Proof God Exists?

Standman

Hey I posted this in the A&A forum already, but I'd be interested to know what ye Christians think of this site that claims to "prove God exists".

Its in the format of a quiz, only takes a couple of minutes!

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

It really does put into perspective how delusional and self deceptive some Christians can get.

kelly1

Standman wrote: »

It really does put into perspective how delusional and self deceptive some Christians can get.

Would you care to elaborate on this?

Standman

If you visit the site there it will give you all the elaboration you need!

Zombrex

Standman wrote: »

Hey I posted this in the A&A forum already, but I'd be interested to know what ye Christians think of this site that claims to "prove God exists".

Its in the format of a quiz, only takes a couple of minutes!

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

It really does put into perspective how delusional and self deceptive some Christians can get.

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:

Akrasia

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.

Malari

Yes, same thing happened when I tried it. Bit of a "2 plus 2 equals 22" situation. Stupid.

rockbeer

Yes it kept telling me how irrational I was for not thinking that because something wasn't black it had to be white.

Very frustrating.

Akrasia

Its a totally stupid website. If you select an option that it doesn't agree with it basically declares that you're wrong and then makes you to choose again (bit like the Irish government...)

When i selected that I believe the laws of logic and science (with 'the law of morality' tacked onto it) are 'material' (which is a stupid option but it is closer to my beliefs than to say that they are 'immaterial') it just said 'well, do you see them anywhere? you must be wrong'

Balls to that (excuse my french)

Asking loaded questions with artificially limited answers is so transparently dishonest (or extremely ignorant) that it's actually making me quite angry to think about it.

Standman

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?

Asiaprod

Standman wrote: »

What does this tell us?

I am waiting with baited breath to find out.

MooseJam

The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything - ha ha

BrianCalgary

Kinda dumb. No discussion available.

BrianCalgary

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?

Standman

BrianCalgary wrote: »

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

That's silly, you're silly! I'm intolerant of you!

Fremen

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.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Fremen wrote: »

I'd love to see this translated into formal logic

A=¬A

/head explodes

Akrasia

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.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

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

Stop being intolerant of my intolerance! :pac:

JC 2K3

Wicknight wrote: »

Stop being intolerant of my intolerance! :pac:

ROFL.

Therefore tolerance cannot exist.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Stop being intolerant of my intolerance! :pac:

Rats, can't come up with a witty comeback.

Fremen

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

Fremen wrote: »

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.

Another less obvious flaw is that existence is not a property. Also, why use god as the standard of perfection, when you could easily imagine something more plausible, such as a perfect cake or an island?

By the logic of the ontological argument, all of these things must exist.

MooseJam

Daftendirekt wrote: »

when you could easily imagine something more plausible, such as a perfect cake or an island?

would definately prefer a perfect cake to a god, mmm cake

Daftendirekt

MooseJam wrote: »

would definately prefer a perfect cake to a god, mmm cake

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

Akrasia

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.

ptge

Standman wrote: »

It really does put into perspective how delusional and self deceptive some Christians can get.

Hey Ladies! Well, here I am, delusional, and self decpetive ol' me

Thanks for posting the link to my site (it showed up on my traffic log). I'll try to pop in here once in a while to see if anyone wishes to post a refutation, but so far all I have seen is venting.

Cheers,

Sye

Thomas_S_Hunterson

ptge wrote: »

I'll try to pop in here once in a while to see if anyone wishes to post a refutation, but so far all I have seen is venting.

Bit rich to be asking for a rationally argued refutation perhaps?

ptge

Sean_K wrote: »

Bit rich to be asking for a rationally argued refutation perhaps?

Bit rich to be knocking the site without offering one perhaps?

Zombrex

ptge wrote: »

Bit rich to be knocking the site without offering one perhaps?

Have you read this thread (all pages?) There are already plenty of refutations.

For a start you provide a very limited number of answers to each question, and then when they user clicks the "wrong" answer you simply instruct them that they are wrong

Hardly a logical proof of God now is it. Why dont you just have one question - "Does God exist" - and if the users picks no you simply inform them that God does in fact exist. There you have logically proven God's existence :rolleyes:

ptge

Wicknight wrote: »

Have you read this thread (all pages?) There are already plenty of refutations.

The proof is quite simply that proof of anything is impossible without God. If anyone here wishes to refute the proof, please demonstrate how proof of anything is possible without God.

Cheers,

Sye

Thomas_S_Hunterson

ptge wrote:

If anyone here wishes to refute the proof, please demonstrate how proof of anything is possible without God.

Well.... by way of contradiction, the pythagorean theorem:


No god involved.

JC 2K3

Proof of one's own existence: "I think therefore I am".

No God there.

Fremen

Hey Ladies! Well, here I am, delusional, and self decpetive ol' me

Thanks for posting the link to my site (it showed up on my traffic log). I'll try to pop in here once in a while to see if anyone wishes to post a refutation, but so far all I have seen is venting.

