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.
Look, you don't have to agree with how I account for the laws of logic, but we are having a worldview discussion. How do you account for the laws of logic which you are using to evaluate my worldview? (Fourth time)
When you tell me how you account for the laws of logic which you are using to evaluate my worldview, I will be happy to continue this discussion.
I really do mean it. Study how your worldview accounts for the laws of logic. There is much you can learn, and learning it will serve you well. Then maybe you can see that you have no basis for arguing at all, and that there can be no equal ground.
Without logic, there can be no proof. Thus undermining logic will not allow you to prove that God exists.
I don't undermine logic. My worldview can account for universal, abstract, invariants such as the laws of logic. I want to know how the non-theistic worldview accounts for the logic used to argue against my worldview.
This thread is 150 posts long now. Go ahead, see how many times I have asked this, and see how many answers I have gotten.
Very well, I'll bite.
I didn't really want to bring evolution into this, but logic exists because it was an evolutionary advantage. At one point, reasoning such as "A squirrel was gathering edible nuts in a pile here, but they're gone now; there is no trace of them being eaten; they must have been hidden somewhere" translated to a survival advantage, allowing those who used such reasoning to procure more nourishment and procreate more effectively.
> Why do we condemn the Nazi society for following their self-imposed morals? Why did the Nazi society not have the right to break from the tradition of morality in western civilizations?
If killing Jews is unambiguously wrong and anyone with a clear head can see so, why did the Nazis do it in the first place? Was there a sudden, nationwide lapse of conscience, or did God abandon them for a couple of years and then God came back to Germany in 1945? Stupid, simplistic arguments like this absolutely fail to define morality. Obviously morality is created by social pressures just as much as individual reasoning.
What I want to know is, http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
>I didn't really want to bring evolution into this, but logic exists because it was an evolutionary advantage.
So the laws of logic reflect survival advantage and not truth?
The only reason A cannot be non A is for survival advantage?
Is this your position?
>If killing Jews is unambiguously wrong and anyone with a clear head can see so, why did the Nazis do it in the first place?
Obviously they disagree with your arbitrary view of 'clear headedness.'
>What I want to know is, http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
Prove this please. How do you know that God does not have morally sufficient reason for not healing amputees (of which my father is one by the way).
>>154
The website explains the details. Basically, God answers prayers, but he doesn't answer the prayers of amputees, and there's no logical reason why he shouldn't. Of course, that summary has a lot of objections, but they are all discussed on the website.
> Obviously they disagree with your arbitrary view of 'clear headedness.'
Of course my view is arbitrary! What I'm saying is, any individual working out morality for himself can see that torture is wrong for totally non-God related reasons. (How would you like it if YOU got tortured?!) But within a society, people can be made to change their minds, and believe something is perfectly rational-- for example, Spanish people believed that the torture of Jews was completely moral and in fact that God ordered them to do so. Why do you doubt their piety? And even in a society we all think is a free and unpressuring one, people disagree whether abortion is moral. Does life begin at conception? Who's right, and who's wrong? If you want to prove it one way or the other, you will have to consult directly with God, and we have no evidence God has ever spoken to anyone. Your website doesn't even discuss the Bible.
Oops, I'm wrong. Once I agree with your flawed conclusion that God MUST exist because someone has to dictate morality to us and we will be a nation of pedophiles if He doesn't (gee, if God's the only thing keeping you from molesting kids, I won't let my children anywhere near you!), you have this explanation on your page:
> Rather than use physical evidence to show that the Bible is most probably true, we again go back to intellectual evidence, and logical proof, to show that the Bible is necessarily true. We can know that the Bible is true because it claims to be true and proves it by the impossibility of the contrary! It is only because the Bible is true that we have justification for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws. It is only by God's revealing Himself to us through His word that we have grounds for rational thought. We use rational thought, therefore we can know that the Bible is true. Attempting to use logic to try to disprove the only possible source for logic would be self-refuting.
