[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I have objective knowledge that this discussion is occurring.

How so? Philosophers have tried for millenia to demonstrate objectivity and have yet to do so, so I'm dying to hear the solution to this

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Well, you won't like my answer -- you'll dismiss it -- but here it is, insofar as "literal" or "physical" "evidence." First, though, I must fall back on you (and others) that haven't experienced what I have experienced first-hand will not be able to "reason" this out in the way these various and sundry events happened in reality.

If your experiences are not able to be "reasoned" out how can you expect us to consider this as proof of the existence of God. Of course the skeptics among us are going to dismiss it. Yo have presented evidence that may be "proof" enough for you but it might not be proof enough following the rules of empirical investigation. (For starters, there should be multiple ways to verify the actuality of the experience. Ideally through multiple persons encountering the same phenomena at the same time.) So, your list serves only to convince yourself, and perhaps others of faith, that the experiences you outline *are* evidence for the existence of God.

You are certainly entitled to your faith and the practice of it but please don't suggest that your experiental evidence for the existence of a deity is somehow equivalent to empirical evidence. That is just not possible and is insulting to people of intelligence.

[dcmacdaddy]

Here is an excellent example of how the existence of God could be proved empirically. It is merely a hypothetical thought experiment but seems to meet all of the criteria necessary for empirical validation of the existence of God (namely a consistent, repeatable, verifiable story).

I am going to Trader Joe's this morning near Union Square Park in Manhattan. So, say I am walking through the park from the subway and suddenly the clouds open up and a face appears and says "I am the Lord your God". The face stays there for say 30 seconds or 60 seconds. Now, if everyone in the park and surrounding area looks up and sees the same thing, you would know by the hands pointing up to the sky. There would be a great hub-bub and the people in the shacks at the Holiday Market would come out as well. They would ask what was going on and be told that God has appeared and everyone would be looking up at the sky (in the same general direction and at the same general elevation). So, you would have dozens, if not hundreds, of people seeing the same thing. Then, friends would be called, and the press would be notified, interviews would take place, a search for surveillance camera footage would be conducted, the police always in the area would be asked to verify what was seen. Eventually the all news stations (NY1 on TV and 1010WINS on radio) would show up and interview folks. So, out of the recorded perceptions of a few dozen to a few hundred people a consistent, repeatable, verifiable story of what occurred would emerge. (The people would have to say that the apparition occurred in the same place in the sky and had the same appearance and the same type of voice for the stories to be considered consistent and verifiable.) It would be all over the news, verifiable "proof" for the existence of God. But, one person telling this story and claiming it was proof is not empirical evidence but merely a questionable example of experiential evidence.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Here is an excellent example of how the existence of God could be proved empirically. It is merely a hypothetical thought experiment but seems to meet all of the criteria necessary for empirical validation of the existence of God (namely a consistent, repeatable, verifiable story).

I am going to Trader Joe's this morning near Union Square Park in Manhattan. So, say I am walking through the park from the subway and suddenly the clouds open up and a face appears and says "I am the Lord your God". The face stays there for say 30 seconds or 60 seconds. Now, if everyone in the park and surrounding area looks up and sees the same thing, you would know by the hands pointing up to the sky. There would be a great hub-bub and the people in the shacks at the Holiday Market would come out as well. They would ask what was going on and be told that God has appeared and everyone would be looking up at the sky (in the same general direction and at the same general elevation). So, you would have dozens, if not hundreds, of people seeing the same thing. Then, friends would be called, and the press would be notified, interviews would take place, a search for surveillance camera footage would be conducted, the police always in the area would be asked to verify what was seen. Eventually the all news stations (NY1 on TV and 1010WINS on radio) would show up and interview folks. So, out of the recorded perceptions of a few dozen to a few hundred people a consistent, repeatable, verifiable story of what occurred would emerge. (The people would have to say that the apparition occurred in the same place in the sky and had the same appearance and the same type of voice for the stories to be considered consistent and verifiable.) It would be all over the news, verifiable "proof" for the existence of God. But, one person telling this story and claiming it was proof is not empirical evidence but merely a questionable example of experiential evidence.

Medjugorje

I'm just sayin'.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Medjugorje

I'm just sayin'.

