Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Creationists

Page 20 of 29 [ 453 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 29  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Jun 2011, 9:46 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Fnord wrote:
The real question is: "Does the God of the Bible exist?"

If the answer is "Yes", then please provide valid material evidence for His existence.

It is not evidence to:

- Change the question to one that is easier to answer.

- Engage in a philosophical debate over the meaning of existence, faith, or proof.

- Declare "The Bible says that God exists" without providing evidence that the Bible always tells the truth.

- Issue the counter-challenge to "Prove that God does not exist".

- Attack the person asking for valid material evidence that God exists.

- Claim that "Science does not know everything".

- Point to the large number of people who believe that God exists.

- Present one's own faith as evidence.

- Declare that "The evidence you seek is all around you, if you were only wise enough to see it".

It is evidence to:

- Produce God, who will perform a miracle.

- Perform a genuine miracle in His name.

And by "Miracle", I mean an act that defies every known principle of how the universe operates, such as instantaneously creating a living person from a pile of dirt, instantaneous regeneration of a lost limb or eye via a mere touch or word, instantaneous transmutation of one substance into another, instantaneously raising a dead person from a pile of bones, or any such act of a similar nature.

Failing this simple empirical test, the claim for the existence of God remains unfounded.


Unfortunately, as Arthur Clarke noted, advanced technology well beyond current understanding, appears as magic. Whether the being confounding current knowledge performing a trick is God or merely a jokester from an advanced galactic civilization is indeterminable. I can see no way that God could prove His existence. We are beyond burning bushes or sticks into snakes.


Hence, there is nothing beyond the human mind's capability to explain anything away as something more preferable.


And it seems this applies to people of faith particularly well.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

18 Jun 2011, 9:48 am

Sand wrote:
Unfortunately, as Arthur Clarke noted, advanced technology well beyond current understanding, appears as magic. Whether the being confounding current knowledge performing a trick is God or merely a jokester from an advanced galactic civilization is indeterminable. I can see no way that God could prove His existence. We are beyond burning bushes or sticks into snakes.

Actually, instantaneously turning an inanimate piece of dead plant matter into a living, breathing animal specimen would also be sufficient evidence for the existence of God - it is the instantaneous transmutation of matter into another form, after all.

If Sir Clarke's Second Law ("Any sufficiently advance science is indistinguishable from magic") is valid, then a valid extrapolation may be "Any sufficiently advance being is indistinguishable from God".


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Jun 2011, 9:52 am

Fnord wrote:
Sand wrote:
Unfortunately, as Arthur Clarke noted, advanced technology well beyond current understanding, appears as magic. Whether the being confounding current knowledge performing a trick is God or merely a jokester from an advanced galactic civilization is indeterminable. I can see no way that God could prove His existence. We are beyond burning bushes or sticks into snakes.

Actually, instantaneously turning an inanimate piece of dead plant matter into a living, breathing animal specimen would also be sufficient evidence.

If Sir Clarke's Second Law ("Any sufficiently advance science is indistinguishable from magic") is valid, then a valid extrapolation may be "Any sufficiently advance being is indistinguishable from God".


Inability to distinguish science from magic as a method for determining who is God? How stupid. So, Cortez was Quetzalcoatl because the Aztecs couldn't distinguish firearms from magic?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Jun 2011, 9:54 am

Fnord wrote:
Sand wrote:
Unfortunately, as Arthur Clarke noted, advanced technology well beyond current understanding, appears as magic. Whether the being confounding current knowledge performing a trick is God or merely a jokester from an advanced galactic civilization is indeterminable. I can see no way that God could prove His existence. We are beyond burning bushes or sticks into snakes.

Actually, instantaneously turning an inanimate piece of dead plant matter into a living, breathing animal specimen would also be sufficient evidence for the existence of God - it is the instantaneous transmutation of matter into another form, after all.

If Sir Clarke's Second Law ("Any sufficiently advance science is indistinguishable from magic") is valid, then a valid extrapolation may be "Any sufficiently advance being is indistinguishable from God".


What may appear to you as instantaneous, for example, might merely be a control of the perception of time, even if the actual processes took place somewhere else and the material to be treated were teleported back and forth. But that's only one possibility that immediately occurred to me.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Jun 2011, 9:55 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Fnord wrote:
The real question is: "Does the God of the Bible exist?"

