Proof/falsification of god.

[transferosome]

In a 'discussion' with a Muslim fundamentalist on You Tube, I was actually asked a half-way interesting question. (Actually I'm being quite unfair. If it was all boring I wouldn't have kept coming back. I certainly learned a lot about the Qu'ran over the time I was there...)

'What would you accept as proof of the existence of God'?

Well... I reeled off a few examples, then told him to use his imagination. It was HIS god, after all!

Anyway, it got me thinking. Can that cut both ways?

So, atheists (agnostics, humanists, deists, etc.) - what would you accept as evidence for the existence of a 'personal' religious god such as Allah, or Jehovah? You can go for full on 'proof positive' or evidence that would require further investigation.

Theists and the religious, what would you accept as falsification for the 'god hypothesis'? Again, you can go for something that would completely disprove your religion and thus make your belief invalid, or you can go for things that would make you think twice.

Sound fair? Cool.

[Beleth]

I have thought about this a lot.

There is an event that could happen which I would consider proof of the existence of a personal God. But it is personal, so telling anyone what it is would invalidate it as evidence. And no, I'm not being flippant; this is my actual answer. All I will say is that setting it up would cost nothing and be doable in 10-15 minutes.

I have told God what this event is. I am telling Him now, even as I type this. Only He and I know, and so the ball is in His court.

[transferosome]

I like it! But what if it happened by accident?

[Loss Leader]

I'd like to separate out two questions. First, there is the type of proof that would be required to get me to believe in a personal, interested and involved God. Second, there is the proof that would get me to care what he thinks or obey his commands.

Perhaps there are some series of events that could get me to believe in God as described in the Torah (or in a being so powerful that he might as well be God). However, I doubt that there is anything at all that could convince me to obey him. He wasn't elected; he wasn't vetted; he isn't even human.

[Irony]

If there were such a thing as a personal religious God, then he could just make me believe in him. He wouldn't have to perform any miracles, he could just manipulate a few brain cells and *poof* I'm a believer.

If he wanted to make us believe via miracles then all it would take would be a few miracles that weren't obvious hoaxes, like a giant hand coming out of the clouds and crushing Pat Robertson or something.

[thaiboxerken]

It would require a definition of what "god" is that included attributes. After that, it would require scientific validation that such a being existed.

[Beleth]

I like it! But what if it happened by accident?
I took that into account. It could not happen by accident.

[Beleth]

I doubt that there is anything at all that could convince me to obey him. He wasn't elected; he wasn't vetted; he isn't even human.
Neither are traffic signs, but I bet you obey those.

I'm not saying that you should obey God. I'm just saying that "elected, vetted, and human" are not necessary criteria to determine obedience.

[Miss Anthrope]

If, out of nowhere, the starving and disease ravaged people in Africa were healed and nourished by that heavenly raining manna that god saw fit to feed his wandering tribe, sure, I'd change my tune in a heartbeat.

[ReligionStudent]

Neither are traffic signs, but I bet you obey those.

I'm not saying that you should obey God. I'm just saying that "elected, vetted, and human" are not necessary criteria to determine obedience.

But those are put there by elected humans. So, its like they are communicating with you. Perhaps a better example would be the colors of a coral snake, "Red and black's a friend to Jack, red and yellow can kill a fellow."

[ReligionStudent]

If, out of nowhere, the starving and disease ravaged people in Africa were healed and nourished by that heavenly raining manna that god saw fit to feed his wandering tribe, sure, I'd change my tune in a heartbeat.

I think for me it depends on what god you are trying to prove. If we are talking about an all powerful/knowing/good god, that boat sailed a long time ago. Human history is full of illustrations against that.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If there were such a thing as a personal religious God, then he could just make me believe in him. He wouldn't have to perform any miracles, he could just manipulate a few brain cells and *poof* I'm a believer.
If IT showed you too much, you would lose yourself in the process. You wouldn't be the person YOU made you. If IT showed you an outright miracle, the same thing would happen. You could learn to think that even though you are driving reckless, that God would get you home.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'd like to separate out two questions. First, there is the type of proof that would be required to get me to believe in a personal, interested and involved God. Second, there is the proof that would get me to care what he thinks or obey his commands.

Perhaps there are some series of events that could get me to believe in God as described in the Torah (or in a being so powerful that he might as well be God). However, I doubt that there is anything at all that could convince me to obey him. He wasn't elected; he wasn't vetted; he isn't even human.
This is the attitude that is most potent. Someone who is waiting for signs to act and do, would require to much guidance.

[Loss Leader]

Neither are traffic signs, but I bet you obey those.


Actually, I obey the law that says that the traffic signs have meaning. That law was written by elected officials. And those signs were placed on the road by order of elected officials.


I'm not saying that you should obey God. I'm just saying that "elected, vetted, and human" are not necessary criteria to determine obedience.


They are to me.

[Beleth]

Actually, I obey the law that says that the traffic signs have meaning. That law was written by elected officials. And those signs were placed on the road by order of elected officials.
But is that the reason you obey them? Do you obey them because you will go to jail if you don't, or do you obey them because you will get in a horrible accident if you don't?

If you were driving across private property (with the permission of the owner, of course), and you came to a crossroads with four-way stop, and you knew that the stop signs were placed there at the whim of the owner and not because any elected agency mandated them, would you stop?

[Bikewer]

I ascribe to the adage proposed by Arthur C. Clarke, "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
So, even truly remarkable "miracles" might be evidence of a supernatural being, or of a vastly advanced technology.

Having thought about this a bit as well, the only thing I can think of is the transcendence of death.
That would be proof of some sort of "supernatural" or spiritual realm, at any rate.

[transferosome]

I ascribe to the adage proposed by Arthur C. Clarke, "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
So, even truly remarkable "miracles" might be evidence of a supernatural being, or of a vastly advanced technology.

Having thought about this a bit as well, the only thing I can think of is the transcendence of death.
That would be proof of some sort of "supernatural" or spiritual realm, at any rate.

Hmm. Unless we were 'shown' the spirit realm (which could be done with hyper-tech smoke and mirrors I guess) we'd have to wait until we died to find out. No better than where we are now.

That whole alien technology things gets me, too. I thought about it a lot...

I'd say that a message to His chosen people written in the background radiation of the universe would be a bit of a show-stopper.

Interesting and worthy of further investigation would be controlled experiments showing the effect of prayer - resulting in statistically relevant results, but only for one religious group.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Money. I'll believe anything for enough of it.

[transferosome]

Money. I'll believe anything for enough of it.

Hahahaha! Fantastic.

[Ginarley]

I don't think any one event would be enough to convince me.

Think about gravity - its not the fact something fell earthwards once that convinced people, but the fact that it did it repeatedly and in fact never hasn't done it. With further exploration we noticed this applied to other planets and so on - it fits with everything we know about the world.

To convince me there is a god I would need to see continual repeatable evidence of its existence - not random glimpses artificially dragged into a false context. This evidence would need to be consistent and meaningful (ie not the gaps argument).

Unfortunately for theists it seems disproving their belief often requires overcoming the programming from birth to believe it at all costs. Its not about evidence but psychology.

[transferosome]

I don't think any one event would be enough to convince me.

Think about gravity - its not the fact something fell earthwards once that convinced people, but the fact that it did it repeatedly and in fact never hasn't done it. With further exploration we noticed this applied to other planets and so on - it fits with everything we know about the world.

