Logic dictates that there is a God!

[MeDeFe]

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/logic.php

You can prove anything if you make enough wrong assumptions.

Interesting. Please show me the wrong assumptions.

That there are only two answers to any of the questions.
That those are the important questions in determining the existence of gods.
That no other questions are relevant to the subject.
For example.

That's because there are only 2 answer to the questions asked.
If there are three, please post them for all to see.

While the point of the site I posted is to logically go through the process to show that God of the bible is the true God, I just posted it to show how a material ONLY view of nature, and the universe does not hold up. While i agree that this site does not prove the Jesus is real or that one religion is right and another wrong, I believe it shows that there is something out there beyond the physical. These questions are for us to think about and decide why and what we believe.

There are things out there that are not part of physical matter or energy.
they exist whether we do or not.

Here are teh questions in quick order to make sure everyoen knows what the site steps lists.
-So please in more detail, what parts of that site are wrong or not correct?
-Besides the choices available, are there more answers to the questions?
-What are those answers inf they exist?

Step 1: Laws of Logic
1) They exist
2) They don't

There is not another answer to that question.

Step 2: Laws of Math
1) They exist
2) They don't

There is not another answer to that question.

Step 3: Laws of Science
1) They exist
2) They don't

I will post a bit more here. I think people might post and say that we are always learning about more science and that science does change. What the question is asking is that do the scientific principles we depend on and use change in our everyday lives. Does gravity change daily. Do we except the laws of nature arbitrarily become difference from day to day

Step 4: Laws of Absolute Morals
1) They exist
2) They don't

There are really only 2 answers here. if you think morality is relative, then you believe that absolute morals don't exist.
If you believe they don't exist, then murder/rape/child molestation is ok in some circumstances?
Do you really believe that.?

Step Five: The Nature of Laws a
1) Are these laws Immaterial (not made of matter. Non-physical, abstract)
2) Are these laws material (made of matter/energy. Depended on physical stuff)

These is no other option.

Step Five: The Nature of Laws b
1) Are these laws universal (apply to all and everywhere in the universe)
2) Are these laws Individual (vary from place to place and person to person)

These is no other option.

Step Seven: The Nature of Laws (c)
1) Are they unchanging? (never change)
2) Are they changing (can and do change from day to day)

These is no other option.

--------------------------------------------------

-So where do these things come from in a purely material and physical universe.
-Where did logic come from if everything is based from the big bang and matter/energy.
-Math exists, whether we are here or not? Why?
-Logic Exists, whether we are here or not? Why?
-The laws of nature exist in the universe but why do they exist the way they are?
-Why are there morals that are absolute? Why do we all know that child rape is wrong? Who made the rule?

One problem with the questions is that there is no query at all into the nature of the mentioned laws. Even if you accept that laws of logic exist, are immaterial, apply universally (in our universe) and are unchanging (in our universe), there is no reason to say that they need to derive from a supernatural source. The same applies to the laws of mathematics. This is because all that's been done is that four adjectives have been put in a row. What does "immaterial" even mean here? Take the laws of science, for me they are immaterial because rather than having a physical form they are constructs of language that describe relations between physical entities. A description doesn't have a physical form, an instantiation of the description does, but the description does not, it's analogous to types and tokens in linguistics and hardly anything revolutionary. Why should something require a supernatural creator just because it's immaterial? Being immaterial is more a sign of being an intellectual construct of some kind than of being supernatural.

Another problem is that laws of vastly different natures are compounded and treated as being identical. Laws of logic and mathematic have some things in common. Neither of them have much in common with scientific laws, especially scientific laws as they are defined by that website: "descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations". It's a good definition and I agree with it, but it means that laws of science are in a completely different ballpark than laws of mathematics, which essentially are components of a self-contained system of relations. The website completely ignores this.
Moral laws are again of a different nature and the debate on their nature is far from over, I do not consider morals as absolutes, but neither do I think it's ok to rape children which is the only other option the website gives me. Frankly, the makers of that site are intellectually dishonest, they ignore the entire discussion that's been going on for several thousand years now and and simply say "laws of morality are like this, or laws of morality don't exist at all". It's a fucking joke, and not a particularly funny one either.

