The Empirical Evidence of Non-Existing God

[epix]

The atheists living in the past two centuries were always extremely desirous to stumble upon empirical evidence showing that God is a myth - the kind of evidence that would mortally wound the kind of faith with which Christianity defends the opposite view. No luck, though: the theists/atheists ratio kept heavily favoring the theist position. But not all atheists abandoned the state of mind called "faith" that helps a person to endure very adverse conditions. Some of the atheists-by-conversion redirected their faith away from the unproved to the proved - curtesy the mirror. And so, somewhere in the middle of the twentieth century, the atheist faith started to change its shape into something tangible, and it very much resembled the borders of the Soviet Union where scientific atheism was a new, exciting way to reach paradise not in heaven, but here on Earth without the necessary expiration of a person - as Christianity prescribes the transition. Could the folks living in the "worker's paradise" gather some resources to finance a scientific project that would supply the evidence that God really doesn't exist?

The situation in the Soviet Union indicated that no such scientific project was contemplated. The reason was that the purpose of Soviet scientific atheism was to compete with Christianity. In other words, the need of the new Soviet man to turn toward God asking for divine assistance would be greatly diminished by the scientific and technological achievements of a new, atheistic society whose progress wouldn't be hindered by the Christian dogma. The rest of the world would surely notice such a profound difference; the rest of the world would call for the establishment of similar conditions, and the communist revolution would spread all over the world eating up Christianity to the last bite.

But the whole process of the transformation from theism to scientific atheism wouldn't happen overnight, and so some atheists regretted the fact that they would be no longer around to see the final victory given by the world theist/atheist ratio. And some realistically inclined atheists, mainly those living in the Soviet Union, would prefer seeing the empirical evidence of God's non-existence, rather than being forced to nurture utopia.

Years went by and probably no western atheist realized that at one point the window of opportunity just opened.

On April 12, 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space orbiting once the earth. The event surely boosted the faith of those who hoped to see Soviet scientific atheism as the successor of Christianity. Upon landing, Yuri Gagarin became Hero of the Soviet Union (the highest Soviet award) and also an indispensable one-man platoon with which Soviet scientific atheism intended to outflank Christianity. He was paraded through the streets and squares of Soviet cities, and then he met the worker's deputies in theaters and the people's halls to share his experience. But there was always a KGB person present who always asked this question: Comrade Gagarin! While orbiting our planet, have you seen God?

The answer was also the same: NOPE.

This practice of showing off an eyewitness to God's non-existence - I mean a credible witness, because Yuri became a highly awarded person - wasn't known outside the Soviet Union. Only when Gagarin visited other countries behind the Iron Curtain - those countries whose flame of faith in Soviet scientific atheism never flickered - the practice got noticed.

Comrade Gagarin! While orbiting our planet, have you seen God?
NOPE.

It is said that during these gatherings, many an atheist wept for joy upon hearing the answer.

Finally the word about the eyewitness to God's non-existence reached the Vatican. But the chief keepers of the faith in Jesus kept publicly silent. Was their silence an admission of defeat, or a sign of ignorant defiance?

I guess it was neither. Christians go by the Bible, and the Roman Catholic Church assumed that the true believers are familiar with the Scriptures, mainly with this part:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Colossians 1:15

Oops.

The word of God's invisibility must have reached the propaganda department people who accompanied Gagarin on his tour of brotherly nations, because when he visited Hungary and thereafter, he was no longer asked the question whether he had seen God.

And so the attempt on the part of Soviet scientific atheism to render God non-existent fizzled... But did it?

No. It wouldn't be God, if he wouldn't purposely contradict his own words. Remember that the Bible comprises The Old Testament and The New Testament. Since the Book of Colossians is a part of The New Testament, you can set up a tentative comparison

NEW is to INVISIBLE as OLD is to VISIBLE

and try to attack the Christian position that God is invisible by perusing the Torah, for example.

The descendants of the "Cain breeding plan" have surely noticed that Colossians is the 12th book of The New Testament, and Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, was sent there on the 12th day of the month. That 12=12 identity and the circumstance change the preferences in the text:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

But that leads toward an entirely different topic.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by epix

The atheists living in the past two centuries were always extremely desirous to stumble upon empirical evidence showing that God is a myth -

No.

