Let's suppose God did....

[Elioenai26]

I think

This phrase indicates to me that what you are about to say is going to based on what you as a young 22 year old woman have learned in the 22 years you have been alive. In other words, your views will be limited, imperfect, and incomplete. But so will everyone else's views. Some may be a tad bit older than you, but for the most part, we all can confess we know actually very little when compared to what could be known about ourselves, our world, and our universe.

the best sort of way God could reveal himself would be as a constant Spirit. Comparable to how God was with Adam and Eve. Walking with them and talking to them. God as a close and loving Father, rather than a distant loud voice.

I can generally agree with you here. God, if He existed, would be of such a disposition as to want to have an intimate relationship with His creation. Kind of like a Father loves and wants to be in a relationship with his son. Not that a father creates his son in the sense that God created humans, but the picture is sufficient. As you said, this is seen very clearly in how God walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the day, in complete and perfect fellowship.

However, if God chose to simply speak from heaven in a loud voice to Adam and Eve, there would be no explicit logical inconsistency or contradiction in God doing this if He so chose to do so. If this was what He chose, He could do so without being accused of wrongdoing.

The possible doubt would be about whether advanced aliens could doing this to us as an experiment.

It is logically possible that aliens could make a recording and broadcast it in the sky so that what we thought was the voice of God was just actually an alien recording. This is logically possible. It is also logically possible that you are not a woman sitting at a computer typing posts on a Christian forum. "You" might just be a body lying in the matrix dreaming this whole thing, or a brain in a vat. It is logically possible that we are really the creation of an alien race who put us here to see how long it would take for us all to kill each other. It is logically possible that men never walked on the moon, or that Hiroshima never happened, or that Pearl Harbor was an elaborate conspiracy to allow the US to enter WW2. It is logically possible that the Holocaust never happened and that it was all staged. That six million people were not actually killed but bribed to live in hiding for the rest of their lives. It is logically possible that the twin towers were never attacked by terrorist, and that the twin towers themselves and everyone who worked in them were a part of an elaborate conspiracy to give the US reasons to invade Iraq.

Paradoxum, understand this, just because something is logically possible, that is not a sufficient reason to actually hold it to be true. If you and I were playing professional poker for 1 million dollars, and I kept getting Royal Flushes for 5, 10, 15, 20 hands in a row, what would you conclude from that? That: "Oh, well, he may be cheating but the doubt arises in my mind that we could just so happen to live in a universe where he gets 20 Royal Flushes in a row, so he is not cheating."

What kind of reasoning is that? If we take the route so cherished by atheists at explaining away improbable events by multiplying time plus matter plus chance, we can explain away virtually every improbable event!

Why not rather just say that after the second Royal Flush I get, that I am probably cheating. And after the third straight Royal Flush that something is really wrong here? Why not rather just say that?

If God spoke from heaven right now in an audible voice that you and other people could hear, why not rather just say: "Damn, maybe God is speaking, maybe He really wants me to hear Him?" Why would somebody try to explain it away by appealing to some absurd explanation like: "Oh well, maybe its aliens experimenting on us!" Its preposterous and the only reason someone would go to such lengths is to deny that God is indeed speaking. God cannot convince those unwilling to be convinced.

The problem might not be that atheists can't come up with a doubtless way of knowing God is real, but rather God is just the sort of thing that can't be known without doubt.

Paradoxum, what is it that can be known without a doubt? I mean really, ask yourself that question. What can you know beyond all doubt? If every improbable event can be explained away, what can we know beyond all doubt?

Why set the bar so high when it comes to God, but with every other aspect of our lives, we do not? Atheists set the bar so high that they virtually render God incapable of proving His existence, and then accuse Him of not proving His existence! Why would they do that?

If a relative of yours were to die and leave you 1 million dollars, would you sit there and doubt it? Would you say: "Hmm, uncle Johnny may not have really had a heart attack and died. Maybe it is an experiment. Maybe uncle Johnny really was pretending to be dead when he was laying in that coffin, and maybe he really wasnt inside of it when they buried it. Maybe hes hiding right now somewhere looking at me through a pair of binoculars, seeing what I will do and how I will spend the money."

I gurantee you, if my uncle died and left me some money, I would not doubt it for one minute, but would be thinking of ways to use that money. All of us would.

We doubt very little when it comes to things we want to be true and we want to be real. We doubt a lot when it comes to things we do not want to be true and do not want to be real.

