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.
Lowly peons! Bow before Santa Claus, the One and Only Worldview(tm).
PS. 466GET!
WOW! An imposter poster! I wish I could say it was the sincerest form of flattery.
I was reading the book of John today, and I was struck by how much Jesus sounds like Mr. Proofthatgodexists in his monologues. It's just pages upon pages of
> Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
This is actually backed up by my religion professor: Jesus = Logos = Law, so if you believe in the law you must necessarily accept Jesus. This could explain why it is difficult to argue with Mr. Proofthatgodexists. Which is an acceptable way to evangelize Christianity in my opinion, but it's not a logical proof that God exists.
>>467
Don't worry, most people here are able to easily figure out who is actually you.
Hey wait a minute, weren't you the one who said logic was in your head?
Anyhow, from what I understand about the quoted passage is that Jewish law required that a witness testify to the truthfulness of a person's testimony, in order for it to be considered valid. As I understand it, what Jesus was saying was that God, His heavenly Father was His witness. You can see how statements like this angered the Jews, they ended up killing Him after all. I do not understand how anyone can read the Gospel of John, and not see who Jesus was claiming to be. The Jews certainly did. The idea that Jesus was a only a 'good moral teacher' does not comport with the incredible claims He made. As C.S. Lewis says, Jesus was either liar, lunatic, or Lord, there is no room for 'good moral teacher.'
>This could explain why it is difficult to argue with Mr. Proofthatgodexists.
If you believe that logic is only in your head, then it would be difficult to argue with ANYONE.
Here's a question for you:
If god is the source of the laws of logic, why do you claim he is bound by them?
I have never claimed that God is bound by the laws of logic. The laws of logic are a part of God's unchanging character.
God cannot be illogical, because that is not God.
Mere semantics. For all intents and purposes he's bound by them, if he can't disobey them. And if he's not above them, it's hard to see how he could have created them.
Again, God did not create the laws of logic, they are a part of His eternal unchanging character.
>>474
And god was just, y'know, there?
>God did not create the laws of logic
Then Logic created God.
Spock created Logic. Logic created God. God created man...
??? Profit.
So once again, instead of assuming the existence of the laws of logic, you assume the existence of god and thus the laws of logic.
You have still not given a convincing reason why the one is better than the other.
>Assuming God accounts for logic, assuming logic accounts for nothing.
hint: quantum theory
hint: Ha
Well, once again your use of "accounts" is meaningless, but I'll ignore that, because you are still completely wrong:
You say logic is part of god. Thus, by assuming god, you assume logic, because it is part of the thing you are assuming as a whole. There is no "accounting" at all, there is no implication, you are quite simply assuming "logic, and also the other parts that make up god".
If I assume just logic, my assumption is smaller than yours, and generally in logic, this is preferred.
"Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed."
~ Paul Manata
And? Even if you somehow twisted that into an argument for your side, you're still presupposing logic is true in pretty much exactly the same way as anyone else, and thus you can't make any claims to the higher ground of "I can explain logic, you can't!", because your assumption is equivalent to theirs.
Your basic argument does not hold.
I find myself on much firmer philosophical footing assuming that an eternal God exists, and is the source of universal, invariant, abstract laws, the uniformity of nature, the origin of matter, life, sentience, and intellignce, then assuming that universal, abstract, invariant laws have always existed and have no explanation for the existence of matter, life, sentience, or intelligence. In fact atheistic worldviews betray the very assumption that the universe has invariant, or abstract properties. You have yet to come out with a worldview in which your assumption is believed, let alone explained.
I know why you avoid explaining what your worldview is, but your reluctance is rather tiresome.
But he is not the "source" of those laws. You said so yourself - "God did not create the laws of logic, they are a part of His eternal unchanging character". They are part of him, and you have to assume their existence when you assume his existence.
You are "assuming that universal, abstract, invariant laws have always existed" exactly in the same way that I am, when you assume that god has always existed.
