proof that god exists website

[felixthecoach]

I found this amazing website that has changed my life!

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

It proved that God exists in only 5 steps. Initially I was going to say that morals change from culture to culture, but then the site asked a very stunning question: "Is raping young children for fun absolutely morally wrong?" I had to say yes...Just had to...then he went in for the kill: Morality exists and is equal in stature to logic and math, therefore it is unchanging and absolute and the same for everyone just like logic and math. This of course leads to the final conclusion: god exists because without him nothing can be proven...

Wait, what?

....

Take the "quiz" yourself! You'll be converted as I was.

 

[JRChadwick]

I never thought I would say this...

Click on "Molesting Children For Fun Could Be Right".

 

[felixthecoach]

lol...my wife got mad at it and then went to the disney website it sends you to if you answer wrong. It was funny.

 

[e2iPi]

I couldn't help myself, apparently I have had the existence of god proven to me! I am a true believer now! Suddenly, it all makes sense!

-1

 

[Merc]

Why does every answer have the word "absolute" in it? There aren't any absolutes in this world, ESPECIALLY when it comes to morality, as it varies from culture to culture. Sheesh...

 

[Netheralian]

I was stuck in an endless loop between "Child molestation is wrong" and "absolute moral laws do not exist". I had to switch the browser down to get out of the endless iteration of stupidity...

 

[WolfAU]

Raping a child is wrong for two reasons.
1. The result is usually causing serious and often permenant psychological damage to the child, and someitmes causes significant physical damage as well.
2. The attacker usually knows this, and does so in spite of, or intentially because of this fact.

For this reason, whether or not it is evil can change socially and from person to person, depending on what the intent of the attacker is, and what the effect on the victim is.

The website is a gigantic appeal to emotion... "you don't like what the implications are of having no absolute moral law therefore the only way to avoid this being true is that there is a God". It also fails at the euthyphro dilemma., as if God is humans source of morality, where does God get his sense of right and wrong from? If nowhere then God is not really good or evil, and if he gets it from an external source, we should be more interested in understanding that, then understanding God.

This part of the sequence is fun too.
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/believe.php

 

[Homunclus]

Furthermore on step 7: "whether you believe they are changing or unchanging" - don't the laws of science change? Like there is the theory that light used to be faster in the past. Also the laws of physics as we know are not applicable to the first moments of the universe

So basically the whole point is that if we can't think of a reason for the existence of those laws...god did it. What a miserable argument

 

[ExeFBM]

I always find it odd that the only acts everyone can agree are wrong without exception (rape and child molestation) are completely absent from the 10 commandments

 

[e2iPi]

Furthermore on step 7: "whether you believe they are changing or unchanging" - don't the laws of science change?

Yes, they do, which is why we don't use the term "law" anymore and have migrated to "theory." We still refer to Newton's laws of motion, for example, but we understand that they are approximations - very, very good approximations - but approximations none the less and subject to improvement or revision based on observations.

A hypothesis, best described as an educated guess, can become a theory after repeated testing by independent sources.

A theory, best described as a validated model of a phenomenon, cannot and does not become a law. Theories are also subject to changes and revision.

The language of science, like everything else, has evolved along with our understanding. The fact that we still have vestiges of outdated language has caused no end of grief when dealing with those who simply do not or refuse to understand that, in science, there is no such thing as an absolute truth.

Mathematics, of course, is a completely different issue.

-1

 

[Zylstra]

It cannot be demonstrated that raping a child is absolutely wrong

Also, this step is a false dichotomy. Since I said that absolute morality does not exist, raping a child is neither wrong nor right.... both answers provided are incorrect


silly theists

 

[Zylstra]

Raping a child is wrong for two reasons.
1. The result is usually causing serious and often permenant psychological damage to the child, and someitmes causes significant physical damage as well.

demonstrate that it is absolutely wrong to cause harm

 

[felixthecoach]

Raping a child is wrong for two reasons.
1. The result is usually causing serious and often permenant psychological damage to the child, and someitmes causes significant physical damage as well.
2. The attacker usually knows this, and does so in spite of, or intentially because of this fact.

You know, we say it's wrong now, but we there might be a culture that disagrees. What if everyone in the world decided that it was okay? Then there would be no reason to say it's not okay, and we would think it was not "wrong". Point is: there are things that societies determine are "absolutely wrong" that seem so obvious to the people in that society. 100 years later, a new society may consider it okay to do. Now, i'm not saying that any culture condones child rape, but hey, the Romans thought that the way to send knowledge from a male teacher to his pupils was for them to have sex--even if they were children. So, was it "wrong" for the Roman culture? Even the children thought that was okay to do. No harm no foul, right?

Digressing, he has no ground to say that "moral principles" are "absolute truths". As a matter of fact, from a philosophical point of view, nothing is an absolute truth. In other words, his argument is founded on something that has no merit in philosophy or logic. Props to more fundie stupidity. :lol:

Edit: what the guy above me said.

