[PlastikBuddha]

Originally Posted by Tyrathca

The problem is term god has the same problems as the term supernatural event, too varied and too poorly defined. I think the solution to your problem would be to target a supernatural event which your god could be/has been attributed to.

The whole question you are asking is unfair though since it requires us to have a detailed understanding of your particular belief and then to extrapolate predictions based on that. Then we have to then determine if another hypothesis could explain your findings better, if the findings supports yours at all, etc. Sure we can do some of the later steps for you but the first few are rather difficult given its not our belief. And you expect us to be able to do this with each of the versions of god, which number in the 1000's to millions?

There is a reason scientists don't work that way, its backwards, inefficient and all round dumb. Its basically asking us to articulate your argument for you. This is all getting a fairly off topic however.

Don't be absurd- you already have a working definition of the Divine. The term "atheist" has it built right into it. You must have some idea of what is you DON'T believe in- so what kind of evidence would you accept as standing in opposition to that.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

If you have a good idea of what the law should be compared with what it is now, lay it out there. There is no real point in talking about crimes that would be just as illegal as they are now.

You're piping in because you think monarchy would be better than our republic? Why would it be better? How would it be better?

Here's a treatment with the references to the Scriptures where they can be found:

Criminal Code
You shall not murder. Judges will execute those convicted of murder (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12-14; 20:13; Lev. 24:17, 21; Num. 35:16-21, 31; Deut. 19:11-13; 1Ki. 18:22, 39-40; 1 Tim. 1:8-10) including those euthanizing, starving, or aborting (Ex. 21:22-23) human beings from the moment of fertilization to natural death. Judges will flog those guilty of assault and impose restitution for lost income and medical expenses (Ex. 21:18-19), and for permanent injury also require an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, life for life (Lev. 24:19-20). Judges will carry out all corporal and capital punishments swiftly and painfully, within twenty-four hours of conviction; and limit floggings to forty blows (Deut. 25:1-3; Lev. 24:19-20; 19:16-21; 1 Pet. 2:20). Judges will not convict for the use of force in defense of property and the innocent, in escalation to match the perceived threat up to lethal force; nor for purely accidental homicide (Deut. 19:4); will execute those guilty of negligent homicide (Ex. 21:28-30; Deut. 22:8); and flog those who could have avoided otherwise accidental homicide, and anyone committing revenge killing (Num. 35:26-27) of those guilty of capital crimes.
You shall not commit adultery. Judges will execute those convicted of bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16); those convicted of incest including with in-laws (Lev. 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-21); of homosexual acts (Lev. 18:22, 29; 20:13); of child molestation; of kidnapping or rape (Ex. 21:15-16; Deut. 22:25-27; 24:7); and of adultery with a married woman (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Ex. 20:14). Judges will flog those convicted of fornication; of public use of vulgar sexual and excretory language; of sexually suggestive dress or behavior; of intoxication; and of possession of pornography. Judges will flog more severely those convicted of transvestism; of public nudity; and of distributing pornography. And judges will flog more severely still those convicted of prostitution; of producing pornography for any use; and of sexual acts in public places.
You shall not steal. Judges will flog and require restitution for convicted thieves, negligent recipients of stolen goods, and those who violate contracts (Deut. 25:1‑3). Judges will impose double restitution for recovered goods, the return of the goods plus one-hundred percent value (Ex. 22:4, 7-9; 20:15); quadruple for destroyed or sold goods; quintuple for intellectual, irreplaceable and sentimental goods (Ex. 22:1); seven times for insignificant goods (Prov. 6:30-31); and twenty percent for voluntarily surrendered goods (Lev. 6:1-7). The judge shall impose corporal punishment and life for life penalties for collateral damage from any crime, including bodily injury resulting from the destruction of property which warrants greater than even restitution. A person or his resources causing unforeseeable or unavoidable property damage including by natural disaster without negligence shall pay no restitution, or with negligence shall pay even restitution. Persons taking shared risk shall pay mutual restitution (Ex. 21:32-36; Lev. 24:18). Avoidable accident without negligence, including the malfunction of a maintained resource requires even restitution but with negligence, including by a neglected resource demands double restitution. Gross negligence requires quadruple restitution and intentional destruction demands quintuple restitution. Excepting those executed, judges will sentence those who cannot pay restitution, to indentured servitude for up to seven years with the victim receiving all service or earnings.
You shall not bear false witness. Judges will punish those convicted of perjury, false confession, credible threat, conspiracy, abetting, attempt, fully as though they had personally committed the crime (Deut. 19:16-21; 2 Sam. 1:15-16; Ex. 20:16). Judges will flog and impose restitution on those convicted of slander. Judges will flog those in contempt of court, and execute those guilty of treason and violators of court orders which protect victims (Deut. 17:12-13). A man is not innocent until proven guilty. He is guilty the moment he commits a crime, but presumed innocent (Deut. 22:22-27) in court until convicted. Convicting the innocent and acquitting the guilty are equally unjust (Pro. 17:15). A judge at his discretion, suspends the rights of liberty including the use of weapons, for the credibly accused, and mandatorily confines one facing a likely sentence of maiming or capital punishment, until the rendering of a verdict. Reasonable evidence from two or three witnesses, whether from eyewitnesses, physical, or strong circumstantial evidence, shall suffice for conviction; individual rights shall not supersede the judge's God-given right to impose punishment on the guilty. Judges shall not grant nor have special immunity from prosecution; shall not give more lenient punishment to minors; shall not give special recognition to lawyers or experts in the law; may observe and advise other judges during trial ; shall not allow witnesses to swear or give an oath (James 5:12, Mat. 5:34-37; 2 Cor. 1:17); and shall question witnesses directly. Judges shall not accept no-contest pleas or bargains; shall punish criminals for all collateral damage; shall permit witnesses and victims to participate in punishment (Deut. 13:9; 17:7); and shall show no mercy to the guilty (Num. 35:31; Deut. 19:13, 21; Pro. 6:30-31).
America's Criminal Code shall be enforced by the King as authorized in The Constitution of America.

