Proof that God exists?

[uberd00b]

Here's an interesting website purporting to prove without a doubt God's existence.

It's a series of questions designed to lead you to that conclusion.

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

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?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

My opinion:

High on rhetoric, low on meaningful content.

 

[StrugglingSceptic]

Here's an interesting website purporting to prove without a doubt God's existence.

It's a series of questions designed to lead you to that conclusion.

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

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.

 

[quatona]

Here's an interesting website purporting to prove without a doubt God's existence.

It's a series of questions designed to lead you to that conclusion.

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

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.

 

[SyeTenB]

I quite like the site, but then again, I'm biased

(Thanks for posting the link)

Sye

 

[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. 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.

Very weak.

 

[peter22]

As one of my students told me, she likes the orbiting teapot theory* and so do I. I gave her a cookie too.

* I really should remember who said that, but I don't.

 

[levi501]

it was simple-minded and chalked full or falacies....

 

[SyeTenB]

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?

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.

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.

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?

(we all have our own interpretation of morality).

What does that have to do with whether or not absolute moral laws exist?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Cheers,

Sye

 

[The Nihilist]

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.

 

[quatona]

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.

Actually, it´s not that simple. On the starting page, they define "absolute truth" as "True for all people at all times, universally true."
The question whether I do not know if absolute truth exists cannot ask for a statement about "something true for all people at all times, universally true", simply because it explicitly asks for something explicitly personal, individual.
So they apparently have shifted the definition of "absolute truth" on the way from the first to the second question. That´s not a way to show that something is self-refuting - it´s simply a false equivocation. A logical fallacy.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Let's go about this systematically.

Those who assert there is such a thing as "absolute truth", please -

Define what you mean by "absolute truth".

 

[brinny]

How does one prove that God exists?

 

[SyeTenB]

Logic is not dependent on worldview

This is a statement, what is the argument? How do you account for the laws of logic?

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.

By the impossibility of the contrary. How do you account for math, science, and logic apart from God?

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.

You will have to elaborate. Do you believe that logic is universal, abstract, and invariant?

Is this your website?

Guilty

If it is, then I find your methodology disingenuous.

Ya, most criminals say that about cops too

You can't do that if you actually want to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Read the site again, convincing people is not my department.

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.

Nope, I ask what YOU believe.

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.

Perhaps you could start by explaining what ‘bad’ is, without an absolute standard.

Your discussion about absolute truth is equally bad.

I guess we can revisit that once you tell us what ‘bad’ is.

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.

Lets stick to the argument I use; Saying ‘absolute truth does not exist,’ IS a claim about the universe.

To think there is a contradiction is a product of imprecise thinking.

Could you elaborate on ‘imprecise thinking?’ What is ‘precise thinking?’

Nice ad hominem at the end of your post there.

Thanks.

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.

I suppose it’s better than having blind faith

Actually, it´s not that simple. On the starting page, they define "absolute truth" as "True for all people at all times, universally true."

The question whether I do not know if absolute truth exists cannot ask for a statement about "something true for all people at all times, universally true", simply because it explicitly asks for something explicitly personal, individual.

The question though, is whether or not it is true for all people at all times that you don’t know. That is not an explicitly personal, individual question.

So they apparently have shifted the definition of "absolute truth" on the way from the first to the second question. That´s not a way to show that something is self-refuting - it´s simply a false equivocation. A logical fallacy.

Well, at least you believe in logic, and fallacies in logic. Could you perhaps tell me how your worldview accounts for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and why fallacies in reasoning cannot be ‘true’ according to your worldview.’

Cheers,

Sye

 

[The Nihilist]

When someone calls a thing good, I understand that they like or approve of it. When someone calls a thing bad, I understand that they disapprove of it or dislike it.
Why do you think it is impossible for logic to exist apart from a god?

 

[SyeTenB]

When someone calls a thing good, I understand that they like or approve of it. When someone calls a thing bad, I understand that they disapprove of it or dislike it.

So, you can't explain how Naziism is 'bad,' you can only explain how YOU happen to dislike 'Nazism.'

Why do you think it is impossible for logic to exist apart from a god?

No other explanation accounts for universal, abstract, invariants, while God does.

Cheers,

Sye

 

[quatona]

The question though, is whether or not it is true for all people at all times that you don’t know. That is not an explicitly personal, individual question.

Could you please explain how the question "Is it true for all people at all times that I, quatona, don´t know whether there is an absolute truth?" makes any sense, how I could possibly answer it, and how I can possibly know what all people at all times whom I don´t even know hold true about me?
If hard pressed to answer this pointless question I would have to say "no". I am not assuming that all people at all times that I don´t know hold true that I, quatona, don´t know whether there´s an absolute truth.

 

[quatona]

Well, at least you believe in logic, and fallacies in logic.

Yes, I was assuming that people who engage in intellectual discussions find logic as useful a tool as I do. However, if you prefer, we can talk nonsense instead.

Could you perhaps tell me how your worldview accounts for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and why fallacies in reasoning cannot be ‘true’ according to your worldview.’

Please don´t make up a worldview for me.
I didn´t say anything about "universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic", and I didn´t say anything about the "truth" of logical fallacies.
Reasoning is the application of logic. I was assuming that there was a silent agreement between us on this - you are using words, and you are using words that imply that you expect logic (like "why", "because" etc.) to be the basis for our considerations and discussions, after all.
If you want to cancel this assumed agreement (or tell me I was mistaken in assuming it, in the first place), just let me know. It will be much easier for me to defend my viewpoint (or any viewpoint whatsoever) once my arguments are not expected to be logical. That would take a great burdon from my shoulders. It would be extremely liberating and allow for a lot of creativity.
(Like: I don´t know whether there is an absolute truth because green. QED)
Sounds like a lot of fun coming our way.

 

[Gottservant]

As this thread speedily shows, hope is needed, not proof.

 

[The Nihilist]

So, you can't explain how Naziism is 'bad,' you can only explain how YOU happen to dislike 'Nazism.'



No other explanation accounts for universal, abstract, invariants, while God does.

Cheers,

Sye

I'm a social contractualist, ethically speaking. I can explain how Nazis violate their own social contract.
Why do you feel that universal, abstract invariants need to be accounted for?