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.
>>44-45
unless god is the one who first came up with the idea of causality in the first place and this whole universe only exists in god's imagination...
Then you are pretty much denying the laws of logic.
>>47
your "laws of logic" are baseless assumptions.
Don't argue with me, argue with creator of the site. He's presupposing that they are valid, and I am just arguing under those assumptions.
>>50
Urm, scroll up a few posts?
>>51
where? i don't see any evidence that the creator of that site has heard of 4-ch. i do see one person claiming to be him (>>19 - ID:/8TApbcR), and someone else posting with the same name (>>22,27,33-37 - ID:nkW6Ne55), but that doesn't mean that either of those people is actually him.
Sorry folks, been real busy lately. I'll get to your posts soon.
If you doubt, (or really even care), that it is really me, just send an e-mail through the site to confirm it. (contact@proofthatgodexists.org)
>>52
ID's are calculated from the IP, so they change from time to time for people with dynamic IP's.
Look, the site makes the assumption that you can grasp cosmology with common sense. That's ridiculous on its face, so OP should quit wasting his efforts.
The idea of a "first cause" for the universe or "universal laws" both betray a very naïve view of the physical world. You have to keep in mind that common sense developed to keep us alive in the savannah, not to help us ponder the mysteries of life.
>> 38
> That was about my point. Your "proof" is based pureley on faith. You might as well say "God exists because I told you so", which makes about as much sense.
However, my faith gives an account for the validity of my human reasoning, yours does not.
> Something makeing sense to a lot of people does not make it true, this is a logical fallacy. Cool people with Latin dictionaries call this "argumentum ad populum", appeal to majority. Next time, read posts before responding.
I was not proving the truth of the argument, I was showing the inconsistency of the person deny the universality of mathematics.
> Again, everyday math is an agreement between people to make life easier.
I must have missed the meeting. Thankfully we didn’t agree that 2 + 2 = 5.
> Another example for this is the value of money. People decided at some point in time to agree that paper with certain things printed on it is worth something.
Using your ahem agreed upon laws of mathematics and logic no doubt.
> You're contradicting yourself.
Prove this please.
>> 39
>Oh by the way, please do tell me why >>28 was wrong when he said:
>”I think that molesting children is bad, under pretty much all ciurcumstances (I'll grant that there might exist some highly pathological case where it would be for the greater good, but such a situation is not likely to ever occur in real life). I do not need to invoke any higher authority on this. My own opinion suffices.”
>However, I can easily see that another person would consider it to be right. That does not affect my own position that it is bad
However since your position that it is bad is totally arbitrary, it gives no reason why the molester should not follow his arbitrary morality that molestation is fine. (You also changed the statement to justifiable molestation when I asked if it was absolutely morally wrong to molest children FOR FUN)
>Humans can define their own morals just fine.
Including murderers, rapists, and molesters.
>The how is your position any more tenable than that of a raving lunatic who bases his worldview on voices in his head? How is it any more tenable than believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Neither has a cohesive worldview with a revealed word from God.
>Maths is based on completely arbitary axioms. It is just as true that 2+2 equals something else entirely, if I just pick another set of axioms. The only thing that is special about the 2+2=4 case is that it has use in everday life, and thus those axioms are often used. They are no more true or false than any other, however.
So 2 things plus 2 things could equal 5 things. Alrighty then, if that’s what you want to believe.
>An example: 2+2=1 in the S3 group. Group theory is also useful in everyday life in certain circumstances, and it is just as true.
Is it universally true that in the S3 group 2+2=1?
> Ok. So we assume god cannot create such a rock, is that correct? Because such a rock would be a logical contradiction.
>This means that there are principles God cannot break. Which ones are they, exactly? The laws of logic, it would seem. If the laws of mathematics are based on the laws of logic and the laws of physics on the laws of mathematics, does that mean that God cannot break the laws of physics, either?
This is a very good post. The principles which God cannot break are the ones which are part of His divine nature as revealed to us in His word. I would not say that the laws of physics are based on the laws of mathematics, but that they can be represented in mathematical terms. I would also say that the question of whether or not God ‘breaks’ laws of physics is not clear. Even atheistic scientists posit that the universe once had or can have many more dimensions, if this is the case, God, as the creator of these dimensions could be operating within them in such a way that physical laws are not broken even though they appear that way to us. Nevertheless, I have been working on a change to the site to encorporate this type of question.
>Does this mean that God is limited to the speed of light? If so, how can he be omniscient?
Again, I would posit that the laws of physics are a part of God’s creation, rather than necessarily reflect His character. Even so, the speed of light is not a factor since God is also omnipresent.
>your "laws of logic" are baseless assumptions.
What is the base for your assumption that the laws of logic are baseless assumptions?
>Look, the site makes the assumption that you can grasp cosmology with common sense.
Where?
>The idea of a "first cause" for the universe or "universal laws" both betray a very naïve view of the physical world.
Nowhere do I use the ‘first cause’ argument. I argue that one cannot even make sense of causality if God did not exist.