I believe doubt is good in certain circumstances. If someone were to walk up to me and say: "I am God, worship me." Well, haha, I can asssure you, I would doubt that very seriously.

But why are people so skeptical when it comes to God? Are these same skeptics skeptical of their skepticism?

Naturalistic scientists and atheists are known for remarking that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They then begin their search for verification of these claims by PRESUPPOSING that the extraordinary is not even POSSIBLE!But why on earth would a scientist, who is supposed to be only concerned about the truth and who is supposed to be objective, start out by begging the question for naturalism?

God isn't physical so we can't never see God as he is... there is nothing to see.

This assumption is debatable, but for the sake of argument lets grant that it is true. Ok, we cannot see God. Does that necessarily mean that if He were to act in our world that we could not see His effects? No, that conclusion does not automatically follow.

We, being physical, can only be influenced by physical things.

This is assuming a materialistic, naturalistic understanding of the constituents of a human being. Those who believe, as I do, that humans are composed of a spirit/soul and body are not limited to being influenced only by physical things.

In fact, many philosophers of mind believe that the mind itself is not a physical entity but rather it is the immaterial aspect of our cognitive processes which uses the brain to formulate thoughts.

So for what you said to be true, you would first have to prove that the constituents of human beings are purely physical. How could you prove that?

So any limited physical expression of God could be copied by advanced technology.

Once again, you rely on outlandish speculation regarding what is logically possible. Aliens could in theory, work miracles and raise people from the dead and do so to "copy" God. But why think this is the case?

So the best thing would be for God to show himself as a ever present Spirit, or many present Spirits... a manifestation of God for each individual. Still we would have to trust the claims of this powerful, wise, and knowledgeable Spirit.

I love how you use the word trust here. That is key. Ultimately, we all come to a point where our knowledge leaves us without answers. We can do two things at this point. We can say: "Well one day I trust that science will explain it all, which is scientism. Or two, you can say: "hmm, maybe I can trust my intuition which tells me that things dont just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing and that there is a simple, rational, and knowable explanation for my existence and that explanation is that I have been fearfully and wonderfully made by a God who loves me."

Is this a problem for atheists, or an inherent problem of metaphysics? Maybe there can be no clear evidence for metaphysical claims. It wouldn't be our problem, it is the theists making the claim.

I think you have it backwards here. Many atheists are the ones making the claim that there is no evidence for God. As such, they shoulder the burden of proof to support this for this is a claim to knowledge. They claim to know that there is no evidence for the existence of God. If they do not claim to know that there is not evidence for the existence of God, but rather that they just are ignorant, well that's a whole different ball game. That is agnosticism, not atheism.

Science proven to work much better than speculation about gods and spirits. If there is a problem with the scientific explanation it will become more clear as we better understand the science around the issue.

I really have no qualm with any of that. I have not even speculated about gods or spirits at all. Science as a discipline is one of the tools we as humans have available at our disposal for learning more about reality. However, science, by its nature, is severely limited in what it can tell us. It can tell us what the universe is made of, but it cannot answer the deeper, more meaningful questions such as why it exists, and what purpose does it exist for if any.

I would consider it very strange if God hid evidence of his existence so deep within the universe.

I would too.

One would think that God would want uneducated farmers 3000 years ago to believe in Him, not just people after the year 2050 AD.

God wants everyone to know Him. That is why uneducated farmers 3000 years ago are recorded as having believed in Him and that is why the very first humans are recorded as having lived and walked and fellowshipped with Him.

Where is the 2050 A.D. coming from?

Well there probably can't be scientific evidence of a non-physical being.

There is scientific evidence which can be used to support the premises in several valid, sound philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

But if we currently have no evidence of God (or no understanding of this evidence) then we have no reason to say there is a God.

You've just reworded the fallacy I refuted earlier. Forensic scientists and crimonologists recognize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And my response is granting that your statement is true. I however do not even think it is true. You say atheists (I assume that is what you mean when you say "we") have no evidence for God's existence (or understanding of it) and then you say that because of this, we have no reason to say there is a God.

Well that is a non-sequitur. It simply does not follow. You're saying that you have no reason to believe God exists because there is no evidence. How do you know there is no evidence if you do not know what said evidence would be?

In order for your statement to be true you would have to provide some example of a proof for God's existence that would prove He existed but that does not actually exist. This is simply too large of a burden for any atheist to even attempt to begin sustaining.

Maybe there could be evidence for God, and maybe there could be evidence for invisible immaterial unicorns in my room, but until there is evidence I don't think such unicorns exist.

