What would count as proof of God

[steve_bank]

Paraphrasing what I have heard before.

If some super being manifested itself with apparent supernatural powers we would have no way to know if it was 'god' or advanced technology. A recurring theme on the Star Trek saga.

 

[Learner]

Paraphrasing what I have heard before.

If some super being manifested itself with apparent supernatural powers we would have no way to know if it was 'god' or advanced technology. A recurring theme on the Star Trek saga.

If it was an entity like Q that created you, then he would still be your god (in your analogy), whether you like it or not. The creator IOWs makes the rules!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Paraphrasing what I have heard before.

If some super being manifested itself with apparent supernatural powers we would have no way to know if it was 'god' or advanced technology. A recurring theme on the Star Trek saga.

If it was an entity like Q that created you, then he would still be your god (in your analogy), whether you like it or not. The creator IOWs makes the rules!

But i still choose whether or not to worship him.
If he's a major butthole, then even if he creatified je, i don't owe him worship.
Obedience, maybe. Fear.
Not necessarily worship.

 

[Learner]

Paraphrasing what I have heard before.

If some super being manifested itself with apparent supernatural powers we would have no way to know if it was 'god' or advanced technology. A recurring theme on the Star Trek saga.

If it was an entity like Q that created you, then he would still be your god (in your analogy), whether you like it or not. The creator IOWs makes the rules!

But i still choose whether or not to worship him.
If he's a major butthole, then even if he creatified je, i don't owe him worship.
Obedience, maybe. Fear.
Not necessarily worship.

True, and you can't be forced to really love a creator. especially if he doesn't love you.

(Mind you..Q was rather fond of Picard)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Paraphrasing what I have heard before.

If some super being manifested itself with apparent supernatural powers we would have no way to know if it was 'god' or advanced technology. A recurring theme on the Star Trek saga.

If it was an entity like Q that created you, then he would still be your god (in your analogy), whether you like it or not. The creator IOWs makes the rules!

Steve isn't (to my understanding) talking about Q, but an episode where a woman claims to be a planet's god. Ultimately Picard is able to reenact her god-like abilities. The Q were god like.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Paraphrasing what I have heard before.

If some super being manifested itself with apparent supernatural powers we would have no way to know if it was 'god' or advanced technology. A recurring theme on the Star Trek saga.

If it was an entity like Q that created you, then he would still be your god (in your analogy), whether you like it or not. The creator IOWs makes the rules!

Steve isn't (to my understanding) talking about Q, but an episode where a woman claims to be a planet's god. Ultimately Picard is able to reenact her god-like abilities. The Q were god like.

The Q were not god-LIKE. They were omnipotent, omniscient petty immortal assholes.
I never could understand how Picard could keep looking at Q and flat out telling him, "You're no god!" What the fuck was he (they?) lacking?

 

[bilby]

Steve isn't (to my understanding) talking about Q, but an episode where a woman claims to be a planet's god. Ultimately Picard is able to reenact her god-like abilities. The Q were god like.

The Q were not god-LIKE. They were omnipotent, omniscient petty immortal assholes.
I never could understand how Picard could keep looking at Q and flat out telling him, "You're no god!" What the fuck was he (they?) lacking?

Respect. Worship. Adoration.

Picard's response was appropriate - sure, you can do anything. You choose to use this power to be a twat. Fuck off.

 

[skepticalbip]

Steve isn't (to my understanding) talking about Q, but an episode where a woman claims to be a planet's god. Ultimately Picard is able to reenact her god-like abilities. The Q were god like.

The Q were not god-LIKE. They were omnipotent, omniscient petty immortal assholes.
I never could understand how Picard could keep looking at Q and flat out telling him, "You're no god!" What the fuck was he (they?) lacking?

It wasn't what he/they were lacking. It was that he/they revealed too much. Modern-day gods stay invisible, so more mysterious.

 

[abaddon]

Steve isn't (to my understanding) talking about Q, but an episode where a woman claims to be a planet's god. Ultimately Picard is able to reenact her god-like abilities. The Q were god like.

The Q were not god-LIKE. They were omnipotent, omniscient petty immortal assholes.
I never could understand how Picard could keep looking at Q and flat out telling him, "You're no god!" What the fuck was he (they?) lacking?

Respect. Worship. Adoration.

Picard's response was appropriate - sure, you can do anything. You choose to use this power to be a twat. Fuck off.

Yeah. A god is a great being which people venerate. No veneration = no god. "Godhood" is not an inherent trait.

Now the supreme being, creator-of-all-the-universe God is another matter. If that entity decided to show himself, the correct thing to call him is "God" because of long tradition.

But a powerful creature like Q (even if has a couple omni-traits) is a "god" only if you think he's so awesomely venerable that you bow to him and worship.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Steve isn't (to my understanding) talking about Q, but an episode where a woman claims to be a planet's god. Ultimately Picard is able to reenact her god-like abilities. The Q were god like.

The Q were not god-LIKE. They were omnipotent, omniscient petty immortal assholes.
I never could understand how Picard could keep looking at Q and flat out telling him, "You're no god!" What the fuck was he (they?) lacking?

I thought Q was of a continuum, and in general the remainder of Q didn’t care.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Steve isn't (to my understanding) talking about Q, but an episode where a woman claims to be a planet's god. Ultimately Picard is able to reenact her god-like abilities. The Q were god like.

The Q were not god-LIKE. They were omnipotent, omniscient petty immortal assholes.
I never could understand how Picard could keep looking at Q and flat out telling him, "You're no god!" What the fuck was he (they?) lacking?

Respect. Worship. Adoration.

but not all gods are respected or adored.
Some are scorned, feared, despised, scapegoated.

