I found this interesting.

[metalchris25]

http://proofthatgodexists.org/

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by metalchris25)

http://proofthatgodexists.org/

Ok here are the notes I have from walking through this so called proof of god

it's misdefining and misperceiving "law"

at one point making you make the jump from materialism to the abstract based on a twisting of words and ideas to conform them to suit their perpose.

the laws of logic, mathematics, and science are *descriptive* rather that *prescriptive*(i.e. we make them up and fit them to reality as best we can)

"absolute moral law" presupposes prescription


Conclusion: This is not a proof for god it is a fools game for the fool hearted who are not versed in the ideas and meaning of words used in science and logic. So this site is just a cheap mind trick. sorry Chris no dice

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

Ok here are the notes I have from walking through this so called proof of god

it's misdefining and misperceiving "law"

I don't define law, I ask whether you believe universal, abstract, invariant laws exist, prescriptive, or descriptive.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

at one point making you make the jump from materialism to the abstract based on a twisting of words and ideas to conform them to suit their perpose.

No twisting of words. Are the laws, material or abstract?

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

"absolute moral law" presupposes prescription

That's right, they are prescribed by God. Now, do you believe that they exist. If not, of course morality is arbitrary and NOTHING is absolutely wrong.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

Conclusion: This is not a proof for god it is a fools game for the fool hearted who are not versed in the ideas and meaning of words used in science and logic. So this site is just a cheap mind trick. sorry Chris no dice

I'm sorry you feel that way, but am not surprised. Your presuppositions do not allow you to evaluate anything in a way that would support the existence of God. A person who wants to be their own God, will never admit that a real God exists.

Thanks for posting this link 'Chris', and thanks for visiting the site and offering your opinions Lunar.

[metalchris25]

well lunar, I was gonna reply, but that dude already said it.^
And I said I found it interesting. I didnt put it here to try and convert anyone.

[bilal]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

A person who wants to be their own God, will never admit that a real God exists.

well said man

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

I don't define law, I ask whether you believe universal, abstract, invariant laws exist, prescriptive, or descriptive.



No twisting of words. Are the laws, material or abstract?



That's right, they are prescribed by God. Now, do you believe that they exist. If not, of course morality is arbitrary and NOTHING is absolutely wrong.



I'm sorry you feel that way, but am not surprised. Your presuppositions do not allow you to evaluate anything in a way that would support the existence of God. A person who wants to be their own God, will never admit that a real God exists.

Thanks for posting this link 'Chris', and thanks for visiting the site and offering your opinions Lunar.

Mind you I did not expound last ngiht in my opost tro show every little place where your logic if flawed but I took it over to another board I frequent and told them to have at it. so if you are interested in reading what they have to say knock yourself out. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=12103


don't pretend to know me or my story based on one post of mine you have read you make the assumption that I have never believed in the invisible sky daddy (at least thats what your post conveys) you have no I dea of where I have been in my life to rest at the conclusions that I am currently at

[uncertaindrumer]

That's a cute little site, but you aren't going to covince many people with stuff like "it's not a glitch, think about it".

I mean, it makes sense to me, but I already believe it.

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

Mind you I did not expound last ngiht in my opost tro show every little place where your logic if flawed but I took it over to another board I frequent and told them to have at it. so if you are interested in reading what they have to say knock yourself out. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=12103

Thanks, but I'm up to my eyeballs in atheistic forums. I may check it out when I have more time.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

don't pretend to know me or my story based on one post of mine you have read you make the assumption that I have never believed in the invisible sky daddy (at least thats what your post conveys) you have no I dea of where I have been in my life to rest at the conclusions that I am currently at

I don't pretend to know you based on your post. I know why you deny God though, based on His infallible, inspired Word.

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

That's a cute little site, but you aren't going to covince many people with stuff like "it's not a glitch, think about it".

I mean, it makes sense to me, but I already believe it.

I do not intend to convince anybody. I only present the truth and hope that God uses it to change hearts.

The reason I added that 'glitch page' is because some people could not figure out that saying 'it is absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist,' is self refuting.

Blessings,

Sye

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

I don't define law, I ask whether you believe universal, abstract, invariant laws exist, prescriptive, or descriptive.

Well you should make that clearer because it comes across dishonest and like you are twisting the thoughts and meaning of your intened "victim" because you don't state weather prescriptive or descriptive

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

No twisting of words. Are the laws, material or abstract?

They are called laws but they are not absolute there are exceptions to the rules but they are commonly accepted so they are refered to as laws. so you are misunderstanding the use of the word law you are useing a christian world view to define you words so you are misrepresentign uninterntional or not

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

That's right, they are prescribed by God. Now, do you believe that they exist. If not, of course morality is arbitrary and NOTHING is absolutely wrong.

