Wouldn't this be evidence of God?

[aargh57]

Hello,

I'm currently trying to wade through "Philosophy and Atheism" by Kai Neilson and I was wondering if anyone could help me out with the following passage:
"Someone seeking to resist this conclusion might try to give empirical anchorage to talk of God by utilizing the following fanciful hypothetical case. It is important not to forget, however, that things even remotely like what I shall now describe do not happen. The fanciful case is this: Suppose thousands of us were standing out under the starry skies and we all saw a set of stars rearrange themselves to spell out "God." We would be utterly astonished and indeed rightly think we had gone mad. Even if we could somehow assure ourselves that this was not some form of mass hallucination, though how we could do this is not evident, such an experience would still not constitute evidence for the existence of God, for we still would be without a clue as to what could be meant by speaking of an infinite individual transcendent to the world. Such an observation (i.e., the stars rearranging themselves), no matter how well confirmed, would not ostensively fix the reference range of "God." Talk of such an infinite individual would still remain incomprehesible and it would also have the same appearance of being incoherent. We do not know what we are talking about in speaking of such a transcendent reality. All we would know is that something very strange indeed had happened- something we would not know what to make of."

Is he saying that since God is transcendental (mystical right?) that anything that we would see physically still could not be proof of him? Or is he saying that it is illogical to even define God because he is transcendental so even something fantastic like the stars spelling "God" wouldn't be able to change the fact that he can't be defined?
I guess I just don't have a sufficient philosophical background but I have to say that if the stars spelled out "GOD" I'd seriously have to rethink being an agnostic.

[KingMerv00]

GOD.

Which god?

[aargh57]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
GOD.

Which god?


Does that really matter?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by aargh57

Is he saying that since God is transcendental (mystical right?) that anything that we would see physically still could not be proof of him? Or is he saying that it is illogical to even define God because he is transcendental so even something fantastic like the stars spelling "God" wouldn't be able to change the fact that he can't be defined? Yes, God is transcendent, and we should acknowledge Him in spirit, rather than any physical manifestation thereof. Which is basically what we acknowledge by the second commandment, which says, "Thou shalt not create any graven images (in the likeness of anything which is heaven or on earth) and bow down and worship them." Although if something fantastic like that happened to me, I would definitely take it as a sign that God exists ... either that or aliens from another planet? Of course in this day and age, it could be somebody putting on a light show with lasers, who knows? While I think the key here is not to resort to the worship of God in the external sense.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by aargh57
Does that really matter?

Nah I guess not. But Jesus is strangely absent from this message. Score one for the Jews.

Anyway, this is decent evidence to be sure and it would make me start to reconsider my agnosticism as well.

Iacchus, why is God so opposed to people believing in him through visual displays? Faith is usually a bad thing in our material existance. Why does God want us to apply it to him?

[Darat]

Well it would certainly get my attention, but I'd keep Arthur C Clarke's famous quote in mind "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (Especially since moving stars is after all just moving something, granted something very big (if it is a shining star) and very massive.)

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Darat
Well it would certainly get my attention, but I'd keep Arthur C Clarke's famous quote in mind "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (Especially since moving stars is after all just moving something, granted something very big (if it is a shining star) and very massive.)

Not only is a star a massive object. This post also assumes the stars move together very quickly. This means faster than light travel.

Is there anything that could convince you a supreme being might exist?

Remember I'm agnostic so do think I am trying to preach here.

[Darat]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Not only is a star a massive object. This post also assumes the stars move together very quickly. This means faster than light travel.

Is there anything that could convince you a supreme being might exist?

Remember I'm agnostic so do think I am trying to preach here.

Not to avoid the question but it depends what is meant by supreme being.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Darat
Not to avoid the question but it depends what is meant by supreme being.

How about omnipotent being?

[MRC_Hans]

It would not require any stars to move, just some bending of light. While out of reach of our present technology, we could easily specify the technical requirements of a device that could make stars appear to move. Actually, I'm sure I once read an SF short story about stars being used for advertizing.

