JFTR, I am not a Christian; indeed, I am best described as an athiest who’ll make the singular concession that any kind of supernatural intelligence is a non-falsifiable proposition, with the caveat that I find no need to have such in order to explain events in the natural world.
The claims that “Jesus often indicated that he was willing to be obscure and be understood only by those who wanted to really listen,” and “They[Christians] have found evidence that is personal and not directly replicable,” seem disingenous to me. I can’t say that they aren’t true–perhaps your god has spoken to you directly in some fashion which is not observable or measurable–but that doesn’t constitute “evidence” in any objective fashion, and is therefore a matter of personal belief rather than scientific (or any other kind of) proof. This provides the very dodge–the man behind the curtain–that makes any debate about Creationism so gormless and its advocates so elusive.
There may be a god, or gods, for all I know. But to put forth the argument that evidence is provided only to those who believe to begin with is analogous to the alien abduction pleaders who insist that repressed memories and functionless chips of subcutaneous materials be read as hard evidence. Maybe flying saucers from outer space are abducting people and mutilating cattle, but the evidence in favor of it isn’t just slim but positively anorexic. To demand that they are being unfairly maligned or dismissed is silly; any scientist who presented such thin information would be dismissed as well; witness the whole “cold fusion” debacle, or the “polywater” hubbub in the late Sixties.
And the Douglas Adams quote from above: What I read from it is that any argument, no matter how logical, is only as valid as the premise on which it is based. If your premise is nonsense (that the “Babel fish” comprises proof of God) then your result “is a load of fetid dingo’s kidneys.” But people get a lot of milage out of that type of reasoning. And it looks impressive when you string it out in algebraic logic.
There is of course a way to prove that god does not exist logically, but who believes in silly logic anyway?
Though I would like to sum up something I read somewhere. If I were to tell you that a the person sitting on a bench is John, and that John weighs 180 pounds, you would be able to tell me if this is true by simply weighing the person on the bench.
Now if a priest tells me god exists because everything in the bible is true, then I would simply have to prove that something in the bible is false to show that this priest is lying.
But logic is bull anyway, I have faith god does not exist, and no one can tell me otherwise.
If there was any verifiable evidence of God, I guarantee you’d know all about it by now. It would be the single most advertised thing in the existence of man.
The best we have are a number things that are evidence of “something”, and how it is interpreted is all over the map. And that pesky little brat Science keeps explaining those away.
Now that I think about it, I am wrong. The bible is cleary proof of god. It is clearly God’s word. How do I know? It says that it is God’s word. God wouldn’t lie. Duh.
No, wait, that’s circular logic. I was right the first time.
Oh, go…I mean, Oh Cthulhu, If I want to get into this, I will have to read the whole, thread about “Is evidence a meaningless word>” before posting here. Don’t have time, I’m going to lunch. Before I go however, I want to say that what we have is proof that people knew how to write along time ago. Writting about a god isn’t proof that one existed. If we see broken glass that is proof that someone broke a fishbowl, or a window. It is not proof that god caused glass to form from nothing and materialize on the floor.
That’s how shows like Overhaulin’ manage to trick people like you. They sprinkled a bit of broken glass in the driveway, and sho’nuff, they guy told the cops his car had been broken into and stolen.
Judge: Mr. Hutz we’ve been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all? Hutz: Well, Your Honor. We’ve plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.
As I’ve stated in another thread, it would be trivially easy for a benevolent and omnipotent and honest God to offer me proof that I would believe in; moreover, the proof that would convince me would convince almost everyone else.
Three types of proof, in descending order of “difficulty”:
Change the value of pi, based on whether I’m reciting a prayer to God at the moment.
Hold conversations with me, whether or not I’ve “opened my heart to God,” in which I learn verifiable facts that I did not previously know. This could be something as simple as, “You know, next time you roll 2d6, you’ll roll an eleven. Time after that, you’ll roll a five. Time after that, a six. Then, in order, a 4, an 8, a 9, a 2, and another 9. But if you try to capitalize on this knowledge, it won’t work. Just try it now.” That’d be enough to convince me. More practical knowledge would, of course, convince me of GOd’s benevolence :).
Rearrange constellations occasionally to spell out messages in various languages regarding God’s veracity.
The lack of evidence along any of these lines is sufficient to convince me that, if God exists, it doesn’t especially want me to believe in its existence–or else it’s playing some sort of fucked-up mind game with me.
Daniel, those all sound like good points, but still, no one has addressed the point I believe is most important here, that is, is this the epsode of Simpsons where the devil in Ned Flanders?
P.S. Do you get informed by e-mail when a thread is updated? Cause I do, and Liberal just updated Sims, and I commented back. And now it looks like I am beingput down a notch by tomndebb
Good lord, no. I occasionally subscribe to a thread I start, but never otherwise; I already get too much email, and there’s no way I want to add to the total. I try to remember threads I’ve posted in so that I don’t disappear from them, but that’s the most I’ll do.
What does it mean exactly to “change the value” of a number? If the value changes, it is now a different number.
That’s kind of all over the place, isn’t it? I mean, from verifiable facts to verifiable prognostication. With specific provisos, no less. For the sake of examining your argument, let me ask you this. Suppose (again, just for the sake of argument) that an essential part of how God works and what makes Him God involves leaving you free to create your own future without prior knowledge of future events. Knowing this, hypothetically, would you still make the same requirement of God?
You mean in languages that you know, I presume. (Otherwise, you can’t know that He hasn’t already done that.) What makes that seem dubious to me is that you seem to be moving goalposts all around. I mean, if it is the case that He has already written out messages in various languages in the eminently sensible form of books — all quite accessible to you — why should we believe that you would pay attention to messages that you have derived by mentally connecting sky dots? I mean, when you want to know if someone has responded to your posts, do you open a browser, or do you go out in your backyard and look up?
It seems to me like the mind games are going the other way around.