>You have to keep in mind that common sense developed to keep us alive in the savannah, not to help us ponder the mysteries of life.
Common sense is a myth. Is it common sense that common sense did not develop to help us ponder the mysteries of life?
>I must have missed the meeting.
You did. It happened a few thousand years ago.
>Thankfully we didn’t agree that 2 + 2 = 5.
If we had, then you would be totally going "OH BUT 2+2 CANT BE 4, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!!" on me.
>Prove this please.
I already did in >>38 and I'm not going to repeat myself just because you feel like playing stupid.
Look at the statement above that sentence. Then, look at the statement below that sentence. They say
>Using your ahem agreed upon laws of mathematics and logic no doubt.
Well, yes. Glad you finally understood this.
>However, my faith gives an account for the validity of my human reasoning, yours does not.
So, let me rephrase that: "If you don't believe what I say, what we both say does not make sense, because in that case nothing is provable.". Oh wait, didn't you just say exactly what I was trying to tell you?
By the way, read through >>24 again, and tell me: Which part this can you prove wrong without automatically proving yourself wrong? Since >>24 is only assuming logic, and nothing else, you would have to proove that there are no laws of logic. This leaves you with two possibilities: One, >>24 is right, which makes your arguments invalid. Two, >>24 is wrong, which makes your arguments, which are based on logic, invalid.
> 1. You obviously cannot trust your senses, they fool you all the time (Optical illusions etc...).
> 2. Because of 1), any proof that is based on observation can be doubted.
> 3. The only thing you can prove without observation, only using logic, is that you can doubt everything besides your doubt.
>I was not proving the truth of the argument, I was showing the inconsistency of the person deny the universality of mathematics.
Well, you should better start trying to proove that you are right instead of just repeating the things you said over and over again and playing "I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING", because quite frankly, you're doing an awful job right now. Your posts are 70% bla and 30% content. Just cut the useless stuff, I'm sure you can do better.
And you STILL didn't say anything about >>24's part about morals.
>Including murderers, rapists, and molesters.
Jup, they can. You might not like this, but rapists probably have a whole lot of fun raping people, and . Which does, of course, not mean that I agree to raping, molesting and murdering, since I am neither a rapist, nor a murderer, nor a molester, which brings us to STOP TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO SAY THEY LIKE FUCKING CHILDREN TO DISCREDIT THEM. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL WHO CAN'T BACK HIS SHIT UP ANY OTHER WAY.
>You did. It happened a few thousand years ago.
And your evidence for this would be?….
>If we had, then you would be totally going "OH BUT 2+2 CANT BE 4, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!!" on me.
Put your worldview where your mouth is. According to your worldview adding 2 things to 2 things could have equalled 5 things?!?
>So, let me rephrase that: "If you don't believe what I say, what we both say does not make sense, because in that case nothing is provable." Oh wait, didn't you just say exactly what I was trying to tell you?
Not quite, you could not make sense out of anything you say if my worldview were not true.
>By the way, read through >>24 again, and tell me: Which part this can you prove wrong without automatically proving yourself wrong? Since >>24 is only assuming logic, and nothing else, you would have to proove that there are no laws of logic.
Um no, >>24 is assuming lots of things
> You might not like this, but rapists probably have a whole lot of fun raping people, and . Which does, of course, not mean that I agree to raping, molesting and murdering, since I am neither a rapist, nor a murderer, nor a molester,
Never said you were, but since in your worldview morality is arbitrary there is no ultimate reason one should not rape, murder, or molest.
> Never said you were, but since in your worldview morality is arbitrary there is no ultimate reason one should not rape, murder, or molest.
The need to interact with other people who may not share your morality? Conformity, in essence.
>The need to interact with other people who may not share your morality? Conformity, in essence.
Which is also completely arbitrary.
>And your evidence for this would be?….
It is of the same type as this "His Word" thing you like to talk about.
>That your senses fool you ‘all the time.’
Seen any otical illusion lateley?
>That you can ‘obviously not trust your senses’ because of 1.
>That any proof based on observation can be doubted.
>That the sentence “The only thing you can prove without observation, only using logic, is that you can doubt everything besides your doubt.” is true.
Those are not assumptions, those follow from 1).
>That nature is uniform such that the words >>24 uses to construct his sentences mean the same things they did 5 seconds ago.
See, this is your problem: You are human too. Same goes for your words, so: If >>24 was wrong, you would be wrong too. If >>24 was right, you would still be wrong.
>According to your worldview adding 2 things to 2 things could have equalled 5 things?!?
Yes. I would not understand worlds where this is true, but they could exist.
> It is of the same type as this "His Word" thing you like to talk about.
Hardly. I can show you a Bible, show me your evidence for this
meeting you alledge.
>Seen any otical illusion lateley?
No. Optical, yes, but that is certainly not the same as one’s senses fooling them “all the time.”
