Thread: http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

I found This not to long ago, and seeing as how I haven't been in R/S for some time, I thought you guys might like to see it.

please, only take the poll once you have read through the site.

Its not to long.

one word
Shoehorn

I got to the page that states

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.

it then tries to change your mind by throwing child molestation in there...

Morals and society codes are arbitrary rules that are laid down for the greater good of the people
they are not "absolute"

Did I fail?

did it...

no comment

Originally Posted by Ynot

Morals and society codes are arbitrary rules that are laid down for the greater good of the people
they are not "absolute"

Did I fail?

No ... I don't think it is a question of failing.

Why did you say arbitrary, btw?

anyhow, Morals aren't actually rules. they are whether something is right or wrong.

It's pointless. If you don't beleive exactly what they want you to they give up. It proves nothing but fudementalist stupidity.

ouch!

Where do you disagree?

Originally Posted by Keeper

ouch!

Where do you disagree?

Well, for example, at the molesting part. I chose yes, it is okay to do it. I did this in the context that 'moral' is not a universal power, like the force or something. He says he will pray for me, for I am wrong.

There are too little choices and not enough explanation. In order to get the right answer you have to believe whatever he wants you to. The only thing he proved is that you can get people to 'believe' by giving them no other choice. The thing is stupid and proves nothing.

This doesn't prove anything. Seriously, if you just think about it, how can you believe in something like God? Maybe religion gives people a reason to live, it comforts them, makes them feel like they have meaning. Unless God, Jesus, or the antichrist, whoever comes to Earth I'll forever be an athiest(sp?).

Besides, don't all the major monotheistic religions say that if you don't believe in their savior or whatever you'll go to hell? Well I don't want to make the wrong choice and go there. I'm sure if there really is a superior being it will forgive my cautiousness. If not, I hardly want to share eternity with someone like that.

I don't get it every time I picked something it acted like I picked the total opposite, it's also pretty bad proof that God exists, it just shows people that we believe in non seeable (too tired and cant think of a better word) we made up our own things in order to understand things (I do believe in Go btw). What this means is that if one thing is wrong all else fails. Think about it if 2 + 2 = 4 was wrong every single thing mathematical would be wrong, kind of tired but this makes sense to me.

Oh, and look at this-

When you click Absolute Truth Does Not Exist, it takes you to another page. When you click 'absolutely true' you're led back to the main page. Oh, so instead of saying True, like False did, they had to say that! It's a petty spelling thing, avoiding a conflict with his stupid beliefs. OH SO CLEVER!

... You sieriasly didn't get that, did you?

think about it.

p.s. about that molesting ... read my other post

Originally Posted by Keeper

... what?

Do YOU think that molesting a child could be right in a certain situation?

How do you define force, btw?

Originally Posted by Keeper

... You sieriasly didn't get that, did you?

think about it.

p.s. about that molesting ... read my other post

Yeah, I did. They're saying you clicked on No such thing as it but you clicked on it in the next screen, therefore proving yourself wrong. It's a friggin added word to trip you up. It was dumb. Why not just True.

They're avoiding potentially damaging questions.

Originally Posted by Keeper

... You sieriasly didn't get that, did you?

think about it.

Rofl, its asking us a question about something specific then it claims (infers) that if there is no universal truth that there can be no truth and therefore there must be a universal truth. What it glosses over is that some things can be certain while others are not.....

And do you know the definition of a biased question? The questions are fine until you disagree. For the morality question: heres an example of choices that are biased in the other direction.

Are there absolute laws of morality and is everything exactly right and wrong?

Yes, I think only in black and white and need someone else to tell me what is right and wrong because I lack the power to think

or

No, I believe morals can change depending on the person and situation.

This is what I would have been like if it were written by atheists.

Damn, I started a general attitude, eh?

Regardless most have the same opinion. It sucks, it very linear, and doesn't prove anything.

Okay, that was a lot writen!

BD: Are you saying that it is perfectly exeptable to touch a child (or rape etc.)
Ignore the law
Ignore punishment

Is it okay to do that?
If I understand you correctly, that is what you said. Am I right?

Wendy: Okay, what do you mean when you say Absolute?

also, I really dont get what you are saying in your monologue-bit. Can we sort this out in PM and then post it (it will help me get things in perspective)

Blah: There actually is, and yes, hell is not in the Bible. Its actually a pagan concept.

Arby: Yours seems very restrictive. Moreso then is needed

anyhow, to people in general: Absolute truth = something that is fact (1+1 = 2) Not something that is unknown. It means "is there an answer that is fact?"

Yeah, it is. With no law and no punishment, it would be. No moral power would get me. YOU DON'T GET THIS!

Truth- We know that. However, that stupid question was just a play on words.

I completely disagree with this. When he says that your car can not be in the parking lot, but no be in the parking lot, at the same time, he is wrong. Look up quantom physics.

