Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gods point of view.

sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:33:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Since it appears most atheists don't believe in god because there is no evidence.

Lets say there was a god what should he do so you should believe.
Reveal himself to the whole world? Is revealing himself to half the world not good enough?
How often? is once enough? If not why?
Should if be every thousand years?
would it not be enough that he revealed himself to lets say a million people and they pass it on and the others and everyone passes it to to the next generation and so on?
If he revealed himself to you does he also have to reveal himself to your children?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:42:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 10:33:28 AM, sal wrote:
Since it appears most atheists don't believe in god because there is no evidence.

Lets say there was a god what should he do so you should believe.
Reveal himself to the whole world? Is revealing himself to half the world not good enough?
How often? is once enough? If not why?
Should if be every thousand years?
would it not be enough that he revealed himself to lets say a million people and they pass it on and the others and everyone passes it to to the next generation and so on?
If he revealed himself to you does he also have to reveal himself to your children?

I don't need God to reveal himself to the whole world. Just to me.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:43:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 10:42:11 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:33:28 AM, sal wrote:
Since it appears most atheists don't believe in god because there is no evidence.

Lets say there was a god what should he do so you should believe.
Reveal himself to the whole world? Is revealing himself to half the world not good enough?
How often? is once enough? If not why?
Should if be every thousand years?
would it not be enough that he revealed himself to lets say a million people and they pass it on and the others and everyone passes it to to the next generation and so on?
If he revealed himself to you does he also have to reveal himself to your children?

I don't need God to reveal himself to the whole world. Just to me.

Why is it not enough for him to have revealed himself to your father or grandfather and they tell you?
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:46:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Should he have made the laws of nature completely random so you wont think that science has the answers?

Not that science has the answers, they have no idea why there is gravity or why electrons repel each other but thats besides the point.
Heathen
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:48:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
After time has passed, events become skewed. A man on the edge of death staring at a burning bush, after a length of time, turns into god talking. These things happen and it cant be helped.
"Once an object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it." - Thomas Paine
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:54:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 10:48:24 AM, Heathen wrote:
After time has passed, events become skewed. A man on the edge of death staring at a burning bush, after a length of time, turns into god talking. These things happen and it cant be helped.

Or people are subjecive and they will reinterpret history to satisfy their interest.
So what would you suggest.
All you said is that if a man says I saw god in a burning bush I don't have to except that, I agree.
What is your point in the burning bush? Do you believe that there was once a man who believed that he heard god speaking to him from a burning bush?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:57:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 10:43:28 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:42:11 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:33:28 AM, sal wrote:
Since it appears most atheists don't believe in god because there is no evidence.

Lets say there was a god what should he do so you should believe.
Reveal himself to the whole world? Is revealing himself to half the world not good enough?
How often? is once enough? If not why?
Should if be every thousand years?
would it not be enough that he revealed himself to lets say a million people and they pass it on and the others and everyone passes it to to the next generation and so on?
If he revealed himself to you does he also have to reveal himself to your children?

I don't need God to reveal himself to the whole world. Just to me.

Why is it not enough for him to have revealed himself to your father or grandfather and they tell you?

Because God reveals himself to everyone. He says different things. He tells some people to fight the English, others to make bats to paddle their children. Allah reveals himself to some as Allah, and tells them that the Christian God is a lie; and vice versa. Hell, Aliens have revealed themselves to people, allegedly.

As not all of these can be true; it shows that the human brain is capable of "inventing" stuff like this. I won't beleive in God until he reveals himself to me personally; and the chances are that this belief would be based on some off-cheese induced 'episode.' But because I beleived, I wouldn't care.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:59:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 10:57:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:43:28 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:42:11 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:33:28 AM, sal wrote:
Since it appears most atheists don't believe in god because there is no evidence.

Lets say there was a god what should he do so you should believe.
Reveal himself to the whole world? Is revealing himself to half the world not good enough?
How often? is once enough? If not why?
Should if be every thousand years?
would it not be enough that he revealed himself to lets say a million people and they pass it on and the others and everyone passes it to to the next generation and so on?
If he revealed himself to you does he also have to reveal himself to your children?

