# You're right, Danny C...there is no god. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 25, 2011, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983 "2011-01-25T23:35:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/241 "2011-01-29T01:25:03Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > You keep accusing me of avoiding the question, and I keep telling you that I don’t care about what people want to accept or what idea they consider more plausible than another idea, as you’ll find I quite clearly stated on page three: He keeps accusing you of avoiding the question because you keep avoiding it. If you didn’t care about what people want to accept or what idea they consider more plausible than another idea, you wouldn’t have stated this: > [@](#): > > I’ve always wondered what evidence an atheist would except for God’s existence. In my many interactions with atheists, it’s occurred to me that when they say they want proof of God’s existence, it means they want something tangible, observable and/or measurable. But even given this proof, as one of two things would most likely occur: > > 1.) Even if God himself descended from Heaven and performed some awe inspiring, Earth shattering, cosmos disrupting miracle, they’d claim that that while said incidence is unexplainable, that it doesn’t mean the one standing before them is God nor does it mean that God exists, as it could be the result of a currently unexplainable phenomenon or some other entity (such as a super advanced being from another world). Or > > 2.) They’d pass it off as a hallucination and either sleep it off or check themselves into a mental facility. > > Ergo, it’s better to just believe what you want to believe and don’t believe what you don’t want to believe. In the end, we’ll find out who’s right. Unless the atheists are right, then we won’t find out because once we die nothing will happen. and this: > [@](#): > > You seemed to completely miss the gist of my post. Therefore, let me start over. For shits and giggles, let’s say that tomorrow the sky parts and a man in white robes with a long white beard decends from the heavens and introduces himself to you as the Christian God, after which he materializes a new species of fish out of thin air. Chances are that you still wouldn’t admit that the man before you is God, as you’d either consider yourself to be crazy\hallucinating, thus rationalizing the event away, or you’d play your own version of Occham’s Razor, admitting that while you can’t explain what you just saw, that there is a more plausible explanation for it than God (i.e., the entity before you is really an advanced being from another planet). In the end, it’s not that there can be no proof of God, but rather there is no proof of God that would lead you to believe that God exists, as in our mind there will always be a simpler, more rational, explanation than God-- even if you do not know what that explanation is. It’s like the god of the gap thing only in reverse. So **Der Trihs** ’ question to you is relevant. He’s answering your questions, answer his. > [@](#): > > But do continue on acting like I’m trying to slyly avoid whatever question you keep asking me. Whatever question? You know the question, so yes, you’re acting. Answer it or he won’t be the only one believing you don’t really want to debate. You continue to ask questions as if they deserve to be answered. You should treat the question you were asked with the same respect. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/242 "2011-01-29T01:26:32Z")
BTW, you just skipped over the question I asked you in post ##235. How about answering that too? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/243 "2011-01-29T01:56:45Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Which would mean that said individuals are liars, which was one of your two options (the other being mass hysteria) :smack:. But that begs the question as to why a skeptic or non-believer would lie about what he or she saw? They, after all, would have nothing to gain from it. They’d have plenty to gain. Survival for one, they wouldn’t want to be beaten to death by a hysterical mob. Or they could want to fit in, or maintain their position by avoiding the inevitable hostility produced by denying the “miracle”. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Here’s a question for you-- do thoughts and ideas exist? Do they have structure? Do they exist even if the world from which they stem cease to exist? If they do, then under what basis could you possibly argue that God does not exist? Don’t be silly. Thoughts and ideas are patterns written down or stored in a brain, they don’t float around in some non-material void. You might as well claim that computer games are proof of God. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > To use my previous example, can thoughts and ideas interact with someone or something without affecting the object in which they are interacing with? No, they can’t exist in the first place without being part of the pattern of something material. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > So apparently you believe that God is a material and/or physical being and have proceded to argue that, as such, he is bound by certain laws. Well, see, that’s where you went wrong. I’m unaware of any theist-- more specifically, I should say Christian-- who takes this stance. By definition God is not a physical being, which means He is not constrained by whatever laws you and I are constrained by (/usualandobviousresponse). There’s no “by definition” about it; plenty of people worshiped gods who were supposed to be as material as anything else. The modern insistence that “God” isn’t made of matter or energy is just an unspoken concession that people like me who say God violates physical laws are right. And on top of that, God is typically claimed to do things in the world, which is made of stuff that most certainly does obey physical laws. So claims like yours are just an ineffectual evasion. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2011, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/244 "2011-01-29T02:00:20Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > They’re not mutually contradictory? If a deity is omnipotent, then why can he not rescind his own omniscience in regards to his own actions? In a similar fashion, if he’s omnipotent, then why can he not rescind his own omnipotence? Since God is eternal (which is not logically contradictory) he knows what he is going to do from before the beginning of time. If a requirement of omniscience is that he rescind omnipotence, he must do so forever, since he knows what he is going to do for all eternity. Ditto for omnipotence. If he is omnipotent at any time throughout eternity, he cannot be omniscient ever, since his omniscience at any time fully constrains his actions forever. I think it is fair to say God never forgets, right? The usual answer is God just chooses not to change his mind. Your answer, while not helping any better, is at least more creative. > [@](#): > > As I said to someone else God, by definition, is not a physical being, which means he’s not bound to any specific physical law. You cannot break something you are not bound to. That’s an interesting definition. James Bond still breaks the law even though he has a license to do so. Physical laws cover everything in the universe, not just material things. God still breaks them. Notice I’m not claiming that God can’t exist because of physical laws. The logical contradiction is far more significant. In any case, no religion has managed to make accurate predictions on just about anything, which is odd given they get information from a deity in some way. If God chose to come down and spell Burma Shave in the stars at my request, I’d probably start believing. “You and me Lord, you and me.” I’m not holding my breath. > [@](#): > > Number one, you cannot measure love. You can observe the way people who claim act, or have them describe their feelings, but these are wholy indirect measures. The fact is that there is no test in which you can quantify love (i.e., how much in love with someone one is). Psychologists and social scientists measure things this way all the time. Plus, you ignored my point that we can measure physiological signs. We can often tell when someone else has fallen in love, so it is not like these don’t exist. We don’t have a love scale, but we don’t have a fear or a hunger scale either. There is too much variation to have one. > [@](#): > > Number two, the measure for consciousness hinges on us assuming we’re conscious. That is, the only way for us to rationalize being conscious is because our human consciousness tells us that we’re conscious. In other words, we just assume (and be ‘we’ I mean humans). There is no test by which to tell us who or what is truly conscious and who or what is not. As Descartes noted, we only know for sure that we are conscious. We can test for consciousness in other people, but, like everything else, we can never absolutely prove its existence. We can’t prove that my measuring something with a ruler is not a delusion either, but that doesn’t mean the measurement is bogus or not repeatable. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/245 "2011-01-29T03:43:29Z")
I’d still like to know how 100,000 people in Portugal can see a dancing sun but 30 million people in the rest of Europe cannot. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/246 "2011-01-29T04:52:25Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > They’re not mutually contradictory? If a deity is omnipotent, then why can he not rescind his own omniscience in regards to his own actions? In a similar fashion, if he’s omnipotent, then why can he not rescind his own omnipotence? Because if he rescinds his own omnipotence, he is not longer omnipotent, and thus no longer fits the criteria established for the Judeo-Christian god. I presume your next objection is something like, “Well, he can always take up his omnipotence when he wants to.” But if he can turn his omnipotence on or off at will, then he’s never really not omnipotent, is he? Moreover, if he’s truly omnipotent, the fact that he deactivates his omnipotence at one particular point in time, does not prevent him from activating his omnipotence at that exact same point in time. After all, if he can literally do absolutely anything, he’s clearly not going to be constrained by our linear perception of the passage of time. If he is ever, at any point in his existence, omnipotent, then he must be omnipotent at every point in his existence. It is, therefore, impossible for God to ever not be omnipotent, and furthermore, it is impossible for him to ever stop being omnipotent. Which means that there is something in the universe which he cannot do. Which makes him not omnipotent, and therefore, not God. Which, ultimately, means that the concept of omnipotence is, itself, a logical impossibility. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/247 "2011-01-29T05:22:34Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Which, ultimately, means that the concept of omnipotence is, itself, a logical impossibility. That’s on the top 3 intellectual arguments against superstition, that I’ve ever read about. Nice! ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/248 "2011-01-29T05:32:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’d still like to know how 100,000 people in Portugal can see a dancing sun but 30 million people in the rest of Europe cannot. The rest of Europe wasn’t watching _Dancing With the Stars_. 😉 > [@Miller](#): > > Which, ultimately, means that the concept of omnipotence is, itself, a logical impossibility. Amen to that. ---
**Author:** ![Imagineer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@Imagineer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Imagineer)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/249 "2011-01-29T06:19:25Z")
My purple is still your yellow. I’m still right. You are still wrong. A giant easter bunny is on your roof and I’m going to punch you if you don’t do something about it. * * * Ok, that was just more mad hatter banter. But seriously I’d like to think I’m smart enough to believe you are on to something about god being an illusion, but if a zebra were to appear on my doorstep in the morning, am I psychic? How does this magic trick work if there is not a sentient being behind something that improbable? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/250 "2011-01-29T06:40:06Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > The rest of Europe wasn’t watching _Dancing With the Stars_. 😉 I get that you’re honestly trying to be funny, but it’s not working. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/251 "2011-01-29T06:40:19Z")
> [@Imagineer](#): > > but if a zebra were to appear on my doorstep in the morning, am I psychic? Most likely someone left it there as a prank. Or it escaped from a zoo. One thing to keep in mind about all these hypotheticals about “what do you do if something miraculous and beyond scientific explanation happens”; such things never _actually_ happen. So it isn’t much of a challenge to atheism or skepticism in general. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/252 "2011-01-29T07:11:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > They’d have plenty to gain. Survival for one, they wouldn’t want to be beaten to death by a hysterical mob. Or they could want to fit in, or maintain their position by avoiding the inevitable hostility produced by denying the “miracle”. Considering how a local skeptical newspaper had been for weeks mocking the supposed event without any documented cases of there being threatened violence against them for doing so, and considering how even in the early 20th century the idea of beating skeptics for being skeptics wasn’t overly acceptable, then I’m going to have to say that your contention is pretty weak. > [@](#): > > Don’t be silly. Thoughts and ideas are patterns written down or stored in a brain, they don’t float around in some non-material void. You might as well claim that computer games are proof of God. I’m not being silly. Neither thoughts nor ideas have any tangible, material form unless they are given form by tranforming them into a material object, i.e. a video game. That video game, however, is not proof that thoughts exists. As I’m sure we’re all aware, you cannot hear thoughts, nor you see them, nor touch them, nor smell them nor taste them. Yet you would argue they exist, apparently under the assumptions that they exist because they are contained in the minds of a material object (which would also necessitate that God exists under the same assumptions, though you would probably reject such an assumption). This brings us back to my original questions of which you didn’t bother answering, namely the ones asking you whether or not thoughts have structure or if they still exist even if the world they stem from ceases to exist. For if they don’t have structure and they still exist regardless of what happens to the world they stem from, then by your very own reasoning, they defy the laws of physics. > [@](#): > > No, they can’t exist in the first place without being part of the pattern of something material. As I’m sure you’ll well aware, then that doesn’t answer the question. You can be introduced to a thought or idea, which have no tangible forms, via someone else without being influenced by those thoughts or ideas. You do think for yourself, don’t you? > [@](#): > > There’s no “by definition” about it; plenty of people worshiped gods who were supposed to be as