Again you artfully dodge explaining how universal, abstract, invariant eternal laws, and the uniformity of nature comport with your worldview.
Yes, God is the source of these laws, and He did not create them, as they are a part of His nature. Again, assuming a God with these logical traits makes sense to me, assuming immaterial, universal, invariant, laws existing on their own forever, makes no sense to me, and explains nothing.
Fact is, according to my worldview, we both know that God exists. Your failure to explain your own worldview and how universal, abstract, invariant laws, and the uniformity of nature comport with it are completely in line with Biblical teachings about your relationship with God. You don't even have to show your worldview, it is woefully apparent.
still going on, huh?
at this rate, there'll be 1000 get in 25, 26 days
>>488 And nothing of value was said yet!
It's like a Jehovah Witness.
> Again you artfully dodge explaining how universal, abstract, invariant eternal laws, and the uniformity of nature comport with your worldview.
I've told you several times now - I merely assume they exist, just like you do, even though you try to dress it up as something else.
I'll remind you, though, that I am not the person here claiming that my worldview is better than everyone else's. I am merely claiming that yours is not as solid as you think it is. That's the difference you do not seem to grasp: You say I am wrong because I do not believe what you do. I say you are wrong because you believe what you do.
> Again, assuming a God with these logical traits makes sense to me, assuming immaterial, universal, invariant, laws existing on their own forever, makes no sense to me, and explains nothing.
In other words, you have no justifications for your assumption other than the fact that you like it. I should point out that most christians I know would agree with me here - they take god on faith, and do not feel the need to build elaborate logical frameworks around him to justify him to themselves or anybody else.
>>489, quite right, although I did post here as well, and quite sensible posts as well. yare yare... but what do you get? everybody stuck in their own little fight against one educated fool. A good whose value isn't recognised has no value at all (right now.)
These sharpminded (hmm wait..) quarrels have existed for so long. Above conversation could be held between a delegation of Greek citizens and one of pharisees (lets make them both freshman apprentices, for fair comparison) in the years after Jesus' ascenscion.
Yo, proofthatgodexists, would you recognize Jesus if he stood in front of you? so many educated, logical pharisees couldn't! Kind of pointless to know that God exists if you can't recognize Him!
>I've told you several times now - I merely assume they exist, just like you do, even though you try to dress it up as something else.
Where'd they come from according to your worldview?
>I should point out that most christians I know would agree with me here - they take god on faith,
Again with the Ad populum fallacy. Many Christians get it wrong too. You are forgetting that you are the one who accepts the validity of your human reason, not to mention universal, abstract, invariant laws, and the uniformity of nature on BLIND FAITH. Sure Christians have faith, but our faith accounts for the things your faith cannot.
> Hey wait a minute, weren't you the one who said logic was in your head?
I don't think you understand what I mean by that. What I mean is that there is no ethereal sphere, outside of my head, where things such as logic and morality exist. That doesn't mean that I believe the laws of logic are subject to change.
>> I've told you several times now - I merely assume they exist, just like you do, even though you try to dress it up as something else.
> Where'd they come from according to your worldview?
Where did god come from according to your worldview? How do you "account" for your god?
> Again with the Ad populum fallacy.
That was a statement about faith, not logic. I never suggested they were right, just that this is the common mode of belief.
> You are forgetting that you are the one who accepts the validity of your human reason, not to mention universal, abstract, invariant laws, and the uniformity of nature on BLIND FAITH.
How exactly am I forgetting that?
>Sure Christians have faith, but our faith accounts for the things your faith cannot.
>>492 my faith is bigger than your faith!
uhuh, uhuh, uhuhuhu, hahahahaha haa snort hrm
OMG this is just liberal propaganda. The're trying to prove the existance of god with facts when ever body know that the only way to worship is to follow blindly and never question your faith
>OMG this is just liberal propaganda.
HA! You could not be further from the truth. But then again, truth likely does not comport with your worldview.
>>496 Uh, no. My dictionary says that Liberal means "One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters."