[PLAYER57832]

Interesting. Please show me the wrong assumptions.

That there are only two answers to any of the questions.
That those are the important questions in determining the existence of gods.
That no other questions are relevant to the subject.
For example.

That's because there are only 2 answer to the questions asked.
If there are three, please post them for all to see.

While the point of the site I posted is to logically go through the process to show that God of the bible is the true God, I just posted it to show how a material ONLY view of nature, and the universe does not hold up. While i agree that this site does not prove the Jesus is real or that one religion is right and another wrong, I believe it shows that there is something out there beyond the physical. These questions are for us to think about and decide why and what we believe.

There are things out there that are not part of physical matter or energy.
they exist whether we do or not.

Here are teh questions in quick order to make sure everyoen knows what the site steps lists.
-So please in more detail, what parts of that site are wrong or not correct?
-Besides the choices available, are there more answers to the questions?
-What are those answers inf they exist?

Step 1: Laws of Logic
1) They exist
2) They don't

There is not another answer to that question.

Wrong. "laws of logic" are simply creations of humans, ways we organize information, debate and thought processes. They therefore are very much changeable.

Also, we already know that much of human thought is, in truth not logical at all. Feelings, emotions are absolutely not logical. In many cases, our actions are not purely logical.
[/quote]

Step 2: Laws of Math
1) They exist
2) They don't

There is not another answer to that question.

Again, you refer to things created by human beings. The laws of math apply, for math. The problem you have made in the past, and seem to be making here is to suggest that because these laws hold true within a very specific framework, they apply to ALL cases. This is simply not true.
Laws of physical math, for example, do not necessarily apply at the quantum (sub-atomic, etc,) level.
Look at Einstein.

Step 3: Laws of Science
1) They exist
2) They don't"

Science has few real laws. Those that exist are always provisional. A big problem you have made in the past, just as an example, is to ignore the often unstated, but ALWAYS understood caveat "within our known universe". Therefore, as an example, the second law of thermodynamics has very little application to creation. We just don't know what existed back then.

Science starts with the present and builds itself back, as things are proven. There is almost always a possibility for error, even within laws. When it comes to laws, that "error" may mean just the limits of our universe. Thirty years ago, we had no knowledge of quantum physics or chaos mathematics. These came about because of apparent "violations" of known "rules". Such change is ALWAYS that case.

Only the Bible is unchangeable... except, even in that, while the Bible does not change, we change and therefore the way we understand it changes. This was true from the beginning. There never was one, unified church. It was unified in the worship of God, Christ, etc. However, about most other things there was dispute. There were always many churches. The Bible includes the thoughts of Mark, Paul, Peter, precisely because they each differ. The inclusions were not "errors", they were intentional. Because people are different.

I will post a bit more here. I think people might post and say that we are always learning about more science and that science does change. What the question is asking is that do the scientific principles we depend on and use change in our everyday lives. Does gravity change daily. Do we except the laws of nature arbitrarily become difference from day to day

You confuse expression and understanding with reality. Facts are facts, but the problem is too many people in common useage don't distinguish between fact, ideas and theory.

Step 4: Laws of Absolute Morals
1) They exist
2) They don't

There are really only 2 answers here. if you think morality is relative, then you believe that absolute morals don't exist.
If you believe they don't exist, then murder/rape/child molestation is ok in some circumstances?
Do you really believe that.?

Baloney. The Bible says thou shalt not steal, yet it is commonly given that it is OK to steal for food under specific circumstances. Human beings are not God. We cry for rules because they are simple, easy to follow. However, God is greater. God can see beyond any and all petty limitations human being place on ourselves.

To God, there is no inconsistancy. Only to fully fallible, entirely limited human beings.

