# Get your GOD-damned idiocy out of my education! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 30, 2004, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358 "2004-11-30T17:58:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/261 "2004-12-03T10:53:07Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I don’t have faith in science, by the way. I’d give it up tomorrow if I saw a very, very, convincing demonstration of magic or the supernatural. Zowie! That would be a really tragic decision. Science is not concerned with the supernatural. It’s like thinking that a saw is useless because you’ve discovered that a hammer works better with nails. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/262 "2004-12-03T10:58:03Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You’ve provided no falsifiable definition whatsoever, but why would you think you could? No one else in history has ever been able to do it so why would you be the first? Falsifiable definition? 😃 What is the “falsifiable definition” of any word? Science does not falsify definitions; it falsifies hypotheses. (Note that the principle of falsification is itself not falsifiable.) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/263 "2004-12-03T15:49:56Z")
Falsifiable theory- Substantive definition- Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/264 "2004-12-03T16:46:10Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Once, when asked about how punctuated equilibrium was being refered to as “evolution by jerks.” he responded “Why not? The alternative is evolution by creeps.” Heh, actually I like how Dawkins put it in “The Blind Watchmaker” (IIRC); he compared evolution to the Jewish Exodus, saying that instead of setting up camp for year and then moving 100 feet (or whatever) for fourty years, that it was more realistic to think of evolution as blinding go through the desert and only \*after \* fourty years did the Jews leave the desert. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/265 "2004-12-03T20:27:32Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > To be honest, I think infinity is a concept and not an actual reality. Some astrophycists now favor a model of the universe in which space is flat and infinite. And saying that time may be infinite and may have existed before the big bang. That’s real, isn’t it? > [@thread-owning Meatros](#): > > Maybe this will help; infinity just by itself doesn’t make any sense to me. In order for the concept to make sense I have to apply it to something; say a number. Conceptually you can always add a number to another number, forever, but in this universe you can’t do that-if for no other reason then that the universe will probably run out eventually and you’ll still be counting. OK, God is a something. Something that is infinite. What? I have no idea. That doesn’t make the definition bad. Lights are anything that emit waves in the visible range. What? I don’t care. Bring me anything - a hot dog, love, the concept of time - and I’ll tell you if it’s a light. The definition doesn’t need to say anything about the substance. > [@All hail Meatros](#): > > The problem isn’t necessarily that God is or isn’t infinite; the problem is that in order to say something is infinite you need to know about that something. To put it in software terms (that’s what I do), you need to know something about that something at run-time, not at compile time. When you want to test if something is God, we’ll know what the thing is. You don’t need to know to construct the test. The rule to determine if it’s God is only concerned with the adjectives that describe it. > [@Meatros](#): > > The way I view it is, that if you accept that premise (that something can both exist and not exist at the same time) you are in effect throwing out the law of identity and if you throw that out, then everything else becomes incoherent (but since things are coherent, we can assume it’s a fundamental axiom). Things are _mostly_ coherent. Contradictory stuff exists in our real universe. > [@Meatros with Dio's seal of approval](#): > > Additionally both lines and points do have definitions that you can point to and say ‘that’s a line’ or ‘that’s a point’. Can you point to something and say ‘that’s God’? Sure, if you show me something that is infinitely smart, infinitely ripped and as timeless as Bing Crosby’s voice. > [@Meatros](#): > > Again though, I’m not claiming to be right or that I have all the answers-all I’m claiming is that this is the way I see it (or rather, the way I _think_ I see it). You might not need a clear-cut definable term (in the way I mean it), but I on the other hand do, because otherwise I feel the belief in that undefined something doesn’t make sense. What if God didn’t exist for a time, went back in time, and then existed for that time? > [@Meatros. OK I got nothin'](#): > > Can you even believe in something that both exists and doesn’t exist? Depends. Sell me. > [@](#): > > The problem of God is even further compounded because God is supposed to be immaterial and supernatural, both of which are concepts that have no evidence for them, IMO. If you want to throw those things into the God definition, sure. They’re by nature unscientific concepts. I don’t need those in a definition. Once it’s got my three, I’m ready to put a fork in it. But it doesn’t matter. We’ve already got a quality of God that makes Ips unfalsifiable, why not throw in an infinite number? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/266 "2004-12-03T20:59:33Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Some astrophycists now favor a model of the universe in which space is flat and infinite. I’ve never heard that; what I have heard is that astrophyscists think that while space is finite, that it can continually expand perhaps to an infinite distance-which I don’t agree with and certianly don’t think provides evidence that infinite exists. I could be wrong though. > [@bup](#): > > And saying that time may be infinite and may have existed before the big bang. > > That’s real, isn’t it? No, actually it isn’t. Time did _not_ exist before the big bang, because as Einstein showed, both time and space are relative and you can not have space without time or time without space. There was no _before_ the big bang, because time came into existence with the big bang. So saying what happened before the big bang is nonsensical because it depends on time which arrose with the big bang. > [@bup](#): > > OK, God is a something. Something that is infinite. What? I have no idea. That doesn’t make the definition bad. Yes it does, actually. For instance, what if God was something inexistent? If your statement was phrased that way, it would work; ie, God is something that couldn’t exist in an infinite amount of time. > [@bup](#): > > Lights are anything that emit waves in the visible range. Basically… > [@bup](#): > > What? I don’t care. Bring me anything - a hot dog, love, the concept of time - and I’ll tell you if it’s a light. The definition doesn’t need to say anything about the substance. That definition also provides support for my point-if you define anything as ‘light’ then the concept of ‘light’ is rendered meaningless. > [@bup](#): > > To put it in software terms (that’s what I do), you need to know something about that something at run-time, not at compile time. When you want to test if something is God, we’ll know what the thing is. You don’t need to know to construct the test. The rule to determine if it’s God is only concerned with the adjectives that describe it. Well, I would point out that God is outside of the natural and therefore what tests would you think of running on God? The point is, you are assuming God is or can be omnipotent-you’ve given no reason why this is necessarily so. > [@bup](#): > > Things are _mostly_ coherent. Contradictory stuff exists in our real universe. Not really. It might exist in our minds or due to our ignorance about something, but there is nothing in the universe that breaks the law of identity. How could it? > [@bup](#): > > Sure, if you show me something that is infinitely smart, infinitely ripped and as timeless as Bing Crosby’s voice. Here’s the key, you can’t show me that. In fact, we know of nothing in this universe that could be similar to that. > [@bup](#): > > What if God didn’t exist for a time, went back in time, and then existed for that time? Lot’s of what if’s you have there. How exactly would God ‘not exist’ and then suddenly ‘exist’? How would God accomplish that? > [@bup](#): > > Depends. Sell me. Heh, that’s the point, I can’t. 😉 > [@bup](#): > > If you want to throw those things into the God definition, sure. They’re by nature unscientific concepts. I don’t need those in a definition. They are more then just unscientific concepts, they are unspecific concepts. The thing is, if you don’t postulate that God is supernatural/immaterial/eternal then you run into a whole host of other logical problems. > [@bup](#): > > Once it’s got my three, I’m ready to put a fork in it. But it doesn’t matter. What three definitions does God have? > [@bup](#): > > We’ve already got a quality of God that makes Ips unfalsifiable, why not throw in an infinite number? Well you can add whatever you’d like to the God concept, my point is that all God is a meaningless concept. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/267 "2004-12-03T21:03:24Z")
Hey Bup, just keep in mind that I’m not out here to convince you. I’m just stating what I think are pertinant issues. At best my goal is to get you to see where I’m coming from. I have enjoyed our discussion (and hope it continues), as I’ve said, it’s kept me thinking and I hope it’s done the same for you. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/268 "2004-12-03T21:08:32Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > That definition also provides support for my point-if you define anything as ‘light’ then the concept of ‘light’ is rendered meaningless… Looking back I think I misunderstood you here: > [@](#): > > What? I don’t care. Bring me anything - a hot dog, love, the concept of time - and I’ll tell you if it’s a light. The definition doesn’t need to say anything about the substance. My point is: How can you tell me if it’s a light, because you know: > [@](#): > > Lights are anything that emit waves in the visible range. Which are physical characteristics that can be tested. Do we have anything like this for God? No. You say we have the omnimax definition, which can’t be tested, can’t exist in reality (they are contradictory), etc. Those aren’t compariable to something that ‘emits waves in the visible range’. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/269 "2004-12-03T21:33:54Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Zowie! That would be a really tragic decision. Science is not concerned with the supernatural. It’s like thinking that a saw is useless because you’ve discovered that a hammer works better with nails. 😕 If it were demonstrated that something could be moved without the application of force, through some sort of supernatural means, then F=ma, for instance, goes out the window. Now it could be true sometimes, but you would never know. Perhaps the force you think is being applied is not, and the object is moving through magic. If you do an experiment, measuring the acceleration from a given force applied to a given mass, and you don’t get the expected results, did you screw up or is your lab partner a witch? Repeatability gets tossed too. Do semiconductors work according to the laws we have discovered, or are there a bunch of Maxell’s demons pushing electrons around? I think you underestimate the impact that proof of the supernatural would have. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/270 "2004-12-03T21:59:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If it were demonstrated that something could be moved without the application of force, through some sort of supernatural means, then F=ma, for instance, goes out the window. Not at all. The intervention would be in the application, not the force. The force would be merely spontaneous rather than applied, and would still equal the mass times the acceleration. > [@](#): > > If you do an experiment, measuring the acceleration from a given force applied to a given mass, and you don’t get the expected results, did you screw up or is your lab partner a witch? You screwed up. > [@](#): > > I think you underestimate the impact that proof of the supernatural would have. Science is incapable of proving the supernatural. It does not deal with the supernatural anymore than it deals with the analytic — e.g., you use logic, not science, to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. Science studies phenomena, not noumena. Epistemology is all about the right tool for the right job. The appropriate epistemology for the supernatural is revelation. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/271 "2004-12-03T22:11:58Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > In the extremely unlikely event that the fundie Christian eschatology outlined in the Left Behind books comes to pass, I plan on being a Tribulation saint, getting saved and preaching the Gospel until I’m guillotined for refusing to take the Mark of the Beast. Really? If that happened, I’d have the dilemma of a lifetime: do I bow down before the ultimate tyrant, or do I suffer the ultimate punishment? I don’t know what I’d decide. It’s an incredibly tough choice. My favorite question about an omnipotent, omniscient God is this: I can choose to do something other that what I’m expecting I’ll do (for example, I expect to go home tonight and eat dinner–but instead I could drive to Raleigh and eat dinner there). In this respect, am I more powerful than God? In other words, can God choose to do something other than what he expects to do? If so, then he is not omniscient: his knowledge of the future is incomplete. If not, then he is not omnipotent: he is locked into a course of action from which he may not waver. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/272 "2004-12-03T22:28:36Z")
Not to speak for anyone but myself… > [@Daniel](#): > > I can choose to do something other that what I’m expecting I’ll do (for example, I expect to go home tonight and eat dinner–but instead I could drive to Raleigh and eat dinner there). In this respect, am I more powerful than God? Equally powerful. > [@](#): > > If so, then he is not omniscient: his knowledge of the future is incomplete. Well, no. Just as His omnipotence is not disqualified for the “inability” to make a square circle, so His omniscience is not disqualified for the “inability” to make your decisions on your behalf. I quotate “inability” because it is actually a matter of His choice, in the one instance to maintain the tautology of sensibleness, and in the other to maintain the integrity of free moral agency. Or, maybe a more down to earth analogy is that just because you have a spy camera doesn’t mean you’re compelled to turn it on. Sometimes, there are things you just don’t want to know. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/273 "2004-12-03T22:34:55Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well, no. Just as His omnipotence is not disqualified for the “inability” to make a square circle, so His omniscience is not disqualified for the “inability” to make your decisions on your behalf. I quotate “inability” because it is actually a matter of His choice, in the one instance to maintain the tautology of sensibleness, and in the other to maintain the integrity of free moral agency. Or, maybe a more down to earth analogy is that just because you have a spy camera doesn’t mean you’re compelled to turn it on. Sometimes, there are things you just don’t want to know. One of us isn’t understanding the other. If I understand you, you’re saying that God COULD choose to make me do something I don’t expect, but WON’T do that. But if that’s what you’re saying, it doesn’t address what I was asking. I wasn’t asking whether God was equally powerful (i.e., could make decisions for me that would surprise me). I was asking whether God was equally powerful (i.e., could make decisions for himself that would surprise himself). If that’s not what you’re saying, then could you explain it again? I didn’t follow. As an aside, I’ve given you all kinds of shit in the past for what I’ve seen as needlessly vicious posting. In the past couple weeks, it’s seemed to me that you’ve really toned that down. I don’t know whether you give two shits about my perceptions, but I’ve definitely appreciated what I’ve seen as a much less vicious posting style, and have been meaning to mention it to you. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/274 "2004-12-03T22:43:14Z")
