Debunking a proof for god
I received an email from Matt [last name removed to protect privacy] a few weeks ago, and it was an argument against god. I think Matt answered his own questions in this one. But he wanted to know what I had to say about him. I think you give it more credit than it deserves in your answer. Frankly his argument is rather stupid.
Sye Bruggencate can't prove that there are absolute morals, much of academia would argue against absolute truths. Even if we accept absolute morals and truths, God certainly wouldn't logically follow. What would logically follow is that "there are laws and absolutes."
The argument is ridiculously stupid. He is trying to look intelligent and only makes himself look like a fool or a liar. Matt on the other hand comes off as intelligent and hitting the nail on the head. His email is all that is needed on this subject. Join the forum so you can explain things like this to the next theist that comes here. [edited]
I really appreciate your kind words. I applaud your efforts as well in debunking the irrational and ridiculous. Keep it up!
Here is the letter Matt sent me, please feel free to comment:
I follow some of the material published by the Rational Responders and I find you are a welcome addition to atheists in general, with sound reasoning and skepticism. I myself am a third generation atheist. To get to the point I came across Sye Bruggencate's Proof That God Exists website (proofthatgodexists.org) dictating that the Christian Worldview not only is the correct among religions, but is the only worldview to explain who we are and how we arrived. His proof (transcendental):
There are Absolute Truths
There are Laws of Logic
There are Laws of Mathematics
There are Laws of Science
There are Absolute Morals
The Mentioned Laws are Immaterial/Universal/Unchanging
[God Exists because this is only possible through God]
(The Proof: You Cannot Prove Anything Without God)
Maybe I am mistaken, but this is a weak argument for the Christian worldview. What it proves is man's ability to observe, reason abstractly, infer, and apply rationality. And to get purely technical about the "Laws of Nature" (Bruggencate assumes these laws to be absolute as the result of his loving and benevolent God), the "Law of Gravity" is not immaterial as he claims (space time curvature). Neither is mathematics as he claims. Mathematics exists within the mind of reasoning and intelligent organisms; nature does not need mathematics or its laws.
Within our brain and its structure the mind exists, ergo mathematics is not immaterial just as computer software is not immaterial (code --> binary --> logic gates --> semiconductors --> electrons). It is the result of the function of the brain, just as thought is. It is material. Bruggencate makes a philosopher's mistake by understanding abstract arugments, but trying to interject them into fields he may not understand (such as physics).
The strong and weak forces exists because of subatomic interaction, not the other way around. An argument for magic (absolutes in nature concieved by God) is presented, and I myself was not presuaded. Bruggencate's argument proves man's rationality, from observed phenomena to abtract thought and inference. Thusly, he proves man is godlike ( a reflection no doubt he ignores, much the same way athiests 'deny God'), not that there is an all powerful diety because only He can be absolute.
And, (if you are actually reading this and finding it wordy, I will make this brief) he tries to impose the Universal Morals argument. I would find it univerally amoral to molest children (an example he uses to stop you in your tracks if you do not believe moral absolutes exist) but that has not been then the case throughout history (ancient Sparta for instance).
If morals are not absloute thoughout human history, how am I to claim they will remain as they are today in the future? I cannot. I can only claim what I believe, and I am a product of present day societal conditions. Society thrives on a self-sustaining structure which promotes progress, causing morals to evolve as civilization does. Giving credit to the divine is illogical as history demonstrates.
Nature has morals. What are those? Survive, reproduce resist extinction. It is what we do every day. It is what life does every day.
In sum, I offer that theists have cause and causality reversed, thus attributing existence to the supernatural.
Well, thank you Sapient for your endeavors and hard work defending an athiestic perspective in life. I find it a noble pursuit to generate material that makes the superstitious think beyond justification. If you would care to comment on Sye Bruggencate's argument, I would like to know your thoughts.