Anyhow, a gimmick like this would hardly be worthy of the almighty God. I for one, would be far more impressed if He influenced His believers to follow his word, just for starters.

- In fact, if religious (Christian) people were all to become the peaceful, helpful, non-violent, non-greedy, etc. persons that the Bible instructs them to be, I would sincerely consider joining the congregation, on the principle that "who cares what it is, as long as it works".

[TriangleMan]

Originally posted by aargh57
I guess I just don't have a sufficient philosophical background but I have to say that if the stars spelled out "GOD" I'd seriously have to rethink being an agnostic.
I'd also seriously wonder why "God" would spell his name in English. ;)

It also leads to a question of which God the message referred to. Would you give up agnoticism to become a Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Jew? Muslim? Zorastrian?

Side question: What would the world do if the stars moved to spell out the word "Fred"? ;)

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
It would not require any stars to move, just some bending of light. While out of reach of our present technology, we could easily specify the technical requirements of a device that could make stars appear to move. Actually, I'm sure I once read an SF short story about stars being used for advertizing.

Anyhow, a gimmick like this would hardly be worthy of the almighty God. I for one, would be far more impressed if He influenced His believers to follow his word, just for starters.

- In fact, if religious (Christian) people were to become the peaceful, helpful, non-violent, non-greedy, etc. persons that the Bible instructs them to be, I would sincerely consider joining the congregation, on the principle that "who cares what it is, as long as it works".

True about the light bending technology.

First off, I'm assuming the message is directed at Earth. After all they ARE writing in English.

Don't forget though, for the message to have any meaning to us it would have to take place in the lifetime of our species. That means the aliens would need to know we are here, and time it so the bent light got here before we all died out.

This is making my head hurt.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by TriangleMan
I'd also seriously wonder why "God" would spell his name in English. ;)

It also leads to a question of which God the message referred to. Would you give up agnoticism to become a Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Jew? Muslim? Zorastrian?

Side question: What would the world do if the stars moved to spell out the word "Fred"? ;)

How about:

"This is God, Father of Jesus. I've changed my mind, let gays get married."

Think that would have any effect on politics?


"Neat huh?"

"Testing, Testing, 1,2,3"

"LOL"

"Vacate the Earth at once. An intergalactic highway is scheduled for contruction."

[Savagemutt]

Originally posted by TriangleMan
I'd also seriously wonder why "God" would spell his name in English. ;)

It also leads to a question of which God the message referred to. Would you give up agnoticism to become a Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Jew? Muslim? Zorastrian?

Side question: What would the world do if the stars moved to spell out the word "Fred"? ;)

Duh! Kill all those who reject the gospel of Fred, of course.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

Iacchus, why is God so opposed to people believing in him through visual displays? Faith is usually a bad thing in our material existance. Why does God want us to apply it to him? Because His Spirit dwells in all things, and we might lose sight of that if we held up any one thing in particular as an object of worship. Also, why is it that after Moses and Jesus performed their miracles that people still refused to believe?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
True about the light bending technology.

First off, I'm assuming the message is directed at Earth. After all they ARE writing in English.

Don't forget though, for the message to have any meaning to us it would have to take place in the lifetime of our species. That means the aliens would need to know we are here, and time it so the bent light got here before we all died out.

This is making my head hurt. A bunch of steerable mirrors somewhere around the asteroid belt would do. At that distance, any visiting aliens could both hear our radio and see our TV broadcasts (in itself a good motivation to play a prank on us).

Hans

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
A bunch of steerable mirrors somewhere around the asteroid belt would do. At that distance, any visiting aliens could both hear our radio and see our TV broadcasts (in itself a good motivation to play a prank on us).

Hans

Yea you're right. I saw the error of what said just after I posted it.

Aliens are jerks.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because His Spirit dwells in all things, and we might lose sight of that if we held up any one thing in particular as an object of worship. Also, why is it that after Moses and Jesus performed their miracles that people still refused to believe?

Ok the first part makes no sense. I don't think people would worship the stars. They would worship the thing that MOVED the stars. God seems easily offended for someone who is infinately wise.

Sigh...as for the Bible references. Well you know the problem there I'm sure. I don't believe in the Bible.