 

[WolfAU]

demonstrate that it is absolutely wrong to cause harm

Well thats getting into 'define wrong' catagory.

I define wrong as something that...
1. Causes harm and is not what one would consider 'necessary' (ie is not done to prevent a greater evil), which even that would make it an evil, done to commit a greater evil (ie I still consider killing an enemy combatant at war 'wrong', just also 'necessary'.
2. That we would not like for it to be done to ourselves or people we care about (example being burned alive for sadistic pleasure after having done nothing is wrong as I doubt the perpetrator would want to have it done to them).
3. Done with knowledge of the harm it causes, and done either without empathy for those affected, or enjoying the harm it causes.

God I love dot points...

Obviously not every single person on the world uses this one definition, and how we sense this instinctively is partly innate (ie making us good social citizens, ie through empathy), and alot of it is socially learnt (ie our parents rewarding 'good' and punishing 'bad').

But I don't claim that absolute morality exists. Not everyone could ever agree on a moral code and even then, humans sense of right and wrong is their own brand of inprinting, and we have no reason to assume that it holds any kind of universal truth, and also our own reasoning faculties are not perfect. As such trying to seriously address an absolute such as this is not really an achieveable goal.

 

[Mapp]

Someone needs to mirror this site on falsedichotomies.com

 

[ladiesman391]

LMAO I haven't literally laughed out loud at a stupid website for a long time, but this one just cracked me up, lol!

Someone should infiltrate that ministry and tear it down from the inside.

 

[Fordi]

I found this amazing website that has changed my life!

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

It proved that God exists in only 5 steps. Initially I was going to say that morals change from culture to culture, but then the site asked a very stunning question: "Is raping young children for fun absolutely morally wrong?" I had to say yes...Just had to...then he went in for the kill: Morality exists and is equal in stature to logic and math, therefore it is unchanging and absolute and the same for everyone just like logic and math. This of course leads to the final conclusion: god exists because without him nothing can be proven...

Wait, what?

....

Take the "quiz" yourself! You'll be converted as I was.

I keep falling into a loop.

Absolute truth: True for all people at all times, universally true.
I don't know that absolute truth exists.
This statement is absolutely true, but limited specifically in its wording, to me. As such, it IS a glitch.

... having told them what they want to hear ...

"Laws" do not exist. They are our description of the emergent properties of the universe. That they are consistent indicates that, if we must suppose they exist, they *are* nature (he asks where to show them in nature).

 

[Zylstra]

Well thats getting into 'define wrong' catagory.

I define wrong as something that...
1. Causes harm and is not what one would consider 'necessary' (ie is not done to prevent a greater evil), which even that would make it an evil, done to commit a greater evil (ie I still consider killing an enemy combatant at war 'wrong', just also 'necessary'.

That seems quite circular. Why is causing harm undesirable and how do you determine what is 'necessary'? If one cannot define 'evil', how can one determine the 'greater evil'?

2. That we would not like for it to be done to ourselves or people we care about (example being burned alive for sadistic pleasure after having done nothing is wrong as I doubt the perpetrator would want to have it done to them).

Now you're leaving morality and entering into ethics. I asked you a question regarding morality

3. Done with knowledge of the harm it causes, and done either without empathy for those affected, or enjoying the harm it causes.

You've merely given examples of what is 'wrong'; you have not defined 'wrong' or demonstrated why any of these things are 'wrong'

But I don't claim that absolute morality exists.

We are in agreement

 

[Homunclus]

Yes, they do, which is why we don't use the term "law" anymore and have migrated to "theory." We still refer to Newton's laws of motion, for example, but we understand that they are approximations - very, very good approximations - but approximations none the less and subject to improvement or revision based on observations.

A hypothesis, best described as an educated guess, can become a theory after repeated testing by independent sources.

A theory, best described as a validated model of a phenomenon, cannot and does not become a law. Theories are also subject to changes and revision.

The language of science, like everything else, has evolved along with our understanding. The fact that we still have vestiges of outdated language has caused no end of grief when dealing with those who simply do not or refuse to understand that, in science, there is no such thing as an absolute truth.

Mathematics, of course, is a completely different issue.

-1

That's not what I meant. They refer to "laws of science" as in the properties of the universe, not the models we use to describe them. My question is: Are the properties of the universe constant?

 

[e2iPi]

That's not what I meant. They refer to "laws of science" as in the properties of the universe, not the models we use to describe them. My question is: Are the properties of the universe constant?

I would give a qualified yes. Based on the models which we use to understand the universe, the properties are constant under constant conditions. This does not mean that they are immutable, however. It is possible to conceive of different universes where the fundamental properties are different, or even highly variable, and it is possible to conceive of circumstances in our own universe where the properties may change under extreme conditions. String theory and M-theory actually REQUIRE such places to exist. But again, these are simply models which we use to understand the universe, they may have very little or no bearing on actual physical reality.

-1