Cheers,

Sye

Well as I pointed out earlier, even if you accept all the propositions about absolute truth, morality, and so on, your conclusion still begs the question. See my post above.

Sean_K wrote: »

No god involved.

Well, his logic is that proofs THEMSELVES can't exist, because without god, there can be no absolute truth. You can't use that proposition to infer the existence of god, because your reasoning goes in a circle if you try.

ptge

Sean_K wrote: »

Well.... by way of proof by contradiction, the pythagorean theorem:No god involved.

How do you know that proof by contradiction is valid? Why can contradictions not be 'true' according to your worldview?

Cheers,

Sye

ptge

Fremen wrote: »

You can't use that proposition to infer the existence of god, because your reasoning goes in a circle if you try.

You see your dilemma here? You assume an absolute by telling me what I absolutely cannot do. To what standard of logic are you holding my argument to, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard apply to my argument?

Cheers,

Sye

rockbeer

@Sye:
You haven't actually demonstrated that proof of anything is impossible without god. You simply assert that:

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

This is a premise.

Come back when you have a proof for your premise. (Hint: you have some way to go since you haven't even proved that universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist yet - especially moral ones, let alone that they depend on god.)

JC 2K3

ptge wrote: »

how do you account for that standard...?

I don't know and he doesn't know.

You don't know either, you just assume it's "God".

And what is "God" anyway? Please define "God" for me.

ptge

rockbeer wrote: »

@Sye:
You haven't actually demonstrated that proof of anything is impossible without god. You simply assert that:
"Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist"

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 :-)

Cheers,

Sye

Thomas_S_Hunterson

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.

Wait...so...are you going to prove that the contrary is impossible or just hope it is?

JC 2K3

ptge wrote: »

And I state that it is proven by the impossibility of the contrary.

How do you know that proof by contradiction is valid? You can't say that it is valid because there exists an absolute truth, and then use that premise to prove that an absolute truth exists. That's circular logic.

So without firstly assuming that an absolute truth exists, prove an absolute truth exists.

ptge

Sean_K wrote: »

Wait...so...are you going to prove that the contrary is impossible or just hope it is?

Nope, you are all proving it for me

ptge

JC 2K3 wrote: »

How do you know that proof by contradiction is valid? You can't say that it is valid because there exists an absolute truth, and then use that premise to prove that an absolute truth exists. That's circular logic.

Hey don't get too far ahead :-) I simply asked why circular logic is not allowed according to your worldview?

Cheers,

Sye

Thomas_S_Hunterson

To which branch of logic do you subscribe exactly?:pac:

ptge

Sean_K wrote: »

To which branch of logic do you subscribe exactly?:pac:

The branch where contradictions in reasoning are invalid ;-)

JC 2K3

ptge wrote: »

Hey don't get too far ahead :-) I simply asked why circular logic is not allowed according to your worldview?

The computer you're typing on, cars, trains and any technology ever invented has been developed using definite laws of logic and mathematics.

Why are these laws assumed to be true? Because they work. They might not be 100% true, and often are revised and changed as experiments show them to be innaccurate, but they work and help us to develop technologies. I don't believe any of these laws to be 100% true, but I accept that they are quite accurate and work when we try to develop things. Circular logic does not work.

Where God comes into it I don't know. It goes back to my other question: "What is God?".

ptge

JC 2K3 wrote: »

The computer you're typing on, cars, trains and any technology ever invented has been developed using definite laws of logic and mathematics.

How do you know? You are assuming the validity of your senses, your reasoning, your memory and those laws in order to come to this conclusion.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Why are these laws assumed to be true? Because they work.

This is questiong begging. Work to what end?

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Circular logic does not work.

Again, question begging. How do you know it does not work?

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Where God comes into it I don't know. It goes back to my other question: "What is God?".

I answer that on the website.

Cheers,

Sye

Thomas_S_Hunterson

ptge wrote: »

This is questiong begging. Work to what end?

Yes it's all a conspiracy against god

ptge

Sean_K wrote: »

Yes it's all a conspiracy against god

Is that the best you can do? Usually people put up more of a fight before they bow out. Let me refresh your memory, in post 34 from the previous page I asked: "How do you know that proof by contradiction is valid? Why can contradictions not be 'true' according to your worldview?"

Well?

Cheers,

Sye

JC 2K3

ptge wrote: »

How do you know? You are assuming the validity of your senses, your reasoning, your memory and those laws in order to come to this conclusion.

Cognito, Ergo Sum.

In truth, I know nothing exists besides myself, my senses and my reasoning.

ptge wrote: »

I answer that on the website.

Link?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

ptge wrote: »

...

Apologies if I'm wrong now but


Are you ripping the proverbial?

ptge

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Cognito, Ergo Sum.

In truth, I know nothing exists besides myself, my senses and my reasoning.

Actually it was an atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russel, who discredited Descarte's statement. Self, senses, and reasoning don't even enter into the equation, all Decartes could ever hope to posit is 'I think, therefore somewhere in the universe there is thinking going on.'