the problem is not that you are not smart enough it is that you are too smart. Besides fromt eh various flaws along the way the final argument "the proof that god exists is that without him nothing can be explained" is fantasticly unoriginal and famously flawed. It is what is know as the god of the holes argument (even religous defenders dont use this argument anymore because it is so easily argued agaisnt now)
The argument against god of the holes is pretty simple, there are really two.
1. Why is god the only posible explaination? We have no proof of this what so ever. We simply dont understnad the universe or posibly multiverse well enough to answer that. The website desgner would no doubt say, "well what other posible explaination is there? Can you think of one?" the answer is yes actualyl I have an idea I created for a story I wrote about a godnless creation story that actually makes sence but it relaly is beside the point. The point is no one knows.
Look at it anouther way. in ancient Greece they had no explanation for earthquakes no one could think of one and so they belvied a god smashed his trident against the ground and that caused the shacking. The god Posidon. We now know about techtonic plates, there is no way they could ahve begun to guess at that. There are similar examples thoughout history but the point is the same, when you dont know you dont know the answer hasent ever been God so far! As what we need a god to explain as shrunk back and back basicly to creating the universe the god of the holes argumetn has also retreated. As it becomes clear that things can usualy be explain otherways saying "well it must be god" has become untenable.
2. If the universe is so complex it requires a creator must that creator not also be complex enough to create it? Therby needing a creator of his own? Its famous is a golden oldy but it works.
What im saying here is that this websites argumetn really comes down to "there is a god because there must be a god" which is enterly circular!
Finnaly I want to say before I go than im sorry for the spelling and grammer mistakes- Im sure there are hundreds! The truth is im dyslexic and tired and angry at this website! So thats the best I can do.
Well, in step one they're trying to pull a Schrodinger's Cat. Step two is... math? That has nothing to do with anything. Step three's laws of science are science. That is all and well. But what do they define science as? a)Knowing stuff or b)knowing how to learn about stuff? Step four I disagree with completely. It's just silly. Morals are based on cultural values. Go look up Spartan pederasty on Wiki when no one is looking over your shoulder (there's a picture of a controversial nature *cough* at the top. It's of a design on a cup from the time, but still.). Step five is weird. Same with six. Seven: Laws of science can change. They usually don't, but we'll modify as needed, yes? Eight is the icing on this cake of crap. Woo. I'm so glad people take the time to make some of these websites.
They chucked me off to the Disney site the first time. Interesting; ol' Walt D. was an anti-Semite. What does that tell you about the site creator? I had to lie the entire way through clenched teeth just to get to the end.
That's as far as I got. What should have been offered is "child molestation for fun is either okay or not" or "child molestation is neither good nor bad", because they way it was worded I didn't agree with either of the options given.
Then they totally failed to consider the possiblity that there is no objective moral truth.
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?
Rights, just like morality are man-made. So if a powerful person, too powerful for us to do anything about, decides he wants to rape children then he has the right to do so. It's not about whether we have the right to impose our morality it's whether we have the power to impose it.
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 nothing objectively wrong with nazism. We didn't allow that society to continue because we were threatened by it.
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.
It doesn't make sense if you don't understand that in the english language we imply what we actually mean because to not do would mean we take ages to make a simple statement. What the statement means is "The majority of people participated in what I consider to be an evil deed". 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.
No, I say rape is wrong because I have the evolutionary characteristic of empathy. This is beneficial to our society because it means that people do not just do what is best for themselves, they are more able to work together and form a society that can prosper.
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.
Even if any of their arguments were valid, it wouldn't matter. The Universe does not need a creator because time is bendable (proven). It is not unlikely that the Universe could collapse in on itself, cause everything to go back in time, and create itself at the big bang. I did a blog post on this: http://whynotjump.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-creation-of-universe.html Also look up Einstein's theory of special relativity if you want to know more about the time factor.