>See, this is your problem: You are human too. Same goes for your words, so: If >>24 was wrong, you would be wrong too. If >>24 was right, you would still be wrong.
What you fail to realize is that according to my worldview God has made the universe uniform. I can account for the uniformity of nature, you cannot.
>Yes. I would not understand worlds where this is true, but they could exist.
Speak into the microphone.
>What you fail to realize is that according to my worldview God has made the universe uniform. I can account for the uniformity of nature, you cannot.
So: If you can proove that god exists, then he exists.
If you cannot proove that god exists, then he does not exist.
Therefore, god must exist?
That's rather weak. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the name of every single mistake you make, just google it)
>>The need to interact with other people who may not share your morality Conformity, in essence.
> Which is also completely arbitrary.
Really? I think social interaction with our own kind of one of the few things we can't deny, unless you're some sort of solipsist.
> Hardly. I can show you a Bible, show me your evidence for this
meeting you alledge.
I can write a book (or, alternately, liberally translate a 6,000 year old Sumerian text) that says it did. This carries about as much weight as evidence in a epistemological argument as the Bible does.
>Really? I think social interaction with our own kind of one of the few things we can't deny, unless you're some sort of solipsist.
I would say molesting children for fun, being absolutely morally wrong, is something we can't deny. But why should we care what each other thinks if morality is arbitrary?
> I can write a book (or, alternately, liberally translate a 6,000 year old Sumerian text) that says it did. This carries about as much weight as evidence in a epistemological argument as the Bible does.
I never asked what you could do, I asked for your evidence now. We will wait to compare until you produce it.
>I never asked what you could do, I asked for your evidence now. We will wait to compare until you produce it.
I, as in >>66, actually meant that like >>70 understood it, but well, if you feel like it you can look up the history of mathematics in any encyclopedia that is worth it's money. IIRC the earliest people started counting was about 70.000 BC, a little while before we used tools. This is shown by scratches which archeologists have discovered on the walls of the Blombos cave.
>No. Optical, yes, but that is certainly not the same as one’s senses fooling them “all the time.”
You serious? Alriiight, If you really want to play dumb, because quite frankly, I think you already know all this:
There, one for each sense.
>Speak into the microphone.
Me are and you is smart, also known as: Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker, so I don't understand what this means, but I guess this is some kind of sarcastic remark. Anyways, I guess that's basically admitting that I was right.
You said that the laws of mathematics were ‘agreed upon.’ I said ‘I must have missed the meeting.’ You said “you did, it happened a few thousand years ago.” I asked for your evidence of this meeting and you refer me to a book, which you have faith in, which says people started counting a long time ago. Thing is, I never asked that, I asked for your evidence about the meeting where the laws of mathematics were agreed upon.” Still waiting for that (not holding my breath though).
>You serious? Alriiight, If you really want to play dumb, because quite frankly, I think you already know all this:
Maybe you should read your posts, and my answers before you respond. I said that I have seen ‘Optical’ illusions, not this ‘otical’ illusion you referred to. I also said that the claim was that our senses deceive us ‘ALL THE TIME,’ is not proven by a few optical illusions. Surely you are not saying that EVERYTHING is an optical illusion?!?
>Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker, so I don't understand what this means
It means, if you want to say that 2 things plus 2 things could equal 5 things, that I want you to say it so everyone can hear. A ‘microphone’ is used to amplify one’s voice.
>I asked for your evidence of this meeting and you refer me to a book
Counting is the most basic form of mathematics. And I did not mean a literal meeting, obviously.
>ALL THE TIME,’ is not proven by a few optical illusions. Surely you are not saying that EVERYTHING is an optical illusion?!?
Everything might very well be an illusion - to prove that something is not an illusion, to prove that your senses do not lie, you would have to use your senses. Which is, again, circular reasoning.
>It means, if you want to say that 2 things plus 2 things could equal 5 things, that I want you to say it so everyone can hear. A ‘microphone’ is used to amplify one’s voice.
Like, in front of a lot of people I know? Already did, we even talked a lot about this, and they agree that there might very well be worlds where this is true.
>I said that I have seen ‘Optical’ illusions, not this ‘otical’ illusion you referred to.
It is said that when you have someone down to typo flaming, then you have basically won.
Hey, if you want to jump on his argument's bandwagon, be my guest :-)
> I would say molesting children for fun, being absolutely morally wrong, is something we can't deny. But why should we care what each other thinks if morality is arbitrary?
You were just told why. Morality is not arbitrary, but only because social interaction gives it meaning.
As for your requests for hard evidence on the math matter, the earliest that exists is probably http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/mathhist/plimpnote.html - the problem is that the development of arithmatic precedes that of writing, thus there can be no record of it. (Actually, the development of writing was very much driven by the need to do complex calculations.)
>Like, in front of a lot of people I know? Already did, we even talked a lot about this, and they agree that there might very well be worlds where this is true.
So 4 might = 5 in this universe, at the same time and in the same way. 'nuff said. And you even had people agreeing with you. Wow, what lengths you people will go to to run from God.
