can you have universal perception of 'things'?
>There is no need for an 'orderer', reality just has to exist.
There is order, because there is order? What is the argument here?
>We use (hopefully logical) reason to interpret our perceptions, and identify the objects in reality. And we use concepts and memory and all sorts of nice things. I can't claim to understand it all quite yet ... but what's unaccounted for?
The laws of logic you use to interperet your perceptions, the uniformity of nature which makes sense of knowing anything, and the idea of 'perceptions' in a 'material' universe for three.
>>I was actually being sincere :)
Surely you jest :)
>> Evolution is not about "random parts suddenly flying together to create a perfect whole",
> Who is talking about evolution???
You are! I don't know why you keep bringing it up! You're bringing it up again here:
> Your belief in free will is contrary to an evolutionary framework, and is entirely without evidence, i.e. faith.
No. We do not know enough to say if it is contrary or not. I already said this. You're also severely confused about what evolutionary theory claims and does not claim. "Evolution" is not a complete worldview. It is a scientific theory of limited scope.
And why are you avoiding my question about god ordering Joshua to slaughter entire cities? Surely you have some justification for that, seeing as how you believe the bible is absolutely true?
>If you had a wrong perception of your parents, would they cease to be your parents?
No indeed, they would still be my parents. I think there are many possible perceptions I can have about my parents, and over the years have changed my perception about them. Because earlier impressions of my parents (and myself) we have gotten in serious, very stressing disagreements (solved now). I imagine that a wrong perception of God would lead to similar problems. Perhaps, with your perception of God, you're pissing him off more than if you didn't have a relationship with him at all?
>Not at all. The Bible teaches that everyone, even Satan believes (and trembles).
So then, I believe, according to the bible. Then what is the problem anyway?
>Perhaps, with your perception of God, you're pissing him off more than if you didn't have a relationship with him at all?
I'm willing to take my chances.
>So then, I believe, according to the bible. Then what is the problem anyway?
Belief is not enough, there is also complete submission.
Then indulge us: How does Covenant Theology justify the slaughter of entire cities on the direct command from god?
And further, if god gave the order, would you slaughter an entire city?
>Belief is not enough, there is also complete submission.
>>424 umm, you're not in the right religion actually. you need to upgrade to islam.
For one, God does not need justification for what He does. He is the potter, we are the clay, and His will is perfect.
Under the Old Covenant the Israelites were under God's law and direct command for their protection, so that they could remain intact and pure until the coming of the Messiah. Under the New Covenant, Christ's blood was shed so that all who partake of this sacrifice can be made pure.
The Israelites, and we all, are taught through these wars the consequences of being an enemy of God. I think one thing that many professed unbelievers forget, is that death is not a terrible thing for those God has chosen to be with Him in eternity. If that included some children of God's enemies, then death before they could adopt the pagan practices of their culture would have been a blessing.
>And further, if god gave the order, would you slaughter an entire city?
This would be contrary to the Biblical teachings of the New Covenant where Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to make us pure. It would therefore violate the law of non-contradiction as God cannot lie.
>umm, you're not in the right religion actually. you need to upgrade to islam.
The Bible teaches that any future revelation cannot conflict with the teachings of the Bible. Islam accepts the teachings of Moses, Jesus and the prophets yet refutes itself by discounting them in the Qur'an.
Wait, you need to upgrade to Baha'i Religion.
> Baha'ism which claims to be a 'cosmic embrace of all religions,' ends up excluding the exclusivists, thus refuting itself.
> The Israelites, and we all, are taught through these wars the consequences of being an enemy of God.
So an omniscient, omniportent god can find no other way to teach his people other than by slaughtering innocents and sending them, as you say, into eternal torment?
I know you don't agree, but could you at least try and make the effort to see why someone looking at this from the outside would be just a little bit put off by it?
>Put off??? It should scare the livin' crap out of you.
Folks, this 20-page thread is a great reminder of why when you write a holy text, you need to put in a reminder to respect people of other religions.
I would agree that we should respect one's right to be wrong, but do you think it is absolutely wrong to disrespect people of other religions?
>>435 Nah, religion is a brainwashing tool. No respect intended.
See the Crusades, the Spanish Inqusition, the witches burning, etc etc.
"You have denied that absolute moral laws exist but you appeal to them all the time."
I don't think i like how the site in the OP's post makes that leap of faith, introducing the Nazis and suggesting that he knows i use my morals to judge others. RE: the Nazis, while i may not agree with their methods/morals/whatever, they did have a right to attempt to break "tradition". in fact, to say they failed to introduce a anti-semitic feeling in Germany would be as illogical as saying the holocaust didn't happen at all. no, i don't believe that absolute morals exist. i believe that if, hypothetically, the nazis won WWII, their moral rule would be the the standard by which the rest of society judges themselves, either for or against.
>i believe that if, hypothetically, the nazis won WWII, their moral rule would be the the standard by which the rest of society judges themselves, either for or against
So, with that thinking, if your hypothetical came true, then those who thought killing Jews was wrong would be 'bad,' and those who thought killing Jews was 'right,' would be inline with what society thought and therefore be 'good?!?'
Is that what you believe?!?
Oops, lost my name. Those posts with the W6Ne55 ID were mine of course.
>>440
Not like most people here care about names, don't worry. Names are pretty much irrelevant anyways.
Perhaps, to those who wish to hide behind anonymity :-)
>>442
It's more of a "oh hey why should anyone care who the fuck I am, they know what I said and that is enough" kind of thing. That is pretty much the point of this type of board after all.