material as anything else. The modern insistence that “God” isn’t made of matter or energy is just an unspoken concession that people like me who say God violates physical laws are right. I point you the part of my post where I said, and I quote, “I’m unaware of any theist-- more specifically, I should say Christian-- who takes this stance”, as then you would realize that we’re talking of the Christian God, and not just gods in general. > [@](#): > > And on top of that, God is typically claimed to do things in the world, which is made of stuff that most certainly does obey physical laws. So claims like yours are just an ineffectual evasion. There’s a difference between saying God can’t exist because his existence would violate the laws of nature, and stating that God can act in a way that you would normally think impossible. > [@Voyager](#): > > Since God is eternal (which is not logically contradictory) he knows what he is going to do from before the beginning of time. If a requirement of omniscience is that he rescind omnipotence, he must do so forever, since he knows what he is going to do for all eternity. Ditto for omnipotence. If he is omnipotent at any time throughout eternity, he cannot be omniscient ever, since his omniscience at any time fully constrains his actions forever. I think it is fair to say God never forgets, right? > > The usual answer is God just chooses not to change his mind. Your answer, while not helping any better, is at least more creative. Presumably, you’re not arguing that God must act in a certain manner because he’s omnipotent/omniscient. Being omniscient does not require one to absolutely know everything at any specific point, but rather denotes the ability to know everything at any specific point. God choosing not to know what he’s going to do tomorrow doesn’t require permenantly rescinding his omniscience, but rather God choosing to rescind his omniscience in regards to his own actions, which doesn’t make him non-omniscient. Indeed, one could argue the same for omnipotence, though there is no reason for a deity to do this. > [@](#): > > That’s an interesting definition. James Bond still breaks the law even though he has a license to do so. Physical laws cover everything in the universe, not just material things. God still breaks them. If you kick in the front door to my house and proceed to take my laptop, that’s theft. If I kick in the front door to my house and proceed to take my laptop, while stupid for kicking in the front door to my house, that’s not theft. Yet again, you cannot break a law that you are not bound to. > [@](#): > > Notice I’m not claiming that God can’t exist because of physical laws. The logical contradiction is far more significant. In any case, no religion has managed to make accurate predictions on just about anything, which is odd given they get information from a deity in some way. If God chose to come down and spell Burma Shave in the stars at my request, I’d probably start believing. “You and me Lord, you and me.” I’m not holding my breath. Few religions go out of their way to make predictions about the future. > [@](#): > > Psychologists and social scientists measure things this way all the time. Plus, you ignored my point that we can measure physiological signs. We can often tell when someone else has fallen in love, so it is not like these don’t exist. We don’t have a love scale, but we don’t have a fear or a hunger scale either. There is too much variation to have one. When did I say love doesn’t exist? What do you mean I ignored your point that we can measure physiological signs? Not only did I not say, nor insinuate, the former, but regarding the latter, you’ll notice that I said that we can measure how someone in love acts or have them explain their feelings (we could even measure their changes in hormones), but that none of these are direct measurements of love, but rather indirect measurements of the effects of being in love. The two are wholely and entirely different. > [@](#): > > As Descartes noted, we only know for sure that we are conscious. We can test for consciousness in other people, but, like everything else, we can never absolutely prove its existence. We can’t prove that my measuring something with a ruler is not a delusion either, but that doesn’t mean the measurement is bogus or not repeatable. Descartes statement is not an affirmation of one’s consciousness, but one’s existence. Existence doesn’t require consciousness, but consciousness sure as hell requires existence. > [@Miller](#): > > Because if he rescinds his own omnipotence, he is not longer omnipotent, and thus no longer fits the criteria established for the Judeo-Christian god. I presume your next objection is something like, “Well, he can always take up his omnipotence when he wants to.” But if he can turn his omnipotence on or off at will, then he’s never really not omnipotent, is he? Moreover, if he’s truly omnipotent, the fact that he deactivates his omnipotence at one particular point in time, does not prevent him from activating his omnipotence at that exact same point in time. After all, if he can literally do absolutely anything, he’s clearly not going to be constrained by our linear perception of the