|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 7:11 pm Post subject: 1 |
 |
|
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org
I found this site. When I went through it, I was hoping that the argument would be somewhat decent, but then on step eight of his proof he showed that the Bible proves that God exists. Wait a minute. That doesn't seem right. So I ask the guy, Sye, and he says that if the Bible weren't true, then existence couldn't exist. Wait, what?
Then I argued that absolute morality does not exist, contrary to what he shows on step 5, but then he said that it does exist because through God's word is absolute morality. So he proves God with God. How disappointing. I wasted several hours of e-mail relays with this guy.
(It is ironic that the first result in Google for "Proof that God Exists" is http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm. That's probably the most useful thing I found out while debating with this guy.)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Coyote
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:48 pm Post subject: 2 |
|
|
I like the way he refuses to continue the argument if you pick the 'wrong' button. Then when you finally click the other button he claims you must agree with his point.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CzarJ
Hot babe
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:09 pm Post subject: 3 |
|
|
| There are really more choices then just the two buttons at each point anyway. I mean, I'm a firm believer that absolute moral truth exists, but only in a relative sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:58 pm Post subject: 4 |
|
|
I love #11 on the list of proofs.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:49 am Post subject: 5 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| I found this site. When I went through it, I was hoping that the argument would be somewhat decent, but then on step eight of his proof ... |
My hopes were dashed a bit earlier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:53 am Post subject: 6 |
|
|
I now fully believe that a logical discussion should be reduced to forcing the other person to click the "right" button before anything may continue.
Part 1:
1. I am completely right (go to part 2)
2. I am not right (go to part 1 again)
Part 2:
Yup! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:15 pm Post subject: 7 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org
I found this site. When I went through it, I was hoping that the argument would be somewhat decent, but then on step eight of his proof he showed that the Bible proves that God exists. Wait a minute. That doesn't seem right. So I ask the guy, Sye, and he says that if the Bible weren't true, then existence couldn't exist. Wait, what?
Then I argued that absolute morality does not exist, contrary to what he shows on step 5, but then he said that it does exist because through God's word is absolute morality. So he proves God with God. How disappointing. I wasted several hours of e-mail relays with this guy.
|
I appreciate the link L. I could do without the woeful misrepresentation of the argument.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:00 pm Post subject: 8 |
|
|
The major unsubstantiated premise on that web site is:
| Quote: |
| Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. |
There was no argument for that claim whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject: 9 |
|
|
I got kicked as soon as I opted for "Absolute Moral Laws Do Not Exist".
I was going to change my choice just to see how it would progress, but ... nah! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raekuul
Lives under a bridge & tells stories.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:24 pm Post subject: 10 |
|
|
While I believe that God Exists, there are several major flaws with the rationale behind the person who set up that particular site.
1) Absolute Truth Exists.
This in itself is true, however our observations are flawed and thus cannot percieve the absolute truth in its entirety.
2) Laws of Logic exist.
By logic, there is no way to accept or refute this statement, as this is one of those truths that has held true since the beginning of time, without being illogical.
3) Laws of Mathematics exist.
See Logic.
4) Laws of science exist.
See Logic.
5) Absolute Moral Laws exist.
Scientifically this is only true if those laws are stated, but Newton's Third Law of Motion sums up clearly that "Every action has an equal yet opposite reaction". Again, see logic.
6) The laws are immaterial.
This is about as true as saying that the words you are reading are just organized sparks travelling across the planet in order to transport information. The laws are, in actuality, ideas that everything exist in accordance to.
7) The laws are universal.
I believe that, if this was not true, then there could be no law and order outside of one's imagination. Next.
8) The laws are unchanging.
Okay. For math and morality, they are set in stone and what we know is unchanging. However, if what we knew about science was the same, then why do we still rely on inefficient means to do major tasks?
9) The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
This is the most irrational statement of the lot. While it follows a degree of logic, It cannot work because he cites no sources and shows no logical connections.
10) God is a personal being (not an impersonal force). God is immaterial, omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omnibenevolent (all good), immutable (unchanging), sovereign (supreme in authority), free, perfect, and eternal (without beginning or end). As the creator and sustainer of the universe it is understandable that there are some characteristics of God that are beyond our ability to comprehend. For instance God is one divine being in three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each are equally and eternally the one true God.
Hy can easily back me up on this coming argument. First of all, I think that most Christians agree that God is a Being. However, according to Genesis 1:26
"And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thingthat creepeth upon the earth." If he was immaterial, then how exactly was man made in His image? I should hope that he is all the other characteristics, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject: 11 |
|
|
And this: http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/no-morality.php
is a classic fallacy. I think it may be a variety of ad hominem.
Basically, it goes like this: You should accept X, because if you reject X, you must reject Y, and you don't really want to have to reject Y. It doesn't deal with actual truth or validity, but what would be in your best interest.