Yes, but with anonymity one can deny the inconsistency of past comments, claiming they did not make them.
Not quite, more like:
Me: "You said that this is true, but now you contradict yourself by saying this is true instead."
Anonymous: "No, I didn't contradict myself, because that wasn't me before."
You really need to learn to accept that when you are defending a claim, you have to defend it on the basis of the arguments put against it, not on the sincerity of those who present the arguments.
> So, with that thinking, if your hypothetical came true, then those who thought killing Jews was wrong would be 'bad,' and those who thought killing Jews was 'right,' would be inline with what society thought and therefore be 'good?!?'
Is that what you believe?!?
There's no need for hypotheticals. This is what the majority of Christians believed until quite recently, isn't it?
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/just/justtryindex.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html
Answer the question please.
>You really need to learn to accept that when you are defending a claim, you have to defend it on the basis of the arguments put against it, not on the sincerity of those who present the arguments.
Huh? I am pointing out inconsistencies in the arguments of those who try to refute me, what does that have to do with sincerity?!?
When refuting an argument, it is extremely common to us hypotheticals and other arguments that do not actually correspond to what one believes, and can easily be inconsistent with one's own beliefs.
You don't seem to get that to refute somebody else's argument, you don't need to provide a consistent argument of your own. You just need to prove the other person wrong.
>But without a standard of normalcy, how do you know that A is A, when the person beside you says it's B?
Maybe we are both right, as long as he's not denying that A is itself. Without identity, it is meaningless to even talk about differences and disagreements.
>What determines who is the normal preceiver when 2 perceptions differ?
Maybe nobody is a normal perceiver. With regard to logic alone, it doesn't matter.
>Are the laws of logic universal? How do you know? How can you have universal perception of 'things'?
I've been over this... >>358
Yes, laws of logic are universal. I know because (I can see and identify that) existence is self-identical. I don't need to be able to perceive the whole universe to know that things that are not themselves don't exist, never have and never will.
>There is order, because there is order? What is the argument here?
There is order because there is causality, because there is identity, because there is existence.
>The laws of logic you use to interperet your perceptions, the uniformity of nature which makes sense of knowing anything, and the idea of 'perceptions' in a 'material' universe for three.
Logic... that's what I'm trying to deal with first. I think I'm doing a good job :)
Uniformity of nature... we could discuss that too. I've hinted at it in my response just above~
'Perceptions' in a 'material' universe. Eh... I don't really know what matter is. That's for physicists to worry about, not my concern. My concern is with objects and identities. And I'm not quite sure what sort of account you are looking for. I'm conscious and I perceive things. Perhaps you could give your account of perception in a... spiritual(?)... universe. So I have something to compare. And criticise :)
>Surely you jest :)
Nope. I do not believe in free will. But choice definitely exists.
>You don't seem to get that to refute somebody else's argument, you don't need to provide a consistent argument of your own. You just need to prove the other person wrong.
Huh? You don't seem to get that positting a refutation with an inconsistent argument, refutes the argument. For example: "The laws of logic are man made, and eternal," is a contradiction which is self-refuting.
>Maybe we are both right, as long as he's not denying that A is itself.
You can both be wrong, you cannot both be right.
>Maybe nobody is a normal perceiver. With regard to logic alone, it doesn't matter.
That's ridiculous. If I perceive the law of non-contradiction to be that A can be non-A, then surely it matters.
>I don't need to be able to perceive the whole universe to know that things that are not themselves don't exist, never have and never will.
How do you know? You certainly do not have universal knowledge.
> Huh? You don't seem to get that positting a refutation with an inconsistent argument, refutes the argument. For example: "The laws of logic are man made, and eternal," is a contradiction which is self-refuting.
No, you still do not understand what I say. If I want to refute an argument of yours, I can give SEVERAL arguments, and those arguments can be mutually contradictory, but only ONE needs to be true to refute your argument. You can't counter with "but just a while ago you said something DIFFERENT!", because I can change my angle of attack as I see fit, as long as any argument taken on its own is consistent. What I said earlier is immaterial.
The fact that I have to keep explaining this just once again shows how unfamiliar you are with logic and philosophy, and I would once again urge you to actually study it, and actually study other views than your own to try and understand them, even if you do not agree with them. That is how true wisdom is gained, not by steadfastly sticking to one opinion and refusing to listen to others.
All I am doing is pointing out the inconsistencies of those who would argue against Christianity. You may say that being inconsistent is okay in your worldview, but it is not okay in mine.
Of course you could be inconsistent and now say that being inconsistent is not okay, but I'd like to know how you support that claim in your worldview, something you have yet to do. (not to mention that fact that NO argument, inconsistent, or otherwise, has yet been able to refute my worldview. Please re-state it if you feel otherwise.
Please take the time to learn some philosophy and logic. I am tired of trying to explain to someone who will not listen, because it is inconvenient to him.
You have constructed a worldview in which it is impossible to prove you wrong, because you can arbitarily dismiss any argument against you. This does, however, not make it true. It merely makes it impossible to discuss, and completely useless.
If you need a diagram, see >>347.
I never said you couldn't use logic, I just want you to account for the laws of logic in your worldview before you use them.
Seems fair to me. I tell you how I account for the laws of logic in my worldview, in my website. You have yet to give any indication as to how the laws of logic make sense in your worldview.
You seem to want to keep invoking these laws, but have no basis for using them. You keep avoiding this subject because it reveals the vacuousness of your worldview. For the umpteenth time, how do you account for the laws of logic in your worldview?