I don't need God to reveal himself to the whole world. Just to me.

Why is it not enough for him to have revealed himself to your father or grandfather and they tell you?

Because God reveals himself to everyone. He says different things. He tells some people to fight the English, others to make bats to paddle their children. Allah reveals himself to some as Allah, and tells them that the Christian God is a lie; and vice versa. Hell, Aliens have revealed themselves to people, allegedly.

As not all of these can be true; it shows that the human brain is capable of "inventing" stuff like this. I won't beleive in God until he reveals himself to me personally; and the chances are that this belief would be based on some off-cheese induced 'episode.' But because I beleived, I wouldn't care.

Are you not capable of having a discussion without prejudices?
I don't see how anything you have said has anything to do with the question I asked.
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:01:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 10:46:39 AM, sal wrote:
Should he have made the laws of nature completely random so you wont think that science has the answers?

Well, at that point it wouldn't be a law of nature if they are random because they would contradict each other and therefore breaking it as a rule.

Not that science has the answers, they have no idea why there is gravity or why electrons repel each other but thats besides the point.

Well yes, the science that we know now doesn't have all the answers. There are some things that neither science nor religion can prove such as how the earth began, the origins of the universe, and among other things. But just because science havsn't found out a way to explain gravity or electrons repeling, that doesn't mean we should believe such absurd beliefs such as yours.

However, science does have most of the answers.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:02:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 10:57:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As not all of these can be true; it shows that the human brain is capable of "inventing" stuff like this. I won't beleive in God until he reveals himself to me personally; and the chances are that this belief would be based on some off-cheese induced 'episode.' But because I beleived, I wouldn't care.

So if your father or grandfather told you that he spoke to god why is that not enough, do you think they would lie to you?
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:05:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:01:42 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:46:39 AM, sal wrote:
Should he have made the laws of nature completely random so you wont think that science has the answers?

Well, at that point it wouldn't be a law of nature if they are random because they would contradict each other and therefore breaking it as a rule.

Not that science has the answers, they have no idea why there is gravity or why electrons repel each other but thats besides the point.

Well yes, the science that we know now doesn't have all the answers. There are some things that neither science nor religion can prove such as how the earth began, the origins of the universe, and among other things. But just because science havsn't found out a way to explain gravity or electrons repeling, that doesn't mean we should believe such absurd beliefs such as yours.

However, science does have most of the answers.

Ive made this point before. Science cant answer how the cause causes the effect.
All they say is based on our observation every time you see cause A you will get affect B, they don't say what it is about A that causes B.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:07:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:02:19 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:57:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As not all of these can be true; it shows that the human brain is capable of "inventing" stuff like this. I won't beleive in God until he reveals himself to me personally; and the chances are that this belief would be based on some off-cheese induced 'episode.' But because I beleived, I wouldn't care.


So if your father or grandfather told you that he spoke to god why is that not enough, do you think they would lie to you?

Not lie, no. But people can be mistaken. If you have 10 witnesses to a car crash, you will get 10 different stories. I dont accuse any of them of lying, but peoples own points of view, their biases and judgements, are different.

Besides, every single testimony that i have ever heard regarding a conversation with God, is so worthless. Go watch the 700 club. Youd think that if you were speaking to God, you would ask for, oh, the cure for cancer, or how to end world hunger.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:07:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:02:19 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:57:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As not all of these can be true; it shows that the human brain is capable of "inventing" stuff like this. I won't beleive in God until he reveals himself to me personally; and the chances are that this belief would be based on some off-cheese induced 'episode.' But because I beleived, I wouldn't care.


So if your father or grandfather told you that he spoke to god why is that not enough, do you think they would lie to you?

There is a difference between lying to someone; and being misinformed, or mislead.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:11:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:05:30 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:01:42 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:46:39 AM, sal wrote:
Should he have made the laws of nature completely random so you wont think that science has the answers?