But I agree with the propaganda bit. Christianity was the tool used to bring down Rome.
Unless you mean Liberal as an anti-Rome Slavery movement?
"Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people."
I'm not trying to do either here. That ain't up to me.
Oops, that was me again :-)
> Sure Christians have faith, but our faith accounts for the things your faith cannot.
How can faith fail to account for anything? The definition of faith I believe we are bandying about here is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." As faith inherently has no basis outside of one's personal beliefs and convictions, if any faith is sufficient to account for anything, then all of it is. Or what basis will you determine which faiths are true and which faiths are not?
If you again use the basis of one's one's personal beliefs and convictions, it's called an "opinion."
Incidentally, if you have truly proven that God exists, this means you are faithless.
>>502 not quite, you might be convinced that god exists, so much that 'proof' has become irrelevant for you. Still, you need faith to believe in Gods goodness
What is God? Why is there only one? How does one know they are not several? Where are they? Are they still alive? Were they alive in the first place? What is Life? Where do I come from? Where am I going? Is this important?
We make artificial God.
kind of dead here without that guy here
yes allah is truth
Da Vinci Code Broken?
Read Answers provided by Islam
Islam claims to "break the code" so to speak, over 1,400 years ago. The answer, according to Muslm scholars has been in the Quran for over fourteen hundred years
Some may be surprised to learn, Muslims believe in the miracle birth and other miracles associated with Jesus. They actually consider him as the "Messiah" and they even say, "peace be upon him" when mentioning his name. However, they are quick to negate any connection between God and Jesus as a partnership or God-head, and they rule out the notion of God having any son (or daughter for that matter).
And he never answered >>494. Well, at least we didn't have to read yet another post of full of nothing but avoiding the question.
>>454
Hello, I'm still alive :)
>You can both be wrong, you cannot both be right.
Only if A and B are mutually exclusive. You didn't specify.
>If I perceive the law of non-contradiction to be that A can be non-A
Impossible. You can't perceive wrongly. But you can misidentify.
> >I don't need to be able to perceive the whole universe to know that things that are not themselves don't exist, never have and never will.
>How do you know? You certainly do not have universal knowledge.
Eh. I donno. Maybe this is the appropriate time to pull out the 'impossibility of the contrary' card. Any view that affirms contradictions in reality automatically invalidates itself... or something...
Nevertheless, A is A! The turtle moves!
He left already. Also, word to the wise: Quoting Ayn Rand only marks you out as a teenager who's just discovered philosophy and thinks he can have a controversial opinion. "Objectivism" is pretty much a joke, and you'd do well to grow out of that phase as soon as you can.
'A is A' is a controversial opinion? Wha? Or what?
disregard that, well not really, but post in the new topic pls :)
lol God does exists, I am your GOD!! SMELL YOUR GOD!! No Religion is correct! Everyone party!! NOW!! OR PARTY OR GO TO HELL LITERALLY!!
i bet u if god fucked u up the ass u'd believe in him..think about that! :P
...
>>515 if you'd be so kind to leave your address on this thread.
love,
bubba
I find irony in the site icon and quote. "...he who hates correction is stupid." from Proverbs, and yet, the icon is taken from the book of Matthew, which reads, "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" In other words, don't judge or be condescending onto others unless you are without fault. And then the site's quiz then goes on to proclaim that those with views contrary to theirs are stupid, illogical and so on. Irony.
>>519
I see no irony. His position is that his worldview is right and perfect.
i like how people can assume that they could possibly deduce and understand an infinite timeless being that could have created everything to which we have no access to and on top of THAT would actually "care" about our existence to the point of punishing us if we didnt believe in it.
I like how people will bump dead threads just to listen to themselves talk!
>>521 Surely you can deduce that an 'infinite, timeless being could reveal certain things to us, which we are to understand?
Also, we are not punished for not believing in God, we are punished for our sin.
I AM answering you!
This should be enough of a proof since I AM GOD!
Nuh-uh, I'm God.
That website is seriously pissing me off...