If the answer is "Yes", then please provide valid material evidence for His existence.

It is not evidence to:

- Change the question to one that is easier to answer.

- Engage in a philosophical debate over the meaning of existence, faith, or proof.

- Declare "The Bible says that God exists" without providing evidence that the Bible always tells the truth.

- Issue the counter-challenge to "Prove that God does not exist".

- Attack the person asking for valid material evidence that God exists.

- Claim that "Science does not know everything".

- Point to the large number of people who believe that God exists.

- Present one's own faith as evidence.

- Declare that "The evidence you seek is all around you, if you were only wise enough to see it".

It is evidence to:

- Produce God, who will perform a miracle.

- Perform a genuine miracle in His name.

And by "Miracle", I mean an act that defies every known principle of how the universe operates, such as instantaneously creating a living person from a pile of dirt, instantaneous regeneration of a lost limb or eye via a mere touch or word, instantaneous transmutation of one substance into another, instantaneously raising a dead person from a pile of bones, or any such act of a similar nature.

Failing this simple empirical test, the claim for the existence of God remains unfounded.


Unfortunately, as Arthur Clarke noted, advanced technology well beyond current understanding, appears as magic. Whether the being confounding current knowledge performing a trick is God or merely a jokester from an advanced galactic civilization is indeterminable. I can see no way that God could prove His existence. We are beyond burning bushes or sticks into snakes.


Hence, there is nothing beyond the human mind's capability to explain anything away as something more preferable.


And it seems this applies to people of faith particularly well.


As well as to people declaring a lack of faith as well.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Jun 2011, 9:57 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Fnord wrote:
The real question is: "Does the God of the Bible exist?"

If the answer is "Yes", then please provide valid material evidence for His existence.

It is not evidence to:

- Change the question to one that is easier to answer.

- Engage in a philosophical debate over the meaning of existence, faith, or proof.

- Declare "The Bible says that God exists" without providing evidence that the Bible always tells the truth.

- Issue the counter-challenge to "Prove that God does not exist".

- Attack the person asking for valid material evidence that God exists.

- Claim that "Science does not know everything".

- Point to the large number of people who believe that God exists.

- Present one's own faith as evidence.

- Declare that "The evidence you seek is all around you, if you were only wise enough to see it".

It is evidence to:

- Produce God, who will perform a miracle.

- Perform a genuine miracle in His name.

And by "Miracle", I mean an act that defies every known principle of how the universe operates, such as instantaneously creating a living person from a pile of dirt, instantaneous regeneration of a lost limb or eye via a mere touch or word, instantaneous transmutation of one substance into another, instantaneously raising a dead person from a pile of bones, or any such act of a similar nature.

Failing this simple empirical test, the claim for the existence of God remains unfounded.


Unfortunately, as Arthur Clarke noted, advanced technology well beyond current understanding, appears as magic. Whether the being confounding current knowledge performing a trick is God or merely a jokester from an advanced galactic civilization is indeterminable. I can see no way that God could prove His existence. We are beyond burning bushes or sticks into snakes.


Hence, there is nothing beyond the human mind's capability to explain anything away as something more preferable.


And it seems this applies to people of faith particularly well.


As well as to people declaring a lack of faith as well.


People who lack faith do not explain things away, they merely await proper explanations of things assumed existent.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

18 Jun 2011, 9:57 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Inability to distinguish science from magic as a method for determining who is God? How stupid. So, Cortez was Quetzalcoatl?

To the Aztecs, yes. To a modern-day, ordinary citizen, no. Your analogy is limited.

If an advanced space-alien beamed down into the middle of the Super Bowl during halftime and cured everyone in the stadium of every disease and infirmity, and then rejuvenated everyone in the stadium who was over the chronological age of 30 to the physical age of 30, then I would call that being "God".

So what if he, she, or it would "only" be a space-alien with hyper-advanced technology?

Would the "real" God show up and deliver a smack-down? :lol:


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

18 Jun 2011, 10:00 am

Sand wrote:
What may appear to you as instantaneous, for example, might merely be a control of the perception of time, even if the actual processes took place somewhere else and the material to be treated were teleported back and forth. But that's only one possibility that immediately occurred to me.

