Friday, March 11, 2011

Finally, proof that gods exist! Maybe.

A reader sent me this link, to a page called Proof That God Exists.  That sounds promising, doesn't it?  Let's dig in!

Despite the big promises that the page's title makes, it is really just another transcendental argument for the existence of god(s).  It takes you through the existence of certain laws, for example, the laws of logic, then asserts, with no evidence, that this means that at least one god exists.  The author even goes one step further, and makes what I consider to be the most dishonest *cough* mistake that a theist can make.  I have several other problems with the website, as you might imagine.

I've written before about most of the problems the website has, so rather than repeating myself here, I'm mostly going to direct you to the previous posts.

1.  This is yet another religious hand-waving argument for the existence of gods.  They want you to think about the problem in just the right way such that you can "logic gods into existence".  I've covered the transcendental argument before with this post, but I think it's far more important to read this post, which is about why I would not consider any "god proof" that involves merely talking and waving your hands.  It's one of my favourite posts that I've written on this site, even though it is far from the most popular.

2.  Even though the argument doesn't require it, the site makes a big deal about this concept of absolute morality.  It wants you to admit that there is a cosmically-declared morality and that morality is not a construct of people or societies.  I disagree with this idea, but you have to click that you believe in absolute morality if you want to get to the end of the argument and see the grand finale.  I've posted before about how objective/absolute morality cannot be supported by reality.  I've also written before about an article by the well-known Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, who when he needed to prove absolute morality existed to finish off a proof, merely offered, "And could anything be more obvious than that objective moral values do exist?"

3.  If you progress further into the site, you get to this message:

"To reach this page you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. 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.

The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of god's existence and those who suppress the truth of god's existence. The options of 'seeking' god, or not believing in god are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of god as it declares that the existence of god is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in him.

(Bible verse deleted)

The god of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore the proof that god exists is that without him you couldn't prove anything.

Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a god who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.

This type of logical proof deals with ‘transcendentals’ or ‘necessary starting points,’ and the proof is called a ‘transcendental proof.’ Any contrary view to the god of Christianity being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume god in order to argue against him. Only the Christian worldview can logically support rationality."

So there you have it!  Because I believe I have proven that a god must exist, it is therefore my particular god, and any belief that it could be considered any other god is pure absurdity!

This is what I believe to be the dirtiest, most dishonest tactic and most serious logical failure that any religious believer can use in an argument about their religion.  The no-proof-required assertion that the god we are discussing is my god, end of story.  It's no surprise that this person has used it.  I've written about this before, here.

This author of the website has failed miserably, and I say to him to eat shit and die for his dishonesty at the end.

15 comments:

ANTZILLA said...

I ran into this recently:

http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2011/02/atheists-epistemological-lacking.html

same shit different stink.

Admin said...

It's just more religious hand-waving trying to call itself "proof".

David McNerney said...

1. Assume Darth Vader exists
2. Therefore Star Wars is true
3. Therefore Darth Vader exists

Cool!

Anonymous said...

The site is starting at the wrong place in attempting to prove god's existence.

The troubled phrase is this:

"The Bible teaches us that..."

Let's see about proving that what the bible teaches is true FIRST, before assuming that it is.

Bats aren't birds. Shellfish and rabbits aren't unclean to eat. Menstruating women don't need to be quarantined. Putting striped sticks next to mating goats does not make striped baby goats. Bird's blood doesn't cure leprosy. Animals don't talk. Virgins don't get pregnant. Dead people don't come back to life.

Ergo, what the bible teaches can NOT be assumed to be true, so it can't be used to prove SQUAT.

Magnamune said...

Unfortunately for creationists reality is not a game of dungeons and dragons. Hand waving doesn't work here.

This clearly wasn't the first, and most certainly wont be the last of these ill-thought out arguments. Anyone have the spell summon shitstorm? It's always the most fun then.

Jim said...

I need to bring something up. If you think that site is ridiculous, check out this dumb bitch:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81374648/

She thinks that prayer caused her god to strike Japan with a devastating earthquake in order to open the eyes of atheists! She believes her god killed thousands of people (with potentially more on the way) in order to prove to us that he exists! This was the easiest way he could prove it. Not by telling us, or coming down and holding a press conference, or even just magically granting us the knowledge of his existence. No, he had to kill thousands, injure thousands, destroy cities towns and villages, cause potential nuclear meltdowns and horrific tsunamis. If that is your gods way of doing things, why the fuck would you WANT to believe in and worship him?

Magnamune said...

She's thanking him!?! That's just horrible. Thousands die, and thousands more are injured physically, emotionally, economically, and she THANKS the one she believes is responsible. If I thought I knew that someone caused a natural disaster of this magnitude, I'd do my best to see him pay for his crimes. That said, I'd be a little wary going up to him... causing an earthquake of such magnitude is no small feat.

