Logical Proof that God exists website :S

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2006-10-02 07:12pm

I found this page that I can't really think of logical arguments against, partly because I am too tired, and I'm not all that learned either. Um....

++http://www.proofthatgodexists.org

Help or no?

Parallax · Post by **Parallax** » 2006-10-02 07:49pm

Laws of absolute morality, despite what the website says, are not universal and can be subjective. For example, some components of society hold that having multiple wives is fine - others think it's immoral.

Also, the laws of maths, science, etc do change as we investigate them and we gain better understandings of the way that the Universe works. The event we're trying to describe remains the same but the laws can and do change as we comprehend more.

The site is also using circular logic, assuming that God exists and that the Bible is correct before proving that it is. It cites the Bible as a reference to prove itself, which is just daft.

The supposed proof statement ("The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.") is, once again, basic circular logic which in itself proves absolutely nothing. It's like a snake trying to eat it's own tail - it's goes nowhere.

In short, the site offers absolutely no proof what-so-ever and better proof for the non-existence of God can be found in even humourous texts such as the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-10-02 07:51pm

If you truly believed that there was no such thing as absolute morality then there would be no 'right' or 'wrong,' just things that you or your society happen not to like. Rape and child molestation would not be wrong, they would just become man made objections. The question then becomes: 'If man is the measure of all things - which man? - which society? If someone with enough power happened to like rape and molestation, what right would we have to impose our morality on him? What would be wrong with the person, or society, with the power imposing their morality on you? Why do we condemn the Nazi society for following their self-imposed morals? Why did the Nazi society not have the right to break from the tradition of morality in western civilizations?

There is no question that societies have different interpretations of morality but if you examine the following sentence you will see the illogic of thinking that societies determine morality. "The majority of the people in our society participated in that evil deed." If morality was up to society, that sentence would never make sense, but we know that morality is beyond societies and such a propositon is possible.

You have denied that absolute moral laws exist but you appeal to them all the time. You say that rape IS wrong because you know that it IS wrong and not just against your personal preference. 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 come to understand how inconsistent and irrational this line of thinking is and return to seek the truth.

There was no option for 'There is no Right or Wrong' only an optiont hat says 'Child Molestation is Wrong' and 'Child Molestation could be right'

They define your answers so always choose one that leads to the meaning they want, Thats not Logical.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-10-02 07:54pm

Logic means jack shit if you have no foundation for it. You know, silly things like facts or evidence.

Logic.

I am a Goa'uld.
Goa'uld control Jaffa armies.
I control Jaffa armies.

This little website is idiotic too. Absolute Truth? And a loop if you click that you don't believe in it, 'absolutely'?

Feil · Post by **Feil** » 2006-10-02 08:12pm

Pedantic bullshit utilizing stolen consepts false dillemmas, and general nonsequitors. At least Anselm's was original.

My favorite result was clicking through the string leading to 'molesting children for fun could be right', and then being told that I didn't really believe that molesting children for fun could be right, and was therefore logically inconsistant*. I was, in truth, lying, but whether I was lying or telling the truth, so long as my results are consistant with my premises, my logic is sound.

Now, the play by play...

The first set of hoops it makes you jump through are just boring old false dillemmas. In actuality, there are six reasonable answers to the first question: the four listed and 'I don't know if absolute truth exists outside myself' and 'absolute truth does not exist outside myself'. Since he has no answers to those, his argument collapses handily at the first step.

The second hoop is a valid one, although it is missing 'I came to this conclusion because my parents brainwashed me into thinking it is the case and I have concocted a convoluted pile of logical fallacies in order to prop up my unsupportable and irrational beliefs'.

The third is a red herring: financial exchanges and other things are based on societal conventions wherein we assume for the sake of societal function that not only do the laws of mathematics exist, but little pieces of paper have value. Of course, the laws of mathematics exist because we agree on a few simple premises and derive them logically; what the author should have done is walked you through the set of premises, backstepping if necessary all the way to 'that which is percieved is, in general, trustworthy'.