To convince me there is a god I would need to see continual repeatable evidence of its existence - not random glimpses artificially dragged into a false context. This evidence would need to be consistent and meaningful (ie not the gaps argument).

Unfortunately for theists it seems disproving their belief often requires overcoming the programming from birth to believe it at all costs. Its not about evidence but psychology.

Some good points there....

I know it's about psychology, you know it's about psychology... This is more of a thought experiment though.

People didn't 'notice' gravity before it was pinned down by Newton.... Things just fell.

If it turned out that prayer consistently worked for believers of a certain god, I think that it wouldn't have been noticed much until tested. It would just have 'happened.' If enough tests confirmed it, it would require further study - development of new hypotheses, new tests, etc.

Are there any theists on this board?

[Ginarley]

People didn't 'notice' gravity before it was pinned down by Newton.... Things just fell.

Yep - i was struggling for an analogous example. The problem with god is that there are no directly observed phenomena of any supernatural deity - and it's simply too big a concept for the evidence to be well hidden lol.

If it turned out that prayer consistently worked for believers of a certain god, I think that it wouldn't have been noticed much until tested. It would just have 'happened.' If enough tests confirmed it, it would require further study - development of new hypotheses, new tests, etc.

This would certainly be interesting but its not very direct in terms of proving the existence of the god itself. And as I said before, if the only way such a big concept can manifest itself is through statistically significant improvements in health then it seems pretty impotent lol.

[transferosome]

Yep - i was struggling for an analogous example. The problem with god is that there are no directly observed phenomena of any supernatural deity - and it's simply too big a concept for the evidence to be well hidden lol.



This would certainly be interesting but its not very direct in terms of proving the existence of the god itself. And as I said before, if the only way such a big concept can manifest itself is through statistically significant improvements in health then it seems pretty impotent lol.

I'm with you, hence the 'further research required.' However, it may all just be part of His Ineffable Plan. The real reward would, of course, be after death ;)

[Dog Boots]

I have thought about this a lot.

There is an event that could happen which I would consider proof of the existence of a personal God. But it is personal, so telling anyone what it is would invalidate it as evidence.

Aw, c'mon - what is it? Sisters? The neighbor? ;)

Seriously, I think it's a very interesting issue. If we are to be reasonable debaters, we have to be able to provide some criteria for the oppositions arguments to live up to.

What would mine be (for the theists to deliver)? Hard to say - could have so many different forms, but something "positive" instead of just a "lack" of explanation, as we know it from the ever shrinking god of the gaps. Something spectacular, on the scale of what we can read about in the BuyBull, that for some reason has stopped occurring in recent times.

In one of the few debates I've heard where someone could actually handle Kent Hovind's slippery style (a Canadian named Martin, calling in to Hovind's radioshow from Sweden), Hovind was asked what he would consider ample evidence for evolution. Smart move - Hovind would have to comply to seem like a reasonable debater. What did he say? "I would have to see a horse give birth to a non-horse". I don't know what theory would be compatible with that observation, but it surely would not be the Theory of Evolution...

[Pope130]

Money. I'll believe anything for enough of it.

"I'll believe anything you want if there's a steady paycheck in it." Winston Zedmore

[DangerousBeliefs]

How about a message in the randomness of pi?

That would mean a Universe creator actually left a message in the fabric of the Universe.

(Moment of silence for Carl Sagan)

[ReligionStudent]

How about a message in the randomness of pi?

That would mean a Universe creator actually left a message in the fabric of the Universe.

(Moment of silence for Carl Sagan)


No that would mean somewhere in an infinite string of numbers some made readable sence. I believe this is like saying the bible code means that there are messages coded in the bible.

[Danhalen]

If there is a deity, it can compell me to believe it exists. Until it does, I cannot believe.

[transferosome]

If there is a deity, it can compell me to believe it exists. Until it does, I cannot believe.

Fault!

The idea of 'free will' negates God doing that. Not that He can't, just that He doesn't want to. According to the theists, the whole point is that you have a choice. 'Making' you believe would go against His plan for creation.

Sorry... You're out!

(You can have another try if you like...:))

[transferosome]

How about a message in the randomness of pi?

That would mean a Universe creator actually left a message in the fabric of the Universe.

(Moment of silence for Carl Sagan)

Yeah, that's why I like the 'message in the background radiation' idea. In both cases it would have to be really obvious though. Like, coded into PI as ASCII (showing temporal omnipresence), or written into the background radiation obviously as ancient Hebrew or Esperanto or something. ;)

[transferosome]

Aw, c'mon - what is it? Sisters? The neighbor? ;)

Seriously, I think it's a very interesting issue. If we are to be reasonable debaters, we have to be able to provide some criteria for the oppositions arguments to live up to.


Bingo.

That's why I'd like some theists on here as well, to provide some falsifiability. Sounds like a fair exchange to me. It'd be nice to get some rational cards on the table.

I also think it's interesting to explore the boundaries of your beliefs. It gives you an insight into how strongly you hold them... And how open minded you are.

[Sceptic Realist]

Bingo.

That's why I'd like some theists on here as well, to provide some falsifiability. Sounds like a fair exchange to me. It'd be nice to get some rational cards on the table.

I also think it's interesting to explore the boundaries of your beliefs. It gives you an insight into how strongly you hold them... And how open minded you are.

Hear hear!

By the way, welcome to JREF!

[Loss Leader]

But is that the reason you obey them? Do you obey them because you will go to jail if you don't, or do you obey them because you will get in a horrible accident if you don't?


Your question leads me to clarify my original answer. The ultimate source of all of my obedience/disobelience is reason. I do whatever I do because I have applied my reason to decide whether it is the right course. I am guided by my sense of morality (whatever that may be and however that may have developed).

When I say that I wouldn't obey God because he wasn't elected, I skipped a step. I meant that I have applied reason to decide that obedience of the laws of the US is (almost) always in my interest. So the question of whether God was elected is only a shortcut for the real question which is whether I believe any particular commandment is reasonable.

I obey lots of things that aren't democratically-created laws because they are reasonable. I would do that with any proclamation from God.

---------

P.S. Please don't tell me that my morality arose from circumstances beyond my control during my formative years and, thus, may not be ultimately based on reason. I am aware of this and, frankly, it makes me a little seasick.

[Beleth]

Aw, c'mon - what is it? Sisters? The neighbor? ;)
Okay, I'll give a hint. This is the biggest hint I have ever given.

Imagine looking up at the Moon one night and seeing a picture of the first person you ever had a crush on instead of the normal face of the Moon. Then the next night it's the first person you ever kissed. Then the next night it's the person you're most in love with right now. And so on; pictures of people you have had close relationships with throughout your life.

They are people spread out through your entire life, so even though others may know one or two or even three of the people, the entire sequence only applies to you. It's not something that could happen by chance. And it's not something someone who wasn't you, or God, could set up. And since you didn't set it up, God must have. Therefore God exists.

My event is not that. But it's like that.

[Beleth]

Your question leads me to clarify my original answer. The ultimate source of all of my obedience/disobelience is reason. I do whatever I do because I have applied my reason to decide whether it is the right course. I am guided by my sense of morality (whatever that may be and however that may have developed).
Okay then. So I was right -- your decision to obey is based on other things besides "elected, vetted, and human".