[Brainache]

Quote:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Colossians 1:15

An image of something invisible? Oh, right, it doesn't have to make sense, it's Ancient Wisdom...

[StankApe]

I fail to see the point here.

The USSR liked to use Gagarin for propaganda purposes? we knew that

The USSR liked to promote the ideas of atheism so as to separate the church from influence over it's citizens? we knew that

That because the USSR was atheistic in it's dogma that this means that every other atheist believes exactly the same way as them, and is in search for this "empirical evidence of non-existence? No, just no.

They used atheism as a tool of control. (and as a counterpoint for propaganda purposes against the WEST), but their use of it as dogma hardly is an expression of the modern atheist.


Being an atheist is like not being a beekeeper. I don't keep bees, nor read about bees cuz beekeeping ain't my bidness! I don't have to present (nor am I interested in discovering) any evidence "against God's existence" it ain't my bidness.

Your amusing anecdote smells like something that will be debunked on Snopes though. So I'm off to check.

ETA: not in Snopes, but it has been shown to be a product of Kruschev's speech and not Gagarin himself

[Astreja]

Epix, I for one don't actually have a need to definitively disprove your god.

I merely do not believe, and remain unconvinced. That's it. That's all. To Me, unless "invisible" is accompanied by some sort of measurable, repeatable phenomenon such as a voltage measurement, for all practical purposes it functions in the same way as "nonexistent."

So if your god wants Me to believe it exists, it's going to have to start behaving with at least the consistency of a 9-volt battery.

[StankApe]

From wikipedia

Quote:

Some sources have claimed that Gagarin commented during the flight, "I don't see any God up here." However, no such words appear in the verbatim record of his conversations with Earth-based stations during the spaceflight.[17] In a 2006 interview, Gagarin's friend Colonel Valentin Petrov stated that the cosmonaut never said such words, and that the quote originated from Nikita Khrushchev's speech at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU about the state's anti-religion campaign, saying "Gagarin flew into space, but didn't see any god there."[18] Petrov also said that Gagarin had been baptised into the Orthodox Church as a child, and a 2011 Foma magazine article quoted the rector of the Orthodox church in Star City saying, "Gagarin baptized his elder daughter Elena shortly before his space flight; and his family used to celebrate Christmas and Easter and keep icons in the house

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by epix

The atheists living in the past two centuries were always extremely desirous to stumble upon empirical evidence showing that God is a myth - the kind of evidence that would mortally wound the kind of faith with which Christianity defends the opposite view.

Maybe in your mind. Try the real world for a change.

And epix attempts yet again to demonstrate epic(x) failure.

No need to keep trying it, epix, we already know you can do it.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by epix

The atheists living in the past two centuries were always extremely desirous to stumble upon empirical evidence showing that God is a myth - the kind of evidence that would mortally wound the kind of faith with which Christianity defends the opposite view.

Yes, that's right. And we also desperately desire empirical evidence showing that the toothfairy doesn't exit either.


It's logically impossible for there to exist any empirical evidence showing that no God exists. As for the Christian God specifically, what possible evidence could ever arise to mortally wound their faith?

Originally Posted by epix

But the whole process of the transformation from theism to scientific atheism wouldn't happen overnight, and so some atheists regretted the fact that they would be no longer around to see the final victory given by the world theist/atheist ratio.

I'm not sure what you mean by the term "scientific atheism". Looking it up, I found the definition "Scientific Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods, or the supernatural".

I don't see how scientific atheism as defined in this manner is in any way incompatible with Christianity. After all, a person can believe in God, while at the same time believing that no verifiable evidence for God exists.

But if this isn't what you mean by scientific atheism, could you please provide your definition?

Originally Posted by epix

Comrade Gagarin! While orbiting our planet, have you seen God?
NOPE.

It is said that during these gatherings, many an atheist wept for joy upon hearing the answer.

Given that no rational, educated person (whether Christian or atheist) ever considered it even remotely plausible that a person in an orbiting spacecraft would see God, why would the news that God wasn't seen have the slightest emotional impact on any atheist?

Your assertion makes no sense.

ETA: Bear in mind that astronomers on earth, by means of large telescopes in observatories, had already seen far further into space than Gagarin could have with his naked eyes, and none of them had seen God either.

