Naw, he just kills things he doesn’t like, and preserves things that remind him of himself.
Funny you should say that, because I always suspected the same of you, with your sour-faced put-downs of others. I alway figured you were a theist out to give atheism a bad name.
Maybe he should have challenged God to write a script for “House”.
You can have my DVD of The Ten Commandments, staring Charlton Heston as Moses. Did you know that the human race, inlcuding the millenial Egyptian civilization the Hebrews had just left, had no idea that it was wrong to steal and murder until God clued Moses in about it on Mount Sinai?
God may left Valteron alive for two obvious reasons, those being:
-
Any Christian who encounters Valteron is reminded of why he or she strongly desires to avoid being an atheist, and
-
Any atheist who encounters Valteron will have to re-evaluate the claim that atheists are always sound-thinking people.
Of course these are just suggestions and may well be incorrect. If you want an explanation of God’s choices, ask Him.
So the definition of omnipotence is now ‘does whatever Valteron commands’. I see.
Actually, Mangetout, I got the idea from a rerun of the Simpsons last night, where Homer is praying and holds up cookies and milk from his bedside table. He offers them to the Lord, but tells the Lord that if HE wishes Homer to eat them, he must send no sign at all. Of course, Homer receives no sign and proceeds to wolf down the cookies and milk.
So Mangetout, I will reply to your specious argument in this way. I am assuming that **you ** do not really exist. If you want me to stop believing that send no more answers to this thread. If you send a single further answer to this thread I will go on believing that you do not really exist.
Seriously though, I really am glad you’re alive Valteron. I haven’t been that worried about a Doper since that time that Bosda went missing.
Ad hominem adguments like those above, simply attacking me, are like chewing food without swallowing it. They seem to be accomplishing something but in reality are not.
My post accomplished a great deal more than all the posts that you’ve written on this board combined. But if you want to remain in denial and pretend that you’re writing hard-hitting, intelligent commentary, be my guest. Good day.
You know, Valteron, I did the same little thing once, when I was 12 or so. I thought it was really nifty and cool and original and that it really proved something.
Then I grew up.
Kinda like the OP of this thread.
You seem to be saying that I am such a stupid (or at least UNsound-thinking) person and that I am so self-evidently objectionable that anyone who meets me and realizes I am an atheist will reject the precepts of atheism because of what I am like.
So you are essentially saying that the veracity and value of a concept are determined by the quality of the person making that statement.
And you have already affirmed that I am NOT a sound-thinking person.
I would now like to propose another concept. Hre it is: I believe it is wrong to be cruel to animals. I believe we should refrain from causing them pain.
Now, ITR, by your own admission, you must now reject that statement, since it was made by the same Valteron who does not think soundly. So, since the veracity of my assertion depends on who made it, I assume you are now going to go out and set little kittens on fire?
Or does the value of an argument NOT stand or fall according to the value YOU ascribe to the person making it?
How do you know your original idea was not correct?
By the way, Priceguy, I forgot to thank you for this information. It is important to show that experimental results are repeatable.
I believe you came to the right conslusion when you were 12. This alleged god does not react to such provocations because there is no such god to react.
That conclusion is still only a hyopthesis, but it still fits the known facts.
Trying to prove God doesn’t exist always seems to me like the old elephant repellant scam. I bought some elephant repellant from a travelling salesman the other day; I said “But there aren’t any elephants around here” and he replied “See how well it works?”, and I was sold!
I could do the same test and say “Magic invisible ostrich who lives in my closet, I order you to bake me some chocolate chip cookies!”. Of course, I am not going to receive any cookies from any such being, much to my disappointment, and therefore I’ve proved that there’s no such thing as a magic invisible ostrich in my closet (well, one that takes orders from me at least). So what?
If you’re going to collide the scientific method with God, then the burden of proof is on the God side. Otherwise it’s just a waste of time.
Oh, sure, Valteron…God, after thousands of years of not revealing himself, is going to choose you as the conduit to prove his existence to, like, 12 people on the SDMB. That makes sense.
Here is my last word on this thread.
If a text written decades after the fact tells us that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (something he and his supporters could have faked for all we know) it proves his divinity to those of “faith”.
But if I ask this alleged God to put up or shut up about his existence and even offer my own life as part of the experiment, I am playing parlor tricks and I need to grow up.
Interesting double standard at work here.
He’s got you there; that is the only reason why people are Christians, and so the two situations are pefectly comparable. Take that, religion!
Did I say you need to grow up? My point was that God will choose the time & place to reveal himself…he doesn’t need a challenge from you to give him the idea to do so. The family of Lazarus, IIRC, asked for Jesus to come and heal him because they had faith that he could do so, not as a challenge for Jesus to prove that he was God.