Of course if you don't give the right answers it leads you nowhere.
It's an interesting philosophical exercise though. What do you guys think?
__________________
-
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.
But it is also true that, though sound argument and a reasonable appreciation of the available evidence may happen sometimes to lead to false conclusions, no man who is indifferent to argument and evidence can claim to be concerned for truth...It is also true that to tolerate contradiction is similarly to be indifferent to truth. For the person who, whether directly or by implication, knowingly both asserts and denies one and the same proposition, shows by that behaviour that he does not care whether he asserts what is false, and not true, or whether he denies what is true, and not false.
- Antony Flew
Of course if you don't give the right answers it leads you nowhere.
It's an interesting philosophical exercise though. What do you guys think?
This is a Transcendental Argument for God. While it is somewhat cute on a first reading, the pervasiveness of these arguments and the number of people who ignorantly repeat them is depressing. Sadly, in my experience, people who purport these arguments are entirely clueless about logic and metaethics. They are blissfully unaware of the deep and interesting philosophical questions about the nature of logic, truth and morality, the various answers that have been proposed for these questions, and the range of varied and complex positions that it is possible to adopt on them. And if the author of the website expects to be taken seriously with a philosophical argument based around the nature of things like logic, this ignorance is completely inexcusable.
Here is the conclusion:
Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.
Says who? Where is the argument for this, and what is meant by "accounted for" here?
Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things.
Where is the argument for this? How exactly does a God "account for" logical laws? Magic? (yawn).
Actually, I didn't get this far. I don't believe in absolute moral laws. I don't believe that molesting children for fun is absolutely morally wrong in any philosophical sense. I don't believe that molesting children for fun could be right. But clearly, the author of this webpage has not done any reading in metaethics or else he or she might realise that there is a good deal more to say on the reality and meaning of moral statements that this naive dichotomy suggests.
__________________ "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Hitchhiker's Guide
Of course if you don't give the right answers it leads you nowhere.
It's an interesting philosophical exercise though. What do you guys think?
Answering "I don´t care..." to the first question finished the whole thing before it had even started.
Out of interest I tried: "I don´t know...", and the second question asked "I don´t know if absolute truth exists - absolutely true or false?" A question that made no sense whatsoever if applying the definition of "absolute truth" given in the beginning: True for all people at all times, universally true.
The tired old semantics trickery.
__________________
Why I call myself a „non-believer“ or „atheist“:
I can´t relate to any of the god concepts I´m familiar with so far.
Either I´m not convinced by the concept, or
– although not having a problem with the worldview itself -
I see no reason to call one of its elements „God“:
There are already more precise, more common, less loaded and less likely to be misunderstood terms for these elements.
E.g. I prefer to call nature „nature“, the universe „universe“ and everything „everything“.
Question Four, asking about universal moral laws is a load. It uses a situation designed to make us think, "Oh, that's terrible", namely, molesting children. However, let's look at another idea; smacking a disobedient child. is it wrong to smack a disobedient child? This shows that moral absolutes do not exist. Sure, there may be some morals that the vast majority of people share, but that doesn't make it a fundamental moral that is built into the fabric of the universe in the way that 1+1=2 is.
But let's play along....
The next question gives us a false dichotemy. Either they are all universal or all individual. Rubbish. I believe that some are universal (such as the laws of maths and science) and others are individual (we all have our own interpretation of morality).
So, in order to get that far, I had to agree with the view of the universe that they have forced on me. Not exactly playing fair, is it?
And then, they say, "The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything." Where the hell did that come from? it doesn't follow from anything they've said before, and they don't justify it. They just say that the laws of the universe they have claimed could only have been created by a god. They in no way support this claim.
And then they somehow conclude that this god is the God of the Bible. Where did they figure this out? I must have missed that page.
In short, it's all nonsense. They force and trick you into thinking what they want you to believe, and then try a very bad application of the first Cause argument.
it was simple-minded and chalked full or falacies....
As usual, when people criticize the site, they say it is full of falacies, and offer exaclty zero. Naturally, I would disagree that the site is full of fallacies, but please, tell me, why can fallacies in reasoning not be 'true' according to your worldview?
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Question Four, asking about universal moral laws is a load. It uses a situation designed to make us think, "Oh, that's terrible", namely, molesting children. However, let's look at another idea; smacking a disobedient child. is it wrong to smack a disobedient child? This shows that moral absolutes do not exist.
How does it show this??? That would be like saying that because you do not know the answer to a math problem, there is no answer.
Originally Posted by Tiberius
But let's play along....
The next question gives us a false dichotemy. Either they are all universal or all individual.
In order to get to that step, you must agree that the laws of morality are absolute. If you can show me an absolute law that is not universal, you may have a point. The floor is yours.
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Rubbish. I believe that some are universal (such as the laws of maths and science) and others are individual
How do you account for ANY universal law according to your worldview?
Originally Posted by Tiberius
(we all have our own interpretation of morality).
What does that have to do with whether or not absolute moral laws exist?
Originally Posted by Tiberius
So, in order to get that far, I had to agree with the view of the universe that they have forced on me. Not exactly playing fair, is it?