So is mine, for what it's worth.

P.S. Please don't tell me that my morality arose from circumstances beyond my control during my formative years and, thus, may not be ultimately based on reason. I am aware of this and, frankly, it makes me a little seasick.

Wouldn't dream of it. I just wanted to clarify what you said.

[Beleth]

That's why I'd like some theists on here as well, to provide some falsifiability. Sounds like a fair exchange to me. It'd be nice to get some rational cards on the table.
For the record, I consider myself a Deist.

To be honest, I can't think of anything that would falsify my belief. Perhaps if science could explain everything. Hmmm, no, not even then; just because science gave a sufficient answer to everything still doen't mean that's what's really going on.

I will have to think about this some more.
Excellent question!

[Jimbo07]

Imagine looking up at the Moon one night and seeing a picture of the first person you ever had a crush on instead of the normal face of the Moon. Then the next night it's the first person you ever kissed.

Just to be clear, other people would see the faces, just not understand the sequence? It would have to be, to eliminate hallucination, I think...

[The Great Hairy One]

For this post, we're assuming that that the god-delusion under consideration equals the christian style omni-being. If you want to discuss a different definition of a god-delusion, please say so.

For me, there's a list of criteria:

1) The evidence must be external to myself - in other words, it must be seen/experienced by others. Anything personal would make me doubt my own sanity, and I would consider myself insane if I was the only one affected or interacting with the experience.

2) The evidence must be scientifically verifiable and repeatable - in other words, happens regularly, often or constantly. A single instance could be mass hallucination or something similar. Furthermore, the evidence must be examinable by scientific means, machines and equipment.

3) The evidence must be overwhelming, like Miss Anthrope's example. Every single sick person in the world suddenly being healed - and any injury over the next period of time also being healed. With a voiceover of "By my will be healed!" or something like that. Everyone who had broken the biblical laws being crisped by a pillar of hellfire and a voiceover "be punished by my will sinner!".

Cheers,
TGHO

[Kopji]

For this post, we're assuming that that the god-delusion under consideration equals the Christian style omni-being. If you want to discuss a different definition of a god-delusion, please say so.

For me, there's a list of criteria:

1) The evidence must be external to myself - in other words, it must be seen/experienced by others. Anything personal would make me doubt my own sanity, and I would consider myself insane if I was the only one affected or interacting with the experience.


The potential flaw in this is that your experience of 'others' is also internal. Suppose your memory were flawed in a way that you hallucinated other people affirming what never happened?


2) The evidence must be scientifically verifiable and repeatable - in other words, happens regularly, often or constantly. A single instance could be mass hallucination or something similar. Furthermore, the evidence must be examinable by scientific means, machines and equipment.

Would this really be convincing? God would need to act within the finite world and so 'falsely' appear as a finite being. This seems a strength of Christianity, where God exists in an infinite sense, yet also finite. How would we tell God from a really advanced civilization or being?


3) The evidence must be overwhelming, like Miss Anthrope's example. Every single sick person in the world suddenly being healed - and any injury over the next period of time also being healed. With a voiceover of "By my will be healed!" or something like that. Everyone who had broken the biblical laws being crisped by a pillar of hellfire and a voiceover "be punished by my will sinner!".

Cheers,
TGHO

Oddly enough, I think that even if this happened there would be a substantial population that believed it was of the devil. The Bible has a weird quality about it where every passage can have multiple meanings, and this also means there is not a single 'miracle' or 'sign' that could appear and satisfy everyone. Just look at all the wacky prophets even in this forum.

[The Great Hairy One]

The potential flaw in this is that your experience of 'others' is also internal. Suppose your memory were flawed in a way that you hallucinated other people affirming what never happened?


We're all disembodied brains in jars, plugged into the Matrix. Nothing is real, and it's all an illusion;)

Your argument is valid irrespective of what someone answers here.

Would this really be convincing? God would need to act within the finite world and so 'falsely' appear as a finite being. This seems a strength of Christianity, where God exists in an infinite sense, yet also finite. How would we tell God from a really advanced civilization or being?


I would assume that the instance of evidence in this case would completely re-write or utterly invalidate what we currently understand of basic physics. Whatever it is occurring would be so fanstatical that everyone would be scratching their heads and asking for grants to study the effects.

Advanced alien technology, even if not understandable, would (I assume) still correlate with the very basics of science even us primitive humans currently know.

Oddly enough, I think that even if this happened there would be a substantial population that believed it was of the devil. The Bible has a weird quality about it where every passage can have multiple meanings, and this also means there is not a single 'miracle' or 'sign' that could appear and satisfy everyone. Just look at all the wacky prophets even in this forum.


One person's god is another's satan. Dunno where the quote comes from, but I am sure I've heard it before. :)

Cheers,
TGHO

[transferosome]

I would assume that the instance of evidence in this case would completely re-write or utterly invalidate what we currently understand of basic physics. Whatever it is occurring would be so fanstatical that everyone would be scratching their heads and asking for grants to study the effects.

Advanced alien technology, even if not understandable, would (I assume) still correlate with the very basics of science even us primitive humans currently know.

Assume away, but there's a touch of hubris is assuming that we'd understand even the basic principles of ALL science.... Or an alien equivalent thereof. I mean, we haven't even discovered slood yet.

Much of what we do know would appear as 'magic' to people of even a couple of hunderd years ago. We still have real problems with a fundamental lack of understanding about our universe... We've come a long way, but what exactly ARE dark matter and dark energy? Maybe they hold a key to a whole new branch of science, or infinite energy, or teleportation, or wormholes, or something we can't even imkagine right now. Who knows? I mean, who could possibly have guessed quantum mechanics?

What if we were visited by aliens who evolved in space itself? Such a lifeform wouldn't have technology which is ultimately based on fire, as ours is... Coming from a different direction, it would most likely be completely alien in every way.

I like your 'rewriting physics' idea... It might be tricky to set that up without changing the way things work enough to make us pop out of existence though.

[transferosome]

For the record, I consider myself a Deist.

To be honest, I can't think of anything that would falsify my belief. Perhaps if science could explain everything. Hmmm, no, not even then; just because science gave a sufficient answer to everything still doen't mean that's what's really going on.

I will have to think about this some more.
Excellent question!

Thanks! :D

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as a Deist, I understand that you don't believe in a personal god? More one who set things up then stood back? A bit like the 'The universe is an alien kid's science project' hypothesis. ;)

That's kinda unfalsifyable, almost by definition.

If I am right, a personal god would require a severe shift in belief. If so, for the purposes of this argument, I consider you to be on 'our' side - atheists, agnostics and deists, as opposed to theists and fundamentalists.

What would convince you of the existence of a particular personal god - say an Abrahamic one? Or even some Norse gods?

If you CAN think up a falsifyability for a deist god, I'd LOVE to hear it! I'd love to hear your belief structure explained as well, as I'm sure 'deist' can have as many subtleties as 'atheist'...

[H3LL]

'What would you accept as proof of the existence of God'?

Being topical.

The resurrection of all victims of the Virginia Massacre and making Cho Seung-hui incredibly rich and sane would certainly do it for me.

Well documented from many independent sources. All the victims alive and kicking is a real winner.

.

[transferosome]

Interesting... I'm not the only one to think this.

_rqUsC2KsiI

4qmcOG-na4E

Come on, theists! There must be some of you on this board. This guy's calling you all closed-minded, prove him wrong!