By this logic you should be a Muslim, because the Bible never says it is infallible, but the Koran does.
> The website explains the details. Basically, God answers prayers, but he doesn't answer the prayers of amputees.
Hmm it looks like an atheistic site to me. How would they know what God does since they claim not to believe in Him?
> Of course my view is arbitrary! What I'm saying is, any individual working out morality for himself can see that torture is wrong for totally non-God related reasons.
Um no, they can see that they do not like being tortured, but not that it is wrong. (And without God they cannot proceed with the assumption that they will not like being tortured the next time, since they cannot account for the uniformity of nature apart from Him).
>Spanish people believed that the torture of Jews was completely moral and in fact that God ordered them to do so. Why do you doubt their piety?
Because it is contrary to the teachings of Christ.
> And even in a society we all think is a free and unpressuring one, people disagree whether abortion is moral. Does life begin at conception? Who's right, and who's wrong? If you want to prove it one way or the other, you will have to consult directly with God, and we have no evidence God has ever spoken to anyone. Your website doesn't even discuss the Bible.
Well actually it does, but you have to navigate to the main page. I don't see the point in discussing the Bible with those who claim that God does not exist.
>Oops, I'm wrong. Once I agree with your flawed conclusion that God MUST exist because someone has to dictate morality to us and we will be a nation of pedophiles if He doesn't (gee, if God's the only thing keeping you from molesting kids, I won't let my children anywhere near you!).
Alright then, according to your worldview, is molesting children for fun absolutely morally wrong, or could it be right?
> No, in a logical argument the facts are all that count. The person making the claim is completely irrelevant. Arguing any different is an ad hominem fallacy.
> Alright then, according to your worldview, is molesting children for fun absolutely morally wrong, or could it be right?
And have you stopped beating your wife yet?
> And have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Not at all the same type of question, I assume nothing in my question.
The equivalent would be "according to your worldview is beating one's wife absolutely morally wrong, or could it be right?"
Nice try though.
In a discussion about worldviews, we lay both on the table and see which one comports with reality.
>You are assuming that absolute morals exist, due to your use of the phrase "could be right".
"Could molesting children for fun be right?" assumes nothing. The fact that you cannot answer this question is telling though.
>In a discussion about worldviews, we lay both on the table and see which one comports with reality.
Yours is starting to show.
>>164
Here's a question for you: Why isn't molesting children fun or right? Did God tell you so? What if God told me molesting children is my moral duty? How would we figure out who was right?
>>164
I hate to copypaste, but this kindSTOP TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO SAY THEY LIKE FUCKING CHILDREN TO DISCREDIT THEM. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL WHO CAN'T BACK HIS SHIT UP ANY OTHER WAY.
We are not discussing worldviews. We are discussing your claim to have a proof of god.
I believe that there is no absolute truth. I suppose that an absolute truth can exist in a logical system, but from observation alone I cannot tell whether the system in which we are actually behaves logically. In fact, 'system' is probably a misnomer because it already presupposes some sort of construct.
I am not a mathematician, but I suppose also that even in a logical system, if you introduce randomness, there can be no absolute truths.
This believe refutes me to say that it is absolutely true that no absolute truth exists (duh.) Annoyingly, the decisiontree of the site just regurgitates me within these constraints I have set out.
I haven't taken the time to investigate the other options of this prank except the 'I don't care' exit strategy. However, I agree with you that, once you constrain people to the axioms that absolute truth does exist, and that they don't know what these are, that you can then trick them into 'accepting' a proof for Gods existence.
Seems I'll be visiting Disney for a while
>Why isn't molesting children fun or right? Did God tell you so?
Child molestation is contrary to the Biblical command to love one's neighbour.
You are deluded. I have never once tried to get anyone to say any such thing. I merely point out the logical outworking of a morally arbitrary worldview.
I can see why you do not want to discuss your worldview.