I guess I’m just getting too old to climb every hill with swords ablazing. 😉 > [@](#): > > I was asking whether God was equally powerful (i.e., could make decisions for himself that would surprise himself). Oh, okay, sorry. Yes, that too certainly (as I see it). But He is driven by aesthetics, just as we are, and His favored aesthetic is goodness. It’s what turns Him on. He can in theory choose evil over goodness, for example, just as I can in theory choose a Mercedes over a Rolls Royce (assuming I could afford either one). But that just would never happen. Everybody goes after what they most treasure, and God is no exception. That’s what Jesus meant when He said, “Where your treasure is, there your heart is also.” ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/275 "2004-12-03T22:50:29Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Oh, okay, sorry. Yes, that too certainly (as I see it). But He is driven by aesthetics, just as we are, and His favored aesthetic is goodness. It’s what turns Him on. He can in theory choose evil over goodness, for example, just as I can in theory choose a Mercedes over a Rolls Royce (assuming I could afford either one). But that just would never happen. Everybody goes after what they most treasure, and God is no exception. Just curious, but how do you think you have an even general grasp of what a God would want? What its movites would be, what it values above other things? In other words, since you can’t communicate with it at all, how would you know what this God wanted/felt/thought, etc… ? How do you know that he’s not driven by caprice rather than aesthetics? How do you know that his aesthetic isn’t suffering instead of goodness? How do you know that God’s a He and not an It, or a She? No disrespect intended, I’m just somewhat baffled. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/276 "2004-12-03T23:06:20Z")
No disrespect taken. I use “He” as a matter of tradition, but I do use “She” from time to time (especially if someone else is doing so), and I’ve nothing against using “It”. It’s all just third person nominative case. With respect to where I derive my understanding, I believe that I derive it directly from Him. I do, however, examine whatever understanding He gives me with other epistemologies, especially logic — since the topics are often analytical in nature. In any case, that’s why I qualify what I say with “speaking for myself” and “as I see it” and so on. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/277 "2004-12-03T23:11:01Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > With respect to where I derive my understanding, I believe that I derive it directly from Him. I do, however, examine whatever understanding He gives me with other epistemologies, especially logic — since the topics are often analytical in nature. In any case, that’s why I qualify what I say with “speaking for myself” and “as I see it” and so on. Sounds like you’re a Gnostic, am I wrong? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/278 "2004-12-03T23:30:24Z")
**Meatros** , since there’s a similar enough thread in GD, and since I agree with this pit rant, I won’t post anymore here. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/279 "2004-12-04T00:23:16Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Not at all. The intervention would be in the application, not the force. The force would be merely spontaneous rather than applied, and would still equal the mass times the acceleration. Really? Or are you assuming that there is a force applied by some other means? Yes, there are many ways of applying forces that may not be covered by presently known science, but which can fall under science (like the ever-popular tractor or pressor beam) but we’re talking supernatural here. A demonstrable and repeatable supernatural force would have impact on material objects without involving any known forces. > [@](#): > > You screwed up. Well, if there is no known supernatural means of affecting the experiment, that’s a good assumption. (Amply borne out by personal experience, I might add.) But it’s not so good if your partner is Sabrina the teenage witch. Perhaps you do the experiment perfectly every time and she changes the results to mess with your head. Since supernatural influences would be impossible to control for using materialistic means, you could not even define a reproducible experiment. The best you could hope for is no influence - but even if you get repeatable results, it could be because the supernatural influence is fudging the numbers for you. > [@](#): > > Science is incapable of proving the supernatural. It does not deal with the supernatural anymore than it deals with the analytic — e.g., you use logic, not science, to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. Science studies phenomena, not noumena. Epistemology is all about the right tool for the right job. The appropriate epistemology for the supernatural is revelation. At the risk of repeating old discussions, science can be used to detect the influence of the supernatural, if not to prove it. Supernatural means can never make 1+1=2 since, as you say, this is not observational but mathematical. Now if one definition of the supernatural is that it is only detectable by revelation, and not by its impact on the material world, I quite agree that the existence of the supernatural will not impact science in any way. We have a basic disagreement on this point, so I don’t see it worth continuing this hijack any more. ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/280 "2004-12-04T02:19:12Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Just curious, but how do you think you have an even general grasp of what a God would want? What its movites would be, what it values above other things? In other words, since you can’t communicate with it at all, how would you know what this God wanted/felt/thought, etc… ? Ask George Bush - according to him, God wanted him to be president, wanted him to attack Iraq, etc. He seems to be the person with the inside track on what “God” wants. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358.md?page=15)