Proof that God Exists (615, permasaged)

1 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-07 11:17 ID:0ZwzC8Bk

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.

2 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-07 11:22 ID:XA6Qz4ER

they forgot the "maybe" button.

3 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-07 14:38 ID:Heaven

"Absolute truth"? What the hell is that supposed to be?

4 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-08 13:05 ID:QNTuD3A7

>>3
Objective correspondence with reality. Not just opinion.

5 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-08 14:21 ID:78Ch0vOo

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

6 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-08 16:49 ID:IxoJouJO

>>4

I don't usually send letters to reality. Please explain.

7 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-09 04:55 ID:Vl0/oApK

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.

8 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-09 14:59 ID:mXdwnYrk

> 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.

9 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-11 00:20 ID:IxsyOXRw

If you believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are changing, then living with the expectation that they do not change would be inconsistent with your belief. No doubt, you wake up every morning expecting these laws to be the same as they were the day before. You don't think twice about drinking pure water because you know that the properties of water that nourished you yesterday will not kill you today. You don't wonder whether it will still be right to love your children tomorrow.

You see, you deny that the universal, immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality are unchanging yet you base your life on their unchanging nature. Unless you reconsider your stand on this matter, your road to this site's proof that God exists ends here. It is my prayer that you give up on this irrational thinking and return to seek the truth.


They're changing slowly, numbnuts, or perhaps they didn't realize that scientists were recording different values for constants

And I don't take kindly to pity prayers.

10 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-11 12:44 ID:IxoJouJO

>>9

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?

11 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-13 01:36 ID:77SvNjma

>>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.

12 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-15 08:09 ID:gbL5yuog

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.

13 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-15 14:16 ID:Heaven

>>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.

14 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-15 17:00 ID:gbL5yuog

>>13

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.

15 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-15 22:26 ID:Heaven

If you click on "I don't care" you get redirected to Disney!

16 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-15 22:52 ID:Heaven

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.

17 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-15 23:19 ID:wfW8bl2e

>>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!

18 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-16 04:16 ID:Heaven

>>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.

19 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-16 10:16 ID:/8TApbcR

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.

20 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-16 17:00 ID:IxoJouJO

>>18

What is that theory, that some god made it? That's the least internally consistent of them all! You're just shuffling the problem under the carpet by never addressing the origin of your god.

>>19

We get perfectly how you use faulty assumptions and invalid subdivisions to make invalid claims.

21 Name: Satan : 2007-01-16 17:01 ID:Heaven

PS: lol heaven.

22 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-16 17:40 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>20

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).

23 Name: OP : 2007-01-16 17:44 ID:Heaven

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 :)

24 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-16 19:16 ID:pR2UNtbO

>>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:

  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.

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.

25 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-16 23:35 ID:5nQkvT9+

> 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).

26 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-16 23:41 ID:5nQkvT9+

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.

27 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-17 05:31 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>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?

28 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-17 12:16 ID:IxoJouJO

> 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.

29 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-17 12:20 ID:IxoJouJO

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.

30 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-17 14:45 ID:M6m7sssC

>>27

>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?

31 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-17 14:58 ID:Heaven

>>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.

32 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-17 15:05 ID:Heaven

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.

33 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-17 18:04 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>28

> 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?

34 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-17 18:12 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>29

> 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

35 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-17 18:20 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>30

> 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.

36 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-17 18:26 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>31

> 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.

37 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-17 18:32 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>32

> 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.

38 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-17 18:58 ID:Heaven

>>34

>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.

39 Name: 38 cont : 2007-01-17 19:53 ID:Heaven

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.

40 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-17 23:10 ID:Heaven

> 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
11

41 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-18 06:55 ID:HOnWNZHX

God 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...

42 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-18 12:58 ID:IxoJouJO

> 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.

43 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-18 13:00 ID:IYn+Nrc4

(We need a /Religion/ board, it seems...)

44 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-18 13:13 ID:IxoJouJO

> 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?

45 Name: 44 : 2007-01-18 13:21 ID:Heaven

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?

46 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-18 17:28 ID:Heaven

>>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...

47 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-18 21:11 ID:Heaven

>>46

Then you are pretty much denying the laws of logic.

