• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What would "god" need to do in order to prove that she really existed?

Hmm I suspect this is one of those things where OP says "I just love waffles" and someone replies "Oh so pancakes are just ◊◊◊◊ on the ground to you then huh? Real nice"
Had she instead said, "if there's a God she would have intervened with Holocaust", even though it would still show her focal point to the world, which is no problem for me, I'd not have brought up the question. Your anology is as bad as her outlook.
 
Last edited:
"Myself, one of the things that would convince me was for her (wearing a body cam) to go right into Gaza (or wherever Hamas has them) and get the hostages with bullets bouncing off her and everything. (Of course, bouncing off the hostages too)."

So in your opinion if there's a God she shouldn't even worry about bouncing bullets hitting the innocent ?


Yup, why not? My idea of god would be someone who would bring the "innocent" back to life.

Obviously, your idea of god would just leave them dead.


-
 
Hmm I suspect this is one of those things where OP says "I just love waffles" and someone replies "Oh so pancakes are just ◊◊◊◊ on the ground to you then huh? Real nice"


You must LOVE negative people.


-
 
Had she instead said, "if there's a God she would have intervened with Holocaust", even though it would still show her focal point to the world, which is no problem for me, I'd not have brought up the question. Your anology is as bad as her outlook.


I'm NOT a she. AmyStrange (a talking Cat) is a character in my novels.

It's in my profile.


-
 
Last edited:
Yup, why not? My idea of god would be someone who would bring the "innocent" back to life.

Obviously, your idea of god would just leave them dead.


-
Excuse me for being so stupid. I should've known for some people "innocent" means only their kind. I thought innocent people who suffer in Gaza were not just the Israeli hostages.
 
Excuse me for being so stupid. I should've known for some people "innocent" means only their kind. I thought innocent people who suffer in Gaza were not just the Israeli hostages.


I agree, but the innocent ones wouldn't be shooting at god either, and besides, don't the terrorist get 16 raisins when they die defending Allah?


-
 
Excuse me for being so stupid. I should've known for some people "innocent" means only their kind. I thought innocent people who suffer in Gaza were not just the Israeli hostages.

This had jumped out at me, as well. I hadn't spoken out about this, because I hadn't wanted to derail the thread. But now that you have, I'd like to add my support to your POV, for what that is worth.

Absolutely, there's something deeply troubling about a mentality that sees Godhood in the miraculous saving of a thousand odd innocents, while remaining oblivious of the suffering of orders of magnitude greater numbers of innocents right alongside, and indeed when questioned doubles down by disingenuously conflating those innocents with the killers. Which last is, of course, standard SOP for the apologists for evil; as are patently disingenuous and completely risible accusations of antisemitism that I've seen thrown out at anyone who questions their frankly psychotic morals and worldview.


...Not to derail your thread, @AmyStrange. Like I said, I'd held my peace despite being troubled by that portion of your OP. And nor have I any intention to pursue this line of discussion any further in this thread. But since @winter salt spoke about this, only to be blithely handwaved away, then I thought I'd briefly add my voice in support to his --- for what that is worth.
 
This had jumped out at me, as well. I hadn't spoken out about this, because I hadn't wanted to derail the thread. But now that you have, I'd like to add my support to your POV, for what that is worth.

Absolutely, there's something deeply troubling about a mentality that sees Godhood in the miraculous saving of a thousand odd innocents, while remaining oblivious of the suffering of orders of magnitude greater numbers of innocents right alongside, and indeed when questioned doubles down by disingenuously conflating those innocents with the killers. Which last is, of course, standard SOP for the apologists for evil; as are patently disingenuous and completely risible accusations of antisemitism that I've seen thrown out at anyone who questions their frankly psychotic morals and worldview.


...Not to derail your thread, @AmyStrange. Like I said, I'd held my peace despite being troubled by that portion of your OP. And nor have I any intention to pursue this line of discussion any further in this thread. But since @winter salt spoke about this, only to be blithely handwaved away, then I thought I'd briefly add my voice in support to his --- for what that is worth.


You'll probably be surprised to know that I agree with both of you.

The god I would create (for a story or a novel) wouldn't let anyone down and would save everyone and not just the thousand odd innocents you refer to.

How would she do it? I haven't ironed that part out yet, but if you've got any ideas, I'll be glad to listen.

I never intended this thread to become a serious philosophical discussion like it sometimes has, and that doesn't bother me, nor should it derail it or be outside the bounds of discussion either.