[Kid Eager]

Does there really need to be yet another thread in which a absurd and inaccurate story is contrived, as an excuse to attack a position that nobody seems to hold except the OP?

Welcome to the Land Of Word Salad.... again.

Whilst it might be fun and deconstruct the post to find exactly how many untruths it contains, I'm going for a run instead.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

Does there really need to be yet another thread in which a absurd and inaccurate story is contrived, as an excuse to attack a position that nobody seems to hold except the OP?

No.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

It's logically impossible for there to exist any empirical evidence showing that no God exists.

Not necessarily true; it would depend on what definition is given though.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

Does there really need to be yet another thread in which a absurd and inaccurate story is contrived, as an excuse to attack a position that nobody seems to hold except the OP?

It's called trolling -- epix posts not in a manner which is meant to evoke thoughtful conversation, but merely to rile people up. No rule against it yet at the JREF, more's the pity.

[epix]

Originally Posted by StankApe

From wikipediaFrom wikipedia
Quote:
Some sources have claimed that Gagarin commented during the flight, "I don't see any God up here." However, no such words appear in the verbatim record of his conversations with Earth-based stations during the spaceflight.[17] In a 2006 interview, Gagarin's friend Colonel Valentin Petrov stated that the cosmonaut never said such words, and that the quote originated from Nikita Khrushchev's speech at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU about the state's anti-religion campaign, saying "Gagarin flew into space, but didn't see any god there."[18] Petrov also said that Gagarin had been baptised into the Orthodox Church as a child, and a 2011 Foma magazine article quoted the rector of the Orthodox church in Star City saying, "Gagarin baptized his elder daughter Elena shortly before his space flight; and his family used to celebrate Christmas and Easter and keep icons in the house

The OP never mentions any conversation between Gagarin and the flight control folks. So what do you try to deny?

You, as an atheist, shouldn't contribute to the frequent exclamation "Jesus," as a verbal equivalent of head shaking.

[StankApe]

this has nothing to do with Jesus. and I found NOT ONE SINGLE LINK on Google that claimed Gagarin made said speeches in public with assigned KGB shills in attendance. The only thing I could find, referenced a Kruschev speech (that was shown to not be based on truth as shown in the wiki article). In fact, it appears Gagarin may have been fairly religious himself.
AND EVEN IF HE DID make these statements! This has no bearing on any individual atheists before or since. Political propaganda of the USSR has no bearing on my nor any other atheists decisions I have ever encountered.

[epix]

Originally Posted by Astreja

I merely do not believe, and remain unconvinced. To Me, unless "invisible" is accompanied by some sort of measurable, repeatable phenomenon such as a voltage measurement, for all practical purposes it functions in the same way as "nonexistent."

So if your god wants Me to believe it exists, it's going to have to start behaving with at least the consistency of a 9-volt battery.

The guys living in the 14th century also denied on the same principles the existence of a 9-volt battery. That's why many theists don't argue about the existence or non-existence of God with the atheists who prefer sit in the present rather than consider the future. Also, the atheists usualy mistake God for Nature. That's why their gadget indicators are always in zero position.

"Seeing is believing." That goes the other way too, and since Yuri Gagarin didn't see God, there was no reason for the theists to believe and remain "delusional."

[epix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by epix
The atheists living in the past two centuries were always extremely desirous to stumble upon empirical evidence showing that God is a myth - the kind of evidence that would mortally wound the kind of faith with which Christianity defends the opposite view.

Originally Posted by AdMan

Maybe in your mind. Try the real world for a change.

And epix attempts yet again to demonstrate epic(x) failure.

Your failure to show otherwise is a super-spectacular comedy perhaps dwarfing the debate between God himself and Richard Dawkins.

Too bad that Thomas Alva Edison never had a chance to ask Yuri Gagarin about what he never saw out there.
http://www.argumentsforatheism.com/a..._evidence.html

[Craig B]

@epix

Quote:

Christians go by the Bible, and the Roman Catholic Church assumed that the true believers are familiar with the Scriptures

Eh? Sure about that? Certainly until recent times it didn't assume that the laity engaged in independent study of the Bible, and I find my Catholic friends - and Catholic wife - not very well informed about its contents. See the Catholic Encyclopaedia at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm

Quote:

It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular.