> You were just told why. Morality is not arbitrary, but only because social interaction gives it meaning.
So if it's not arbitrary, it's absolute right? So whose social interaction makes it absolute? (Try and give a non-arbitrary example).
> the problem is that the development of arithmatic precedes that of writing, thus there can be no record of it.
So the evidence is that there can be no evidence, where have I heard this before... oh ya 'Punctuated Equilibrium.' Good answer!
>>Humans can define their own morals just fine.
> Including murderers, rapists, and molesters.
Yes. So? Are you so weak in your convictions that you need to appeal to an authority, lest your own stance be weakened simply because someone else holds an opposing view? Are you incapable of forming your own convictions and supporting them against others?
> Neither has a cohesive worldview with a revealed word from God.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster people have just as much of one as the christians have.
> So 2 things plus 2 things could equal 5 things. Alrighty then, if that’s what you want to believe.
Mathematics is not about "things". Mathematics is about axioms and logical deductions.
> Is it universally true that in the S3 group 2+2=1?
The axioms of the S3 group imply 2+2=1. This fact has no meaning outside of those axioms, and those axioms are arbitary, and can be considered neither "true" nor "false".
> Again, I would posit that the laws of physics are a part of God’s creation, rather than necessarily reflect His character. Even so, the speed of light is not a factor since God is also omnipresent.
You do not seem to understand fully the implications of relativity. The speed of light is not simply an arbitary speed limit. The universe is of such shape, for lack of a better word, that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Doing so would violate causality. If god could observe an event at one location, and the act on it at another, and the two points in space-time were separated in such a way that information would have to travel between them at a speed faster than that of light, this would create a paradox, where causality is broken. Causality is a basic law of logic. Can God break causality?
> Um no, >>24 is assuming lots of things
> 1. That your senses fool you ‘all the time.’
Are you saying that god cannot fool your senses all the time? He is omnipotent, isn't he?
> Never said you were, but since in your worldview morality is arbitrary there is no ultimate reason one should not rape, murder, or molest.
Why do you need an "ultimate reason"? Why is your personal conviction not strong enough on its own to support your morals?
> So whose social interaction makes it absolute?
I'm sorry, I don't think that arbitrary and absolute are like black and white. By "not arbitrary" perhaps I should have said "slightly less arbitrary."
> Try and give a non-arbitrary example.
It's quite concrete if someone is arrested and imprisoned for molesting children. The laws used to justify the imprisonment may be arbitrary, but the consequences of those laws are not. The threat of imprisonment will dissuade most people from molesting children and make them reluctant to associate with those who do, much like this supposed morality.
>Yes. So? Are you so weak in your convictions that you need to appeal to an authority, lest your own stance be weakened simply because someone else holds an opposing view? Are you incapable of forming your own convictions and supporting them against others?
I like telling the truth. I like being able to say that torturing babies for fun is absolutely wrong, unlike you folks who have to contort your minds around the idea that it could be right.
>The Flying Spaghetti Monster people have just as much of one as the christians have.
Prove this please, then tell me if you believe it.
>Mathematics is not about "things". Mathematics is about axioms and logical deductions.
So when you add physical things, its not about math?!? The microphone is now yours.
>Causality is a basic law of logic.
This is getting better all the time. Prove this please, then tell me how you account for the laws of logic.
>Are you saying that god cannot fool your senses all the time? He is omnipotent, isn't he?
What God can do, and what He does do, as revealed in His Word, are two different things, but what does that have to do with >>24 's point that your senses fool you "all the time?"
Do you believe this?
>Why do you need an "ultimate reason"? Why is your personal conviction not strong enough on its own to support your morals?
Because if morality is arbitrary, the 'personal conviction' of the child molester carries just as much weight. Tell me, is torturing babies for fun absolutely wrong?
>I'm sorry, I don't think that arbitrary and absolute are like black and white. By "not arbitrary" perhaps I should have said "slightly less arbitrary."
Whose social interactions make it “slightly less arbitrary?” (Try and give a non-arbitrary example)
>It's quite concrete if someone is arrested and imprisoned for molesting children. The laws used to justify the imprisonment may be arbitrary, but the consequences of those laws are not.
That's why they all receive the same sentence right? Why should someone not molest children if they can get away with it, don't care if they get caught, or don't care what society thinks about them?
>The threat of imprisonment will dissuade most people from molesting children
Most non-child molesters you mean. Doesn't seem to stop the people who think child molestation is right.
I'm still waiting for your response. You had an awful lot of time to do so, and you responded to a different part of my post, so you obviously read it. I'll re-post it for you:
>ALL THE TIME,’ is not proven by a few optical illusions. Surely you are not saying that EVERYTHING is an optical illusion?!?
Everything might very well be an illusion - to prove that something is not an illusion, to prove that your senses do not lie, you would have to use your senses. Which is, again, circular reasoning.
>Prove this please, then tell me if you believe it.