>>458
So, what you're saying is, you are not allowed to use logic without backing up your use of logic with an illogical statement such as "God allows me to prove things."
So, Nature allows me to prove things.
You are exceedingly tiresome.
I am asking you how you account for the laws of logic according to your worldview, not how you are able to prove things.
Way to avoid the question again though!
My brain did it. Logic only works because I think so.
>My brain did it. Logic only works because I think so.
How can something in your brain apply to anyone else? How is something in your brain universal, and invariant?
He's got a totally awesome brain.
Ya, like totally man.
Lowly peons! Bow before Santa Claus, the One and Only Worldview(tm).
PS. 466GET!
WOW! An imposter poster! I wish I could say it was the sincerest form of flattery.
I was reading the book of John today, and I was struck by how much Jesus sounds like Mr. Proofthatgodexists in his monologues. It's just pages upon pages of
> Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
This is actually backed up by my religion professor: Jesus = Logos = Law, so if you believe in the law you must necessarily accept Jesus. This could explain why it is difficult to argue with Mr. Proofthatgodexists. Which is an acceptable way to evangelize Christianity in my opinion, but it's not a logical proof that God exists.
>>467
Don't worry, most people here are able to easily figure out who is actually you.
Hey wait a minute, weren't you the one who said logic was in your head?
Anyhow, from what I understand about the quoted passage is that Jewish law required that a witness testify to the truthfulness of a person's testimony, in order for it to be considered valid. As I understand it, what Jesus was saying was that God, His heavenly Father was His witness. You can see how statements like this angered the Jews, they ended up killing Him after all. I do not understand how anyone can read the Gospel of John, and not see who Jesus was claiming to be. The Jews certainly did. The idea that Jesus was a only a 'good moral teacher' does not comport with the incredible claims He made. As C.S. Lewis says, Jesus was either liar, lunatic, or Lord, there is no room for 'good moral teacher.'
>This could explain why it is difficult to argue with Mr. Proofthatgodexists.
If you believe that logic is only in your head, then it would be difficult to argue with ANYONE.
Here's a question for you:
If god is the source of the laws of logic, why do you claim he is bound by them?
I have never claimed that God is bound by the laws of logic. The laws of logic are a part of God's unchanging character.
God cannot be illogical, because that is not God.
Mere semantics. For all intents and purposes he's bound by them, if he can't disobey them. And if he's not above them, it's hard to see how he could have created them.
Again, God did not create the laws of logic, they are a part of His eternal unchanging character.
>>474
And god was just, y'know, there?
>God did not create the laws of logic
Then Logic created God.
Spock created Logic. Logic created God. God created man...
??? Profit.
So once again, instead of assuming the existence of the laws of logic, you assume the existence of god and thus the laws of logic.
You have still not given a convincing reason why the one is better than the other.
>Assuming God accounts for logic, assuming logic accounts for nothing.
hint: quantum theory
hint: Ha
Well, once again your use of "accounts" is meaningless, but I'll ignore that, because you are still completely wrong:
You say logic is part of god. Thus, by assuming god, you assume logic, because it is part of the thing you are assuming as a whole. There is no "accounting" at all, there is no implication, you are quite simply assuming "logic, and also the other parts that make up god".
If I assume just logic, my assumption is smaller than yours, and generally in logic, this is preferred.
"Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed."
~ Paul Manata
And? Even if you somehow twisted that into an argument for your side, you're still presupposing logic is true in pretty much exactly the same way as anyone else, and thus you can't make any claims to the higher ground of "I can explain logic, you can't!", because your assumption is equivalent to theirs.
Your basic argument does not hold.
I find myself on much firmer philosophical footing assuming that an eternal God exists, and is the source of universal, invariant, abstract laws, the uniformity of nature, the origin of matter, life, sentience, and intellignce, then assuming that universal, abstract, invariant laws have always existed and have no explanation for the existence of matter, life, sentience, or intelligence. In fact atheistic worldviews betray the very assumption that the universe has invariant, or abstract properties. You have yet to come out with a worldview in which your assumption is believed, let alone explained.
I know why you avoid explaining what your worldview is, but your reluctance is rather tiresome.
But he is not the "source" of those laws. You said so yourself - "God did not create the laws of logic, they are a part of His eternal unchanging character". They are part of him, and you have to assume their existence when you assume his existence.
You are "assuming that universal, abstract, invariant laws have always existed" exactly in the same way that I am, when you assume that god has always existed.
Again you artfully dodge explaining how universal, abstract, invariant eternal laws, and the uniformity of nature comport with your worldview.
Yes, God is the source of these laws, and He did not create them, as they are a part of His nature. Again, assuming a God with these logical traits makes sense to me, assuming immaterial, universal, invariant, laws existing on their own forever, makes no sense to me, and explains nothing.
Fact is, according to my worldview, we both know that God exists. Your failure to explain your own worldview and how universal, abstract, invariant laws, and the uniformity of nature comport with it are completely in line with Biblical teachings about your relationship with God. You don't even have to show your worldview, it is woefully apparent.
still going on, huh?
at this rate, there'll be 1000 get in 25, 26 days
>>488 And nothing of value was said yet!
It's like a Jehovah Witness.
> Again you artfully dodge explaining how universal, abstract, invariant eternal laws, and the uniformity of nature comport with your worldview.
I've told you several times now - I merely assume they exist, just like you do, even though you try to dress it up as something else.