I know. My Dad was there two months ago. He had the visions and everything; He saw the holy mother multiple times. (He was on a multi-week pilgrimage that ended with six days in Medjugorje. I joined him for the first part of the trip in and around Rome but couldn't stay for the second part of the trip to Mejugorje. I was pretty bummed I couldn't stay for the whole trip.)

One question though, how many non-believers have the same experience as believers there? (This criteria would meet the need to remove the aspect of belief from corrupting the empirical validity of such an experience.) I have conversed with another person on the Medjugorje trip--a non-believer accompanying an elderly parent on the trip--and she did not see or hear anything, let alone see or hear the things that others around here were claiming they saw and heard. Heck, what my Dad saw and heard was not the same as what other people on the trip with him saw and heard at the same time, and he was in a self-selected group of believers purposely going to Medjugorje to have this experience. You would think if they all heard the Virgin Mary speak to them that they would have reported that she said the same thing to all of them.

I'm just sayin'.

[Tiresias]

As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled, when asked what might disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian."

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

How so? Philosophers have tried for millenia to demonstrate objectivity and have yet to do so, so I'm dying to hear the solution to this

I put in input, and get out output. Something, whether it be another human (or several), a computer that passes the Turing test, God, or anything else, is returning some sort of response to my input. Even if this is just a brain in a vat scenario, or a hallucination on my part, there is some sort of mechanism providing responses to me. Even if I'm just dreaming all this and not actually sitting at my computer, at some level there is some sort of two way data transfer going on that I am involved with.

I may not objectively be able to say that I'm sitting here at my desk, typing words into my computer which are then transmitted to the internet where they are seen by another person typing on their computer at their desk who then types in more words that are then transmitted to me via the internet, but I can objectively say that something that could be defined as a conversation is occurring and that I am involved in it.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Here is an excellent example of how the existence of God could be proved empirically. It is merely a hypothetical thought experiment but seems to meet all of the criteria necessary for empirical validation of the existence of God (namely a consistent, repeatable, verifiable story).

I am going to Trader Joe's this morning near Union Square Park in Manhattan. So, say I am walking through the park from the subway and suddenly the clouds open up and a face appears and says "I am the Lord your God". The face stays there for say 30 seconds or 60 seconds. Now, if everyone in the park and surrounding area looks up and sees the same thing, you would know by the hands pointing up to the sky. There would be a great hub-bub and the people in the shacks at the Holiday Market would come out as well. They would ask what was going on and be told that God has appeared and everyone would be looking up at the sky (in the same general direction and at the same general elevation). So, you would have dozens, if not hundreds, of people seeing the same thing. Then, friends would be called, and the press would be notified, interviews would take place, a search for surveillance camera footage would be conducted, the police always in the area would be asked to verify what was seen. Eventually the all news stations (NY1 on TV and 1010WINS on radio) would show up and interview folks. So, out of the recorded perceptions of a few dozen to a few hundred people a consistent, repeatable, verifiable story of what occurred would emerge. (The people would have to say that the apparition occurred in the same place in the sky and had the same appearance and the same type of voice for the stories to be considered consistent and verifiable.) It would be all over the news, verifiable "proof" for the existence of God. But, one person telling this story and claiming it was proof is not empirical evidence but merely a questionable example of experiential evidence.

Absolutely not proof of the existence of God. Could be done in a convincing manner with some sort of projector and speaker system, possibly even with technology that's currently available off the shelf; certainly there are people in the world with the technological know-how to pull that off.

And even if the technology to do such a thing does not exist, and there is no explanation for it other than the supernatural, all that proves is that there is some supernatural force out there than can cause a face to appear in the sky along with a voice that seems to come from it. If you're willing to believe in an all-powerful being such as God, surely you can accept the possibility of a lesser supernatural being, or even a human with command of supernatural forces, that could create such an illusion.

[Chuckit]

Why is it that only an omnipotent creature can be considered a god? Many putative gods (e.g., much of the Greek pantheon) have been superhuman but still limited in power.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Why is it that only an omnipotent creature can be considered a god? Many putative gods (e.g., much of the Greek pantheon) have been superhuman but still limited in power.

Because at some point in the past 2,000 years or so a bunch of people forgot that their religion explicitly acknowledges the existence of multiple Gods...

Although really, if you look at the Greek pantheon, is there any real limit to the power of, say, Zeus, or Ares? It seems to me that they can pretty much do whatever it is they want, except when another god interferes. So it's more like multiple omnipotent beings who are limited only in that the others keep them in check.