[ReligionStudent]

Okay, I'll give a hint. This is the biggest hint I have ever given.

Imagine looking up at the Moon one night and seeing a picture of the first person you ever had a crush on instead of the normal face of the Moon. Then the next night it's the first person you ever kissed. Then the next night it's the person you're most in love with right now. And so on; pictures of people you have had close relationships with throughout your life.

They are people spread out through your entire life, so even though others may know one or two or even three of the people, the entire sequence only applies to you. It's not something that could happen by chance. And it's not something someone who wasn't you, or God, could set up. And since you didn't set it up, God must have. Therefore God exists.

My event is not that. But it's like that.

It's somthing that could happen if you were mentally unglued, or had accidently ingested hallusinagenic drugs.

[Beleth]

Just to be clear, other people would see the faces, just not understand the sequence? It would have to be, to eliminate hallucination, I think...
Yes, although I don't suppose any proof can totally eliminate the possibility of hallucination. I could just be hallucinating the other people saying they can see the faces too.

Also important to consider is that this would be a very personal proof. Personal God, personal proof. It would not necessarily convince anyone else.


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as a Deist, I understand that you don't believe in a personal god? More one who set things up then stood back? A bit like the 'The universe is an alien kid's science project' hypothesis. ;)
There are subtleties to my belief that aren't in that analogy, but yeah, that's a good first draft.

If I am right, a personal god would require a severe shift in belief. If so, for the purposes of this argument, I consider you to be on 'our' side - atheists, agnostics and deists, as opposed to theists and fundamentalists.
Yes.

What would convince you of the existence of a particular personal god - say an Abrahamic one? Or even some Norse gods?We've been talking about this :) See posts 2 and 34 in this thread.

If you CAN think up a falsifyability for a deist god, I'd LOVE to hear it! I'd love to hear your belief structure explained as well, as I'm sure 'deist' can have as many subtleties as 'atheist'...Falsifiability, I think, would come down to proving whether a universe is creatable or not. The only way to prove that a universe is creatable is by creating one. And that proof is not going to come in my lifetime.

My favorite analogy of God is that of a potter, and the universe is a pot He's moderately happy with. He might have it on His mantle, along with several other pots. He might have given it or sold it to someone else. But He's not part of it, and the only way He could fix any of its flaws is by destroying it and starting over.

But this is starting to drift away from the topic!

[roger]

What would convince me?

Exactly the same evidence that convinces me that person X that I know owns the Italian restaurant next door. In other words not much, but a heck of a lot.

What on earth do I mean? Well, I knew the old owner of the restaurant, and talked to him about selling it. Then he sold it. Then Carlo showed up, saying he and his wife owned the restaurant. There's a business license tacked up on the wall, but I never leaned over to make sure Carlo's name was on it. I've never gone down to city hall to check his claim, but I could. More importantly, in the years he has been here, no one has ever been standing at the counter, yelling at him to stop pretending the business is his. No cops have ever shown up to drag him to prison. So, while I don't have the paperwork in hand showing Carlo to be the business owner, I am satisfied he is the owner.

What does this have to do with a God claim? Well, any individual act can be attributed to other things. Raise someone from the dead? Part the red sea? We can think of, or at least imagine technology or trickery to accomplish those things. When the presense of a God is interwoven in such a way that the individual claims are quite pedestrian, and easy to verify in the same way I could verify Carlo owns the restaurant, then I will believe. "Hey God, can you stop the rain, I just paid $200 for my shoes?" "no probemo", and the rain shuts off. "Hey God, tell me X about human evolution history", "well..." and two years later we have multiple independently confirmed digs that show that God was correct. Etc. I may still not have proof that the God created this universe, but if he regularly displays omnipotence, I'll credit that he is omnipotent.

Likewise, if I die, and spend a few decades in some kind of heaven or alternate reality, I'll believe, but I'm sure at the beginning I'll strongly suspect it is just a hallucination.

[transferosome]

We've been talking about this :) See posts 2 and 34 in this thread.



So we have! Doh. :)



Falsifiability, I think, would come down to proving whether a universe is creatable or not. The only way to prove that a universe is creatable is by creating one. And that proof is not going to come in my lifetime.

My favorite analogy of God is that of a potter, and the universe is a pot He's moderately happy with. He might have it on His mantle, along with several other pots. He might have given it or sold it to someone else. But He's not part of it, and the only way He could fix any of its flaws is by destroying it and starting over.

But this is starting to drift away from the topic!

I like the analogy. I think exploring the deist belief system is something I'd like to do, maybe in another thread...

[Beerina]

So, atheists (agnostics, humanists, deists, etc.) - what would you accept as evidence for the existence of a 'personal' religious god such as Allah, or Jehovah? You can go for full on 'proof positive' or evidence that would require further investigation.

A god as portrayed in most religions? I don't know. If they expanded my mind so I could understand the supposed ability of them to be all-powerful, perfectly good, and yet let children be raped and murdered screaming, then I might accept it.

However, if some guy showed me a room with all kinds of levers where I could stop time, play with people's minds and thoughts, re-design DNA, re-design even atoms and physics, create universes at will, etc., then I would reasonably conclude they were the creator of this universe (or at least were indistinguishible from something capable of it) but that would not be the kind of Holy, spiritual being that religions portray.

[Beerina]

How about a message in the randomness of pi?

That would mean a Universe creator actually left a message in the fabric of the Universe.

Deeper than that -- the creator of mathematics and logic would have embedded such a message -- and we'd have no way to understand how that even could be. But at the least, it would preceed the existence of something as mundane as an actual universe and a physical reality.

That was something the book Contact went into much more than the movie. IIRC, in the book (at least the ones published in the mid '80's), the small wormholes were shorter and created by the aliens. The large, inter-galactic, long-distance ones were created by a race of pre-aliens (for lack of a better term) that the movie mentions as "they were gone long before we got here", and the (current) aliens didn't know how they built them. (The movie merely touches on this as Ellie enters a bigger wormhole, "This one's much more violent.") They also didn't know who created the messages embedded in various transcendental and transfinite numbers, a message from an even deeper source than the pre-aliens.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

I don't think anything could make me believe in any god. I tried earnestly for almost 20 years and found not even a shred of "faith". Not only could I not find it, but no one could tell me how to find it. I sincerely asked family, friends, church-goers, and church leaders (preachers, ministers, elders, etc). They would always say things like "Read the Bible" or "You just have to believe" or, my personal favorite, "You're a sinner and you're going to hell." I tried and prayed so hard for so many years; in the end, I felt nothing but disillusioned. Even if a god someday "appeared" and/or "spoke" to me, I'd probably think that I was crazy. Unless it was Mr Skinny, of course.

Religions and the idea of gods just never made sense to me, even as a child. On the other hand, science makes quite a lot of sense to me. The more I found out about anthropology, socialogy, biology, and psychiatry, the more I realized that the answers I was looking for were not in churches or holy books.

[transferosome]

I don't think anything could make me believe in any god. I tried earnestly for almost 20 years and found not even a shred of "faith". Not only could I not find it, but no one could tell me how to find it. I sincerely asked family, friends, church-goers, and church leaders (preachers, ministers, elders, etc). They would always say things like "Read the Bible" or "You just have to believe" or, my personal favorite, "You're a sinner and you're going to hell." I tried and prayed so hard for so many years; in the end, I felt nothing but disillusioned. Even if a god someday "appeared" and/or "spoke" to me, I'd probably think that I was crazy. Unless it was Mr Skinny, of course.