The fourth is sheer idiocy. Of course laws of science exist, just like tax law exists, because we say they do. He handily reveals his absolute ignorance of science. The only laws of science that are so-named are theories that have incredibly huge amounts of data to back them up; and they, like all other theories, may be disavowed and replaced by superior theories when new data and new ways of thinking emerge. The basic principals of science that he wants to bring up are identical to the principals of logic, which he's already covered.

I've already covered the fifth.

The sixth is idiocy as well. For Steve's sake, not even everything in the physical universe is 'made of matter'. What a dumbass.

Seven is another false dillemma. In fact, the only correct answer is 'To the best of my knowledge, the aforementioned laws are universal, and I shall conclude such until I encounter data to the contrary, but I havn't been everywhere, and neither have you, so I really don't know for sure.' Of course, that requires scientific thought, something this idiot is very obviously without, so it's no wonder he failed to notice this problem. As he is fond of doing, if you give the 'wrong answer' he declares you logically inconsistant by calling you a liar. This, in turn, handily demonstrates that he's as ignorant of logic as he is of science, though this is not at all surprising.

Precisely the same for eight.

---------

The next page is one big nonsequitor. OK, now you've gone through all this stuff, right? Now here's this random assertion that looks a little like what I've been talking about. Nobody will notice! Muahahaha!

The page following is another nonsequitor.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-10-02 08:15pm

<yawn>

Evidence 1 wrote:The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying it.

In other words, "the Bible says so". Thats their #1 evidence as its in the site introduction.

Step 1 wrote:The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you actually believe that laws of logic exist.

Believe the laws of logic exist? <snort>

Intermission between step 7 andf 8 wrote: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.

Repeating appeal to authority from step 1

same page wrote:Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things. Therefore...

Non-sequitor fallacy.

step 8 wrote:The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.

Repeating the non-sequitor.

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.

Never mind that Christianity stole their concepts and world views from the jews.

In logic, this type of proof is called 'transcendental logic,' or 'the impossibility of the contrary,' where God is the basis for any rational thought

The problem is they have NOT shown the impossibility of the contrary. They have just stated that math, logic, etc are impossible with out God without saying how or why.

You don't believe God exists page wrote:Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. Arguing against God's existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while. You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them. These laws are not the only way God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.

There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has nothing to do with proof. I can show this to you. Examine what your initial reaction was to the proof of God's existence offered on this website. Did you think that you could continue to deny God because you are not a scientist, or philosopher but 'Surely somewhere, sometime, a philosopher or scientist will come up with an explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws apart from God?' Did you try to come up with an alternate explanation on your own? OR Did you even consider that the proof was valid?

Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking. Isn't it interesting that this is exactly what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of?

Please examine the real reason why you are running from God. It is my prayer that God will open your eyes and change your heart so that you may be saved from your sin, embraced by His forgiving love, and come to know the peace which passes all understanding.

More "because we say so" and "you're just in denial, running away from and fighting the truth" crap. And they call this "logical".

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2006-10-02 08:32pm

This is an easy one. The website works by taking you step by step, so let's take this thing step by step.

First up: The whole thing about absolute truth. "Absolute truth" is a really vague concept. How is the author of the site defining absolute truth? He never says so, and he fudges a bit with his definitions. Take, for example, the option "I don't know if absolute truth exists." One possible definition of absolute truth is that some things are true independently of our thoughts or feelings about them. So he can't catch you on the little paradox by having you say that it's absolutely true that you don't know if absolute truth exists, because our working definition of "absolutely true" has to do with opinion-independence. As such, calling one of your opinions "Absolutely true" is invalid. He only gives you two options at that stage, but a third option to the effect of "I know that's how I feel" would involve no paradox.

