• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Derail from "God Can't Pick Up A Piece of Paper"

Why doesn't God pay attention to my childish whim, when God knows that I'll write it off as a hallucination or attribute it to a menacing conspiracy, psychics, or some type of tech that I am not privy to? It can't possibly be that someone who is too childish to understand their potential reactions is also too childish to treat as an adult, can it?

Someone who'd say "pick up a piece of paper to prove yourself to me" doesn't even understand their own nature, and definitely hasn't thought this through.

Then why did god perform all those miracles in the Bible? Didn't he know that it would have have been pointless to do something to prove himself to others? Obviously, god is not as clever as you are. I think you should give him a firm lecture on what he's been doing and explain to him how you know he was wrong to do all those things in the Bible. Since you know better than him, I'm sure he will be patient and listen to your lecture.
 
There's evidence, and then there's evidence we should see if X is true. Atheists and theists play this game a lot, and it gets frustrating. Some theists and even whole religions have caught on. It's Joel Olsteen theology. Be so vague and opaque that nothing can really be pinned down. Keep the idea of God so fuzzy that he is able to morph, at whim, into whatever is needed, yet also able to defy any kind of scrutiny whatsoever.

Then there's the rest, and the conversation goes something like this:

Atheist asks theist a question (often regarding a perceived contradiction, or other logical error or bias).

Theist makes a claim, and oops, made a claim that is testable.

Atheist suggest way to test claim.

Theist now seeks to invalidate the suggested test, so god can once again creep back into the shadows of obscurity. Better no evidence than counter evidence.

Repeat Ad Naseum.

Doesn't it bother you theists that miracles were much, much more common when very few were educated and science was primitive? Doesn't it bother you the more we learn about the universe we inhabit, the less specific god's attributes become? Doesn't it bother you that every time God was thought to be the cause of something, it has always given way to a naturalistic cause, never the reverse, not ONE time?

Look, bitch about a scrap of paper all you want until you're blue in the face. If you believe, sincerely really believe that God is omnibenevolent, then solve the theodicy problem. Unfortunately, last I checked, this isn't solved. It doesn't mean excuse it, it means resolve the contradiction. If you can't then admit the contradiction exists, and that you believe things without evidence to support them...i.e. faith. Admit that you pretend to know things you don't actually know, or admit that you believe in things that are contradictory that you cannot account for. Nine times out of ten if I ask why someone has faith they start giving reasons for belief. Look, if you start spouting bad evidence as a reason for faith, you don't have faith. You have reasons for believing as you do, and you're mistaken in your belief because they're just bad reasons.

Ah well, the sleeping pills I took an hour ago, are really kicking in so if this has been rambling on with no foreseeable point I apologize. I'm going to bed. Goodnight people.
 
Like many here I've experienced my share of religious nutters. One kept claiming that resurrections are happening everyday via god's will but the news is being suppressed. Sound familiar? It really is a matter of being pretty stupid and therefore allowing religion to get hold and keep hold.

I'll have to ask the next nutter that comes along if their religion is something they do professionally or if they get to pick and choose what they want to believe, like a hobby. That ought to lock them up for a while.

I've encountered claims like that too. We live in an age where a very large percentage of us carry a video camera in our pocket, yet evidence still doesn't come forth.
That is so weird, because love cannot be taken heavy handed, and is the top of the hierarchy of needs. So, one who has all the power must instill love through careful actions. Love is created through knowledge of the fragility of love itself, not through some blatant display of power.

And love is more complicated than right and wrong, rather it is a careful measure of care, and a careful measure of obstinance. So while we can wile away at the subtleties of life, love itself requires a steady and careful hand, which is not acknowledged by those who deny its existence in the form of law. Good luck.
 
No doubt he will give you a boil on your arse just for asking, as a lesson for asking dumb fool questions.
 
God is everywhere, including the piece of paper. So it's like asking you to pick up your left kidney: "picking it up" is the same as "standing up".
 
Gravity and Love

Gravity embraces, contains, integrates and cohere's Universe.

Love embraces, contains, integrates and coheres a biological family.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Cosmic laws/principles complement occupied space

Love is a genetic proclivity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Future > In-spirits to present, eternally

Past > Out-spirits from present, eternally

r6
 
'Braces for Impact' said a lot in post #42 -- 'God' is such a fuzzy concept that the believers can provide him with a free pass for all criticisms. Witness just about any pastor's message at a child's funeral.
Specifically on the piece of paper idea: Prophet Elijah did set up an elaborate experiment, described in some detail in I Kings 18, to show that his god was real and Baal was imaginary. It was done in front of many spectators, and it was specifically meant to reconvert Ahab and the people who had rejected the "true" god. In verses 36 and 37 Elijah is said to pray to god, but it's as close to an order as you can get and still be said to be beseeching. He wants god to start a fire on a water-drenched altar. God deigns to do it. Crackle, crackle --god burns the sacrifice, the wooden altar, even some stones and dirt. This is a useful passage to counter the Christians when they scoff at the piece of paper challenge or tell you that god heals but he won't heal an amputee because he won't submit to a test. Suck it up, Christers, it's there in the Almighty Word O' God. He did submit to a test and he did show off his powers in what, for about 900 B.C., was a controlled experiment. (I really think god today is like the UFO beings who won't show up unless it's just to Cletus and Otis who are out in the swamp frog-gigging.)
 
