Proof God Exists?

Wicknight wrote: »

Very silly website

The problem is that there aren't enough answers.

For example I don't believe absolute moral laws exist (ie external to humans) but I still don't think raping children is "fun" ... strangely those are the only two answers available :rolleyes:

yep, what wicknight said.

Standman wrote: »

Something I found interesting about it is how it blatantly displays the common Christian arrogance regarding Morality. In the question on absolute morality it asks you to answer based on what morals are true for YOU, not considering what morals may be acceptable for other people. Then a few questions later it declares that these absolute morals are universal/unchangeable. What does this tell us?

Your views on morals are right/unchangeable, whatever you believe to be moral is universal. It doesn't matter what other people think, you are right.

Is it any wonder there is so much intolerance in the world?

Sounds like your intolerant with someone who would make up such an exercise?

I'd love to see this translated into formal logic

I don't think anyone should take this seriously. There are enough flaws here that I don't know where to begin taking it apart.

Well actually... let's start at a rigorous definition of "truth".

Skipping ahead seven or eight points, his conclusion is fallacious:

"The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything."

He's saying:
1: If god does not exist, nothing can be proven
2: The statement above has been proven
3: Therefore god exists

However, his proof of 2 is "Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist."
So he's using the existence of god to prove 2, which proves the existence of god. This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question". I'd have to say, I doubt he'd listen if I told him, though.


If you're looking for a really compelling "proof" of the existence of god, take a look at the ontological argument. Now, that's a genuinely elegant argument, though it's flawed in it's own way.

Fremen wrote: »

If you're looking for a really compelling "proof" of the existence of god, take a look at the ontological argument. Now, that's a genuinely elegant argument, though it's flawed in it's own way.

The ontological argument is just as rubbish as this one.

God is that which no greater can be conceived

Existence is better than non existence

Therefore, god must exist.

Its nonsense.

It starts off with an arbitrary definition and uses that definition to prove that god exists. it also confers a value to existence or non existence that is not necessarily true.

I can say
A chair is anything you can sit on

You can sit on the ground

Therefore, the ground is a chair.

The problem with logic is that it doesn't have much to say about whether or not the premises are accurate.

Akrasia wrote: »

The ontological argument is just as rubbish as this one.

God is that which no greater can be conceived

Existence is better than non existence

Therefore, god must exist.

Its nonsense.

It starts off with an arbitrary definition and uses that definition to prove that god exists. it also confers a value to existence or non existence that is not necessarily true.

I can say
A chair is anything you can sit on

You can sit on the ground

Therefore, the ground is a chair.

The problem with logic is that it doesn't have much to say about whether or not the premises are accurate.

I didn't say it wasn't incorrect, I said it was elegant. You could rephrase it as if God is that which no greater can be conceived and if Existence is better than non existence, then god exists

As far as I can see, when you include the "if" statements, it's a logically reasonable proposition, at least on the surface.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Presumably you'd need god to make this cake though. Therefore, god exists.

I dunno about that, my mother used to make a savage cheesecake... wait a minute? maybe that means she is god?!?


Descartes version, that we can 'clearly and distinctly perceive' a perfect being therefore it must be true is even more ridiculous than Anselm's argument.

First of all. I have never met anyone who can clearly articulate what their perception of god actually is (ie, give the detailed properties of that god and defend them against criticism) And if there are two people out there who claim to have a 'clear and distinct perception' of god, it is very likely that their versions of god will have at least some differences from each other.

If the definition of god is a 'perfect being' then we're just applying our own particular idea of what we believe perfection is. To recycle the cake analogy, My perfect cake might be a cheesecake, your perfect cake might be a chocolate gateaux.

The second part is that as long as we have a clear and distinct perception, we can trust our intellect not to deceive us (eg, 2+2=4 as long as we're doing the calculations at that moment)
We can have a clear and distinct perception of what a perfect circle is and articulate it using maths and geometry, but that doesn't mean such a thing as a perfect circle even exists outside our own minds (in a physical world if you go down small enough you'll eventually find gaps in the circle or deviations from the circular form) We can conceive a perfect minotaur with all the properties that we believe a minotaur should have, doesn't mean it exists.

The human mind finds things that aren't always there, and sometimes the longer we think about things, the more confused we get.