An "invisible unicorn" is a logically incoherent phrase and therefore describes no-thing. Unicorns by definition, are horse with one horn on their head between their eyes. It is like saying there could be evidence for a married bachelor or a round square. Those things, by definition, are no-thing, i.e their words have no referrent to correspond to in reality and are nonsensical.

You should'nt believe that invisible unicorns exist because by definition, they cant. So this fails as a sustainable parody Paradoxum.

Well he could probably communicate, but that doesn't mean we could know it was Him.

Of course we could know it was God speaking to us. However, there are none so deaf, as those who will not hear.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, maybe. But it does seem to say to me, rather loud and clear, that matter and space and time are what is mundane, what is normal, what is "natural".

And does a theist really believe that? Should he or she???

Ok, well, you seem to agree with what I said here.

I will restate it briefly.

An entity that creates the universe out of nothing by logical necessity cannot be either material (composed of matter) or spaciotemporal (existing in space and time prior to creation).

Notice here, I am not referring to any scriptures, holy texts, or religious writings or teachings. These terms are scientific terms. These concepts are scientific concepts with logical reasoning undergirding them.

These things I have said, which you agree with, are self-evident.

When cosmologists and astronomers speak of the universe, this term is an all-encompassing term. It takes in all matter, all space, all energy, and even time itself. If a theist believes this or not is simply not even relevant. This is what the universe is by definition. This does not change and is not dependent upon what a theist thinks about it. A theist could think that the universe is a fluffy marshmallow, the fact remains that when the word universe is used in its traditional, cosmological context, it is referring to all that is natural including natural and physical laws, matter, time, space and energy.

No, you just asserted something. Something which may be true, or which may be false. But that doesn't make it logical.

Well, it seems to me here that you are going back on your previous statement. You seem to have agreed that if an entity brought the universe into existence literally out of nothing, then said entity could not be made of matter and that it could not be spaciotemporal. If you agree with that then we can move on. If you think that statement is false then you must maintain that matter could have brought itself into existence before it even existed! And anyway, let's grant, just for the sake of humorous argument, that matter could bring itself into existence before it existed, how would it do that? Matter does not have any causal properties, it cannot "create" anything!

Moving on.....

Yeah, you get a maybe here too. But none of that would make God unnormal, unmundane, unnatural or un-what-have-you. To the contrary, I would think.

Well, now lets see....

I have never said that God was unnormal, unmundane, unnatural or un-what-have-you.

What I have said is that if an entity created the universe out of nothing, that it could not be made of matter and it could not be spaciotemporal. That is all I have said here.

(Emphases mine.) And this doesn't make a lick of sense. But that is just an aside. Prior to the point (a point where????) there was nothing. Ugh!

Prior to the dense singularity called for and required in the Big Bang cosmological model of the universe a.k.a. the Standard Model.

(And again there is this uncanny implication that the natural world is the mundane, and that God on the other hand is not.)

If God created the universe out of nothing, He, by definition is supernatural or ultramundane. The words are synonyms.

 

[super animator]

If this god that you are positing is of significance, then it should be demonstrable, and the burden of evidence in on you - not just to supply said evidence, but to present it in a manner that is falsifiable.

Your essentially treating/view god as a scientific concept, a good chuck of Christians don't treated/view that way.

Well, I suggest that you consider that a god that is nothing more than a fictional character in a book would be unable to communicate with us.

Isn't that another way of saying that it doesn't exist indirectly.

 

[Elioenai26]

If everybody in the whole world, simultaneously and instantaneously, had the exact (same) belief, knowledge and understanding of this god.

I suppose this would suffice as evidence for whatever it said it was, etc. Not sure if we could trust what it was saying, but definitely accept that there is something that is powerful enough to do that; call it what you will.

I asked what would an instance of God communicating with us look like and you replied with the above bolded statement.

How is that an example of God communicating with us? Acquiring coherent and non-contradictory beliefs is not a form of communication at all. Your reply is not even an answer to my question!

 

[Elioenai26]

If God - who could create the universe and us, down to the framework of existence itself - could and wanted to communicate with us... could he not do so in a way that we would not misunderstand, misrepresent or ignore it?

The latter three, the misunderstanding, the misrepresentation, and the ignoring of God's communicating with us are all possible because of how we humans are constituted. With the exception of the last one, I believe that an honest, sincere person who seeks God might misunderstand Him and even misrepresent Him based on this misunderstanding, and I believe God would remedy that by revealing Himself to such a one in a clearer way.

