IS GOD REAL?!

[[Unactive Account]]

There once was a 13 year old boy who saw a life magazine featuring starving kids in africa. Distressed he went to his priest and asked him some questions. The first question he asked the priest was "Did god know I lifted my hand before I did just now?". The pastor said "yes, god knows everything". The boy then showed the priest the life magazine and asked again "Did god know about this?". The priest said " yes, God knows everything that happens in the world". The boy then replied "If god knows everything why doesn't he do anything?"

 

The boy rejected christianity.

 

The boy was steve jobs

 

I don't beleive in god. but I can see the possiblility of God being the one to start everything and then leave it alone. 

[R0GAN IS THE UNO MASTER]

Best answer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2s14T6x5AM

If This Doesn't Convince You, Nothing Will.

A sequence of bullshit arguments let's be real. It's human nature to assume there is a beginning and an end to the universe. I'd expect nearly all mythologies include this.

It's clear that the earth is round whenever you are on a hill or mountain. Again there'd be plenty who believed in a round earth in ancient times. This is not some divine enlightenment.

 

As for the moon reflectimg light. It's already stated that they believed in a round earth. Anybody can then see the changing relative positions of the sun and moon at different times paired with the sun's greater brightness; indicating that it's reflected light just as sunlight on sand.

 

Honestly I can't be bothered watching any further. This guy is clearly deluded.

[silencedotmid]

Instead of answering your question, I will instead propose a new one: does it matter whether God exists or not? I honestly don't think it does.

 

Even if God does exist in a heavenly afterlife, that doesn't matter to us humans, stuck living our lives down on Earth, forced to endure a lot of suffering and problems. Instead of arguing over God and religion, I think that we as humans should recognize the inherent worth and dignity of each individual.

 

We as humans have a helluva lot of agency in this world. We've created vast nations, improved our standards of living, and have studied and discovered so much in the fields of math and science. On the other hand, we've created massive environmental damage, perpetuated wars all over the world, and created all sorts of other problems.

 

The world is a complicated place full of unknowns. But instead of looking towards God to solve all of our problems, we as people should use our powers of critical thinking and ability to create massive change in order to create better societies.

 

This school of thought is called humanism, and honestly it speaks to me much more than any religion ever did.

[Gren]

Best answer

If This Doesn't Convince You, Nothing Will.

 

So let's just bottomline this:

 

> There are certain verses in the Quran that could be interpreted to describe certain astronomical phenomena such as the earth is round, the moon reflects sunlight, etc. 

> How could Muslims 1400 years ago possibly known these facts?

> They couldn't have, it could only have been god who revealed these truths to Mohammed via the Archangel Gabriel 

> God's existence proven, drops Mic

 

These verses do not explicitly state any of the things Naik claims they do.  They could be interpreted as such, but much scripture can be interpreted in a big variety of ways (did they come with simple illustrations which would have helped immensely?  This is something I am sure God and his archangel would have thought of).  It's very convenient as well to use these scientific truths - most of which we didn't figure out until more than a 1000 years after the Quran was written - and apply them retroactively to verses written in the dark ages.  It's kind of like how you can use current events to interpret Nostradamus' writings.  All of a sudden you can make it look like he predicted the rise of Hitler (topsy turvey crosses = Swastikas), but the fact is, nobody could interpret that to mean anything at all until we actually saw a Swastika.  

 

Another problem is that the concept of a round earth for example is not mentioned in the Quran for the first time (that's if we even accept that the Quran really promotes a round earth view; see below), it's a theme that first occurred in Ancient Greece 1000 years before the Quran was written.  So much for "How could they have possibly known this 1400 years ago?". 

 

I also like how he leaves out that there are multiple verses in the Quran which could be interpreted to promote a 'flat earth' view of the world...

 

So no, the reinterpretation of words that are 1400 year old to make it look like they vaguely describe astronomical phenomena which we've only figured out a couple of hundred years ago does not convince me of the existence of god.  

