-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
proof that god exists website
- Thread starter felixthecoach
- Start date
In giving us only two options, the website ignores all the other possibilities. For example, molesting children could be alright for a non-human species. There is only an absolute morality about some things within our species.
Also, the website doesn't acknowledge the fact that morality changes depending on what time and place you inhabit. 1000 years ago, people could perhaps have been thought repulsive if they questioned the Crusades, whilst nowadays the crusades are seen as a dark period in our history.
Also, the website doesn't acknowledge the fact that morality changes depending on what time and place you inhabit. 1000 years ago, people could perhaps have been thought repulsive if they questioned the Crusades, whilst nowadays the crusades are seen as a dark period in our history.
borrofburi
New Member
I wrote a whole bunch, but basically this page (linked at end of paragraph) is full of flaws and, in my opinion, is the only one you can disagree with if you assume each of his previous questions used definitions that allow his statements to be true (e.g. "absolute" means "personal certainty" (which can be inferred from his infinite loops at the beginning), and "laws immaterial" means "ideas in a mind" (which can be inferred from his justification of the immaterial nature of laws), etc.), but giving him these definitions (in order for his site to be accurate), this one page must finally and necessarily be wrong:
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/individual.php
That's right, they are not "absolute" "immaterial" *and* "universal"; it is the combination of "immaterial" and "universal" that is simply incorrect. Absolute is just a modifier, and a poor one at that (especially with his watered down definition of absolute "personal certainty" (necessary for his infinite loops not to be false dichotomies), so we'll ignore that for now. Things can be immaterial insofar as they are simply ideas in the human mind; things can be universal insofar as they are physical realities. But anything universal is necessarily material, and anything immaterial must necessarily be subjective, to have an immaterial universal is a contradiction.
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/individual.php
That's right, they are not "absolute" "immaterial" *and* "universal"; it is the combination of "immaterial" and "universal" that is simply incorrect. Absolute is just a modifier, and a poor one at that (especially with his watered down definition of absolute "personal certainty" (necessary for his infinite loops not to be false dichotomies), so we'll ignore that for now. Things can be immaterial insofar as they are simply ideas in the human mind; things can be universal insofar as they are physical realities. But anything universal is necessarily material, and anything immaterial must necessarily be subjective, to have an immaterial universal is a contradiction.
Even if you allow them to get away with all of this, the "proof" is just a non-sequitor anyway... It's resting on the assumption that you need god for the universe to have "universal, imaterial, unchanging" laws, which is completely untrue. It's truly sad that even if you grant theists a bunch of nonsense as true, they still can't prove the existance of god.
NovusMentis
New Member
Yeah...that website absolutely proves that there is a god. - NOT.
felixthecoach
New Member
Oh yeah, I forgot about this website. IT's my favorite website ever.
I realise its been a while, but here goes.
I realise this is essentially a "social contract" and "self interest" argument, but still.
As for "greater evil", you can assert a simple comparison without defining evil (just as you can assert that one item is heavier than another without defining mass or density. We realise that, however wrong or undesireable the death of 10 individuals is, the death of 100 is even less desireable.
Harm refers to something that is socially damaging, it hinders someones ability to survive and function. We are social beings, we live or die, both ourselves, other members of society and the society as a whole, based on cooperation and encouraging the whole of society to function as a unit.
I realise this is essentially a "social contract" and "self interest" argument, but still.
As for "greater evil", you can assert a simple comparison without defining evil (just as you can assert that one item is heavier than another without defining mass or density. We realise that, however wrong or undesireable the death of 10 individuals is, the death of 100 is even less desireable.
WolfAU said:
If I punch you in the mouth and cause no serious injury, does it hinder your ability to survive and function?
?!
If you can't say what evil is or what is evil, how can you measure it? If i ask you to choose the greater splorg and refuse to offer any definition for splorg, can you choose the greatest splorg?
Is it?
What did the 100 were trying to kill me and the ten are very attractive females?
Desirability is subjective, making your assertion as to what is more or less desirable pretty meaningless.