It is written in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that he created the World. This is obviously true, since it is written in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which was given to us by His Noodly Goodness. All people who do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are just decieving themselves - because without his Noodly Goodness, it would not be possible for them to proove anything anyways!
Sounds ridiculous? Guess what, so do you.
> I like telling the truth. I like being able to say that torturing babies for fun is absolutely wrong, unlike you folks who have to contort your minds around the idea that it could be right.
So you agree that your beliefs are not strong enough to support themselves without appeal to authority? You can not argue the issue on its own merits, you have to invoke god?
> Because if morality is arbitrary, the 'personal conviction' of the child molester carries just as much weight.
And why do the convictions of a madman worry you so much? Neither he nor you exists in a vaccuum. You both live in society, and society gives weight to morals. Do you somehow think that a child molester's view of morality will affect society more than yours?
I think you are getting confused by this: Without absolute morals, there can be no morals that relate only to a single person. All morals have to be thought of in terms of interactions between people. I know how much christians love to apply morals to actions by individuals that affect nobody but themselves, so I can see why this worries you.
>> The Flying Spaghetti Monster people have just as much of one as the christians have.
> Prove this please, then tell me if you believe it.
Prove that you have one, and show where it is different from the FSM argument. Of course I don't believe their argument - the whole point of their argument is that theirs is exactly as absurd as the christians'.
>> Mathematics is not about "things". Mathematics is about axioms and logical deductions.
> So when you add physical things, its not about math?!? The microphone is now yours.
When you add physical things, you are applying maths that happen to correspond to what you are doing. The maths themselves exist independently of the physical objects you are adding, however.
This is one of the great achievements of modern mathematics - to disconnect the whole field from its physical origins, and letting it stand on its own legs completely independently of any particular physical model. Please read up on the history of mathematics to learn more about this
>> Causality is a basic law of logic.
> This is getting better all the time. Prove this please, then tell me how you account for the laws of logic.
You're the one who is presupposing the laws of logic, are you not? I am merely following your lead here, arguing within your own framework of assumptions. Are you now questioning your own assumptions?
>> Are you saying that god cannot fool your senses all the time? He is omnipotent, isn't he?
> What God can do, and what He does do, as revealed in His Word, are two different things, but what does that have to do with >>24 's point that your senses fool you "all the time?"
> Do you believe this?
First, you are assuming his word does not lie. You have not presented any convincing argument why this would be so. Remember, you are the one trying to make a logical argument, and thus "I believe" is not an acceptable argument.
Second, of course I believe this. I am a physicist, and I know very well that even the everyday world is extremely different from what our senses preceive. Our senses are limited, and our mental capacity as well, and thus input from our senses is an extremely heavily filtered version of what actually goes on in the world around us. It serves its purpose for everyday activities, but to think that it is an accurate representation of reality is extremely naïve.
And third, that was not even >>24's point. I'll restate his claim in a way you may find easier to follow: "Our senses often deceive us. This is well known and well documented. Therefore, we know our senses are imperfect. Thus, we cannot trust our senses, and the possibility exists that our senses deceive us even more than we realize."
We may not know of any process by which our senses would deceive us completely, but neither do we have any guarantee that they do not, nor can we find one because we would have to use our senses to do that. I'll add that while "we", as perfectly logical philosophers, may not know of a process, you do: You have an omnipotent god who could easily do so.
>Everything might very well be an illusion - to prove that something is not an illusion, to prove that your senses do not lie, you would have to use your senses. Which is, again, circular reasoning.
This is YOUR problem, not mine. I can rely on my senses to know things, as I know that my senses are a reliable gift from God, you cannot rely on yours for the reasons you state. Tell me, how is it possible for YOU to know anything?
You never told me whether you belived this or not. If not, how do you account for universal, abstract, invariant laws in your worldview? How do you account for the uniformity of nature? How do you even know that your human reasoning is valid?
>not mine
Yes it is. You can not trust your senses, because there is no God.
What? If you can presuppose that there is a God, then I can presuppose that there in none. That's just fair, or not?
>whether you belived this or not.
Well, of course I believe it, and I can not understand how you cannot, when you have been shown perfectly valid proof of his Noodly Goodness!
>How do you account for the uniformity of nature?
Because we have been given those by His Noodly Goodness, of course!
>So you agree that your beliefs are not strong enough to support themselves without appeal to authority? You can not argue the issue on its own merits, you have to invoke god?
If morality is arbitrary, what does it matter how strong anyone's beliefs are? If the child molester's belief that molesting children is right, is stronger than your belief that it is wrong, does that make it right???
>And why do the convictions of a madman worry you so much? Neither he nor you exists in a vaccuum. You both live in society, and society gives weight to morals. Do you somehow think that a child molester's view of morality will affect society more than yours?
So which society determines which morals are right? The Nazi German society? (Note: this is where you invoke the "World consensus society.")(Glad to help)
>I think you are getting confused by this: Without absolute morals, there can be no morals that relate only to a single person. All morals have to be thought of in terms of interactions between people. I know how much christians love to apply morals to actions by individuals that affect nobody but themselves, so I can see why this worries you.