 

PS: At the risk of launching an ad hominem attack on this guy, he also rejects the theory of evolution and believes that the Quran contains passages that outline stage-by-stage embryonic development of a human in the womb.  Last but not least, we (Canada) denied him entry in 2010 on the grounds that he promotes hate speech and terrorism.  Choose your teachers wisely. 

[erts]

There once was a 13 year old boy who saw a life magazine featuring starving kids in africa. Distressed he went to his priest and asked him some questions. The first question he asked the priest was "Did god know I lifted my hand before I did just now?". The pastor said "yes, god knows everything". The boy then showed the priest the life magazine and asked again "Did god know about this?". The priest said " yes, God knows everything that happens in the world". The boy then replied "If god knows everything why doesn't he do anything?"

 

The boy rejected christianity.

 

The boy was steve jobs

 

that sounds like the sort of story you would make up on the spot at like a money party, or whatever gatherings steve jobs had

[Hyperqube]

For me, the question is there a god, is like asiking if there's a glass of water on your desk right now. How should I know? Maybe.

 

On ther relevance of the question: Do the best you can. Hope there's some benevelant force out there when there's nothing more you can do.

 

After all ...

 

If there's a God ... shouldn't you do the best you can do, and make 'm proud of you?

And if there's no God ... 'do the best you can' is the best you can do

 

 

Again there'd be plenty who believed in a round earth in ancient times. This is not some divine enlightenment.

Eratosthenes estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC to 250,000 stades (quite accurate, knowing he had only the the size of shadows to work with).

[Shining]

God is real

 

I am somewhat well read in theology and philosophy and I can tell you that:

 

a - God is compatible with science

 

b - There is good a priori evidence for the existence of God

 

c - One can have a self-authenticating inner belief that God exists 

[Gren]

God is real

 

I am somewhat well read in theology and philosophy and I can tell you that:

 

a - God is compatible with science

 

b - There is good a priori evidence for the existence of God

 

c - One can have a self-authenticating inner belief that God exists 

 

a -  no he/she/it is not, at least not 'god' as outlined by monotheistic religious traditions (how is the theory of evolution reconcilable with anything that's in the Bible, Tora or Quran? Just one of many examples)

b - let's see it

c -  How can a belief you hold inside your head be self authenticating when it pertains to an intangible being?  We don't care about what you feel, we care about what you know.  And what you know can be proven, or else it's how you feel. 

[Zapperzz]

I don't believe in god and I never will, but sometimes I wish I did.  It seems to make people hopeful and happy, to have a weird mystical force always watching out for them... it does seem comforting, doesn't it?

[Hyperqube]

b - let's see it

he probbably means a priori justification - because a priori evidence is a contradiction in terms

 

it basically means that if you assume God exist, there no evidence that contradicts you.

(a table is proof of a carpenter, if you a priori presume tables are made by carpenters)

 

a -  no he/she/it is not, at least not 'god' as outlined by monotheistic religious traditions (how is the theory of evolution reconcilable with anything that's in the Bible, Tora or Quran? Just one of many examples)

Actually it is. In a nutshell, ever saw The Matrix movie? Suppose we live in a giant computer.

 

Science is based upon evidence: "we find a bone - the bone is millions of years old"

But nothing stopped God (or in case of the Matrix, The Grand Computer) to have planted that there only yesterday.

 

Science can be 100% correct, and yet the earth can be 6000 years old, and made in 6 days.

[R0GAN IS THE UNO MASTER]

he probbably means a priori justification - because a priori evidence is a contradiction in terms

 

it basically means that if you assume God exist, there no evidence that contradicts you.

(a table is proof of a carpenter, if you a priori presume tables are made by carpenters)

 

Actually it is. In a nutshell, ever saw The Matrix movie? Suppose we live in a giant computer.