>I believe that there is no absolute truth.
Is it absolutely true that you believe that there is no absolute truth?
Is it absolutely true that if you introduce randomness into a logical system, there can be no absolute truths?
Is it absolutely true that the decisiontree of the site just regurgitates you within the constraints you have set out?
I could go on, but for someone who believes there is no absolute truth, you sure make alot of truth claims.
So you think. I have absolutely nothing against discussing my worldview. It is simply not part of the topic, which is your claim to a proof of god. You are suddenly incredibly reluctant to stay on this topic, it seems.
Then again, I have already given up on that discussion ever leading anywhere.
> Is it absolutely true that you believe that there is no absolute truth?
> Is it absolutely true that if you introduce randomness into a logical system, there can be no absolute truths?
> Is it absolutely true that the decisiontree of the site just regurgitates you within the constraints you have set out?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
> I have absolutely nothing against discussing my worldview.
Sure looks that way.
> It is simply not part of the topic
I'm here to discuss worldviews. Mine is on full display at the website. Now I'd like to know on what basis you claim to logically evaluate my worldview. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature in your worldview? (sixth time).
Ha! You are the one making truth claims and yet denying that absolute truth exists. Your question begging does not conceal that fact.
> I'm here to discuss worldviews.
No, you were countering arguments made against your worldview, under your own assumptions, with arguments about the arguer's worldview. That is an ad hominem fallacy. If you were here to discuss other's worldviews, you should have said so. As it is now it just looks like you're trying to avoid a losing argument by switching the topic.
If you want to concede that you can not support your proof of god logically, I'll be more than happy to switch to another topic of discussion, however.
>No, you were countering arguments made against your worldview, under your own assumptions, with arguments about the arguer's worldview.
The logical argument for my worldview is on my website. I see people criticizing it here and I want to determine by which standard anyone here can contsruct a logical argument against my worldview. 178 posts later and no one here has given a non-theistic account for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.
Surely that should be taken as a concession that no one here can.
If you instead feel like actually getting back to that argument, tell me why this statement isn't true:
"Intelligibility exists, and since The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists."
> 178 posts later and no one here has given a non-theistic account for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.
> Surely that should be taken as a concession that no one here can.
To disprove one argument, one does not need to prove another, competing argument to be true, so this is immaterial. Furthermore, are you aware that there is such a thing as a statement that is both true and unprovable?
"Intelligibility exists, and since The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists."
Is that your worldview?
Just tell me why it is not true. Invoking my personal beliefs would be yet another ad hominem fallacy.
> To disprove one argument, one does not need to prove another, competing argument to be true, so this is immaterial
Except in this case you are using the alleged truth of your argument to argue against my worldview.
> Just tell me why it is not true.
If you don't believe it, why should I bother? Tell me what you believe and I will be more than happy to refute it.
> If you don't believe it, why should I bother?
To explain why it is different from your own argument. It is obviously untrue, is it not? Why is it different?
If you claim that it is obviously untrue, then (hopefully) you do not believe it. Tell me what you do believe and I will be happy to refute it.
Oh come on, don't you even understand a reductio ad absurdum argument? Answer the question already, and stop squirming away from it.
Stop quirming away from telling me what you believe.
I already said once that I would leave this argument, and I did not keep this promise. I see this was a grave mistake. You are obviously not interested in taking part in it in any meaningful way any longer. I asked for your answer to a signle question, and I get kindergarten-level parroting. There is nothing to be gained by this.
I'll repeat my previous invitation: Learn some basic philosophy and logic. Then come back, and argue your case. I will discuss this when you have the requisite skills to state your case properly.
I will be happy to refute anyone who comes here who believes something contrary to Christianity. I have no time for hypothetical spaghetti monsters (unless you claim to believe it).
Go ahead, run away, that is the common answer from those who cannot defend their worldview.