Religions and the idea of gods just never made sense to me, even as a child. On the other hand, science makes quite a lot of sense to me. The more I found out about anthropology, socialogy, biology, and psychiatry, the more I realized that the answers I was looking for were not in churches or holy books.

That sounds sucky. Still, I'm sue all free, rational thinkers are glad to have you among their number. :D

Anyway, I'm not necessarily looking for something to make you *believe*... Just what, as a scientific thinker, you would consider as proof of, or evidence supporting, a personal god. Like Jehova or something.

:)

[PrincessIneffabelle]

And my answer, craftily contained in my previous post, was that nothing would make me believe in any gods.

I don't think that there could be any evidence or proof, because, as a rational thinker, I could not be sure that it wasn't my brain going on the fritz.

[transferosome]

And my answer, craftily contained in my previous post, was that nothing would make me believe in any gods.

I don't think that there could be any evidence or proof, because, as a rational thinker, I could not be sure that it wasn't my brain going on the fritz.

Apologies. I tend to place 'Belief' and 'Evidence' in separate mental compartments. :) Evidence of existence does not always lead to 'belief' - nor does belief require evidence of existence.

It sounds like your atheism is a belief system itself. If I was shown enough good evidence of ANYTHING, I'd like to think that I'd give it a fair shot... If the evidence was overwhelming I'd accept it. At least until more, new, contrary evidence came through.

If I were to hold on to my atheism despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, prefering to attribute it all to my brain playing up, I wouldn't really be rational. Would I?

How about things observed by other people as well? If your brain is THAT much on the fritz that you're hallucinating the news, or your friends' actions, then the eternal mystery of the existence of god would probably be the last of your problems...

[Orangutan]

Well In the Bible God makes the Sun Stand still in the heavens. If he could do that for a few hours I would be convinced. Of course I wouldn't know who's God did it, there might have to be some other heavenly sign to to clarify that it isn't Vishnu having a bit of a laugh.

[transferosome]

Well In the Bible God makes the Sun Stand still in the heavens. If he could do that for a few hours I would be convinced. Of course I wouldn't know who's God did it, there might have to be some other heavenly sign to to clarify that it isn't Vishnu having a bit of a laugh.

Darren Brown turned day into night for one guy. Simply put him into a trance for a few hours, then woke him up.

Granted, sun stoppig would be harder to fake. If it was confirmed by astronomers (and we all had to adjust our watches and calendars to fit the new orbits) I'd be impressed for sure. :)

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Apologies. I tend to place 'Belief' and 'Evidence' in separate mental compartments. :) Evidence of existence does not always lead to 'belief' - nor does belief require evidence of existence.

It sounds like your atheism is a belief system itself. If I was shown enough good evidence of ANYTHING, I'd like to think that I'd give it a fair shot... If the evidence was overwhelming I'd accept it. At least until more, new, contrary evidence came through.

If I were to hold on to my atheism despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, prefering to attribute it all to my brain playing up, I wouldn't really be rational. Would I?

How about things observed by other people as well? If your brain is THAT much on the fritz that you're hallucinating the news, or your friends' actions, then the eternal mystery of the existence of god would probably be the last of your problems...

And how do I know that's not the case? For all I know, I could be a figment of someone else's dream. For all I know, I could be in a coma or a mental institution. My observable world makes sense to me now. If it suddenly started to not make sense, I would not jump to a "gods are real" conclusion.

Other people seeing something or experiencing something mystical or religious doesn't provide evidence to me. We have all read reports of weeping statues, visitations by angels/gods, images of Mary/Jesus everywhere, and "Allah" in fish and tomatoes; the list is seemingly endless.

I tried to make sense of religion for a long time and I never could. When I learned more about science the physical world (and the people in it) started making a lot more sense to me. I honestly don't know what kind of evidence it would take for me to suddenly believe in gods. What if I heard a god's voice in my head? Probably an auditory hallucination. What if a god appeared before me? Probably a visual hallucination. What if a god emailed me? Probably spam. Those are my rational explanations to "mystical" experiences.

What I think is that the mystical or religious experiences cannot be conclusively proven or disproven. That makes me an agnostic, not an atheist.

[transferosome]

And how do I know that's not the case? For all I know, I could be a figment of someone else's dream. For all I know, I could be in a coma or a mental institution. My observable world makes sense to me now. If it suddenly started to not make sense, I would not jump to a "gods are real" conclusion.

Other people seeing something or experiencing something mystical or religious doesn't provide evidence to me. We have all read reports of weeping statues, visitations by angels/gods, images of Mary/Jesus everywhere, and "Allah" in fish and tomatoes; the list is seemingly endless.

I tried to make sense of religion for a long time and I never could. I learned more about science and the physical world (and the people in it) started making a lot more sense to me. I honestly don't know what kind of evidence it would take for me to suddenly believe in gods. What if I heard a god's voice in my head? Probably an auditory hallucination. What if a god appeared before me? Probably a visual hallucination. What if a god emailed me? Probably spam. Those are my rational explanations to "mystical" experiences.

What I think is that the mystical or religious experiences cannot be conclusively proven or disproven. That makes me an agnostic, not an atheist.

OK, a lot of this is playing devil's advocate. Remember, I'm exploring the limits of my own rationality and belief here as well as asking people to explore theirs...

I accept that if if the universe stopped making sense it would be wise to give the old noggin a check-up. However, if you were to selectively use mental illness as an excuse to ignore a mountain of (hypothetical) evidence in favour of a god, you would be guilty of irrational bias. Just as irrational as the Inquisition were when they held Galileo for saying we're not as imporrtant as we thought. It would smack of a strong, unshakable belief in no god - or so-called 'hard' atheism.

Remember, all I'm asking for is something which would make you look twice, consider interesting, consider worthy of further research. Not necessarily 'sudden belief'. We're rational thinkers - it's not 'all or nothing'.

There's literally an infinity of possibilities out there and this is just a thought experiment. Can't you think of even one? It can be as ludicrous as you like, we're talking about an omnipotent being here ;)

What about back when you were looking deeply into religion? What would have convinced you - or made you think twice - then?

[strathmeyer]

I would accept absolutely any proof at all.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I don't think anything could make me believe in any god. I tried earnestly for almost 20 years and found not even a shred of "faith". Not only could I not find it, but no one could tell me how to find it. I sincerely asked family, friends, church-goers, and church leaders (preachers, ministers, elders, etc). They would always say things like "Read the Bible" or "You just have to believe" or, my personal favorite, "You're a sinner and you're going to hell." I tried and prayed so hard for so many years; in the end, I felt nothing but disillusioned. Even if a god someday "appeared" and/or "spoke" to me, I'd probably think that I was crazy. Unless it was Mr Skinny, of course.

Religions and the idea of gods just never made sense to me, even as a child. On the other hand, science makes quite a lot of sense to me. The more I found out about anthropology, socialogy, biology, and psychiatry, the more I realized that the answers I was looking for were not in churches or holy books.
This is my story too. But, the order of it all, tells me that it has to have a designer. "Something" most responsible for IT. The "something" that makes it go. Humans "feel," and give that something voice. We see the "voice" as the many religions that essentially point to the same place, and through science, that knows; "there has to be a reason."