The argument here is: You should believe in absolute moral values, because if you don't, you can't argue rape and murder are wrong, and you really might want to argue that rape and murder are wrong.
| Quote: |
| You say that rape IS wrong because you know that it IS wrong and not just against your personal preference. |
Perhaps I say rape is wrong because I very much want it to be treated as wrong, and punished and prevented as much as possible, unlike something that is "just against my personal preference". Perhaps I even believe it is absolutely wrong, but don't know this with certainty, or feel that I need to know it with certainty to treat it as wrong. Perhaps I believe that, since I can't know either way, I must do my best to choose the lesser of two evils - i.e. take the small risk that I'll be punishing someone for doing no wrong, and not the great risk of allowing a great wrong.
Logic may be absolute, but the author of that site has made no honest effort to employ it.
Why not just provide the logical proof that rape is absolutely wrong, rather than saying: You say it is, because you know it is. Heck, the rule here seems to be: If you say it, it must be so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject: 12 |
|
|
| raekuul wrote: |
| While I believe that God Exists, there are several major flaws with the rationale behind the person who set up that particular site. |
Well lets examine the ones you bring up:
| raekuul wrote: |
1) Absolute Truth Exists.
This in itself is true, however our observations are flawed and thus cannot percieve the absolute truth in its entirety. |
What is the flaw here? Did I assume that we knew what that absolute truth was? Also...is it absolutely true that "our observations are flawed and thus cannot perceive the absolute truth in its entirety?"
| raekuul wrote: |
2) Laws of Logic exist.
By logic, there is no way to accept or refute this statement, as this is one of those truths that has held true since the beginning of time, without being illogical.
|
What is the flaw? Is it a flaw that laws of logic exist?!?
| raekuul wrote: |
3) Laws of Mathematics exist.
See Logic.
|
See logic
| raekuul wrote: |
4) Laws of science exist.
See Logic.
|
See logic
| raekuul wrote: |
5) Absolute Moral Laws exist.
Scientifically this is only true if those laws are stated, but Newton's Third Law of Motion sums up clearly that "Every action has an equal yet opposite reaction". Again, see logic. |
And this shows that absolute moral laws do not exist?!? Again, see logic.
| raekuul wrote: |
6) The laws are immaterial.
This is about as true as saying that the words you are reading are just organized sparks travelling across the planet in order to transport information. The laws are, in actuality, ideas that everything exist in accordance to.
|
So are the laws immaterial or not? What is the flaw here?
| raekuul wrote: |
7) The laws are universal.
I believe that, if this was not true, then there could be no law and order outside of one's imagination. Next. |
So the laws are universal. What is the flaw here?
| raekuul wrote: |
8) The laws are unchanging.
Okay. For math and morality, they are set in stone and what we know is unchanging. However, if what we knew about science was the same, then why do we still rely on inefficient means to do major tasks? |
Show me a scientific law that has changed. Not our perception of the law but an actual law of science which has changed. If you can't, there is no flaw.
| raekuul wrote: |
9) The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
This is the most irrational statement of the lot. While it follows a degree of logic, It cannot work because he cites no sources and shows no logical connections.
|
Show me how you can account for universal, abstract, invarient laws apart from God, and thus prove anything without God. If you can't there is no flaw.
| raekuul wrote: |
10) God is a personal being (not an impersonal force). God is immaterial, omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omnibenevolent (all good), immutable (unchanging), sovereign (supreme in authority), free, perfect, and eternal (without beginning or end). As the creator and sustainer of the universe it is understandable that there are some characteristics of God that are beyond our ability to comprehend. For instance God is one divine being in three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each are equally and eternally the one true God.
Hy can easily back me up on this coming argument. First of all, I think that most Christians agree that God is a Being. However, according to Genesis 1:26
"And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thingthat creepeth upon the earth." If he was immaterial, then how exactly was man made in His image? I should hope that he is all the other characteristics, though. |
We were created in God's moral image, in the character of God.
-
So you believe that God is a physical entity then? If you do, show me God please.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:34 pm Post subject: 13 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
And this: http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/no-morality.php
is a classic fallacy. I think it may be a variety of ad hominem.