Ciao
And you are somehow not running away by refusing to answer a simple reductio ad absurdum challenge? Was it so easy to forget that I asked you a question, and you repeatedly refused to answer it? And when I give up trying to get an answer out of you, that is me running away?
Tell me what you believe and I will be happy to refute it. If I refute your hypothetical, you will just make up another. I'm not playing that game.
Do you really not understand what a reductio ad absurdum argument is?
Of course, it is a logical argument, which you cannot employ until you tell me how you account for the laws of logic in your worldview. Borrowing logic from my worldview, to argue against my worldview, hardly makes sense now does it?
Oh for crying out loud, I already explained this to you. Several times, but you are still stuck in your ad hominem fallacy and will apparently never get out of it.
Look, you will have to accept that arguments against your theory will be made within your theory. That is how it works.
Now stop squirming and answer the question, or shut up and concede defeat.
However accepting that argumentation is even possible is a concession that my worldview is true, unless of course you wish to posit another source for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature (which obviously you do not, and cannot)
If you were paying attention, I was arguing that your worldview does not provide a basis for intelligibility either. Therefore, we have to just take that as an assumption, and work from there.
Now answer the question.
Actually it does, you just don't happen to like it.
You see, if you really wanted to have a rational discussion, you would provide your basis for rationality even if you disagreed with my demand for it. The fact that you constantly avoid this request shows that you have zero basis for rationality in your worldview.
This is not difficult, you already have my basis for rationality. What is yours?
Do I have to ask you a seventh time to answer the question?
This was ineresting at the beginning, but now it's rather lame...
Indeed. This dodging game gets old fast.
Let's try this one:
> You see, if you really wanted to have a rational discussion, you would provide your basis for rationality even if you disagreed with my demand for it.
Ok, I base my rationality on the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I totally believe this now, I have seen the errors of my previous ways.
Now tell me why I am wrong.
>Ok, I base my rationality on the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I totally believe this now, I have seen the errors of my previous ways.
Very well, I need to know more about your worldview in order to properly respond. On what basis do you claim that your God, 'The FSM,' is the precondition for intelligibility. Please support your claim.
>>172 for me to not believe in absolute truth, it is irrelevant whether that is my belief is an absolute truth. You are pressing me to decide whether there is absolute truth even though I (in my only post here yet) already mentioned that I don't believe in that.
Maybe you are struggling with the concept 'to believe' or at least the way I used it here. I say believe, because with my limited understanding of the rules (assuming there are rules) of the realm in which I live I believe it is impossible to make strong statements. In the situation that I live in, I am thus not able to validate the existence of any absolute truth. Withouth at least the knowledge of an absolute truth, it is imho impossible to identify an absolute truth.
So your challenge should be - if you take this topic seriously, and if you wish henceforth to be taken serious here - to show how it is possible arrive at a certainty, when you're inside a world of uncertainty.
My worldview is the exact same as your except whenever you would say "god" I say "The Flying Spaghetti Monster", and if you should feel like referencing the bible, I reference the Flying Spaghetti Bible, which is constructed in a similar way.
Is it absolutely true that it is irrelevant whether your belief is an absolute truth?
Is it absolutely true that I am pressing you to decide whether there is absolute truth?
Is it absolutely true that you believe it is impossible to make strong statements?
Is it absolutely true that you are not able to validate the existence of absolute truth?
You can't escape it man. Denying absolute truth is self-refuting.
Please give the FSM Bible references, which explain the nature of the FSM, the precondition for universal, abstract invariants, and the justification for the uniformity of nature so I can examine them and propery respond.
Just take your own arguments and replace "god" with "FSM". I already told you.
Actually I use my Bible to support my claims, you use your Bible.
From what I can gather the FSM is a 'physical' being, with at least one component being 'spaghetti.' This already distinguishes it from God as God is non-physical, so interchanging God with the FSM does not work.
Please correct me if I am wrong, and give me the FSM bible references to support your claims.
You just don't understand this argument, do you?
