|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Detecting God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Just use my handy patented god-detector.
If it registers more than 0 gods, one could well be present. CAUTION: The godometer may also give false positives in the presence of fairies, elves, wizards, or theists who own black marker pens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Is this not precisely what you are doing? That is, changing God and his glory into something detectable, such as a fourfooted beast, and creeping things? You'd think, wouldn't you, that God would be at least as real as fourfooted beasts and creeping things? You wouldn't object, would you, if someone suggested that he was more powerful than an elephant or that he could see things in the dark better than an owl or that he was more intelligent than a chimpanzee. But when someone suggests that he should have a higher degree of reality than a unicorn, you behave as though the suggestion was somehow blasphemous. Really, I don't see any difference between an atheist telling me that there is no God and a theist telling me that there is a God but that he's indistinguishable from things that don't exist --- except, of course, for their choice of words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That makes you a modern day Pharisee which is a hypocritically self-righteous person. Specifically, a Pharisee was a hypocritically self-righteous theist.
You hide behind the story you believe in that there is no God. When the facts are you believe there is no God higher than yourself. Oh look, hypocritical self-righteous theism. And a failed attempt at mindreading.
You are not going to get a sign either. Well, I'm certain of that. But why are you? According to Christian mythology, lots of people have got signs. Look at Saul of Tarsus:
Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison. (Acts 8) That seems rather meaner than just asking you questions you can't answer. But Jesus turned up and put Saul right in person. Yet you seem utterly confident that that sort of thing doesn't happen.
By the time I was twenty I was smoking too much and began to try to quit. I quit a thousand times for almost 3 years. Stopping for a little while and then returning to smoking more that ever. I could not quit. By the time I quit I was smoking 4 packs a day which meant I was lighting a cigarette ever eight minutes. Did you ever think of asking for God's help before 1962?
I have total control over my brain and body through my mind. I think there are many here that would say that is an impossibility. Now is there anyone that has a better conclusion as to what took the taste out of my mouth? Atheists can quit smoking too. Are these amongst the signs from God that you're sure they don't get?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Dr Adequate does not understand that Saul/Paul did not get a sign but a special calling to be an Apostle to the gentiles. He didn't get a sign? What do you call this then?
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!" "Yes, Lord," he answered. The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight." "Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name." But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the LordJesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming herehas sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. ---
I chuckle everytime I think about all the times I pushed for an answer as to where the universe that existed at T=10-43 came from. The correct answer is "We don't know". But I have also been told it just is. But when I say God just exists they want to laugh me out of the thread. They don't realize that to believe what they believe that they have to believe the universe exists by faith. No, we can see that the universe exists. Faith doesn't come into it. It's not totally clear why it exists, but it's evident that it does. With God, we can neither see that he exists nor understand why he would if he did. We could give you a free pass on the second bit, but not on the first.
The unexplainability of the singularity should be a point of detection of God. The unexplainability of where the universe came from should be a point of detection of God. The unexplainability of what is holding the universe together should be a point of detection of God. "The unexplainability of what happened to my spectacles should be a point of detection of God." No, it's just something we want an explanation for. There's no particular reason why the explanation should involve an entity possessed of personality, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and a grudge against people who eat lobsters, pick up sticks on Saturday, or wear socks woven from a nylon-cotton mix. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Instruction to a special person that was to go to the gentiles. You deny that a miraculous light from heaven, Jesus talking to one personally, and a cure for blindness constitute some kind of sign from heaven. Well, have it your way. So, killinghurts can't get a sign, but he can get a non-sign like that, right? A miraculous event so convincing as to turn his opinions of Christianity around 180 degrees, but which for some reason you won't call a "sign"? Incidentally, if what happened to Saul wasn't a sign from heaven, then what would one look like? Would there also be a brass band and a parade of elephants?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
ICANT writes: So what do you say caused the universe to begin to exist? Someone else of the same name writes:
I chuckle everytime I think about all the times I pushed for an answer as to where the universe that existed at T=10-43 came from. The correct answer is "We don't know".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Have you ever heard of "the impossibility of the opposite"? Visit the Underlying Philosophy thread to see more details on this argument. If he does so, he will see this phrase often repeated, but with no details and no argument.
Also, a laboratory could not exist were it not for the metaphysicist. I think you will find that it is quite possible to build a laboratory without consulting a "metaphysicist" at all. That is one reason why they aren't in any great demand, and don't get paid the big bucks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And your point is what? That because he doesn't worship the Big Bang, he doesn't have to provide evidence for it, even though he insists that I provide evidence for my claims? I repeat; the epitome of hypocrisy. The behavior and opinions of the people who live in your head may indeed be the "epitome of hypocrisy". This is one of the many ways in which they differ from real people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There is a difference in meaning between the phrases: "provide evidence for it" and "understand everthing about how [it] worked". I hope this clarifies matters for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In Acts 3:1-26 we have the story of a lame man from birth who sat at the entrance to the Temple begging alms of those who entered. When Peter and John went to enter Peter said unto him "silver and gold have I none but such as I have give I thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk." Peter took him by the hand, his feet and legs receive strength and he went into the Temple walking, and leaping and praising God. So a lame man being healed is a sign ... but a light from Heaven, Jesus putting in a personal appearance, and a blind man being healed is not a sign? I'm clearly not quite grasping the criterion. Unless it's "because ICANT says so".
We have that which is perfect Paul was talking about. In fact by 90 AD it was completed with most of it completed prior to 70 AD. We now have the Word of God and have no need of signs. Can we therefore conclude that every report of a miracle after the first century is a lie?
If one will not believe the witness we have in the Word he will not receive the witness of any sign that might be given. Is there a word for the opposite of an a fortiori argument? Only that would be the mistake that you're making. It is plainly, clearly, blatantly obvious that if some people can be persuaded to devote and even sacrifice their lives to Islam or Christianity or whatever just because they read some unevidenced claim in some book, then they would also be persuaded by something which, unlike writing stuff in a book, actually required the existence of God. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Why do there tend to be more mis-interpretations of the Word of God than of physical laws? Because no one has a good reason for wanting to mis-interpret physical laws ... That depends on what you mean by a good reason. Have you ever read any creationist literature?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
First, if we are going to detect god it doesn't matter what people believe. The goal has nothing to do with supporting any given belief in god, the goal is to detect god whatever that god turns out to be. Yes, but you have to have some sort of definition in mind, otherwise how would you know if you had detected it? Suppose I ask you whether you own a snubruth. "What's a snubruth?" you ask me. "I'm not going to tell you", say I. Then the question is going to remain permanently open. You might have a dozen snubruths, and you'd never know it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So the most likely outcome is just that, people propose a god and after testing the response will be, "Nope, that god don't hunt." How about Artemis then?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024