However, God could reveal Himself as God and some could simply ignore it because they want God to leave them alone and let them "live their own life" in a manner of speaking.

I mean think about this for a second. What if Jesus appeared right now to every one of the 6 or 7 billion people in the world. I mean right now. Think about the implications of that. Just think.

People in the middle of having crazy sex who are not married see Jesus standing at the foot of their bed and he says: "Every man and woman who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body."

Men in the middle of million dollar corporate deals see Jesus in a vision saying to them: "Go sell all that you have, and come, follow me, and you will have treasures in Heaven."

People fighting over this piece of land or that temple or this church and Jesus appears to them and says: "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you."

Richard Dawkins speaking at an atheist conference sees a vision of Jesus saying: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Yes Mr. Dawkins, that means all of the Christians that you have ridiculed."

Or all the Catholic priests who abuse their power and take advantage of little children see Jesus saying in a vision: "Allow the little children to come unto me and do not hinder them, for to such belong the kingdom of heaven. Assuredly I tell you, whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be cast into the sea."

Do you think the priests, Mr. Dawkins, the million dollar deal makers, the zealous religious fighters, and the people fornicating wildly are just gonna stop what they are doing and repent and live for Jesus and do what He says?

Or are they probably gonna say: "Damn, that was some crazy hallucination! Glad it was just that and not real!" and continue in their sordid, wicked deeds."

You and I both know that people are gonna ignore God if God's will and their desires do not line up. This is not rocket science. It is sinful wickedness which will dismiss the divine as a mere hallucination.

Even people who saw Jesus raise the dead said that He did it by using demonic powers. Anything was better than them admitting God had come among them.

 

[Non sequitur]

I asked what would an instance of God communicating with us look like and you replied with the above bolded statement.

How is that an example of God communicating with us? Acquiring coherent and non-contradictory beliefs is not a form of communication at all. Your reply is not even an answer to my question!

I did.

Because he communicated all that to everybody.

Obvious physics-defying-things happening all over the place (tonnes of food appearing out of thin air in Africa, etc) couldn't hurt, either.

(What's with the lack of comprehension and shouting?)

 

[quatona]

The latter three, the misunderstanding, the misrepresentation, and the ignoring of God's communicating with us are all possible because of how we humans are constituted.

And of course, the same problems can be on part of those who eagerly want God to exist.
So the God of your concept - should he exist - constituted us in such a way that our preconceptions determine our belief or disbelief in his existence, in that no compelling evidence either way can be had.

 

[Freodin]

The latter three, the misunderstanding, the misrepresentation, and the ignoring of God's communicating with us are all possible because of how we humans are constituted. With the exception of the last one, I believe that an honest, sincere person who seeks God might misunderstand Him and even misrepresent Him based on this misunderstanding, and I believe God would remedy that by revealing Himself to such a one in a clearer way.

However, God could reveal Himself as God and some could simply ignore it because they want God to leave them alone and let them "live their own life" in a manner of speaking.

I mean think about this for a second. What if Jesus appeared right now to every one of the 6 or 7 billion people in the world. I mean right now. Think about the implications of that. Just think.

People in the middle of having crazy sex who are not married see Jesus standing at the foot of their bed and he says: "Every man and woman who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body."

Men in the middle of million dollar corporate deals see Jesus in a vision saying to them: "Go sell all that you have, and come, follow me, and you will have treasures in Heaven."

People fighting over this piece of land or that temple or this church and Jesus appears to them and says: "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you."

Richard Dawkins speaking at an atheist conference sees a vision of Jesus saying: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Yes Mr. Dawkins, that means all of the Christians that you have ridiculed."

Or all the Catholic priests who abuse their power and take advantage of little children see Jesus saying in a vision: "Allow the little children to come unto me and do not hinder them, for to such belong the kingdom of heaven. Assuredly I tell you, whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be cast into the sea."

Do you think the priests, Mr. Dawkins, the million dollar deal makers, the zealous religious fighters, and the people fornicating wildly are just gonna stop what they are doing and repent and live for Jesus and do what He says?

Or are they probably gonna say: "Damn, that was some crazy hallucination! Glad it was just that and not real!" and continue in their sordid, wicked deeds."

You and I both know that people are gonna ignore God if God's will and their desires do not line up. This is not rocket science. It is sinful wickedness which will dismiss the divine as a mere hallucination.

Even people who saw Jesus raise the dead said that He did it by using demonic powers. Anything was better than them admitting God had come among them.