Well, like I say on the site, if you are honest, you will reach the proof. You admit that you were not.
Originally Posted by Tiberius
And then, they say, "The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything." Where the hell did that come from? it doesn't follow from anything they've said before, and they don't justify it. They just say that the laws of the universe they have claimed could only have been created by a god. They in no way support this claim.
Sure, it is supported by the impossibility of the contrary. Should be easy to refute, just posit a way to prove anyting without God.
Originally Posted by Tiberius
And then they somehow conclude that this god is the God of the Bible. Where did they figure this out? I must have missed that page.
You did. It is on the main page in the Q&A.
Originally Posted by Tiberius
In short, it's all nonsense. They force and trick you into thinking what they want you to believe, and then try a very bad application of the first Cause argument.
Actually, it is not at all a causality argument. The argument is that one could not make sense, even of the cosmological argument, if God did not exists, as God is the precondition to intelligibility. Again, should be easy for you to refute, just justify intelligibility according to your worldview.
Originally Posted by quatona
Answering "I don´t care..." to the first question finished the whole thing before it had even started.
Out of interest I tried: "I don´t know...", and the second question asked "I don´t know if absolute truth exists - absolutely true or false?" A question that made no sense whatsoever if applying the definition of "absolute truth" given in the beginning: True for all people at all times, universally true.
It's really quite simple, I ask if it is absolutely true that you do not know if absolute truth exists. Denial of absolute truth, is self-refuting.
Originally Posted by StrugglingSceptic
Sadly, in my experience, people who purport these arguments are entirely clueless about logic and metaethics.
Wonderful, so you agree that logic exists. Please tell me how you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview.
Originally Posted by StrugglingSceptic
Says who? Where is the argument for this, and what is meant by "accounted for" here?
How are proof, or the laws the laws of logic possible according to your worldview?
Originally Posted by StrugglingSceptic
Where is the argument for this? How exactly does a God "account for" logical laws? Magic? (yawn).
The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant, all characteristics which are accounted for in the nature of God, and nowhere else.
Originally Posted by StrugglingSceptic
Actually, I didn't get this far. I don't believe in absolute moral laws. I don't believe that molesting children for fun is absolutely morally wrong in any philosophical sense.
Ewwwwww, nice worldview. I hope you are never asked to babysit.
As usual, when people criticize the site, they say it is full of falacies, and offer exaclty zero. Naturally, I would disagree that the site is full of fallacies, but please, tell me, why can fallacies in reasoning not be 'true' according to your worldview?
How does it show this??? That would be like saying that because you do not know the answer to a math problem, there is no answer.
In order to get to that step, you must agree that the laws of morality are absolute. If you can show me an absolute law that is not universal, you may have a point. The floor is yours.
How do you account for ANY universal law according to your worldview?
What does that have to do with whether or not absolute moral laws exist?
Well, like I say on the site, if you are honest, you will reach the proof. You admit that you were not.
Sure, it is supported by the impossibility of the contrary. Should be easy to refute, just posit a way to prove anyting without God
You did. It is on the main page in the Q&A.
Actually, it is not at all a causality argument. The argument is that one could not make sense, even of the cosmological argument, if God did not exists, as God is the precondition to intelligibility. Again, should be easy for you to refute, just justify intelligibility according to your worldview.
It's really quite simple, I ask if it is absolutely true that you do not know if absolute truth exists. Denial of absolute truth, is self-refuting.
Wonderful, so you agree that logic exists. Please tell me how you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview.
How are proof, or the laws the laws of logic possible according to your worldview?
The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant, all characteristics which are accounted for in the nature of God, and nowhere else.
Ewwwwww, nice worldview. I hope you are never asked to babysit.
Cheers,
Sye
Logic is not dependent on worldview, so the validity of an argument does not hinge on contingent facts (though an argument's soundness does).
I'm not convinced that math, science, and logic require a god to account for them. If you can show that they require a source, that would just thrill me, honestly. Even granting that's true, though, I'm inclined to follow Kant's example. Logic is just a vehicle by which our mind imposes itself on the universe, much like time and space.
Is this your website? If it is, then I find your methodology disingenuous. You can't do that if you actually want to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. For example, the argument in favor of universal morality is no good. I think your position was essentially that because you think child molestation is gross, absolute morality exists. This is somewhat less than convincing. If you're particularly interested, I can explain how we can say bad things about even the Nazis without bringing morality into it. Or, if you're really interested, you can read Hannah Arendt's On the Origins of Totalitarianism. Honestly, it's a downer, but it does allow for such a criticism.
Your discussion about absolute truth is equally bad. Let's first distill the claim you're trying to refute into something handy that still means the same thing. "No claim about the universe is absolutely true." This is not itself a claim about the universe, but only a claim about claims about the universe. To think there is a contradiction is a product of imprecise thinking.
Nice ad hominem at the end of your post there. Good thing you have a big fancy god of the gaps to handle the questions about how we get absolute rules. Wouldn't want you to have to do any hard thinking.
Linear Mode
