Step One: "The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way."
I can already see where this is going...and it is retarded. But, yes, the "laws" of logic exist. Please, commence the idiocy.
Step Two: "The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones as well) . For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things."
Uggghh...yes...the "laws" of mathematics exist too. Can you please get on with your petty semantics argument already?
Step Three: "Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation"
You're killing me here! Yes...matter tends to behave a certain way that we have basic rules for describing...therefore, Jesus, right?
Step Four: "I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or science exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral laws. Whereas laws of logic, science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws describe how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.
Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs"
Interesting that he brings up two of the most offensive acts that he could think of, that have little justification within our culture, but, nonetheless, were nowhere near as condemned in societies before this point in time. In fact, these examples of objectively immoral behavior are not spoken out against in the Bible. Maybe that was one of the lost commandments. In this sense, even though it is logically wrong to these things, and such acts are abhorrent to our modern sensibilities, I cannot say that are objectively wrong in any sense beyond the harm they cause, beyond a reasoned look at its unfairness and how exploitative such actions are.
But, sense going with subjectivity ends with the following screed, I will consent that there is objective morality, defined by the logical dictates of equality and group dynamics, rather than by what God slides down to us on stone tablets.
Step Five: "By reaching this page you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Next we will examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they 'abstract' entities? - are they physical or non-physical things?"
This is just dumb. The laws themselves do not exist, either physically or non-physically, as "entities". They are explanations for how physical things tend to behave, they do not exist in of themselves. *sigh*. Whatever...abstract.
Step Six: "You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist and that they are not material. The next question is whether you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 2 + 2 = 4 only where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a universal law?"
Mathematics, though designed by men to describe reality, will continue to describe reality in the same fashion regardless of human input. Morality is irrelevant without individual input, and is far from universal (I mean, hell, there is a reason why you didn't include murder as an example of objective morality...what, with warmongering, and all...). Logic is irrelevant without a person observing reality to use it and the rules of logic are only universal in the sense that we assume to be able to be applied in that fashion (whether or not is actually effective to do so). I'd say that they are universal in a sense, but only imperfectly so.
Step Seven: "You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist, that they are not material, and that they are universal. The next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging"
The rules of logic, mathematics, and science do not change because they are based upon the assumption that the rules do not change. It is not very convincing to point out that these man-made constructs, used to describe our observations of reality, are assumed to not change to reflect our subjective experience of a reality that is relatively unchanging in the aspects that those "laws" are explaining.
Step Eight: "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. Therefore...the proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything."
Hahahahaha...that's rich. "The Bible says: God gives us X. We have X. Therefore, God exists."
You seriously don't see the problem with assuming that God has these qualities described in the Bible in order to make your conclusion? Don't see any problem at all with jumping to the claim that ONLY under this God could things behave in this fashion? It could not simply be that the universe naturally exists in a consistent, and ordered state, and that sheer, unmitigated chaos would be a better proof of divine reign that order?
Really, nice effort. This argument always seems convincing on its face. But, when you factor in the idea that the laws you mention are simply observations of how things tend to act, rather than hardset boundaries on what can and cannot occur, and then see clearly that you are already presupposing the existence of God by attributing Him with immaterial laws governing existence, you may as well be saying that "The Universe exists, therefore God exists". It's pretty much the same thing, except at least that argument doesn't take 8 steps and is honest in the fact that it does not prove anything.
So, internet philosophers, what tired, feeble excuse of an argument for God's existence will you bring back from a dusty coffin next?