-
 
Last edited:
I think it all depends on what kind of god you're thinking about. For a deistic sort of god, which is not personal or endowed with the kind of personhood some gods have, the question is irrelevant. The only proof of such a god would have to be inferred. No luck so far. For a watchmaker god too, the issue comes too late. If it/he/she didn't leave a trace before blowing up or whatever, tough luck. And so on for the vaporous spiritualities people come up with to pretend they haven't fallen for the god schtick.

If you're thinking of some variant of the theistic, Jehovah-style god, the omnipotent omnigod, then we really don't need to figure out how it might be done. We can come up with human suggestions, but a really goddy god can do anything and needs no guidebook. If old Jehovah wanted us to know, rather than believe he exists, he would snap his figurative fingers and we'd know, and never need to know how he did it. Nor would he have to adhere to any human criteria like good works to justify himself. I mean, he could put on some kind of show, do something we really like, write stuff in the sky, turn the ocean pink or strangle our enemies or whatnot, but that would just be a new version of the old parlor trick entertainment. If you believe such a god exists, you must believe he/she/it could do it even if we have no idea how. If you don't believe that, then you've bought yourself a cut-rate demiurge.
 
Last edited:
You'll probably be surprised to know that I agree with both of you.

The god I would create (for a story or a novel) wouldn't let anyone down and would save everyone and not just the thousand odd innocents you refer to.

How would she do it? I haven't ironed that part out yet, but if you've got any ideas, I'll be glad to listen.

I never intended this thread to become a serious philosophical discussion like it sometimes has, and that doesn't bother me, nor should it derail the thread or be outside the bounds of discussion either


-

Fair enough, then.

I'm not surprised to have you agree. Call me naive, but even now what surprises me is when people don't agree with this completely unassailable straightforward POV.

What had initially troubled me, although I'd kept quiet about it, was how your test for Godhood, in both power and goodness, mentioned only the hostages --- with which moral position I fully agree! --- but then blithely ignored the suffering of far greater numbers right alongside. And what now prompted me to speak out was your disingenuous conflation --- pardon me, but what else can I call it? --- of those innocents (the vast masses of the "other" innocents) with those vile killers by lightly bringing up the virgins/raisins. That wasn't agreement, that was handwaving away, and disingenuously at that. (Pardon my repeated use of the word, but what else am I to call it?) I've seen enough of this attempted defense of the indefensible, and attempted defense of evil, by so many of whom I'd not have expected such, that I thought briefly to add my voice here, for what that is worth, to @winter salt 's on this.


...Heh, I did post one more time on this here, didn't I, despite saying I wouldn't? ...Won't now. ...And acknowledged and appreciated, your agreement now, @AmyStrange . Fair enough, then.
 
... I never intended this thread to become a serious philosophical discussion like it sometimes has ...

Haha, yes, I did get that. After having already thrown in some "serious" discussion myself. I gather that what you're really looking for is people's ideas on scenarios that might make a disbeliever believe --- with the emphasis on the scenarios themselves, the wilder the better. Which also is fair enough, why not.
 
Fair enough, then.

I'm not surprised to have you agree. Call me naive, but even now what surprises me is when people don't agree with this completely unassailable straightforward POV.

What had initially troubled me, although I'd kept quiet about it, was how your test for Godhood, in both power and goodness, mentioned only the hostages --- with which moral position I fully agree! --- but then blithely ignored the suffering of far greater numbers right alongside. And what now prompted me to speak out was your disingenuous conflation --- pardon me, but what else can I call it? --- of those innocents (the vast masses of the "other" innocents) with those vile killers by lightly bringing up the virgins/raisins. That wasn't agreement, that was handwaving away, and disingenuously at that. (Pardon my repeated use of the word, but what else am I to call it?) I've seen enough of this attempted defense of the indefensible, and attempted defense of evil, by so many of whom I'd not have expected such, that I thought briefly to add my voice here, for what that is worth, to @winter salt 's on this.


...Heh, I did post one more time on this here, didn't I, despite saying I wouldn't? ...Won't now. ...And acknowledged and appreciated, your agreement now, @AmyStrange . Fair enough, then.


Yes, it definitely would've been better if I'd added that after she freed the hostages, she then went around the world to tell all the leaders off, especially trump, putin, the islamic extremist, and all the religious ones, and then went to free the North Koreans.

Could anyone then doubt that she was god?


ETA: I've been lately floating a theory around in my head that the god you believed in (while alive) would also be the god you got after you died, unless you didn't believe in her (or him or it), and then you'd have no afterlife. I'm trying to come up with a story that would go along with that as the premise.