 

Science is based upon evidence: "we find a bone - the bone is millions of years old"

But nothing stopped God (or in case of the Matrix, The Grand Computer) to have planted that there only yesterday.

 

Science can be 100% correct, and yet the earth can be 6000 years old, and made in 6 days.

This is a rather wanky explanation. The carpenter example is misleading and dishonest. With a table, you can tell it was likely made by a carpenter because you can see it is extremely unlikely to have been created otherwise. We have observed table creation by carpenters.

 

Meanwhile, no one has observed creation by some mythical being. Rather, evolution has been observed, actually makes rational sense and there is very real evidence of it in the similarities between species.

 

Clearly, this example is entirely false. It is reasonable to conclude that a table is made by a carpenter, but it is borderline insane to conclude that nature is created by some super powered invisible being who cares what you do with your dick.

 

As for earth being 6000 years old and made in 6 days... ah jeez... just... no...

[MrDeepDarkmind]

well if god was real. why is there aliens? 

 

[KingPheonix]

Sean Murray is my god

[Hyperqube]

This is a rather wanky explanation. The carpenter example is misleading and dishonest. With a table, you can tell it was likely made by a carpenter because you can see it is extremely unlikely to have been created otherwise. We have observed table creation by carpenters.

And you missed the point: Anyone can make a table. Some wood, 4 nails and a hammer equals table.

 

Emperically, A table isn't proof there's a carpenter. A table is proof that there's a table. Heck a fuke storm through a junkyard could have made that table (as an finite amount of storms through a junkjard eventually make a Boing 747)

 

However, if we a priori presume that tables are made by carpenters, then there is a priori justification why there would be a carpenter.

 

A priori reasoning is reasoning based on what we know (or presume to be true) - not based on what we see (evidence).

 

As for earth being 6000 years old and made in 6 days... ah jeez... just... no...

Why not? If we live in a giant computer, how would we know?

 

Take any comoputer game.

For example, World of Warcraft: How old do you think the characters on Azeroth (WoW's world) think their universe is?

 

Azeroth scientist would have proof that it's at least over ten thousand years old. All the relics, buildings, bones, events, etc ... from the War of the Spider.

 

And yet, the real answer is 12 years. Anything predating 12 years ago, is planted by the developers. The War of the Spider never happend. The devs just put all the relics in the ground, crafted ruins to look that old, etc ...

 

 

 

Edit: Ironically, while you say "it's borderline insane to conclude that nature is created by some super powered invisible being who cares what you do with your dick"

... yet we find it all to normal that the developers & admins of WoW (which could be considered super powered invisible being) do care what characters do with their sexual organs (seeing as it's PG-whatever game).

 

Yes, I 100% agree: from the ones in the computer, that indeed might be considered incomprehencable. From the ones outside the computer ... not so much.

[Gren]

he probbably means a priori justification - because a priori evidence is a contradiction in terms

 

it basically means that if you assume God exist, there no evidence that contradicts you.

(a table is proof of a carpenter, if you a priori presume tables are made by carpenters)

 

Actually it is. In a nutshell, ever saw The Matrix movie? Suppose we live in a giant computer.

 

Science is based upon evidence: "we find a bone - the bone is millions of years old"

But nothing stopped God (or in case of the Matrix, The Grand Computer) to have planted that there only yesterday.

 

Science can be 100% correct, and yet the earth can be 6000 years old, and made in 6 days.

 

I understand what is meant by a priori.  However, the argument doesn't stop at "I have an innate knowledge of god, therefore - having no other evidence to the contrary - I assume he exists", this is just the beginning, this is where the argument starts.  When @The Shining wrote "...there is good a priori evidence that god exists" I assumed he actually had some line of argumentation to go along with that.   This is what I wanted from him when I wrote "..Let's see it.."   Simply saying "I feel god, and there is no evidence against how I feel, so there must be a god" isn't an argument even Christian thinkers from 1,000 years accepted, even they went beyond that very basic line of reasoning.  The a priori justification for the existence of god has also been considerably expanded since then (e.g. Descartes), so there's plenty of material to draw from here.  