I took a crap today.
god must be real.
>>1
That test is a total waste of time. It's a one-way forced answer using twisted pseudo-logic brainwash.
You are going towards the proof that God does exists with these steps.
Yet if a single step is wrong, the whole thinking behind it is wrong.
It takes like six step for an average human to understand that you're wrong:
Universal means that they're true, anywhere, anytime.
Step Six: The Nature of Laws
"Laws of Math, Science and Asbolute Morality are Universal"
Even if we assume that Math's laws and absolute morality are universal, science's law is not.
Let's take physics as an example: laws that works for normal-gigantic masses does not work for subatomics masses.
So if you try to use classic mechanics ( or even the G.Relativity mechanics) to find the position, or the speed, of a subatomic particle, you fail. (They can be found using Quantum Mechanics)
Since a theory that unifies them both hasn't been found yet, they're both non-universal.
So the early statment:
"Laws of Math, Science and Asbolute Morality are Universal"
is wrong.
And that makes your test wrong.
um... maybe i should be ashamed too, these above id-tags are all the same. Case of severe split personality?
>>532
He has learned to sage now, at least.
Prove that "God" DOES exist. I dare you.
That is as impossible as proving "God" doesn't exist.
So don't bother. This will achieve nothing. Spend your time at better things.
Consider two even integers x and y. Since they are even, they can be written as x = 2a and y = 2b respectively for smaller integers a and b. Then the sum x + y = 2a + 2b = 2(a + b). From this it is clear that 2 is a factor of x + y, therefore God exists.
"God" is like "Al Qaeda". There is no such thing as Al Qaeda, but the American gov fights it anyway.
>>535
OH SHIT... looks like it's back to church with my heathen ass.
http://proofthatgodexists.org/no-morality.php
FUCKIGN RETARDED
I accepted that laws of mathematics and science exist, but morality does not, and it gives me this bullshit
Also, when i denied absolute morality, it asked me if raping a child for fun is right.
WHAT HTE FUCK DOES FUN HAVE TO DO WITH THIS YOU FUCKING MORON PIEC OF SHIT FAGGOT
RAPING A CHILD IS AN ACTION, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.
FUN IS IRREVELANT
FEELINGS ARE IRREVELANT
YOU FUCKING FAGGOT PIECE OF SHIT MOTHERFUCKER
NO I DONT RAPE CHILDREN BECAUSE I FEAR THE CONSEQUENCES, NOT BECAUSE MORALITY TELLS ME ITS "BAD"
TEHRE IS NO BAD OR GOOD. FUCK YOU.
>>538
However, your very post was rather bad in content, argument, spelling, grammar, caps lock moderation, and general communicative success.
omfg...if you click "there are no absolute moral laws" it asks you "are you a child molester" WTF? this is the most bias crap ive seen...someone should fuck up this site >:[
"It is true that God does not need anyone, let alone this website, to prove His existence" my god then stop trying, your failing at it anyway
and what else do they say "The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying it"...what the hell is that crap "we dont need to prove it cuz its obvious that it exists" GAH THATS NOT AN ARGUMENT.
> someone should fuck up this site
No, no one should fuck up any site.
They have a right to say whatever bullshit they want, no matter how goddam stupid it is.
Doing so would only validate a persecution complex.
http://proofthatgodexists.org/no-morality.php
disappointed,... Fun was over almost from the beginning (cf the options give if you don't believe in absolute moral laws). And it doesn't get better after that...
But if you survive through the drivel to get to the proof, you get this:
"The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything."
ROFL
Wow, so through their logic since God must exist then the "Christian worldview" must also be absolute?
I don't know if they have been living under a rock but this could apply to the Talmud/Quran/whatever as well.
>>544
i hate you
Protip: There are no "laws of mathematics"
http://proofthatgodexists.org/no-morality1.php
closed the window here. don't want my co workers to know i'm a------i mean, THINK that i'm a pedo
The only thing that website proves is that the people who made it, are just as stupid as expected.
