Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[The Reality Salesman01]

I think he was insinuating that they were both virgins ; )

Have you ever seen virgin-porn?

[fr0d0]

That's what I was talking about too

[Anomalocaris]

I think he was insinuating that they were both virgins ; )

Have you ever seen virgin-porn?

Yes. It's called the bible.

[Esquilax]

I think he was insinuating that they were both virgins ; )

Have you ever seen virgin-porn?

In fairness, my post was initially going to just state that two christian men of Drich and GC's stripe are probably virgins when it comes to homosexual sex.

I resorted to the low blow after.

[Theo Zacharias]

@theo, it all depends on how you want to define god.

If you want to say god affects the world in ways that known laws of nature do not, then it is reproducible. Because there will be multiple phenomenons that violate the laws of nature, and they can all be analyzed. And since it would happen so many times, the analysis is reproducible.

Not necessarily true.
If God affects the world frequently on the same place/person, then yes it's reproducible and subject to scientific investigation. We can go to the place or meet the person and conduct a scientific experiment to verify the effect.
But if God affects the world frequently but always (or at least most of the time) on a different place/person, then how can we conduct any scientific investigation if we don't know where to go to verify the effect?

[Cyberman]

That, I'm afraid, is your problem; not necessarily you specifically, but anyone proposing that there is a god affecting reality.

[Bad Writer]

Someone doesn't know how evidence for an outrageous claim must be demonstrated in order to be accepted as a factual phenomenon. Lightning can strike the same spot more than once in one night in Venezuela. We don't know all the reasons why, but we know this is true because it has been verified.

[Cyberman]

As I understand it, lightning is more likely to strike the same spot mutliple times than not. Each strike primes the air for the next one. That or Zeus has had a lot of practise.

[Theo Zacharias]

First, I appreciate your honest self-reflection. You're up front about not knowing, about stating you haven't seen the evidence for the proof of God's existence or not, and you state that there are social pressures to continue to believe, rather than a firm conviction of evidence.

Thank you for your appreciation. About the social pressure, just to be clear, the social pressure is hypothetical. What I was saying is it will most likely happen to me *if* I convert to atheist. But I never convert to atheist so I never feel any social pressure because of this.

Second, I agree that scientists would seek to reconsider their understanding about the laws of nature. This was a solid rebuttal to my OP. I think a suspended upside down volcano with disappearing lava is fairly supernatural, but we can extend it, or rewrite it altogether. Suppose God intervenes by bringing back a larger than actual life performance by all members of the Beatles - God's half time show, where each member stands 3000 feet tall in the sky, as they rock out to "Can't Buy Me Love" while 10,000 Micheal Jacksons do the thriller dance and maybe 25 of them start touching all the boys. (Sorry, over the top

Do you think a natural being with technology far more advanced than what we have now cannot do those things above? Using cloning technology that is hundreds or thousands or millions years more advance than what we have now maybe?

There can be supernatural events that occur. He could repeatedly violate all the laws of thermodynamics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

If on the future, we discover a true perpetual motion phenomenon, what would be the interpretation of that discovery? That the phenomenon is a supernatural phenomenon? Or that there's something wrong with the first or second law of thermodynamics? I think it will be interpreted as a flaw on the law, and physicists will modify the law or develop a new one that will make perpetual motion phenomenon becomes a natural phenomenon.

Something like this has happened in the past. Around 250 years ago, a scientist discovered that the rate of precession of perihelion of Mercury's orbit disagreed from that predicted from Newton's theory, an accepted law of nature (gravity) at that time. What did the interpretation of the finding? That Mercury is a supernatural planet that does not obey the law of nature? Of course not. Scientists ended up developing and accepting a new theory of gravity that supersede Newton's theory, i.e. Einstein's general of relativity. The prediction of general relativity agrees closely with the observed amount of perihelion shift.

He could show up and hang out for years, subjecting himself to tests, interviews, impoverished populations, hospitalized victims, etc, etc. There are a limitless number of things that could be done to confirm his omnipotence. Make us 2 dimensional. Something.

If those things you said above happen, how do you know that it's God who do those things and not a natural being with technology far more advance than what we have now posing as God?

Also, what is this faster than light form of communication you speak of?

I was saying that if in the future we discover a true FTL communication, then scientist won't interpret that as a supernatural phenomenon. They will interpret that as a sign that there's something wrong with special relativity.

A. If you don't adhere to the extremes and limits of religions, and impose their terrible value system upon others, I have nothing against you finding that you fit in better while believing a god is real. But if you should happen to agree that we shouldn't perform stem cell research, or that gays are an abomination who shouldn't be able to marry, or that the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs and man coexisted, or that global warming is a madmade hoax, you're crossing the threshold of "overall positive effect," particularly over something that has no basis for reality.

I never said that I agree with those things above. In fact I disagree with those things.
There are many kind of theist. If most theists that you know/hear agree to those things, please don't assume that all of them (including me) also agree.

B. Again, I appreciate the candor with which you recognize the reason for your beliefs. But I do wish to emphasize that this is certainly no basis for the claim being true. You seem to acknowledge this, so I have no quarrel.

Yes, you understand my position correctly in this matter. There are several (not all) atheists who responded to my posting last week that does not understand this. They think that because I said there is a reason to believe that God exists, then I conclude that God exists. That certainly is not my position. I perfectly aware that the reason I said is not evidence. The reason (assuming valid) only makes my belief becomes a rational belief, but not necessarily a true belief. I need an evidence to make my belief becomes a true belief. Because, as far as I know, there is no evidence either way then I don't know whether my belief is true or not, i.e. I don't know whether God exists or not.