I don't know what I should tell you. I see what you write here, and I am dumbstruck that you cannot see that with every sentence you type, with every argument you make, you do nothing but prove my point.

I really don't know what I should tell you. But I am a limited human.

 

[Elioenai26]

I did.

Because he communicated all that to everybody.

Obvious physics-defying-things happening all over the place (tonnes of food appearing out of thin air in Africa, etc) couldn't hurt, either.

(What's with the lack of comprehension and shouting?)

Or dead bodies being raised from the dead, paralyzed people receiving strength in their legs to walk, blind people receiving sight, the deaf being able to hear and the mute being able to speak, food being multiplied to feed the hungry, men walking on water, and stuff like that.....

Sure, I get that.......

But those things happening would'nt make people believe in God's existence necessarily.

Some would and some would not.

Some would explain it all away, improbable as it may be.

So once again I ask, how would God communicate to us in a way that is undeniable?

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't know what I should tell you. I see what you write here, and I am dumbstruck that you cannot see that with every sentence you type, with every argument you make, you do nothing but prove my point.

I really don't know what I should tell you. But I am a limited human.

Your point is that many people would ignore God's attempts to prove His existence to us?

I am glad you agree. That is what I have been saying all along.

 

[Freodin]

Or dead bodies being raised from the dead, paralyzed people receiving strength in their legs to walk, blind people receiving sight, the deaf being able to hear and the mute being able to speak, food being multiplied to feed the hungry, men walking on water, and stuff like that.....

Sure, I get that.......

But those things happening would'nt make people believe in God's existence necessarily.

Some would and some would not.

Some would explain it all away, improbable as it may be.

So once again I ask, how would God communicate to us in a way that is undeniable?

You seem to have missed the first, the important part of his post.

 

[Davian]

Your essentially treating/view god as a scientific concept, a good chuck of Christians don't treated/view that way.

Elio approached the subject in a scientificy way at first, but when those threads crashed and burned, he's back-pedalled into a crowd of straw-man arguments.

If his god-concept is of significance, then I leave it to him to demonstrate how. This thread is really an attempt to show fault with atheism.

Isn't that another way of saying that it doesn't exist indirectly.

It's a way of saying, absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence, with claims where evidence is expected. Elio thinks he can refute this. He cannot. He builds his arguments out of logical fallacies.

 

[Freodin]

Your point is that many people would ignore God's attempts to prove His existence to us?

I am glad you agree. That is what I have been saying all along.

Just for you, explicitly...

I cannot get my point across to you, because you ignore what I am saying. I am a limited human.

God is not a limited human, but God cannot get his point across to us, because we ignore him.

I at least am trying to explain my point, change my approach, try everything that is possible to me in order to find a way that you will at least understand if not accept.

(Your) God doesn't do that.

There you have just one example why I think your concept of God is lesser than humans.

 

[Non sequitur]

Or dead bodies being raised from the dead, paralyzed people receiving strength in their legs to walk, blind people receiving sight, the deaf being able to hear and the mute being able to speak, food being multiplied to feed the hungry, men walking on water, and stuff like that.....

Sure, I get that.......

But those things happening would'nt make people believe in God's existence necessarily.

Some would and some would not.

Some would explain it all away, improbable as it may be.

So once again I ask, how would God communicate to us in a way that is undeniable?

Well, really the problem is what god are you talking about... so, I'm going with the lightest sense of the word.

If every single person instantaneously knew (think learning in the Matrix) about the exact same thing and could have a conversation (both of those being the communication), with nothing ever contradicting, I think that would suffice.

I don't see how someone could deny how every single person in the world had the exact same experience and knowledge and ability to communicate with it, all at the same time.

They couldn't deny it. Maybe rationalize (how, I can't conceive) or label it something other than "God", but they can't deny it.

 

[Davian]

Or dead bodies being raised from the dead, paralyzed people receiving strength in their legs to walk, blind people receiving sight, the deaf being able to hear and the mute being able to speak, food being multiplied to feed the hungry, men walking on water, and stuff like that.....

Sure, I get that.......

But those things happening would'nt make people believe in God's existence necessarily.

Some would and some would not.

Some would explain it all away, improbable as it may be.

It is not improbable that the bible contains nothing more than stories written by men.

So once again I ask, how would God communicate to us in a way that is undeniable?

CB radio. He would have a perfect grasp of the CB lingo, and he would always be in range no matter where you were.












Seriously? Knowledge. The unified theory of everything. Patch all of the holes in the standard model.