The thing that I do not understand is your worldview. I need the details so I can refute it. Please give the FSM Bible references so I can examine them and refute them. Surely you didn't make up your claims?!? See, now you are just playing a new game of dodge. I have agreed to refute your claim, yet you will not provide details of it. You cannot support this worldview or the one you actually do hold.
In other words, you don't understand the argument.
I will spell it out for you: If one takes your worldview, and replaces "God" with an equivalent entity who is not the christian god, but has the exact same abilities, is that still a valid argument? If not, why not?
> I will spell it out for you: If one takes your worldview, and replaces "God" with an equivalent entity who is not the christian god, but has the exact same abilities, is that still a valid argument? If not, why not?
If the "God" in your worldview has the exact same definition, with the exact same attributes, as defined and justified by the exact same book, then you would believe in Christianity, except do so in your own 'language.' I would have no problem with that. You, however, use a different book, to define a different God, with different attributes. I am asking you to defend the God of your worldview, with your 'bible.' You just keep running away from the question. Please give me the FSM bible references which support your claims.
Again, it is glaringly obvious that you can neither support your fallacious belief in the FSM or in the worldview that you actually hold.
The exact same definition, except he says he's not your christian god, and that your christian god does not exist. It seems you still do not understand the argument.
And the "I'm not, you are" thing is getting pretty old. That's yet more childish parroting, and you should be capable of better than that if you had an actual argument.
>>213
lol, semantics.
uhoh, starts to feel like talking to |_|lrich again.
anyway, I think this is a nice prank, although a bit discomforting at first because I thought you actually had an idea where you were going to.
But it looks like you don't know an answer yourself, either. You are stuck asking other people 'insightful' questions without being able to explain why we (in your opinion) don't seem to get it. I've asked you before to please explain that. These questions like 'is it absolutely true that proofofgodexists is a dweeb?' will not be answered by me again. <-- is not an absolute truth, its an approach to an absolute truth since I cannot tell the future. So try again, please.
As an alternative answer to you; fine you found a proof that god exists. Now you need to prove that your proof is valid. good luck, kid.
one more thing, out of curiosity I finally went inside your confined tunnel of 'proof' until I hit the 'absolute morality' wall. What ever made you think people even try to observe moral laws obediently, let alone following some moral laws that are coherent within a system that surpasses human behaviours? unless of course you say "well, duh, but where did those laws come from, then?" with the obvious answer "GOD uhuh, uhuh, uhuh..!" Of course I presume you wouldn't fall for such a simple cycling logic?
but I distract. please answer the >>215 first if you can.
203<<
actually, sorry, but forget about me. After more investigation it seems you won't be able to think along any lines other than your own lines of thought. Um, maybe you're just going too quickly for me, perhaps you're missing out a few steps that seem huge for me but insignificant for you.
And about the God thing, isn't it much more practical to just accept God in your life? I think I do, but He hasn't bothered to come by and say "thank you for being so open" and I haven't received any powers either (actually, unless I can't cause massive collateral damage with such powers, I'm not really interested) - still, the fact that there is currently no feedback (dead line?) at all doesn't worry me too much, cuz yknow, if He wants something from me, I'll notice that sooner or later, won't I?
There's no need for you to pray for me, that I may find God. He's everywhere, I don't need to waste my time looking for stuff that's omnipresent.
well, thats what I believe...for now......
>The exact same definition, except he says he's not your christian god, and that your christian god does not exist.
Look, I pointed out one huge difference already, your God being at least partially comprised of 'physical' spaghetti. The God I posit is immaterial.
You should be highly embarrased that the best you can do to attempt to refute my worldview is to claim Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. I ask you to support your claim and of course I get NOTHING, just like your previous worldview - ZIPPO.
If you continue in this useless vein, I will no longer reply to your posts.
Um ,is it absolutely true that it "is not an absolute truth, and that it's an approach to an absolute truth?