C. The reason is because of how you spend your life, time, and energy pursuing a belief system that has no evidence for being true. Flash forward to the future - you're 65 years old (I was going to say 95, but at that point, you probably wouldn't care one way or another). And if you make the realization then that there is no god, you may well regret all the time you spent at church, all the candidates you supported in elections, all the time frittered away on an unattainable pipedream. You'll have spent the majority of your life believing in, what may as well be Zeus and Poseidon. And just because your friends and relatives do? Hopefully, they're good enough Christians (or other) to forgive you for your honest pursuit of knowledge. And if they're not, because of their beliefs, is that really something you wish to emulate?

Again, if most of the theists/Christians you know/hear feel horrible going to a church or support someone just because he/she has the same belief in God, then please don't assume that all theists/Christians are like that. I'm happy going to church. It gives me a spiritual satisfaction. I play guitar at the church and I also make many new friends. I actually met my current girlfriend at church. So even *if* (big IF) in the future I found an evidence that God does not exist (which in that case I will convert to atheist), I still won't regret having spent all my time at church. Why should I regret?

D. I agree with your questioning here. But the distinction I want to make from religion is that these ideas are relatively new. Christianity is 2000 years old, and other religions much older. Suppose 2000 years from now, scientists have discovered everything that would have otherwise explained string theory, and it's all supported by verifiable evidence. If at that point, people are still clinging to the belief of string theory, then yes, I would think they are nuts.

How about now? Currently, several physicists (especially ones who work on string theory) believes that graviton exists. They well aware that there is no known evidence of the existence of graviton so far. Do you think that they are nuts?

But SETI? Definitely not. We just don't know, and the search itself brings new technology, knowledge and understanding that can vastly improve our lives. It's foolish to write that off.

You seem to be more welcome in believe of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Note that human have been searching for extraterrestrial intelligence at least as long as they have been searching for God. God Himself is actually a kind of extraterrestrial intelligence. I assume you call a believe in God existence irrational, right? Do you call a believe in extraterrestrial intelligence existence irrational? Seems like you answer no. If that so, what's the difference compare to belief in God existence? They both has no known evidence.

I want to take another crack at this. Your position is, on an innumerable amount of things we can't disprove, that you accept that this one unfounded, unverified belief is more likely to be correct. But by extension, you are establishing that it's better to believe in leprechauns, unicorns, Russell's teapot, Santa Claus, etc. until proven otherwise. So you just accept, without any evidence, any number of imaginings. Otherwise you're inconsistent in your ration- ahem, your irrationale. So consider that. You're staring at a list of equally unsupported ideas which all have not been proven false. Thousands of them. Yet you cherry pick Christianity and say, "it's okay. Why shouldn't I believe it?"

If you were intellectually honest, you'd recognize that you'd have to accept that entire list. But I imagine you immediately see the absurdity in doing that. Problem is, Christianity is no different. So all those lies you might have to tell in part A), in adopting Christianity, you have to commit to the biggest lie of all, and devote to it your entire life. Seems like a good reason to me not to.

I never said nor agreed that unverified belief is more likely to be correct. Why do you assume that I am? Can you point out one of my posting last week that imply this?
You have many false presumptions about me. I must quote Wikipedia about straw man:

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Regarding to leprechauns, unicorns, Russell's teapot, Santa Claus, etc, there were already 2 postings last weeks that asked me about this (before you joined the discussion) and I already answered them both last week. In short, I believe several things exist (e.g. God) without evidence that those things exist because there is a reason to believe. On the contrary, I don't believe several other things existence (e.g. leprechauns, unicorns, Russell's teapot, Santa Claus) because there is no reason to believe or there is a reason not to believe. I have presented some of the reasons last week. Also, I must point out again, to avoid misunderstanding, that the reasons are not evidence. The reasons only makes my believe becomes a rational belief and not necessarily becomes a true belief.

---

For anyone (e.g. Stimbo & BadWriterSparty) who wants to response to my posting, please understand my position.
I clearly stated in my religious view entry (and also last week) that I am agnostic theism. It means that I believe that God exists but not claiming to know that God Exists. I repeat again: I don't claim that I know God exists. I assume here that you know the difference between know and belief.

That, I'm afraid, is your problem; not necessarily you specifically, but anyone proposing that there is a god affecting reality.

If you want to join a discussion, you have to understand the context of the discussion. In the discussion between me and pineapplebunnybounce, she was the one who make an assertion/claim, i.e. that if my God affects the world in anyway, it must generate some form of evidence. I responded that this is not necessarily true.

Someone doesn't know how evidence for an outrageous claim must be demonstrated in order to be accepted as a factual phenomenon. Lightning can strike the same spot more than once in one night in Venezuela. We don't know all the reasons why, but we know this is true because it has been verified.

About lightning, my and pineapplebunnybounce's last post was talking about God affects the world in ways that known laws of nature do not, i.e. we was talking about supernatural phenomenon. Lightning is a natural phenomenon.

As I understand it, lightning is more likely to strike the same spot mutliple times than not. Each strike primes the air for the next one. That or Zeus has had a lot of practise.

This is not true. Although it's not impossible, the probability that lightning strikes on the same spot twice or more is very low.

[Bad Writer]

Well then what would you consider to be a confirmed supernatural phenomenon? Meaning it happened, but we don't know why. What then gives you the right to call it supernatural just because we can't yet explain it? This is the conundrum that should actually lead many to realize that there's really no such thing as a supernatural phenomenon, rather they're all just natural phenomena that can't yet be explained.

Also, becoming an atheist after being a theist is know as deconversion, not conversion, as that would denote gaining or switching beliefs. Since all atheists do is disbelieve, saying that one converts to atheism is not aptly put.