(June 14, 2015 at 12:35 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: All of this "when does coincidence become miraculous" stuff is nonsense.  It's a psychological thing where people try to layer meaning on top of the meaningless.  It's called Apophenia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

It's caveman style. Oh, we don't understand what we're seeing. Must be a god.

In the old days, it ranged from the sun and the moon, down to thunderstorms and fire. Today, hopefully, only hardcore idiots would argue the sun to be a god. But it's still the same procedure as usual. Only now it's astrophysics instead of lightning.

God of the gaps.

(June 14, 2015 at 9:56 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 13, 2015 at 8:40 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Seriously.  I don't know how is not proof of any particular how.  That's all there is to the god of the gaps fallacy. 

Atheism really is merely a lack of belief in god.  So is it falsifiable.  All you need do is show god.  Yep, it's a very tall order as sufficiently advanced tech looks like magic.  Ah hah you say, so it is unfalsifiable.  Well no, actually it's just that you defined god as an unprovable hypothesis. It's easy to do.  I posit an invisible purple nothing that no one else can detect that makes me feel good.  Prove me wrong.  The thing is that making such a claim, doesn't make the thing claimed any more likely.

However, if you define god as omnipotent, then you have really tripped up, as by definition an omnipotent being could proof itself, it's definitional.

Post #32, Jenny.

What evidence would you accept?

I've answered this one a couple times now.  You need to start by defining god.  What is it exactly that you are trying to prove? 

If you are merely trying to show that there is a very powerful being, so powerful that it's actions appear outside the laws of nature, then you need to produce some verifiable miracles that appear outside of the laws of nature.  And to make a miracle more likely than not you'll need more than eyewitness testimony.  A few amputees (verified by medical examination) and healed overnight by prayer, and once again verified by medical examination would fit the bill.  And it is important that the miracle be associated with the powerful being either by only working in connection with prayer to him or some other means.  Otherwise you have proven the miraculous event but not the agency thereof.

If you are trying to prove the gods of the Bible, add few returnees from heaven recently enough dead to be verified as their former selves describing heaven and meeting their maker would do just fine provided they all agree and they aren't given a chance collude in telling their stories.  But visions of them by believers won't do it.  You'll need to actually produce them for skeptics.

If you are actually trying to prove an omnipotent being, then you need more than just regrowing limbs and returnees from the dead, you need a variety of miracles on demand.  Creating a few planets in our neighborhood overnight, repairing the ozone layer with a snap of his fingers and so on.   A few explanations for how the world does work, not yet discovered by man and far out of our range of knowledge that test out would be helpful. So would a series of really unambiguous prophecies about specific unlikely events that can be shown unambiguously to come true and no prophecies that do not come true (if the Bible is Yahweh's word, he's already failed this last).  Do enough of those things and an omnipotent being becomes more likely than not.  But really, I repeat, by definition an omnipotent being would know exactly what evidence I would accept even if I don't know.  Apparently he either doesn't know or he's not interested in providing proof.

All of those things are a very tall order.  But not nearly as tall an order as the claim that there is an all powerful being operating outside the laws of nature.  


What I find funny, is the evidence that is actually offered:  inner certainty on the part of the believer; we don't know how the universe or life began, therefore god; the Bible says so; I was once in a really tight spot and I survived; I feel better believing; and the ever popular, you believe you just won't admit it.  It's so far from convincing evidence of an all powerful being as to be ludicrous.  It's as if a three year old boy with a pea gun approaches a nuclear armed destroyer and asks it to surrender and after the laughter dies down, says, "so what can I do that would scare you into surrender?"

The only thing wrong with Yahweh using natural means to do what he wants, is that it doesn't prove he exists and is no reason to start worshiping him. Or any other god. This would be fine if he wasn't portrayed as being obsessed with worship, but he is, so using natural means to do things isn't going to get what he wants most.

(June 14, 2015 at 12:22 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: More seriously, what prevents God from using the natural explainable phenomena of this world in ways that are inexplicable for their timing and efficacy?

How can timing and efficacy be inexplicable? Having a helicopter performing rescue patrols during a flood is not "inexplicable" -- it is expected. Citing that as evidence of God's hand at work is silly, because you have no way of knowing that it is God's work and not man's -- aside from assuming what you wish to demonstrate.

By the way, that's called begging the question, and -- you guessed it! -- it is also fallacious thinking.

My, you're on a roll today!

(June 14, 2015 at 9:52 am)Randy Carson Wrote: The problem I have with your paragraph above is that it seems to rely on the inverse of the "God-of-the-Gaps (GotG); namely, the "science-of-the-gaps" (SotG). By this, I mean that in the past, people witnessed lightning, could not explain it, and attributed it to God (GotG). However, the assumption of many is that while we cannot explain everything YET, eventually, given enough time and resources, we will be able to explain most (if not all) of the material universe. This SotG position is that we'll get there; there MUST be a rational, scientific explanation for something that we do not understand today.

Well, that makes sense, doesn't it? Because science is concerned EXCLUSIVELY with material universe. But can science even begin to speak of the immaterial? God is pure spirit. He occupies no space. He is simple (meaning He has no parts). He is timeless (being outside of time). I'm not convinced that science can have anything at all to say about something that is outside the material universe.