Also, where does it say in the Bible that God is omnipotent? I can't recall that it ever actually does say that, can anyone provide a reference?

[Graviton]

I think that anybody who bothers to get out of bed in the morning exhibits at least some faith in something. I tend to start with faith in the floor, then my dressing gown, then my slippers, then a nice cup of tea. I find it best to keep it simple.

I suppose that my faith in those things would be shaken if they suddenly refused to conform to my definitions, but I don't know if that would necessarily be a bad thing.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

I think that anybody who bothers to get out of bed in the morning exhibits at least some faith in something. I tend to start with faith in the floor, then my dressing gown, then my slippers, then a nice cup of tea. I find it best to keep it simple.

I suppose that my faith in those things would be shaken if they suddenly refused to conform to my definitions, but I don't know if that would necessarily be a bad thing.

I like to have a glass of faith with my breakfast. Then I get in my car, step on the faith and I'm off to work. (I mean, as long as we're using the word "faith" to mean believing ideas that are excruciatingly well-supported, we may as well use it for other things as well. Pet peeve.)

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Also, where does it say in the Bible that God is omnipotent? I can't recall that it ever actually does say that, can anyone provide a reference?

Don't know, but I know that God isn't a very good wrestler - just ask Jacob.

There are some interesting theories, I believe I read in Karen Armstrong's History of God, about how the earliest Hebrew descriptions of God were much more like the Greek gods - not ominpotent and just a tribal god of the Hebrews - but he became an omnipotent monotheistic god much later.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

There are some interesting theories, I believe I read in Karen Armstrong's History of God, about how the earliest Hebrew descriptions of God were much more like the Greek gods - not ominpotent and just a tribal god of the Hebrews - but he became an omnipotent monotheistic god much later.

The whole Zipporah rubbing her son's foreskin on Moses has always struck me as a tad tribal.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Don't know, but I know that God isn't a very good wrestler - just ask Jacob.

There are some interesting theories, I believe I read in Karen Armstrong's History of God, about how the earliest Hebrew descriptions of God were much more like the Greek gods - not ominpotent and just a tribal god of the Hebrews - but he became an omnipotent monotheistic god much later.

It was hardly fair, Jacob put Gabriel in a full Nelson.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

There are some interesting theories, I believe I read in Karen Armstrong's History of God, about how the earliest Hebrew descriptions of God were much more like the Greek gods - not ominpotent and just a tribal god of the Hebrews - but he became an omnipotent monotheistic god much later.

It's definitely a theory that I've run into before, and seems to make sense given what I know about the history of Judaism and Christianity. It even makes sense in the context of Islam, if you consider Islam to be just a further development of the themes that stretch back through Christianity, Judaism, and beyond. Islam being the only one of the three that states absolutely that there is no god but God (so far as I'm aware).

[Kerrigan]

There is essentially no thought provoking material in this thread. It seems like the Christians are all speaking about God as though some type of systematic reasoning could bring him down to our level, while the "atheists" are refusing to even acknowledge the assumptions upon which they understand the world.

[Shaddim]

That hasn't really changed since 2003.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

while the "atheists" are refusing to even acknowledge the assumptions upon which they understand the world.

I acknowledged my assumptions: my senses, and what they tell me. I thought I was very clear. What are your assumptions?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That hasn't really changed since 2003.

What in tarnation are you talking about? Is 2003 the earliest year you remember? Is that when you were born again?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What in tarnation are you talking about? Is 2003 the earliest year you remember? Is that when you were born again?

That's when people around here started getting so bitchy with each other about the subject, as your post clearly shows.


PS. I've never been "born again". Once was enough, thanks.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm not bitchy, just curious. So you think it was less hostile here before 2003? What changed it? 2003 just seems like a strange cut-off for you to give.

[Shaddim]

That marks the point when the discussions started turning bloody.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I acknowledged my assumptions: my senses, and what they tell me. I thought I was very clear. What are your assumptions?

Because some people in this thread, maybe even you, have said in so many words that there would have to be an unexplainable event to which many people saw, in order to attribute it to the supernatural.

(sometime 3000 years ago)
Ted the caveman: hey mike did you see that mountain blow up and growl at us yesterday?
Mike the Neandertal: yes everybody saw that! That mountain must be a god, and hes angry!

