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.

101 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 13:56 ID:Heaven

>>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.

102 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 13:58 ID:Heaven

>unless you are now claiming omniscience.

What for? Tell me please, why would I need omniscience to simply say that I'm right?

103 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 14:02 ID:Xh923adX

>>100

> 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.

104 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 14:02 ID:Heaven

>>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.

105 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 14:04 ID:Xh923adX

>>102

>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.

106 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 14:05 ID:Heaven

>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?

107 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 14:06 ID:Xh923adX

>>104

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?

108 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 14:07 ID:Heaven

>>105

>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.

109 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 14:07 ID:Heaven

>>107
Not same person?

110 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 14:10 ID:Xh923adX

>>106

>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).

111 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 14:13 ID:Xh923adX

>>108

>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?

112 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 14:15 ID:Heaven

>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.

113 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 14:17 ID:Heaven

>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.

114 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 14:20 ID:Xh923adX

>>112

>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.

115 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 14:24 ID:Heaven

>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?

116 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 14:26 ID:Xh923adX

>>113

> 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?

117 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 14:29 ID:Xh923adX

>>115

>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?

118 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 14:33 ID:Heaven

>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.

119 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 14:35 ID:Xh923adX

>>118

>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?

120 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 14:36 ID:Heaven

>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.

121 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 14:37 ID:Heaven

>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?

122 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 14:40 ID:Xh923adX

>>120

>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.

123 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 14:42 ID:Xh923adX

>>121

> 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.

124 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 14:45 ID:Heaven

You assume:

  • Intelligibility exists

So:
A needs B
suppose A
Therefore, B!

125 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 14:46 ID:Heaven

>>123

>You can't prove anything to someone who can't know anything.

So, you can't prove nothing to me? I'm shocked.

126 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 15:00 ID:5nQkvT9+

> 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.

127 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 15:06 ID:5nQkvT9+

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.

128 Name: 125 : 2007-01-21 15:09 ID:Heaven

>>126
You're a way better philosopher than me orz

129 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 16:11 ID:KHGQ+Ji6

>>127

>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?

130 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 16:17 ID:KHGQ+Ji6

>>126

>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?

131 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 16:20 ID:KHGQ+Ji6

>>126

>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?

132 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 17:12 ID:5nQkvT9+

> 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:

  • Refute the assumptions.
  • Show that the assumptions are contradictory.
  • Show that the derivations from the assumptions are faulty.

You seem to think that only the first is valid, which is entirely untrue. We have been mostly arguing using the last two.

133 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 17:16 ID:5nQkvT9+

>> 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.

134 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 17:18 ID:5nQkvT9+

> 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.

135 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 17:22 ID:ulwiJ0sP

>>132

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?

136 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 17:27 ID:5nQkvT9+

>>135

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.

137 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 17:29 ID:ulwiJ0sP

>>134

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?

138 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 17:31 ID:5nQkvT9+

> 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?

139 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 17:34 ID:ulwiJ0sP

>>136

> 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.

140 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 17:37 ID:5nQkvT9+

>>139

My worldview is irrelevant. We are discussing your worldview.

141 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 17:43 ID:ulwiJ0sP

>>138

>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?

142 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 17:47 ID:5nQkvT9+

> 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.

143 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 17:49 ID:ulwiJ0sP

>>140

>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.

144 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 17:54 ID:ulwiJ0sP

>>142

>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.

145 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 17:58 ID:5nQkvT9+

> 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.

146 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 18:31 ID:9v/7BJFl

>>145

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.

147 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 18:58 ID:Heaven

148 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 19:02 ID:15ORFQr+

>>147
>>145
>>146

(Make it fifth time though).

149 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 19:03 ID:Heaven

Without logic, there can be no proof. Thus undermining logic will not allow you to prove that God exists.

150 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 19:50 ID:4KhTwjbV

>>149

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.

151 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 20:09 ID:mXdwnYrk

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.

152 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 20:42 ID:s4plG3hq

> 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/

153 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 20:42 ID:c6r4hWdC

>>151

>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?

154 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 20:47 ID:c6r4hWdC

>>152

>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).

155 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 20:54 ID:s4plG3hq

>>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.

156 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 20:58 ID:s4plG3hq

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.

157 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 21:07 ID:KHGQ+Ji6

>>155

> 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.

158 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 21:10 ID:KHGQ+Ji6

>>156

>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?

159 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 21:25 ID:Heaven

>>146

> 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.

160 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 21:29 ID:Heaven

> 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?

161 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 21:43 ID:ScIpNurO

>>160

> 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.

162 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 21:45 ID:ScIpNurO

>>159

In a discussion about worldviews, we lay both on the table and see which one comports with reality.

163 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 22:45 ID:Heaven

>>161

You are assuming that absolute morals exist, due to your use of the phrase "could be right".

>>162

> 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.

164 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-21 22:50 ID:PYw4iIb4

>>163

>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.

165 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 23:13 ID:2vE3ZhEF

>>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?

166 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-21 23:23 ID:Heaven

>>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.

167 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 00:04 ID:Heaven

>>164

We are not discussing worldviews. We are discussing your claim to have a proof of god.

168 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 00:30 ID:zZZKjmid

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

169 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 01:32 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>165

>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.

170 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 01:33 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>166

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.

171 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 01:35 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>167

I can see why you do not want to discuss your worldview.

172 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 01:39 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>168

>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.

173 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 03:19 ID:Heaven

>>171

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.

174 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 03:20 ID:Heaven

> 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?

175 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 03:35 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>173

> 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).

176 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 03:44 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>174

Ha! You are the one making truth claims and yet denying that absolute truth exists. Your question begging does not conceal that fact.

177 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 03:48 ID:Heaven

> 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.

178 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 03:56 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>177

>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.

179 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 03:56 ID:Heaven

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."

180 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 03:59 ID:Heaven

> 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?

181 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 03:59 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>179

"Intelligibility exists, and since The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists."

Is that your worldview?

182 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 04:01 ID:Heaven

>>181

Just tell me why it is not true. Invoking my personal beliefs would be yet another ad hominem fallacy.

183 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 04:01 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>180

> 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.

184 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 04:03 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>182

> 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.

185 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 04:05 ID:Heaven

> 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?

186 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 04:08 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>185

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.

187 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 04:10 ID:Heaven

>>186

Oh come on, don't you even understand a reductio ad absurdum argument? Answer the question already, and stop squirming away from it.

188 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 04:14 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>187

Stop quirming away from telling me what you believe.

189 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 04:20 ID:Heaven

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.

190 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 04:25 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>189

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

191 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 04:30 ID:Heaven

>>190

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?

192 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 04:39 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>191

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.

193 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 12:49 ID:Heaven

>>192

Do you really not understand what a reductio ad absurdum argument is?

194 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 13:31 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>193

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?

195 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 13:37 ID:Heaven

>>194

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.

196 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 14:31 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>195

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)

197 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 14:55 ID:Heaven

>>196

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.

198 Name: Proofthatgodexists : 2007-01-22 15:05 ID:nkW6Ne55

>>197

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?

199 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 15:09 ID:Heaven

>>198

Do I have to ask you a seventh time to answer the question?

200 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-22 15:36 ID:Heaven

This was ineresting at the beginning, but now it's rather lame...

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