KillerBob

Here's my shot:

43795864321864598752312589746324

And the god I seek to prove is, well, me!

theophilus

Well, I hope the intellectual rigor you employed in "sincerely" seeking was more impressive than what you've displayed here.
If you had read my posts carefully, you'd have seen that I never said I was "drawn in" by miracles. In fact, I repudiated the use of such arguments.
Like all atheists here, you betray that you assume the truth of Christianity while denying it. You say you can't "justify" wasting your short life chasing fantasies. But if Christianity or something exactly like it isn't true, then life is pointless and there need be, in fact cannot be, any "justification" for life choices. The terrorist is no worse than the saint.

HRG

I'm afraid that you suffer from a misunderstanding. It is quite legitimate to ask a question under the temporary assumption that a statement X is correct, without having to accept X uncritically. Such an assumption may even be the start of a reductio ad absurdum argument against X, if one follows by showing that the consequences of X are absurd or not present in the real world.

X in our case is "There is a God who cares about each of us individually and wants to contact us" (a standard Christian claim, BTW).

Regards,
HRG.

Koyaanisqatsi

There's that invalid, disproven fallacy posted yet again in spite of the fact that it's invalid and disproven and a fallacy!

Do those words mean nothing to you, Theo? When an argument has been demonstrated to be false repeatedly, why do you keep posting it as if it hasn't been proved false? Obstinance? Ignorance? Stupidity?

What is it?

Mad Kally

I honestly believe you are psychotic. You have obviously departed from reality.

Koyaanisqatsi

I also love how cult members declare that you can never do anything at all other than blindly follow like pathetic sheep when it comes to God and yet cannot recognize their obvious brainwashing.

Let me demonstrate: I also love how cult members declare that you can never do anything at all other than blindly follow like pathetic sheep when it comes to Apollo and yet cannot recognize their obvious brainwashing.

Exact same words, yet the first one will generate stringent denials and refutations, while the second would be looked at with a passive, braindead indifference.

So, here's my number for all you braindead sheep out there. Not for me, but for you, since it would certainly make a more impressive and simpler sign than even trifurcating and murdering himself/committing suicide would:

24930475940948392128495839568749

sotzo

Hi Baloo:

I'm not forcing anything on anyone. If God wants to talk, I've made for a way that he can give me a call, anytime he'd like.

Yes, you are. You are giving God the guidelines by which He needs to play to warrant your belief. Why should an omnipotent Being have to play by your rules?

Exactly wrong. The challenge is merely what it would take to compell me to "turn off", to the best of my abilities, all empirical epistemological requirements for Christianity, and to then submerge myself into it for 5 straight years. As I've said, this challenge WOULD NOT answer the question of God's existence, as there are SEVERAL highly improbable, but defintiely possible, natural explanations (the most prominent being the trivial: a lucky guess). However, the natural explanations are so unlikely, that I will be willing to commit a sizeable portion of my life towards exploring Christianity (or, should a Muslim answer: Islam, or a Buddhist: Buddhism, or a witch: Wiccan, etc.).

You tell me that I'm "exactly wrong" and then you go on to state: "The challenge is merely what it would take to compell me to "turn off", to the best of my abilities, all empirical epistemological requirements for Christianity, and to then submerge myself into it for 5 straight years. " But the challenge is an empirical challenge. Essentially you've just said, "I need empirical evidence in order to turn off my requirement for empirical evidence." You're circular reasoning proves my point.

<Translation> It betrays the challenger's open-mindedness. </Translation>
Dang it! You caught me! I mean, you saw right through me, right to very core... that I accept the possibility that I might be wrong. I suppose I might as well fold right now - obviously, only somebody who rejects the possibility of being wrong is worthy of dialogue with you.

No, no, no. That was not what I intended to convey in my post, so perhaps it's my fault. What I meant to convey was that your alleged sincerity and open mindedness does not comport with your comments about your short life being "pissed away" by theism. In other words, I'm challenging your view that you are really open-minded in this dialogue.

Of course, my sarcasm may be lost on you.

No, I'll take your sarcasm since I admit I wasn't very clear.

One of the most common features of theistic dogma seems to be the notion that questioning one's worldview is SIN, that having doubts of whether there is a God is SIN, that even entertaining the idea that one or two phrases of your precious bible could be just a little off...SIN SIN SIN. So, I suppose it is only natural for you to feel a "moral superiority" in comparing your closeminded adherence to the dogmatic foundations of your worldview to the fact that, though I believe there are no gods, I have a criterium whereby I am willing to reconsider that portion of my worldview.

And I've definately misconveyed here if you think that my theism prevents me, via a guilt trip, to not be open to the possibility of God's nonexistence. I too am willing to reconsider my worldview, but I do not do it by making challenges to the atheist which are based upon wrong-headed assumptions about her worldview (see my post below).

Kvalhion

Actually, you are giving God the guidelines in which ways he will and will not communicate with people. You are forgetting that we are not presupposing that a God exists, and then expecting this God to follow our rules. Basically, it is not our assertion that there is any God. This test merely states that if there is an entity that is able to affect reality, such an entity should have no problem completing this test. If there is not an entity that affects reality in any manner whatsover, then it is not worthwhile to spend time acting as if there were.

This "Well, I could if I really wanted to" argument is childish. There is simply no reason such an entity wouldn't solve this test if it were the desire of this entity to have people believe in it.

You do not find it a little bit odd that we are expected to believe that this supposed reality-affecting entity entered the minds of those who authored the bible in order to create "God's word" but won't do something similar now?

I realize you have your faith, but come on. Some people claim to be inspired by God, write a Bible full of instances where God does indeed affect reality, yet for two thousand years afterwards there is not one occurance where this God affects reality again? Every example of "what God does" falls into naturalistic explanations that are explainable without attributing things to God.

If I told you that my teddy bear turned water into wine, healed my wounds, did a great number of supernatural feats, yet now simply sits upon my bed, you would worship it without one shred of empirical evidence?

The problem with this test is that in order for it to be solved, an actual entity of God would likely have to exist in order to perform the simple task. Meanwhile, religion requires no such actual entity because the examples of God are all consistent as a concept that humans have given meaning to. No action required.

The absence of an actual supernatural deity is not a feature of religion. It is the conclusion drawn from it. This test all but proves it.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kvalhion ]</p>

theophilus

Ah, another blistering reparte. I'm wounded.
Have mercy.

theophilus

But this is NOT a "standard Christian claim." Christians "claim," on the authority of Scirpture that God has revealed himself, i.e., contacted us, through his creation, his wor, and through his incarnation in Jesus.
We deny that he can or must be found independently of these means.

Your evaluation of "X" is based on your assumtion of personal autonomy, which excludes God at the very outset. "I" will look for (a) god and see if "I" can find him. Translation, I will evaluate all truth claims, including God's claims, by my own system and accept/reject them if they satisy me.