48 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-19 04:29 ID:Heaven

>>47
your "laws of logic" are baseless assumptions.

49 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-19 11:59 ID:Heaven

>>48

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 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-19 15:12 ID:Heaven

>>45
you humans... you think in such 3-dimensional terms...

>>49
i doubt he's ever heard of 4-ch.

51 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-19 15:58 ID:Heaven

>>50
Urm, scroll up a few posts?

52 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-19 16:22 ID:Heaven

>>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.

53 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-19 17:04 ID:n321f3LW

>>52

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)

54 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-19 18:35 ID:Heaven

>>52
ID's are calculated from the IP, so they change from time to time for people with dynamic IP's.

55 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-19 21:50 ID:gbL5yuog

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.

56 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-20 15:29 ID:sRuy9QxC

>> 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.

57 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-20 15:30 ID:sRuy9QxC

>> 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)

58 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-20 15:30 ID:sRuy9QxC

>>42

>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?

59 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-20 15:31 ID:sRuy9QxC

>>44

> 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.

60 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-20 15:31 ID:sRuy9QxC

>>48

>your "laws of logic" are baseless assumptions.

What is the base for your assumption that the laws of logic are baseless assumptions?

61 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-20 15:32 ID:sRuy9QxC

>>55

>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?

62 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-20 16:28 ID:Heaven

>>56

>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.

63 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-20 16:51 ID:hsuYzX2g

>>62

>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

  1. That your senses fool you ‘all the time.’
  2. That you can ‘obviously not trust your senses’ because of 1.
  3. That any proof based on observation can be doubted.
  4. 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.
  5. That nature is uniform such that the words >>24 uses to construct his sentences mean the same things they did 5 seconds ago.
> 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.

64 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-20 18:17 ID:mXdwnYrk

> 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.

65 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-20 18:20 ID:ewICH3gF

>>64

>The need to interact with other people who may not share your morality? Conformity, in essence.

Which is also completely arbitrary.

66 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-20 18:47 ID:Heaven

>>63

>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.

67 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-20 19:06 ID:M1YHPEi2

>>66

> 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.

68 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-20 19:52 ID:Heaven

>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)

69 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-20 20:00 ID:mXdwnYrk

>>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.

70 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-20 21:24 ID:7FKwA3HR

>>69

>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.

71 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 00:13 ID:Heaven

>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.

72 Name: 71 : 2007-01-21 01:43 ID:Heaven

>like >>70 understood

Sorry, typo. That should say "like >>69 understood".

73 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 02:05 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>71

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.

74 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 02:21 ID:Heaven

>>73

>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.

75 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 02:25 ID:4jC3Pgq6

>>73

>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.

76 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 02:53 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>75

Hey, if you want to jump on his argument's bandwagon, be my guest :-)

77 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 02:56 ID:mXdwnYrk

> 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.)

78 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 03:00 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>74

>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.

79 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 03:07 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>77

> 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!

80 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 03:35 ID:5nQkvT9+

>>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?

81 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 03:40 ID:5nQkvT9+

> 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?

82 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 03:40 ID:mXdwnYrk

> 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.

83 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 11:49 ID:r5QTvLx2

>>80

>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.

84 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 11:57 ID:r5QTvLx2

>>81

>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?

85 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 12:23 ID:r5QTvLx2

>>82

>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.

86 Name: 74 : 2007-01-21 13:04 ID:Heaven

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.

87 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 13:12 ID:Heaven

>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.

88 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 13:18 ID:5nQkvT9+

> 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.

89 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 13:18 ID:5nQkvT9+

>> 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.

90 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 13:32 ID:Xh923adX

>>86

>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?

91 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 13:34 ID:Xh923adX

>>87

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?

92 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 13:37 ID:Heaven

>>90

>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?

93 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 13:41 ID:Heaven

>>91

>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!

94 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 13:44 ID:Xh923adX

>>88

>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.)

95 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 13:46 ID:Heaven

>>90

>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.

96 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 13:46 ID:Heaven

>The Nazi German society?

Godwin.

97 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 13:47 ID:Xh923adX

>>92

> 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?

98 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 13:52 ID:Xh923adX

>>93

>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.

99 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 13:54 ID:Xh923adX

>>95

>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).

100 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 13:55 ID:Heaven

>>97

>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.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.