If all it takes for the atheists to believe is a face appearing in the clouds saying "IIIIII AAAMMMMMMMMM THE LORD GOOOOOOD!!!!!!!" Hell I can do that. I don't even need to be an all powerful advanced alien to do that. But then again it wouldn't now would it?

Atheists are the first to say don't attribute what you can't explain to the supernatural. This is a fine belief that everyone should live by. However many atheists who are saying it are hypocrites.

As a real scientist I know that there will always be a physical explanation for everything that happens in the natural world. If jesus came down and cured people of illness people would say "well the guy must of had a strong immune system, he was getting better anyway". Thats why there's no point in arguing religion. If god exists he is one to use his laws of physics, not violate them. If religious people are only using their religion to explain laws of physics they don't understand then they are following it for the wrong reason and their religion serves no purpose, other than to undermine progress and maybe add comfort to their lives.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

If god exists he is one to use his laws of physics, not violate them.

Sorry. No thought provoking material allowed.

[irunat2am]

My grandpa was given 6 months to live when the doctors found out how bad his cancer was. He lived 12 years after that diagnosis until he passed away last year. Amazing.

I was in a 6 car accident in 2004 that completely totaled my Grand Cherokee. Everything inside was smashed. Everything outside was smashed. I literally walked myself out of my vehicle and into the ambulance without one single scratch on me. The paramedic and the police officer at different times told me there was no way I should have even come out of that crash alive, let alone untouched.

You may believe it's science. I believe the Big Kahuna upstairs was lookin' out for this little dude down here. He definitely worked a miracle (as I see it) on my grandpa, as well.

Have a good one-

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by irunat2am 

My grandpa was given 6 months to live when the doctors found out how bad his cancer was. He lived 12 years after that diagnosis until he passed away last year. Amazing.

I was in a 6 car accident in 2004 that completely totaled my Grand Cherokee. Everything inside was smashed. Everything outside was smashed. I literally walked myself out of my vehicle and into the ambulance without one single scratch on me. The paramedic and the police officer at different times told me there was no way I should have even come out of that crash alive, let alone untouched.

You may believe it's science. I believe the Big Kahuna upstairs was lookin' out for this little dude down here. He definitely worked a miracle (as I see it) on my grandpa, as well.

Have a good one-

I'm sure he appreciates being referred to as the "Big Kahuna." This is the the supposed creator of all things and the best show of respect you can give is by calling him that.

1. The doctors were obviously wrong in their diagnosis of the time your grandfather had to live; they're human and people make mistakes like that regularly, yet they somehow get turned into a miracle, or evidence of some providential being.

2. The paramedics and police officers were wrong and used emotion, as humans are wont to do, when trying to rationalize why you walked out of a car that "should have" killed you.

Neither of these incidents proves anything other than that you are able to attach an emotional response to a situation that you can't explain. This is exactly why mythical beings are invented to begin with.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

One question though, how many non-believers have the same experience as believers there? (This criteria would meet the need to remove the aspect of belief from corrupting the empirical validity of such an experience.) I have conversed with another person on the Medjugorje trip--a non-believer accompanying an elderly parent on the trip--and she did not see or hear anything, let alone see or hear the things that others around here were claiming they saw and heard. Heck, what my Dad saw and heard was not the same as what other people on the trip with him saw and heard at the same time, and he was in a self-selected group of believers purposely going to Medjugorje to have this experience. You would think if they all heard the Virgin Mary speak to them that they would have reported that she said the same thing to all of them.

There are supposedly many non-believers with experiences in Medjugorje as well. It's claim to fame is the number of conversions it inspires. Often times from the reports I've seen, she is essentially saying the same things to them with the whole "fear not..." stuff.

I'm just sayin'.

I put it this way because I'm not sure I buy in to it, but it seemed the closest thing to what you've stated would be necessary. I believe if an experience like the one you mention did occur, people would still convince themselves they were crazy. That they were all crazy. That the news media who covered off on it was connected to the local Church, and that there must've been an opiate or something in the air.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

If your experiences are not able to be "reasoned" out how can you expect us to consider this as proof of the existence of God. Of course the skeptics among us are going to dismiss it. Yo have presented evidence that may be "proof" enough for you but it might not be proof enough following the rules of empirical investigation. (For starters, there should be multiple ways to verify the actuality of the experience. Ideally through multiple persons encountering the same phenomena at the same time.) So, your list serves only to convince yourself, and perhaps others of faith, that the experiences you outline *are* evidence for the existence of God.