That is, since printing has made bibles financially accessible to significant numbers of people! Prior to that, little regulation of its accessibility by lay people was required.

Quote:

On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, "Dominici gregis", the Index of Prohibited Books ... The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice. Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index ... Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors ...

The Church did NOT permit free access to vernacular bibles by the laity, and the first translator and publisher of a printed edition of the bible in English was put to death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale. The Catholics were not alone; the first full translation of the Bible in modern Russian printed in a single volume appeared in 1876, some years subsequent to the publication of Marx's Capital in that language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_t...s_into_Russian.

As remarkable illustration of all this, may I cite http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-en...y/john-hus.htm

Quote:

One of Wycliffe’s followers, John Hus, actively promoted Wycliffe’s ideas: that people should be permitted to read the Bible in their own language, and they should oppose the tyranny of the Roman church that threatened anyone possessing a non-Latin Bible with execution. Hus was burned at the stake in 1415, with Wycliffe’s manuscript Bibles used as kindling for the fire.

Such was the use to which the Church saw fit to put the first English translation of the Bible. Burning to death a Czech dissident!


ETA In 1433 a Czech follower of Jan Hus - Paul Kravar - was burned to death in St Andrews, the then ecclesiastical centre of my native Scotland. According to http://www.facetofaceintercultural.c...piring-martyr/ (I admit, a Protestant and therefore perhaps partisan site)

Quote:

In a manner reflective of Wycliffe’s influence, Crawar taught that the Bible should be freely communicated to all people. He also taught that the spiritual power should be subservient to the secular power and that secular judges should be able to bring charges against delinquent members of the clergy, including archbishops. He taught that purgatory was a fable and that the doctrines of transubstantiation and the rites of absolution were delusions, being but human inventions.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by epix

Your failure to show otherwise is a super-spectacular comedy perhaps dwarfing the debate between God himself and Richard Dawkins.

Too bad that Thomas Alva Edison never had a chance to ask Yuri Gagarin about what he never saw out there.
http://www.argumentsforatheism.com/a..._evidence.html

epix, if that's your response to a request to "try the real world", how would you react to being asked to wallow in fantasy and spout gibberish?

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by epix

The guys living in the 14th century also denied on the same principles the existence of a 9-volt battery. That's why many theists don't argue about the existence or non-existence of God with the atheists who prefer sit in the present rather than consider the future. Also, the atheists usualy mistake God for Nature. That's why their gadget indicators are always in zero position.

"Seeing is believing." That goes the other way too, and since Yuri Gagarin didn't see God, there was no reason for the theists to believe and remain "delusional."

Perhaps you'd have more luck with your posts if you kept them all to one thread, somewhere in the Humour sub-forum?

[pakeha]

What is the point of this OP?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by epix

The atheists living in the past two centuries were always extremely desirous to stumble upon empirical evidence showing that God is a myth

False.

And for once, I actually stopped reading at that false premise. I feel much better for it and heartily recommend it to one and all.

PS Surely everyone knows atheists expend all their efforts seeking empirical evidence that unicorns are a myth.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

False.

And for once, I actually stopped reading at that false premise. I feel much better for it and heartily recommend it to one and all.

PS Surely everyone knows atheists expend all their efforts seeking empirical evidence that unicorns are a myth.

Strictly speaking, it is easy for not only atheists but religious believers too, to prove that God or unicorns are a myth. We can easily find myths containing these entities. We can equally find myths containing lions or wolves. The real question is whether gods or unicorns also exist in reality, like lions or wolves. Now the way to prove they do really exist is to produce evidence for such existence. Any that is sent my way will be gratefully received. Meanwhile I withhold belief from gods and unicorns without proving or disproving anything at all, as the burden of proof is not mine to bear.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Not necessarily true; it would depend on what definition is given though.

By "no God" I meant no God of any kind. (Including but not limited to the God of deistic belief.)

[MajorSanderson]

Originally Posted by Brainache

An image of something invisible? Oh, right, it doesn't have to make sense, it's Ancient Wisdom...

It's ancient wisdom alright, borrowed directly from Greek philosophy, mainly Plato and his theory of forms...

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by pakeha

What is the point of this OP?