Nope. What makes it true that getting hit with a rock sucks is the fact that getting hit with a rock demonstrably does suck. You can do the science. The actual "observation" here is that, well, getting hit with a rock really does suck.
Not in all cases (we can all imagine scenarios in which getting hit by a rock doesn't suck- it leads to something good).

But yes, I was simply being lazy when I said what I said, and it ballooned into the straw man you and Keith are attacking because sometimes I attempt to defend sloppy statements I make, because I love a challenge. However, it's distracting from the point I was trying to make.

If 10000000 people believe something, it is real, because of the effect their belief has upon reality. Our imaginations are real- you cannot deny their existence (nor will you).

The other thing I mentioned was that we need to believe in the existence of imaginary entities, such as the tooth fairy, to delineate between real entities, such as a rock, and imaginary entities. We have to believe that imaginary entities exist to understand that certain things we think about are imaginary.

If we say no imaginary entities exist, then every entity we imagine is real. That's not even remotely sane.

You use the word "real" in a funny way... Most people (that you are talking to right now, at least) use the word "real" to mean "objectively real".. that is, something that a contradictory opinion of existence cannot be made. If I had a rock in my hand, showed it to you, andasked you if this wa sa rock, you examined it and agreed it was a rock, then we can confirm that rock is real.

If I tell you I have an invisible dragon in my hand and ask you to comment on it, and then another person to comment on it, you two are not going to possibly have the same exact descriptions... you may think you "respect my beleifs" by humoring me, and concede that this invisible dragon is "subjectively real [TO ME]", as a platitude.. but the lack of objectively real invisible dragons is going to cause some serious debates about what this dragon demands of us, due to the shamelfully absent objective reality of its existence.

God (and all other imaginary things) may be subjectively real to different people in different ways, but the fact that these imagined "things" are not objectively real makes them completely worthless outside of the mind of whomever whimsically decides any o'le thing is subjectively real to them.

In short, when you speak with a rationalist, the word "real" means objectively real.. not "I really really like this idea so I am going to pretend it reflects reality because I just like it that way... objective reality, of course.
 
God is everywhere, including the piece of paper. So it's like asking you to pick up your left kidney: "picking it up" is the same as "standing up".

Then you do not believe God is omnipotent.

He was just taught what to say in response.. it is a standard "chick tract" thing. It's not like he thought about it and reasoned the response or anything.
I don't think they teach a standard response to omnipotence (it is, after all, quite a big word to remember) and the tri-Omni paradox.
perhaps the best they teach for this is, "um... MYSTERIOUS! (but I still know what he demands of you)".
 
(I really think god today is like the UFO beings who won't show up unless it's just to Cletus and Otis who are out in the swamp frog-gigging.)

There's way better evidence of space aliens than god. At least people see them--or at least they think they see them. UFOs have been seen by credible witnesses both alone and in groups with no motivation other than to say what they saw. UFOs have been tracked on radar. Even if every last picture or video is either a fake or something quite earthly, at least those things are testable. And there's good reason to believe that other intelligent life exists in the universe even if it hasn't made here.

And contrary to all the cynicism about humans, frankly, I think aliens would like it here. Humans are a fun lot and I doubt the aliens would get all shitty about us having some drinks and screwing. Yes, there are bad neighborhood on our planet, and it can be dangerous, but it's like going to Tijuana. As long as you're careful you can have some crazy-ass fun.

What was I talking about?

Oh yeah. Evidence of a creator. Well, where the fuck is he/she/it/them? I don't recall a big ass Jesus being spotted flying over Phoenix recently by hundreds of people.
 
Beg to differ. Jesus and his mom love to show up in bagels, in grain patterns on wooden doors, in oil stains on the outsides of storage tanks, and my favorites (which are easy to google): in shower mold and in bird poop on some guy's pickup windshield in Tennessee. Deities are all around us, if we have eyes to see.
 
(I really think god today is like the UFO beings who won't show up unless it's just to Cletus and Otis who are out in the swamp frog-gigging.)

There's way better evidence of space aliens than god. At least people see them--or at least they think they see them. UFOs have been seen by credible witnesses both alone and in groups with no motivation other than to say what they saw. UFOs have been tracked on radar. Even if every last picture or video is either a fake or something quite earthly, at least those things are testable. And there's good reason to believe that other intelligent life exists in the universe even if it hasn't made here.

And contrary to all the cynicism about humans, frankly, I think aliens would like it here. Humans are a fun lot and I doubt the aliens would get all shitty about us having some drinks and screwing. Yes, there are bad neighborhood on our planet, and it can be dangerous, but it's like going to Tijuana. As long as you're careful you can have some crazy-ass fun.

What was I talking about?

Oh yeah. Evidence of a creator. Well, where the fuck is he/she/it/them? I don't recall a big ass Jesus being spotted flying over Phoenix recently by hundreds of people.

Great episode of "Enterprise"... part of a minor subplot, during a time when there was no 'universal translator' and they were trying to get to know an alien species, the aliens came to visit several times, and each time they ran off totally offended. They kept trying to appease them with good manners and such, but they kept getting offended... finally they figured out what they were ranting about... They viewed eating as a highly personal act.. .they were offended that humans eat in public... "putting food inside their mouths.. in front of other people!" They viewed the dining experience like humans view sexual acts.. they are for private, not public display.

Anyway.. it was very clever how it unfolded.. and addresses some cultural incompatibilities that were never really brought up before in Star Trek... as if everyone was so similar in the galaxy.. heh.
 
Back
Top Bottom