Still, it is a "sufficiently advanced" miracle to be evidence for God.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Jun 2011, 10:01 am

Fnord wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Inability to distinguish science from magic as a method for determining who is God? How stupid. So, Cortez was Quetzalcoatl?

To the Aztecs, yes. To a modern-day, ordinary citizen, no. Your analogy is limited.

If an advanced space-alien beamed down into the middle of the Super Bowl during halftime and cured everyone in the stadium of every disease and infirmity, and then rejuvenated everyone in the stadium who was over the chronological age of 30 to the physical age of 30, then I would call that being "God".

So what if he, she, or it would "only" be a space-alien with hyper-advanced technology?

Would the "real" God show up and deliver a smack-down? :lol:


God would do whatever God wants to do, but as for the alien it would still merely be an alien regardless of whether mere humans perceive it otherwise or not.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Jun 2011, 10:03 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Fnord wrote:
The real question is: "Does the God of the Bible exist?"

If the answer is "Yes", then please provide valid material evidence for His existence.

It is not evidence to:

- Change the question to one that is easier to answer.

- Engage in a philosophical debate over the meaning of existence, faith, or proof.

- Declare "The Bible says that God exists" without providing evidence that the Bible always tells the truth.

- Issue the counter-challenge to "Prove that God does not exist".

- Attack the person asking for valid material evidence that God exists.

- Claim that "Science does not know everything".

- Point to the large number of people who believe that God exists.

- Present one's own faith as evidence.

- Declare that "The evidence you seek is all around you, if you were only wise enough to see it".

It is evidence to:

- Produce God, who will perform a miracle.

- Perform a genuine miracle in His name.

And by "Miracle", I mean an act that defies every known principle of how the universe operates, such as instantaneously creating a living person from a pile of dirt, instantaneous regeneration of a lost limb or eye via a mere touch or word, instantaneous transmutation of one substance into another, instantaneously raising a dead person from a pile of bones, or any such act of a similar nature.

Failing this simple empirical test, the claim for the existence of God remains unfounded.


Unfortunately, as Arthur Clarke noted, advanced technology well beyond current understanding, appears as magic. Whether the being confounding current knowledge performing a trick is God or merely a jokester from an advanced galactic civilization is indeterminable. I can see no way that God could prove His existence. We are beyond burning bushes or sticks into snakes.


Hence, there is nothing beyond the human mind's capability to explain anything away as something more preferable.


And it seems this applies to people of faith particularly well.


As well as to people declaring a lack of faith as well.


People who lack faith do not explain things away, they merely await proper explanations of things assumed existent.


Right, it's not as if we ever attempt to provide evidence or argumentation in favor of God's existence only to be dismissed off hand.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

18 Jun 2011, 10:06 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
God would do whatever God wants to do, but as for the alien it would still merely be an alien regardless of whether mere humans perceive it otherwise or not.

Exactly. So if a space-alien came to Earth, changed water into wine, raised the dead, caused the blind to see and the lame to walk, the space-alien would still be only a space-alien and not the "real" God ... or His son, right?


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Jun 2011, 10:09 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Fnord wrote:
The real question is: "Does the God of the Bible exist?"

If the answer is "Yes", then please provide valid material evidence for His existence.

It is not evidence to:

- Change the question to one that is easier to answer.

- Engage in a philosophical debate over the meaning of existence, faith, or proof.

- Declare "The Bible says that God exists" without providing evidence that the Bible always tells the truth.

- Issue the counter-challenge to "Prove that God does not exist".

- Attack the person asking for valid material evidence that God exists.

- Claim that "Science does not know everything".

- Point to the large number of people who believe that God exists.

- Present one's own faith as evidence.

- Declare that "The evidence you seek is all around you, if you were only wise enough to see it".

It is evidence to:

- Produce God, who will perform a miracle.

- Perform a genuine miracle in His name.

And by "Miracle", I mean an act that defies every known principle of how the universe operates, such as instantaneously creating a living person from a pile of dirt, instantaneous regeneration of a lost limb or eye via a mere touch or word, instantaneous transmutation of one substance into another, instantaneously raising a dead person from a pile of bones, or any such act of a similar nature.