I noticed some odd things about the "proofing" shown in the website:
I find it hard to believe that all the world's cultures hold the same views on morality.A quick look at the definition of morality states the definition as "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." For example, Isn't tipping in Germany immoral?
2. Absolute morality is unchanging.
Lets think about civil rights. Initially, slavery was regarded as a moral practice. Currently, slavery is frowned upon.Have we not experienced a change of morality?
3. "Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist."
By looking at points 1 and 2, our universe does not apply to this statement. So god may not exist within this universe.
The only problem I have with my criticism is point 1. I'm not too sure if the web site is referring to a consistent absolute moral law that is universal (Everyone has the same moral values), or if the concept of absolute morality exists universally. (Everyone has moral values, though they may not be the same.)
TLDR: I'm a fag
This can go on forever.
Of course, I'm assuming. All we can do is assume.
This can go on forever.
Of course, I'm assuming. All we can do is assume.
Lets say human beings are the only life in this universe:
then god sucks because he could have made so much more. +why would god be so awesome if god really did his best he would have made some kind of creature that would abide his laws and not even be able to sin. if we are now turning our back to god and sinning the hell out of everything that is gods fault. human beings are the way they are and look how we are. god made us this way so god is a sinner.
the church accepts the idea of extraterrestrial life since a couple of months
to the test: Absolute morality does not exist,
an animal, the last male of its kind is attacking another human.
do you have the right to kill the animal and thus condemning its species to extinction just to save one out of 5 billion humans?
some might say "hell yea, humans above animals"
some might say "don't kill the whales, dude" and smoke some weed and stuff
But what if you where one of the animals females? and the male animal was just defending its last remaining peaces of territory and its pack. (you are a part of it)
If morale was absolute we would live in a world without war, corruption, or anything generally evil about humans.
fact is, we are living in a world with war corruption and a lot of generally evil stuff...
Anyone saying absolute morale exists is a hypocrite, possibly a xenofobian, suffers from autism and would probably never have learned how to debate or have an argument with another person
That or he lies to himself
I can prove, without necessity for a magical skyman, the following:
When I suspend any object in the air and allow it to leave my grip completely, it will fall toward the ground every single time. At the same speed as any other object, mind you; 9.8 m/s. Every single time an object is suspended then let go, it will enter free fall in a direct downward path at 9.8 m/s (true free fall with no measurable air resistance, that is).
You can prove natural, physical realities without needing a god. They are physical laws.
"But who put those laws in place, lol?" Shut up. Who said it was a 'who'? Why can't they have always existed in the universe? Why do they need intelligence or the anthropomorphizing of scary bearded wizard skydudes?
As for morality: Morality is not a science. It's a point of view, usually societal.
Morality does not require a magical skyman either. You judge the "word" of your god when you read something like Leviticus where it says you should stone your children to death for talking back. You decide not to follow it for whatever reason. Or on the repeated occasions where it not only fails to condemn, but actually advocates slavery, you say "oh, it's a cultural thing," or you just deny the text all together. You do not take your morality from the bible or from any other holy text, because you judge them on your own innate morality and choose what to follow and what not to. Even the most fundamentalist crazies choose to ignore parts of the bible. You use your conscience.
why did you bump this thread?
3/4 top threads are god threads.
/science/ is a cesspool
Oh, I'm sorry you don't like deep discussions.
Go back to /b/.
wtf. i always get back to "This is not a glitch
(Think about it)"
shit sucks.
>>559
Oh, I'm sorry you're a pretentious twenty-something philosophy major assclown.
Go back to Starbuck's.
There's too many leaps in logic in there for me. I should stop trying to prove God exists/doesn't and just live making others and myself happy while causing the most minimal amount of damage to the world.
>>562
Life is much to short to worry about and try to figure out anyways. Furthermore, what good would it truly do?
I'm with you on this. I'm taking a nap.
i chose "i don't care if absolute truth exists" and it sent me to disney. this test is accurate.