Learner
Veteran Member
Yes well here's the problem with your idea of the Christian faith. You are confusing this, it sounds like, with something you see in the movies. You said you've read the bible, but I have to believe you were not really taking it in. Rather you saw a lot of texts and thought you'd just race over them and get a little gist of the essence.Well, its not like you can tell us where this god is going to show up. If you did that, we could bring our instruments and set up tests under controlled conditions. As of now, for every single observation we have ever made, we have zero tests to confirm the existence of a god or its ability to intervene in human affairs. Its not our fault that your god never shows up when there are scientists making observations.Never ever detected, or perhaps at least, not catching God doing it in the act. Is the claimer of "no gods possible" 100% very sure his cameras cover all bases?If I claimed that there is an invisible creature living in my attic, that this creature has the ability to break the laws of nature and interfere in our lives, and that this creature never, ever does anything that could be detected by humans, would a reasonable person believe this claim? The answer is obviously "NO". How is an alleged god any different from the alleged creature in my story?No.
Bilby is claiming that any god that interacts with humanity in any way would only be able to do so using one of the four known forces that are the only things that can possibly interact with humans.
I'm wandering if the tester readily had monitoring equipment in place, somehow, forecasting exactly where a God interaction claim, a miracle claim or similar claim, would spontaneously happen, just at the right place and right time? Assuming God is not going to come to the lab on your request.
And that therefore god's interactions with us would have been detected, easily.
When you look for something, knowing exactly what you are looking for and how to see it, and you never find it, then (if you are sane) you conclude that it's not there.
I was wondering what one would actually be looking for. What type of disturbances in the field, so to speak, would be noticeable and expected? Sounds like you have a "text-book" expectation for any creator of a universe to be noticed.
I'm pondering on the thought that by merely looking at the universe, which is systematically running as clockwork (considering the universe is created.). Does God neccessarily need to be pulling levers and strings; shovelling coal into the furnace engine, so to speak, so that you should expect to notice some creator indication? God would have included automation in my view, in concept.
As I previously posted:
"I'm wandering if the tester readily had monitoring equipment in place, somehow, forecasting exactly where a God interaction claim, a miracle claim or similar claim, would spontaneously happen, just at the right place and right time? Assuming God is not going to come to the lab on your request."
God appears visually only in the last days.
I've mentioned quite a few times, to investigate you'd have to look into archeology, history, geography, geology, chemistry, biology, and psycology. Soley through physics as it seems to be suggested here, and asking the theists to explain by physics is either disengenous or erroneus.
There are no eye witness accounts of the Jesus miracles. There are not thousands of manuscripts. There are Paul's letters, and the four Gospels. And the letters and the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. Why did you repeat this falsehood knowing fully well that it is a falsehood?How is this god any different from a god that does not exist? How could you possibly differentiate between the two?I'm pondering on the thought that by merely looking at the universe, which is systematically running as clockwork (if considering the universe is created.). Does God neccessarily need to be pulling levers and strings; shovelling coal into the furnace engine, so to speak, so that you should expect to notice some creator indication?
I don't think I agree to the notion that all claims are the same. To state the obvious, in your sole claim of 'the invisible creature in the attic' versus 'the many eye witness reports of claims, written in thousands of manuscripts,' there's a big difference.
If you don't know the Christanity faith as I've mentioned in the previous above, then you more likely to be wrong again here. Although you've not explain why, I disagree.
How is the god claim different from the invisible creature in the attic that cannot be detected claim
Getting back to my point, which you avoided because you had no answer:
How do you distinguish between a god that does not exist and a god that cannot be detected? Is there any practical difference between the two?
I think I answered this or maybe it was someone elses post. The word avoidance seems to be your favouirte word, obviosly pretty redundant here.
There's no difference between god that can't be detected and a god that doesn't exist when it come to the same method for detection - the means to detect, depending on the limits of the detection apparatus. And if a god does in fact exist but is still not detected, an option left out. This would therefore mean your detecting apparatus is not good enough.