Let's grant him some measure of absolute truth, though. There are SOME things that hold independently of our thoughts or feelings. Let's proceed to the argument proper:

Step 1: Laws of logic exist. They are semantic constructions - kind of the math of philosophy. Still, if you wanted to deny that logic exists, he doesn't have a good argument against you. Denying the principle of noncontradiction does not mean that if you don't believe in logic, then you DO believe in logic. It would just mean that there would be nothing wrong with believing both that logic does exist and that it does not.

Step 2: Laws of mathematics exist. (I admit that I am not well-read in philosophy of mathematics, so I can't really tell you about this debate. I'm just going off my own opinion here.) Again, the author has a bad argument if you try to deny that mathematics exist. He appeals to the fact that you use math every day. But common use does not entail ABSOLUTE TRUTH, in the way that he obviously intends it to be meant.

Step 3: Laws of science exist. There are some problems with this, though. Science works on causality, but David Hume famously proved that we cannot prove causality. We can only infer constant correlation of events. I don't want to get into that proof here, because that isn't really the point. At this point, we can grant that laws of science exist. I believe most people on this board would share that opinion.

Step 4: ABSOLUTE MORAL LAWS DO NOT EXIST! This is still a big debate in philosophy, in the field of metaethics. I am a philosophy major myself. I am applying to graduate schools right now to study metaethics. I am writing a thesis on this very subject. Absolute moral laws do not exist. If I wanted, I could write for hours on this, but I'm not going to bore you. I'll address the author's specific argument for moral laws.

Our silly silly author gives us a case, where we need to say if child molestation for fun is A) always wrong, or b) sometimes right. Notice he begins by begging the question. He is forcing us to assign a moral valuation to something, when we told him just a second ago that moral laws do not exist. Now, if you believe that they do exist, they just change all the time, this question is legitimate. If you believe that moral laws are a psychological construction, then child molestation is, in an absolute sense, morally neutral. It is neither always wrong nor sometimes right.

He presents us with a series of questions meant to sway us:
Q: If man is the measure of all things - which man? - which society?
A: Whoever wants to. To assume that there must be one begs the question.

Q:If someone with enough power happened to like rape and molestation, what right would we have to impose our morality on him?
A: The authority given to us by our own moral views. Again, this begs the quesiton.

Q: What would be wrong with the person, or society, with the power imposing their morality on you?
A: Nothing. I wouldn't like it, but that doesn't make it aboslutely immoral.

Q: Why do we condemn the Nazi society for following their self-imposed morals?
A: Because our morals are different.

Q: Why did the Nazi society not have the right to break from the tradition of morality in western civilizations?
A: Not sure whether they did have the right. And "right" is moral terminology, so he's begging the question AGAIN. They did it. We didn't like it. We stopped them. That's all that needs to be said.

He says there is something inconsistant with saying "The majority of the people in our society participated in that evil deed." That's not true either. Society determines the views of the individual - the individual is then the one that passes moral judgments. So it is possible for an individual within a society to condemn actions taken by the majority. No appeal to universal moral law is necessary to explain that.

There are good arguments in favor of absolute moral laws. This author does not make any of them. Bringing those up and addressing them would take hours, so I hope my brief outline here is convincing.

I'm off my rant now. Let's look at the next few steps to see where else he screws up.

Step 5: The material/immaterial distinction he makes here is unclear. The realities that these laws represent are material, but their interpretations are abstract. He indicates that we cannot point to a number 3 occurring anywhere in nature. This is true, but 3 is really a shorthand for "3 things", and a way of generalizing to all cases where 3 things exist. If we didn't do this, that would mean we'd need a new mathematical law for 3 apples, 3 oranges, 3 tables, etc. Also, of all the types of laws there he picks the most abstracted to give an argument about. It is easy to argue that laws of science are material. Can I point to an instance of gravity in the natural world? Yes. Yes I can.