How can any sane person be so happy about this. Oh, right. believes in God... rules out the sane thing.

Jim said...

So I was reading a CNN article refrencing the statistics of people who believe gods caused the recent flux of natural disasters. Anyway, the real fun was in the comments section. My favorite post was this one:

"People who say there is no God are the ones that are attached to the physical world too much. To claim that there is no God is pure arrogance. All you know of is what's in this world. You know nothing outside of it. Your knowledge is limited. You can't prove there is no God."

It was amazing an amazing read. I had to read it through several times to let it all soak in. Basically the commenter is suggesting that because we DON'T believe in things that no one can prove, we are both arrogant and ignorant. This is a perfect comment to represent the stupidity and delusions the religious person suffers from. It sums it all up so well. We are arrogant because we believe in only rational, concrete evidence and facts. Amazing.

Thought people might enjoy that.

Magnamune said...

I certainly did. ^_^ I simply must start reading these articles... I bet that guy had like 10 others say that he's brilliant, or simply "amen, brother." to show their support.

Jim said...

Actually (and surprisingly), the CNN website is full of atheists. I would say a good 60% of the posts I read are from atheists, with another 20% from religious people who think that most religious people should just keep to themselves. And the rest is made up of nutjobs and people who don't know what they're talking about.

Anonymous said...

What if you are both full of it , each clinging to your own little piles of shit.

Neither group has pretty much any first hand knowledge of anything.


The creationist; i will take a quote from the very work you seem to believe.

"who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without KNOWLEDGE?...

where were you when i laid the foundations of the earth,... who laid the corner

stone thereof..?" GOD didn't ask these questions to prove

a) it is superior to you or b) to prove its existence, IT asked these questions to remind you to shut the fuck up, to appreciate the little life you have been
given, to listen to the little voice inside your head only when it stirs you in the right direction, to do no harm along the way, live a good honest life, work hard, play hard and die, knowing you are accepted, not because you have proven anything, but because you have accepted wise counsel.

Because you know by the very faith that you have that GOD exists, you also know by the wisdom of that faith, nothing you think or say or wish will actually prove that GOD exists, because if that knowledge were available, then the simple faith you have would be utterly worthless.
(ps 'GOD is dead" john lennon wrote it in a song)
(pps people who think god creates earth quakes are
really scary)

The Atheist; you open your mind to the illogic of the situation you find yourself in and find no reasonable explanation for the fact that you are, and yet cannot be persuaded in the superstitious beliefs of your 'obviously inferior' brethren, who
rely on, and live by 'super plura, unum'. Your (so you believe), superior intellect leads you to the undeniable, impossible to prove, situation, that although you can justify and even claim rightfully to a life without a creator, you cannot escape the simple fact that you have no more evidence for the non existence of a deity, than the religious fanatic has for the existence. And though you have achieved mature status of mind, by your mental gymnastics, joggling the impossible by accepting an entire universe without a creator, you have completely over looked the simple fact that every
living creature of that which you are aware, in fact and in deed has been created, certainly not by fiat, but by another organism, a mother and father if you're a vertebrate, and maybe just a "mother" if you happen to be an invertebrate. But one thing is absolutely UNCERTAIN , and that is , when you, the atheist die, you can ALMOST be guaranteed, that
no one will know where you have gone. You certainly won't know(maybe) and i certainly won't pretend to understand.
(ps the Higgs they are looking for is called THE GOD PARTICLE )

(pps when i close my eyes i don't dream the same
dream you do, when i die i suspect i won't dream the same dream you do, but then i won't dream the same dream the theists do either, whatever that is)

Admin said...

Ah, yet another post by an anonymous philosophy-type. Gotta love this:

"The Atheist; you open your mind to the illogic of the situation you find yourself in and find no reasonable explanation for the fact that you are, and yet cannot be persuaded in the superstitious beliefs of your 'obviously inferior' brethren..... you cannot escape the simple fact that you have no more evidence for the non existence of a deity, than the religious fanatic has for the existence."

I think you don't understand the burden of proof, or the argument from ignorance. We are under no obligation to prove the non-existence of something which has never been proven to exist. That's an impossible task. The fact that we don't have an explanation for something (yet) is also not a point against us, and to claim otherwise is quite stupid.

"ps the Higgs they are looking for is called THE GOD PARTICLE"

Completely irrelevant. And it's not named that for the reasons you seem to think, as implied by your posting of such a silly comment.