Basically, it goes like this: You should accept X, because if you reject X, you must reject Y, and you don't really want to have to reject Y. It doesn't deal with actual truth or validity, but what would be in your best interest. |
The argument does not say you should accept anything
| extro...* wrote: |
The argument here is: You should believe in absolute moral values, because if you don't, you can't argue rape and murder are wrong, and you really might want to argue that rape and murder are wrong. |
Again, the argument does not say you should believe anything. The argument is that you cannot logically call anything wrong if absolute moral values do not exist.
| extro...* wrote: |
Perhaps I say rape is wrong because I very much want it to be treated as wrong, and punished and prevented as much as possible, unlike something that is "just against my personal preference". |
By what moral standard should anyone care how you want to be treated?
| extro...* wrote: |
Perhaps I even believe it is absolutely wrong, but don't know this with certainty, or feel that I need to know it with certainty to treat it as wrong. |
Then you should have no objection with someone who likes to rape people because you could be wrong about whether or not rape is wrong.
| extro...* wrote: |
Perhaps I believe that, since I can't know either way, I must do my best to choose the lesser of two evils - i.e. take the small risk that I'll be punishing someone for doing no wrong, and not the great risk of allowing a great wrong. |
So child molestation might be 'no wrong?!?'
| extro...* wrote: |
Logic may be absolute, but the author of that site has made no honest effort to employ it. |
Unsubstantiated claim. Prove this please.
| extro...* wrote: |
Why not just provide the logical proof that rape is absolutely wrong, rather than saying: You say it is, because you know it is. Heck, the rule here seems to be: If you say it, it must be so. |
Because at this point the person has already denied that there are absolute morals. I am not to "cast pearls before swine."
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: 14 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What is the flaw? Is it a flaw that laws of logic exist?!? |
Exist? maybe. Are true? Good luck proving that, especially considering you need a proof system in order to prove anything, and that's a logical construct already, which means you'll have to assume logic works to show it's true.
| Quote: |
| Then you should have no objection with someone who likes to rape people because you could be wrong about whether or not rape is wrong. |
I don't understand this last sentence. Rape might be all right. I'll still oppose it. I'm just mean like that. It's possible when I die, God will be like "hey, Antrax, what's up with you opposing rape? It's totally cool with me, you were wrong". Whoops, I guess.
Since when do people only act on certainties?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject: 15 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| raekuul wrote: |
9) The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
This is the most irrational statement of the lot. While it follows a degree of logic, It cannot work because he cites no sources and shows no logical connections.
|
Show me how you can account for universal, abstract, invarient laws apart from God, and thus prove anything without God. If you can't there is no flaw. |
This is the classic argument from ignorance (also "God of the Gaps"). I can't show you how to account for universal, abstract, invarient laws. There may be many other things I can't show you. My and/or your ignorance does not imply a God. Years ago, ignorance about other things was used similarly to prove God existed - things we are no longer ignorant about.
| Quote: |
| Show me how you can account for universal, abstract, invarient laws apart from God |
Hypothetically, Satan is responsible. Satan being an evil, omnipotent being, who always existed (there is no God), and who created us to torture in the afterlife for his amusement. I don't have to believe this. But you can't prove your version more likely than mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
L'lanmal
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: 16 |
|
|
Unlike others here, I rather like the format of giving up when you disagree with a premise. (As opposed to hiding the assumptions.) It seems to save my own time.
Of course, I only made it as far as step 4, at which point he admits the "proof" won't work for me:
"Unless you reconsider your stand on this matter, your road to this site's proof that God exists ends here."
Edit: After clarification, I retract. The format was not designed to clarify the premises, so I do not like it.
Last edited by L'lanmal on Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject: 17 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Quote: |
| What is the flaw? Is it a flaw that laws of logic exist?!? |
Exist? maybe. Are true? Good luck proving that, especially considering you need a proof system in order to prove anything, and that's a logical construct already, which means you'll have to assume logic works to show it's true. |
Yes logic is a transcendental necessity in any the proof.
The proof that it is true is the impossibility of the contrary.
-
Do you believe that the law of non-contradiction is false?
| Antrax wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Then you should have no objection with someone who likes to rape people because you could be wrong about whether or not rape is wrong. |
I don't understand this last sentence. Rape might be all right. I'll still oppose it. |
Rape might be alright?!?!? Tell that to the victim.
If you are not sure that rape is wrong, you can oppose it, but you have zero justification for that opposition.
| Antrax wrote: |
Since when do people only act on certainties? |
Um, since always. Next time you go to the bank and ask for change for one hundred dollars, lets see if you are uncertain about how much change you should be getting when the teller hands you only ten cents.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject: 18 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| raekuul wrote: |
9) The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
This is the most irrational statement of the lot. While it follows a degree of logic, It cannot work because he cites no sources and shows no logical connections.
|
Show me how you can account for universal, abstract, invarient laws apart from God, and thus prove anything without God. If you can't there is no flaw. |
This is the classic argument from ignorance (also "God of the Gaps"). I can't show you how to account for universal, abstract, invariant laws. |
Just because you have gaps in your knowledge don't project that on me. If you cannot account for universal, abstract, invariant laws, you cannot account for anything you know.
| Quote: |
| Show me how you can account for universal, abstract, invariant laws apart from God |
| extro...* wrote: |
Hypothetically, Satan is responsible. Satan being an evil, omnipotent being, who always existed (there is no God), and who created us to torture in the afterlife for his amusement. I don't have to believe this. But you can't prove your version more likely than mine. |
What is the justification for your version? A hypothetical being cannot do anything. Show me how you really account for universal, abstract, invariant laws apart from God.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject: 19 |
|
|
| L'lanmal wrote: |
Unlike others here, I rather like the format of giving up when you disagree with a premise. (As opposed to hiding the assumptions.) It seems to save my own time.