Step 6: If we've said that there is absolute truth, which he forces us to to get this far, we have to accept universality. If you want to deny universality, see my arguments about absolute truth. If we want to accept universality, that's alright, too. Some truths are universal. Again, he gives us the example of a mathematic truth. Those are universal.

Step 7: This is where Hume's argument about causality comes in. Here is Hume's argument: We want some way to say that the future will resemble the past. We believe that it will, because in the past, our past futures have always resembled our past pasts. But we want to say that our future futures will resemble our future pasts. In order to prove that our future futures will resemble our future pasts BECAUSE our past futures have resembled our past pasts, we already need to know that the future will resemble the past!

That's a mouthful right there. Read it through a time or two if you didn't get it the first time. But the argument works. Still, there is no big problem with letting this one slide. It seems we have to because, even though there is an argument to the contrary, this assumption is critical in all our decision making.

Step 8: This is complete bullshit. After all this talk of logic in his preceding 7 steps, the author resorts to appeals to authority to wrap it all up! The authority of the BIBLE, no less!

Here's the argument:
P1. Universal, unchanging laws of the universe exist.
P2. If universal, unchanging laws of the universe exist, God must exist.
C. Therefore, God must exist.

Even if we let his sloppy argumentation in steps 1-7 slide and accepted P1, we can and should challenge P2.

This is one of the oldest tricks in the book. The evangelist asks the scientist WHY things are the way they are. Why does the universe look like this and not something else? The scientist replies that he doesn't know, because that is an honest answer. But he adds that that isn't a real problem. The universe just IS, that's not something that needs to be explained. The evangelist replies that "the universe just IS" is not good enough. We need another step, and the other step is God.

This doesn't solve the problem at all. What the evangelist tells us is that the universe needs an explanation, that saying "thats just how it is" doesn't cut it. But GOD, on the other hand, requires no explanation. If we were to ask the same questions to the evangelist - why doesn't God change the laws of the universe all the time? why did God make the world like this and not something else? - the evangelist replies that that's just the way God is. But this was exactly the line of response that the evangelist denied to the scientist!

Also, I'm not entirely up on my Kant, but I'm pretty sure that "transcendental" truths, as Kant described them, are truths where you CANNOT prove things one way or the other. It requires a kind of "practical faith" to operate. Kant lists the existence of God as one of these transcendental truths. So it's funny that the author uses the term "transcendental" to refer to a proof that is one of the ORIGINAL transcendental truths - by which we mean that there is no way of proving it one way or the other.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-10-02 09:04pm

ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote:
If you truly believed that there was no such thing as absolute morality then there would be no 'right' or 'wrong,' just things that you or your society happen not to like. Rape and child molestation would not be wrong, they would just become man made objections. The question then becomes: 'If man is the measure of all things - which man? - which society? If someone with enough power happened to like rape and molestation, what right would we have to impose our morality on him? What would be wrong with the person, or society, with the power imposing their morality on you? Why do we condemn the Nazi society for following their self-imposed morals? Why did the Nazi society not have the right to break from the tradition of morality in western civilizations?

There is no question that societies have different interpretations of morality but if you examine the following sentence you will see the illogic of thinking that societies determine morality. "The majority of the people in our society participated in that evil deed." If morality was up to society, that sentence would never make sense, but we know that morality is beyond societies and such a propositon is possible.

You have denied that absolute moral laws exist but you appeal to them all the time. You say that rape IS wrong because you know that it IS wrong and not just against your personal preference. 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 come to understand how inconsistent and irrational this line of thinking is and return to seek the truth.
There was no option for 'There is no Right or Wrong' only an optiont hat says 'Child Molestation is Wrong' and 'Child Molestation could be right'

They define your answers so always choose one that leads to the meaning they want, Thats not Logical.