Well, at that point it wouldn't be a law of nature if they are random because they would contradict each other and therefore breaking it as a rule.

Not that science has the answers, they have no idea why there is gravity or why electrons repel each other but thats besides the point.

Well yes, the science that we know now doesn't have all the answers. There are some things that neither science nor religion can prove such as how the earth began, the origins of the universe, and among other things. But just because science havsn't found out a way to explain gravity or electrons repeling, that doesn't mean we should believe such absurd beliefs such as yours.

However, science does have most of the answers.

Ive made this point before. Science cant answer how the cause causes the effect.
All they say is based on our observation every time you see cause A you will get affect B, they don't say what it is about A that causes B.

What are you talking about?

If we have two rocks, and one rock clashes into the other, the momentum and speed and energy of the first rock is what CAUSES the second rock to move. In other words, the momentum and energy of A causes B to move.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:33:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:07:52 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:02:19 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:57:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As not all of these can be true; it shows that the human brain is capable of "inventing" stuff like this. I won't beleive in God until he reveals himself to me personally; and the chances are that this belief would be based on some off-cheese induced 'episode.' But because I beleived, I wouldn't care.


So if your father or grandfather told you that he spoke to god why is that not enough, do you think they would lie to you?

There is a difference between lying to someone; and being misinformed, or mislead.

How would god talking to you solve that problem?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:35:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:33:46 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:07:52 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:02:19 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:57:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As not all of these can be true; it shows that the human brain is capable of "inventing" stuff like this. I won't beleive in God until he reveals himself to me personally; and the chances are that this belief would be based on some off-cheese induced 'episode.' But because I beleived, I wouldn't care.


So if your father or grandfather told you that he spoke to god why is that not enough, do you think they would lie to you?

There is a difference between lying to someone; and being misinformed, or mislead.

How would god talking to you solve that problem?

Are you saying that God would have no way of convincing us through discussion and arguments? Humans do this all the time, why cant God do it?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:39:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:33:46 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:07:52 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:02:19 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:57:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As not all of these can be true; it shows that the human brain is capable of "inventing" stuff like this. I won't beleive in God until he reveals himself to me personally; and the chances are that this belief would be based on some off-cheese induced 'episode.' But because I beleived, I wouldn't care.


So if your father or grandfather told you that he spoke to god why is that not enough, do you think they would lie to you?

There is a difference between lying to someone; and being misinformed, or mislead.

How would god talking to you solve that problem?

Because a being who I previously thought was fictional would be talking to me.

Obviously, he would have to talk to me in a specific way; for example, I would have to wake up and not find mould on the cheese I had been eating, or have my flatmate explain that he had lost his years supply of acid around dinner time...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:44:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 10:33:28 AM, sal wrote:
Since it appears most atheists don't believe in god because there is no evidence.

Lets say there was a god what should he do so you should believe.
Reveal himself to the whole world? Is revealing himself to half the world not good enough?
How often? is once enough? If not why?
Should if be every thousand years?
would it not be enough that he revealed himself to lets say a million people and they pass it on and the others and everyone passes it to to the next generation and so on?
If he revealed himself to you does he also have to reveal himself to your children?

There's one easy way for God to make everybody believe.

He could've built a kind of room (temple?), wherein when one enters, one instantly becomes aware of God, directly, in our brains, and we know what he wants to say. This message will be the same for everybody, no differences.
He could build this place in such a way that humans cannot create, duplicate, destroy or ignore it. Since he's God, he can do this.

For the sake of redundancy, such a place can be built all over the globe.

This is just one way of doing it.

PS - I don't think it would be a good idea if God actually did such a thing. It's bad form, to intervene in human affairs, even if every millennia. Kind of dilutes the aura of God (at least according to me). If humans ever have such an in your face kind of evidence for God, how the world would be, could be another topic for debate!
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:47:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:39:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:33:46 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:07:52 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:02:19 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:57:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As not all of these can be true; it shows that the human brain is capable of "inventing" stuff like this. I won't beleive in God until he reveals himself to me personally; and the chances are that this belief would be based on some off-cheese induced 'episode.' But because I beleived, I wouldn't care.