I'll remind you, though, that I am not the person here claiming that my worldview is better than everyone else's. I am merely claiming that yours is not as solid as you think it is. That's the difference you do not seem to grasp: You say I am wrong because I do not believe what you do. I say you are wrong because you believe what you do.
> Again, assuming a God with these logical traits makes sense to me, assuming immaterial, universal, invariant, laws existing on their own forever, makes no sense to me, and explains nothing.
In other words, you have no justifications for your assumption other than the fact that you like it. I should point out that most christians I know would agree with me here - they take god on faith, and do not feel the need to build elaborate logical frameworks around him to justify him to themselves or anybody else.
>>489, quite right, although I did post here as well, and quite sensible posts as well. yare yare... but what do you get? everybody stuck in their own little fight against one educated fool. A good whose value isn't recognised has no value at all (right now.)
These sharpminded (hmm wait..) quarrels have existed for so long. Above conversation could be held between a delegation of Greek citizens and one of pharisees (lets make them both freshman apprentices, for fair comparison) in the years after Jesus' ascenscion.
Yo, proofthatgodexists, would you recognize Jesus if he stood in front of you? so many educated, logical pharisees couldn't! Kind of pointless to know that God exists if you can't recognize Him!
>I've told you several times now - I merely assume they exist, just like you do, even though you try to dress it up as something else.
Where'd they come from according to your worldview?
>I should point out that most christians I know would agree with me here - they take god on faith,
Again with the Ad populum fallacy. Many Christians get it wrong too. You are forgetting that you are the one who accepts the validity of your human reason, not to mention universal, abstract, invariant laws, and the uniformity of nature on BLIND FAITH. Sure Christians have faith, but our faith accounts for the things your faith cannot.
> Hey wait a minute, weren't you the one who said logic was in your head?
I don't think you understand what I mean by that. What I mean is that there is no ethereal sphere, outside of my head, where things such as logic and morality exist. That doesn't mean that I believe the laws of logic are subject to change.
>> I've told you several times now - I merely assume they exist, just like you do, even though you try to dress it up as something else.
> Where'd they come from according to your worldview?
Where did god come from according to your worldview? How do you "account" for your god?
> Again with the Ad populum fallacy.
That was a statement about faith, not logic. I never suggested they were right, just that this is the common mode of belief.
> You are forgetting that you are the one who accepts the validity of your human reason, not to mention universal, abstract, invariant laws, and the uniformity of nature on BLIND FAITH.
How exactly am I forgetting that?
>Sure Christians have faith, but our faith accounts for the things your faith cannot.
>>492 my faith is bigger than your faith!
uhuh, uhuh, uhuhuhu, hahahahaha haa snort hrm
OMG this is just liberal propaganda. The're trying to prove the existance of god with facts when ever body know that the only way to worship is to follow blindly and never question your faith
>OMG this is just liberal propaganda.
HA! You could not be further from the truth. But then again, truth likely does not comport with your worldview.
>>496 Uh, no. My dictionary says that Liberal means "One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters."
But I agree with the propaganda bit. Christianity was the tool used to bring down Rome.
Unless you mean Liberal as an anti-Rome Slavery movement?
"Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people."
I'm not trying to do either here. That ain't up to me.
Oops, that was me again :-)
> Sure Christians have faith, but our faith accounts for the things your faith cannot.
How can faith fail to account for anything? The definition of faith I believe we are bandying about here is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." As faith inherently has no basis outside of one's personal beliefs and convictions, if any faith is sufficient to account for anything, then all of it is. Or what basis will you determine which faiths are true and which faiths are not?
If you again use the basis of one's one's personal beliefs and convictions, it's called an "opinion."
Incidentally, if you have truly proven that God exists, this means you are faithless.
>>502 not quite, you might be convinced that god exists, so much that 'proof' has become irrelevant for you. Still, you need faith to believe in Gods goodness
What is God? Why is there only one? How does one know they are not several? Where are they? Are they still alive? Were they alive in the first place? What is Life? Where do I come from? Where am I going? Is this important?
We make artificial God.
kind of dead here without that guy here
yes allah is truth
Da Vinci Code Broken?
Read Answers provided by Islam
Islam claims to "break the code" so to speak, over 1,400 years ago. The answer, according to Muslm scholars has been in the Quran for over fourteen hundred years
Some may be surprised to learn, Muslims believe in the miracle birth and other miracles associated with Jesus. They actually consider him as the "Messiah" and they even say, "peace be upon him" when mentioning his name. However, they are quick to negate any connection between God and Jesus as a partnership or God-head, and they rule out the notion of God having any son (or daughter for that matter).
And he never answered >>494. Well, at least we didn't have to read yet another post of full of nothing but avoiding the question.
>>454
Hello, I'm still alive :)
>You can both be wrong, you cannot both be right.
Only if A and B are mutually exclusive. You didn't specify.
>If I perceive the law of non-contradiction to be that A can be non-A
Impossible. You can't perceive wrongly. But you can misidentify.
> >I don't need to be able to perceive the whole universe to know that things that are not themselves don't exist, never have and never will.
>How do you know? You certainly do not have universal knowledge.
Eh. I donno. Maybe this is the appropriate time to pull out the 'impossibility of the contrary' card. Any view that affirms contradictions in reality automatically invalidates itself... or something...
Nevertheless, A is A! The turtle moves!