I think that "science of the gaps" seems more reliable because of the track record of science for explaining things, and we see this reflected in our daily lives over and over.  Our ability to understand how things work allows us to develop technologies that can improve life.  Even the most primitive cultures that exist today use some form of tools and strategies that rely on understanding their environment and how certain things work.  Belief in god requires the acceptance of something far greater and far more important to me than technology, yet you admit that god exists outside of our ability to detect him.  I would go further and say that the history of religious belief among humans indicates that god also exists outside of our ability to know and understand him.

Randy Carson Wrote:I agree that there is a natural explanation for lightning and other phenomena of this type. I agree that epileptic seizures exist and that demonic possession is not the cause of ALL events of that type. However, would you agree that if a God outside of space and time chose to part the Red Sea by means of a strong wind that just happened to blow the water in such manner as to enable the Israelites to cross at precisely the moment they needed to, He could do so? Or that God could choose to use the processes of evolution to create man over the course of millions of years rather than doing so instantaneously?

If god's qualities include the ability to suspend or defy physics, then sure, he could part the sea with a stiff wind that somehow doesn't blast the humans passing through the dry portion into dust particles.  Or he can make the sun appear to stand still in the sky without wiping out all life on the planet when it suddenly stops rotating.  Or choose to have life evolve and not have anyone know about it until we discovered it on our own.  But that may be the biggest gap of all: what if god's primary attribute is that we can't rule out any of his attributes?  I can apply that to lots of gods, but that doesn't get me any closer to one that might actually be real.

Randy Carson Wrote:What you have not considered or are simply unwilling to concede is the very real possibility that God HAS figured it all out and this IS the best approach.

But that means that the best possible approach would lead to massive numbers of people falling short of salvation.  That doesn't appear to be what the god of the Bible wants.  He wants everyone to be saved, but the best he can do is to save only a small number.  He admits as much, warning that the path to salvation was long and narrow and only few would ever find it.  Is it that this is the best he can do?  Maybe he doesn't want everyone to be saved?  A perfect god would implement a perfect solution, IMO.

Randy Carson Wrote:In other words, the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see, and it is sufficient for rational belief that God exists.

I think that if this was the case, then everyone really would be following the one true god, from the very start.  The story of the Bible is one where god fails to impress at every turn.  The first two humans that he creates --and who get to know him directly and personally-- are easily turned from him by another of his own creation.  Some Christian denominations believe that as many as a third of the angels in heaven are fallen, and have followed Satan on a path of ruin and oblivion.  How unimpressive must god be, that fully one third of his closest creation preferred misery and death to heavenly glory?  When he sends Moses to perform miracles to influence the Pharaoh, at first the Pharaoh's sorcerers are god's equal, forcing him to turn up the heat in order to show that he's the most powerful.  Even when he takes on a human form and performs miracles to a people who are awaiting a savior, they mock him and bully the Roman authorities into torturing and killing him.

Perhaps there is no way that god could convince more than a relative few that he is who he claims to be, and this really is his best attempt.  But that would be a very different god than the one Christians worship.  I think we should expect more from a being who is the unparalleled intellect in all of reality and a designer without equal.

(June 14, 2015 at 12:51 pm)Tonus Wrote: He wants everyone to be saved, but the best he can do is to save only a small number.  He admits as much, warning that the path to salvation was long and narrow and only few would ever find it.  Is it that this is the best he can do?  Maybe he doesn't want everyone to be saved?  A perfect god would implement a perfect solution, IMO.

Most of all, as chad already pointed out, he's pictured as a worship fetishist. I virtually can't count the passages where he claims to be a jealous god.

On a side note, I find that kind of funny, since it more or less implies that there are other gods.

(June 14, 2015 at 1:00 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 14, 2015 at 12:51 pm)Tonus Wrote: He wants everyone to be saved, but the best he can do is to save only a small number.  He admits as much, warning that the path to salvation was long and narrow and only few would ever find it.  Is it that this is the best he can do?  Maybe he doesn't want everyone to be saved?  A perfect god would implement a perfect solution, IMO.

Most of all, as chad already pointed out, he's pictured as a worship fetishist. I virtually can't count the passages where he claims to be a jealous god.

On a side note, I find that kind of funny, since it more or less implies that there are other gods.

Shit, commandments 2 and 3 did that.

(June 14, 2015 at 11:09 am)Randy Carson Wrote: For the atheist, just getting to the possibility that God even exists is a major undertaking. The rest gets easier after that.

Okay, fine. Lets put that to the test. God exists is a possibility. Can you show me one? Can you define one in a helpful way?

That's what I thought. Given the possibility, how does it get easier? Do I need to want for God to exist too? Will a lobotomy help?

(June 14, 2015 at 1:34 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(June 14, 2015 at 1:00 pm)abaris Wrote: Most of all, as chad already pointed out, he's pictured as a worship fetishist. I virtually can't count the passages where he claims to be a jealous god.

On a side note, I find that kind of funny, since it more or less implies that there are other gods.

Shit, commandments 2 and 3 did that.

I believe there was even a part where Moses' people were being poisoned by snakes (they referred to it as fire because they didn't understand poison), and Yahweh tells them to make a pole with a snake head and pray to it. It was a symbol to a snake god of healing, and modern day ambulances still use that insignia, and Yahweh was telling them to beseech another god for healing. Early Isrealites were polytheistic, so they believed other gods existed. Yahwists just wanted them to prefer one god over the others.

Step 1: provide a definition of god that is not self-contradictory.
Step 2: provide something that meets that definition that cannot be explained by something else.

Theists haven't even reached step 1, and yet they find our incredulousness flawed.