I suspect all of them are scorned by SOMEONE. Loki's followers talk trash about Thor, Thor's people scorn Loki, Kali's people scorn everyone...
At hest, Picard was really saying, you're not MY (idea of) god.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Respect. Worship. Adoration.

Picard's response was appropriate - sure, you can do anything. You choose to use this power to be a twat. Fuck off.

Yeah. A god is a great being which people venerate. No veneration = no god. "Godhood" is not an inherent trait.

Now the supreme being, creator-of-all-the-universe God is another matter. If that entity decided to show himself, the correct thing to call him is "God" because of long tradition.

But a powerful creature like Q (even if has a couple omni-traits) is a "god" only if you think he's so awesomely venerable that you bow to him and worship.

So, when did Jehovah cross the line from reeeeeeeally puissant being to god?
When he made the angels?
Adam?
Woman?
When Adam and Woman knew enough to venerate?
Abel's first sacrifice?
First altar?
First church?

 

[abaddon]

When he got called "God" a lot. Again, it's merely a convention. There's no intrinsic "godness" that makes some super-powerful beings gods and others not.

 

[steve_bank]

Paraphrasing what I have heard before.

If some super being manifested itself with apparent supernatural powers we would have no way to know if it was 'god' or advanced technology. A recurring theme on the Star Trek saga.

If it was an entity like Q that created you, then he would still be your god (in your analogy), whether you like it or not. The creator IOWs makes the rules!

Steve isn't (to my understanding) talking about Q, but an episode where a woman claims to be a planet's god. Ultimately Picard is able to reenact her god-like abilities. The Q were god like.

That was one story, there were a few.

To learner, it would be a god only to the ignorant.

If you take Genesis and god as metaphor then your parents are metaphorically god. Archaeological evidence indicates the early Semites had both a masculine and feminine image as god. In the Abraham traditions the male patriarch of the family was god with power of life and death. Ut is still that way in conservative Muslim areas. Honor killings. A daughter executed for what is considered red acting dishonorably.

A Saudi royal woman was publicly beheaded around the 8s for sexual relations in Europe. A British film crew caught it.

We were not mdse in the image of god. The Abrahamic god is a reflection of the male misogynist patriarch.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, that would explain why he is such a dick.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When he got called "God" a lot. Again, it's merely a convention. There's no intrinsic "godness" that makes some super-powerful beings gods and others not.

Think of the word as an emotional utterance, a kind of grunt of relief because it covers a lot of ground and fills in lots of holes for people. It's comforting to bring in one of the most pretended group of beings of human history when you need to chill. Can make a person feel connected.

I heard a cop saying "it was only the will of god...." Lots of people got killed and more got shot but somehow it was only the will of a god that more didn't get shot or killed.

Sometimes I use the word "mercy." I think it has the same effect.

 

[atrib]

I concur. But the conversation always heads in this direction…………….


Some supernatural event. But then………….

That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural,

But supernatural events aren't allowed. We philosophically limit our explanations to nature only explanations. There can be nothing beyond nature. You won’t allow yourselves to follow the evidence where it leads.

And when you present evidence that we can test and verify, we will follow it to where it leads. In the meanwhile, you have nothing.

You have made this claim before, and you have been challenged on it.

Completely with you, you are arguing against miracles…..but your argument is begging the question…..you are arguing in a circle. I’ll attempt to show you that at the end. But first…………

1. This is big. This is what you are not accounting for when you speak against resurrection. Our definition and understandings of miracles is different. Yours is governed and limited by your epistemology of strict materialistic naturalism. Thus to you miracles are a violation of nature and must be naturally explained. I get it. You are begging the question for naturalism. Specifically more on that later.

At the end of the day, I am interested in the truth. And I am willing to consider whatever epistemological tool works best. So I put forward this challenge to you:

Show me a way to seek and reliably evaluate truth claims about the supernatural or spiritual world.

I am calling your bluff. I am asking you to define the epistemological tools you used to construct the ontology you believe to be factual.

(1) Describe the ontology you have constructed where gods and spirits are allowed to exist and intervene in our universe,
(2) describe how such interactions work and how they are in conformance what we observe (the laws of nature), and
(3) describe the epistemological process you used to construct this ontology.

When you were called out on your claim, you ran away. And now you are back, repeating the same nonsense.

You are stuck in the cave of nature only by philosophical choice. Reminds me of the movie….The Croods.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

The evidence is there you just philosophically choose to suppress the implications. You can’t even step out of the cave far enough to see where the evidence leads. Because it can’t lead outside the cave. The cave is all there is. I feel safe in the cave. There might be a Santa Claus riding a unicorn out there chasing a bad fairy.

Shameless!

 

[skepticalbip]

What would count as proof of God

A start would be that if everyone got whatever they prayed for like Jesus promised.

 

[Politesse]

What would count as proof of God

A start would be that if everyone got whatever they prayed for like Jesus promised.

I believe that he said this only respect to those who had "faith"; a category of people so exclusive, it seems not to have included his own disciples. Presumably, miracles would not happen often if they happen only for a small and particular group of people.

 

[skepticalbip]

What would count as proof of God

A start would be that if everyone got whatever they prayed for like Jesus promised.

I believe that he said this only respect to those who had "faith"; a category of people so exclusive, it seems not to have included his own disciples. Presumably, miracles would not happen often if they happen only for a small and particular group of people.

Ah, but that is just an out. If someone doesn't get what they ask for, which is normal, then it is blamed on them for not having enough faith, even if they had absolutely no doubt.

The question was, "What would count as proof of God". I have to assume that this is asked of nonbelievers because believers already think anything is proof of god, including a carbuncle on their butt. As a nonbeliever, I would consider that if anyone got whatever they prayed for then that would be a good start in 'proving' god.