Of course, I only made it as far as step 4, at which point he admits the "proof" won't work for me:
"Unless you reconsider your stand on this matter, your road to this site's proof that God exists ends here." |
And how is that an admission that 'the proof won't work for you?' The proof 'works' for everyone, but if you deny moral absolutes, it is highly likely that you would also deny the proof.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: 20 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Antrax wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Then you should have no objection with someone who likes to rape people because you could be wrong about whether or not rape is wrong. |
I don't understand this last sentence. Rape might be all right. I'll still oppose it. |
Rape might be alright?!?!? Tell that to the victim.
If you are not sure that rape is wrong, you can oppose it, but you have zero justification for that opposition.
|
Morality is more of a group concensus than anything else. Let's take a black and white situation, consisting of, oh say, PETA and anti-PETA. If this world was dominantly PETA, then PETA would execute any anti-PETA for being the scum of the Earth. They will be taught PETA laws, and use PETA in religion. Everyone's morals would be PETA biased. This works in visa versa.
This reflects the real world. There are many different religions on Earth, and every one of them is self supporting. Naturally, there would be some that dispise the other because of conflicting morals. Their morals. Now who's on the right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject: 21 |
|
|
Hey Leonard!
| mudbuck wrote: |
Morality is more of a group concensus than anything else. |
Um, says who, and why should I believe whoever says that? Um, which group? Does group consensus = right?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: 22 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
The argument here is: You should believe in absolute moral values, because if you don't, you can't argue rape and murder are wrong, and you really might want to argue that rape and murder are wrong. |
Again, the argument does not say you should believe anything. The argument is that you cannot logically call anything wrong if absolute moral values do not exist. |
That doesn't show absolute moral values exist. When it comes to murder, rape, etc., my claims that they are wrong may well be illogical. You haven't shown otherwise.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Perhaps I say rape is wrong because I very much want it to be treated as wrong, and punished and prevented as much as possible, unlike something that is "just against my personal preference". |
By what moral standard should anyone care how you want to be treated? |
Did I say they should? I want it to be treated as wrong. I want my loved ones to be protected from such acts - it's purely an emotional desire. To that end, I argue that it is morally wrong. That doesn't make it so.
Note that I'm not saying I believe it isn't morally wrong - just that you haven't shown that my or anyone's claims that rape is wrong are logical, which you'd need to show if you want to employ "you cannot logically call anything wrong if absolute moral values do not exist" to show that absolute values do exist.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Perhaps I even believe it is absolutely wrong, but don't know this with certainty, or feel that I need to know it with certainty to treat it as wrong. |
Then you should have no objection with someone who likes to rape people because you could be wrong about whether or not rape is wrong.
|
Whether or not that conclusion of your is valid, I do have such objections.
Are you suggesting that if somebody objects to something, it must be wrong?
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Perhaps I believe that, since I can't know either way, I must do my best to choose the lesser of two evils - i.e. take the small risk that I'll be punishing someone for doing no wrong, and not the great risk of allowing a great wrong. |
So child molestation might be 'no wrong?!?'
|
Again, what I believe is irrelevant. The question is about what you can prove. I may believe it is wrong. That doesn't constitute a proof that it is wrong, or that mean that my belief is rational.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Logic may be absolute, but the author of that site has made no honest effort to employ it. |
Unsubstantiated claim. Prove this please.
|
You've made no attempt whatsoever to prove the major claim of your site, which is:
| Quote: |
| Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. |
No argument for that is provided whatsoever, and I don't believe you have a logical one, if any, to offer.
Furthermore, your argument for the existence of absolute moral values is an appeal to emotional issues such as rape and child molestation. If you believe these are absolutely wrong, then you must believe in absolute right and wrong. But just because I might believe, that doesn't make it so. Surely you see that argumemt isn't logical.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Why not just provide the logical proof that rape is absolutely wrong, rather than saying: You say it is, because you know it is. Heck, the rule here seems to be: If you say it, it must be so. |
Because at this point the person has already denied that there are absolute morals. I am not to "cast pearls before swine." |
So you only preach to the choir? To those who already believe as you do?
Do you honestly have the alleged pearls to cast?
Essentially, If I believe as you do, you can dispense with the formality of a proof (as I already believe). And if I don't believe as you do, you can dispense with the formality of a proof (as you'd be casting your alleged pearls before swine). I believe if you were honest, you'd admit you have no such proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject: 23 |
|
|
Just a small note from a passing lurker.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Antrax wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Then you should have no objection with someone who likes to rape people because you could be wrong about whether or not rape is wrong. |
I don't understand this last sentence. Rape might be all right. I'll still oppose it. |
Rape might be alright?!?!? Tell that to the victim.