Even beyond that, the Bible makes it perfectly clear that there are some rules that apply to some people, that may be necessary for some, but not for all. Christ tells us to watch the log in our own eye, not the stick in our neighbor's. One person might only find peace and God by living in a very tightly controlled community. Others can live with far more freedom. Each of us has our place. God has room for all of us.

Step Five: The Nature of Laws a
1) Are these laws Immaterial (not made of matter. Non-physical, abstract)
2) Are these laws material (made of matter/energy. Depended on physical stuff)

These is no other option.

Step Five: The Nature of Laws b
1) Are these laws universal (apply to all and everywhere in the universe)
2) Are these laws Individual (vary from place to place and person to person)

These is no other option.

Step Seven: The Nature of Laws (c)
1) Are they unchanging? (never change)
2) Are they changing (can and do change from day to day)

These is no other option.

You are just wrong. In most cases we don't even understand nature well enough to have true, infallible "laws" as you claim. I mean, you could probably say "all things die" is a "law", except... what of clones, what of single cell organisms that split, what of ... (even setting aside the Christian issue of the soul, etc.)

Again, you confuse things that people lay out to explain what they see with something that is set out absolutely. Part of this is because so often, scientists do tend to talk as if they refer to real and true absolutes. Its gets a bit tiresome to say 'given our known universe, given that all the physical laws we have studied and tested to date hold true... etc ad nauseum".

--------------------------------------------------

-So where do these things come from in a purely material and physical universe.
-Where did logic come from if everything is based from the big bang and matter/energy.
-Math exists, whether we are here or not? Why?
-Logic Exists, whether we are here or not? Why?
-The laws of nature exist in the universe but why do they exist the way they are?

Again, see above.

-Why are there morals that are absolute? Why do we all know that child rape is wrong? Who made the rule?

I, of course, would say that God gave us a sense of right and wrong. However, these things can be shown to be universal norms, because defying them harms us, as human beings.

In other words, God gave us rules that make sense. As a Christian, (same for Jews, Muslims, any theist) I believe that God knows best just "because". However, the more we study and learn about the world, the more often we find that these rules that seem to come from "nowhere" have a lot of real and true concrete sense, so that even people who don't believe in God very much believe in following most (not all) of those rules.

[jonesthecurl]

...and on the issue of child rape, the standard behaviour in ancient Sparta would be child rape under the law now: so would the marrying of Romeo to Juliet.
And the question is whether moral codes are universal or whether we can imagine "somewhere in the universe" that abusing children might be "fun" (shifting ground from "right" - of course some people think it's "fun" - else there'd be no problem). I'm sure I could imagine "somewhere in the universe" a race that this is evolutionaryily (is that even a word?) necessary to - intelligent guppies or something. I'm sure some sf author or another has already done so.

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/logic.php

You can prove anything if you make enough wrong assumptions.

Interesting. Please show me the wrong assumptions.

You assume a lot about science that is just not true. In short, you tend to say that there are many laws that are "infallible", when in fact, many are not even true laws. Others are universally understood to be constructs of human imagination that apply only to the world we can see, touch, hear and understand.

Humans can be quite wrong. Also, there might well be other universes where absolutely none of what we know applies, at all.

[PLAYER57832]

...and on the issue of child rape, the standard behaviour in ancient Sparta would be child rape under the law now: so would the marrying of Romeo to Juliet.
And the question is whether moral codes are universal or whether we can imagine "somewhere in the universe" that abusing children might be "fun" (shifting ground from "right" - of course some people think it's "fun" - else there'd be no problem). I'm sure I could imagine "somewhere in the universe" a race that this is evolutionaryily (is that even a word?) necessary to - intelligent guppies or something. I'm sure some sf author or another has already done so.

Of course, morals must change as society changes.