Hey, you are the one who believes that torturing babies for fun could be right. (By the way, you beg the question when you state that an individuals actions affect nobody but themselves.)
>Tell me, how is it possible for YOU to know anything?
By your logic, "Because I said so" is a perfectly valid answer to this.
See:
If I didn't say so, I couldn't know anything.
I said so.
Therefore, I can know things.
Same argumentation with "me" instead of god.
>The Nazi German society?
Godwin.
> Yes it is. You can not trust your senses, because there is no God.
Prove this please.
>What? If you can presuppose that there is a God, then I can presuppose that there in none. That's just fair, or not?
Indeed, this is my very point. You presuppose that there is no God, and therefore lose the preconditions for intelligibility. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invriant laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature apart from God?
>Well, of course I believe it, and I can not understand how you cannot, when you have been shown perfectly valid proof of his Noodly Goodness!
As long as you, and everyone else who reads this thread, sees to what length you will go to to deny the existence of God, speak up mister. This just shows that you are out of arguments for positing logic and science apart from God.
>Same argumentation with "me" instead of god.
Hardly, unless you are now claiming omniscience. (Which I fully expect you to do to escape my argument).
>Prove this please.
I already did, presupposing that there is no God.
>You presuppose that there is no God, and therefore lose the preconditions for intelligibility. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invriant laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature apart from God?
Easy answer: I don't. Why would I need to? If they don't exist, I don't even need to proove that prooving God is not possible, since then it's impossible anyways. If they do exist, as you presuppose, then my argumentation is perfectly valid.
>>98
As long as you, and everyone else who reads this thread, sees to what length you will go to to deny the existence of His Noodly Goodness, speak up mister. This just shows that you are out of arguments for positing logic and science apart from His Noodly Goodness.
>unless you are now claiming omniscience.
What for? Tell me please, why would I need omniscience to simply say that I'm right?
> I already did, presupposing that there is no God.
Your presupposition is not proof, neither is mine. My proof is that without my presupposition one loses the preconditions for intelligibility.
> Easy answer: I don't. Why would I need to? If they don't exist, I don't even need to proove that prooving God is not possible, since then it's impossible anyways. If they do exist, as you presuppose, then my argumentation is perfectly valid.
If the law of non-contradcition does not exist, then it does.
That is what your worldview leads to. Your inconsistency is showing.
>>98
Your probably don't understand this, so here's a little explanation: The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a mock religion, which was designed to be just like Christianity, just with some completeley ridiculous stuff worked in. Basically, any of you arguments can be used for prooving that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, just by replacing a few word here and there. It was designed to show just how ridiculous things like "Intelligent Design" and presuppositional apologetics are.
>What for? Tell me please, why would I need omniscience to simply say that I'm right?
You don't need it to SAY that you are right, lots of people (child molesters, rapists, murderers) SAY that they are right, you need omniscience to KNOW that you are right.
>preconditions for intelligibility
Then please prove to me, without invoking the "God said so" argument, this intelligibility you speak of.
>If the law of non-contradcition does not exist, then it does.
Are you beginning to understand that this world might just not be as simple as you'd like it to be?
So now you don't believe it? Yet another inconsistency! How do you account for the uniformity of nature and the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic again?
>You don't need it to SAY that you are right, lots of people (child molesters, rapists, murderers) SAY that they are right, you need omniscience to KNOW that you are right.
And you have this omniscience you are talking of, and because of this, you know that there is a god, which you can pressupose to explain that you are correct.
>>107
Not same person?
>Then please prove to me, without invoking the "God said so" argument, this intelligibility you speak of.
God is the precondition for intelligibility, you cannot argue for it without Him.
>Are you beginning to understand that this world might just not be as simple as you'd like it to be?
Alright, this should wrap things up nicely...Does the law of non-contradiction apply to our arguments? (A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice).
>And you have this omniscience you are talking of, and because of this, you know that there is a god, which you can pressupose to explain that you are correct.
No, I can appeal to God, who is omniscient, for knowledge.
How can YOU know anything?
>God is the precondition for intelligibility, you cannot argue for it without Him.
Circular reasoning again, no proof - please try again.
>Alright, this should wrap things up nicely...Does the law of non-contradiction apply to our arguments? (A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice).
It does, since you are presupposing it. If you pressupose it, then I can use it.
>How can YOU know anything?
I cannot, and neither can you, because there is no God.
>God
Proove his existence to me, please. As long as you haven't, you cannot use him as precondition.
>Circular reasoning again, no proof - please try again.
All worldviews are necessarily circular, but not all are (read only one is) valid.
For instance, your ultimate authority is likely your own human reasoning, prove its validity without using human reasoning.
>It does, since you are presupposing it. If you pressupose it, then I can use it.
Exactly my point, you must borrow from MY worldview in order to maintain the law of non-contradiction. Thank you.
