Well I’m not bragging Babe so don’t put me down,
but I wuz right. So far. Sorta.
If only we could harness this immense power!
(You know how you can make it rain by washing your car? So…how about I find a way to make my worst enemy write a proof of God’s existence? Diabolical, no?)
I bow low to your divine prophetic powers, hallowed by thy treachery, redeemed by the blood of several cretins … raise to thy holy lips thy grail of wine and drinketh deeply … have another or two … feeling better now, that’s good …
We cool.
Wonder what he was selling on Ebay? His life story?
jesus toast.
She’s getting better!
His soul.
I did a search on Ebay:
0 results for ‘Jeduraiya’
13,249 results for ‘amino acids’
Is the OP possibly a ghost? From a separate bubble universe? God itself, that exists outside of common space-time-statistics?
I don’t usually get into these debates anymore, but the answer before the OP got grandmothered away shows why I asked about the definition specifically before delving into the proof. Most of the time ‘proofs’ that purport to show that God from Christianity (or some other religion) must exist would actually only show that something that could be a natural force, unthinking automaton, or giant chain of creators fiddling with each other exists, not something that has the properties the prover is looking for. And that’s even assuming the proof doesn’t have a major logical failure, which is not usually the case.
The book “Primary Philosophy” by Michael Scriven explores proofs of God’s existence. To simplify things, Scriven introduces a “Basic God,” a sort of generic blue-stripe God with many of the properties attributed to the Abrahamic God, but not all of them, and not necessarily in the “omni” form.
Scriven allows his Basic God to be “very powerful” and “very knowledgeable” but doesn’t insist on the (logically problematic!) idea of “infinitely powerful” and “all-knowing.” It’s a God with the serial numbers filed off, and, as such, is a close relative of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster: a “God of discourse,” not a “God of my father’s faith.”
Scriven uses this concept as a tool for exploring theistic proofs. It’s a pretty good book; he makes things general enough, it’s hard to disagree with what he says.
Sounds fascinating. Man really does create God in his own image.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Always has, always will. God’s nature is much too important to be left up to God to define.
ETA: I make a snippy retort, but I’m not completely clear that you’re completely clear that Scriven is not “creating God in his image” but defining a logical construct for the purpose of discussion. He isn’t saying, “Here is what God means,” but, rather, “If we begin by assuming a ‘basic God’ then let us see where this leads us.” He isn’t actually proposing an artifact of faith, but an hypothetical supposition.
Well now… I’ve heard of people being “grandfathered in” before but this guy being “grandmothered out” is a new one to me. Paradoxical, really. I can’t think of any way it could be explained other than… God.
By golly, that’s it!!! He proved the existence of God after all!
If a ‘basic’ God is someone that enjoys Starbucks frappuchinos, posting on Instagram, wearing Uggs and Victoria’s Secret shorts that say ‘Pink’ across the ass; I can say with some level of confidence that this is the sort of god many would eagerly get behind.
The advantage of a geriatric God over a genetic God (or even a generic God) is that the Old Guy just has to be smarter than you and I, wiser too. What, you going to argue with your grandpa?
Pantastic’s original phrase was “grandmothered away” but your variant nicely parallels “grandfathered in” so I like it, too. I think we can declare the English language newly enriched, and I propose the following formal definition:
grandmothered away: VP. (also, grandmothered out.) Sudden disappearance of a participant from a discussion group after facing insurmountable obstacles to supporting his or her argument; the condition of such absence.
Example of usage: He tried to prove that evolution was impossible and that the earth was only 6000 years old, but as there were numerous scientists including some evolutionary biologists in the discussion group, he was quickly grandmothered away.
It warms my heart to be witness to history; to see the evolution of the English language before my very eyes.
Before the thread shuts down, does anybody have any useful advice for a self taught person or autodidact?
Try to generalize. Self-taught people tend to focus tightly on one area of knowledge, and the best thing they can do to improve themselves is to spread their knowledge out some. No one can be knowledgeable about everything, but there is wisdom in knowing something about more things.
Study a little psychology, and art, and history, and biology; go to different museums; read books about subjects you’re weakest on.
So that we will be praying to “Pink”?
Yes, before you open your mouth, make sure your grandmother is securely nailed to her perch.