 

As for the Matrix....that's not what we're talking about though.  We can make another thread asking if we live in a computer simulated world, but this thread asks whether god is real.  You can't prove the existence of a Matrix.  The Matrix also isn't really analogous with 'God' (someone must have created the Matrix whereas religion doesn't assume that someone/something created god).  So once we disconnect those two things and return to the argument that while the earth is only 6,000 years old, god put things here to make it look like they're 6,000,000 years old is once again just reinterpreting (although that is the wrong word, there's no verse anywhere in the bible that suggests that god tricked us in anticipation that we'd discover carbon dating) scripture to fit with the newest scientific findings.  

 

If someone is going to argue that religion can exist along with science, they must stay within the confines of their scripture at least, just as I must stay within the confines of empirical science.  So rather than try to argue that god placed things here and made them look like they've been here for millions of years when they've actually only been here for 6,000 years, he or she must try and reconcile religious teachings with scientific facts, like evolution, the fact that people cannot walk on water, the fact that repopulating an entire planet with two of every species placed on a boat is simply an impossible concept, the earth is round (the Quran actually teaches the earth is flat, not round), etc.   

 

My argument is not with you though Hypercube, it's with The Shining and Mr. Omani.  However, I don't expect to see them back here to defend their positions, if prior experience is any indicator of the present.....

[Hyperqube]

the argument that while the earth is only 6,000 years old, god put things here to make it look like they're 6,000,000 years old is once again just reinterpreting (although that is the wrong word, there's no verse anywhere in the bible that suggests that god tricked us in anticipation that we'd discover carbon dating) scripture to fit with the newest scientific findings.

Err ... no. The Matrix analogy is only there because peole have trouble wrapping their head around 'magic' - but less trouble wrapping their head around something that's been turned into a movie.

 

It's not about reinterprete scripture - it's to show that, when applied to the existance of God, science too use a priori reasoning: the presumption that you can trust your eyes - That finding a bone which is identified as 6 million year old would prove that 6 million years ago, that bone was there.

I confines itself with our reality

 

 

Lets take simplest of example to illustrate: God came to Mosus in the form of a burning bush which didn't get consumed by the fire (that's IIRC what the scripture says, so I'm not going to reïnterprete that)

You would be correct to point out this is emperically not reproducable,

And you would also be correct in to pointing out that according to the laws of chemistry, this is impossible

etc ...

However, all this science doesn't prove that Someone as powerful God wouldn't be able to do it.

(even if you can't wrap your head around a divine being breaking the laws of physics - it's easy to wrap your head around a developer programming a burning bush in a game that doesn't consume it)

 

Science can be 100% correct - it doesn't neccairly exclude God.

 

My argument is not with you though Hypercube, it's with The Shining and Mr. Omani.

Except, The Shining is correct. Well, correct, in that he refers to conclusions made by serious philosophers. Not some uniformed people like the guy in the movie.

 

So, when you say God is not compatible with science ... I'm afraid you'll have a steep hill to climb.

[Shining]

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god

 

Here is a fantastic article written by the greatest Christian Apologist and debater alive today, Dr William Lane Craig <3

 

It presents, in summary, five of the best arguments for God's existence. Give it a read if you like 

[Gren]

Err ... no. The Matrix analogy is only there because peole have trouble wrapping their head around 'magic' - but less trouble wrapping their head around something that's been turned into a movie.

 

It's not about reinterprete scripture - it's to show that, when applied to the existance of God, science too use a priori reasoning: the presumption that you can trust your eyes - That finding a bone which is identified as 6 million year old would prove that 6 million years ago, that bone was there.