Even within the Bible, we see a complete change of morality from the old testament to the new. Polygamy was, at first, OK. A lot of people suggest that the story of Abraham and the rock was really an allegory or even a story of the ending of child sacrafice. That is, that child sacrafice was accepted and part of Jewish life up until that point. I am not arguing one way or another, but there are many things that were once considered "OK", in the Bible that now are not.
There are also things that were proscribed at one point, but later allowed. I believe it progression is much like the progression for a child.

Right now, I tell my 3 year old to stay away from the stove, it is dangerous. Before too long that will shift to, I will hold you and carefully add/stir, etc.. watch the burner, etc. My 9 year old is able to cook a few simple things on his own. Did the stove change? Did it suddenly become not hot? Of course not! What changed was his ability to understand and deal with the complexities.

so, too, with Moses, we were given a definitive and fairly absolute law. By the time of Christ, though this had evolved to such complexity that in many times obeying the law meant violating the very spirit of it, such as when Christ healed on the Sabbath and was chastized. So, Christ gave us a new, ultimate law to supercede the rest. "Do unto others...". Did that replace the old law? The old law still stands, but this is a clarification, a fullfillment of that old law. In some cases, we now bow to more strict rules. We no longer are so "loose" about murder, for example. However, in other cases, we go lax.

At this point, today, our society is in flux. We need to re-evaluate. Many things have been let slide that perhaps ought not. I believe even most secularlists, for example are uneasy with the state of marriages, easy divorce, etc. We certainly don't want to return to a time when a battered woman was told to "go back and obey", but ... we probably have gone too far in permitting easy divorce, in some cases. OR, more to the point, probably don't prepare our children well enough for marriage and all it entails.

[Lionz]

Who suggests child sacrifice was accepted and part of Jewish life up until that point? The word Jewish actually has to do with descendants of Judah specifically and he was Abraham's great grandson perhaps. Also, Noah and Abraham were alive at the same time according to geneaology and the flood did not even occur until Noah was 600 or so maybe.

[Snorri1234]

Step 4: Laws of Absolute Morals
1) They exist
2) They don't

There are really only 2 answers here. if you think morality is relative, then you believe that absolute morals don't exist.
If you believe they don't exist, then murder/rape/child molestation is ok in some circumstances?
Do you really believe that.?

Does not follow.

If I say there are no absolute morals, it's silly to say I think it's "right in some circumstances". That has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[PLAYER57832]

...and on the issue of child rape, the standard behaviour in ancient Sparta would be child rape under the law now: so would the marrying of Romeo to Juliet.
And the question is whether moral codes are universal or whether we can imagine "somewhere in the universe" that abusing children might be "fun" (shifting ground from "right" - of course some people think it's "fun" - else there'd be no problem). I'm sure I could imagine "somewhere in the universe" a race that this is evolutionaryily (is that even a word?) necessary to - intelligent guppies or something. I'm sure some sf author or another has already done so.

Reread your post and realized there is another point here.

Arguing that some people can justify an action is not at all the same as saying there are no universal laws. The rules about incest are tied to very real and true biologic genetics. The rules about child molestation, similarly, are tied to biology. Although some have this idea that girls have, historically been married at 9-10, this is not really entirely true. While it did happen, more often such marriages were not consumated until the girl at least reached puberty. In essence, a girl was "married" so she could be trained by a young man's aunts and mother. I don't want to get bogged down in details here, because there is a LOT of variation. My point is just that simply saying there is a society somewhere that ignores rules doesn't mean they don't exist. There is a tribe where people have "ostriche feet". It is a genetic abnormality that arose from heavy inbreeding. As a result, it has become more or less the "norm" for women to "sneak out" to get pregnant. Inbreeding is cited as a reason for the downfall of many royal societies, etc.

Societies can change and ignore moral laws, but not without impact.

[jonesthecurl]

9-10 is unusual for consummation of a marriage, but historically 12 or 14 is not. In the US today for instance (and in most if not all of the world) this would be a criminal act. Most people would consider it not just a "law" but a "moral law".

[Lionz]

Hello?

[Army of GOD]

Hello?