If you are not sure that rape is wrong, you can oppose it, but you have zero justification for that opposition. |
You have unwittingly undermined your own argument here.
You have mentioned here that rape is an unpleasant experience for the victim. You have not gone into much detail on this point, but I think everybody here realises the damage, physically and psychologically, that such an act has upon its victim.
Knowing this impact is all the justification a person needs in order to oppose rape. Rather than "It's just wrong, because moral laws are absolute", how about "I believe it's wrong, because it inflicts severe damage upon another human being"? That does not seem like zero justification to me, nor does it require the existence of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject: 24 |
|
|
Welcome to the Grey Labyrinth, Canuckfish. I appreciate your taking the time to come here and defend your proof.
I'd like to go back to an earlier post that hasn't been addressed yet:
| extro...* wrote: |
The major unsubstantiated premise on that web site is:
| Quote: |
| Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. |
There was no argument for that claim whatsoever. |
I agree with that statement and wondered if you might elaborate a little on this. You later stated that there must be a reason those laws exist, and that if you can't account for that reason you can't account for anything, but I don't find those arguments persuasive. For instance, the fact that I can't say why gravity exists does not prevent me from using it on a daily basis.
Additionally, postulating a God as the reason just seems to be adding an extra step. What is the reason for God's existence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: 25 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Do you believe that the law of non-contradiction is false? |
It seems prudent to at least require proof of it, if we're going to give a rigorous proof to the existence of God without the need for any unfounded assumptions, wouldn't you think? I mean, for all I know, it's possible this principle is wrong.
| Quote: |
Rape might be alright?!?!? Tell that to the victim.
If you are not sure that rape is wrong, you can oppose it, but you have zero justification for that opposition. |
Well, yes. Does the rapist have more than zero justification for his rape?
And to whom do I have to justify my actions, anyway? It seems that there would have to be someone who knows what's right and what's wrong so he can judge whether or not I was justified in my action. But that's again assuming there exist absolute right and wrong, otherwise the question "was X justified" seems to be quite pointless.
| Quote: |
| Um, since always. Next time you go to the bank and ask for change for one hundred dollars, lets see if you are uncertain about how much change you should be getting when the teller hands you only ten cents. |
I don't think we use the word certain in the same way. There is "very probably" certain, the way you're certain the sun will rise tomorrow in the east. Then, there's "absolutely certain", for instance, the way you're certain a^2+b^2=c^2 in a right triange under Euclidean Geometry.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!
Last edited by Antrax on Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: 26 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| raekuul wrote: |
9) The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
This is the most irrational statement of the lot. While it follows a degree of logic, It cannot work because he cites no sources and shows no logical connections.
|
Show me how you can account for universal, abstract, invarient laws apart from God, and thus prove anything without God. If you can't there is no flaw. |
This is the classic argument from ignorance (also "God of the Gaps"). I can't show you how to account for universal, abstract, invariant laws. |
Just because you have gaps in your knowledge don't project that on me. If you cannot account for universal, abstract, invariant laws, you cannot account for anything you know. |
You're being deliberately obtuse. You said: "Show me how you can account for universal, abstract, invarient laws apart from God".
That is the gap in your knowledge. Just because YOU (or I) can't account for something apart from God, that does not imply He exists.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Hypothetically, Satan is responsible. Satan being an evil, omnipotent being, who always existed (there is no God), and who created us to torture in the afterlife for his amusement. I don't have to believe this. But you can't prove your version more likely than mine. |
What is the justification for your version? A hypothetical being cannot do anything. |
If you're going to make claims of a proof for God, I think you need to show why God is any less hypothetical than the Satan I have described.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Show me how you really account for universal, abstract, invariant laws apart from God. |
Again, there have been many things throughout history which nobody could account for, which today are accounted for. If I can't account for these things apart from God today, that doesn't mean someone won't be able to tomorrow. And if nobody ever can, that still wouldnt contribute one iota to a logical proof for the existence of God.
Familiarize yourself with argument from ignorance, and explain why your argument is anything different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:04 pm Post subject: 27 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
Morality is more of a group concensus than anything else. |
Um, says who, and why should I believe whoever says that? Um, which group? Does group consensus = right? |
I do, just as you say that morality is a strict absolute, and did I not show you a situation?
Every group that shares the same general beliefs has morals, distinct from other groups. And yes, group consensus is right, especially inside of a group. You might be mistaken for things such as murder and rape following absolute universal morals just because the groups behind those morals are extremely large, extending almost around the world, but that does not make it right for the smaller groups that think otherwise.