So if your father or grandfather told you that he spoke to god why is that not enough, do you think they would lie to you?

There is a difference between lying to someone; and being misinformed, or mislead.

How would god talking to you solve that problem?

Because a being who I previously thought was fictional would be talking to me.

Obviously, he would have to talk to me in a specific way; for example, I would have to wake up and not find mould on the cheese I had been eating, or have my flatmate explain that he had lost his years supply of acid around dinner time...

Try to be theoretical.
After you die god asked you why you didn't believe I told your grandfather to tell you. You believed other things he told you why not this?
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:52:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:44:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:33:28 AM, sal wrote:
Since it appears most atheists don't believe in god because there is no evidence.

Lets say there was a god what should he do so you should believe.
Reveal himself to the whole world? Is revealing himself to half the world not good enough?
How often? is once enough? If not why?
Should if be every thousand years?
would it not be enough that he revealed himself to lets say a million people and they pass it on and the others and everyone passes it to to the next generation and so on?
If he revealed himself to you does he also have to reveal himself to your children?

There's one easy way for God to make everybody believe.

He could've built a kind of room (temple?), wherein when one enters, one instantly becomes aware of God, directly, in our brains, and we know what he wants to say. This message will be the same for everybody, no differences.
He could build this place in such a way that humans cannot create, duplicate, destroy or ignore it. Since he's God, he can do this.

For the sake of redundancy, such a place can be built all over the globe.

This is just one way of doing it.

PS - I don't think it would be a good idea if God actually did such a thing. It's bad form, to intervene in human affairs, even if every millennia. Kind of dilutes the aura of God (at least according to me). If humans ever have such an in your face kind of evidence for God, how the world would be, could be another topic for debate!

My question is not if its possible but rather if revealing himself to a lot of people some time ago is good enough. Can he say I told them to pass on the info they did you chose not to believe them.
Why is that not good enough?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:53:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:47:15 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:39:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:33:46 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:07:52 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:02:19 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:57:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As not all of these can be true; it shows that the human brain is capable of "inventing" stuff like this. I won't beleive in God until he reveals himself to me personally; and the chances are that this belief would be based on some off-cheese induced 'episode.' But because I beleived, I wouldn't care.


So if your father or grandfather told you that he spoke to god why is that not enough, do you think they would lie to you?

There is a difference between lying to someone; and being misinformed, or mislead.

How would god talking to you solve that problem?

Because a being who I previously thought was fictional would be talking to me.

Obviously, he would have to talk to me in a specific way; for example, I would have to wake up and not find mould on the cheese I had been eating, or have my flatmate explain that he had lost his years supply of acid around dinner time...


Try to be theoretical.
After you die god asked you why you didn't believe I told your grandfather to tell you. You believed other things he told you why not this?

Hypothetically speaking, if I'd explain it the same way as I have here.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:57:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:53:30 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:47:15 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:39:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:33:46 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:07:52 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:02:19 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:57:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As not all of these can be true; it shows that the human brain is capable of "inventing" stuff like this. I won't beleive in God until he reveals himself to me personally; and the chances are that this belief would be based on some off-cheese induced 'episode.' But because I beleived, I wouldn't care.


So if your father or grandfather told you that he spoke to god why is that not enough, do you think they would lie to you?

There is a difference between lying to someone; and being misinformed, or mislead.

How would god talking to you solve that problem?

Because a being who I previously thought was fictional would be talking to me.

Obviously, he would have to talk to me in a specific way; for example, I would have to wake up and not find mould on the cheese I had been eating, or have my flatmate explain that he had lost his years supply of acid around dinner time...


Try to be theoretical.
After you die god asked you why you didn't believe I told your grandfather to tell you. You believed other things he told you why not this?

Hypothetically speaking, if I'd explain it the same way as I have here.

Would a court accept such an argument, I didn't believe the one who sent the summons?
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:58:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:52:46 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:44:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:33:28 AM, sal wrote:
Since it appears most atheists don't believe in god because there is no evidence.