[Beleth]

I would accept absolutely any proof at all.
Behold, proof (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FirstFundamentalTheoremofCalculus.html).

[Iamme]

I like it! But what if it happened by accident?

An 'accident' that Moses with a beard down to his knees (real, not fake) holding the stone tablets, came knocking at my door right after I wished him to do so?

[The Grave]

Genesis 3:"And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."

Response

1- The fact of light being 'good' is only relevant to beings with eyes. Why would god think of light as 'good'. No this clearly shows that right from the start, the bible is written by men for men.[not women]. It is not the word of a god.

2- Light and dark cannot be 'separated'. In fact there is no such thing as 'dark', in the same way that there is no colour 'black'. Both dark&black are merely what we perceive when there is no light, to stimulate nerves. So god cannot by definition, do this thing, so it didn't happen and the Genesis is fraudulent and so to is god a hoax.

3- In fact, in the solar system, there is NO SUCH THING AS NIGHT, and any god worth worshipping should know that. Whereas stone aged man would not! The fact is that it is ALWAYS DAY, and you call it night only when you stand in the shadow of the Earth! Would you call it night, if a fat person sat on your face and blocked the light? [No that would be the end!]. Also, that's just the type of hocus pocus that stone aged man would believe...especially when there was a solar eclipse!

Griff...We still live in the dark ages...well some of us do. THINK!

I thought this was so good it had to come here too!

THE MYSTERY OF GOD

God is a tree without roots
A galloping horse without legs
An eagle, soaring without wings...

God is tasteless, formless and empty.
They flavour IT with bread and wine
Shape IT with a man and a cross
And fill IT, with mystery...

Griff...

[strathmeyer]

Behold, proof (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FirstFundamentalTheoremofCalculus.html).

Now I see the error of my original statement (besides just the ambiguous subject), but it won't stop me from making it.

[ReligionStudent]

Genesis 3:"And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."

Response

1- The fact of light being 'good' is only relevant to beings with eyes. Why would god think of light as 'good'. No this clearly shows that right from the start, the bible is written by men for men.[not women]. It is not the word of a god.

2- Light and dark cannot be 'separated'. In fact there is no such thing as 'dark', in the same way that there is no colour 'black'. Both dark&black are merely what we perceive when there is no light, to stimulate nerves. So god cannot by definition, do this thing, so it didn't happen and the Genesis is fraudulent and so to is god a hoax.

3- In fact, in the solar system, there is NO SUCH THING AS NIGHT, and any god worth worshipping should know that. Whereas stone aged man would not! The fact is that it is ALWAYS DAY, and you call it night only when you stand in the shadow of the Earth! Would you call it night, if a fat person sat on your face and blocked the light? [No that would be the end!]. Also, that's just the type of hocus pocus that stone aged man would believe...especially when there was a solar eclipse!

Griff...We still live in the dark ages...well some of us do. THINK!

I thought this was so good it had to come here too!

THE MYSTERY OF GOD

God is a tree without roots
A galloping horse without legs
An eagle, soaring without wings...

God is tasteless, formless and empty.
They flavour IT with bread and wine
Shape IT with a man and a cross
And fill IT, with mystery...

Griff...


I just need to point out, for no reason than my own nit-picky sanity, that the bible was not written by or for stone age peoples.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

A god as portrayed in most religions? I don't know. If they expanded my mind so I could understand the supposed ability of them to be all-powerful, perfectly good, and yet let children be raped and murdered screaming, then I might accept it.

However, if some guy showed me a room with all kinds of levers where I could stop time, play with people's minds and thoughts, re-design DNA, re-design even atoms and physics, create universes at will, etc., then I would reasonably conclude they were the creator of this universe (or at least were indistinguishible from something capable of it) but that would not be the kind of Holy, spiritual being that religions portray.
Any explaination that involves a bigger, smarter, older man will never do. If there ever were a physical being, 14 billion years would be a long time to live. The method of creation shows a free running process left to itself.

[Cosmo]

How about a message in the randomness of pi?

That would mean a Universe creator actually left a message in the fabric of the Universe.

(Moment of silence for Carl Sagan)

Yeah, that's why I like the 'message in the background radiation' idea. In both cases it would have to be really obvious though. Like, coded into PI as ASCII (showing temporal omnipresence), or written into the background radiation obviously as ancient Hebrew or Esperanto or something. ;)

No good. Pi is an irrational number, meaning that it goes on for an infinite number of digits, selected pretty much at random. Because of its randomness and infinite length, ANY string of digits you would like to propose - no matter how long or unusual your string of digits is - MUST occur somewhere within Pi. Of course, you might have to go trillions and trillions of digits deep, but it'll be there.

[The Great Hairy One]

I like your 'rewriting physics' idea... It might be tricky to set that up without changing the way things work enough to make us pop out of existence though.


I'm sure an "omni-being" could handle that little glitch. :cool:

Cheers,
TGHO

[ReligionStudent]

No good. Pi is an irrational number, meaning that it goes on for an infinite number of digits, selected pretty much at random. Because of its randomness and infinite length, ANY string of digits you would like to propose - no matter how long or unusual your string of digits is - MUST occur somewhere within Pi. Of course, you might have to go trillions and trillions of digits deep, but it'll be there.

I don't think it is possible to say MUST occur, but is highly likely to occur.

For some idea of this see http://pi.nersc.gov/ While this is still only representation of some of Pi, if even in that amount, some strings do not occur, I am willing to believe its only a probably thing, not a necessary.

For example "jamesrandi" does not appear in the first four billion digits of Pi

Also, it is impossible to find e in pi

[transferosome]

Hmm. If there is a formula which can work out any digit within PI then it's not, by definition, random. You could call it pseudo-random, perhaps.

To be impressive, a message would really have to start from the beginning of PI onwards.

[transferosome]

I'm sure an "omni-being" could handle that little glitch. :cool:

Cheers,
TGHO

It might effectively do more to confound those who use the anthropic principle as evidence for god than to prove the existence of god. ;)

[DangerousBeliefs]

No good. Pi is an irrational number, meaning that it goes on for an infinite number of digits, selected pretty much at random. Because of its randomness and infinite length, ANY string of digits you would like to propose - no matter how long or unusual your string of digits is - MUST occur somewhere within Pi. Of course, you might have to go trillions and trillions of digits deep, but it'll be there.

You wouldn't be the least bit shocked if pi started going into patterns... first 100 primes.... first 100 binary numbers... .first 100 fibonacci numbers... etc. then the pattern gets repeated... .followed by a vast list of 0s and 1s which then appear to be some alien universal mathematical language?

And then, you found this same pattern at the exact same point in other constant numbers?

[Cosmo]

I don't think it is possible to say MUST occur, but is highly likely to occur.

For some idea of this see http://pi.nersc.gov/ While this is still only representation of some of Pi, if even in that amount, some strings do not occur, I am willing to believe its only a probably thing, not a necessary.

For example "jamesrandi" does not appear in the first four billion digits of Pi

Also, it is impossible to find e in pi

Nor would we expect "jamesrandi" to occur within the numeric digits of Pi. :)

I'm not so sure I'm with you on this - if the string of digits is infinitely long and selected essentially at random, would we not expect to eventually see any selected pattern of digits? Can we get a ruling from a mathematician here?

