Proof of God

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php

What do you think of the argument put forward by this site?

It said "Thank you for visiting"...

Hardly proof of the existence of anything, IMO

Their line of reasoning breaks down when they require me to comment on the possibility of molesting children being either right or wrong. It has conflated my moral skepticism with someone else's moral relativism.

Pathetic

The problem is that everything the site offers is black and white and very simplistic. It makes you answer for an entire concept based on the simplest parts of that concept. Then it groups together the concepts and makes you give a single definite answer for generalized ideas that are so incredibly different from each other.

The problem arose for me when asked whether these thing change over time. I cannot give one answer for this question. It also depends on your definition of "change." Have they changed in the past? Yes, all of them have. Are they changing in the present? Yes, some are. Will they change in the future? Most likely.

Irrelevant.

Someone is engaging in syllogistic gymnastics in order to trick the reader into "admitting" that "something" could be interpreted as God.

When God Himself taps me on the shoulder and says, "Let's talk," I will believe.

What a load of crap!

Doesn't prove anything. If god really wants everyone to believe him, he's get off his cloud and show himself to us.

If more and more people become unbelievers with each passing generation, god can't say "gee why won't people believe in me anymore?" because not revealing himself to us would be his fault, and he has no one to blame for lack of unfaithfuls then himself.

(bold)Thats what I say!

Let's talk.

You're not God ... you haven't tapped me on the shoulder.

Molesting children is wrong, therefore God exists.

I still adhere to the Douglas Adams view of the god argument, proof vs faith in gods existence.
I find the atheist views to be devoid of any humanity, that we are soulless automatons that eat,
s**t and procreate. Whats wrong if some people want to hope that there is more to this existence,
or having faith in something that may or may not exist. Its a pointless argument thats been flogged
to death on this and other forums.

Step two: Laws of Mathematics exist. FALSE. We can define whatever axioms we bloody well please, and they can be different if we feel like doing something in a different way. And the site's refutation for saying that laws of mathematics exist is quite stupid.

Step Four: Absolute morality. OK, way to arbitrarily reject a huge variety of different philosophies with no real justification as to why other than a knee-jerk reaction.

Step six: Laws of logic, mathematics, and morality are universal. The example given is 2+2=4. I can define different axioms and not get 2+2=4. I could choose to work in a number system that doesn't define addition in the same way. Morality is an even messier business to deal with in such a nature.

And even if we accept all his premises as true (which there is no convincing reason to do) his conclusion does not follow, nor does he show why it would. Beyond that, even if (by a huge stretch of the imagination) his proof were accepted as valid, all it established is a God of some sort. It need not be a personal God, and it need not be the God of Judeo-Christian scripture.

As a Christian, I am embarrassed to see this type of crap put forward by anyone.

If God exists, then I'd like to meet Him (or Her, or Whatever, as the case may be), or at least witness personally unequivocable evidence of God's existence.

Written accounts of dubious origin ("apocryphae") being deemed insufficient.

Hope is.... hope.
God is not hope. Religionists say that often that if you don't believe, that you have no hope.

What is it that believers are hopeing for? We all live, and we are all going to die.