I confines itself with our reality

 

 

Lets take simplest of example to illustrate: God came to Mosus in the form of a burning bush which didn't get consumed by the fire (that's IIRC what the scripture says, so I'm not going to reïnterprete that)

You would be correct to point out this is emperically not reproducable,

And you would also be correct in to pointing out that according to the laws of chemistry, this is impossible

etc ...

However, all this science doesn't prove that Someone as powerful God wouldn't be able to do it.

(even if you can't wrap your head around a divine being breaking the laws of physics - it's easy to wrap your head around a developer programming a burning bush in a game that doesn't consume it)

 

Science can be 100% correct - it doesn't neccairly exclude God.

 

Except, The Shining is correct. Well, correct, in that he refers to conclusions made by serious philosophers. Not some uniformed people like the guy in the movie.

 

So, when you say God is not compatible with science ... I'm afraid you'll have a steep hill to climb.

 

The first part is half correct.  Science does assume that reality is consistent and that we can trust our senses (e.g. you put your hand in fire, you feel heat, thus fire is hot).  But when you extend that your bone example, you need to remember that the only reason why we know the bone is 6,000,000 years old is through carbon dating, in other words we know this through a posteriori knowledge, not a priori.  

 

As for the second part, science also doesn't prove that unicorns or dragons exist and also - in the absence of any evidence - doesn't disprove they exist.  However, we have found no evidence that they do exist - or ever existed - therefore according to science, they never existed and are part of folklore, not part of knowable nature.  

 

The last part is interesting.  We need to make a distinction first:  are we trying to prove that god can exist in a scientific universe, or are we trying to prove that god, through his words as seen in the Bible or Quran, is compatible with science?  The latter part appears relatively easy to disprove:  According to the bible, god created the earth and everything around it in 7 days and that happened roughly 6,000 years ago.  Clearly, this teaching is not compatible with modern science.  However, the question whether god (independent of scripture) is compatible with modern science is much more complicated.  

[Gren]

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god

 

Here is a fantastic article written by the greatest Christian Apologist and debater alive today, Dr William Lane Craig <3

 

It presents, in summary, five of the best arguments for God's existence. Give it a read if you like 

 

Thanks, I will definitely give this a read time permitting.  

[Hyperqube]

The first part is half correct.  Science does assume that reality is consistent and that we can trust our senses (e.g. you put your hand in fire, you feel heat, thus fire is hot).

But when you extend that your bone example, you need to remember that the only reason why we know the bone is 6,000,000 years old is through carbon dating, in other words we know this through a posteriori knowledge, not a priori.

The knowledge is a posteriori in physics. But not in metaphysics.

 

bones ----(a posteriori)---> bones that look 6M years old ----(a priori)---> the bones are 6M years old.

 

 

According to the bible, god created the earth and everything around it in 7 days and that happened roughly 6,000 years ago. Clearly, this teaching is not compatible with modern science.

And with that I disagree. Because science is the conclusion of facts.

 

The Matrix/game analogy clearly shows, that it's possible to have a universe 12 years old, where science would say that it's >10 000 years old.

 

Clearly, different results (12=/=10K) does not mean one excludes the other.

 

 

Thanks, I will definitely give this a read time permitting.

They are really nothing special:

 

1. Define God as the reason the universe exists. Anything has a reason, so God exists

2. Define God as the cause the universe exists. Anything has a cause, so God exists

3. A priori premise "If God does not exist, morality does not exist." Morality exists, so God exists.

4. A nice "I dunno, so God" argument.

5. Define God as the strongest possible thing that can exist. Ergo God exists.

[3.50]

Evolution. Not god. Can't have both.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who identifies primarily as science and logic-based in terms of religion, lifestyle, etc., an omnipotent god could easily use Evolution as his means of creation, and why wouldn't he? Evolution doesn't even conflict with the freaking Christian Bible, if you look into it. It actually lines up eerily well, starting (and not ending) with the order of creation/evolution, which implies those f***ers 2k+ years ago weren't as dumb as we thought.