He left already. Also, word to the wise: Quoting Ayn Rand only marks you out as a teenager who's just discovered philosophy and thinks he can have a controversial opinion. "Objectivism" is pretty much a joke, and you'd do well to grow out of that phase as soon as you can.
'A is A' is a controversial opinion? Wha? Or what?
disregard that, well not really, but post in the new topic pls :)
lol God does exists, I am your GOD!! SMELL YOUR GOD!! No Religion is correct! Everyone party!! NOW!! OR PARTY OR GO TO HELL LITERALLY!!
i bet u if god fucked u up the ass u'd believe in him..think about that! :P
...
>>515 if you'd be so kind to leave your address on this thread.
love,
bubba
I find irony in the site icon and quote. "...he who hates correction is stupid." from Proverbs, and yet, the icon is taken from the book of Matthew, which reads, "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" In other words, don't judge or be condescending onto others unless you are without fault. And then the site's quiz then goes on to proclaim that those with views contrary to theirs are stupid, illogical and so on. Irony.
>>519
I see no irony. His position is that his worldview is right and perfect.
i like how people can assume that they could possibly deduce and understand an infinite timeless being that could have created everything to which we have no access to and on top of THAT would actually "care" about our existence to the point of punishing us if we didnt believe in it.
I like how people will bump dead threads just to listen to themselves talk!
>>521 Surely you can deduce that an 'infinite, timeless being could reveal certain things to us, which we are to understand?
Also, we are not punished for not believing in God, we are punished for our sin.
I AM answering you!
This should be enough of a proof since I AM GOD!
Nuh-uh, I'm God.
That website is seriously pissing me off...
I took a crap today.
god must be real.
>>1
That test is a total waste of time. It's a one-way forced answer using twisted pseudo-logic brainwash.
You are going towards the proof that God does exists with these steps.
Yet if a single step is wrong, the whole thinking behind it is wrong.
It takes like six step for an average human to understand that you're wrong:
Universal means that they're true, anywhere, anytime.
Step Six: The Nature of Laws
"Laws of Math, Science and Asbolute Morality are Universal"
Even if we assume that Math's laws and absolute morality are universal, science's law is not.
Let's take physics as an example: laws that works for normal-gigantic masses does not work for subatomics masses.
So if you try to use classic mechanics ( or even the G.Relativity mechanics) to find the position, or the speed, of a subatomic particle, you fail. (They can be found using Quantum Mechanics)
Since a theory that unifies them both hasn't been found yet, they're both non-universal.
So the early statment:
"Laws of Math, Science and Asbolute Morality are Universal"
is wrong.
And that makes your test wrong.
um... maybe i should be ashamed too, these above id-tags are all the same. Case of severe split personality?
>>532
He has learned to sage now, at least.
Prove that "God" DOES exist. I dare you.
That is as impossible as proving "God" doesn't exist.
So don't bother. This will achieve nothing. Spend your time at better things.
Consider two even integers x and y. Since they are even, they can be written as x = 2a and y = 2b respectively for smaller integers a and b. Then the sum x + y = 2a + 2b = 2(a + b). From this it is clear that 2 is a factor of x + y, therefore God exists.
"God" is like "Al Qaeda". There is no such thing as Al Qaeda, but the American gov fights it anyway.
>>535
OH SHIT... looks like it's back to church with my heathen ass.
http://proofthatgodexists.org/no-morality.php
FUCKIGN RETARDED
I accepted that laws of mathematics and science exist, but morality does not, and it gives me this bullshit
Also, when i denied absolute morality, it asked me if raping a child for fun is right.
WHAT HTE FUCK DOES FUN HAVE TO DO WITH THIS YOU FUCKING MORON PIEC OF SHIT FAGGOT
RAPING A CHILD IS AN ACTION, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.
FUN IS IRREVELANT
FEELINGS ARE IRREVELANT
YOU FUCKING FAGGOT PIECE OF SHIT MOTHERFUCKER
NO I DONT RAPE CHILDREN BECAUSE I FEAR THE CONSEQUENCES, NOT BECAUSE MORALITY TELLS ME ITS "BAD"
TEHRE IS NO BAD OR GOOD. FUCK YOU.
>>538
However, your very post was rather bad in content, argument, spelling, grammar, caps lock moderation, and general communicative success.
omfg...if you click "there are no absolute moral laws" it asks you "are you a child molester" WTF? this is the most bias crap ive seen...someone should fuck up this site >:[
"It is true that God does not need anyone, let alone this website, to prove His existence" my god then stop trying, your failing at it anyway
and what else do they say "The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying it"...what the hell is that crap "we dont need to prove it cuz its obvious that it exists" GAH THATS NOT AN ARGUMENT.
> someone should fuck up this site
No, no one should fuck up any site.
They have a right to say whatever bullshit they want, no matter how goddam stupid it is.
Doing so would only validate a persecution complex.
http://proofthatgodexists.org/no-morality.php
disappointed,... Fun was over almost from the beginning (cf the options give if you don't believe in absolute moral laws). And it doesn't get better after that...
But if you survive through the drivel to get to the proof, you get this:
"The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything."
ROFL
Wow, so through their logic since God must exist then the "Christian worldview" must also be absolute?
I don't know if they have been living under a rock but this could apply to the Talmud/Quran/whatever as well.
>>544
i hate you
Protip: There are no "laws of mathematics"
http://proofthatgodexists.org/no-morality1.php
closed the window here. don't want my co workers to know i'm a------i mean, THINK that i'm a pedo
The only thing that website proves is that the people who made it, are just as stupid as expected.