passage of time. If he is ever, at any point in his existence, omnipotent, then he must be omnipotent at every point in his existence. It is, therefore, impossible for God to ever not be omnipotent, and furthermore, it is impossible for him to ever stop being omnipotent. Which means that there is something in the universe which he cannot do. Which makes him not omnipotent, and therefore, not God. > > Which, ultimately, means that the concept of omnipotence is, itself, a logical impossibility. If God rescinds his own omnipotence, then he can’t get it back by virtue of being non-omnipotent (assuming, of course, there isn’t some easy to go through ritual by which he could reacquire his omnipotence). If he could simply will himself omnipotent again, then he never stopped being omnipotent in the first place. If he stopped being omnipotent, then he’d no longer be the Christian God. The question, therefore, is why would God rescind his omnipotence? There would be no point of it, which isn’t to say it couldn’t be done. As it is, you haven’t proven that omnipotence is a logical impossibility, but that it’s impossible to still be the Christian God while acquiesing to every request or demand made of you stemming from the fact that you’re omnipotent. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2011, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/253 "2011-01-29T07:26:35Z")
It’s not that omnipotence, _per se_ is a logical possibility. It is not (although it is a _physical_ impossibility, which is different), but omnipotence cannot logically coexist with omnibenevolence if evil exists. If evil exists, an omnimax God can’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/254 "2011-01-29T08:19:20Z")
I see a lot of analysis of the psychology of belief and the rules which may or may not apply to God in post 252, but still no explanation how something as impressive as a dancing sun was not observed by anyone outside of Portugal, nor any explanation why only people in Portugal would have noticed. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/255 "2011-01-29T08:32:43Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I’m not being silly. Neither thoughts nor ideas have any tangible, material form unless they are given form by tranforming them into a material object, i.e. a video game. That video game, however, is not proof that thoughts exists. As I’m sure we’re all aware, you cannot hear thoughts, nor you see them, nor touch them, nor smell them nor taste them. Yet you would argue they exist, apparently under the assumptions that they exist because they are contained in the minds of a material object (which would also necessitate that God exists under the same assumptions, though you would probably reject such an assumption). This brings us back to my original questions of which you didn’t bother answering, namely the ones asking you whether or not thoughts have structure or if they still exist even if the world they stem from ceases to exist. For if they don’t have structure and they still exist regardless of what happens to the world they stem from, then by your very own reasoning, they defy the laws of physics. Yes, you _are_ being silly; I answered your question; you just didn’t want to hear it. Again; thoughts and ideas have no existence beyond whatever physical substrate they exist within, whether that is a brain or writing or something else. And you most certainly can detect thoughts; a variety of scientific instruments can detect the functioning of the brain. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > As I’m sure you’ll well aware, then that doesn’t answer the question. You can be introduced to a thought or idea, which have no tangible forms, via someone else without being influenced by those thoughts or ideas. You do think for yourself, don’t you? More nonsense; those thoughts and ideas certainly have a material form; they are part of the brain of the person talking to me, and the pattern of vibrations in the air we call speech. All material. And I can’t be introduced to an idea without being affected by it, because perception is a form of being affected by it. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > There’s a difference between saying God can’t exist because his existence would violate the laws of nature, and stating that God can act in a way that you would normally think impossible. God does both, something you admit when you insist he can’t be made of anything material. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Few religions go out of their way to make predictions about the future. Since when? Religions, including Christianity are full of predictions about the future. They are always wrong of course, but that doesn’t stop them. ---