This is where I kind of stopped. If we take his definition of absolute truth as "will occur independently of our thoughts", then the laws of logic, maths (despite both being human constructs) and scientific phenomena will "work" independently. However morality is subjective. That is not to say that my morality is no better from a paedophile's, (because I can evaluate my moral code by its objective effects on others), but you can't have an "absolute" for something which is subjective. Its like saying Star Trek is absolutely good. This type of thinking flies over the author's head and he just leaves us with false dilemnas.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-10-02 09:23pm

Ok, I I accept his absolute morality exists, then I again stop at step 7. That the laws of logic, science, maths, morality must be unchanging.

No they can change, by the fact that Relativity laws of motion has replaced Newtonian laws, or the fact that quantum mechanics have surpassed classic physics in certain fields. Or dare I say it, evolution has surpassed creationism. His bullshit example of you don't think water suddenly becomes poisonous the next day suggests to me he doesn't realise that laws of science only describe what is going on. They do not govern. So the fact that they change, means that our description of the universe was wrong, and we change our theories to accomodate the new information.

The laws of mathematics and logic have changed. For example Gödel's incompleteness theorems (while I haven't read them in detail, from my understanding they shook the foundations of mathematical logic).

What we consider morality can change as well. For example Hindu's reverence of the cow as a holy animal came about because back in ancient times the cow as useful. However with the advance of technology, they have became less so as machines take over the work. Thus the original reason why they are sacred no longer applies.

Using his example of "You don't wonder whether it will still be right to love your children tomorrow,", well if hypothetically your children were to become mass murderering terrorists, then I suspect the relationship would be seriously strained. I will even go so far as to say some people may no longer love their children after this.

In short he uses examples which he thinks are not likely to change, and ignores evidence of examples which have changed. Apparently if one doesn't change the other cannot according to his false dilemna bullshit.

And I was disappointed when we got to step 8, all it was is just circular logic. Beh.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-10-02 10:14pm

Hehe, Picked this up from Google Ads at the bottom of the page.
Atheism Against the Law: Where-int he Author postulates that to believe int hingls like Evolution and the Big Bang, one must also believe in miracles due to the Law Conservation of Mass/Energy and the supposed supremacy of Biogenesis (over spontaneuos Generation, not the modern abiogenesis, though thats what he calls it)
Why do these fools feel the need to 'prove' God? I thought faith was God's thing.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-10-02 10:26pm

Let's walk through this proof.

Does absolute truth exist? Yes.

Do the laws of logic exist? Surely.

Do the laws of mathematics exist? Yes -- but bear in mind that the "laws" he references are arbitrary. The only reason we take the binary operation +:ZxZ -> Z is because it is commensurate with reality. Remember, mathematical truth requires assumptions.

Do the laws of science exist? Yes, even if we've not discovered them yet.

Do absolute moral laws exist? Yes, though the example he gives I disagree with.

Are the laws immaterial? Yes.

Are the laws arbitrary? No.

Are they changing or unchanging? Unchanging.

Suddenly, we are confronted with a claim which presents no proof: "Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible."

That's right: bullshit question-begging. End of story.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2006-10-02 11:36pm

Bugsby wrote:One possible definition of absolute truth is that some things are true independently of our thoughts or feelings about them. ... So he can't catch you on the little paradox by having you say that it's absolutely true that you don't know if absolute truth exists, because our working definition of "absolutely true" has to do with opinion-independence. As such, calling one of your opinions "Absolutely true" is invalid. He only gives you two options at that stage, but a third option to the effect of "I know that's how I feel" would involve no paradox.

Noted.

Bugsby wrote:Step 3: Laws of science exist. There are some problems with this, though. Science works on causality, but David Hume famously proved that we cannot prove causality. We can only infer constant correlation of events.

Hume did prove this, but science need not work that way. The most famous alternative, implicitly found in almost every description of "the scientific method" (questions on the applicability of this label notwithstanding) is Popperian falsificationism: simply take the best best-performing model not known to be false. It's important to distinguish induction in the sense of abstracting patterns from data and induction in the sense of assigning truth-value to those abstractions. Science doesn't strictly speaking require the latter, although there may be substantial disagreement on to what extent science actually follows this "minimalist" approach.