To say they are prescribed by god (anygod for that matter) means you actually have to prove or have proof of a god and you site doen't even come close so you go out on a limb with out the tree to support you. There is a naturalistic morality that has been covered in debate here before so morality both absolute and arbitrary at the same time based on your reference point what you see as a moral issure I wouldn't and vice versa (get it?)

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but am not surprised. Your presuppositions do not allow you to evaluate anything in a way that would support the existence of God. A person who wants to be their own God, will never admit that a real God exists.

this is why I said you presumme much about my life and where I have been when it comes to belief. I have been a Christian in my life I was one for some 18-20 years The house I grew up in was very christian my father (a calvinist) a Proffesor of theology and a minister, my mother a missionary kid. so I have seen the so called evidence and and proofs for god I am familiar with Christianity more so than your average christian. I ame to the conclusion that the idea of a deity is highly improbable more likely impossible. I am not my own god because there are no gods. am I open to true evidence for a god that you undenyably prove his existance once and for all sure but the stuff that every one offers as proof is anicdotal or deceptive or ignorant.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

Thanks for posting this link 'Chris', and thanks for visiting the site and offering your opinions Lunar.

No problem... my big thing is going about things honestly and using words as they were inteded to be rather than taking one definition and running with it and not knowing what it meant in its other uses.


Peace Be With You

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

I do not intend to convince anybody. I only present the truth and hope that God uses it to change hearts.

The reason I added that 'glitch page' is because some people could not figure out that saying 'it is absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist,' is self refuting.

Blessings,

Sye

That's obvious to the most amateur of logicians. I am not criticising the site, per se. I just wonder if there are more effective ways.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote:

but the stuff that every one offers as proof is anicdotal or deceptive or ignorant.

Well, I would say our existance is a pretty good proof...

[Lunar Shadow]

^^ Argument from exisitance is a ggod starting point UD don't get me wrong... Philosipohy has been asking that type of question for a long long time (I.E. The Chicken and the egg) but just being here doesn't answer anything but it is a good place to start. Heck us just being here one could argue a few different things such as.... Wo is to say we didn't evolve with the starting point of Abiogenesis? Whos says if there is a being powerful enough to create us... who says we are the main point of this universe or that he loves us at all? or maybe he is a loving caring god who wants our praise but has no affect on what goes on (there are many steps here so I will just say and so on and so on)


Regardless every one here believes in some form of Abiogenesis (meaning life from non life) A sound theory is jugded as such for the when it makes the least possibe nubers of assumptions Christianity assmues much. Atheism (on the other hand) assumes one thing and then the logical progression from there. So based upon that I would say that Either Atheism or Deism (depending on the stripe of it) are more a viable theories because they really makes only 1 assumption.

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

Thanks, but I'm up to my eyeballs in atheistic forums. I may check it out when I have more time.

Well I found you on Infidel guy's board http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=180749

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

Well you should make that clearer because it comes across dishonest and like you are twisting the thoughts and meaning of your intened "victim" because you don't state weather prescriptive or descriptive

No need to clarify as I mean both.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

I ame to the conclusion that the idea of a deity is highly improbable more likely impossible. I am not my own god because there are no gods. am I open to true evidence for a god that you undenyably prove his existance once and for all sure but the stuff that every one offers as proof is anicdotal or deceptive or ignorant.

Now this conclusion that you came to - Did you use the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic to come to that conclusion. If so, you came to the conclusion borrowing the foundation for reason from MY worldview. You used the Christian worldview in refuting the Christian worldview.

I'm sure that you will protest at that notion but tell me, what is YOUR foundation for reason. How do you justify the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic in YOUR worldview?

Another point. Neutrality is a myth. Everyone evaluates EVERYTHING they encounter based on their already held beliefs - their presuppositions. Any evidence I produce you will evaluate based on your presupposition that God does not exist, just as I will evaluate anything you say based on my presuppositions that God does in fact exist. The only way that our argument can be satisfied is by evaluating each other's presuppositions to see who can support the preconditions for intelligibility. In other words, who can support logic and reason itself.

My presupposition is that God exists and that His Word is true. His word gives us the foundations for logic (universal, abstract, invariants). His word also explains origins, science and the human condition.

Now you may correct me if I am wrong, but since God is not your ultimate authority, I imagine that your own human reason is your ultimate authority. This is what I meant by being your own God. Even if you could be reasonably convinced of God's existence, what would be proven to you would not be God, since according to your worldview your reason would have higher authority than God, and can work without His existence.

With that said, I challenge you to prove the validity of your human reason WITHOUT God.

When you realize that it cannot be done. I hope that you fall to your knees and thank the one true God of Christianity who makes even your ability to reason possibe.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

Peace Be With You

Thanks for the kind sentiment. I was wondering though what exactly do you mean by that.

P.S. I had a peak at that other forum. I hope you dont call me the same things here as you did there.