Actually, you bring up an excellent problem with the Bible. Do you really think that people are so stupid as to stop worshiping a God who revealed himself so obviously as he did in the Old Testament? This tells me that it is more likely a work of fiction.

[Bikewer]

I'm with Darat and Hans on this one, which brings around the question of "what would you accept as proof of the existence of God (or gods...)?"

As we can concieve of nearly any physical phenomenon being manipulated in some way by someone or something with the means, It would seem to me that the only thing left is transcendence of death.
The existence of a post-life consciousness would be pretty strong evidence of at least what we call the Supernatural, but even this would not necessarily point to the existence of a supreme being.

As I recall, the Bhuddists maintain a belief in a transferable soul and reincarnation without a personified "god" figure.

Hehe- are we sufficiently skeptical to die, wake up in an afterlife, and be confronted by a nebulous something that says "I'm God!", only to say, "Really?"

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Yea you're right. I saw the error of what said just after I posted it.

Aliens are jerks.

Of course they are. And we have evidence of this. Look at the profile of the contactees, not to mention the abduction and killing cattle, the anal probes...

Oh, and why not write Allah - in arab- with the stars?

Another OT point- yes, one could conceive an afterlife without a god, but why not conceive also the existence of a god but no afterlife? Let me guess- that would be bad for the religious business...

[Michael Redman]

I would be content to call a being "god" that made itself known to me and could manipulate the universe to its will without limit, even if it was just some type of evolved alien or some other natural thing, if such a thing is possible. What would the difference be?

In fact, if such a being could even come close in a few areas, say transfigure matter and energy without loss or create it from nothing, gain knowledge instantly of any desired fact, move through time at will, etc., and could demonstrate this to me, I'm not going to be vain enough to insist that my skepticism would remain intact.

But simple optical illusions? A disembidied voice? A face on a sandwich? Only for those who already believe, I think.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

Ok the first part makes no sense. I don't think people would worship the stars. They would worship the thing that MOVED the stars. God seems easily offended for someone who is infinately wise.Yes, but what's to keep them from fashioning something into the form of stars and going around banging people over the head with it? ... in the name of their god of course.


Sigh...as for the Bible references. Well you know the problem there I'm sure. I don't believe in the Bible.So?


Actually, you bring up an excellent problem with the Bible. Do you really think that people are so stupid as to stop worshiping a God who revealed himself so obviously as he did in the Old Testament? This tells me that it is more likely a work of fiction. All it says is that if we worship God on the outside, then we haven't really accepted anything. For example, look at all the people who worship the Bible. ;)

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but what's to keep them from fashioning something into the form of stars and going around banging people over the head with it? ... in the name of their god of course.


So?


All it says is that if we worship God on the outside, then we haven't really accepted anything. For example, look at all the people who worship the Bible. ;)

I still don't get it. Humans live in the material world. God refuses to use material means to reveal himself. How is it my fault if I come to the wrong conclusion.

[Skeptical Greg]

What would be the point of acknowledging the existence of God without having a clear understanding of what he required of us.


As it is now, anyone can start a religion and just make up stuff.



" O.k. God, I believe. Now what ? "

[Cosmo]

If you selectively choose the stars you're observing, you probably could quite easily get them to spell out "god" (or any other word, for that matter, given the sheer quantity of observable stars).

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

I still don't get it. Humans live in the material world. God refuses to use material means to reveal himself. How is it my fault if I come to the wrong conclusion. So what does that tell us, except that God is immaterial and, that we have an immaterial soul as well which, survives death. The point is to get us to understand that there's a greater life than the one we are experiencing currently. So, why get so hung up and deceived by the things of this world?

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So what does that tell us, except that God is immaterial and, that we have an immaterial soul as well which, survives death. The point is to get us to understand that there's a greater life than the one we are experiencing currently. So, why get so hung up and deceived by the things of this world?

How does a lack of action on God's part show that we have immaterial souls?

If God revealed himself. It would be the truth. How am I deceived?

I really AM trying to understand you but your conclusion simply does not follow from your premise.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
...and, that we have an immaterial soul as well which, survives death.