Hey Lionz! *Army of GOD gives Lionz a cyber high-five* ACK! LOL

[natty dread]

Step Five: The Nature of Laws a
1) Are these laws Immaterial (not made of matter. Non-physical, abstract)
2) Are these laws material (made of matter/energy. Depended on physical stuff)

These is no other option.

What if I think that laws of science, math and logic are material, but laws of morality are immaterial? The website does not give me an option to answer thus.

It's a really stupid website anyway. If I choose the "wrong" answer to any question, it just says "No, it's not this way, it's that way. Go answer another way and then I'll prove god exists".

And when we finally get to the "proof" part, what is this hyped proof then?

"Without god, you couldn't prove anything" WTF is that about?

Circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because ...

Seriously, that website was the biggest waste of 5 minutes in my entire life.

[tzor]

Since when are observing and seeing the same?

It's not. And many have "observed" the hand of God move.

Someone saw it move?

[natty dread]

Someone saw it move?

Dude! look at my hands. They're, like, moving!

[PLAYER57832]

Who suggests child sacrifice was accepted and part of Jewish life up until that point? The word Jewish actually has to do with descendants of Judah specifically and he was Abraham's great grandson perhaps. Also, Noah and Abraham were alive at the same time according to geneaology and the flood did not even occur until Noah was 600 or so maybe.

Sorry, not even going to try to go there.

[PLAYER57832]

9-10 is unusual for consummation of a marriage, but historically 12 or 14 is not. In the US today for instance (and in most if not all of the world) this would be a criminal act. Most people would consider it not just a "law" but a "moral law".

My understanding is that it was closer to 14 more than 12, but the difference is our society. I am not going to argue that a child of 12 or even 14 really should bear a child, but times were very rough back then. Rough times create different mores. At any rate, there is no real biologic reason why a girl cannot carry a child at 16, 17, etc. It is frowned on heavily in our society more because of non-biologic factors. A girl of 16 can hardly go out and have a job, is unlikely to have a boyfriend or husband close to her in age who is able to support her, etc. Now, I am not, of course, suggesting that we should encourage 16 year olds to go out and have kids. The reasons against it are quite real, just not strictly biology. In fact, there is a lot of biologic evidence that our current way of doing things is pushing childbirth back far too late. But.. I don't want to get too far off topic, here.

[Lionz]

Heya Army.

[jay_a2j]

Baloney. The Bible says thou shalt not steal, yet it is commonly given that it is OK to steal for food under specific circumstances. Human beings are not God. We cry for rules because they are simple, easy to follow. However, God is greater. God can see beyond any and all petty limitations human being place on ourselves.

Didn't read the full post but this caught my eye. It is "commonly given that it OK to steal food under specific circumstances" does in no way render it OK. It is still sin. There are ABSOLUTE laws of morality (given by God) and there are laws given by man (legalized abortion, same sex marriage, etc.). "Majority rules" doesn't trump God's laws. (a sure disappointment for those that believe God is a Democracy)

[jay_a2j]

Of course, morals must change as society changes.

Even within the Bible, we see a complete change of morality from the old testament to the new.

Wow, just wow!


My God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Moral laws given by God do not change.

[PLAYER57832]

Baloney. The Bible says thou shalt not steal, yet it is commonly given that it is OK to steal for food under specific circumstances. Human beings are not God. We cry for rules because they are simple, easy to follow. However, God is greater. God can see beyond any and all petty limitations human being place on ourselves.

Didn't read the full post but this caught my eye. It is "commonly given that it OK to steal food under specific circumstances" does in no way render it OK. It is still sin. There are ABSOLUTE laws of morality (given by God) and there are laws given by man (legalized abortion, same sex marriage, etc.). "Majority rules" doesn't trump God's laws. (a sure disappointment for those that believe God is a Democracy)

uh.. jay, this has nothing to do with majority rules or what I think. I am citing Jewish law.

And if you wish to claim that Old Testament law and New Testament law are the same.. well, no.