The point is that epix is very frustrated by his inability to engage atheists regarding their actual position, so he has created a giant heap of straw to punch with what he imagines to be extremely clever turns of phrase.

[wollery]

The point is that Epix doesn't understand the difference between belief and lack of belief, doesn't understand the burden of proof and can't seem to fathom that not all people who share a basic descriptor are identical in every single belief (or lack thereof) that they hold.

Also, he's a troll.

[ToddH]

Another fail of Epix proportions.

[Astreja]

Originally Posted by epix

The guys living in the 14th century also denied on the same principles the existence of a 9-volt battery.

That sounds suspiciously like a tu quoque fallacy, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with it. Are you suggesting that 'the guys living in the 14th century' had some special insight into Life, the Universe and Everything because they had less technology than us, or is this an admission that the problem of undetectable gods is just as intractable as it was in 1399?

Quote:

That's why many theists don't argue about the existence or non-existence of God with the atheists who prefer sit in the present rather than consider the future.

What leads you to believe that atheists don't consider the future?

Quote:

Also, the atheists usualy mistake God for Nature. That's why their gadget indicators are always in zero position.

Okay, Epix, that's just plain silly. I live right in the middle of nature (small 'n,' as I do not anthropomorphize it) and never get a 'zero' reading in that regard. I interpret the readings in terms of the natural, not the supernatural.

Quote:

"Seeing is believing." That goes the other way too...

That's what I'm telling you, Epix. 'Not seeing is not believing' really is My philosophical position, and the words or beliefs of Yuri Gagarin or 'the guys living in the 14th century' are irrelevant if it's Me you're trying to understand.

I see no evidence and therefore do not believe. Period. Until your hypothetical god shows up in some tangible, measurable form I do not expect that to change. Holding one's tail in both paws, squeezing one's eyes shut and proclaiming "I do I do I do believe in spooks" simply isn't an option.

[Shalamar]

The problem with Epix, and other like them, is that he/she believes in something, and is incapable of not believing in something. So to them, it means that atheists *must* also believe in something, no matter how often they try to explain that atheism is the lack of belief.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by wollery

The point is that Epix doesn't understand the difference between belief and lack of belief, doesn't understand the burden of proof and can't seem to fathom that not all people who share a basic descriptor are identical in every single belief (or lack thereof) that they hold.

Or Russian history... or Marxism-Leninism... or honest journalism, apparently. At least he's got that numerology thing down.

[Good Lt]

Quote:

The atheists living in the past two centuries were always extremely desirous (and unable) to stumble upon empirical evidence showing that God is a myth exists.

Fixed.

epix, is there empirical evidence showing that Allah is a myth? Or Vishnu? Or Xenu?

How about empirical evidence that the flying celestial teapot is a myth?

[marplots]

Yuri Gagarin goes to space and doesn't see God?
Anecdotal evidence.
Ho ho.
Would you have believed if he said he did see God?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
How can his report refute centuries of established theory?

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by epix

The descendants of the "Cain breeding plan" have surely noticed that Colossians is the 12th book of The New Testament, and Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, was sent there on the 12th day of the month.

Or they could have noticed that Gagarin was born on March 9. 3+9 = 12.

Or that he went to space on 12/4/1961. 1+2+4+1+9+6+1 = 24, which is 12x2

Or that he died in 1968. 1+9+6+8 = 24, which is 12x2.

Or that his capsule was named VOSTOK. Those are the 22, 15, 19, 20, 15 and 11th letters of the alphabet. That adds up to 102. Using the well-know numerolgical rule of dropping the zeros, 102 = 12.

Or they could have noticed that numerology is complete nonsense and any number you want to produce can be forced out of all of the millions of bits of data generated by a person's life.

Heck, your handle is EPIX. Normally, that would be spelled EPIC. IC is the roman numeral for 99. E is 5 and P is the 16th letter of the alphabet. 99+5+16 = 120. Drop the zero, as is allowed, and you get ... 12.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by pakeha

What is the point of this OP?

I'm not sure but I think it's that Epix is pissed that Yuri Gargarin hasn't been made a god yet and the atheists are to blame for it. And there's something about Claude Rains, the invisible man.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by epix

The OP never mentions any conversation between Gagarin and the flight control folks. So what do you try to deny?

