If God manifested himself, how would you know that it was God?

[WoundedDeep]

So the universe is God? Because that is what you are claiming. Personally I find nothing offensive about that but you might wish to consult with your fellow Christians since they tend to give God properties like sentience and omnipotence that the Universe does not really posses. Most Christians I have talked to look at the Big Bang as something God set in motion, not something that God is.

You mentioned the term "a singularity", and God is singularity as in He is one. That's what I acknowledged. I didn't say your description is 100% correct, but at least you are getting some notion correct about God. That is not easy and I commend you.

 

[Belk]

You mentioned the term "a singularity", and God is singularity as in He is one. That's what I acknowledged. I didn't say your description is 100% correct, but at least you are getting some notion correct about God. That is not easy and I commend you.

You damn me with faint praise. Toodles.

 

[WoundedDeep]

You damn me with faint praise. Toodles.

I cannot and do not damn anyone. I am happy that an unbeliever could finally grasp some concept about God, however faint it might be. God bless you.

 

[bhsmte]

You mentioned the term "a singularity", and God is singularity as in He is one. That's what I acknowledged. I didn't say your description is 100% correct, but at least you are getting some notion correct about God. That is not easy and I commend you.

Is there any chance your God concept is incorrect, or is your opinion infallible?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Is there any chance your God concept is incorrect, or is your opinion infallible?

There is no such thing as my God concept. God tells me who He is and I understand it from His point of view.

 

[bhsmte]

There is no such thing as my God concept. God tells me who He is and I understand it from His point of view.

Any chance you are hearing things from your God that are incorrect, or is your perception of what you claim God tells you infallible?

 

[variant]

But if several dozen credible witnesses report it, and stick to their story even under torture and death, it has to be at least worth giving some consideration to it...

Roonwit

We actually mainly have attributed authors attesting to the authenticity of accounts that they compiled since we don't have the source material for those accounts themselves if they were indeed ever written down as primary sources.

But, then again, I don't usually trust first hand witnesses that I can talk to in the here and now on this issue.

 

[variant]

Can you give any evidence to support this claim, or was it just made up after the fact by atheists wanting to disbelieve?

Roonwit

I didn't say that I could positively evidence that the story is incorrect.

You asked for a more plausible explanation of the Resurrection story than a resurrection.

My assertion is that it is more plausible that people are making up the story or that a real story got sincerely distorted in retelling than a resurrection.

 

[Brennos]

If God manifested himself, how would you know that it was God?

Gods manifest themselves through our everyday lives, they are what moves the earth and the airs through every elementary particles (atoms however you wanna call them). They initiate the movement of energies.

How would we know ? Because we are alive, we need to realise this energy is only a side result of the existence of powerfull other worldly beings, making every thing on this earth able to evolve, to consume energy or to regive it.
Seeing, feeling movement, the elementary particles, or the energy required for any manifestation should be enough to conceive the power of gods and their side effects on our world.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

How can someone extract data from something unless information is coded into that thing? How then, can statistical data be extracted from atoms if measurable information is not encoded in them? And where does the information in atoms come from? Did information exist out of nothingness?



Then I see no reason why they should argue for something that is impossible to evidence.

Information increases with time. When the Universe started, it may have been describable iwith just one byte. As time goes on, the number of bytes necessary to describe the universe increases.

When an atom decays, the decay is an example of the creation of information. We now know when its decay takes place in the space/time continuum.

 

[Roonwit]

I didn't say that I could positively evidence that the story is incorrect.

You asked for a more plausible explanation of the Resurrection story than a resurrection.

My assertion is that it is more plausible that people are making up the story or that a real story got sincerely distorted in retelling than a resurrection.

It's only more plausible if you start from the a priori assumption that the Resurrection could not have happened... and then your argument is just circular.

Roonwit

 

[Ken-1122]

Hmm ... interesting response. Thank you for responding.

Okay so let me ask then ...

Where do you think you get these expectations from ? I'm not talking about your initial influences which you've already addressed, rather, your after-the-fact influences so to speak. IOW ... now that you've come to personal conclusions concerning the nature of Christianity claims, etc, where do your current standards for what a "God" would be come from do you think ? And why do you have them, in your opinion ?

My personal conclusions has not changed my initial influences. My expectations are a result of what theists have told me and continue to tell me about God

the name "God" doesn't make people think of an individual very often as an identifying "name" in a simplistic fashion, rather, they arguably associate it with qualities or a type of "office". Almost like a title. Like a Prince, or King, etc.

I agree! I see God as a title.

And yet many people still use the term "God" in a personal way, as though it were the identifying "name" of the one they claim to believe in,

Christians are known to do that. For most religions God is a title but he is referred to by his name; Allah, Vinishu, Thor, Zeus etc.

I realize that the God of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures has many names and titles (Yahweh, Elohim, the Father, etc) ... yet the term "God" ... why can't it be yet another name ? Why does it typically associate with a sort of office, or title, even amongst atheists I wonder ?