Hmm. If there is a formula which can work out any digit within PI then it's not, by definition, random. You could call it pseudo-random, perhaps.

I stand corrected. Thanks. :)

You wouldn't be the least bit shocked if pi started going into patterns... first 100 primes.... first 100 binary numbers... .first 100 fibonacci numbers... etc. then the pattern gets repeated... .followed by a vast list of 0s and 1s which then appear to be some alien universal mathematical language?

And then, you found this same pattern at the exact same point in other constant numbers?

If I'm right about Pi's randomness (pending the ruling of a board mathematician and/or some Googling) then no, we would expect the exact thing you've described to occur at some point within ALL irrational numbers like Pi. And, if you go 'deep' enough into each of them, then we must be able to find a place where this occurs in each such constant.

[ReligionStudent]

I said we should expect it, but that it is still not definite. There is simply a high probability due to its length.

I also feel the definition of pi as random as problematic, maybe seemingly random is better. It isn't changing, its always going to be the same number, representative of the ratio of circumference of a circle to its diameter. Thus, it only appears random, because there are an infinite stream of numbers, but they always appear in the same set pattern.

[Cosmo]

I said we should expect it, but that it is still not definite. There is simply a high probability due to its length.

I also feel the definition of pi as random as problematic, maybe seemingly random is better. It isn't changing, its always going to be the same number, representative of the ratio of circumference of a circle to its diameter. Thus, it only appears random, because there are an infinite stream of numbers, but they always appear in the same set pattern.

After some Googling, I think you might (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#Open_questions) be (http://www.angio.net/pi/whynotpi.html) right (http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pimatrix.html).

The operative term here seems to be 'normal' number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_number) - that is, if Pi is a normal number then every possible digit string will occur at least once within Pi. As I understand these resources, Pi has not yet been proven to be a normal number but "all available evidence suggests that it is".

So, for now, I suppose we can conclude fairly safely that every possible digit string has at least a high probability of occurring somewhere within Pi, which I contend destroys any significance of us finding a 'pattern' of digits in pi. It is not evidence of a supreme being - just evidence of Pi's normalness.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Well In the Bible God makes the Sun Stand still in the heavens. If he could do that for a few hours I would be convinced. Of course I wouldn't know who's God did it, there might have to be some other heavenly sign to to clarify that it isn't Vishnu having a bit of a laugh.
What about solar and lunar eclipses as a sign of "cosmic level intelligence" at work? Its a clearly visible, heavenly, sign. They also cap the coincidences that made the universe what it is.

[Piscivore]

'What would you accept as proof of the existence of God'?

"Him" turning over all his powers to me.

What about solar and lunar eclipses as a sign of "cosmic level intelligence" at work?
What exactly is cosmically intelligent about one giant space rock moving between another giant space rock and a cohesive mass of burning hydrogen?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

"Him" turning over all his powers to me.


What exactly is cosmically intelligent about one giant space rock moving between another giant space rock and a cohesive mass of burning hydrogen?
That despite the size of the sun and the moon, that they appear the same size. That they line up just right to put on a show with a near perfect fit. And that "the show" probably helped to influence observation, study, and measurement of those two bodies, and time itself.
I am not saying it is a sign (or that it isn't) but as signs go, blocking out the sun is pretty good.

[Beleth]

"Him" turning over all his powers to me.
Piscivore Almighty!

What exactly is cosmically intelligent about one giant space rock moving between another giant space rock and a cohesive mass of burning hydrogen?
Exactly. It's making the evidence fit the conclusion. If I were to make a list of things that would convince me of a Cosmic Intelligence, the existence of solar eclipses (and having the sun look about the same size as the moon) would not be on the short list.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Piscivore Almighty!


Exactly. It's making the evidence fit the conclusion. If I were to make a list of things that would convince me of a Cosmic Intelligence, the existence of solar eclipses (and having the sun look about the same size as the moon) would not be on the short list.
A 14 billion year old, self-running process would convince me. But the problem is, it is hard to give proof without throwing off the cosmic plan. If the truth was given to you directly, you would have a problem convincing everyone else. If it were given to everyone, there is the risk of losing control of the personal direction of ones life. For instance, those that look for signs, could see them everywhere without knowing which are the right ones.
Absolute knowledge of an afterlife, may cheapen this one.
If wishes/prays were (routinely) granted, one may spend too much of their life "rubbing the lamp" for the genie.
A self-running process would appear to be guided. A process would be unbiased, not good or evil, yet have universal influence. And there is no reason to really believe that a being that "designed" it all, would even still be alive after 14 billion years. A process would not need IT to be.

[Jekyll]

3) The evidence must be overwhelming, like Miss Anthrope's example. Every single sick person in the world suddenly being healed - and any injury over the next period of time also being healed. With a voiceover of "By my will be healed!" or something like that. Everyone who had broken the biblical laws being crisped by a pillar of hellfire and a voiceover "be punished by my will sinner!".

So burning then healing or healing then burning for the sick sinners?

[Beerina]

No good. Pi is an irrational number, meaning that it goes on for an infinite number of digits, selected pretty much at random. Because of its randomness and infinite length, ANY string of digits you would like to propose - no matter how long or unusual your string of digits is - MUST occur somewhere within Pi. Of course, you might have to go trillions and trillions of digits deep, but it'll be there.

The point of Sagan was that, although it was billions of digits out, that was still far too soon statistically to see a geometric drawing, much less several of them.

Given the way the book was written, there were probably harder messages encoded, both in ways to extract, and, in this case, in the distance of # of digits -- like the "next step" would be a quadrillion digits out, requiring decated of computer improvements, while the one after that might be a quarter of a googol digits out, requiring still more advances.

[Beerina]

I don't think it is possible to say MUST occur, but is highly likely to occur.

For some idea of this see http://pi.nersc.gov/ While this is still only representation of some of Pi, if even in that amount, some strings do not occur, I am willing to believe its only a probably thing, not a necessary.

For example "jamesrandi" does not appear in the first four billion digits of Pi

Nor would you expect to. "jamesrandi" is 10 letters long, and that would mean there are 26 to the 10th power such combinations, or 141,167,095,653,376.

With four billion digits, you would have, at most, four billion different sequences (which can start at any digit and would overlap). What this translates into is any random 10 letter sequence has only a 1 in 35291 chance of appearing.

Actually the math above is messed up a bit, since we're talking about number digits for the sequence and letter ones for randi, but the odds remain astronomical.

[drkitten]

Nor would you expect to .

See "point, unicity." See also Shannon, Claude E. (passim).

[Beerina]

A 14 billion year old, self-running process would convince me. But the problem is, it is hard to give proof without throwing off the cosmic plan. If the truth was given to you directly, you would have a problem convincing everyone else. If it were given to everyone, there is the risk of losing control of the personal direction of ones life.

I'll put up with people losing a need for personal direction in their lives, given the alternative involves, among other things, the rape and murder of children.

I highly suspect so would most people.

Absolute knowledge of an afterlife, may cheapen this one.

Perhaps, see above. But I know torture and murder and the pain of disease definitely cheapen this life in the sense that it appears to be just some academic experiment by a god. After all, if you're rewarded for being kind to the sick and poor by being placed in a heaven where there are no sick and poor, wasn't the whole thing a colossal waste of time?