You, as an atheist, shouldn't contribute to the frequent exclamation "Jesus," as a verbal equivalent of head shaking.

Yes, the OP does specifically mention such a conversation. Here's what I copied from your OP. See the hilited area:

On April 12, 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space orbiting once the earth. The event surely boosted the faith of those who hoped to see Soviet scientific atheism as the successor of Christianity. Upon landing, Yuri Gagarin became Hero of the Soviet Union (the highest Soviet award) and also an indispensable one-man platoon with which Soviet scientific atheism intended to outflank Christianity. He was paraded through the streets and squares of Soviet cities, and then he met the worker's deputies in theaters and the people's halls to share his experience. But there was always a KGB person present who always asked this question: Comrade Gagarin! While orbiting our planet, have you seen God?

The answer was also the same: NOPE.

While this isn't specifically a conversation between Gagarin and the flight control folks, it is the conversation alluded to in the posts. Whether it happened between Gagarin and the flight control people or later, it's still the same propagandistic exchange.

[TimCallahan]

Of course, you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making a positive assertion. For example, if the state charges you with a crime, the burden of proof is on them to prove you committed the crime. The only way you could prove you didn't commit a crime is to have an alibi, i.e. to prove a positive that makes it physically impossible for you to have committed said crime.

So, epix, I propose that you come up with a pass / fail test for the existence of God. Is there anything that you can think of that should be true if there is a God that wouldn't be true otherwise? If we could agree on such a test, we could prove things one way or another.

BTW, your posts often show considerable scorn for atheists. This is uncalled-for. We don't eat babies, indulge in all sorts of heinous behaviors etc.; we simply don't believe in God. You, as a believer, are, likewise, not necessarily a bad person. Unfortunately, you have engaged in some personal attacks on your threads. Try just arguing the point and asserting that your opponents are simply wrong on a given issue.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

By "no God" I meant no God of any kind. (Including but not limited to the God of deistic belief.)

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Of course, you can't prove a negative.

What I'm saying is that in limited circumstances, you can prove a negative.

The burden isn't on the person to prove the negative, but sometimes you can do so.

That's really my only point so far in this thread. If theists provide a testable concept of their god, not only will it fail to be proven or supported, but often times, it'll even have evidence supporting it's non-existence.

[Puppycow]

It's kind of hard to find empirical evidence of the non-existence of an entity, be it Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, unicorns or God(s).

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by StankApe

The only thing I could find, referenced a Kruschev speech (that was shown to not be based on truth as shown in the wiki article).

So if Kruschev's speech was not based on truth, does that mean Gagarin did see God?

Alexei Leonov says Yes.

Quote:

When Yuri Gagarin, the first man who went into space, returned to Earth, there was a huge reception in his honor. As his close friend and cosmonaut colleague Alexei Leonov tells it, then-premier Nikita Khrushchev cornered Gagarin "So tell me, Yuri," he asked, "did you see God up there?" After a moment's pause. Gagarin answered, "Yes sir, I did." Khrushchev frowned. "Don't tell any one," he said.

But how could he have, when God is invisible?

Gagarin said that he saw 'God', but he couldn't have actually seen Him, because God is invisible (and/or nonexistent). So Gagarin was either hallucinating, mistaken or lying. Either way he did not actually see God, and therefore Khrushchev's statement that "Gagarin flew into space, but didn't see god there" is true!

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Or they could have noticed that Gagarin was born on March 9. 3+9 = 12.

Or that he went to space on 12/4/1961. 1+2+4+1+9+6+1 = 24, which is 12x2

Or that he died in 1968. 1+9+6+8 = 24, which is 12x2.

Or that his capsule was named VOSTOK. Those are the 22, 15, 19, 20, 15 and 11th letters of the alphabet. That adds up to 102. Using the well-know numerolgical rule of dropping the zeros, 102 = 12.

Or they could have noticed that numerology is complete nonsense and any number you want to produce can be forced out of all of the millions of bits of data generated by a person's life.

Heck, your handle is EPIX. Normally, that would be spelled EPIC. IC is the roman numeral for 99. E is 5 and P is the 16th letter of the alphabet. 99+5+16 = 120. Drop the zero, as is allowed, and you get ... 12.