-
 
Last edited:
Yes, it definitely would've been better if I'd added that after she freed the hostages, she then went around the world to tell all the leaders off, especially trump, putin, and the islamic extremeist, and then went to free the North Koreans.

Could anyone then doubt that she was god?


-

Sorry, man, despite the likes and despite the agreement offered, that's not ...straight.

Yes, it definitely would've been better if you'd added that alongwith freeing the hostages --- not after, but alongwith --- "she" would also ease the continued suffering of the whole masses of the "other" innocents, far greater in number, right alongside. (Alongside, both spatially and contextually.) That's the part in your post that was troubling, not the Trump-and-Putin-and-Kim-Jong-Un thing.

You're trying to pretend this is whataboutery, but it isn't really.

Don't mean to make this acrimonious, but please don't pretend to "like" unless you really do, and please don't pretend to "agree" when it seems you don't.

...Logging off from this now. This isn't the time and place. Sorry for the brief derail.
 
Last edited:
I agree, but the innocent ones wouldn't be shooting at god either, and besides, don't the terrorist get 16 raisins when they die defending Allah?


-
I never get into any debate on this topic since I see the same bigotry and narcism (that
-I believe- emerge from their similar so-called monotheistic religions) on both sides of these warring peoples, and so I don't want to look like I am siding with any of their murderous cultures, and for my other personal reasons; but when I say "innocent" I expect from any decent human being to at least consider the tens of thousands of the children that got killed and maimed in this conflict, as the innocent, not the Hamas militants you deceptively introduced in their stead.

Chanakya already answered your reply better than I can ever do, although a little too mildly to my taste, so I'll only add this one question as my reply:

Why did you assume the bullets that'll bounce off of the hostages and the god of hostages would be Hamas bullets while İsrail has already been bombing the couple hundreds of hostages along the couple hundreds of thousands of other innocent people ?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, man, despite the likes and despite the agreement offered, that's not ...straight.

Yes, it definitely would've been better if you'd added that alongwith freeing the hostages --- not after, but alongwith --- "she" would also ease the continued suffering of the whole masses of the "other" innocents, far greater in number, right alongside. (Alongside, both spatially and contextually.) That's the part in your post that was troubling, not the Trump-and-Putin-and-Kim-Jong-Un thing.

You're trying to pretend this is whataboutery, but it isn't really.

Don't mean to make this acrimonious, but please don't pretend to "like" unless you really do, and please don't pretend to "agree" when it seems you don't.

...Logging off from this now. This isn't the time and place. Sorry for the brief derail.


So basically, you're arguing about semantics, and on top of that, you also think that I'm lying.

TBH, I don't see any hope in the continuation of this discussion anyway.


-
 
Last edited:
Why did you assume the bullets that'll bounce off of the hostages and the god of hostages would be Hamas bullets while İsrail has already been bombing the couple hundreds of hostages along the couple hundreds of thousands of other innocent people ?

When I singled out Hamas, I was wrong.

Children being killed in a time of war is why I protested against the Iraq war, and why a lot of protestors I know today are against the Israel and Hamas (and other extremist groups) war for that very same reason.

We aren't pro-terrorist. We're pro-children.


-
 
So basically, you're arguing about semantics, and on top of that, you also think that I'm lying.

TBH, I don't see any hope in the continuation of this discussion.


-

◊◊◊◊. NO!

You disingenuously seize just on the "alongside", while ignoring the rest, in order to pretend this is "semantics". That's patently disingenuous.

And no, I don't accuse you of lying per se. I do accuse you of disingenuousness, an accusation I believe I have clearly substantiated right in the course of this short exchange, every time I have made that accusation.


...Heh, you, on the other hand, would be within your rights to accuse me of outright "lying" for keeping on responding to this, despite more than once saying I wouldn't!

...Not to make this acrimonious, like I said. Nothing personal. But I stand by everything I've said. You're wrong on this. And what's more, you're being disingenuous about this as well. Just say plainly that you disagree, if in fact you don't agree. We can live with that disagreement, and engage fully amicably nevertheless, no reason why not.

----------

eta: Oh, those diamond thingies. For a moment I was wondering where those came from. Those, instead of the asterisks from earlier on.

----------

etaa:

... When I singled out Hamas, I was wrong...

That, again, is fair enough. Completely unambiguous. Couldn't have asked for more.

Happy to shake on that, if you're willing.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom