Proof God Exists?

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Link?

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/main.php#some-characteristics

Karlusss wrote: »

Here's my experience:

"Absolute truth does not exist"
"Absolutely true"

Then it redirects you back to the question about whether absolute truth exists or not. Wouldn't trust the logic behind that too much.

Saying "Absolute truth does not exist," is making an absolute truth claim and is therefore self-refuting, that is why you are directed back to the original question.

Sean_K wrote: »

So how long have you been on boards then? New account is it? Have I ever made a troll accusation before?

Been on boards since the website has been up (almost 2 years). Been banned from 4 or 5 atheist boards that posted the link, for being 'too stupid,' or being a 'troll.' It's always the same though, people say that the website is bunk, but when they are challenged to support their claims, start making unfounded accusations (like you did).

Cheers,

Sye

ptge wrote: »

Same answer to all your questions: By His revelation.

How do you know this revelation is true?

Ok ok...my last post on this thread I swear...probably more suited to humour.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm some of them are funny.

No 31 has a particular relevance to this thread.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

How do you know this revelation is true?

Because He has revealed it in such a way that I can be certain of it. (All of us actually). Now, um, my questions?

Standman wrote: »

That's circular reasoning, i.e. a logical fallacy.
You may be dissapointed to find that people in this forum are not the gullible idiots that you aim for on your site.

And as I have asked, a few times now, to what laws of logic are you appealing to, how do you justify those laws, and why do they apply to me?

ptge wrote: »

And I state that it is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. In logic, it is what is known as a 'transcendental argument.' Simply posit your logical contrary, and we'll go from there. (And no, I'm not holding my breath :-)

Ok, I may be a fool but I'll bite.

Firstly: you have not in any way 'proven' the impossibility of the contrary

Secondly: even if we accept your argument, this has no bearing on whether it's the christian god, allah or some other as yet unknown.

Thirdly: you demonstrate conceptual necessity, which is not the same thing as demonstrating necessary existence.

Fourthly: Your assertion of absolute morality logically contradicts the existence of god - since if morality is dependent on the will of god it is not therefore absolute. (Edit: ) And if morality is absolute then it is a higher power than god, which is logically impossible. In fact this is as near as dammit to a logical proof that god doesn't exist.

As I said the main problem with the site is the lack of answers.

Lets see how I did

Question 1 - Does absolute truth exist?

I certainly think it does, but that is a different matter to whether or not we can know something is true for certain. But anyway, I click yes.

Question 2 - Do laws of logic exist?

Yes, though given that logic is a mental process "exist" might be the wrong word here. But anyway, I click yes

Question 3 - Do laws of mathematics exist?

Again I agree, but have reservations as mathematics is a mental concept, so "exist" is not the right word here.

Question 4 - Do laws of science exist?

This is where the problems start. No, laws of science do not exist, because it is impossible for a human to determine with certainty the absolute accuracy of a scientific model. But when I select "No" I am informed that if laws of science do not exist then I cannot predict anything using scientific models. This is an error. It is not impossible to predict things without absolute laws, it is simply impossible to predict things with absolute certainty.

For example, I'm pretty sure if I jump out of window I will fall to the ground. But I cannot state that this is an unchangeable "law" because I do not have enough information. There could be a reason unknown to me that will demonstrate an inaccuracy in the model of gravity that we use to predict that I will fall.

This has been shown time and again in science, as models get to a high degree of accuracy (such as Newtonian physics) only for an even more accurate theory to come along (such as General Relativity) At no point is it possible to determine if Newtonian physics was a "law" and it turns out that it wasn't.

So we run into a bit of a problem here because I'm being rather rudely informed that I'm wrong and a hypocrite when in fact the problem here is the authors misunderstanding of the difference between acceptable predictability and absolute predictability.

But if we want to go any further I guess we will have to click Yes

Question 5 - Does absolute morality exist?

Again I want to click no here. Morality is a human concept, and while evolution has developed a number of common instinctive "moral" behavior shared by most humans, there is no reasonable way to say that morality is absolute outside of human mental concepts.

Of course, as is becoming a problem with this site, I'm rudely informed that I've selected the wrong answer. To demonstrate this the author comes up with the though experiment of whether I ever thing that raping children can be good.

