Evidence for God from Science

http://proofthatgodexists.org/main.php# ... ble-people

I'm not sure how I feel about this site. I agree with a lot of it ( except for the predestination bit )

I want to know what you guys think and if you agree or disagree and why.

Its ok, kind of simplistic once you get into philosophy.

I want to know what you guys think and if you agree or disagree and why.

My mom told me, " if you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all". So I'm not sayin nuthin.

"Rather than use physical evidence to show that the Bible is most probably true, we again go back to intellectual evidence, and logical proof, to show that the Bible is necessarily true. We can know that the Bible is true because it claims to be true and proves it by the impossibility of the contrary!"

What.

This website confuses me. First it asks whether I believe if "absolute truth" exists...Then if I click "no" or "I don't know" it forces me to start over at the first question. If I click "I don't care" it says goodbye and takes me to the Disney homepage (the heck?). And only if I accept that absolute truth exists am I even allowed to see the "proof".

Beanybag wrote:"Rather than use physical evidence to show that the Bible is most probably true, we again go back to intellectual evidence, and logical proof, to show that the Bible is necessarily true. We can know that the Bible is true because it claims to be true and proves it by the impossibility of the contrary!"

What.

Ivellious wrote:This website confuses me. First it asks whether I believe if "absolute truth" exists...Then if I click "no" or "I don't know" it forces me to start over at the first question. If I click "I don't care" it says goodbye and takes me to the Disney homepage (the heck?). And only if I accept that absolute truth exists am I even allowed to see the "proof".

Welcome to the twilight zone.

Ivellious wrote:This website confuses me. First it asks whether I believe if "absolute truth" exists...Then if I click "no" or "I don't know" it forces me to start over at the first question. If I click "I don't care" it says goodbye and takes me to the Disney homepage (the heck?). And only if I accept that absolute truth exists am I even allowed to see the "proof".

welcome to the wonderful world of Sye Ten Bruggencate!
Ivellious, did you see the point he was trying to make, by that?

Ivellious wrote:This website confuses me. First it asks whether I believe if "absolute truth" exists...Then if I click "no" or "I don't know" it forces me to start over at the first question. If I click "I don't care" it says goodbye and takes me to the Disney homepage (the heck?). And only if I accept that absolute truth exists am I even allowed to see the "proof".

It's logical to me. If Truth exists, then the evidence means something to you. If you don't know if Truth exists, they offer a question that might clear up the confusion. If one believes Truth does not exist or if one believes it doesn't matter, then there's no reason to go on to the proof since the proof rests on that premise, that Absolute Truth exists.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Ivellious wrote:This website confuses me. First it asks whether I believe if "absolute truth" exists...Then if I click "no" or "I don't know" it forces me to start over at the first question. If I click "I don't care" it says goodbye and takes me to the Disney homepage (the heck?). And only if I accept that absolute truth exists am I even allowed to see the "proof".

It's logical to me. If Truth exists, then the evidence means something to you. If you don't know if Truth exists, they offer a question that might clear up the confusion. If one believes Truth does not exist or if one believes it doesn't matter, then there's no reason to go on to the proof since the proof rests on that premise, that Absolute Truth exists.

Darnit Bav! You gave Ivellious the answer. I wanted him to figure it out for himself.

RickD wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Ivellious wrote:This website confuses me. First it asks whether I believe if "absolute truth" exists...Then if I click "no" or "I don't know" it forces me to start over at the first question. If I click "I don't care" it says goodbye and takes me to the Disney homepage (the heck?). And only if I accept that absolute truth exists am I even allowed to see the "proof".

It's logical to me. If Truth exists, then the evidence means something to you. If you don't know if Truth exists, they offer a question that might clear up the confusion. If one believes Truth does not exist or if one believes it doesn't matter, then there's no reason to go on to the proof since the proof rests on that premise, that Absolute Truth exists.

Darnit Bav! You gave Ivellious the answer. I wanted him to figure it out for himself.

Sorry.

It works ( IMHO ) until one gets to the question of absolute morals. That becomes sticky ( to me ), not because I disagree with objective morality, but that some atheists would argue that morality is subjective to the society one lives in.

Most atheists would say that morality is subjective to the culture/society THEY live in.
I have noticed that depending on that, the atheist view of morality tends to be quite varied.

Would the athiest say it is objectively true that morality is subjective to the culture they live in?

There is a lot of confusion with terminology when it comes to objective morality, morality, objective moral values, etc. Distinguishing between moral epistemology and moral ontology is a big one. What an atheist is justified in believing, it depends exactly how you frame it... and usually it seems like both sides frame it in a way that's most convenient.

When its all said and done I don't think non-theists are justified in assuming objective morality. Now Feser, for example, argues that they are if they accept an Aristotelian-Thomist framework, but not many atheists at all would want to do that if they accept the theistic implications. In general, it seems like most theists/atheists would actually agree on a mechanistic universe, and if you do that then Hume's is/ought distinction applies and you would need theism to explain objective morality. That logically leads to atheists being forced to deny objective morality imo, but then the problem is whether there is actually evidence for objective morality. Given the atheist's commitment to naturalism/materialism, I don't know what evidence you can present. You can appeal to "properly basic beliefs" or the idea that the existence of objective morality is more obvious than any argument you could produce against it (that's basically what William Lane Craig does). Those are pretty good for some but it seems to me like its more an appeal to intuition or to someone's "innate sense of morality". If the atheist isn't feeling it, I don't think it will do much to convince them with the evidential approach... of course I suppose you could say that about any approach.

Its still worthwhile though, an atheist blogger (I believe at patheos) very recently converted to Catholicism because of this issue.

jlay wrote:Would the athiest say it is objectively true that morality is subjective to the culture they live in?

An atheist in Canada will have a far different view of the morality of infanticide or the worth of women, than an atheist in China.
Simply because to them, morals are subjective.
Of course the Atheist in Canada has no reason to believe that the atheist Chinese view on infanticide or girls is morally wrong.

Its still worthwhile though, an atheist blogger (I believe at patheos) very recently converted to Catholicism because of this issue.

Objective morality can do that to you, because to be honest once you get down to the bare bones of the argument there is no escaping that some things are objectively wrong and if you admit that then you need something non-human from which the standard comes, nature is out, and humans are too diverse on thought on the subject. So once anyone realizes that there is indeed OM then the rest follows a bit easily.