Ways in which I'm more powerful than God

[John V]

If you don't see a difference between me producing messages right now in real time, in specific reply to things you are saying, and a story written in a book which never changes, then there's nothing much to discuss.

At the absolute best it demonstrates God did exist 2000 years ago, but says nothing about his continued existence. And by that standard, so did Bilbo Baggins.

Ad hoc much? Do you dismiss Caesar's existence because he's not producing messages right now in real time? Is George Washington therefore equivalent to Bilbo Baggins?

[Full Circle]

In my experience, universes don't come into existence by themselves

You make it sound as though you’ve been present when a universe has come into existence. Do you have any idea how ridiculous this makes you look?

[robvalue]

I think the conversation has already become ridiculous. No one ever claims George Washington is still alive today, do they? And also, he's a human. We already know humans are possible. He also has much better evidence for his existence than an obviously fictional story written about him.

I assume you think God is alive today, and so it would be reasonable to expect that he could demonstrate this. He either can't, or won't, in a way everyone can verify. Unlike me.

But this wild equivocation shows that further discussion is pointless.

[John V]

I think the conversation has already become ridiculous. No one ever claims George Washington is still alive today, do they? And also, he's a human. We already know humans are possible. He also has much better evidence for his existence than an obviously fictional story written about him.

And now you're reduced to materialism.

I assume you think God is alive today, and so it would be reasonable to expect that he could demonstrate this.

Yes, and he could.

He either can't, or won't, in a way everyone can verify.

He won't.

Unlike me.

Still waiting for you to knock on my door.

But this wild equivocation shows that further discussion is pointless.

IOW, But crap, I didn't think this through, so I'm gonna take my ball and go home.

[Redbeard The Pink]

I think the conversation has already become ridiculous. No one ever claims George Washington is still alive today, do they? And also, he's a human. We already know humans are possible. He also has much better evidence for his existence than an obviously fictional story written about him.

And now you're reduced to materialism.

I assume you think God is alive today, and so it would be reasonable to expect that he could demonstrate this.

Yes, and he could.

He either can't, or won't, in a way everyone can verify.

He won't.

Unlike me.

Still waiting for you to knock on my door.

But this wild equivocation shows that further discussion is pointless.

IOW, But crap, I didn't think this through, so I'm gonna take my ball and go home.

Your standard for determining whether Rob exists is to demand that he come knock on your door? Did you demand that Gaud knock on your door before believing that he exists? If not, why would you demand that from Rob?


What you seem to be claiming here (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the existence of a storybook character that supposedly talks to you all the time is and should be more believable than the existence of a human being that (if he really wanted to prove a point) could, in fact, track your ass down and knock on your door. That, sir, is folly.

[John V]

Your standard for determining whether Rob exists is to demand that he come knock on your door? Did you demand that Gaud knock on your door before believing that he exists? If not, why would you demand that from Rob?

I was flexible. I'm willing to accept that words imply a writer, as they don't just form on their own. But, by that standard, creation implies a creator.

[robvalue]

Just another thought:

Me writing these messages is good evidence that I exist. Of course I could, in theory, come knock on anyone's door, if money and time were no object.

A bloke writing a story containing a character is good evidence that the bloke exists. It's not good evidence that the character he is writing about exists. Or else every story ever written is automatically probably real.

Deep down, people must see this. Intellectually, they must realize the difference between an author and a subject that author is writing about. But the fact that the bible is only evidence that some guy wrote it cannot be allowed into the Christian's mind.

To validate the existence of things within the story, you need independent evidence. And of course, in the case of God, there is none. Not then, and certainly not now. And nothing new, like this very message.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Your standard for determining whether Rob exists is to demand that he come knock on your door? Did you demand that Gaud knock on your door before believing that he exists? If not, why would you demand that from Rob?

I was flexible. I'm willing to accept that words imply a writer, as they don't just form on their own. But, by that standard, creation implies a creator.

Even if that were true, where's the evidence that reality is a "creation"? If something is clearly identifiable as "created," then sure, I suppose you'd have to assume a creator is responsible, but on what grounds do you claim that reality is a creation? Theists are eager to refer to reality as "creation" because that language does indeed imply a creator, but nobody ever adequately explains what makes them so sure that reality was created in the first place (aside from the Wholly Babble, of course).

[robvalue]

There is none. We have no created universe or uncreated universe to compare to. We just have this universe.

It could have been created, there just isn't any evidence that it was.

People often commit the fallacy of composition, that because some things in the universe are designed, the whole thing itself must be designed. Or else personal incredulity, "I can't imagine how all this came about with being designed".

Which in turn commits begging the question, because it assumes that the universe came about and hasn't always just existed in some form.

Even if it was created, that doesn't make any story which happens to mention the creation of reality automatically true. Obviously not, since people only pick one religion.

Regarding me again and my existence, I think more reasonable next steps could have been asking me to make videos in response to comments. I've already done this before, and can do again. I could even hold up my ID. Remember I said demonstrate and not prove. Of course there is always some doubt for anything in reality. Flying around the world to knock on a stranger's door is rather a lot of effort and expense to go to in order to argue a point on what is only a light hearted thread.

[robvalue]

On the other hand, effort and expense should be no barrier to God. So he has no excuse for refusing to communicate.

If he's indistinguishable from nothing, then for all practical purposes, he is nothing. You're nothing, you hear me God! I've taken your place now. Don't listen to the turtle/bottled water guy