The point that is being missed here is that I never think raping children can be good, but obviously some people do think raping children is good (the rapists). My morality is not universal, but that doesn't matter to me. I don't care if someone else things raping children is good, I don't respect their opinion on the matter because I think it is bad.

The authors issue with this can be seen if one lies and clicks "yes" where they are supposed to until they are asked if all these laws are universal or person

Not only would these alternate laws be common, they would have to be 'right' since there would be no universal standard to evaluate their correctness

Can anyone spot the problem with that sentence? If there is no universal standard to evaluate the correctness of these "laws" they why does the author assert that they would have to be right?

For example raping children might considered "right" to a child rapist. I don't care. It isn't considered right to me. Where does it say that I have to respect the morality of a child rapist just because universal morality doesn't exist?

The issue seems to be the authors inability to process a world where black and white decrees on issues of science or ethics or morality do not exist.

This seems, in my opinion, quite common among people draw to religion, as religion through the assertion of the existence of the authority of God, claims to offer this black and whiteness.

My own feelings on the matter is that this is an adult version of the way children turn to their parents to make absolute decrees on various matters, decrees that we instinctively trust. When we get older some of us seem to still desire this authority, and turn to religion to offer this (God the Father and all that).

You can see this in the authors weakest logical jump (leap of faith). At the end of all this, if we clicked all the correct answers, we arrive at the conclusion that

"To reach this page you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist."

And then out of the blue the author asserts

"Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist."

Why? The author seems to just take this statement as a given, a logical axiom as it where. And this is where ultimately he betrays his motivation.

There is no logic or reason behind this statement, the author just pops it in. I'm sure in their limited world view this is the only option they can conceive. Just like the child can only conceive of authority from the parent, he appears to be only able to conceive of authority from a parent like figure, God the Father.

We replace our parents with God when we realize that our parents are simply fallible humans like the rest of us. We seek to replace their authority with the authority of something that won't betray us with their infallibility, a supernatural entity that cannot be wrong, because we seek the comfort we had as children when this authority decided for us what was right, what was wrong, what is and what isn't.

Fremen wrote: »

Ptge, reading through your posts, I have come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable way to argue against your point.

If I understand you correctly, your reasoning is something like:

The existence of logic implies the existence of god.
Using the contrapositive, we can therefore infer that "No god" implies "no logic". Then, any arguments against the existence of god will rely on logic which is not rigorous.

It's not a bad argument, and it's logically consistent (though I am not a logician. There could easily be something subtle which I'm missing). It's also unrefutable, since any argument which refutes it will automatically use logic which is suspect, if you accept the premise.

However, it does rely on acceptance of the premise, that the existence of logic imples the existence of god. I guess that's where you and I will have to agree to disagree. Personally I would say that logic exists, but does NOT necessarily imply the existence of god, and therefore I can disallow circular reasoning.

I'd also call on people to stop calling him a troll. He's making a point which, in some respects, is very reasonable.

Wow, this is the most reasoned response I have ever gotten to a post in all the time I have been doing this. Thanks for that. I'm looking forward to your becoming a Christian.

Indeed it seems like you've got the argument down. So, to our point of disagreement, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview?

I wish that I had more time to answer the other posts, and I will try to get to them in the next couple of days, but currently I'm swamped. I wish that you would take the time to send me an e-mail at sye@proofthatgodexists.org I am starting to write a book, and you seem like the type of person that I'd like to bounce some ideas off of.

Again, thanks for that great post.

Cheers,

Sye

Fremen wrote: »

It's not a bad argument, and it's logically consistent

It is a terrible argument, he is begging the question, in that the conclusion he is attempting to reach is already assumed in the first part. It is basically

- Suppose God is necessary for logic to exist
- Since we are using logic obviously logic exists
- God exists

The first part and the third part, are the same thing. It may be logically consistent but it is also logically pointless because he has already assumed the truth of the statement in part one. You could replace "God" in that statement with anything and it would still hold.

- Suppose Satan is necessary for logic to exist
- Since we are using logic obviously logic exists
- Satan exists.