The website could not wrap its mind around the paradox that absolute truth does not exist. It only offered me to either say that that concept was "absolutely true," which puts you in an infinite circle, or that it wasn't true. In other words, it never got to its point because it assumed I would eventually "see the error in my logic" and agree. Yes, I understand it's a paradox, and my how clever they are at looping you back to the same question over and over... however, I'm afraid they never even mentioned God to me, so it was an utter failure.

So how do you define absolute truth?

what was ment was that "is it possable for it to be "right" to molest, not that it is a power. He asked if it is/was a law

That the point BD was trying to make, their is no law, morality is not a absolute truth. She just uses a very awful suggestion to try and scare you into believing that their is absolute.
Example Do you believe that murder is aboslute?
and I say no

So it is right to kill a child for fun.

Now then you forced into black and white, which murder isn't. Of course their is very little reason to justify killing a child, however he could be Hitler or someone. The point is it's stupid.

Also it stuff like clickling on 'I don't know if aboslute truth is true' and then getting is this aboslutely true. The point is you can do this
Is their aboslute truth
Well, no
Well, then that is a truth?
Well, yes
aboslutely the truth?
Yes
So then does god exist?
No
Our you sure aboslutely?
Yes
Proof that god doesn't exist. I believe that it is a truth, theirfore it is.

Also when you get down to it, her argument is this

If you believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, or morality are material, please show me where in nature these laws are. Can you touch them, see them, smell them, hear them, or taste them? Rather than have you produce a material, physical law I will narrow down the field for you... just show me the number '3' somewhere in nature. Not 'three things,' not a written representation of the number 3 but the real physical, material number 3.
It is my hope and prayer that you come to see the futility of trying find an abstract entity in nature, and return to seek the truth, otherwise your road to this site's proof that God exists ends here.

The first question is easily anwsered. The laws of science comes from evidence and expriment, gravity for example, you do some expriment like dropping a ball in a vacuumm then collect the evidence, someone like Newtoon and Einstein comes along and describes the evidence we found and the data using mathematics, then have a basic model and then you test it. If you use the prediction and they our correct then the model can be deemed as fact.

I will address the 3 thing now. I think it best to describe how the laws came about. Numbers are not real things, they our abstraction of stuff example say if I move three steps forward, now mathematics like to pull thing out of reality so they can get a better picture off things. She says show me three, however the number three or any number is basically just taking something from reality to describe it better, words and language is a good example. Mathematics is a language, now does rose have anything to do with a rose, when I say rose to you I just saying a agreeded apon name for a rose, when I say three to you I'm just saying a agreeded apon thing because it is easier to express. Now if you say to me show me 9.8 I would not be able to show you it, however it is a meaningless question, I can show you how 9.8 is used in mathematics, so we can measure things. 9.8 could be a speed so I could jump in the air or I could give you a measurement of 9.8 cm or I could even wait 9.8minautes. Mathematics is a abstraction of reality, mathematics is not reality. Does mathematics exist? Yes, however its reality is a abstraction off reality.

Even if that rubbish was true, what makes it your god not say allah or zeus. What other evidence have you got to support your claims, science has tons of evidence and yet their is no evidence for god. That why science is material, because everything in science can be explain without supernatural, because their is physical evidence.

Thank you!

Here's my input...

On the absolute moral thing: I agree that there is no such thing as absolute moral law. That child molestation, although it is never justifiable in practice, is not something that's fundamentally wrong only because it is what it is and it was always supposed to be wrong.
It's wrong because (most) people regard it as being wrong. Why? Because it seriously reduces the "happiness value" of one's life, so to speak.
Imagine people raping children all the time until someone said "hey wait a sec guys! this makes the chilren and those who love them unhappy. We have to do something about it." Of course this probably isn't what happened, but it is the way morals come to be, in a very superficial way, of course.
This all makes perfect sense if you think about it (at least to me, it does), and the website's logic is seriously flawed for obscuring that (among other things).

Now, as for the conclusion in itself: I believe the following sentence on the page you see when you "succesfully" finish the steps is very important. After you've agreed with believing in all the things they put forward, this is how they connect that to their "proof" of the Christian god.

Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.

As an atheist, I believe that actually all this can be accounted for while the universe is random, or at least not created by any one entity. Yes, it's true that many constants are vital to our survival, but I do not believe the earth rotates around the sun at exactly the right distance and that there is water and food present on our planet because there are humans it has to support. I would personally say the exact opposite is true and that if certain factors had been different, we would have evolved in a different way (along with all the other animals).

That was just my reasoning to why I think this does not prove that gods exist/God exists. Now of course, not everyone is atheist, but if this website, in anyone's opinion, does provide possible evidence for the creation and regulation of the universe by whatever entity, it certainly doesn't prove the existance of the Christian god (which it specifically says it does). After all, if it's true that the universe could never have turned out the way it has without someone governing it, then why would that someone have to be YHWH (I think it was?) and not Allah (or are those actually the same?) Shiva, Zeus, Odin or Quetzalcoatl.

Really, the website is clever, but I'm not the least bit impressed by this persons powers of reasoning.