You are certainly entitled to your faith and the practice of it but please don't suggest that your experiental evidence for the existence of a deity is somehow equivalent to empirical evidence. That is just not possible and is insulting to people of intelligence.

See? There you go being a cork sniffer and insulting my intelligence. But, like I said, those of us that know there's more to life to what we see and hear can do nothing more than feel sorry for you while you insult us. You seek empirical proof from Someone who says He can only be known via faith. You seek an explanation for everything, and one evidenced by support form multiple observers, etc., because YOU ARE TEH SMART.

The truth of the matter is, your vision is limited, your mind is narrow, and you have no clue about the true reality you live in.

Oh well.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Because at some point in the past 2,000 years or so a bunch of people forgot that their religion explicitly acknowledges the existence of multiple Gods...

Are you sure "gods" wasn't used as an idiom for human constructs? There were several authors you know.

Mark 12:28-30; “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one."

Mark 12:31-33; "So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He."

Deuteronomy 4:34-36; "To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him."

Isaiah 44:5-7; "Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the LORD Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other."

1 Kings 8:59-61; "that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other."

Deuteronomy 4:38-40; “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘ I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God."

Isaiah 45:4-6; "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God I will gird you, though you have not known Me"

Isaiah 45:13-15; "I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.

Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.

Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour'"

Isaiah 45:21-23; "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;For I am God, and there is no other."

1 Corinthians 8:3-5; "Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one."

Also, where does it say in the Bible that God is omnipotent? I can't recall that it ever actually does say that, can anyone provide a reference?

Revelation 19:6; "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."

almighty; 1. having unlimited power; omnipotent, as God.

Genesis 17:1; "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect."

Genesis 28:3; "And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people..."

Genesis 35:11; "And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins..."

Genesis 43:14; "And God Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may send away your other brother, and Benjamin. If I be bereaved of my children, I am bereaved."

Genesis 48:3; "And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me..."

Exodus 6:3; "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."

Numbers 24:4; "He hath said, which heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open..."

I am often fascinated by nonbelievers who make bold assertions regarding Scripture. Assertions even the most dedicated of theologians discuss with inquisitive and open of minds. Yet the nonbeliever is the certain one, emboldened with a shallow understanding, to chastize believers for their supposed ignorance.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

the "atheists" are refusing to even acknowledge the assumptions upon which they understand the world.

What in the name of Rihanna's legs are you talking about?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

You seek empirical proof from Someone who says He can only be known via faith. You seek an explanation for everything, and one evidenced by support form multiple observers, etc., because YOU ARE TEH SMART.

But when you refer to what "he" said you are referring to a book, written by men and perhaps more importantly, compiled and translated by men. So when you speak or write of the word of God™ you refer to what you and others who agree with you say is the word of God™. That's not faith. That's is a total leap of blind faith based upon absolutely NOTHING but the opinions of other humans. Teh Bible™ may say that "he" can only be known via faith, but Teh Bible™ is replete with stories of unmistakable miracles and signs directly from God and through his alleged bastard (and I mean that in the proper sense of the word) son. So those who lived thousands of years ago get their faith affirmed by signs and miracles but we who live now are supposed to go on the word of Teh Bible™ as endorsed nothing more than others who go on blind faith?

If your God™ created people then he also created us to be intelligent. Those who have faith in the word of the God of Teh Bible™ have such faith only by completely denying their God given intellect because their religion is almost completely intellectually bankrupt. I think faith is a great thing but it should be tempered with some thought and rationality. There is very, very little of that in most religions. Especially the major religions of the west.

The truth of the matter is, your vision is limited, your mind is narrow, and you have no clue about the true reality you live in.

Oh well.

Well, I for one don't "feel sorry" for those true believers such as yourself. I think that if you could get true fulfillment from worshipping snails then that's wonderful. But it's quite ignorant to imply that those of us who aren't believers are "missing" something that blind faith in Teh Lord™ can provide.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Here is an excellent example of how the existence of God could be proved empirically. It is merely a hypothetical thought experiment but seems to meet all of the criteria necessary for empirical validation of the existence of God (namely a consistent, repeatable, verifiable story).

