Just in case you’re wondering, the “Left Behind” statement in the subject line is NOT an allusion to the popular end time series.
A sort of game / challenge of sorts has been constructed that undeniably demonstrates the existence of the Christian God.
I thought I would post it here, and let you guys see what you can make of it.
Nonsense, the Xtian notion of a god is the most impossible paradox ridden notion that I have ever seen, one created in their own image. The only ‘logical proof’ is in ‘it’s’ impossibility, rather than ‘proof of being’ (other than in vain Xtian minds).
What a pathetic site.
That is pathetic. I have seen a dozen better attempts on ILP.
HAHA. It told me I was irrational and kicked me out.
"If you believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are changing, then living with the expectation that they do not change would be inconsistent with your belief. No doubt, you wake up every morning expecting these laws to be the same as they were the day before. You don’t think twice about drinking pure water because you know that the properties of water that nourished you yesterday will not kill you today. You don’t wonder whether it will still be right to love your children tomorrow.
You see, you deny that the universal, immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality are unchanging yet you base your life on their unchanging nature. Unless you reconsider your stand on this matter, your road to this site’s proof that God exists ends here. It is my prayer that you give up on this irrational thinking and return to seek the truth."
Good critiques are hard to come by these days…
They lost me from the beginning, as their position is that the only truth is absolute truth.
I went from “Absolute truth does not exist” to “Absolute truth does not exist” → a choice between “Absolutely true” and “False” - the only two choices given. This is a well-worn ruse - and exists only within the paradigm that “truth” means something only as an absolute.
Primitive thinking.
Shotgun, you should have expected this. I don’t think this venue for Christian proof is rife in this forum, just like my topic, ‘Why Christianity’. Though I liked the site, it’s understandable some here won’t. We must prevail through disappointment and carry on. 
Yeah, to be fair, that is pretty primitive. ‘Absolute truth’ defined as they wish to define it (universally true for all people at all times) is either a trivial property of simple analytic propositions or a meaningless concept.
I don’t know if absolute truth exists…
Is that an absolutely true statement?
I don’t know obviously.
My only options were “yes that’s absolutely true” (making me irrational) or “false”, which would contradict my first statement.
So i could not answer and learned nothing.
I tried again using a different answer and it told me to go away, then linked me to a Disney website.
A few quick points:
Whoever moved this post from the “religion” forum to the present forum is displaying a blatant and unfair bias against the Christian position.
To Faust and Irving Washington,
Calling something “primitive” may give you a warm fuzzy feeling down in your belly, but it doesn’t change the fact that anyone who throws away Christian “truth” ultimately destroys any and all possibility of rationality.
That specific argument aside, you both have problems in your posted responses.
Mr. Irving says this:
Absolute truth’ defined as they wish to define it (universally true for all people at all times) is either a trivial property of simple analytic propositions or a meaningless concept.
This is, of course, a statement of objective truth. So, is it simply a trivial analytic proposition? Or is it meaningless?
It is a statement about “absolute” truth that is self refuting, and thus irrational.
To Faust:
The question asked at the site was about Absolute Truth, and if it exists or not. If such an animal does not exist in your “paradigm” then you click the “Absolute truth does not exist” button.
When you clicked that button, the irrational nature of your “paradigm” was made clear to you, and your sin-nature flared up…resulting in your decision to declare all such systems (of religious truth) “primitive.”
Unbelievers are living in Hell on Earth…they just don’t realize it. The better you guys get at philosophy, the more clear this will become.
That may have been Xun. I don’t think he necessarily may have shown blatant and unfair bias though. The content may not have been consistent with this forum’s original intent. If you make an appeal, he might rethink his decision.
I dunno, it seems like mundane babble to me, especially as demon-strated by the following;
You said;
I guess that what ‘we’ seem to ‘make of it’… is that it appears to be mundane babble!
It’s not a slam against Xtianity, it’s a ‘distinction/slam’ of the lack of intellectual content of the OP.