 

I won't really enter this debate except to say that claiming that God and Evolution are mutually incompatible is the half-assed atheist's way of throwing a smoke bomb and ducking out, and avoiding any actual intelligent debate. If a God exists and is capable of creating shit, he can damn well use Evolution as his way of doing it if he damn well pleases, and frankly, one can eat an illogical bag of dicks of one thinks a hypothetical omnipotent being might exist but "can't do X".

 

Just to be clear, I don't really know or care how shit got where it is, but "Creation <or> Evolution" is a brutally obvious logical fallacy that has always bugged me. It's like that one quote about the human brain-- "If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't." --Abraham Lincoln/Emerson M. Pugh/whoever the hell.

 

Same with a god. If they're so simple that they can't use Evolution as a tool, they're a piss-poor excuse for a god. One-liners are nice, but they get torn to shreds by any actual logic from either side.

[Hyperqube]

Evolution doesn't even conflict with the freaking Christian Bible, if you look into it. It actually lines up eerily well, starting (and not ending) with the order of creation/evolution,

weeeeeeeeeeell ... I don't think evolution supports women being created from the rib of a man - because he was lonely.

 

plus, the order seems also a bit off, for example

• plants (day3, 1:12) before sun & stars (day4, 1:16) <heck, the earth (day1, 1:2) would predate the sun>
• birds (day 5, 1:21) before land animals (day 6, 1:24) <while findings indicate that birds are evolved from dinosaurs>

[Gren]

Speaking from the perspective of someone who identifies primarily as science and logic-based in terms of religion, lifestyle, etc., an omnipotent god could easily use Evolution as his means of creation, and why wouldn't he? Evolution doesn't even conflict with the freaking Christian Bible, if you look into it. It actually lines up eerily well, starting (and not ending) with the order of creation/evolution, which implies those f***ers 2k+ years ago weren't as dumb as we thought.

 

I won't really enter this debate except to say that claiming that God and Evolution are mutually incompatible is the half-assed atheist's way of throwing a smoke bomb and ducking out, and avoiding any actual intelligent debate. If a God exists and is capable of creating shit, he can damn well use Evolution as his way of doing it if he damn well pleases, and frankly, one can eat an illogical bag of dicks of one thinks a hypothetical omnipotent being might exist but "can't do X".

 

Just to be clear, I don't really know or care how shit got where it is, but "Creation <or> Evolution" is a brutally obvious logical fallacy that has always bugged me. It's like that one quote about the human brain-- "If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't." --Abraham Lincoln/Emerson M. Pugh/whoever the hell.

 

Same with a god. If they're so simple that they can't use Evolution as a tool, they're a piss-poor excuse for a god. One-liners are nice, but they get torn to shreds by any actual logic from either side.

 

 

weeeeeeeeeeell ... I don't think evolution supports women being created from the rib of a man - because he was lonely.

 

plus, the order seems also a bit off, for example

• plants (day3, 1:12) before sun & stars (day4, 1:16) <heck, the earth (day1, 1:2) would predate the sun>
• birds (day 5, 1:21) before land animals (day 6, 1:24) <while findings indicate that birds are evolved from dinosaurs>

 

 

^ Mhm

 

And so many other problems.  Evolution doesn't necessarily exclude the existence of a god, I will concede as much.  But it certainly doesn't work with the teachings of the bible (e.g. universe is 6,000 years old, we used to live in Eden, no mention of dinosaurs in the bible, all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah's Arc, guy lives in a giant whale, etc.).  None of that lines up with the scientific knowledge we have today.  

 

And also: 

 

"I won't really enter this debate except to say that claiming that God and Evolution are mutually incompatible is the half-assed atheist's way of throwing a smoke bomb and ducking out, and avoiding any actual intelligent debate. If a God exists and is capable of creating shit, he can damn well use Evolution as his way of doing it if he damn well pleases, and frankly, one can eat an illogical bag of dicks of one thinks a hypothetical omnipotent being might exist but "can't do X"."