I noticed some odd things about the "proofing" shown in the website:
I find it hard to believe that all the world's cultures hold the same views on morality.A quick look at the definition of morality states the definition as "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." For example, Isn't tipping in Germany immoral?
2. Absolute morality is unchanging.
Lets think about civil rights. Initially, slavery was regarded as a moral practice. Currently, slavery is frowned upon.Have we not experienced a change of morality?
3. "Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist."
By looking at points 1 and 2, our universe does not apply to this statement. So god may not exist within this universe.
The only problem I have with my criticism is point 1. I'm not too sure if the web site is referring to a consistent absolute moral law that is universal (Everyone has the same moral values), or if the concept of absolute morality exists universally. (Everyone has moral values, though they may not be the same.)
TLDR: I'm a fag
This can go on forever.
Of course, I'm assuming. All we can do is assume.
This can go on forever.
Of course, I'm assuming. All we can do is assume.
Lets say human beings are the only life in this universe:
then god sucks because he could have made so much more. +why would god be so awesome if god really did his best he would have made some kind of creature that would abide his laws and not even be able to sin. if we are now turning our back to god and sinning the hell out of everything that is gods fault. human beings are the way they are and look how we are. god made us this way so god is a sinner.
the church accepts the idea of extraterrestrial life since a couple of months
to the test: Absolute morality does not exist,
an animal, the last male of its kind is attacking another human.
do you have the right to kill the animal and thus condemning its species to extinction just to save one out of 5 billion humans?
some might say "hell yea, humans above animals"
some might say "don't kill the whales, dude" and smoke some weed and stuff
But what if you where one of the animals females? and the male animal was just defending its last remaining peaces of territory and its pack. (you are a part of it)
If morale was absolute we would live in a world without war, corruption, or anything generally evil about humans.
fact is, we are living in a world with war corruption and a lot of generally evil stuff...
Anyone saying absolute morale exists is a hypocrite, possibly a xenofobian, suffers from autism and would probably never have learned how to debate or have an argument with another person
That or he lies to himself
I can prove, without necessity for a magical skyman, the following:
When I suspend any object in the air and allow it to leave my grip completely, it will fall toward the ground every single time. At the same speed as any other object, mind you; 9.8 m/s. Every single time an object is suspended then let go, it will enter free fall in a direct downward path at 9.8 m/s (true free fall with no measurable air resistance, that is).
You can prove natural, physical realities without needing a god. They are physical laws.
"But who put those laws in place, lol?" Shut up. Who said it was a 'who'? Why can't they have always existed in the universe? Why do they need intelligence or the anthropomorphizing of scary bearded wizard skydudes?
As for morality: Morality is not a science. It's a point of view, usually societal.
Morality does not require a magical skyman either. You judge the "word" of your god when you read something like Leviticus where it says you should stone your children to death for talking back. You decide not to follow it for whatever reason. Or on the repeated occasions where it not only fails to condemn, but actually advocates slavery, you say "oh, it's a cultural thing," or you just deny the text all together. You do not take your morality from the bible or from any other holy text, because you judge them on your own innate morality and choose what to follow and what not to. Even the most fundamentalist crazies choose to ignore parts of the bible. You use your conscience.
why did you bump this thread?
3/4 top threads are god threads.
/science/ is a cesspool
Oh, I'm sorry you don't like deep discussions.
Go back to /b/.
wtf. i always get back to "This is not a glitch
(Think about it)"
shit sucks.
>>559
Oh, I'm sorry you're a pretentious twenty-something philosophy major assclown.
Go back to Starbuck's.
There's too many leaps in logic in there for me. I should stop trying to prove God exists/doesn't and just live making others and myself happy while causing the most minimal amount of damage to the world.
>>562
Life is much to short to worry about and try to figure out anyways. Furthermore, what good would it truly do?
I'm with you on this. I'm taking a nap.
i chose "i don't care if absolute truth exists" and it sent me to disney. this test is accurate.
>>559 What's deep about anything in this thread, other than the level of bullshit?
Religion and science are orthogonal to one another. You cannot use the methods of one to accomplish anything useful in the other.
so that web site has some many holes in it logic that I can't begin to list them all. first the thing about absolute truth that is true and is a good argument. if you drop an apple while on the planet earth it will head to the thing with the largest mass A.K.A the ground/ earth. now the talk about the law of contradiction can be dis proven with the law of superposition or Schrodinger cat which states that a thing can be both alive and dead till you observe whether the cat is alive or dead. the laws of mathematics is true when adding two things together but when using imaginary numbers come in it can' do anything. I bet that none of you know how to add imaginary numbers together. the laws of science argument is some what solid yes you drop a rock and it will hit the ground. but when it says that the laws of science never change that is so blatantly wrong I laughed. science is always changing we learn new things about our world that can change the laws of science. absolute moral laws is wrong. the society in which we live is what decides morals not some crazy notion that the universe has its own morals think back several thousands years we killed our enemies raped their women and the average life span was like 20 years so there had to be older men having sex with young women but now it is fairly opposite.
we think any one with different culture is the enemy. I call this the invisible enemy. this is when the government set up a culture to be the enemy of everyone when they do nothing only a select few do some horrible thing. much like 9/11 and turning every Muslim into a terrorist. their are also several other examples like in WWII the Nazi's attack on the Jews and Americas treatment of the Japanese. each of these turned fear and hate upon innocents.
now to the laws are universal this is wrong this is just the human race wanting to make everything theirs an alien race will have a different culture and way of speaking and a different understanding of the universe so no none of these laws are universal. Now when it comes to god I can't tell any one what to believe but think about this there are tons millions or more that believe in the same god.this god being Jews Christians and Muslims. now think about the shear power of the mind couldn't our collective concience create our own god.
also we know that there are higher planes of existence why cant there be a species with the power to start the chain of events needed for our accidental creation.
im sorry, i tried to read your text, but i couldn't make heads or tails out of it. I got lost in-between you arguing the state of existence and non-existence and then talking about something about absolute morals and people raping little girls and something about aliens.