Lack of response noted.

Maybe I should have posted::squint:

It means your comment was ridiculously ignorant.

What Law of God?! Paul must have left that part out of Romans 13. Care to point our the verse?

You really are a moron. The fact that you brought up common sense earlier belongs in the irony hall of fame.

I have already laid out his directions to the Gentile Christians as given in Acts.

Acts 15:28-29

Those are the things the Jewish council thought the Gentiles should refrain from. Those are not instructions from God. In fact: 1 Corinthians 8

[Tyrathca]

Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha

Don't be absurd- you already have a working definition of the Divine.

Quite frankly your own proposition is absurd if you think that divine is some universal concept. Do you think that proof of the existence of Quetzalcoatl (of which I know nothing other than it was a deity worshiped in the America's pre-conquest) would be the same as Yahweh. Even with Yahweh there are wild variations , such as a God of vengeance and wrath that many fundamentalists believe, or the completely merciful passive one, or the one that mixes the two, then is it an interventionist or not. Is it truly omnipotent or is it just extremely powerful but with limits. All these complexities I consider, at the end of the day the term divinity actually is pretty meaningless to me. I do not fully comprehend spirituality or faith either for that matter. I definitely wouldn't call it workable but then maybe my standard are higher than yours.

The term "atheist" has it built right into it.

You should really know better than this. Atheism is simply not believing in a god, I don't have to have a good comprehension of the concept in order to know I don't believe it. All I really have to know is that you are proposing an entity which is conscious, very powerful, not human and was involved in the creation of stuff. Since nothing I believe fits that category then I obviously do not believe in a god. However those criteria and woefully insufficient to form a testable hypothesis.

I could guess the attributes of the god and then go from there but that never works as the inevitable "but thats not MY god" comes out (either I didn't read the bible right, or it invalidates faith or some other junk). And often they are right, or we get in the game of ever moving goal posts. My biggest problem is that from the information I do know from the bible is that the Christian god is contradictory from my interpretation thus I can not come up with a coherent internally consistent concept that any Christian would accept as theirs.