[edit: Hi Sye] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:27 am Post subject: 28 |
|
|
Extro:
| Quote: |
| is a classic fallacy. I think it may be a variety of ad hominem. |
I actually think it's in the red herring/non sequitur catagory.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:36 am Post subject: 29 |
|
|
The exact argument I'm thinking of is of the form: You shouldn't be arguing against the truth of this proposition, as it it would be in your best interest if it were true. I've seen it described as circumstantial ad hominem. though most descriptions of circumstantial ad hominem are of yet a different variety still (where a persons motives for arguing a point are called into question by way of his/her circumstances). Here are a couple of references I could find:
http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?ad+hominem+argument
| Quote: |
| A circumstantial ad hominem accuses the person of having an alternative motive for defending the proposition or points out its inconsistency with the person's other views. |
Canuckfish points out that my rejection of the existence of absolute moral values is inconsistent with my belief that rape is wrong. It is fallacious in that it attempts to prove the existence of X by simply showing lack of belief in that existence would not be consistent with another belief of mine - as if my beliefs were relevant to the actual existence of X. I, me, mine ... ad hominem.
Also, http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/circumstantial.asp
| Quote: |
| The argument attacks a position by appealing to the vested interests of the people who hold the position. |
The web sites argument is that:
| Quote: |
| If you truly believed that there was no such thing as absolute morality then there would be no 'right' or 'wrong,' just things that you or your society happen not to like. Rape and child molestation would not be wrong, they would just become man made objections. |
This sounds like an appeal that I had better believe in absolute moraility, otherwise I must accept consequences I don't like. I mean, I want to believe rape and child molestation are wrong, so it's in my best interest to accept the existence of absolute morality. But what I want to believe has little bearing on what is. Kind of like "you better believe in Santa, otherwise he's not bringing you any presents". Persuasive, perhaps, but not logical.
Funny, because on this page: http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/welcome.php it says: "This website offers logical proof, not persuasion". Unless of course, you're already persuaded, in which case no proof is required, or you're not persuaded, in which case the pearls of proof won't be cast before your porcine self. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:51 am Post subject: 30 |
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. That fits much better than the "irrelevant" nature of the argument that I was focused on.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:08 am Post subject: 31 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
That doesn't show absolute moral values exist. When it comes to murder, rape, etc., my claims that they are wrong may well be illogical. You haven't shown otherwise. |
Define 'wrong' in your worldview please.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
By what moral standard should anyone care how you want to be treated? |
| extro...* wrote: |
Note that I'm not saying I believe it isn't morally wrong - just that you haven't shown that my or anyone's claims that rape is wrong are logical, which you'd need to show if you want to employ "you cannot logically call anything wrong if absolute moral values do not exist" to show that absolute values do exist. |
Define 'wrong' in your worldview please.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
Then you should have no objection with someone who likes to rape people because you could be wrong about whether or not rape is wrong.
|
| extro...* wrote: |
Whether or not that conclusion of your is valid, I do have such objections.
Are you suggesting that if somebody objects to something, it must be wrong? |
Of course not, but for the objection to have meaning it must have a foundation. What is the standard by which you call anything 'wrong?'
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Logic may be absolute, but the author of that site has made no honest effort to employ it. |
Unsubstantiated claim. Prove this please.
|
| extro...* wrote: |
You've made no attempt whatsoever to prove the major claim of your site, which is:
| Quote: |
| Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. |
No argument for that is provided whatsoever, and I don't believe you have a logical one, if any, to offer. |
The proof is the impossibility of the contrary. (And it is included in the site)
| extro...* wrote: |
Furthermore, your argument for the existence of absolute moral values is an appeal to emotional issues such as rape and child molestation. If you believe these are absolutely wrong, then you must believe in absolute right and wrong. |
Huhwa?!? You have a problem with that statement?
| extro...* wrote: |
But just because I might believe, that doesn't make it so. Surely you see that argumemt isn't logical. |
Because you believe it is so, makes that you believe that it is so.
Surely you can see the logic there.
Nowhere in the site does it say that believing something makes it so.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Why not just provide the logical proof that rape is absolutely wrong, rather than saying: You say it is, because you know it is. Heck, the rule here seems to be: If you say it, it must be so. |
Because at this point the person has already denied that there are absolute morals. I am not to "cast pearls before swine." |
| extro...* wrote: |
So you only preach to the choir? To those who already believe as you do? |
Nope, not preaching, just sharing a proof with those who are honest about what they truly believe.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:20 am Post subject: 32 |
|
|
| * wrote: |
You have unwittingly undermined your own argument here.
You have mentioned here that rape is an unpleasant experience for the victim. You have not gone into much detail on this point, but I think everybody here realises the damage, physically and psychologically, that such an act has upon its victim.
Knowing this impact is all the justification a person needs in order to oppose rape. Rather than "It's just wrong, because moral laws are absolute", how about "I believe it's wrong, because it inflicts severe damage upon another human being"? That does not seem like zero justification to me, nor does it require the existence of God. |
Show me why 'inflicting severe damage upon another human being" is absolutely wrong. If you can't, your justification amounts to zero.
