I’ve seen this site listed by quite a few Christians recently, so I took a look at it yesterday. What follows is a brief sketch of my first reactions.
The author never defines existence. This is no simple problem. Consider the following sentence.
Prince’s album Camille will never be released.
There are two definitions of album that are relevant here: 1) a physical object of recorded media and 2) a collection of songs released together. Neither of these definitions can apply in the sentence because the album, as such, does not exist. Yet Prince scholars accept the sentence as, sadly, true. Some, but not all, of the songs for the album were recorded, but the project was abandoned before it was finished. Yet if we talk about the album, Prince fans will understand the referent, though none exists in the material world. I wonder, does the author of proofthatgodexists.org agree that the album exists in some sense?
The definition of existence is troubled not only by things that were nearly material, but by things that never were or will be.
Mary and I both believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Simon and Peter denied the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Assume both of these sentences are true, the referents in the predicates are understood and agreed upon by the subjects, but those referents do not exist in a material sense. If the author accepted that Camille exists, does he accept that the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster must exist in the same fashion? Notice I am not trying to get the author to admit that IPU or FSM are real, only clarify the definition of existence being used.
Similarly, we are never told what truths the author is including under “absolute truth.” This section does not lead to an essay, so it’s impossible to even guess. The majority of truths that are required to do science are of a material nature or have material implications. The truth value of statements like the following, though studied by logicians, is almost wholly irrelevant to science and everyday language.
If there are elephants on Mars, then it will rain in
I think that the majority of scientists will hold that absolute truth exists for material things without recourse to a divine being.
The average person will believe or state many things that are either not true or too poorly defined to know the truth value. The relation between truth and psychological statements or other uses of everyday language are other matters entirely, and still not fully understood nor acceptably modeled by semanticists.
Logic and Mathematics
I don’t know why the proof separates these, as they are largely intertwined.
The author also seems not to recognize that what we call logic and mathematics are models. If we formulated a consistent model of mathematics with no real world application, would that also necessarily prove god existed in the author’s estimation? What about an inconsistent and irrational model?
If you insist you believe in relative morality, you are taken to a short, patronizing essay asking if you really believe all morality is relative. This is intended to put the reader on the defensive and uses extreme examples of situations that our culture finds particularly immoral without pointing out that the average person of European descent does many things on a regular basis that other moral worldviews find equally immoral: eating meat, for example.
I think it’s fair that the author should be put on the defensive as well. Like many atheists, I left the church for moral reasons. So I ask the author how the source of objective morality could possibly be responsible for the atrocities of the Old Testament (for example, in Joshua when the Hebrews take the land promised to them). If god is the source of objective morality, this cannot be a case of “different time, different culture,” otherwise god’s objective standard has been changing.
The author produces quotes from the Bible to attempt to demonstrate that only the Christian god could be the source of absolute truth, logic, mathematics, and objective morality. The author seems ignorant that many of the quotes produced would be accepted by both Jews and Moslems. Furthermore, if we assumed everything else written is true, then all these quotes can do is assert that the Christian understanding of god is one possibility. The author also needs to systematically demonstrate that all other gods cannot be the source.