Is it absolutely true that you cannot tell the future?
These questions are not the proof of course, they merely point out the absurdity of denying absolute truth.
The proof is a 'transcendental proof,' i.e. proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Just like you would prove the validity of the laws of logic. In the site I demonstrate how the Christian worldview accounts for universal, abstract, invariants and therefore the necessary preconditions for the laws of logic. I challenge anyone to come up with an alternate explanation and justification for universal, abstract, invariant laws and the uniformity of nature. As you can see, no one has taken up the challenge.
>What ever made you think people even try to observe moral laws obediently, let alone following some moral laws that are coherent within a system that surpasses human behaviours?
What does the existence of absolute moral laws have to do with obedience to them?
>>218
It seems you do not really understand what >>213 is talking about (Please remember, not all persons are the same here).
>>213 is asking you why someone who believes in a god which is, in all characteristics, exactly like the christian god, with a book exactly like the bible, just that it also says that:
would be wrong, while you would be right.
>still, the fact that there is currently no feedback (dead line?) at all doesn't worry me too much,
Well since you cannot account for logic, or science without God (let alone your existence), I would say that everyone of your thoughts is feeback.
>if He wants something from me, I'll notice that sooner or later, won't I?
Absolutely, but might I advise you find out sooner, rather than later.
I'll bite. What part of your claim "Intelligibility exists, and since God is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists." states that God is not allowed to have a physical presence? Can he only be the necessary precondition for intelligibility if he is entirely immaterial?
(And if he is entirely immaterial, then what's the deal with Jesus?)
>>213 is asking you why someone who believes in a god which is, in all characteristics, exactly like the christian god, with a book exactly like the bible, just that it also says that:
He is not the christian god.
The christian god does not exist.
would be wrong, while you would be right.
No one has positted such a worldview here. If anyone would, I would be happy to refute it.
That was exactly what I posited. You really are not understanding the argument at all!
>>224
Ok. Go.
>I'll bite. What part of your claim "Intelligibility exists, and since God is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists." states that God is not allowed to have a physical presence?
No part of it.
> Can he only be the necessary precondition for intelligibility if he is entirely immaterial?
God IS immaterial. I would have to see an argument for a physical god being the necessary preconditions for intelligibility in order to evaluate the rationality of such a worldview.
(And if he is entirely immaterial, then what's the deal with Jesus?)
God in His dvine nature is immaterial spirit, but had physical elements in His human nature. Only the eternal nature of God is 'entirely' immaterial.
>That was exactly what I posited. You really are not understanding the argument at all!
No, you positted the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and did not defend how it or its bible is exactly like the God of Christianity, and our Bible.
>> I'll bite. What part of your claim "Intelligibility exists, and since God is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists." states that God is not allowed to have a physical presence?
> No part of it.
Then why did you bother talking about the FSM being physical, if it doesn't matter?
No, don't bother answering that. Just answer >>213 properly.
> No, you positted the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and did not defend how it or its bible is exactly like the God of Christianity, and our Bible.
I said, and I repeat:
I will spell it out for you: If one takes your worldview, and replaces "God" with an equivalent entity who is not the christian god, but has the exact same abilities, is that still a valid argument? If not, why not?
With the additional clarification:
The exact same definition, except he says he's not your christian god, and that your christian god does not exist.
Please try to keep up, and answer >>213 properly. Or just pretend it doesn't exist and answer >>224 instead. Either way.
>Then why did you bother talking about the FSM being physical, if it doesn't matter?
His claim was that his God was exactly the same as the God of Christianity, I pointed out a glaring difference. It had nothing to do with the justification for intelligibility (yet).
Surely you can see the problem with his argument?!? He says his god and his bible are exactly the same as the God of Christianity and our Bible. I asked him to support his claim, which he has not done, and obviously cannot do.