But then, I may not understand what you mean by "god". If you and others are, as claimed, in communication with a god, you could have asked for that information already.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's suppose for a moment that God did do what many atheists here have said He has not done, and reveal Himself to mankind in a way that is undeniable.

How would you know it was God revealing Himself and not just some natural event with a natural explanation?

Let's suppose He caused a message to appear in the clouds in the sky over Israel. How would you know it was really God doing it and not just a chance, random arrangement of clouds to look like words?

Or let's suppose God appeared to you, an atheist, personally. How would you know it was really God and that you were not just hallucinating?

Let's suppose He appeared to hundreds of people at one time and did miracles. How would you know that it was not just some magician doing magic tricks with the help of people who were working secretly with the magician?

Let's suppose a booming voice from the sky cried: "I am God and Jesus Christ is my beloved Son, listen to Him!" How would you know it was not just you imagining the voice inside your head?

I keep hearing over and over again: "If God is real, then He can make His presence known." Well heck, I agree!

But if He did, how would you distinguish the supernatural from the natural?

What marks or qualities would such a revelation possess? Would you even be able to recognize it?

I suppose the easy answer would be that he could do something that clearly flies outside the laws of physics or logic. For example if he appeared and then took a tiny ant and made him 50ft. tall...something of that nature.

 

[Paradoxum]

This phrase indicates to me that what you are about to say is going to based on what you as a young 22 year old woman have learned in the 22 years you have been alive. In other words, your views will be limited, imperfect, and incomplete. But so will everyone else's views. Some may be a tad bit older than you, but for the most part, we all can confess we know actually very little when compared to what could be known about ourselves, our world, and our universe.

Well please forgive me for being honest that it is my opinion, and one I hope it better backed up than others.

I can generally agree with you here. God, if He existed, would be of such a disposition as to want to have an intimate relationship with His creation. Kind of like a Father loves and wants to be in a relationship with his son. Not that a father creates his son in the sense that God created humans, but the picture is sufficient. As you said, this is seen very clearly in how God walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the day, in complete and perfect fellowship.

However, if God chose to simply speak from heaven in a loud voice to Adam and Eve, there would be no explicit logical inconsistency or contradiction in God doing this if He so chose to do so. If this was what He chose, He could do so without being accused of wrongdoing.

He could, I was just saying it would be more effective to do what I suggested.

It is logically possible that aliens could make a recording and broadcast it in the sky so that what we thought was the voice of God was just actually an alien recording. This is logically possible. It is also logically possible that you are not a woman sitting at a computer typing posts on a Christian forum...

You are right.

Paradoxum, understand this, just because something is logically possible, that is not a sufficient reason to actually hold it to be true. If you and I were playing professional poker for 1 million dollars, and I kept getting Royal Flushes for 5, 10, 15, 20 hands in a row, what would you conclude from that? That: "Oh, well, he may be cheating but the doubt arises in my mind that we could just so happen to live in a universe where he gets 20 Royal Flushes in a row, so he is not cheating."

I understand that people cheat, and that seems more likely. I don't claim that because something is possible that it happened.

What kind of reasoning is that? If we take the route so cherished by atheists at explaining away improbable events by multiplying time plus matter plus chance, we can explain away virtually every improbable event!

Why not rather just say that after the second Royal Flush I get, that I am probably cheating. And after the third straight Royal Flush that something is really wrong here? Why not rather just say that?

Well I would think that most people would accept that explanation.

If God spoke from heaven right now in an audible voice that you and other people could hear, why not rather just say: "Damn, maybe God is speaking, maybe He really wants me to hear Him?" Why would somebody try to explain it away by appealing to some absurd explanation like: "Oh well, maybe its aliens experimenting on us!" Its preposterous and the only reason someone would go to such lengths is to deny that God is indeed speaking. God cannot convince those unwilling to be convinced.

Why is it more likely that God spoke from the clouds than aliens? At least we understand that aliens could be like us, and could easily build technology that could create a loud voice. I don't see why God would be more likely than aliens, so why couldn't I just say that I didn't know what happened. We should take seriously such a voice though.

This is why I brought up God actually being with us like Adam and Eve. That still might be possible for aliens to copy (technology can seem like magic), but trusting such an experience would be more like trusting that we aren't in the matrix or Truman show. The Spirit of God would become part of life to us, just like the existence of other humans and animals. Though God would still be quite mysterious to us.

Paradoxum, what is it that can be known without a doubt? I mean really, ask yourself that question. What can you know beyond all doubt? If every improbable event can be explained away, what can we know beyond all doubt?

I can only know that a thing I call 'me' experiences qualia.

Why set the bar so high when it comes to God, but with every other aspect of our lives, we do not? Atheists set the bar so high that they virtually render God incapable of proving His existence, and then accuse Him of not proving His existence! Why would they do that?

We use the scientific method for understanding what the world is like. This can't be used on God, but this isn't our fault. Everyday experiences we accept with common sense. I accept other people are real because they seem to be like me, and I feel real. God isn't like me, so I can't use that same reasoning. I can't even see him, I can only see effects that claim to be God.

If a relative of yours were to die and leave you 1 million dollars, would you sit there and doubt it? Would you say: "Hmm, uncle Johnny may not have really had a heart attack and died. Maybe it is an experiment. Maybe uncle Johnny really was pretending to be dead when he was laying in that coffin, and maybe he really wasnt inside of it when they buried it. Maybe hes hiding right now somewhere looking at me through a pair of binoculars, seeing what I will do and how I will spend the money."

I've heard of people dying before and getting inheritance. I hear about that more than people lying about their death. From experience people don't tend to act like that. I have no experience of gods though.

We doubt very little when it comes to things we want to be true and we want to be real. We doubt a lot when it comes to things we do not want to be true and do not want to be real.

True, but we should also reasonably doubt if we care about the truth.

But why are people so skeptical when it comes to God? Are these same skeptics skeptical of their skepticism?

It depends what you mean by that.

Naturalistic scientists and atheists are known for remarking that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They then begin their search for verification of these claims by PRESUPPOSING that the extraordinary is not even POSSIBLE!But why on earth would a scientist, who is supposed to be only concerned about the truth and who is supposed to be objective, start out by begging the question for naturalism?

That is how the scientific method works. And it has been proven to work much better than assuming supernatural happenings.

If you want to talk about reason then talk to a philosopher more than a scientist.

This assumption is debatable, but for the sake of argument lets grant that it is true. Ok, we cannot see God. Does that necessarily mean that if He were to act in our world that we could not see His effects? No, that conclusion does not automatically follow.

I didn't claim that we wouldn't. In fact, this whole time I have assumed that God could cause things to happen that we could sense.

This is assuming a materialistic, naturalistic understanding of the constituents of a human being. Those who believe, as I do, that humans are composed of a spirit/soul and body are not limited to being influenced only by physical things.

In fact, many philosophers of mind believe that the mind itself is not a physical entity but rather it is the immaterial aspect of our cognitive processes which uses the brain to formulate thoughts.

So for what you said to be true, you would first have to prove that the constituents of human beings are purely physical. How could you prove that?

Well I see no reason to believe in a spirit or soul. There could be more than what we commonly call physical, but I haven't seen strong evidence or argument for that. I am actually swayed towards explain consciousness this way, but I can't prove it and I know I could easily be incorrect. It is just my intuition.

If we were influenced by spirit what would this look like and how would it look different from psychology disfunction?

Plus, even if I accepted that humans had spiritual souls, how does this help explain how God can tell us that he exists?

Once again, you rely on outlandish speculation regarding what is logically possible. Aliens could in theory, work miracles and raise people from the dead and do so to "copy" God. But why think this is the case?

Well because it isn't that outlandish in a world where we have magical powers such as, being able to talk to someone on the other side of the world; ripping apart matter to level cities in seconds; flying through first heaven (the air); sending people into second heaven (space), etc.

It isn't that far-fetched that in my lifetime nano-bots could heal like Jesus did. If not in my life, then not long after. Bringing people back to life might be a bit harder, but it hardly seems physically impossible.

But if someone claiming to be God did raise a person from the dead then we should take that seriously.

I love how you use the word trust here. That is key. Ultimately, we all come to a point where our knowledge leaves us without answers. We can do two things at this point. We can say: "Well one day I trust that science will explain it all, which is scientism. Or two, you can say: "hmm, maybe I can trust my intuition which tells me that things dont just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing and that there is a simple, rational, and knowable explanation for my existence and that explanation is that I have been fearfully and wonderfully made by a God who loves me."

I say that I don't know where the world came from, but I see no evidence for God, and see no reason to act like there is one. I don't understand how the universe could come to exist naturally, but I also wouldn't know how God would exist. Why does God exist rather than not exist? That is just as mind bending.