I am going to Trader Joe's this morning near Union Square Park in Manhattan. So, say I am walking through the park from the subway and suddenly the clouds open up and a face appears and says "I am the Lord your God". The face stays there for say 30 seconds or 60 seconds. Now, if everyone in the park and surrounding area looks up and sees the same thing, you would know by the hands pointing up to the sky. There would be a great hub-bub and the people in the shacks at the Holiday Market would come out as well. They would ask what was going on and be told that God has appeared and everyone would be looking up at the sky (in the same general direction and at the same general elevation). So, you would have dozens, if not hundreds, of people seeing the same thing. Then, friends would be called, and the press would be notified, interviews would take place, a search for surveillance camera footage would be conducted, the police always in the area would be asked to verify what was seen. Eventually the all news stations (NY1 on TV and 1010WINS on radio) would show up and interview folks. So, out of the recorded perceptions of a few dozen to a few hundred people a consistent, repeatable, verifiable story of what occurred would emerge. (The people would have to say that the apparition occurred in the same place in the sky and had the same appearance and the same type of voice for the stories to be considered consistent and verifiable.) It would be all over the news, verifiable "proof" for the existence of God. But, one person telling this story and claiming it was proof is not empirical evidence but merely a questionable example of experiential evidence.

That would not be proof for God's existence, since it can be simulated with some pretty good holographic technology. The only thing that can prove God's existence is not some speaking picture in the sky, but some act that can't be done by anyone else even not by an alien stemming from a civilisation that is hundred thousands times more progressed than we:

That would be ressurecting some long ( days, months, years) dead people back to life, that would directly give witness to their death.

But once that empirical and objective proof was made, it would be judgment day.

So back to square one.

Taliesin

[Chuckit]

Smacintush makes a good point: Why is it OK for Gideon to demand three unmistakable signs in Judges but we're supposed to live our entire lives based wholly on faith with no good reason whatsoever?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

See? There you go being a cork sniffer and insulting my intelligence. But, like I said, those of us that know there's more to life to what we see and hear can do nothing more than feel sorry for you while you insult us. You seek empirical proof from Someone who says He can only be known via faith. You seek an explanation for everything, and one evidenced by support form multiple observers, etc., because YOU ARE TEH SMART.

The truth of the matter is, your vision is limited, your mind is narrow, and you have no clue about the true reality you live in.

Oh well.

No, *I* am not seeking empirical proof for the existence of God. I am simply asking that when you claim empirical proof for something (physical actions and sensations as you described in your post about your "conversion" experience) that they be, in fact, examples of empirical proof. Your examples are not empirically based WHICH IS FINE. Just don't insult our intelligence by making a claim about physical actions being empirical proof of something when those actions don't meet the criteria for empirical proof. Just come out and state that your belief is based on faith--you have faith that those actions you observed/experienced were due to God's intervention--and not on some empirical, physical evidence of the existence of God.

Just to be absolutely clear, my complaint is with the logical inconsistencies you show and not with your profession of faith. (I don't care whether or not you believe in God, but I do care about proper use of logic in a debate.) My complaint is with your claims that certain physical manifestations are proof of the existence of God. They certainly may be for you, but they may not be for all persons. (and with a logical proof it must be applicable in all circumstances.)

Sorry if my post came across as a personal attack, it was not. It was an attack on the logic you were using in your argument. Like I said, I don't care that you believe in the Judeo-Chrislamic God or a bunch of different Hindu gods or no god at all. That doesn't matter to me.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'm sure he appreciates being referred to as the "Big Kahuna." This is the the supposed creator of all things and the best show of respect you can give is by calling him that.

I've used worse. A sense of humor would be a requirement if you're the "Almighty", otherwise most of you monkeys would drive Mr. Dammit insane.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Smacintush makes a good point: Why is it OK for Gideon to demand three unmistakable signs in Judges but we're supposed to live our entire lives based wholly on faith with no good reason whatsoever?

You're assuming that each believer hasn't had their own personal unmistakable signs at some point in their lives. Or their parents' lives (I would buy that the word of your parents holds more weight than the word of some ancient stranger). Just because they haven't tried to document their experiences in "Teh Bible" doesn't mean they're basing their decisions on "no good reason whatsoever."