>I will spell it out for you: If one takes your worldview, and replaces "God" with an equivalent entity who is not the christian god, but has the exact same abilities, is that still a valid argument? If not, why not?
I would have to see the claim and the justification for it to answer properly. As far as I know such a worldview does not exist, so the argument is non sequitur. He (or you) was not positting such a god, and as I said, I will glady refute any real worldview which anyone here has which is contrary to the truth of Christianity.
Would you please try to understand that in a logical argument, such as the one I am trying to have with you no matter how hard you try to avoid it, one does not need to honestly believe everything one says in order to have it accepted? You can not dodge a question just because someone does not really believe it. If you want to have a logical argument, please abide by these rules. If you do not want to have a logical argument, please admit that your supposed proof of god is not logically sound and you can not defend it.
>Ok, I base my rationality on the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I totally believe this now, I have seen the errors of my previous ways.
This is what I am refuting. Once you tell me how you account for logic, and the uniformity of nature in your worldview, I will be happy to have a logical discussion with you.
Just because you cannot, you revert back to your old argument.
Should I take this as an admission that you will simply not abide by the normal rules of a logical argument?
I surely will, as soon as you give me the justification for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature, and tell me why anyone SHOULD 'abide by the normal rules of a logical argument,' according to YOUR worldview. Without that, you are just blowing hot air.
While you are at it, why don't you tell me what the "normal rules' of a logical argument are according to your worldview.
I don't think anybody but you will disagree if I here draw the conclusion that you are completely incapable of logically supporting your supposed proof of god, despite being given an incredible amount of time and patience to do so.
Instead, you make up rules of your own that are completely non-sensical to any student of philosophy and logic, and use them to dodge any question that threatens your position. You really seem to have no interest in arguing your case honestly.
In summary, you have completely failed to support your claims. Does anyone disagree, other than "Proofthatgodexists"?
They are the same as everyone else's, except maybe yours. Take my earlier advice and attend some classes in philosophy, or read some decent books on the subject, to find out more. I really do not feel like teaching you basic philosophy here. That really is your job to do before getting into the argument in the first place.
Okay, I've come back to this after a day and I see we've reached the point where you agree that your arguments rests on the Christian God being right and not just any God. This makes logical sense because logic was coming from just any old god, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then anyone could claim to be divinely inspired.
How about this, Proofthatgodexists: Let's forget about silly hypothetical things, because we don't need flying spaghetti monsters to disprove your argument.
I MYSELF know what is moral and what is not, but I do not believe in God.
How is this so? Because my morals come from myself. When I read the Bible, I see Jesus says a lot of smart things, but when I read Buddhist teachings or medieval Muslim expositions I recognize a lot of the same truths.
There are a few responses to this. The first is: "If you know which morals are correct, obviously you didn't come up with this yourself, because these morals came from the Christian God." No. Because the Christian God says things such as "an eye for an eye" and ordered killings of the Jews' enemies back in ancient times, and I don't believe those are moral.
The second, which I think is closer to what you're getting at, is: "Sure, you might think you know what's moral. But if you disagree with the Bible on anything, then you are wrong." How would you expect to argue logically with a Muslim on that point? He would say you're wrong, and you would say he's wrong, and you would resolve nothing.
You think you have divided up your argument into two separate things: first prove that God exists, then prove that the God is the Christian God. But actually you have proven nothing. What you have effectively proven is that "MORALS COME FROM SOMEWHERE," and if atheists say "morals come from the individual," making up silly hypothetical cases about child abuse is just as helpful to your eventual cause of converting us to Christianity as pointing out the immorality of jihad is to a Muslim.
And why is this so? Because while atheists recognize that child abuse is morally abhorrent, this does not conflict at all with our view that morality is determined by the individual and has numerous outside influences. In fact, it's helpful for us, because it allows us to view the judicial system as something that's supposed to remedy problems rather than punish people for disobeying God; and thus, murder is a high crime in agreement with the Ten Commandments, but rape (not mentioned in the Ten Commandments) is just as bad a crime, and adultery (mentioned in the Ten Commandments) is usually not a crime at all because we recognize that it is often its own punishment, and we feel no need to put someone to death for adultery just because God says so. And child abuse, or the Holocaust, are both crimes not because of Jesus or God, but because this is our society and we say so.