I did not say rape is wrong 'because moral laws are absolute,' I said, rape is absolutely morally wrong.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:34 am Post subject: 33 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
| Welcome to the Grey Labyrinth, Canuckfish. I appreciate your taking the time to come here and defend your proof. |
Thanks for the welcome Wile E.  The number of people commenting here is getting to a point where I may not be able to answer everyone.
| Coyote wrote: |
I'd like to go back to an earlier post that hasn't been addressed yet:
| extro...* wrote: |
The major unsubstantiated premise on that web site is:
| Quote: |
| Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. |
There was no argument for that claim whatsoever. |
I agree with that statement and wondered if you might elaborate a little on this. |
Again, as noted in the site, the proof is the impossibility of the contrary.
| Coyote wrote: |
You later stated that there must be a reason those laws exist, and that if you can't account for that reason you can't account for anything, but I don't find those arguments persuasive. For instance, the fact that I can't say why gravity exists does not prevent me from using it on a daily basis. |
The argument is not that you cannot use those laws if you cannot account for them. The argument is that if you cannot account for those laws, you cannot account for anything you know. Professed atheists use logic, but they cannot account for it. (On a side note, you don't use gravity)
| Coyote wrote: |
Additionally, postulating a God as the reason just seems to be adding an extra step. What is the reason for God's existence? |
God's existence is not an 'extra step.' God's existence is the necessary pre-condition for intelligibility. "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."
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:44 am Post subject: 34 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
That is the gap in your knowledge. Just because YOU (or I) can't account for something apart from God, that does not imply He exists. |
That is not the proof. The proof is that without God you can't prove anything. We prove things, therefore God exists.
| extro...* wrote: |
If you're going to make claims of a proof for God, I think you need to show why God is any less hypothetical than the Satan I have described.
|
Because the Bible tells us that God is not hypothetical.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Show me how you really account for universal, abstract, invariant laws apart from God. |
| extro...* wrote: |
Again, there have been many things throughout history which nobody could account for, which today are accounted for. If I can't account for these things apart from God today, that doesn't mean someone won't be able to tomorrow. |
That's the problem with your worldview, you live by blind faith.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:49 am Post subject: 35 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
Every group that shares the same general beliefs has morals, distinct from other groups. And yes, group consensus is right |
So the Nazis were right?!?
| mudbuck wrote: |
You might be mistaken for things such as murder and rape following absolute universal morals just because the groups behind those morals are extremely large, extending almost around the world, but that does not make it right for the smaller groups that think otherwise. |
Absolute morals have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of people that support them.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:57 am Post subject: 36 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
Canuckfish points out that my rejection of the existence of absolute moral values is inconsistent with my belief that rape is wrong.
|
If you believe that rape is absolutely morally wrong, and also deny that absolute morals exist, you are not being consistent.
| extro...* wrote: |
The web sites argument is that:
| Quote: |
| If you truly believed that there was no such thing as absolute morality then there would be no 'right' or 'wrong,' just things that you or your society happen not to like. Rape and child molestation would not be wrong, they would just become man made objections. |
This sounds like an appeal that I had better believe in absolute moraility, otherwise I must accept consequences I don't like. |
There are no suggestions in that statement at all. The statement is that if you do not believe in absolute morality, you do not have a logical standard by which you can call anything wrong.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:20 am Post subject: 37 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Define 'wrong' in your worldview please. |
It doesn't matter!
Suppose I say: In my world view, wrong means anything that is morally wrong, in the absolute moral sense, as I believe there is an absolute moral right and wrong.
I may believe there is.
You said you'll prove there is. Now go ahead: prove my belief is correct.
Or pick any other thing you like as "my worldview of what wrong is". How does my worldview have a bearing on your proof? If I did not exist, I would have no worldview on that - where would your proof be then?
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Are you suggesting that if somebody objects to something, it must be wrong? |
Of course not, but for the objection to have meaning it must have a foundation. |
Perhaps it has no meaning.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| What is the standard by which you call anything 'wrong?' |
Perhaps I flip a coin. Perhaps I go by a gut feeling in the pit of my stomach. Seriously, how does the manner in which I decide what to call right or wrong have any bearing on the real objective existence of an absolute moral right and wrong, or your proof of the existence of such?
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
You've made no attempt whatsoever to prove the major claim of your site, which is:
| Quote: |
| Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. |
No argument for that is provided whatsoever, and I don't believe you have a logical one, if any, to offer. |
The proof is the impossibility of the contrary. (And it is included in the site) |
No, proof of the impossibility of the contrary is NOT included in the site. Kindly point to it if I missed it.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Furthermore, your argument for the existence of absolute moral values is an appeal to emotional issues such as rape and child molestation. If you believe these are absolutely wrong, then you must believe in absolute right and wrong. |
Huhwa?!? You have a problem with that statement?
|
No, but belief does not make it so.