As I mentioned, polygamy was OK under the old Testament. There are other exceptions, but I don't think this is the thread for that... and I believe there are plenty of subjects already on the subjects you mentioned.

[WidowMakers]

Well I will do these one at a time.

Step 1: Laws of Logic
1) They exist
2) They don't

There is not another answer to that question.

Wrong. "laws of logic" are simply creations of humans, ways we organize information, debate and thought processes. They therefore are very much changeable.

Also, we already know that much of human thought is, in truth not logical at all. Feelings, emotions are absolutely not logical. In many cases, our actions are not purely logical.

In informal logic, people use three basic, logical principles which are regarded as the three basic "laws of logic" or "laws of thought"

1. The law of identity: p is p
2. The law of non-contradiction: p and not-p cannot be true at the same time (i.e. It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time cannot be true)
3. The law of the excluded middle: p or not-p must be true (i.e. Either it is raining or it is not raining)

Can we all agree on these? I will assume we can.

Now why do these logical laws exist?
Do they really exist because humans exist?
If all of humanity died right now, would these laws still apply to nature?
If all that was left in the universe was space and hydrogen, would these laws still apply?

hydrogen wouldn't "be hydrogen and not-hydrogen" at the same time.
hydrogen couldn't "exist and not exists" in a particular place at the same time.

So if these conceptual ideas still exist without humans, where did they come from?
If logic exists and there is nothing but nature (again from the naturalistic perspective that all that exists is in nature and nothing exists outside of it) what makes up logic?

con•cept -

1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.

So if a concept is something formed in a mind and these logical laws can exist and still apply exist without humans or animals or anything but hydrogen and space, where did they come from?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step 2: Laws of Math
1) They exist
2) They don't

There is not another answer to that question.

Again, you refer to things created by human beings. The laws of math apply, for math. The problem you have made in the past, and seem to be making here is to suggest that because these laws hold true within a very specific framework, they apply to ALL cases. This is simply not true.
Laws of physical math, for example, do not necessarily apply at the quantum (sub-atomic, etc,) level.
Look at Einstein.

Real simple.
Men may have made the icons/notations and symbols to let us "do math" but the concepts and reality of math existed before we used it.
Again if all men died right now, 2+2 would still equal 4.
Before men existed 2 things + 2 things = 4 things.
Principles of math exist whether we are here or not.
Principles of math exist whether we understand them or not.
These principle have not been invented, they have been discovered.
And since these mathematical principle cannot be made of matter or energy (again they are concepts) they cannot be created by man or nature.
Where did they come from (if all there is is matter and energy - naturalism view) ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step 3: Laws of Science
1) They exist
2) They don't"

Science has few real laws. Those that exist are always provisional. A big problem you have made in the past, just as an example, is to ignore the often unstated, but ALWAYS understood caveat "within our known universe". Therefore, as an example, the second law of thermodynamics has very little application to creation. We just don't know what existed back then.

Science starts with the present and builds itself back, as things are proven. There is almost always a possibility for error, even within laws. When it comes to laws, that "error" may mean just the limits of our universe. Thirty years ago, we had no knowledge of quantum physics or chaos mathematics. These came about because of apparent "violations" of known "rules". Such change is ALWAYS that case.

Only the Bible is unchangeable... except, even in that, while the Bible does not change, we change and therefore the way we understand it changes. This was true from the beginning. There never was one, unified church. It was unified in the worship of God, Christ, etc. However, about most other things there was dispute. There were always many churches. The Bible includes the thoughts of Mark, Paul, Peter, precisely because they each differ. The inclusions were not "errors", they were intentional. Because people are different.

While I believe the Bible is unchangeable I am not trying to introduce that into any of my arguments. In my initial statement when posting I specifically said my goal was not to prove Jesus or the God of the Bible, but to show how NOT believing a higher power (whatever that may be) is not logical.