In summary, you have completely failed to support your claims. Does anyone disagree, other than "Proofthatgodexists"?
Um, that would be the logical fallacy of an 'argument ad populum.'
Look, I agree that the rules of logic are universal, my question is, and has always been, how do you account for this apart from God?
You cannot. QED.
> I MYSELF know what is moral and what is not, but I do not believe in God.
Of course according to the Christian claim, you know what is moral because God has 'written it on your heart.' If morality were arbitrary, you could not KNOW what was moral, you could only have a moral preference.
>Because the Christian God says things such as "an eye for an eye" and ordered killings of the Jews' enemies back in ancient times, and I don't believe those are moral.
In the progressive revelation in the Bible, the Old Testament Jews were under the 'old covenant,' and under God's direct command for war etc. Under the 'new covenant,' Christ died as the payment for sin, and Christians are commanded to seek peace.
The burden of proof was never on me. You are the one who claims to have a proof of god, and thus it is up to you to justify this. But you have repeatedly shown yourself unwilling to do this, and thus I can only conclude that you are unable to do so.
An argument ad populum would be if I said that you are wrong because most people think you are wrong. This happens to be the case, but I do not think it proves you wrong. I am asking other people's opinions merely to point out to you that you have failed to convince anyone that you are correct. As the burden of proof has always lain on you, failing to convince anyone would count as a failure.
>Because my morals come from myself.
The problem is, so do the morals of murders, rapists, and child molesters. If man is the measure of all things, which man?
>When I read the Bible, I see Jesus says a lot of smart things, but when I read Buddhist teachings or medieval Muslim expositions I recognize a lot of the same truths.
The problem here is that Buddha has zero authority, and the Muslims affirm that the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and the prophets are true, yet refute themselves by countering them in the Qur'an.
Here is another disproof, which you can deal with separately: Should we honor our fathers and mothers, as the Ten Commandments says, or should we hate our fathers and mothers, as Jesus clearly commands (Luke 14:26)? I am not mocking the words of Jesus, but he does say "hate." But obviously the answer is to respect our parents. Why is that? Because these are both subject to interpretation, and Jesus is clearly using hyperbole, whereas the Second Commandment is literal. Here's a Christian source to back me up:
http://www.equip.org/free/JAL014.htm
Proofthatgodexists, notice what this source says:
> How can we tell when a statement is hyperbolic? The test is easy: whenever a statement cannot be literally true in the way or to the degree to which the statement claims, it must be exaggerated.
WHO decides that it's hyperbolic? THE INDIVIDUAL DOES. There is nowhere in the Bible that says "by the way, this is hyperbole so don't actually hate your parents." There are other sources from the first century AD that use "hate" in a similarly hyperbolic sense, but the interpretation of that particular phrase, "hate his own father and mother," is ultimately up to the INDIVIDUAL.
So, here we have a case where Christianity fails us just as much as atheism does for the child abuse thing. But don't say "Christianity is still better because in every case except this one it gives moral guidance." I have disproven your statement for one case, so I have disproven it for every case. Do you see why this is? In this case, the individual has to make a decision. He decides that the Ten Commandments version is the literal truth and Jesus's words are the metaphor, because he is a rational person. How do we define "rational?" NOT in terms of the Bible! The Bible can't tell us which is rational because it uses both "honor" and "hate." Rationality, and morality, lies in the mind of the individual for this case.
Every line in the Bible is yours to interpret. How do you figure out which is right? Oh, you use common sense... and where does common sense come from? Oh, from God... and how do we know what God considers common sense in a sticky situation? Oh, we read the Bible...