Proof that God exists

Evil_Mage_Ra wrote

a Christian God would make the laws of science meaningless, since they are subject to be overridden at any moment!

Agreed. The natural doesn't need the supernatural to function. That people insist so is only a measure of their ignorance.

RenaissanceMan wrote

That website was completely stupid. The gap between the questions and the conclusions was big enough to fit Kent Hovind's stupidity about evolution AND Ray Comfort's smug sense of superiority into with room to spare.

You could probably squeeze Kirk Cameron's banana in there too.

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy look who's here :-) Hello All. Appreciate you visiting the site. Would you like feedback on some of your comments, or are you just venting? :-)

CanuckFish wrote

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy look who's here :-) Hello All. Appreciate you visiting the site. Would you like feedback on some of your comments, or are you just venting? :-)

Are you the author of that so-called proof? Let me elaborate on my earlier comment.

Laws of science are material in nature because they explain material things. They are not abstract, only their linguistic expressions are. Even if there were no intelligent life in the universe, matter would still attract matter and like charges would repel each other. Argon-41 would still have a half-life of 1.8 hours (only one I can remember exactly right now). I bet Choobus can tell you many more such laws. In short, the universe would still work the same way and this is so because scientific law is not invented by humanity; we just discover it for ourselves.

What you do in that step of the "proof" is beg the question. One can summarize your reasoning thus:

1. Abstract thought cannot exist without God
2. Abstract thought exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

There is no reason to accept premise 1 axiomatically, but you provide no proof for it. It's no different in nature from the argument from awesomeness or the "god of the gaps" thesis: your lack of understanding is not evidence for a higher power; it is merely evidence for your ignorance, howver temporary.

CanuckFish wrote

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy look who's here :-) Hello All. Appreciate you visiting the site. Would you like feedback on some of your comments, or are you just venting? :-)

I'd like some feedback, yes.

DJ KAPUT wrote

I hate that zeus damn argument that the claim "There are no absolutes" is an absolute truth. It's not a f***ing absolute truth, it is the absence of an absolute truth. Just as cold is the absence of heat, "there are no absolute truths" is the absence of an absolute truth.

For instance...

Is it absolutley true that "It's not a f***ing absolute truth, it is the absence of an absloute truth?"

[Professor Chaos]

You can say fuck, dude. You won't be smited here.

Oz wrote

Are you the author of that so-called proof? Let me elaborate on my earlier comment.

Laws of science are material in nature because they explain material things. They are not abstract, only their linguistic expressions are. Even if there were no intelligent life in the universe, matter would still attract matter and like charges would repel each other. Argon-41 would still have a half-life of 1.8 hours (only one I can remember exactly right now). I bet Choobus can tell you many more such laws. In short, the universe would still work the same way and this is so because scientific law is not invented by humanity; we just discover it for ourselves.

All of science is based on 'Induction.' Basically stated, our assumption that 'nature is uniform' or that 'the future will be like the past'. Matter has attracted matter in the past, like charges have repelled each other in the past, Argon-41 has had a half-life of 1.8 hours in the past (I'll take your word on that). On what basis do you assume that these properties will be the same tomorrow, or in 10 seconds for that matter? On what basis do you assume that the future will be like the past?

Oz wrote

What you do in that step of the "proof" is beg the question. One can summarize your reasoning thus:

1. Abstract thought cannot exist without God
2. Abstract thought exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

There is no reason to accept premise 1 axiomatically, but you provide no proof for it. It's no different in nature from the argument from awesomeness or the "god of the gaps" thesis: your lack of understanding is not evidence for a higher power; it is merely evidence for your ignorance, howver temporary.

How do you account for abstract thought?

Since, I assume, you are attempting to argue logically with me, how do you account for the laws of logic?

MilitantAtheist wrote

You can say f**k, dude. You won't be smited here.

Thank you, I choose not to :-)

[calpurnpiso]

skribb wrote

I suppose then, that non-christians (rather, religious people in general) is the subspecies of Homo Sapiens Psychoticus Religiosus Retardensis? :)

Exactly, since christ-psychosis is a strain of religious psychosis. That, so far undetected and apothesized, form of schziophrenia that has been stagnating the intellect making us kill each other defending our delusions!. As we see, there is little difference btween Christian reasoning( thinking ) and those of the schizophrenics and TLE sufferers...:)

[Professor Chaos]

CanuckFish wrote

For instance...

Is it absolutley true that "It's not a f***ing absolute truth, it is the absence of an absloute truth?"

Yeah, yeah, we know how this works.

And the sentences, "I always lie." or "This statement is false." are tricky little plays on words and logic as well.

EDIT: I should point out, though, that I do belive, as you put it, that "absolute truth exists." It's your logic afterwards that's flawed.

[Professor Chaos]

Anyways, though, welcome and thanks for coming. I look forward to participating in and observing some excellent debate!

MilitantAtheist wrote

Yeah, yeah, we know how this works.

And the sentences, "I always lie." or "This statement is false." are tricky little plays on words and logic as well.

Yes, I agree, these statements belong in the same category as "Absolute truth does not exist." They are all self-refuting.

Oh and thanks for the welcome. There is another thread about my site at another atheistic website but their insulting tone does not invite engagement.

Edit- Please elaborate on the 'flawed logic.'

[antix]

CanuckFish wrote

Is it absolutley true that "It's not a f***ing absolute truth, it is the absence of an absloute truth?"

... or we could take questions of this nature to epic proportions. Is it an absolute truth that the god of the bible is everything it claims? Can we absolutely know this? What if it was absolutely true that the Flying Spaggheti Monster created the bible? Could we absolutly know that? Could we absolutely know that was not the case?

The questions could go on and on to the point of being ridiculous. And not a one of them leads us to "absoule truth" Are these words I just wrote absolute? Did I absolutely write them? Can we know this? Can I be absolutely certain that you even exist? Or I? Can I be absolutely certain that McDonalds serves Big Macs? How about tomorrow?

Do you see the problem with the type of argument you're using? The question "can you be absolutely certain about...?" become redundant to the point of absurdity. And yes. I am absoulely certain about that.


And yes... I am absolutely certain that I am absolutely certain about that.... Or am I?

antix wrote

... or we could take questions of this nature to epic proportions. Is it an absolute truth that the god of the bible is everything it claims? Can we absolutely know this? What if it was absolutely true that the Flying Spaggheti Monster created the bible? Could we absolutly know that? Could we absolutely know that was not the case?

The questions could go on and on to the point of being ridiculous. And not a one of them leads us to "absoule truth" Are these words I just wrote absolute? Did I absolutely write them? Can we know this? Can I be absolutely certain that you even exist? Or I? Can I be absolutely certain that McDonalds serves Big Macs? How about tomorrow?

Do you see the problem with the type of argument you're using? The question "can you be absolutely certain about...?" become redundant to the point of absurdity. And yes. I am absoulely certain about that.


And yes... I am absolutely certain that I am absolutely certain about that.... Or am I?

Do you agree with the assertion that an ultimate authority must be self-authorizing?

Where has the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' claimed ultimate authority?

What are the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster's claims, and how do they comport with reality?