It's always been an incoherent mess so we won't lose anything!
What would "god" need to do in order to prove that she really existed?
- Thread starter AmyStrange
- Start date
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,552
The other problem with the proofs that reduce to a miracle is that the miracle has to point *only* to God. It has to be the type of miracle that aliens couldn't do, and how can we ever know what aliens *can't* do?
Thermal
August Member
In fairness, calling God a man might have just been an approximation. You know, "it has a powerful commanding presence, like my dad does, not like my mother who was treated like property". Doesn't require a penis, per se, unless they were peeking under the robes.
AmyStrange
Illuminator
And you know this how?
Just so you know, Julian of Norwich called god the spirit of both a man and a woman.
-
Thermal
August Member
I don't know this, nor did I claim to. I said "might", because pre-enlightenment writing in general was often loosey-goosey with objectivism.
AmyStrange
Illuminator
Limitations of the scientific method
The scientific method is based on observation and experimentation. For something to be considered scientific, it must be observable and measurable. As God is often conceived as a transcendent being and not directly accessible to sensory experience, its existence cannot be tested or measured empirically
The scientific method is based on observation and experimentation. For something to be considered scientific, it must be observable and measurable. As God is often conceived as a transcendent being and not directly accessible to sensory experience, its existence cannot be tested or measured empirically
Members may use and copy content generated by AI however it must be labelled as such and attributed correctly see: https://internationalskeptics.com/f...reement-explanatory-notes.168641/post-5669795 for more details.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Darat
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of fancy words to say God is completely imaginary, but okay.
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,552
But it doesn't have to be the phenomenon in question that is observed and measured. We can't observe nor measure the big bang, but we can observe and measure other phenomenon that tell us the big bang happened, and we can also observe and measure still more phenomenon that must occur if the big band happened as a means of checking our work.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Oh, but God never had to enter heaven - he was always there.
AmyStrange
Illuminator
Oh, but God never had to enter heaven - he was always there.
Good catch and thank you.
-
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Just emulating the logic of the believer.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Why should I?
Let me remind you of where we started with this. You asked me to prove that god was male, and that if I did so, you would withdraw your assertion. I responded by giving several examples of how god was portrayed as male in both the Bible and the Quran, and asked you then to withdraw your assertion. Rather than doing so, you moved the goalposts, by claiming that these books were written by men, who could have been lying or hallucinating. My reply was to ask you to prove that this was true. Your answer was to require me to prove a negative, and you then doubled down on this fallacy by wanting me to provide the evidence to prove your own claim, thus shifting the burden of proof onto me- which is also a fallacy.
The plain fact is that it is impossible for anyone to establish exactly who wrote the Bible. We have no idea, and no way to find out. Consider: although the books are named after their supposed authors, we cannot know that it was indeed these individuals who were the authors. As an example, the 5 books of the Pentateuch are widely believed to have been written by Moses. Not only is there no historical evidence that the Moses of the Bible ever existed, the books deal with Moses' death and the events after it, meaning that, even if Moses ever existed, there was no way he could have written those books. Then you have the possibility that- as with, e.g. George Elliot, that some of the authors were women writing under an assumed, male, name.
This impossible-to-fulfill condition was the one you set in order for you to withdraw your assertion. It would have been easier for you to admit that you had no intention of ever withdrawing it, thus saving us both a great deal of time and effort. You set an impossibly high bar, and then doubled down on it by firstly, asking me to prove a negative, and then by shifting the burden of proof from you, where it rightfully belongs, to me. So, sorry, no. It doesn't work that way. If you make a positive claim, then it's up to you to back it up. There is no requirement whatsoever for anyone else to go chasing around trying to provide the evidence you should have shown. If you can't prove the claim, withdraw it. Quite simple, really.
AmyStrange
Illuminator
Well done, but TBH, I really have no problem with religion or religious folks.
I mean, I think Jesus was the coolest religious person in history, especially since he risked his life to save a woman who was about to be stoned to death, but most religious Christians (that I've known anyway) ignore that part of the bible (and everything else in it) except for the parts that allow them to hate the folks that they don't like.
And using the bible to prove something they believe just lacks credibility, because first they have to explain all the incestual begettings in genesis, and the same thing about what happened after Noah's Ark lands, and not to mention the story of Lot and his daughters.