>Exactly my point, you must borrow from MY worldview in order to maintain the law of non-contradiction. Thank you.
So, let me get this straight: If I borrow from your worldview, then it can be proven that your worldview cannot be proven. If I don't, then your worldview can not be proven. Sound like a big fat "Invalid" to me.
>All worldviews are necessarily circular, but not all are (read only one is) valid.
You are denying the validity of ALL arguments, including your own? Which would mean that, you know, you cannot proove that you are right?
> I cannot, and neither can you, because there is no God.
Ha, do you know that you and I cannot know anything, and do you know that there is no God?
If you do, then you refute yourself, if you don't then why should I care what you think?
>You are denying the validity of ALL arguments, including your own? Which would mean that, you know, you cannot proove that you are right?
I deny the validity of your argument, not mine, as I can account for the validity of my human reasoning. How is it that you know your human reasoning is valid again, you conveniently neglected to answer that part.
Or are you the same person who can't know anything?
>why should I care what you think?
Same goes for you. I still have not seen proof that your god exists which does not presuppose god, thereby denying logic.
>Same goes for you. I still have not seen proof that your god exists which does not presuppose god, thereby denying logic.
If you keep skipping my questions, I will no longer respond to you. Do you know that you and I cannot know anything, and do you know that there is no God?
>I deny the validity of your argument, not mine, as I can account for the validity of my human reasoning.
See: By your argumentation "God exists because god exists" is a valid argument. So, in your worldview, all arguments of the type "A, therefore A" would have to be valid. That is pretty much denying that logic exists.
That is what I would call inconsistency.
>How is it that you know your human reasoning is valid again, you conveniently neglected to answer that part.
I don't, and I don't need to, because you oh so happen to be human, too.
>Do you know that you and I cannot know anything, and do you know that there is no God?
I will answer that question after you have proven to me that god exists. Deal?
>See: By your argumentation "God exists because god exists" is a valid argument. So, in your worldview, all arguments of the type "A, therefore A" would have to be valid. That is pretty much denying that logic exists.
That is what I would call inconsistency.
No, the argument is 'Intelligibility exists, and since God is the necessary predondition for intelligibility, He exists.'
You of course can, and do deny intelligibility, yet you are here trying to argue intelligently. Go figure.
> I will answer that question after you have proven to me that god exists. Deal?
You can't prove anything to someone who can't know anything. Since you seek proof of something, you refute yourself.
You assume:
So:
A needs B
suppose A
Therefore, B!
>You can't prove anything to someone who can't know anything.
So, you can't prove nothing to me? I'm shocked.
> If morality is arbitrary, what does it matter how strong anyone's beliefs are? If the child molester's belief that molesting children is right, is stronger than your belief that it is wrong, does that make it right???
Because if there are no absolute morals, you have to actually convince people that your choice of morals is correct.
> So which society determines which morals are right?
The one you live in, and that can affect you? That's pretty obvious. If you disagree with it, you work to change it.
> (Note: this is where you invoke the "World consensus society.")(Glad to help)
Maybe you should save your gloating over the idiotic statements of your opponent until such a time that they actually make them.
> Hey, you are the one who believes that torturing babies for fun could be right.
No, I do not believe that, because I believe that even if morals are arbitary and decided by society, I also believe in the basic decency of man, and I can be fairly certain that no society would think this.
Also, you are ignoring >>89, but then again, you are showing yourself as very incapable of forming logical arguments already, and in other discussions here you seem to be incapable of understanding the arguments anyway.
Please, before attempting to construct a logical proof of god, first learn how logical proofs work. You are throwing fallacies left and right, and making non-sensical arguments.
It is fine if you want to believe in god, but give up on this idea of proving him logically. You are obviously incapable of doing so.
>Please, before attempting to construct a logical proof of god, first learn how logical proofs work. You are throwing fallacies left and right, and making non-sensical arguments.
>It is fine if you want to believe in god, but give up on this idea of proving him logically. You are obviously incapable of doing so.
You obviously believe that the laws of logic exist, how do you account for them in your worldview? Borrowing logic from MY worldview, to argue against MY worldview hardly makes sense now does it?
>Because if there are no absolute morals, you have to actually convince people that your choice of morals is correct.
Bingo. What is a 'correct' moral? (You'll get to the 'world consensus' soon enough, trust me).
>I also believe in the basic decency of man
What is 'decency' if morality is arbitrary?
>The one you live in, and that can affect you? That's pretty obvious. If you disagree with it, you work to change it.
Just out of curiosity, do you believe that your thoughts are mere by-products of the electro-chemical reactions of your evolved brain? If so, aren't your thoughts determined by these reactions? If so, how can you change your thoughts or other's thoughts?
> You obviously believe that the laws of logic exist, how do you account for them in your worldview? Borrowing logic from MY worldview, to argue against MY worldview hardly makes sense now does it?
This is how a logical argument works! The very fact that you somehow think there is something strange about this only shows how unfamiliar you are with the whole field! This is why I am requesting you actually try and learn something about it. Take some classes in philosophy and logic, or at the very least read some books on the subject.
A logical argument consists of a set of assumptions, and a set of derivations from these assumptions. To refute such an argument, you do or more of:
You seem to think that only the first is valid, which is entirely untrue. We have been mostly arguing using the last two.
>> Because if there are no absolute morals, you have to actually convince people that your choice of morals is correct.
> Bingo. What is a 'correct' moral? (You'll get to the 'world consensus' soon enough, trust me).
"Correct" is bad choice of words. Substitute "useful", or "appealing", or whatever.
>> I also believe in the basic decency of man
> What is 'decency' if morality is arbitrary?
No definition is needed, as none of my arguments are based on it. It is an entirely subjective term. You stated "Hey, you are the one who believes that torturing babies for fun could be right", and I said that I, personally, do no such thing.
> Just out of curiosity, do you believe that your thoughts are mere by-products of the electro-chemical reactions of your evolved brain? If so, aren't your thoughts determined by these reactions? If so, how can you change your thoughts or other's thoughts?
I believe the question is as yet unanswered, but since it appears that I and everyone else have free will, I will continue to act on that assumption unless convinced otherwise.
How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic in your worldview? (It's that light green question at the beginning of your post).
It's no use talking about them if you can't account for them.
I take it that you are not one of the people here who say that they cannot know anything then? If so, how is it possible to know anything according to your worldview?
If we were discussing a theory put forward by me, that would be relevant. We are not. We are discussing a theory put forward by you, and you are presupposing they hold, and I am merely arguing within that framework. Re-read what I just said in >>132, as it obviously did not register the first time.
I believe the question is as yet unanswered, but since it appears that I and everyone else have free will, I will continue to act on that assumption unless convinced otherwise.
Ha! How could you be convinced that your assumption was wrong?!? If your assumption is wrong, your thoughts are determined and you could not be convinced of anything!
What model of evolution accounts for non-determined thoughts? Or do you have faith that one will yet be found?
> Ha! How could you be convinced that your assumption was wrong?!? If your assumption is wrong, your thoughts are determined and you could not be convinced of anything!
This argument makes no sense. Even if my thoughts are perfectly pre-determined, what is to stop one of those pre-determined thoughts from being one where I think the world is pre-determined? More importantly, how would it strengthen your argument?
> If we were discussing a theory put forward by me, that would be relevant. We are not. We are discussing a theory put forward by you, and you are presupposing they hold, and I am merely arguing within that framework. Re-read what I just said in >>132, as it obviously did not register the first time.
You talk about logic as though you believe it to exist, yet you fail to account for it. Are the laws of logic, universal, abstract and invariant according to your worldview? If so, for the third time, how do you account for the laws of logic in your worldview? Ducking the question will not make it go away.
My worldview is irrelevant. We are discussing your worldview.
>This argument makes no sense. Even if my thoughts are perfectly pre-determined, what is to stop one of those pre-determined thoughts from being one where I think the world is pre-determined?
Nothing, but my question was, how could you be CONVINCED that your assumption was wrong and that your thoughts are in fact pre-determined? To be CONVINCED of anything is contrary to pre-determination.
Again, what model of evolution accounts for non-determined thoughts? Or do you have faith that one will yet be found?
> To be CONVINCED of anything is contrary to pre-determination.
Unsupported claim, and also completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
> Again, what model of evolution accounts for non-determined thoughts? Or do you have faith that one will yet be found?
Non-sequitor question, completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Evolution makes not a single claim about pre-determination or thoughts of any kind, nor really anything else that has been discussed so far.
Please stick to the subject.
>My worldview is irrelevant. We are discussing your worldview.
You are evaluating my worldview from within your worldview, which makes your worldview relevant. If you do not believe in logic, the uniformity of nature, or knowledge, then arguing with me shows that your worldview is inconsistent.
>Unsupported claim, and also completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Do you believe that a person whose thoughts are pre-determined can be convinced of anything? (or are you going to duck this question too?)
>Non-sequitor question, completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Evolution makes not a single claim about pre-determination or thoughts of any kind, nor really anything else that has been discussed so far.
So, you have no idea what thoughts are?!? You have faith that you have free will, with nothing to back up this notion. I understand why you don't want to discuss YOUR worldview.
> You are evaluating my worldview from within your worldview
No, in a logical argument the facts are all that count. The person making the claim is completely irrelevant. Arguing any different is an ad hominem fallacy.
This is why I would request you actually learn logic before trying to use it. If I have to keep explaining the basics of logic to you every other post, we will never get anywhere, especially when you don't seem to feel like accepting any of them.
I'll just leave this discussion here, with the following summary:
If you want to make a logical argument for the existence of god, you first have to learn logic, and apply it correctly.
When you have, feel free to come back for a second round. I really do mean it - go study logic and philosophy. There is much you can learn, and learning it will serve you well. Then maybe we can argue on equal ground. I would enjoy it.