How boring - you're going by the classic christian interpretation. Not to mention that this is a blatant non-sequitir from "God is immaterial".

Originally posted by Iacchus
The point is to get us to understand that there's a greater life than the one we are experiencing currently.

Says who? How do you know the mind of god? Try harder.

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, why get so hung up and deceived by the things of this world?

"This world" is the only thing we have evidence for. You'd better start enjoying it, for our time here is far too short.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

How does a lack of action on God's part show that we have immaterial souls?

If God revealed himself. It would be the truth. How am I deceived?

I really AM trying to understand you but your conclusion simply does not follow from your premise. The truth is evidenced within (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=363).

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The truth is evidenced within (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=363).

Why do you post links to forums in which you are criticised, debunked, and otherwise destroyed by people who reply to your posts?

[KingMerv00]

From Iacchus' link:

""The kingdom of God is within you." ~ Luke 17:20-21 ... Yes, this is where we will find the evidence. In the same way that we find the evidence to everything else. How so? Because the truth is self-evident. If we weren't conscious and self-aware, what would we know about anything?

Yes, the world in which we live is physical, except how do we ascertain anything about it (the truth in other words) except by what we perceive internally? The fact of the matter is we can't. So, like it or not, the physical evidence (of any kind) can only be acknowledged if we are alive and aware to acknowledge it. So, what does that say about the truth of all truths which, does not exist in the physical realm? That we do in fact have the means to validate it, just like we have the means to validate anything else ... internally."


Only one thing is self evident: I think, therefore I am.

Everything else we know is learned over time, including your knowledge of the Bible. The Bible is a material object. The Christian doctrine is a system of beliefs that all come from a physical being: Jesus.

Therefore, Christianity is not self-evident.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cosmo

How boring - you're going by the classic christian interpretation. Not to mention that this is a blatant non-sequitir from "God is immaterial".I have a soul. I know that I have a soul. My soul is my God-connection.


Says who? How do you know the mind of god? Try harder.How do you know I'm a liar? ;)


"This world" is the only thing we have evidence for. You'd better start enjoying it, for our time here is far too short. So, from nothing is whence we came, and nothing is whence we go ... and what do we have in-between, besides nothing? Have you not heard, life is but a dream? ... Or, is it the dream which is real?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cosmo

Why do you post links to forums in which you are criticised, debunked, and otherwise destroyed by people who reply to your posts? Some people are very good at what they do. It doesn't make them right, however. It could be purely a matter of what they perceive.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

From Iacchus' link:

""The kingdom of God is within you." ~ Luke 17:20-21 ... Yes, this is where we will find the evidence. In the same way that we find the evidence to everything else. How so? Because the truth is self-evident. If we weren't conscious and self-aware, what would we know about anything?

Yes, the world in which we live is physical, except how do we ascertain anything about it (the truth in other words) except by what we perceive internally? The fact of the matter is we can't. So, like it or not, the physical evidence (of any kind) can only be acknowledged if we are alive and aware to acknowledge it. So, what does that say about the truth of all truths which, does not exist in the physical realm? That we do in fact have the means to validate it, just like we have the means to validate anything else ... internally."What is the truth without a brain to acknowledge it?


Only one thing is self evident: I think, therefore I am.Then why do you claim to know anything else?


Everything else we know is learned over time, including your knowledge of the Bible. The Bible is a material object. The Christian doctrine is a system of beliefs that all come from a physical being: Jesus.

Therefore, Christianity is not self-evident. The acceptance of what we know is still an internal process.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Then why do you claim to know anything else?


The acceptance of what we know is still an internal process.

I use the word "know" as a because it is convenient. To be honest, I know nothing except that I exist. Everything else I believe is merely a calculated gamble. Perhaps I'm right, perhaps I'm wrong. I believe the existance of God has a very low probability based on the evidence.

In fact, the only reason I do anything at all with my life is because I appear to be stuck with this reality for a while. I don't want to be bored.