Anonymous said...

i agree in part, on your assertion that my comment may to some appear silly, but you must recognize that by the fact that you are compelled to respond and did so, gives a certain credence to the point of view i put forth.
I entirely agree that the atheist, in matters of GOD is under no "obligation to prove the non-existence of something which has never been proven to exist". But this same logic applies to all, in matters of burden of proof.

It is both silly to attempt and impossible to do; to prove that something doesn't exist. What i was attempting to show was that in their futile and misguided pursuit of GOD, the theist is acting to draw the atheist into an argument that is both futile and un-winnable. By the atheist setting up their opposing view, that god doesn't exist, you in fact give credence to the theist, in that from their point of view, any opposition to their proposition, is in some small way actually a form of evidence that 'god must exist' (even though they are want to
prove it on their own). That is, from the theist position, ' i think god exists, my faith compels me, but my experience of life suggests if i am reasonable person that there is absolutely no way to prove it, but wait, the atheist is so firmly against the idea of god existing, maybe their non belief is my evidence'.
Now that's really silly, grasping at the thin straw, drawing the 'logical mind' into the proof of an unprovable.
The more zealous, the atheist is, the more the theist holds they are on the right path,the more zealous the theist, the less the atheist wants to engage. ( the more the theist acts like a petulant belligerent child, the more the atheist acts like a arrogant parent)
They become a team, and whether or not you agree, you in concert with the theist, become something that does exist, an unwinnable argument.

And on the topic of particle physics, three points.

Why waste so much money time and resources on attempting to find the building blocks of existence? (maybe if we are all knowing, someone might want to call us GOD?).

If anti matter is well anti matter, isn't that an unknowable, but wait isn't science assured that
they know that they can prove that anti matter exists, or is that just their smoke and mirrors
project to get more funding, sorta like the religious zealots do when they cry 'god is coming'

Why is the fundamental, experimental, and investigative process of establishing the nature
of the sub-atomic, always end in something getting blown-up? ( if i accelerate two objects
to a reasonable approximation of the speed of light, and direct them to hit head on, how does that guarantee i will have any clue as to what made up those two objects? Would a gear wheel or carburetor pop out in any recognizable fashion, in such condition that, a) you could tell what the hell it was, and/or b) that it was apart of the original design composition of one of the two Buicks you just crashed?) Just more silly questions!

ps. And oh ya "philosophy type"? What? you can think, but no one else is allowed without being
berated

pps. you use the term "we/us" way too many times in your response, you are not a "we" you are an "i"

Admin said...

"... you must recognize that by the fact that you are compelled to respond and did so, gives a certain credence to the point of view i put forth."

Is that seriously what you think? Sorry dude, I honestly think you're one of the most useless posters we've ever had here. I am "compelled to respond" to NEARLY ALL comments on this blog. Your argument about lack of proof is possibly the very worst and stupidest argument anybody can use in defence of their faith in the supernatural, so you shouldn't let the fact that I wasted some time responding to you go to your head. I'm not sure anybody has ever tried to use the fact that I responded to them to be some kind of validation of their point, and there's a good reason for that.

"Why waste so much money time and resources on attempting to find the building blocks of existence?"

Because we're human. It's what (some) humans do. And it might have applications further down the road.

"If anti matter is well anti matter, isn't that an unknowable, but wait isn't science assured that they know that they can prove that anti matter exists, or is that just their smoke and mirrors project to get more funding, sorta like the religious zealots do when they cry 'god is coming'"

Anti-matter has been repeatedly detected and confirmed. 1959 Nobel Prize in physics.

"Would a gear wheel or carburetor pop out in any recognizable fashion, in such condition that, a) you could tell what the hell it was, and/or b) that it was apart of the original design composition of one of the two Buicks you just crashed?)"

This is why you are not a particle physicist. There are much smarter people than you who have built the appropriate equipment to do these experiments.

"ps. And oh ya "philosophy type"? What? you can think, but no one else is allowed without being
berated"

Most of the philosophy-types who come here have clearly thought too much, and have often lost touch with reality or practical matters, as you demonstrate by thinking too much about particle physics, without actually having any knowledge of the current state of the science. They are also marked by their poor writing skills. I have twice deleted sentences from my comments to you which commented on your poor writing and communicative skills. You are unable to clearly express your ideas to other people, which is a typical marker of those who have spent too much time immersed in philosophy books trying to figure out whether or not they exist.

"pps. you use the term "we/us" way too many times in your response, you are not a "we" you are an "i"

Uh-huh. I am very familiar with the opinions of many other atheists on the matters raised in your comment. I'll use "we" in these situations, if I choose to, thank-you very much.

Admin said...

By the way, would you care to clearly communicate to us where you stand on the issue of the existence of gods? Are you a believer, or not?