Ok now onto the laws of science.
When you add hydrogen and oxygen together (at ideal temp, pressure) what do you get? Water
What if you do that in Colorado? The moon? 5 billion light years on another planet? You always get water.

When you drop a rock how fast will it accelerate towards the ground? 9.81 m/s^2 (yes I know it varies depending on where you are)
What if you do that each day for 50 years?
Will gravity change?
Do we except it to change?
Or do we accept it as an unchanging law?

Think about scientific provable principles. They are repeatable. They are the same every day? Why?
Why do we think that the universe came from chaos and randomness only to depend on the order and consistency of it now?
If it was random and chaotic then (you know, when the 1st and 2nd laws did not apply for all you “Big Bang”-ers out there) why should we believe they are constant now?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step 4: Laws of Absolute Morals
1) They exist
2) They don't

There are really only 2 answers here. if you think morality is relative, then you believe that absolute morals don't exist.
If you believe they don't exist, then murder/rape/child molestation is ok in some circumstances?
Do you really believe that.?

Baloney. The Bible says thou shalt not steal, yet it is commonly given that it is OK to steal for food under specific circumstances. Human beings are not God. We cry for rules because they are simple, easy to follow. However, God is greater. God can see beyond any and all petty limitations human being place on ourselves.

To God, there is no inconsistency. Only to fully fallible, entirely limited human beings.

Even beyond that, the Bible makes it perfectly clear that there are some rules that apply to some people, that may be necessary for some, but not for all. Christ tells us to watch the log in our own eye, not the stick in our neighbor's. One person might only find peace and God by living in a very tightly controlled community. Others can live with far more freedom. Each of us has our place. God has room for all of us.

Again not talking about the Bible but I will respond to your stealing and biblical laws response first.

Stealing. Where does the Bible say “don’t steal….unless you have to”? You are making things up.
-just because people justify stealing or telling a lie, does not make it ok in God’s eyes
polygamy God did not approve of this at all.
"When thou art come unto the land which the Eternal thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me. . . . Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (Deut. 17:14, 17).
-Just because people do things in the Bible does not mean that God approves.
-http://www.giveshare.org/family/polygamy.html

But now onto Absolute Morals

-Is anything OK to do? Why?
-Who is right if two opposing views square off on a topic? The large group? The stronger group?
-Is it ok to rape children? I don’t want to know if it happens or if others think it is ok, what do you think?
-Would you care if someone shot you? Why? What if they thought it was ok? Who is right?
-Was Hitler right? Would he have been right or wrong if he won WW2?
-Who determines right and wrong?
-if two people exist on an island and there is no government or jurisdiction and one person wants to kill the other, is he wrong?

I do not care who you are or what moral standard you espouse, you are intolerant of others treating you with malevolence, or hatred. And you approve when others treat you with benevolence, or love. Even a liar knows it is wrong to lie - lie to him and see how he likes it. Even an adulterer knows it is wrong to commit adultery - have his wife commit adultery against him and see if he approves. Even a thief knows it is wrong to steal - let him find his goods stolen and see how he responds.

http://www.rightremedy.org/booklets/50

Are some things always wrong? Is it always wrong to murder, steal, lie, commit adultery?
What if you were on the receiving end or any of these? If morality is relative and we both agree, I could justify why I could steal, kill, or lie to you and you could not say anything because everything is relative.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step Five: The Nature of Laws a
1) Are these laws Immaterial (not made of matter. Non-physical, abstract)
2) Are these laws material (made of matter/energy. Depended on physical stuff)

These is no other option.

Step Five: The Nature of Laws b
1) Are these laws universal (apply to all and everywhere in the universe)
2) Are these laws Individual (vary from place to place and person to person)

These is no other option.

Step Seven: The Nature of Laws (c)
1) Are they unchanging? (never change)
2) Are they changing (can and do change from day to day)

These is no other option.

You are just wrong. In most cases we don't even understand nature well enough to have true, infallible "laws" as you claim. I mean, you could probably say "all things die" is a "law", except... what of clones, what of single cell organisms that split, what of ... (even setting aside the Christian issue of the soul, etc.)