 

No, that's not the atheist's half-assed way, it's the theists half-assed way.  You see it deployed by that guy in the video who claims the Quran explains the Big Bang.  It basically boils down to: 

 

1. Science makes new discovery

2. Religion looks at new discovery, sees that it's not in line with what's in their books

3. Reverts to the age old 'kill-all' argument "Well, god is omnipotent, so that just means he did this too" regardless of the fact that it's not explicitly mentioned in scripture

4. Find some vague wording in the text (that could be interpreted to mean 100 different things) to support this notion

5. Crisis averted

 

If god used (and continues to use) evolution to create all this, why does it say otherwise in every single monotheistic text?  The Bible, Tora, etc., this is how god revealed himself to man.  Don't you think this omnipotent, wise beyond our understanding being would have served up a better story than the 7 day creation story as seen in the old testament?  We're talking about a being here which is infinite in its wisdom and he didn't think he should give a rough outline of how evolution works and say he made it so? That makes zero sense.  

 

Here's what's really half-assed:  Saying there's an omnipotent being (in the absence of any real, tangible proof) and then applying his omnipotence to any new scientific finding.  Universe is billions of years old?  God made it look that way.  Evolution?  That's how god does things.  Don't know how the universe started?  Must be only one explanation, it was god.  Innocent children are dying all over the place?  God works in mysterious ways. 

 

Now that's what I really call a half-assed argument.  

[Hyperqube]

3. Reverts to the age old 'kill-all' argument "Well, god is omnipotent, so that just means he did this too" regardless of the fact that it's not explicitly mentioned in scripture

 

Now that's what I really call a half-assed argument.

Odd. using the same argument over and over again doesn't sound half-assed. it sounds consistant.

 

Far be it from the theist fault if others think they got the perfect evidence, while forgetting they have the a priori assumption that there's no omnipotent God.

 

Don't you think this omnipotent, wise beyond our understanding being would have served up a better story than the 7 day creation story as seen in the old testament?

...

Err ... do you know what "beyond our understanding" means?

 

That's like a firstgrader asking other firstgraders "Don't you think Kasaprov should have moved his rook instead of his queen?"

[Gren]

Odd. using the same argument over and over again doesn't sound half-assed. it sounds consistant.

 

Far be it from the theist fault if others think they got the perfect evidence, while forgetting they have the a priori assumption that there's no omnipotent God.

 

...

Err ... do you know what "beyond our understanding" means?

 

That's like a firstgrader asking other firstgraders "Don't you think Kasaprov should have moved his rook instead of his queen?"

 

If I took 10 pisses and missed the toilet bowl every single time, my pissing performance as it pertains to aiming would be consistent.  Nobody would call that a good thing though, since I'm pissing all over the bathroom.  So consistency is only to be appreciated if it is associated with good performance or results.  If I mow the lawn 10x and stop at 50% every single time, I've consistently half-assed the mowing of my lawn.  Half-assing a task and consistency aren't mutually exclusive (unfortunately).  

 

Hypercube...why does it have to be this difficult with you every single time?  I'm not even trying to pick an argument with you.  Yes, obviously I have a concept of "what wise beyond our understanding" means.  So you're implying here (in reference to a wise beyond our understanding god) that the atheist questioning why god was so vague (or in some cases plain silent) on so many important issues is like a child questioning an adult.  Of course, this is just another version of the "god works in mysterious ways" argument:  just because it doesn't make any sense to you doesn't mean it's not the will of god or that it's not good.  Now shut up silly little humans, go on with your lives and stop questioning things.  

 

Seriously, would it have changed anything if I just left it at omnipotent and didn't include (somewhat tongue in cheek, although logically consistent since an omnipotent being would most likely be vastly more intelligent than us) 'wise beyond our comprehension'?  It's a figure of speech ffs.