Maybe when they say "you're missing out by not having faith" what they mean is "you're missing out by not having seen the things which give me faith." It's perfectly reasonable, like saying "you're missing out if you've never seen Cirque du Soleil." For all the rest of us know, it's quite a show.

To reword the title of this thread in those terms, what would it take for believers to "un-see" the show? Some have said they'd have to find out it never happened, some have said you can't un-see what you've seen. It's reasonable.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I've used worse. A sense of humor would be a requirement if you're the "Almighty", otherwise most of you monkeys would drive Mr. Dammit insane.

Ha Ha!

"Mr. Dammit". Good one. I bet you have been dying to use that line in one of these discussions.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Smacintush makes a good point: Why is it OK for Gideon to demand three unmistakable signs in Judges but we're supposed to live our entire lives based wholly on faith with no good reason whatsoever?

You have to read carefully. Gideon did not demand the signs to prove God's existence. He was already pretty sure that God existed, as sure as he was that God forsaked Israel.

But then obviously God chose Gideon to save Israel from its enemies. An angel appeared before him and God spoke either directly or through the angel with him, and Gideon wanted a proof that he was indeed speaking with God and that he wasn't merely hallucinating or being misled by some demon.

To ask for signs so that you are sure that you are receiving orders from God, and to ask for signs that God exists in the first place are very different things.

Taliesin

[Big Mac]

It's always amazing how people can get very simple points very wrong.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I like to have a glass of faith with my breakfast. Then I get in my car, step on the faith and I'm off to work. (I mean, as long as we're using the word "faith" to mean believing ideas that are excruciatingly well-supported, we may as well use it for other things as well. Pet peeve.)

I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't doing what you thought I was doing, so I'll explain:

I find myself in a world I need to navigate, so I accept what my senses tell me, but with the understanding that my senses are limited and also prone to error.

As I understand it, our bodies are the vehicles for cells and they have created a sensory world that they understand so they can ultimately navigate through it (and replicate). Our senses do not merely detect forms and textures, they create them. For example, a substance is not essentially 'hard' or 'soft', it's just that our biology has evolved to interpret it that way. However, this is only a world from a certain point of view and one we are stuck with (barring mathematics). It is not the same world as it may be seen from other points of view (atomic, planetary, multi-dimensional etc.).

So, this is why I said I have faith in the floor, my slippers, tea etc. as a way to attempt to answer the OP's question. My 'faith' would be shaken if those things did not conform to my definitions. I'd be experiencing either madness or enlightenment, it would be difficult to tell.

My biology is based on an ape, what can ya do?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are you sure "gods" wasn't used as an idiom for human constructs? There were several authors you know.

It's certainly possible. Although God's use of the 1st person plural in Genesis would seem to suggest otherwise; admittedly it could be a use of the 'royal we', and obvious is something that would be dependent upon translation.

The first commandment, on the other hand, seems to be an explicit acknowledgement of the existence of other gods: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt out of the house of slavery; thou shalt have no other gods before me". That statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless there are other gods around and God is simply declaring his primacy over them, at least as far as the Israelites are concerned.

I am often fascinated by nonbelievers who make bold assertions regarding Scripture. Assertions even the most dedicated of theologians discuss with inquisitive and open of minds. Yet the nonbeliever is the certain one, emboldened with a shallow understanding, to chastize believers for their supposed ignorance.

In this case I was wrong, though I did acknowledge that possibility and ask for references to counter-examples. It's been a long time since I read the Bible cover to cover, I should do it again to refresh my memory of what it actually says. I also want to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek and read it that way to get a clearer picture of what it actually ways (as well as Arabic to read the Koran), but I don't know that I'll ever actually have the time to do that.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're assuming that each believer hasn't had their own personal unmistakable signs at some point in their lives.

I just realized you are right, people are still witnessing signs and miracles.

Only nowadays we refer to them by their proper term.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

You have to read carefully. Gideon did not demand the signs to prove God's existence. He was already pretty sure that God existed, as sure as he was that God forsaked Israel.

Which leaves us back where we were. People see what they want to.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I just realized you are right, people are still witnessing signs and miracles.

Only nowadays we refer to them by their proper term.

Careful, if you fall back on tautologies then what's to stop your religious counterparts from defining you into a pigeonhole as well?

"How do you know they're psychos evil?"

"Because they believe don't believe in God"

"Why do don't they believe in God?"

"Because they're psychos evil."