Christians often use the title God and the name God interchangeably

Suppose you actually meet an entity or being that somewhat resembles concepts of "God" and this entity simply tells you, "No, I'm not a god, I'm 'God' ... that's my name .... I'm the only one, so I'm not a species you can compare anything to ... " lol.

If he told me, I would believe it. But HE would have to tell me first.

Lastly ... I'm curious why your definition of God would involve being the Creator of the universe, and could not be an evolved being, nor ever created nor dies. It sounds somewhat like an "alpha" type or apex type of being ... the first, unchanged, never ending. Why is that important ?

That is how theist described God to me.

I want to point something out about the idea of meeting a being that was the Creator of the Universe, was itself not created, and never ceases to exist in a living capacity (never dies) ... unless you could somehow be at the beginning of known causality to see the proof for yourself that this being was not created, and was the creator of the universe, you would arguably have to take that being's word for it.

That is true. If such a being convinced me he was God, I would believe on faith everything he had to say. If he told me something different than what the Theists have been telling me about God, I would assume those theists were in error; not God.

Ken

 

[Neogaia777]

So here's a question for all to ponder: Suppose that God manifests himself in some sort of physical or spiritual revelation, to you personally, you and a group of people, or to the entire planet. How would you know that this was God? How would you know, for instance, that it wasn't some sort of alien with super-advanced technology pretending to be God?

A follow-up question for antitheists: If a personal manifestation/appearance of God wouldn't prove to you that God exists (since there could always be another explanation - aliens or whatever), then what sort of proof would you accept that God exists?

Mathematical impossibilities did it for me...

But if it were some sort of super-advanced alien pretending to be God, then he could not and would not be allowed to do so by the true God. Only by the true God's permission do supernatural things happen, he runs the heavens.

 

[TillICollapse]

My personal conclusions has not changed my initial influences. My expectations are a result of what theists have told me and continue to tell me about God



I agree! I see God as a title.



Christians are known to do that. For most religions God is a title but he is referred to by his name; Allah, Vinishu, Thor, Zeus etc.



Christians often use the title God and the name God interchangeably



If he told me, I would believe it. But HE would have to tell me first.



That is how theist described God to me.



That is true. If such a being convinced me he was God, I would believe on faith everything he had to say. If he told me something different than what the Theists have been telling me about God, I would assume those theists were in error; not God.

Ken

Thanks for all your responses to me ... it's been an enlightening conversation for me. Thank you sir

 

[Conscious Z]

I merely used the example you gave to illustrate that inanimate things like matter cannot start a chain of events without the work of an external agent. The universe, mostly made up of inanimate particles, cannot form stars and systems without the work of an external agent drawing matter together using gravity or other forces we observe. Just like how metals and minerals on Earth do not form into complex materials on their own for our use.

I still fail to understand why the above is hard to understand.

It is not hard to understand the concept. It is not true, however, so it is impossible to understand how it is true (because it is not true).

You are simply stating a position that is contrary to the belief of some of the most expert theoretical physicists in the world, and you aren't really giving an argument for it. Asking how it is hard to understand is a bit disingenuous, as the source of our disagreement is not a lack of understanding, but rather genuine disagreement.

But let's not derail this thing. We were initially talking about the universe's fine tuning, not a kalam cosmo argument.

 

[variant]

It's only more plausible if you start from the a priori assumption that the Resurrection could not have happened... and then your argument is just circular.

Roonwit

My experience with reality, and the seeming absence of miracles there in, and my experience of religious people and their penchant to make stuff up are not a priori assumptions. When I look into that particular text and the events surrounding it, I do not see an overwhelming case for the authenticity of it's very extraordinary claims.

I didn't say that the resurrection could not have happened, I said it's more plausible that people made it up one way or another.

Plausibility is a measure of likelihood of truth, when deciding between different possible scenarios.

You defied me to give you a more plausible explanation for the resurrection stories, I did.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, that is because they don't know that things in the spiritual realm can impact the physical realm. If not, why all the exorcisms by a Christian evangelist or Catholic priest? Exorcisms aren't superfluous, they are real events.

Are you suggesting that the demonic hypothesis of epileptogenesis has some credence to it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yeah and we call that singularity God Himself (though the description doesn't fit 100%, but still its worth acknowledging), so what's the disagreement? Or is it just offensive that we call something God?

You consider God to be a singularity of all the energy in the universe?

 

[Roonwit]

You defied me to give you a more plausible explanation for the resurrection stories, I did.

You really didn't, but it doesn't appear that you are interested in exploring it further so I'll let it go.

Happy Christmas

 

[variant]

You really didn't, but it doesn't appear that you are interested in exploring it further so I'll let it go.

Happy Christmas

Well it was your tangent.

Basically you are asserting that it isn't plausible that Bible is incorrect about the resurrection, and you wish to have a discussion with an Atheist.

I wonder how far you thought that line of reasoning was going to get you?