[Beerina]

Also, it is impossible to find e in pi

If it were, it could be written as follows:

pi = c * e + a, where a and c are finite real numbers. In other words, their relationship would be linear, and I believe the formula actually relating them is not linear.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'll put up with people losing a need for personal direction in their lives, given the alternative involves, among other things, the rape and murder of children.

I highly suspect so would most people.
Do you think that God revealing itself will stop all that? We will still be people, and some here have said that they would not accept anything as proof. And if God put "goodness" in the mind of all, most would cease to be who they are, we would truely have a world full of puppets.



Perhaps, see above. But I know torture and murder and the pain of disease definitely cheapen this life in the sense that it appears to be just some academic experiment by a god.
I think that those things also challenges life, but again, we would still be the same people, and I think the experiment has to do with individual choice.

After all, if you're rewarded for being kind to the sick and poor by being placed in a heaven where there are no sick and poor, wasn't the whole thing a colossal waste of time?
I don't believe in the heavenly reward thing. The person would still be who they, and their conditions, made them. I for one, would miss being able to go to the "red light district."

[thaiboxerken]

Do you think that God revealing itself will stop all that?

Probably not, since gods tend to encourage this behavior, according to the holy books.

We will still be people, and some here have said that they would not accept anything as proof.

I doubt it. Can you quote anyone saying that they would accept no evidence?


And if God put "goodness" in the mind of all, most would cease to be who they are, we would truely have a world full of puppets.

But it sure would be peaceful.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Probably not, since gods tend to encourage this behavior, according to the holy books.
I agree. Sacrifices, tests of loyality, "worship only me," none seem as perfect as they are billed to be. But then, that is men talking for their God. They say HE is perfect, and not perfect, almost in the same breath. I don't believe them. No self respecting God would need the stuff that they say HE does.


I doubt it. Can you quote anyone saying that they would accept no evidence?
Yes, I think he even said he wouldn't accept any. I don't hold him to it though. My point was, that there would be lots of people who wouldn't. Even if there is an afterlife, and a God there, there would be people who were taught, not to accept anything unless it is what they were told was there.


But it sure would be peaceful.
Yes, it would be that, though I think free will would be too high a price.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Hmm. If there is a formula which can work out any digit within PI then it's not, by definition, random. You could call it pseudo-random, perhaps.

To be impressive, a message would really have to start from the beginning of PI onwards.
Wouldn't a message "meant for all" have to be simple enough for all to understand? Something that can't be faked, and clearly visible? If only some can understand it, how can the rest of us be sure that they will "deliver it?"

[Beerina]

Wouldn't a message "meant for all" have to be simple enough for all to understand? Something that can't be faked, and clearly visible? If only some can understand it, how can the rest of us be sure that they will "deliver it?"

No, which was Carl Sagan's point in Contact. More complicated messages that require higher brainpower to decode were placed precisely to keep savage nations and peoples away from it -- they were the ones that still behaved in primative, murderous manners.

I would also like to point out what many have pointed out over the years -- that the "messages" that religious hucksters heave out are typically rather inane and simple-minded. This is evidence against them being anything special, no matter how peaceful and loving the message.

Tell us something new that we'd have to work to prove -- like a simple cure for cancer. Or the fifty trillionth digit of pi, base seventy three, not counting the 3. Something useful.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, which was Carl Sagan's point in Contact. More complicated messages that require higher brainpower to decode were placed precisely to keep savage nations and peoples away from it -- they were the ones that still behaved in primative, murderous manners.
That makes sense, "keep out of reach of children," and hope the adults have more sense.

I would also like to point out what many have pointed out over the years -- that the "messages" that religious hucksters heave out are typically rather inane and simple-minded. This is evidence against them being anything special, no matter how peaceful and loving the message.
Special can be placed in what they do with it, though of course, that is a judgement call.

Tell us something new that we'd have to work to prove -- like a simple cure for cancer. Or the fifty trillionth digit of pi, base seventy three, not counting the 3. Something useful.
Help like that would be better coming from an alien race instead of a creator. The alien race could just be more advanced, but a message of the creator could send people in a search for a method everywhere. It could make them second guess their own decisions too much.

[The Grave]

I think therefore I think I am...is the idea!

Quote...
That despite the size of the sun and the moon, that they appear the same size. That they line up just right to put on a show with a near perfect fit. And that "the show" probably helped to influence observation, study, and measurement of those two bodies, and time itself.
I am not saying it is a sign (or that it isn't) but as signs go, blocking out the sun is pretty good.

They "appear" the same size? They "line up just right" for a show? With " a near perfect fit"?

And if you want to block out the Sun, all you do is raise your hand...thus!

Wow, look mom, my hand is the same size as the Sun, and pa's little finger, too! Must have been designed...

Griff...You'd expect a "perfect" fit from a god, not near perfect...

And as for an after life...well every suicide bomber, is one less faither!

[Yiab]

First, to the math.

No good. Pi is an irrational number, meaning that it goes on for an infinite number of digits, selected pretty much at random. Because of its randomness and infinite length, ANY string of digits you would like to propose - no matter how long or unusual your string of digits is - MUST occur somewhere within Pi. Of course, you might have to go trillions and trillions of digits deep, but it'll be there.

You know what else is an irrational number? Any infinite non-repeating string of 0s and 1s interpreted as a decimal number. Clearly such an irrational number will not have any string involving digits other than 0 or 1 anywhere in its written form.

For example "jamesrandi" does not appear in the first four billion digits of Pi

Also, it is impossible to find e in pi

Actually, "jamesrandi" does appear in the first four billion digits countless times... given the right encoding schemes.
Also, "finding e in pi" in what sense? Are you saying that listing all the prime numbered digits of pi when written in base 187, rewriting that number into base 7, then selecting every digit after the decimal that sits at a perfect number location except for the 28th won't give e in base 13?

You wouldn't be the least bit shocked if pi started going into patterns... first 100 primes.... first 100 binary numbers... .first 100 fibonacci numbers... etc. then the pattern gets repeated... .followed by a vast list of 0s and 1s which then appear to be some alien universal mathematical language?

And then, you found this same pattern at the exact same point in other constant numbers?

I would be extremely surprised, considering that this is mathematically impossible. pi and e are not algebraic over each other, there can be no such pattern present in reasonably expressible similar points in them.

Now, to god. In order for me to believe in god, no evidence or structure in the universe would be sufficient - there is no experience I can ever have that would not be equally explainable by the hallucination hypothesis. That is not to say that I can never be convinced, however.
What it would take for me to believe in god would be two things. First, I would need a definition of the term "god" which is, as far as I can tell, logically, ontologically, physically and epistemologically internally consistent. Second, I would need time to think about it, consider a large variety of possibilities, get used to the idea and assimilate it into my thought processes.
Of course, given the first condition the second would come naturally. The first condition could be delivered by another person, by text randomly found on the internet, or by spontaneous personal inspiration, in fact any method of communication which I can interpret works fine.

I agree completely that my requirements do not prove the existence of the god so referenced, but consistency would be sufficient for me to put serious consideration into belief.

Oh yes, I'd also like to say hello to everyone here as this is my first post.

[Hokulele]

Welcome Yiab!

At least you didn't start off in the train wreck of the 432 thread over in Science. ;)

[CapelDodger]

First, to the math.

[snip]

Now, to god ...

And a big Hi! from me :) .