Failing this simple empirical test, the claim for the existence of God remains unfounded.


Unfortunately, as Arthur Clarke noted, advanced technology well beyond current understanding, appears as magic. Whether the being confounding current knowledge performing a trick is God or merely a jokester from an advanced galactic civilization is indeterminable. I can see no way that God could prove His existence. We are beyond burning bushes or sticks into snakes.


Hence, there is nothing beyond the human mind's capability to explain anything away as something more preferable.


And it seems this applies to people of faith particularly well.


As well as to people declaring a lack of faith as well.


People who lack faith do not explain things away, they merely await proper explanations of things assumed existent.


Right, it's not as if we ever attempt to provide evidence or argumentation in favor of God's existence only to be dismissed off hand.


I'm terribly sorry, but the definition of "faith" is belief without proof. No solidly acceptable proof to a non-gullible mind has ever been demonstrated.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Jun 2011, 10:10 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Fnord wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Inability to distinguish science from magic as a method for determining who is God? How stupid. So, Cortez was Quetzalcoatl?

To the Aztecs, yes. To a modern-day, ordinary citizen, no. Your analogy is limited.

If an advanced space-alien beamed down into the middle of the Super Bowl during halftime and cured everyone in the stadium of every disease and infirmity, and then rejuvenated everyone in the stadium who was over the chronological age of 30 to the physical age of 30, then I would call that being "God".

So what if he, she, or it would "only" be a space-alien with hyper-advanced technology?

Would the "real" God show up and deliver a smack-down? :lol:


God would do whatever God wants to do, but as for the alien it would still merely be an alien regardless of whether mere humans perceive it otherwise or not.


And how would you know the difference?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Jun 2011, 10:13 am

Fnord wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
God would do whatever God wants to do, but as for the alien it would still merely be an alien regardless of whether mere humans perceive it otherwise or not.

Exactly. So if a space-alien came to Earth, changed water into wine, raised the dead, caused the blind to see and the lame to walk, the space-alien would still be only a space-alien and not the "real" God ... or His son, right?

Oh, so you're now referring to a shoddy sci-fi novel after arguing a crappy point, and because you have the ability to conceive of the possibility of a highly advanced space alien with hypertechnology it thus ensues that Jesus Christ, in particular, must be one. That would be your preferred explanation, now, would it be? But of course if the fictional hypothetical hypertech space alien is dismissed you might as well also dismiss the actual Christ of history as well now too, eh?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

18 Jun 2011, 10:20 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Fnord wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
God would do whatever God wants to do, but as for the alien it would still merely be an alien regardless of whether mere humans perceive it otherwise or not.

Exactly. So if a space-alien came to Earth, changed water into wine, raised the dead, caused the blind to see and the lame to walk, the space-alien would still be only a space-alien and not the "real" God ... or His son, right?

Oh, so you're now referring to a shoddy sci-fi novel after arguing a crappy point, and because you have the ability to conceive of the possibility of a highly advanced space alien with hypertechnology it thus ensues that Jesus Christ, in particular, must be one. That would be your preferred explanation, now, would it be? But of course if the fictional hypothetical hypertech space alien is dismissed you might as well also dismiss the actual Christ of history as well now too, eh?

Heh! GOTCHA!

If any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, then any magical "trick" might merely be a demonstration of sufficiently advanced technology. Those "miracles" from the Bible may have been only elaborate demonstrations of any stage magician's craft.

So what evidence could be presented to support the claim of the existence of the Biblical God?


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Jun 2011, 10:20 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Fnord wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
God would do whatever God wants to do, but as for the alien it would still merely be an alien regardless of whether mere humans perceive it otherwise or not.

Exactly. So if a space-alien came to Earth, changed water into wine, raised the dead, caused the blind to see and the lame to walk, the space-alien would still be only a space-alien and not the "real" God ... or His son, right?

Oh, so you're now referring to a shoddy sci-fi novel after arguing a crappy point, and because you have the ability to conceive of the possibility of a highly advanced space alien with hypertechnology it thus ensues that Jesus Christ, in particular, must be one. That would be your preferred explanation, now, would it be? But of course if the fictional hypothetical hypertech space alien is dismissed you might as well also dismiss the actual Christ of history as well now too, eh?


That's jumping to a different conclusion.