Originally posted by Conrau K I failed the test. I had to exit after I said laws of science do not exist.
Did you fail the test or did god fail it?
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
08 Jun '08 00:21
Originally posted by Sushill Did you fail the test or did god fail it?
According to this site, if there is a God, then there must be laws of science. And if there are not laws of science, then God must not exist. So God fails the test.
Originally posted by Conrau K According to this site, if there is a God, then there must be laws of science. And if there are not laws of science, then God must not exist. So God fails the test.
Originally posted by josephw http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
The only redeeming feature of that test is that it dumped me on the Disney.co.jp website after it finished.
Like Fabs, I got to the absolute morality point and had to say "no".
In fact, the correct answer must be "no", for any Christian, look at the OT. Things that are morally wrong now were morally acceptable then. If that is to be the case, absolute morals do not exist.
Originally posted by bbarr I received the following message:
[b]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 r ...[text shortened]... sts. Are you on a quest to find religious idiots on the internet and report their "findings"?
Actually I'm on a quest to expose the lunacy that God doesn't exist. If it happens that a few loony Christians are exposed, so be it.
I hadn't realised that because the universe is not random and not wholly material, that it is fallacious to the conclusion that it was created by God.
After all, evolution claims that life came into existence randomly. Why should it not be concluded that it is fallacious to claim that order came from disorder?
Originally posted by scottishinnz The only redeeming feature of that test is that it dumped me on the Disney.co.jp website after it finished.
Like Fabs, I got to the absolute morality point and had to say "no".
In fact, the correct answer must be "no", for any Christian, look at the OT. Things that are morally wrong now were morally acceptable then. If that is to be the case, absolute morals do not exist.
Consider yourself educated.
Where did you get educated? If there are moral absolutes, then it can only be logically concluded that those moral absolutes are always the same at any time and place.
Your assertion that what is morally wrong now, but was morally right then, is pure convoluted relativism.
The denial of the existence of universal absolute truth is irrational. If it were true you could know nothing for sure. Any argument for anything would collapse without truth to support it. It's a no brainer!
Originally posted by josephw Where did you get educated? If there are moral absolutes, then it can only be logically concluded that those moral absolutes are always the same at any time and place.
Your assertion that what is morally wrong now, but was morally right then, is pure convoluted relativism.
The denial of the existence universal absolute truth is irrational. If it were ...[text shortened]... d collapse without truth to support it. It's a no brainer!
Are you learning anything yet? 😉
You seem to have the false assumption that there are absolute morals. I cannot think of one moral that is absolute and garantee that it doesn't change over culture or time. Can you?
If not, then the proof that god exists is totally wrong. That is what we learn of this. What do you learn?
I once wrote "Yes, in my culture female circumcision is awfully morally wrong, I am dead sure. How can you think otherwise?" and you didn't answer that. How can you defend female circumcision ???
Originally posted by josephw ...After all, evolution claims that life came into existence randomly.....
Joseph, I despair of you sometimes. Have you not yet learnt what evolution is and is not, after all the debates on this site, all the arguments, and the odd glimmer of hope sometimes that shows you are starting to think about it, then you come out with some statement like this? I put my head in my hands and give a despairing little cry; please please think for yourself :- and I know it is a struggle but try to recapture the idea that evolution is not claiming anything about abiogenesis, and the outcome of evolution is not random. I really don't know where you get these ideas that you trot out; but it really shows that you still don't get it; and this is the basic stuff here.
Originally posted by josephw Where did you get educated? If there are moral absolutes, then it can only be logically concluded that those moral absolutes are always the same at any time and place.
Your assertion that what is morally wrong now, but was morally right then, is pure convoluted relativism.
The denial of the existence of universal absolute truth is irrational. If it we ...[text shortened]... d collapse without truth to support it. It's a no brainer!
Are you learning anything yet? 😉
Like FabianFnas, please give an example of ONE moral 'absolute'.
Originally posted by FabianFnas You seem to have the false assumption that there are absolute morals. I cannot think of one moral that is absolute and garantee that it doesn't change over culture or time. Can you?
If not, then the proof that god exists is totally wrong. That is what we learn of this. What do you learn?
I once wrote "Yes, in my culture female circumcision is awfull ...[text shortened]... you think otherwise?" and you didn't answer that. How can you defend female circumcision ???
You're beginning to sound like thinkofone.
You have obviously received your education within the last 20 years or so. The idea that there are no absolutes is bogus, and I pity the mind that is unaware of it.
Originally posted by josephw You're beginning to sound like thinkofone.
You have obviously received your education within the last 20 years or so. The idea that there are no absolutes is bogus, and I pity the mind that is unaware of it.
Now you showed your real face. It wasn't pretty.
Your rules of thumb is the following:
(#1) I am always right, because I am better than every one else.
(#2) If it happens that I'm not right, see (#1).
Originally posted by josephw You're beginning to sound like thinkofone.
You have obviously received your education within the last 20 years or so. The idea that there are no absolutes is bogus, and I pity the mind that is unaware of it.
Take the test
07 Jun '08 22:36
Back to Top