**Author:** ![George\_Kaplin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3e96dc/32.png) [@George\_Kaplin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/George_Kaplin)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/256 "2011-01-29T10:10:34Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I see a lot of analysis of the psychology of belief and the rules which may or may not apply to God in post 252, but still no explanation how something as impressive as a dancing sun was not observed by anyone outside of Portugal, nor any explanation why only people in Portugal would have noticed. I’d be interested in seeing **OaBC** address this as well. It seems like an irrefutable debunking of the so-called ‘Fatima Miracle’ to me. Incidentally, as to what would convince _me_ of God’s existence…well, the number of potential proofs is limited only by my imagination. For now, however, let’s keep it simple. **OaBC** , I have written a 30 digit long number on a piece of paper and locked it in my desk. If I receive an e-mail or PM from you, or anyone else, containing the entire number, without errors, by this time tomorrow, I will immediately join the priesthood. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/257 "2011-01-29T13:04:21Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’re confusing truth with perception. The “truth” is that the elephant is objectively an elephant. That does not change just because individual perceptions of the elephant may be incomplete. The whole truth is that the elephant is what it is, not the perception, but part of the truth is not the whole truth. If onw were to describe an elephant he would need to use all the parts and see the entire elephant, Not just feel, or see a tail and say an elephant is like a rope,etc. One may be sincere in what they percieve but that doesn’t make it truth! ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/258 "2011-01-29T14:35:16Z")
> [@George\_Kaplin](#): > > I’d be interested in seeing **OaBC** address this as well. It seems like an irrefutable debunking of the so-called ‘Fatima Miracle’ to me. > > Incidentally, as to what would convince _me_ of God’s existence…well, the number of potential proofs is limited only by my imagination. For now, however, let’s keep it simple. **OaBC** , I have written a 30 digit long number on a piece of paper and locked it in my desk. If I receive an e-mail or PM from you, or anyone else, containing the entire number, without errors, by this time tomorrow, I will immediately join the priesthood. Really? Wouldn’t it be transfinitely more likely that someone had abstracted the number from your locked desk and returned it without your knowledge, than that God had had anything to do with it? ---
**Author:** ![George\_Kaplin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3e96dc/32.png) [@George\_Kaplin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/George_Kaplin)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/259 "2011-01-29T14:58:24Z")
Perhaps. Still, the odds of anyone on this messageboard finding out where I live and breaking in without me knowing in the 20 or so hours remaining is so vanishingly small that it’s not really worth considering. When we’re dealing with improbabilities that large, what’s the difference between believing in God and believing in crack teams of theistic SDMB ninjas? Anyway, that’s my threshold for evidence and I’m sticking with it. Although, I should revise my earlier statement somewhat. Such a miraculous revelation might convince me that God exists, but it wouldn’t necessarily indicate which specific religion I should follow. If the creator of the universe wants me to be a priest (as opposed to, say, a rabbi) he’d have to tell me personally. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983/260 "2011-01-29T17:09:30Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I’m not being silly. Neither thoughts nor ideas have any tangible, material form unless they are given form by tranforming them into a material object, i.e. a video game. That video game, however, is not proof that thoughts exists. As I’m sure we’re all aware, you cannot hear thoughts, nor you see them, nor touch them, nor smell them nor taste them. Yet you would argue they exist, apparently under the assumptions that they exist because they are contained in the minds of a material object (which would also necessitate that God exists under the same assumptions, though you would probably reject such an assumption). This brings us back to my original questions of which you didn’t bother answering, namely the ones asking you whether or not thoughts have structure or if they still exist even if the world they stem from ceases to exist. For if they don’t have structure and they still exist regardless of what happens to the world they stem from, then by your very own reasoning, they defy the laws of physics. Thoughts are patterns of brain activity. They are like eddies in a pool of water. The eddies are not a “thing”, they are a pattern of activity of a thing. But that doesn’t make them somehow magical or unreal. Thoughts cannot exist independently of a neurological framework, just as eddies cannot exist independently of a supporting liquid, gas, or plasma. Thoughts and eddies have structure (in fact, you could argue that all they are is structure) but they vanish if their supporting medium vanishes. What is the medium that supports the structure you call “God”? In any case, if the sun really did dance around the sky in 1917 it should have been witnessed worldwide, not just in some God-besotted corner of Portugal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-right-danny-c-there-is-no-god/568983.md?page=14)