Thats ‘this’ Perspective, anyway…
*__-
From experience, and revelation, I already know what non-Christians think of the people who share God’s word.
So, “why” it was moved, really doesn’t matter to me.
What IS interesting to me, is the fact that Mr. Nameless feels so boldly about his own position and opinion that he can speak of it as representative of the person who did move it.
The website I posted proves the truth of Christianity…is such a thing not worthy to be posted in a “religion” forum at a website called “I love Philosophy” ?
Not if you’re biased against Christianity to begin with.
Either way…all that is a side issue. I’m much more interested in hearing a serious critique of the website…something more than just accusing it of being “primitive.”
Even us primitive people warrant a well thought out critique.
I just went through those 8 steps, but got confused at the end, so will have another go tomorrow (it’s late for me right now).
I didn’t like step 5, where it asked me to say whether logic+maths+science+morality were all material or all immaterial. I would’ve liked to say logic+maths were immaterial, but that science+morality were material.
And I thought the stuff on absolute morality was a bit too polarising. For example, the rape that we condemn as morally wrong among humans might be the natural means of reproducing in another species, so I’m hesistant to say that rape is absolutely morally wrong.
Shotgun, you should reply to my post, it calml;y and logically expliains how the site you linked us to did not prove the eixstence of the christian god…
I do not contend that this is a statement of objective truth. The concept of truth is what we could call a normative concept. Basically, whether a proposition is true or not makes a difference to us, so we are interested in which propositions are true and which are false. There is a sense in which a true proposition is better than a false one.
If a proposition being true is to be a normative concept, there better be propositions that are true. Let us look at our putative definition of ‘absolute truth’ - we shall see that determining whether a principle is universally true for all people at all times is going to be impossible unless the principle is trivial (a truth of logic or mathematics, maybe). Certainly, no empirical proposition is going to pass this test - how could it? Give me one proposition of genuine import that could. Consequently, as a definition of a normative concept our putative definition is woefully inadequate.
All we are doing here is deciding that, for practical purposes, truth better be a concept that does such-and-such a thing. My statement (“Absolute truth’ defined as they wish to define it (universally true for all people at all times) is either a trivial property of simple analytic propositions or a meaningless concept.”) is merely saying that, if we wish to have this practical benefit to our theory of truth, we don’t get it with our putative definition of absolute truth. This makes no claim to ‘objectivity’, or to being ‘absolute’. We have used the logical positivists verification principle merely as a tool by which to ensure our concepts are of practical value. But saying your definition of absolute truth has no practical value (my claim) is not the same thing as claiming it is objectively, or absolutely, true that your definition is false.
And this is exactly what this site fails to understand, or recognise; that some people may wish to hold that the concept of ‘absolute truth’ is an empty and useless, rather than false, concept. And, of course, when I claim ‘absolute truth is an empty concept’ I am not making an ‘objective statement of fact’. Practical purposes are notoriously variable. Maybe it suits your practical purposes. It doesn’t suit mine.
This thread ended up in mundane babble, so I was trying to avoid an explanation of how exactly I see the verification principle as being a useful tool by which we can examine concepts to see whether they are so as to meet the purposes for which we hold them in the first place. I might well expand on this in a proper post at some point.
shotgun:
I guess that settles that.
Powerful argument, man.
I think my sin-nature is permanently inflamed.
So, if I disagree with God, I sin.
I really do feel like the deck has been stacked against me.
Y’know, not to complain.
But yeah, absolutism is primitive. That doesn’t make it bad, it makes it primitive.
I think it is a bad way to think, but that’s not my claim here.
Hell should be warmer. I don’t think we even have Hell in Maine.
But you are not arguing, you are just ranting. At least we can agree that this thread is in the wrong board.
of course the point is rendered moot when you realize that the purple wombats that control your mind want you to think you believe in god, jc, or whatever…
-Imp
absolutely stupid