Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 02-07-2002, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojaz:

Because God wants people to have faith in Him.

However, He was generous enough to reveal Himself in the past as recorded in scripture. Needless to say, it would be insulting to God to reveal Himself with signs and wonders every thousand years or so just to placate the world's non-believers who refuse to have faith in Him and spit on the notion of His very existence.

Mojaz, hasn't it ever occurred to you that some people would prefer to know than to believe? One such person was Carl Sagan.

Furthermore, an omnipotent being has a sure cure for misunderstandings and misrepresentations of revelations: to implant a revelation in everybody's mind.

Quote:

Following death, as the non-believer is entering torment in hell, perhaps God will mention the creation on Earth as proof of His existence and say "How could you not believe? Are space rocks and chemicals capable of such things? Did your science ever prove that space rocks and chemicals are capable of creating life as I did In the Beginning?"

First, I wonder if Mojaz honestly believes that someone like Carl Sagan is right now suffering eternal torture.

And I'd respond that if God did it, then God must be a very Gossian sort of God who liked to make it seem as if life can come from "space rocks and chemicals"; Philip Gosse had written a big book, Omphalos, proposing that the Universe was carefully created with the appearance of qreat age.

Dr. Retard · 02-07-2002, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus:
Ah, another blistering reparte. I'm wounded.
Have mercy.

'Reparte'? That's not a word. Maybe you meant 'riposte' or 'retort'. I normally wouldn't point this out, but there's nothing worse than a manhandled "educated bastard" tone.

daemon · 02-07-2002, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Retard:
'Reparte'? That's not a word. Maybe you meant 'riposte' or 'retort'. I normally wouldn't point this out, but there's nothing worse than a manhandled "educated bastard" tone.

Actually, I believe he intended to use "repartee," though he still has used it incorrectly in any case.

Edited to add: whoops, nope, that's a perfectly valid use of repartee. Just misspelled.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: daemon23 ]

Dr. Retard · 02-07-2002, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Actually, I believe he intended to use "repartee," though he still has used it incorrectly in any case.

Edited to add: whoops, nope, that's a perfectly valid use of repartee. Just misspelled.

Sounds reasonable. Though that is a strange use of the word, so I decided to look up "blistering repartee" on Google to see if he copped the phrase. What do I get? <a href="http://amothea.slashcity.com/misc/ComingHome.txt" target="_blank">Slash porn!</a>

Sandy · 02-07-2002, 07:38 PM

Quote:

My point was that if the question about God's existence is as meaningless and childish as "pink unicorns" and "purple talking rabbits", then there should be no need to spend time with endless threads about the existence of such a Being.

Try setting up a "debunking Santa" thread and see how many posts it receives.

Did you read my post at all? You asked a question. I answered you. You apparently couldn't see the reasoning behind it. I can understand this since you've probably never had an atheist knock on your door. Some may believe the question of god's existance is meaningless and childish, never the less, it remains fact that christianity is the dominant religion in this country and is in subtle ways, and not so subtle ways being forced on us all. I'm sure it would be more convient for us just to shut up and go away but that won't happen. We will continue to question and we will continue to state our opinion.

You came looking for us, we didn't go looking for you. I see it as you calling us on the exact thing that you are doing. If you are secure in your faith, there'd be no need or reason for you to be posting here. After all, people find the question of god's existance meaningless and childish, right? Yet, here you are questioning and stating your opinion. Would you expect any less from us?

Baloo · 02-08-2002, 06:07 AM

The existence of God would NOT be answered in that way since God is immaterial. Now, you may want to wear the badge of materialism, and if so, so be it. But you cannot apply the rules of materialism, sincerely, to a hypothesis involving an immaterial, soveriegn Being such as the God of Christian theism.

Sotso,

Ok, I've reached that point in a discussion when one side gives. I'm going to concede that my challenge will probably never (at least, not in the lifetime of say, the planet earth) give me a reason to "search" for a god with the attributes you describe.

<As an aside, let me just say that the challenge still stands for anybody who feels their god wants me to believe in him, has provided evidence to convince nonbelievers in the past, and is capable of doing the same for me.>

Of course, "search" really isn't the correct term here, as your god will not be revealed in any perceptual experience I might have, regardless of how hard I "search." The reason is that as soon as I specify something that would qualify as a "find", I'm "forcing God to play by my rules", and therefore will not find it. Think about this. For the sake of argument, let's say I dropped my original challenge, and simply replaced it with: For an event to be evidence of God, it would have to meet the minimal criteria whereby the natural explanation is less viable than the supernatural explanation. HOWEVER. Having specified that (using criteria are a little more general than my challenge, but of the same nature) if I now start searching for such evidence, your god will not provide it, as I'm not allowed to "dictate the rules" to your god. Unfortunately, that means that both you and your god are now left with two options: convincing me with events whereby the natural explanations are more viable than the supernatural, or simply trying to convince me with no references to any events, experiences, or evidence from the physical world. I'd be interested to see how you would do either.