Lets say there was a god what should he do so you should believe.
Reveal himself to the whole world? Is revealing himself to half the world not good enough?
How often? is once enough? If not why?
Should if be every thousand years?
would it not be enough that he revealed himself to lets say a million people and they pass it on and the others and everyone passes it to to the next generation and so on?
If he revealed himself to you does he also have to reveal himself to your children?

There's one easy way for God to make everybody believe.

He could've built a kind of room (temple?), wherein when one enters, one instantly becomes aware of God, directly, in our brains, and we know what he wants to say. This message will be the same for everybody, no differences.
He could build this place in such a way that humans cannot create, duplicate, destroy or ignore it. Since he's God, he can do this.

For the sake of redundancy, such a place can be built all over the globe.

This is just one way of doing it.

PS - I don't think it would be a good idea if God actually did such a thing. It's bad form, to intervene in human affairs, even if every millennia. Kind of dilutes the aura of God (at least according to me). If humans ever have such an in your face kind of evidence for God, how the world would be, could be another topic for debate!

My question is not if its possible but rather if revealing himself to a lot of people some time ago is good enough. Can he say I told them to pass on the info they did you chose not to believe them.
Why is that not good enough?

It's not just good enough. It's absurd. One is always a product of one's times. Your grandfather, for example, would have thought that gospel music was the best. And he will feel no wrong is saying it to you. Does that make gospel music the best for you?

Have you ever played that game, where you whisper a sentence in your neighbor's ears, he then whispers it to his neighbor, and so in a circle and it finally comes to you? Is there an intellectual overlay? Or does the message come to you unchanged?

And you want to believe in a generational message transfer! Especially, when old people are sometimes considered to be senile.

Whenever you want to pass a message, that's important, you take into consideration the error propagation, the strength of the signal, the range of attenuation and then provide redundant backups, with backups for those backups! That is, if you are serious about it.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 12:01:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:57:11 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:53:30 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:47:15 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:39:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:33:46 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:07:52 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:02:19 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:57:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As not all of these can be true; it shows that the human brain is capable of "inventing" stuff like this. I won't beleive in God until he reveals himself to me personally; and the chances are that this belief would be based on some off-cheese induced 'episode.' But because I beleived, I wouldn't care.


So if your father or grandfather told you that he spoke to god why is that not enough, do you think they would lie to you?

There is a difference between lying to someone; and being misinformed, or mislead.

How would god talking to you solve that problem?

Because a being who I previously thought was fictional would be talking to me.

Obviously, he would have to talk to me in a specific way; for example, I would have to wake up and not find mould on the cheese I had been eating, or have my flatmate explain that he had lost his years supply of acid around dinner time...


Try to be theoretical.
After you die god asked you why you didn't believe I told your grandfather to tell you. You believed other things he told you why not this?

Hypothetically speaking, if I'd explain it the same way as I have here.

Would a court accept such an argument, I didn't believe the one who sent the summons?

Well probably not; simply for the fact that the courts know that I know and beleive that the courts, soepenas and summons' actually exist.

Comparing the two is pretty absurd.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 12:08:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:58:42 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:52:46 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:44:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:33:28 AM, sal wrote:
Since it appears most atheists don't believe in god because there is no evidence.

Lets say there was a god what should he do so you should believe.
Reveal himself to the whole world? Is revealing himself to half the world not good enough?
How often? is once enough? If not why?
Should if be every thousand years?
would it not be enough that he revealed himself to lets say a million people and they pass it on and the others and everyone passes it to to the next generation and so on?
If he revealed himself to you does he also have to reveal himself to your children?

There's one easy way for God to make everybody believe.

He could've built a kind of room (temple?), wherein when one enters, one instantly becomes aware of God, directly, in our brains, and we know what he wants to say. This message will be the same for everybody, no differences.
He could build this place in such a way that humans cannot create, duplicate, destroy or ignore it. Since he's God, he can do this.