I think you have it backwards here. Many atheists are the ones making the claim that there is no evidence for God. As such, they shoulder the burden of proof to support this for this is a claim to knowledge. They claim to know that there is no evidence for the existence of God. If they do not claim to know that there is not evidence for the existence of God, but rather that they just are ignorant, well that's a whole different ball game. That is agnosticism, not atheism.

Maybe there is evidence, but I haven't found any fully convincing.

I really have no qualm with any of that. I have not even speculated about gods or spirits at all. Science as a discipline is one of the tools we as humans have available at our disposal for learning more about reality. However, science, by its nature, is severely limited in what it can tell us. It can tell us what the universe is made of, but it cannot answer the deeper, more meaningful questions such as why it exists, and what purpose does it exist for if any.

Well it might be able to tell us why the universe exists.

God wants everyone to know Him. That is why uneducated farmers 3000 years ago are recorded as having believed in Him and that is why the very first humans are recorded as having lived and walked and fellowshipped with Him.

Where is the 2050 A.D. coming from?

Because I thought you were hinting at there being some sort of evidence of God for us to still discover.

If those farmers believed in God, why did they, and why were they justified in doing so?

There is scientific evidence which can be used to support the premises in several valid, sound philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

Well I used to think some philosophical arguments for God were good. I find them less convincing now.

You've just reworded the fallacy I refuted earlier. Forensic scientists and crimonologists recognize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

How? I said that we have no reason to believe if there is no evidence.

If A claims there has been a murder, but there is no evidence of a murder, and no missing person, then perhaps there has been no murder. At some point you wonder if A is lying, confused, or delusional.

And my response is granting that your statement is true. I however do not even think it is true. You say atheists (I assume that is what you mean when you say "we") have no evidence for God's existence (or understanding of it) and then you say that because of this, we have no reason to say there is a God.

Well that is a non-sequitur. It simply does not follow. You're saying that you have no reason to believe God exists because there is no evidence. How do you know there is no evidence if you do not know what said evidence would be?

In order for your statement to be true you would have to provide some example of a proof for God's existence that would prove He existed but that does not actually exist. This is simply too large of a burden for any atheist to even attempt to begin sustaining.

If you think there is evidence then show the evidence. All the evidence I have seen doesn't convince me. There is no evidence I know of for God. So I don't believe in God.

I even gave you an example of what would be the best evidence, and he doesn't even try that.

An "invisible unicorn" is a logically incoherent phrase and therefore describes no-thing. Unicorns by definition, are horse with one horn on their head between their eyes. It is like saying there could be evidence for a married bachelor or a round square. Those things, by definition, are no-thing, i.e their words have no referrent to correspond to in reality and are nonsensical.

You should'nt believe that invisible unicorns exist because by definition, they cant. So this fails as a sustainable parody Paradoxum.

Why is that impossible. If I am given the superpower to go invisible you would just say that I have gone invisible.

If I was invisible and no one could touch me, I could still be said to exist. As long as I can see and touch myself, and still exist in spacetime.

Of course we could know it was God speaking to us. However, there are none so deaf, as those who will not hear.

 

[Elioenai26]

There is no evidence I know of for God. So I don't believe in God.

I even gave you an example of what would be the best evidence, and he doesn't even try that.

He's been doing it every moment of every day since the beginning of creation when He walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the garden. Salvation has always been by faith through grace, and this is a gift of God, not of works, so that no one can boast.

He is speaking to you right now my dear.

Jesus says: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone (that means you too Paradoxum ) hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to them and eat with them, and they with me."

Listen for His voice my dear, and open your heart to Him, He wants you more than you could ever know.

 

[Davian]

He's been doing it every moment of every day since the beginning of creation when He walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the garden. Salvation has always been by faith through grace, and this is a gift of God, not of works, so that no one can boast.

He is speaking to you right now my dear.

Jesus says: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone (that means you too Paradoxum ) hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to them and eat with them, and they with me."

Listen for His voice my dear, and open your heart to Him, He wants you more than you could ever know.

There ya go, Paradoxum. How can you not be convinced by that? He got Adam, Eve, the garden of Eden, and Jesus all in the same post. I am dissapointed that he did not expend the effort to work in Moses and the Great Flud.

 

[pjnlsn]

The question is the sort which if someone answered it completely might be interesting, but on the surface it's really quite simple: Whether I would believe would just depend on the situation and what I saw.

But does it really matter? Even if I, or anyone who does't currently believe, or want to, saw something and became a believer, there still wouldn't be proof.