Why is the internalization of knowledge important to your argument?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

I use the word "know" as a because it is convenient. To be honest, I know nothing except that I exist. Everything else I believe is merely a calculated gamble. Perhaps I'm right, perhaps I'm wrong. I believe the existance of God has a very low probability based on the evidence.And yet this is the basis for all knowing. Do you know 1 + 1 = 2? How so? Because your teacher told you so?


In fact, the only reason I do anything at all with my life is because I appear to be stuck with this reality for a while. I don't want to be bored.Hey, that's honest. ;)


Why is the internalization of knowledge important to your argument? Well, when considering that God is trancendent, and He doesn't want us to worship Him externally, it has everything to do with it.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet this is the basis for all knowing. Do you know 1 + 1 = 2? How so? Because your teacher told you so?


Well, when considering that God is trancendent, and He doesn't want us to worship Him externally, it has everything to do with it.

Hmmm...Math is a tough one. True, it is perfect but I don't think it math is necessarily self evident. I mean I had to LEARN calculus. To be honest, I'm not sure how to classify math. As far as I can tell though, math is a rare exception.

In your second senctence you have declared the existance of God without evidence and dictated his wishes. By what means do you do this? The Bible? That physical object?

[Michael Redman]

Math is a human creation, like language. You know that 1+1=2 because that's what those symbols mean.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

Math is a human creation, like language. You know that 1+1=2 because that's what those symbols mean. Yes, we are capable of acknowledging the truth ... through the means of symbolism. But how do we know it's true? Doesn't it in fact involve our witnessing of it, interiorly?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

Hmmm...Math is a tough one. True, it is perfect but I don't think it math is necessarily self evident. I mean I had to LEARN calculus. To be honest, I'm not sure how to classify math. As far as I can tell though, math is a rare exception.Would you suggest the fact that the earth is round self-evident? It didn't use to be did it?


In your second senctence you have declared the existance of God without evidence and dictated his wishes. By what means do you do this? The Bible? That physical object? However, would you consider meaning which, is what the Bible is supposed to convey, physical?

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, we are capable of acknowledging the truth ... through the means of symbolism. But how do we know that it's true? Doesn't it in fact involve our witnessing of it, interiorly?

Ok fine. The entire universe exists entirely within my mind due to the way my senses interact with my brain. Now what? I don't see how this means that the Christian God exists.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, when considering that God is trancendent, and He doesn't want us to worship Him externally, it has everything to do with it.

How can you claim to know the mind of God?

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Would you suggest the fact that the earth is round self-evident? It didn't use to be did it?

It *is* self-evident...today. This was not the case 500 years ago, nor do we know what will be self-evident 500 years from now. So what? What's your point? This is merely the process of science - a constant revision.


Originally posted by Iacchus
However, would you consider meaning which, is what the Bible is supposed to convey, physical?

Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle is returning your call.

You have no right to assert your personal, narrow interpretation of the bible as true. There are thousands upon thousands of other interpretations, each claiming equal validity.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Cosmo
It *is* self-evident...today. This was not the case 500 years ago, nor do we know what will be self-evident 500 years from now. So what? What's your point? This is merely the process of science - a constant revision.



The earth is thought to be kinda spherical through oberservation.

I still believe that only my existance is self-evident.

Why? Because the very act of my NOT believing in my own existance PROVES my existance to me.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cosmo

It *is* self-evident...today. This was not the case 500 years ago, nor do we know what will be self-evident 500 years from now. So what? What's your point? This is merely the process of science - a constant revision. The truth is evidenced within (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=363). ;)

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The truth is evidenced within (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=363). ;)

Greater specificity would be appreciated.;)

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, we are capable of acknowledging the truth ... through the means of symbolism. But how do we know it's true?We defined it as true. We know that "1+1=2" is true because we define "1", "+", "2", and "=" such that "1+1=2" is consistant with all those definitions.Doesn't it in fact involve our witnessing of it, interiorly? I'm not sure what this means, but we don't need to witness anything to know that our math is "true".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

Greater specificity would be appreciated.;) What do you mean? This is the truth of all truths. How can we know anything, unless we can see it for ourselves? In fact, this is the very thing which allows us to believe in ourselves ... and God or whatever.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