There's just too much crap in the Christian bible to make it credible. This is a skeptics forum, and it's hard to believe the telepathy story about god telling "MEN" what to write (as her law) is credible to anyone here.
And sure, Jesus could be a fictional character, but one of my heroes is a fictional character called Perry Mason, and another of my heroes is the author who created him (Erle Stanley Gardner). He organized the first forerunner of the Innocence Project, and it was called The Court of Last Resort:
Anyway, sorry for the long rant, but thanks again.
-
AmyStrange
Illuminator
Because you're the one who made the assertion that no woman wrote any of the bible. I even offered some proof, but of course you ignored that.
Plus, you DID NOT prove that god was a male, and therefore, I don't have to take anything back.
I mean REALLY, you want to use the bible(s) as proof, REALLY... bwahahahahaha
If that's the best you've got, this discussion is a waste of my time, so once again, goodbye.
-
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
That's your presumption, and off-topic for this thread. For the purposes of this discussion (and also in reality) the Bible was written by men who assigned to their god the properties required to make Him above all other gods. But when you look back to the origins of the Bible you find gods who were far from omnipotent or omniscient, and Yahweh was only one of them. The Bible itself even has evidence that His powers were limited.
Later claims of omnipotence and omniscience should be taken for what they are - exaggerations. He went from being the most powerful of the gods to infinitely powerful, and having insight to knowing everything past present and future. The fact that these properties are logically impossible apparently didn't bother biblical authors. That they are refuted inside the Bible itself didn't seem to bother them either. This is proof that they didn't know what they were talking about.
We know for sure that these claims of omnipotence and omniscience are lies. The men who wrote the Bible didn't have any more knowledge of God's true nature than anyone else - they just made it up so they could win any argument - like you are trying to do now. Well guess what? It's not working. In this thread we don't have to accept your BS definition of God.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Indeed. It even debunks itself!
The more I learn about the Bible, the less credible it gets. Some of the history in it may be accurate, but most of it is pure BS - stories made up centuries after events supposedly occurred, which not only don't have evidence for them but are actually refuted by the historical record - absolute proof that the authors were lying over and over again.
To find actual evidence for the nature of God we need to look elsewhere. Believe it or not there is evidence, it's just rather weak and open to interpretation. Recent events suggest that God (if He exists) is probably male. My reason for believing this is that things don't seem to be getting any better, despite God having plenty of opportunities to intervene for good. This is exactly what you would expect from a man.
I could be wrong though. If positive changes occur over the next few years it could indicate a woman's hand is guiding it, especially if people start getting more compassion and common sense. I'll be looking out for the signs, perhaps mumbling a little prayer every now and then. It would be nice think that someone was listening. Not that Yahweh guy though - I hate to think what's in store for us if that bastard actually exists!
AmyStrange
Illuminator
Yes, I can certainly understand your reasoning. It doesn't convince me that she is a he, but I like the way you think, and thanks.
-
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Correct. If God is supernatural then by definition (S)he doesn't exist. But what if God isn't supernatural? Going back in history we find the lines between 'natural' and 'supernatural' becoming blurred. The ancients belived in Gods who were far more 'corporal' than the modern interpretations. Could it be that some of them were actually physical beings who simply aren't around anymore? The answer is yes.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
I made no such assertion.
"Of course"? Really? I suggest you acquaint yourself with my posting history before making such an obviously false claim.
Also, I do have a life outside this forum, you know. I haven't had time to respond to every post in this thread, let alone others in which I am active. That doesn't mean I am "ignoring" these posts- that's a hasty assumption on your part.
All we know about the Abrahamic god comes from the Bible. (And the Quran, talking of ignoring things- are you going to continue to ignore that?) There is no other source of information, so, using the only information we have, yes, actually, I have proved this. That you don't want to accept this, and are expecting evidence from some other, unnamed source, is unreasonable. Where else do you suggest we find information about god?
The best I've got is reasoned arguments, based on the available evidence, without any logical fallacies involved. Your unwillingness or inability to cope with this says more about your own reasoning processes than it does mine. You can flounce off if you like, but that won't change the way scepticism works.