Again, you confuse things that people lay out to explain what they see with something that is set out absolutely. Part of this is because so often, scientists do tend to talk as if they refer to real and true absolutes. Its gets a bit tiresome to say 'given our known universe, given that all the physical laws we have studied and tested to date hold true... etc ad nauseum".

I am just using the 3 laws of logic to go through Step 5a,b,and c.

5A. These laws are either immaterial or material. Either or. One or the other.
So are any of these laws made of matter? Are they material? Can we destroy them or remove them from our reality by eliminating some sort of energy or material?

NO.

5B. [u]These laws are either universal or or individual.
Can the 3 laws of logic be individual? Can they apply to me and not apply to you?
Can the laws of Math be individual? Can they apply to me and not apply to you?
Can the laws of science be individual? Can they apply to me and not apply to you?

Do the laws of logic, science or math stop existing in any place in our universe?
Does 2+2=5 on Jupiter?
Does hydrogen and oxygen make table salt if we are on Pluto?

No.

5C. [u]These laws are either unchanging or changing
Can the 3 laws of logic change? Will they not be applicable tomorrow?
Can the laws of Math change? Will they not be applicable tomorrow?
Can the laws of science change? Will they not be applicable tomorrow?

Does 2+2=5 in the future or past?
Does hydrogen and oxygen make table salt in the future or the past?

No.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So immaterial laws that don't change and are universal...where did they come from
Conceptual laws that require a mind and thought but do not depend on humans or matter.....how do they exist.

I conclude that something exists beyond the physical realm of our reality. That what we see id not all there is.
Things and concepts that we all depend on (whether we understand them or use them directly) exist and don't depend on us or anything else in the observable universe.

I conclude that something else, beyond what we can measure, see, touch, and test exists.
I conclude that is is God. How do you respond to this?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now is what I posted here wrong or what am I missing?
Have I excluded an option in any of these 5 steps? if so please post.
And if we want to keep on topic, please try to stay within the direction of my posts.
Please no Bible or Jesus (again while I agree there are already plenty of other places to discuss that)
The point of my post was to look into the logical or illogical aspects of denying God or gods or creators.

[Neoteny]

Is it ever ok to shoot someone? Why is everything that has to do with god a dichotomy? Why is there never a middle ground?

[WidowMakers]

Is it ever ok to shoot someone? Why is everything that has to do with god a dichotomy? Why is there never a middle ground?

Not everything is a dichotomy with God. Just his moral absolutes.

But please answer your question?
-Is it ok to shoot someone?
-Would you be pleased if someone shot you (and you did nothing to deserve it)?
-Would you be OK with someone shooting you daughter or mom or friend?
-Why or why not.

And I am not talking about God here, I am just asking you.

[Neoteny]

Is it ever ok to shoot someone? Why is everything that has to do with god a dichotomy? Why is there never a middle ground?

Not everything is a dichotomy with God. Just his moral absolutes.

But please answer your question?
-Is it ok to shoot someone?

In certain situations, yes.

-Would you be pleased if someone shot you (and you did nothing to deserve it)?

No.

-Would you be OK with someone shooting you daughter or mom or friend?

If my daughter or mom or friend was doing something that would deservedly get them shot, then yes. If not, then no.

There are plenty of reasons why I can justify killing someone. If my daughter were to move to detonate an explosive charge that would kill others, I would be justified in killing her (I might not be capable of making that decision, but the moral imperative stands). Would I not? Where is the absolute? Should I just allow that to happen?

Gods are full of dichotomies. The real world very rarely experiences them.

[BigBallinStalin]

I conclude that something else, beyond what we can measure, see, touch, and test exists.
I conclude that is is God. How do you respond to this?

Right, you just said those things do not inherently exist, but suddenly you jumped to the conclusion that God must exist because of that.

Where's the logic in that "leap of faith"?