For the sake of redundancy, such a place can be built all over the globe.

This is just one way of doing it.

PS - I don't think it would be a good idea if God actually did such a thing. It's bad form, to intervene in human affairs, even if every millennia. Kind of dilutes the aura of God (at least according to me). If humans ever have such an in your face kind of evidence for God, how the world would be, could be another topic for debate!

My question is not if its possible but rather if revealing himself to a lot of people some time ago is good enough. Can he say I told them to pass on the info they did you chose not to believe them.
Why is that not good enough?

It's not just good enough. It's absurd. One is always a product of one's times. Your grandfather, for example, would have thought that gospel music was the best. And he will feel no wrong is saying it to you. Does that make gospel music the best for you?

I hope you can tell the difference between opinion and fact.

Have you ever played that game, where you whisper a sentence in your neighbor's ears, he then whispers it to his neighbor, and so in a circle and it finally comes to you? Is there an intellectual overlay? Or does the message come to you unchanged?

And you want to believe in a generational message transfer! Especially, when old people are sometimes considered to be senile.

Obviously we are talking about a case where he is not considered senile. To say just by this point he is making a mistake is just dishonest. Its saying I believe everything he says but this.
It appears the user of this argument as some underlying reason not to believe this particular point, it does not appear to be an objective argument.

Whenever you want to pass a message, that's important, you take into consideration the error propagation, the strength of the signal, the range of attenuation and then provide redundant backups, with backups for those backups! That is, if you are serious about it.

That point is a good one. Do you also use it to say Aristotle did not exist how about Abraham Lincoln. An objective person can't use this argument only against one part of history.

Broken telephone applies when one person sends a message to one person. Not when an entire generation makes such claims. The listener of the message can always go verify the message by all the others to see if it matches.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 12:10:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 12:01:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Comparing the two is pretty absurd.

that is true after you have already concluded that there is no god?
Why would you only believe some things and not others from a parent of grandparent?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 12:17:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 12:10:57 PM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 12:01:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Comparing the two is pretty absurd.


that is true after you have already concluded that there is no god?
Why would you only believe some things and not others from a parent of grandparent?

What is absurd; is that you are comparing beleiving a religious belief; which are personal, non verifiable, and fundamentally different across the world; with believing a real person in the real world work for a real organisation is handing you a legally binding summons. They are very different "beleifs" and equating the two is silly.

As for why I don't believe some things from my parent or grandparents? Simply for the fact that everyone finds some things are easily believable and something aren't.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 12:17:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 12:08:27 PM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:58:42 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:52:46 AM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:44:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:33:28 AM, sal wrote:
Since it appears most atheists don't believe in god because there is no evidence.

Lets say there was a god what should he do so you should believe.
Reveal himself to the whole world? Is revealing himself to half the world not good enough?
How often? is once enough? If not why?
Should if be every thousand years?
would it not be enough that he revealed himself to lets say a million people and they pass it on and the others and everyone passes it to to the next generation and so on?
If he revealed himself to you does he also have to reveal himself to your children?

There's one easy way for God to make everybody believe.

He could've built a kind of room (temple?), wherein when one enters, one instantly becomes aware of God, directly, in our brains, and we know what he wants to say. This message will be the same for everybody, no differences.
He could build this place in such a way that humans cannot create, duplicate, destroy or ignore it. Since he's God, he can do this.

For the sake of redundancy, such a place can be built all over the globe.

This is just one way of doing it.

PS - I don't think it would be a good idea if God actually did such a thing. It's bad form, to intervene in human affairs, even if every millennia. Kind of dilutes the aura of God (at least according to me). If humans ever have such an in your face kind of evidence for God, how the world would be, could be another topic for debate!

My question is not if its possible but rather if revealing himself to a lot of people some time ago is good enough. Can he say I told them to pass on the info they did you chose not to believe them.
Why is that not good enough?

It's not just good enough. It's absurd. One is always a product of one's times. Your grandfather, for example, would have thought that gospel music was the best. And he will feel no wrong is saying it to you. Does that make gospel music the best for you?