I'm not sure what this means, but we don't need to witness anything to know that our math is "true". Well, who exactly is doing the calculating, and who's verifying the solution to make sure it's correct? Are you saying it doesn't involve some sort of acknowledgment on your part?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by aargh57
Hello,

I'm currently trying to wade through "Philosophy and Atheism" by Kai Neilson and I was wondering if anyone could help me out with the following passage:
"Someone seeking to resist this conclusion might try to give empirical anchorage to talk of God by utilizing the following fanciful hypothetical case. It is important not to forget, however, that things even remotely like what I shall now describe do not happen. The fanciful case is this: Suppose thousands of us were standing out under the starry skies and we all saw a set of stars rearrange themselves to spell out "God." We would be utterly astonished and indeed rightly think we had gone mad. Even if we could somehow assure ourselves that this was not some form of mass hallucination, though how we could do this is not evident, such an experience would still not constitute evidence for the existence of God, for we still would be without a clue as to what could be meant by speaking of an infinite individual transcendent to the world. Such an observation (i.e., the stars rearranging themselves), no matter how well confirmed, would not ostensively fix the reference range of "God." Talk of such an infinite individual would still remain incomprehesible and it would also have the same appearance of being incoherent. We do not know what we are talking about in speaking of such a transcendent reality. All we would know is that something very strange indeed had happened- something we would not know what to make of."

Is he saying that since God is transcendental (mystical right?) that anything that we would see physically still could not be proof of him? Or is he saying that it is illogical to even define God because he is transcendental so even something fantastic like the stars spelling "God" wouldn't be able to change the fact that he can't be defined?
I guess I just don't have a sufficient philosophical background but I have to say that if the stars spelled out "GOD" I'd seriously have to rethink being an agnostic.

He's saying that it could not be evidence for a God because we do not know what we are uttering in saying that God exists.

A personal comment. I agree that people do not know what they are talking about in talking about God. However, this does not ential that an appropriately defined God is incoherent.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, who exactly is doing the calculating, and who's verifying the solution to make sure it's correct? Are you saying it doesn't involve some sort of acknowledgment on your part? Acknowledgement of what? My own thoughts? Math is simply a thinking exercise. What is your point?

[Anders]

Originally posted by aargh57
[snip] I guess I just don't have a sufficient philosophical background but I have to say that if the stars spelled out "GOD" I'd seriously have to rethink being an agnostic.
And why would it be spelt in the quite small language english? In my language, that would be swedish, the word god is spelt "gud".

And on Planet-X the word god is spelt "lasjdf&4(/&%/%¤kds#", and if that word was shown in the skies I sure woule convert to the beliefs of lasjdf&4(/&%/%¤kds#.

It seems that all discussion on the subject god, goes into the realm of insanity, ilogicality, inconcistancy. So why even bother? There are no gods, no demons, no devils. Hey, if anyone can prove that there are, I'll give them a money price, lets say a $100.

So there all you jesus fans, muhammed groupies, vishnu cheerleaders. Step up, and prove the existence of a deity of your choice and I, Anders, will pay you $100!

[DangerousBeliefs]

This is a very old and fallable argument. It's the old "what if" argument for God's existance.

The fact of the matter is that we have thousands of years for evidence for God's existance and our best evidence for this being is the supposed eye-witness accounts from several thousand years ago. These uneducated, primitive peoples thought the earth was flat, that demons possessed people, that disease or famine was punishment from god(s).

Meanwhile, we could also say that unicorns, giants, demons, dragons, fairies, etc. also have similar evidence.

I would turn that around and say if "God" (in English) was spelled out in the heaven's for tens of thousands of people to see, why would we - given past experience - think it was a supreme being?

At what point do we finally admit that there is no god? Do we keep saying "yeah, but what if" for another 2000 years?

[aargh57]

Interesting Ian,

I guess that's pretty much what I got out of it and I'm just wrestling with that argument. I suppose that I'm pretty much a meat and potatoes type of guy concerning these types of arguments. I don't believe in God because I don't have any evidence. I would believe in God if there were some (and it would seem to me that the stars spelling "God", "Gud", "Frank", "Danny Divito", or "Gumby" would be pretty convincing to me that there was some higher power).