:\
Whatever side of the debate you're on, I'll take the opposite.
I ended up at the step where I was supposed to acknowledge that absolute moral laws exist. Neither option entirely reflected my opinion, but I said no because that was closest.
The site tried to push into saying what it wanted me to say anyway. I persevered in refusing to.
The site told me my view is irrational and inconsistent.
I conclude the site is bigoted and one-sided.
The one-sidedness goes to show from the fact that every step has only two options. My point of view with regard to morality is just a bit more articulate than either "morality is absolute" or "anything is okay". These are only the two extreme ends of quite a few more possible positions.
Morality is a series of abstract ideas. It's comparable in nature to language; a memetic system of innate principles that guide the mind.
Some parts of morality are shared among all of the human species, but that neither makes all morality absolute, nor does it in fact make any of it absolute. It will always at most be relative to the human species. And the human species is NOT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE.
Good day sir.
I just accepted everything he wanted me to accept to see what would happen. This is his great incontrovertible proof that god exists.
"Only the Christian worldview can logically support rationality.
(...)
You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them.
(...)
Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking."
Can you see the hypocrisy? It all boils down to "the rules are there, the only origin I COULD THINK OF would be god, so god exists. (And of the thousands of god that people have come up with, it has to be the Christian one.)"
And the icing on the cake is that he says that not jumping to the conclusion that Jehovah must have done it, and keeping open the option that maybe it could have been something less far-fetched, is "a blind leap of faith" and "wishful thinking".
Followed of course by a lot of psychoanalysis that contains more wishful thinking than proper logic itself.
Typical Christian rhetoric.
The only proof that a 'God' exists is when he actually SHOWS himself in physical form (that's God himself, not Jesus) to the whole world. And proves he is who he says he is with demonstrations of his powers to my satisfaction (i.e. he does whatever I say). But until he can do so, there's no such thing as a 'God'.
Religion is nothing more than a fairytale for adults. And stupid adults, at that.
I like this thread.
I HATE THIS THREAD
> And proves he is who he says he is with demonstrations of his powers to my satisfaction (i.e. he does whatever I say)
That's just asinine. If there was a god, and I was he, I'd turn you into a retractable ass-wiping stick for expecting me to demonstrate my powers to your satisfaction.
>>571
Sure, you can make up a fairy tale and call it god. but that doesn't mean that there a very different god from the one you've imagined doesn't exist.
I bet you're one of those people who think that black holes can't possibly exist only because the earth hasn't fallen into one in your lifetime.
>with demonstrations of his powers to my satisfaction (i.e. he does whatever I say)
As "give me all your powers" demonstration? ;)
Anyway, the site is weak just as many of proofs around here. Faith doesn't need proving. And I also think that it is "you either believe or you don't". And why people do care about what anyone else believes in?
>>576
Because you are either with us or against us!
> And why people do care about what anyone else believes in?
Whenever I hear someone saying this I know he doesn't understand shit.
Wow, that quiz is hilarious. But it's just the style christian fundamentalists use to convert people that carry the simple-mindedness within, on which fundamentalism relies.
>>578
Because? People can believe in anything they want to. And to be honest, all people believe in something else. I think that it is nearly impossible to find two people who believe in the same way. But when you have to atheists or two christians or two muslims or anyone else, they won't look into small differences between them, why do they believe so, do they really believe in God or that God doesn't exist. No, they will focus on bigger differences without even understanding their own faith.
And that's why I ask, why people do care about what anyone else believes in. Why? And why they don't understand their own faith? If you want to help anyone else, change their beliefs, etc. Well, good luck. I'd rather look into my beliefs and talk with other people about theirs. And if anyone wants to change, it should happen because they wanted to, not they were forced to (it is for all of God believers and not believers who think that other people are wrong because they don't believe as they do)
Did not read the beginning of thread, just posting results.
Exited at "laws of science". Theories != laws.
I didn't understand the site...
>>582
It's a trick. The website asks you questions and gives you a possible set of answers. Whatever your answers are, the logical conclusion of your answers is that God exists. Of course that doesn't actually prove anything, it's just a game of logic.
I believe that humanity is composed of morons who don't want responsibilities and would freak out if they understood that human life is a random event in this ultimate randomness that is time (and that's why they created god).
I believe that this web site is ugly.
>>584
How can there be responsibilities if events are random?
At second question it's author confuses logic and data.
Didn't go futher, all is clear.
Some parts are questionable, and some parts are downright absurd.
I like how after he spends alllll that time building up a supposedly sound and valid argument, he goes and resorts to "proof by the obvious" and asserts, without any connection to the previous steps in the argument, that the only possible way these "immaterial, universal, unchanging laws" could exist is if God were around to create them. I'm sorry, but EVEN IF every part of the argument up until that point were sound/valid, the fact of the matter is that God's existence does not follow logically from the existence of the kind of "laws" he describes. He's still going on faith, in the end, and he doesn't even realize it.