I hope you can tell the difference between opinion and fact.
I hope you can. Strongly held opinions have a curious propensity of becoming facts. Especially over time.


Have you ever played that game, where you whisper a sentence in your neighbor's ears, he then whispers it to his neighbor, and so in a circle and it finally comes to you? Is there an intellectual overlay? Or does the message come to you unchanged?

And you want to believe in a generational message transfer! Especially, when old people are sometimes considered to be senile.

Obviously we are talking about a case where he is not considered senile. To say just by this point he is making a mistake is just dishonest. Its saying I believe everything he says but this.

Does anybody ever believe everything their parents say? Let alone grandparents. Take it with a pinch of salt. Else you'll start believing in Santa Claus, storks, and assorted characters.

It appears the user of this argument as some underlying reason not to believe this particular point, it does not appear to be an objective argument.

Whenever you want to pass a message, that's important, you take into consideration the error propagation, the strength of the signal, the range of attenuation and then provide redundant backups, with backups for those backups! That is, if you are serious about it.

That point is a good one. Do you also use it to say Aristotle did not exist how about Abraham Lincoln. An objective person can't use this argument only against one part of history.
Does a lack of belief in Aristotle or Abraham Lincoln make any difference? Seriously?

Broken telephone applies when one person sends a message to one person. Not when an entire generation makes such claims. The listener of the message can always go verify the message by all the others to see if it matches.
I'm sure you can come up with examples where entire generations were wrong before. If not, some nudges towards there. (slavery, class system, flat earth, geocentrism....)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 12:25:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 12:17:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 12:10:57 PM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 12:01:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Comparing the two is pretty absurd.


that is true after you have already concluded that there is no god?
Why would you only believe some things and not others from a parent of grandparent?

What is absurd; is that you are comparing beleiving a religious belief; which are personal, non verifiable, and fundamentally different across the world; with believing a real person in the real world work for a real organisation is handing you a legally binding summons. They are very different "beleifs" and equating the two is silly.

As for why I don't believe some things from my parent or grandparents? Simply for the fact that everyone finds some things are easily believable and something aren't.

What is it about god that is unbelievable? You said if he spoke to you, you would believe but not your grandfather.

I'm talking about a case where you were convinced that at least your grandfather believes he spoke to god. What does this have to do with religious belief.
I'm not saying your grandfather actually spoke to him just theoretical.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 12:32:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 12:25:40 PM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 12:17:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/1/2011 12:10:57 PM, sal wrote:
At 4/1/2011 12:01:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Comparing the two is pretty absurd.


that is true after you have already concluded that there is no god?
Why would you only believe some things and not others from a parent of grandparent?

What is absurd; is that you are comparing beleiving a religious belief; which are personal, non verifiable, and fundamentally different across the world; with believing a real person in the real world work for a real organisation is handing you a legally binding summons. They are very different "beleifs" and equating the two is silly.

As for why I don't believe some things from my parent or grandparents? Simply for the fact that everyone finds some things are easily believable and something aren't.

What is it about god that is unbelievable? You said if he spoke to you, you would believe but not your grandfather.

I'm talking about a case where you were convinced that at least your grandfather believes he spoke to god. What does this have to do with religious belief.
I'm not saying your grandfather actually spoke to him just theoretical.

The reason that God is unbelievable, for me at least is too long to list, as there are many problems I have with the contept; however the underpinning factor is proof and evidence; of which there is no objective evidence.

The reason God appearing to me would convince me that he exists is because it provides me that proof or evidence. It would not be objective, but only because I couldn't prove to anyone else that I saw God.

Now the reason I have trouble beleiving people have really spoken to God is the same reason that I mentioned many posts ago; because of the sheer number of people who have been visited by God; what he has said to them; and what they have gone on to do shows that the human brain is capable of "inventing" a divine visitation. Because of this; and combined with the other reasons for not believing in God (thousands of which you can see on this forum); tends to make me beleive that all such visitations are expamples of the brain "inventing" things.