Your argument seems to be:
1) I (me) believe in A (rape is wrong).
2) If I believe in A, then I must believe in B (absolute moral values exist).
3) Therefore, logically, I must believe in B.
No problem. You've shown that if my beliefs are logically consistent, then I must believe in absolute moral values if I believe rape is wrong.
You haven't, however, proved either to be the case. We've only established that I believe one (perhaps wrongly), and if I'm consistent, should believe the other.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
But just because I might believe, that doesn't make it so. Surely you see that argumemt isn't logical. |
Because you believe it is so, makes that you believe that it is so.
Surely you can see the logic there.
Nowhere in the site does it say that believing something makes it so.
|
So what is your argument that proves that absolute morality exists?
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
So you only preach to the choir? To those who already believe as you do? |
Nope, not preaching, just sharing a proof with those who are honest about what they truly believe. |
Please, what is the proof? Where is the proof that rape is wrong? I'm not saying I don't believe it's wrong. I honestly believe it is wrong. Unlike you, I don't claim to have proof. Please share with me the proof that rape is wrong. I believe rape is wrong, but I haven't any proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:41 am Post subject: 38 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Define 'wrong' in your worldview please. |
It doesn't matter! |
Really, right and wrong don't matter in your worldview?!?
| extro...* wrote: |
Suppose I say: In my world view, wrong means anything that is morally wrong, in the absolute moral sense, as I believe there is an absolute moral right and wrong.
I may believe there is.
You said you'll prove there is. Now go ahead: prove my belief is correct.
|
I said I would prove that God exists. The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. The fact that you believe that absolute morals exist has nothing to do with the proof. The fact that absolute morals exist is evidence that God exists.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Are you suggesting that if somebody objects to something, it must be wrong? |
Of course not, but for the objection to have meaning it must have a foundation. |
| extro...* wrote: |
Perhaps it has no meaning. |
We almost agree here. Your objection has no meaning.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
You've made no attempt whatsoever to prove the major claim of your site, which is:
| Quote: |
| Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. |
No argument for that is provided whatsoever, and I don't believe you have a logical one, if any, to offer. |
The proof is the impossibility of the contrary. (And it is included in the site) |
| extro...* wrote: |
| No, proof of the impossibility of the contrary is NOT included in the site. Kindly point to it if I missed it. |
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/believe.php
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:10 am Post subject: 39 |
|
|
Regrading the question of whether you ever proved: Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
Again, as noted in the site, the proof is the impossibility of the contrary.
|
Can you please elaborate on your proof of the impossibility of the contrary? That is, your proof that universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can't exist in a universe not governed by God. What is the proof of that?
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
That is the gap in your knowledge. Just because YOU (or I) can't account for something apart from God, that does not imply He exists. |
That is not the proof. The proof is that without God you can't prove anything. We prove things, therefore God exists. |
You skipped the step where you prove one can't prove things without God. Without resorting to the argument from ignorance, i.e. "I can't imagine how", or "then you tell me how to account for so and so", how do you prove God is required for us to prove things?
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
If you're going to make claims of a proof for God, I think you need to show why God is any less hypothetical than the Satan I have described.
|
Because the Bible tells us that God is not hypothetical.
|
Come on ... if you're going to claim "because the Bible tells us so" is logical proof (that's what we're talking about here), couldn't you have save a lot of trouble and have stated that from the beginning? The Bible says "In the beginning, God created ...", therefore God exists. Done.
And again, it was the argument from ignorance. You asked: "Show me how you can account for universal, abstract, invarient laws apart from God".
What else could be your point? Apart from God, neither you nor I can account for it. So what?
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Again, there have been many things throughout history which nobody could account for, which today are accounted for. If I can't account for these things apart from God today, that doesn't mean someone won't be able to tomorrow. |
That's the problem with your worldview, you live by blind faith. |
Huh? You don't know me or how I live, but you delved into that because you can't chew what you bit off when you claimed to be able to prove something.
You are using the fact that we can't account for something as proof of God's existence. If we later account for it, your proof will be invalid. If it is invalid in the future, it is invalid today (as logic is unchanging). Thus, for it to be valid today, it must be valid always in the future, and thus we must never be able to account for what we can't account for today. Thus, you need to prove - not assume - that we will never be able to account for universal, abstract, invariant laws apart from God. I am not assuming we ever will. But you need to prove we never will, and even that is only necessary, but not nearly sufficient, to complete your alleged proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:21 am Post subject: 40 |
|
|
Very enjoyable discussion everyone and I thank everyone for being civil.
*prays it stays that way*
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index
-> Science, Art, and Culture |
All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
| Page 1 of 9 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