- Suppose Santa Clause is necessary for logic to exist
- Since we are using logic obviously logic exists
- Santa Clause exists.

robindch wrote: »

...or, in its own terms:

"Not-god is necessary for logic to exist."

Therefore X=¬X and the true absurdity of this argument becomes apparent.

Um, logically absurd? If so, how do you account for the laws of logic you are appealing to in making this claim?

robindch wrote: »

The "laws" of logic were created and defined by humans, and many existed by the time of the ancient Greeks, though not always in their current format.

So, could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before the ancient Greeks created the law of non-contradiction???

robindch wrote: »

How do you know that "god" is necessary for the laws of logic? You're assuming the consequent as the argument stands.

Um no, I know this the only way that anyone can know anything, by His revelation.

Cheers,

Sye

robindch wrote: »

Since you know what I have written, I must assume that you think that what I wrote is a revelation and therefore, that I am He who is God.

Interesting -- a christian thinks (or proves?) that an atheist is God. Praise be!

Yip folks, this is what I mean. I ask valid questions and get posts like this as a response. Disappointingly telling.

Akrasia wrote: »

Your entire argument is an obvious and primitive version of circular reasoning.

Well, I disagree, but still, I have asked many times, why is circular reasoning not allowed according to your worldview?

Akrasia wrote: »

Wicknight said this to demonstrate the absurdity of your reasoning:
"Suppose Satan is necessary for logic to exist
- Since we are using logic obviously logic exists
- Satan exists. "

And you dismissed by claiming that 'only god can control order' obviously in reference to the christian god.

No, I asked him to demonstrate how any other entity can justify the laws of logic.

Akrasia wrote: »

Your argument as far as it goes only needs a cosmic force to regulate the order and maintain the natural forces in physics and chemistry. That cosmic force could be anything. It could be non sentient, it could be pure evil, it could be Satan, it could be a magic unicorn sitting on one of the moons of Saturn.

Well, why don't you just tell us what you believe, and we can go from there.

Akrasia wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing in your 'proof' that supports the existence of the christian god

Huh? The whole site is about the Christian God.

Akrasia wrote: »

other than your absurd introduction of 'absolute morality' which is patently false because morality changes over time and over places.

Um no, behaviour may change but that has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of absolute morality.

Cheers,

Sye

Wicknight wrote: »

You are supposing the first condition, and the rest of the logic only holds if you do.

The only way this disagreement can be resolved is if we evaluate the validity of our presuppositions, yes, I presuppose God in order to justify the laws of logic, how do you justify them?

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the point. You haven't made a case for God being a necessary precondition for logic, you have simply supposed that it is as your starting position. You can do that with anything. You could do that with chicken salad.

How does chicken salad account for universal, abstract, invariants, and how do you know this?

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem is you have never "made the case" for step 1 at all. You just say no one (ie you) can't imagine how logic could exist without God, which is nonsense.

Um, by what standard of logic is my argument 'nonsense,' how do you account for that standard, and why does it apply to my argument?

Wicknight wrote: »

Who said an "entity" has to account for them in the first place? That is an unfounded assumption on your part.

Posit your contrary, so we can compare.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why you are even applying that to logic I'm not even sure. Logic is a cognitive process in the thought patterns of humans. I assume what you real means is order in nature, which is different to logic.

So, could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before humans were around to have the 'thought patterns' of logic??? How do the thought patterns of one human have any bearing on the thought patterns of another? How do thought patterns in any way become law-like?

Wicknight wrote: »

But even if an entity does have to account (I assume you are one of these people who thinks the universe must have been created by something) that still doesn't demonstrate it was the Christian notion of God.

If anyone wishes to posit another justifiction for logic, I will be happy to refute them. (Not holding my breath though).

Wicknight wrote: »

So you are making two jumps of faith.

Well, let's see who is really making the 'jump of faith.' Please tell us how you account for the laws of logic.

Cheers,

Sye

rockbeer wrote: »

Go ahead, prove I'm wrong using an argument that couldn't be applied equally to god.

You still lack justification for the laws of logic. How does this scenario get you universal, abstract, invariant laws, and knowledge of same?

Cheers,

Sye

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Why the need to justify them?

I don't know why the world is why it is, but I don't see how a God explains it.

That's the problem with you atheists, you live on faith.