[Chongo]

The Turning of an Atheist
Antony Flew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In late 2006, Flew was among the signers of a letter to Tony Blair asking that intelligent design be included in the British science curriculum.

[irunat2am]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'm sure he appreciates being referred to as the "Big Kahuna." This is the the supposed creator of all things and the best show of respect you can give is by calling him that.

1. The doctors were obviously wrong in their diagnosis of the time your grandfather had to live; they're human and people make mistakes like that regularly, yet they somehow get turned into a miracle, or evidence of some providential being.

2. The paramedics and police officers were wrong and used emotion, as humans are wont to do, when trying to rationalize why you walked out of a car that "should have" killed you.

Neither of these incidents proves anything other than that you are able to attach an emotional response to a situation that you can't explain. This is exactly why mythical beings are invented to begin with.

If you can explain scientifically how I wasn't crushed in my car accident, that's fine. It's impossible, though. They did not say I shouldn't have walked out of that because they were "filled with emotion". They said that because I should have died or been massively injured.

If you went through an accident like mine and walked out without a scratch, it's hard for me to believe you wouldn't once question how it happened. You thank the big scientific bubble of invisible life saving craziness, and I thank God. To each his own.

Have a good holiday.

[Chuckit]

So does that mean God just really didn't like my student who inexplicably drowned to death in her car?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by irunat2am 

If you can explain scientifically how I wasn't crushed in my car accident, that's fine. It's impossible, though. They did not say I shouldn't have walked out of that because they were "filled with emotion". They said that because I should have died or been massively injured.

If you went through an accident like mine and walked out without a scratch, it's hard for me to believe you wouldn't once question how it happened. You thank the big scientific bubble of invisible life saving craziness, and I thank God. To each his own.

Have a good holiday.

Modern cars are designed in such a way that they are completely crushed everywhere except where the people inside are sitting. The car is supposed to be completely destroyed in an accident yet leave you unharmed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It's certainly possible. Although God's use of the 1st person plural in Genesis would seem to suggest otherwise

It's possible? Now that's the kind of humility I was looking for. I was only shocked with the degree of certainty you used to indict others of ignorance. It was the second time you brought up the whole "more than one god" thing. I let it go the first time until it became apparent that you were insisting on repeating the error.

God refers to Moses in the exact same manner in Exodus 7:1; "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet."

Does this also mean Moses is "many gods" and/or many Moses'? No. This is known as a plural intensive syntax and is used broadly throughout Jewish text. It is used in other places as well such as the word "chayim" (also with 'im' or plural suffix) meaning "life" in the singular. It means "more" than simply "existence", but certainly not "many lives" in context. It is a way of intensifying the noun, not multiplying it. The translation of it was exactly as it was from the original text.

... admittedly it could be a use of the 'royal we', and obvious is something that would be dependent upon translation.

Except the fact that you will not see this used in any such way or from anyone else speaking of themselves royalty or otherwise, in Scripture.

The first commandment, on the other hand, seems to be an explicit acknowledgment of the existence of other gods: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt out of the house of slavery; thou shalt have no other gods before me". That statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless there are other gods around and God is simply declaring his primacy over them, at least as far as the Israelites are concerned.

The Ten Commandments are found in kind from Exodus 20:2-17. It does little good to read the first two as exclusive statements. The full text from Exodus 20:2-5 is; "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me..."

It is generally understood that in any division of this text, the two are directly related. Particularly in regards to Jews, Roman Catholics, and Lutherans. The church of nonhuman may see it differently.

In this case I was wrong, though I did acknowledge that possibility and ask for references to counter-examples. It's been a long time since I read the Bible cover to cover, I should do it again to refresh my memory of what it actually says. I also want to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek and read it that way to get a clearer picture of what it actually ways (as well as Arabic to read the Koran), but I don't know that I'll ever actually have the time to do that.

I don't have a problem with you being new to the Bible, unpracticed at the Bible, or even in complete disbelief of the Bible. What bothers me is;

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Because at some point in the past 2,000 years or so a bunch of people forgot that their religion explicitly acknowledges the existence of multiple Gods...

only to find;

Originally Posted by nonhuman

It's been a long time since I read the Bible cover to cover, I should do it again to refresh my memory of what it actually says.

I might suggest that you shore up some of these "memory" problems before you accuse others of forgetfulness.