The Messiah

I am also convinced that the Gods defined by all religions are incorrect. However, isn't the fact that science works a surprise, if not indeed, a miracle?

Philosoft

Say what? The default state of understanding is that there are zero methods that provide empirical data?

Koyaanisqatsi

Fine.

How about, "I love you all, The Great And Powerfull Too RAH Loo" written in TGAPTRL-eze that the TGAPTRL implants into our brains as part of our DNA so that no matter what human (or animal or rock) saw it they would instantly recognize not just what the words meant, but what the absolute, incontrivertible truth--that is impossible to deny, ignore, confuse, or obfuscate in any way--is, regarding such a message, so that at no time could anyone ever mistake what the message ultimately and completely means on an absolute scale, watchdogged throughout all eternity by The Great And Powerful Too RAH Loo, creator of the entire universe and everything contained within in full omnimax vision and THX sound?

Happy?

(hey, what do you know? post #1881, a fine year)

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Typhon

OT:

Koy, have you been watching too much Mr. Show? I mean, Praise be to the Great and Powerful Too RAH loo!

.T.

Con! A Fine Post indeed.

Tristan Scott

He did. We just aren't in the right position where we can see it.

sandlewood

I don’t disagree at all with your original point that God should be able to supply some significant evidence such as the star message if he in fact wants us to believe he exists. I was just making an additional point that when we’re talking about a being with infinite attributes, can any amount of evidence ever be enough? Whatever the evidence is, it could just as well show the existence of a being that is slightly less than infinitely powerful and slightly less than infinitely knowledgeable. Does it matter? I don’t know. Would people still worship a being that is not infinitely powerful, just, knowledgeable, etc.? Would its morality be accepted as the absolute morality?
So my question in general is: Is it really unreasonable to say that no amount of evidence will ever be enough to prove that god exists given that god is defined as having infinite attributes?

Typhon

You raise a good, if timeworn point sandlewood.

However, it is all fine and well to say that it would be potentially "infinitely" difficult to establish the credentials of a being or beings whose attributes are themselves billed at being infinite in their expression, so to speak.

Yet, I'm not possessed of infinite skepticism. I don't require infinite evidence. If god was to sit down with me, have a drink, and go on to explain everything I could think to test him or her on, take me on a tour of the universe, infuse my brain with the knowledge of that which would otherwise be impossible for me here and now to know, I might very well be convinced. Infinitely, perfectly convinced? Likely not, but certainly enough to believe that some bloke, with mighty impressive abilities, was calling himself god and with apparent good reason.

If a god could do all this, who's to say they're not worthy of the title "god" anyway? In a sense, if they could prove definitive authorship and/or control over the cosmos, I think that would be enough for me.

Now whether or not I liked the sod, I suppose would depend on the answers and reasoning he or she might give.

There is a scene, The Granton Star Cause, out of the movie "Acid House" where one of the main characters in the film meets "god" in a pub after a singularly bad run of luck. God proves to be a mean, sneering, drunken Welshman. The character doesn't entirely believe that the guy is god and in any case complains about his shitty life, so god turns him into a fly. Whatever one might argue about the characteristics of god in this scenario, the god in question certainly has the power to make at least a fair case for him being more than just your average drunken Welshman.

I've always felt that any god worth its salt and sacrificial pyre, ought to at the very least, be capable of not only showing itself, but being perfectly capable of convincing me of its godhood. I mean, if it could create all reality, it could certainly make itself known and have enough evidence on hand, and the means to show it properly, to convince the likes of me and my fellow sapients.

No gods of course have bothered or been able to do so, not because of the silly and flawed argument for free will, but rather I suspect because either they don't exist or if they do, they don't care about our belief one way or another.

.T.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

sandlewood

Sorry if I’m rehashing a subject that’s been discussed to death. I guess I haven’t been around enough to know what’s been beaten to death.

[quote] That’s certainly a good point. I also don’t have infinite skepticism for practical purposes. Yet I still think the fact remains that there is no way to tell the difference between a being who has infinite power and one who has a little less than infinite power. And I think it would be more likely (perhaps by Occam’s razor) that a being would have a little less than infinite power.

If a man on a used car lot sells me a used car, I think I’m pretty well convinced he is a used car salesman, the reason being that there is nothing more likely than that he would be than a used car salesman. True, he could be a thief who tied up the real salesman in the back room and posed as a salesman to get my money. But that is less likely to be the case.

I’m trying not to say this as simply as “infinite power requires infinite evidence” because that’s not how I’m thinking about it. But I’m not sure how to explain it any better so that it doesn’t seem to amount to that anyway.
Well, that was my other question, and perhaps it is a question for theists mostly. Is it necessary for god to have infinite abilities for you to worship him as god? If not, then is it just a matter of relative power? If so, then if a fascist dictator had enough power, would you submit to him and worship him, decreeing that his morality was the one absolute morality and anything he did was the very definition of “right”? Or, is the important factor of a god that he created us? Will you worship any being that created you, regardless of the amount of power and knowledge he has?
I’m sure these questions are probably also timeworn. But I mention them in combination with the question of whether we can know the difference between omnipotent and almost omnipotent. If you won’t accept any god that is less that omnipotent, then I think you have to look closer at how you would tell the difference. If you will, then why not accept a powerful alien?

I didn’t mean to change the subject of the thread, but it hasn’t been that active in the last day or so anyway.

Autonemesis

If we humans make it to the stars, and find that the galaxy is populated with humanoid lifeforms that not only resemble homo sapiens, but are capable of inter-breeding, that would be very strong evidence that a humanoid designer had a hand in arranging things. If we find that these humanoid civilizations are more or less equally advanced as we are, and that they arose at more or less the same time, that would be further strong evidence that some intent is at work to make it so, and that there is a plan of some kind at work.

In other words, if the galaxy really resembles Star Trek, that would be very strong evidence for intent and design, insofar as the origin of hominid life is concerned. There was a episode in the last season of Star Trek: TNG where the Enterprise crew races Klingons and Romulans to solve a puzzle placed in the DNA sequences of the humanoid species in the galaxy. The solution leads them to a planet where they discover a recorded message from the long dead ancient humanoids that seeded planets all over the galaxy with their DNA. It was fairly lame IMO, since the recorded message was little more than "be nice to each other, you're all related." (I evolved over millions of years, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt!?)

If a scenario like this turns out to be true, that still leaves unanswered the question of whether such a designer wants or deserves worship. It also says nothing about whether humanoids have eternal souls, or whether there is an afterlife.

Koyaanisqatsi

How did "worship" enter into this?

All I was addressing was sufficient proof it exists. I would never worship any being for any reason (except for Paulina Porizkova, of course) nor would any kind of God require or even want any beings to worship it, for that would make such a God petty, worthless and horrifically needy, thus arguably negating any positive benefit in being a God.

If the guy's just lonely and wants someone to shoot the shit with and wants to be friends, sure, that's another thing, but if "he" needs me to bow down and worship his existence all the time, he can f*ck off and die as far as I'm concerned.

If that gets me a one way ticket to his lake of burning insecurities, I'll wear a marshmallow suit and have a weeny roast!

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>