Anders,

Why stop with $100? I'd kick in a few grand for this type of proof myself. In fact, isn't there a fella who would pay a cool million for such proof?

Dangerous,

I guess you're saying that you agree that this wouldn't be evidence but on a different premise. I gather that Nielson's saying that it's not proof basically because we still can't define God while you're saying that it just wouldn't be sufficient evidence regarding our past experience. However, one could allways counter that with more fantastical stuff. I agree with you, though and think that we aren't justified in believing in anything without a shred of evidence to support it and the "what if" argument is bunk.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by aargh57

Anders,

Why stop with $100? I'd kick in a few grand for this type of proof myself. In fact, isn't there a fella who would pay a cool million for such proof? Yes, but why would God allow Randi to do this if God were not so inclined? ;) Certainly if God exists, we would exist in relation to God, and not the other way around. So, maybe this isn't the best way to prove that God exists?

[Anders]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but why would God allow Randi to do this if God were not so inclined? ;) Certainly if God exists, we would exist in relation to God, and not the other way around. So, maybe this isn't the best way to prove that God exists?
I wrote: "Prove the existance of a deity of your choosing and win a hundred box".

I really don't care about anyones relations to anything. Just prove the damn thing and win $100, how hard can it be??

[Anders]

Originally posted by aargh57

Anders,

Why stop with $100? I'd kick in a few grand for this type of proof myself. In fact, isn't there a fella who would pay a cool million for such proof?

The amount doens't really matter, but I can prove that I can pay the money. And, if you refer to the JREF price, it doesn't apply any to religous questions whatsoever.

Maybe we should set up a fund or something! Anyways, it could be tricky designing the rules.

I think it should be based on scientific proofs of different relgious claims, such as "praying helps", or "miracles".

[aargh57]

How about something like this?

Making the stars spell:
"GOD" = $100
"GUD" = 100 euros (BTW how is this abbreviated?)
"FRANK" = $1000
"DANNY DIVITO" = $2000
"GUMBY DAMNIT" = $3000

Anything else is insufficient evidence. If your in good with the big guy this should be easy money.

[Anders]

Originally posted by aargh57
How about something like this?

Making the stars spell:
"GOD" = $100
"GUD" = 100 euros (BTW how is this abbreviated?)
"FRANK" = $1000
"DANNY DIVITO" = $2000
"GUMBY DAMNIT" = $3000

Anything else is insufficient evidence. If your in good with the big guy this should be easy money.
Euros, €, which BTW is not used in Sweden. We still use the SEK, Swedish Krona. About 7 Kronor on the dollar.

And thats a good price list.

"Prove existance of any of the supernatural deities on the list and win the designated money price!".

Danny Divito is not that supernatural.

[Jellby]

Originally posted by aargh57
How about something like this?

Making the stars spell:
"GOD" = $100
"GUD" = 100 euros (BTW how is this abbreviated?)
"FRANK" = $1000
"DANNY DIVITO" = $2000
"GUMBY DAMNIT" = $3000

Anything else is insufficient evidence. If your in good with the big guy this should be easy money.

http://www.terra.es/personal5/jignafez/frank.jpg

I want my $1000, PayPal is fine, thanks.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Not only is a star a massive object. This post also assumes the stars move together very quickly. This means faster than light travel.

Is there anything that could convince you a supreme being might exist?

Carl Sagan had an idea in the book "Contact" that would work pretty well. (This didn't show up in the movie, by the way.) Just like the hidden messages within messages from the aliens, the aliens had discovered hidden messages within transcendental numbers like PI. Go out a few trillion digets and plot it in base 11 in 2d and bingo, a picture of a circle, which statistically should not have occured even in that long a sequence. Go further and there are other geometric shapes.

That would be evidence of the creator of the universe, or at least of the concept of 2 dimensions. Someone from such a high metaphysical level they can set the numbers in what appears to be something defined by pure concept.