I hope you'll take as proof via demonstration (see Kenny's and other's attempts to let their God guess through them, for example, or consider the fact that the theists who I've presented this to in my life have both intensly prayed for guidance and been crushed to see they were wrong) that the god you allude to is not the same god in which many professed Christians believe.

Of course, this leads me to more questions. Is the god you describe even consistent with the god described in the bible? Did Thomas say "Unless I see the nail marks in [Jesus's] hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."? If yes, then do you believe in a God that allowed Thomas to "dictate" the rules? I mean, shit, it's cut and dry. According to the Christian bible, Thomas defined a specific event, declared that ONLY that event would cause him to believe, and sat back and waited (for a week) on the Christian God to do something about it. So I ask again, do you or do you not worship a god who allows mere mortals to "dictate the rules"?

Anyway, Sotso, it sounds like you've established very firm ground excusing your god from having to waste ten seconds on me. Please let me know if you think that you are a True Christian(tm), and if so, does this make theists who've proffered a a guess non-Christians? And what is your take on Andrew_theist, author of the thread "What Would It Take?", who asks in his opening post "If this would not be enough evidence of a supernatural event what would be?". How can you attack me when your fellow Christians are dedicating entire threads towards demanding atheists to provide sufficient criteria for God? Or would you like to take a moment to correct Andrew_theist?

Baloo · 02-08-2002, 06:40 AM

Ladyshea, 1 match.
Draygomb, had you matched, you would not have qualified, as you are only allowed one guess. However, that's a moot point, as you only matched 4 out of 32.

Draygomb · 02-08-2002, 11:17 AM

Baloo

I only guessed once, but it's amusing that I've gotten the most right so far.

Kvalhion · 02-08-2002, 11:53 AM

Baloo, I think your test falls within the domain of the James Randi million dollar challenge. A successful completion of this test in an objective testing environment would demonstrate supernatural ability, regardless of whether or not it comes from God.

As no one has successfully completed James Randi's challenge (but many "could if they wanted to"

), no one will be able to complete your test as well.

I still maintain that without one demonstration ever of a supernatural force capable of altering reality, there is no need to believe in or even actively search for such a force.

Let me know if you ever do code your test into a program.

(spelling)

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Kvalhion ]

Photocrat · 02-09-2002, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baloo:
Okay, so this is a challenge I developed while dating a theist who INSTISTED that I leave at least one opening for God to come into my life. What I came up with was so useful that I've used it ever since, whenever confronted with the "What would it take?" question. For God to reveal himself to me, all he needs to do is reveal a number to one of his followers in whatever manner he chooses. The follower can then relay that number to me (the number is simply a string of 32 digits). I then feed the number into a simple calculator program that generates a random 32-digit number and compares them. If they are the same, the follower, aided by God, has passed the challenge.

One thing I want to do is keep this challenge honest. And, in all honesty, there are naturalistic explanations (varying from a very sophisticated foul-play maneuver on behalf of a theist, to a "bug" in my two line program, to a glitch in the calculator's CPU, even to the actual possibility of one hundred thousand million billion trillion to one odds being beaten). So, sadly, getting this right will not, on it's own merit, make me into a Christian. However, the naturalist explanations, under close scrutiny, are so improbable that I have committed myself to the following:

If the number is matched, I will dedicate the next 5 years to
A) Reading the bible at least 30 minutes every night.
B) "Praying", to the best of my abilities, prior to every sit-down meal as well as before going to sleep, a prayer that minimally includes the lord's prayer, but is also my very best effort to "talk" to Jesus.
C) Attending 2 church services per week, and participating in all church rituals, from singing hymns, to reciting credes, to partaking in communion.
D) Informing all theistic friends and family of my 5-year saga, in order to form a "support group" for my efforts.

And most importantly:
E) Doing A through D while doing my whole-hearted best to shun any anti-belief skeptical thoughts, through whatever amount of will-power and thought-control I can muster. Also, to the best of my ability, I will adopt a "supernatural until shown natural" attitude towards any experiences I have which might be deemed "religious" in nature.

That is it. That is exactly "What it would take". And with this challenge, I also stick very diligently to my next proclamation: This is the ONLY door open to God through which he can begin to reveal himself to me. ALL other attempts will be AUTOMATICALLY assumed to have naturalistic explanations, regardless of whether I know what they are.

Any theists so inclined may feel free to list out a 32 digit number. Hell, just ask God to guide your fingers, and punch out 32 digits. One condition: you (like my ex-g/f) only get one guess.

And as one final note, let me just say that I do take this very seriously. I did check my g/f's guess, I checked the guesses of three theisitc friends of mine, and I have my calculator right in front of me, ready to check whatever guesses are offered.

I suppose you wouldn't let me submit a program as an entry? :] I had in mind that you use the 'echo' program...