Bugsby wrote:Step 4: ABSOLUTE MORAL LAWS DO NOT EXIST! This is still a big debate in philosophy, in the field of metaethics.

It depends on just what is meant on "absolute"; if one interprets it as you have in the case of absolute truth, in the sense that the validity of a moral statement may be independent of beliefs about it (what's commonly called 'objective' in metaethics), then absolute moral laws can indeed exist. Note that absolute in this sense does not mean independent of culture and/or society, only that that law itself may to some extent depend on cultural factors other than beliefs about it. This may even be explicit in hypothetical (as opposed to categorical) systems of ethics.

Bugsby wrote:I am writing a thesis on this very subject. Absolute moral laws do not exist. If I wanted, I could write for hours on this, but I'm not going to bore you.

Either you're using a sense of 'absolute' different from the one you gave above, or you've managed to disprove an enormous class of ethical systems, such as utilitarianism, which posits an absolute moral imperative. This particular example has the bonus in that it can be interpreted as a hypothetical system (which was one of Kant's objections to it), so it can be made immune to certain well-known Humean concerns.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-10-03 01:58am

ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote:Why do these fools feel the need to 'prove' God? I thought faith was God's thing.

Well, that leads us to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's ultimate disproof of God.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2006-10-03 10:57am

Godel's thm takes this website and burns it. That is all.

Objective morality doesn't exist outside of the opinions of the people with morals. Ethics can be objective, morals cannot.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-10-03 12:09pm

Darth Servo wrote:
ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote:Why do these fools feel the need to 'prove' God? I thought faith was God's thing.
Well, that leads us to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's ultimate disproof of God.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

well, when someone finds a Babel fish let me know and I'll start not believeing in God immediatley

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-10-03 05:40pm

ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote:well, when someone finds a Babel fish let me know and I'll start not believeing in God immediatley

Are you retarded, or just trolling? That has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the vignette.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-10-03 05:46pm

Since these people maintain that killing one another is the product of amoral, God unknowing people, despite it being a deeply ingrained biological protocol for every successful species, why even entertain their delusions? If they cannot back the most basic moral behaviour as being only followed because of the Bible, then they've not a hope for anything else.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2006-10-03 06:21pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Since these people maintain that killing one another is the product of amoral, God unknowing people, despite it being a deeply ingrained biological protocol for every successful species, why even entertain their delusions? If they cannot back the most basic moral behaviour as being only followed because of the Bible, then they've not a hope for anything else.

In a word, an effective counterpoint to his ridiculous moral absolutes is the very human emotion of empathy. Someone lacking this might very well be a child rapist but like we know it's wrong.

I'd use the existence of emotions in humans as a stepping stone to evolution and that empathy has very legitimate survival benefits. When our ancient ancestors were tracking down a kill, and a member of the clan got injured, what do you expect them to do? Let his injury condemn him to his fate? Not strive to improve his survival? Kill HIM and eat HIM since he's useless if not fit? In addition to being circular, it's a false dilemna -- either we're all amoral fucks or God made us not so.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2006-10-03 06:23pm

Ersatz edit: but like we don't know that's wrong. :roll:

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-10-03 06:29pm

That was retarded. You can make logic prove whatever you want as long as your premises are bullshit, but that wasn't even logical. At all.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2006-10-05 12:17am

Nephtys wrote:Logic means jack shit if you have no foundation for it. You know, silly things like facts or evidence.

Logic.

I am a Goa'uld.
Goa'uld control Jaffa armies.
I control Jaffa armies.

Not after the fall of the System Lords they don't! HA! I may have poked a minute hole in your logic, therefore your entire belief system is wrong and mine is completely right!!! [/parody]

I have heard that kind of fallacious reasoning so many times from True Believers.