Of course, it's not just that -- there are so many other fallacies at work in this "proof" that it's hard to even take it seriously.
>>587
I believe the term for that is "argumentum ad lapidem."
This thread is slightly less annoying than hate-fueled political rants. Bump.
let's try that again
i fail at life
retarded.
I believe in a god simply because the alternative is too depressing. What if life was just a meaningless accident? If that's true, then the universe is just there - it's not there for us. The what's the point of even having a universe at all? It's all just meaningless, pointless suffering.
I prefer to think that God gives life context. It's like... If you think of god as a parent, and kids as all life, and the universe as a jungle gym.
The kids can play and be happy and be sad and make their games, and they can do so safely because their parent is right over there watching everything. (S)he won't interfere in the games, but when the games are all over, (s)he'll take you home, put bandaids on your bruises, and encourage you to go play tomorrow.
Without a parent there... The whole scene just becomes more sad.
>>593
Well, it is a meaningless accident. Life with it.
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
Universals are a fine thought experiment, but equating universals to god is unfounded. A universal has a perspective: math measures unchanging facts, science measures facts that may change or be reinterpreted, and morality is variable however ethics (as a universal) is for the good of as many individual freedoms as possible (a perspective in itself).
But the quiz forces one conclusion, stating that God exists as a universal without a perspective. Not even one of human suffering. Pathetic, weak attempt at a faith-based topic that is inherently a faith-based topic. http://proofthatgodexists.org/ is fail.
If you want to believe in an all mighty, omniscient Creator because you fear there being an end to your existence, that's fine, but when you try to pass off faith and absence of answers as proof of existence for such a higher power, that's when you have failed. You can't go into a store to return an item without a receipt, no matter how much you believe you had bought it only a few days ago, the cashier still needs proof of purchase.
Well, you all can go F...K OFF
Well, you all can go F...K OFF
Proof that God Exists
When you assume there are some gods, nothing is contradictory to it.
Therefore God exists.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
Proof that God does not Exist
When you assume there are not any gods, nothing is contradictory to it.
Therefore God does not exist.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
We can't proof the exit of got.
He don't exist
He Is another fake fairy tale folklore no different from ghosts, werewolves, zombies, vampires none are real and all the religious literare Its fake and political, church, social community and family groups are all just trying to make you follow their lead my whole points try to make I'm an atheist and not a christain, I'm a single straight male who refuses a relationship with anyone, I'm a man with no children not a role model and not anyone's friend you don't like It too bad this Is just who I am.
This is a SCIENCE board. NOT a religion board.
>All things science, philosophy... and other related academic topics are all talked about.
Like it or not, religion is often considered a form of philosophy.
FOR ALL YOU SCIENTISTS:
YOU STILL DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD? WELL, YOU BETTER DO.
BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T WELL YOU'RE GOING TO SUFFER WITH A BAD CASE OF GNASHING OF TEETH, BURNING , MOURNING AND SO ON.
FOR YOU THIS MAY ONLY BE A CHANCE RIGHT?
50/50 % SINCE YOU PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH AT ALL TIMES AND YOU COMMIT MISTAKES MOST OF THE TIME.
FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW: IF IT WERE TRUE THAT GOD EXISTS THEN YOU WOULD REALLY BE BURNED IN HELL FOR THE REST OF YOUR DAYS IF YOU STILL WON'T BELIEVE IN HIM
WHEREAS, IF IT WEREN'T TRUE (WHICH IS COMPLETELY FALSE) THEN NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN TO US ALL SINCE WHATEVER HAPPENS TO YOU GUYS AFTER DEATH WOULD BE THE SAME FOR ME.
SO CHOOSE THE BETTER OPTION. EITHER YOU BURN ? OR YOU GET SAVED?
I'M JUST 17 YEARS OLD AND WHO CAN ARGUE WITH THAT?
If there's god he loves us all so I can be atheist the whole life and still go to heaven after I die. Being atheist does not even count as a sin :)
WHEN YOU DIE YOU HAVE NO ASSURANCE OF BEING SAVED IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. HOW COULD YOU BELIEVE IN HEAVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD? BEING AN ATHEIST IS DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AND THEREFORE IT IS ONE OF THE WORST THINGS YOU COULD EVER DO IF YOU PLAN ON BEING SAVED AND GO TO HEAVEN,
Believers have no assurance either. Hell's for sinners, not for atheists.
And you should watch your caps lock. People writing in all caps are considered stupid on the internet.
YES BUT GOD REDEEMS SINNERS. CALL ME STUPID WHENEVER YOU LIKE. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF CHOICE FOR PEOPLE WHETHER TO BELIEVE OR NOT.
EVERYBODY DIES. DON'T WAIT FOR IT TO PASS YOU BY BECAUSE THIS LIFE IS THE ONLY CHANCE YOU GET.
That sounds great, not only can I be atheist, I can even sin and if there's god he will even redeem me.
I wonder why did believers invent hell then, if there's no chance for anybody to get there, devils must feel pretty lonely.
God loves all of us and that's what we have to remember. God will get through you in time as long as you do not resist him.
mods permasage plz
RESISTANCE IS USELESS. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. BECAUSE I LOVE YOU, BUT IN TOTALLY NOT A GAY WAY.
>>611
In fact, god loves me so much that he fucks me softly in my asshole every evening.
I know the divine love of god's velvet penis.
WTF, guys, just discuss the thing. At this point I'm more willing to believe a religious argument than the idiotic babbling of an atheist.
