There are many 'Proof of God' websites. Some notable ones are:
In addition to siting these sites, I will also site, as rebuttals:
I was drawn to make this post due to the long winded commentary of one of these site's administrators (Proof That God Exists's Sye Ten Bruggencate).
Here, we will take a brief review of the 'staple' arguments of each of these sites.
Proof God Exists and All About Creation are Intelligent Design Websites:
A summation of the intelligent design argument is:
Intelligent design (ID) is an anti-evolution belief that asserts that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes. Essentially that many organisms, including humans and animals, are too complex in nature to have come to be by chance mutation.
This argument's strong points against evolution are two-fold:
They assert that evolution can only make small changes on single components at a time.
They assert that the essential nature and complexity of the design leave no room for randomness or error.
The rebuttal to intelligent design (from the Skeptic):
The multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do not evolve as individual parts. They evolve together, as systems that are gradually expanded, enlarged, and adapted to new purposes.The assertation that the nature and complexity of the design of man would leave no room for randomness or error seem to disintegrate when you consider the presence of the appendix, and the relatively poor designs of the spine, birth canal, and the prostate. (Summation from the Skeptic, multiple contributors)
My Opinion: If God really did design us, we should sue him for poor quality control.
Third Site, Proof that God Exists's Argument (summation):
"To reach this page you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature...Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things."
My rebuttal here is simple:
1.) Morals are taught - a trained function. This is not to be confused with instincts which are inherent in virtually all life on this planet. I can teach a dog to attack people on sight, and likewise I can teach a child the same. This has been proven numerous times in psychological analysis.
2.) This argument is simpler to refute. There is no evidence supplied, either on this site or anywhere else to my knowledge to support this assertion that abstract ideas can not exist without God. He makes the assumption of God to explain the known of abstractions existing. There is no additional evidence supplied outside of quotes from the Bible. This is not how theories are proven in the scientific world.
I post this thread here due to the lengthy and cyclic commentary on some earlier posts. In an effort to lay this out succinctly and clearly, I made the entire discussion it's own topic.
*Minor edit on April 1, 2008 to fix formatting
*Minor edit on April 1, 2008 to fix formatting
