Thread: http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

... You sieriasly didn't get that, did you?

think about it.

p.s. about that molesting ... read my other post

Originally Posted by Keeper

... what?

Do YOU think that molesting a child could be right in a certain situation?

How do you define force, btw?

Originally Posted by Keeper

... You sieriasly didn't get that, did you?

think about it.

p.s. about that molesting ... read my other post

Yeah, I did. They're saying you clicked on No such thing as it but you clicked on it in the next screen, therefore proving yourself wrong. It's a friggin added word to trip you up. It was dumb. Why not just True.

They're avoiding potentially damaging questions.

Originally Posted by Keeper

... You sieriasly didn't get that, did you?

think about it.

Rofl, its asking us a question about something specific then it claims (infers) that if there is no universal truth that there can be no truth and therefore there must be a universal truth. What it glosses over is that some things can be certain while others are not.....

And do you know the definition of a biased question? The questions are fine until you disagree. For the morality question: heres an example of choices that are biased in the other direction.

Are there absolute laws of morality and is everything exactly right and wrong?

Yes, I think only in black and white and need someone else to tell me what is right and wrong because I lack the power to think

or

No, I believe morals can change depending on the person and situation.

This is what I would have been like if it were written by atheists.

Damn, I started a general attitude, eh?

Regardless most have the same opinion. It sucks, it very linear, and doesn't prove anything.

Okay, that was a lot writen!

BD: Are you saying that it is perfectly exeptable to touch a child (or rape etc.)
Ignore the law
Ignore punishment

Is it okay to do that?
If I understand you correctly, that is what you said. Am I right?

Wendy: Okay, what do you mean when you say Absolute?

also, I really dont get what you are saying in your monologue-bit. Can we sort this out in PM and then post it (it will help me get things in perspective)

Blah: There actually is, and yes, hell is not in the Bible. Its actually a pagan concept.

Arby: Yours seems very restrictive. Moreso then is needed

anyhow, to people in general: Absolute truth = something that is fact (1+1 = 2) Not something that is unknown. It means "is there an answer that is fact?"

Yeah, it is. With no law and no punishment, it would be. No moral power would get me. YOU DON'T GET THIS!

Truth- We know that. However, that stupid question was just a play on words.

I'm not talking about Punishment. Would you do it, though?

No, but this isn't about my personal preferences. I could, if there weren't laws against it, though. Nothing would happen because morality is a concept.

Would you object if anyone else did it?

I completely disagree with this. When he says that your car can not be in the parking lot, but no be in the parking lot, at the same time, he is wrong. Look up quantom physics.

The website could not wrap its mind around the paradox that absolute truth does not exist. It only offered me to either say that that concept was "absolutely true," which puts you in an infinite circle, or that it wasn't true. In other words, it never got to its point because it assumed I would eventually "see the error in my logic" and agree. Yes, I understand it's a paradox, and my how clever they are at looping you back to the same question over and over... however, I'm afraid they never even mentioned God to me, so it was an utter failure.

So how do you define absolute truth?