Anyhow, how is this logically relevant to the notion that God exists? I have a very small, constant probability of guessing right. If I do, I've effectively won a lottery of 1 soul; if not, I prove that I'm just guessing here. Given that losing seems to cost nothing, pretty much everyone will try. So long as there's at least one guess that's wrong [highly likely], the person who comes up with the right answer should rightfully have been considered to have just guessed right, rather than to have recieved it from God. Ergo, it doesn't constitute proof; even if you're willing to believe it. Since it's not good to believe in God for irrational reasons [I should think the truth of that self-evident], it would not be rational for God to provide such proof.

All that said, I predict that your number is a substring of the decimal expansion of pi at some offset [one which might be astronomically large, BTW, and has not necessarily been calculated just yet by any computers :] You're welcome to search for it, yourself ;] Fear not! One day, science should find the answer you seek in the decimal expansion ;] Until that, have faith--supercomputers frequently calculate the digits of pi for testing purposes; one of them should eventually venture out far enough to find your number :]

For reference, pi =~ 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10, IIRC, but you would probably need quite a few more digits than that to find your number in it... That is not a guess, BTW, since it has the wrong number of numbers in it, anyhow :]

Then again, you could always complain that someone beat me to this when they posted e*10^31 :] IIRC, your number is probably a substring of e, as well :] Happy hunting!

02-08-2002, 11:53 AM	#99
Kvalhion Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Southern CA Posts: 441	Baloo, I think your test falls within the domain of the James Randi million dollar challenge. A successful completion of this test in an objective testing environment would demonstrate supernatural ability, regardless of whether or not it comes from God. As no one has successfully completed James Randi's challenge (but many "could if they wanted to" ), no one will be able to complete your test as well. I still maintain that without one demonstration ever of a supernatural force capable of altering reality, there is no need to believe in or even actively search for such a force. Let me know if you ever do code your test into a program. (spelling) [ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Kvalhion ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-08-2002, 06:07 AM	#96
Baloo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 417	The existence of God would NOT be answered in that way since God is immaterial. Now, you may want to wear the badge of materialism, and if so, so be it. But you cannot apply the rules of materialism, sincerely, to a hypothesis involving an immaterial, soveriegn Being such as the God of Christian theism. Sotso, Ok, I've reached that point in a discussion when one side gives. I'm going to concede that my challenge will probably never (at least, not in the lifetime of say, the planet earth) give me a reason to "search" for a god with the attributes you describe. <As an aside, let me just say that the challenge still stands for anybody who feels their god wants me to believe in him, has provided evidence to convince nonbelievers in the past, and is capable of doing the same for me.> Of course, "search" really isn't the correct term here, as your god will not be revealed in any perceptual experience I might have, regardless of how hard I "search." The reason is that as soon as I specify something that would qualify as a "find", I'm "forcing God to play by my rules", and therefore will not find it. Think about this. For the sake of argument, let's say I dropped my original challenge, and simply replaced it with: For an event to be evidence of God, it would have to meet the minimal criteria whereby the natural explanation is less viable than the supernatural explanation. HOWEVER. Having specified that (using criteria are a little more general than my challenge, but of the same nature) if I now start searching for such evidence, your god will not provide it, as I'm not allowed to "dictate the rules" to your god. Unfortunately, that means that both you and your god are now left with two options: convincing me with events whereby the natural explanations are more viable than the supernatural, or simply trying to convince me with no references to any events, experiences, or evidence from the physical world. I'd be interested to see how you would do either. I hope you'll take as proof via demonstration (see Kenny's and other's attempts to let their God guess through them, for example, or consider the fact that the theists who I've presented this to in my life have both intensly prayed for guidance and been crushed to see they were wrong) that the god you allude to is not the same god in which many professed Christians believe. Of course, this leads me to more questions. Is the god you describe even consistent with the god described in the bible? Did Thomas say "Unless I see the nail marks in [Jesus's] hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."? If yes, then do you believe in a God that allowed Thomas to "dictate" the rules? I mean, shit, it's cut and dry. According to the Christian bible, Thomas defined a specific event, declared that ONLY that event would cause him to believe, and sat back and waited (for a week) on the Christian God to do something about it. So I ask again, do you or do you not worship a god who allows mere mortals to "dictate the rules"? Anyway, Sotso, it sounds like you've established very firm ground excusing your god from having to waste ten seconds on me. Please let me know if you think that you are a True Christian(tm), and if so, does this make theists who've proffered a a guess non-Christians? And what is your take on Andrew_theist, author of the thread "What Would It Take?", who asks in his opening post "If this would not be enough evidence of a supernatural event what would be?". How can you attack me when your fellow Christians are dedicating entire threads towards demanding atheists to provide sufficient criteria for God? Or would you like to take a moment to correct Andrew_theist?

02-08-2002, 06:40 AM	#97
Baloo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 417	Ladyshea, 1 match. Draygomb, had you matched, you would not have qualified, as you are only allowed one guess. However, that's a moot point, as you only matched 4 out of 32.

02-08-2002, 11:17 AM	#98
Draygomb Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Harrisburg, Pa Posts: 3,251	Baloo I only guessed once, but it's amusing that I've gotten the most right so far.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.