You must have some idea of what is you DON'T believe in- so what kind of evidence would you accept as standing in opposition to that.

I know what I believe in and I know that it shares little similarities with any god concepts, I don't need a very detailed idea of the god concept in order to know I don't believe it.

By the way I would have the same problem if you asked me this about psychic powers, would you be referring to telekinesis, mind reading, other ESP, foresight/fortune telling, etc. Though at least in that case I could make a good guess and address several due to the smaller number of options and it is easy to find definitions of each.

All I can say is that evidence would need to be repeatable and independently verifiable given the implications of the claim and how poorly it fits with my pre-existing knowledge.

[WizardofOz]

Lighthouse, there is no point in talking to you. You have no idea what you're talking about and are just parroting from others.

[Granite]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

Lighthouse, there is no point in talking to you. You have no idea what you're talking about and are just parroting from others.

You're just now coming to that conclusion?

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

If people in the United States were serious about a monarchy as an actual functioning and ruling governing system, and not just as a "for show" status, like in the UK, how would we go about reaching this goal?

I'd like to think people would remember those who fought to free us from monarchy and gave their lives to make a country of government by the people for the people. We have already been down this road once. While I wish we could be a more progressive country, things work out.

The only people I can see supporting this would be people who want one person, that 100% agrees with them on everything controlling the country. Some delusional belief in a greater good, that is just plain selfishness, wanting a better good that only suites themselves and what they believe in.

[Granite]

Originally Posted by Quincy

I'd like to think people would remember those who fought to free us from monarchy and gave their lives to make a country of government by the people for the people. We have already been down this road once. While I wish we could be a more progressive country, things work out.

The only people I can see supporting this would be people who want one person, that 100% agrees with them on everything controlling the country. Some delusional belief in a greater good, that is just plain selfishness, wanting a better good that only suites themselves and what they believe in.

It's worth pointing out that monarchists at least understand the implications of what they want and what they're asking for, which is probably why they're careful never to make a show of supporting monarchism in public...

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by Granite

It's worth pointing out that monarchists at least understand the implications of what they want and what they're asking for, which is probably why they're careful never to make a show of supporting monarchism in public...

You make a good point, there. Sometimes I think that is why some people are so adamant in supporting their political party. If you can make Washington a one party town, you basically get the same thing, for a couple years at least.

[PlastikBuddha]

Originally Posted by Tyrathca

Quite frankly your own proposition is absurd if you think that divine is some universal concept.

Did I say that? If the Divine exists, it exists objectively and people's descriptions of it (even your own reluctant examination of the subject) don't have to agree on the particulars, only to approach the truth.
The same goes for any other unknown- would you say that it was impossible to provide a working definition for gravity solely for the purpose of setting up some groundwork before even investigating the matter simple because so many people over so centuries had so many different ideas about what attracts one object to another?

Do you think that proof of the existence of Quetzalcoatl (of which I know nothing other than it was a deity worshiped in the America's pre-conquest) would be the same as Yahweh.

In terms of simply showing that something exists beyond the realm of the material, why not? We're talking pretty basic stuff here- the question is, what kind of material evidence would you expect you to find for the transcendent Divine, not what kind of material evidence would satisfy you that Odin sits on the throne in Asgard. You are losing sight of the the Forest for the trees.

Even with Yahweh there are wild variations , such as a God of vengeance and wrath that many fundamentalists believe, or the completely merciful passive one, or the one that mixes the two, then is it an interventionist or not.

Fortunately enough, that goes well beyond the scope of the question.

Is it truly omnipotent or is it just extremely powerful but with limits. All these complexities I consider, at the end of the day the term divinity actually is pretty meaningless to me. I do not fully comprehend spirituality or faith either for that matter. I definitely wouldn't call it workable but then maybe my standard are higher than yours.

Some people say Bigfoot is shaggy, some say he is smooth. I know I don't believe in Bigfoot but I am unwilling to set forth any kind of particulars about what might change my mind because "Bigfoot" could mean practically anything...
Seriously- that's what this sounds like.

You should really know better than this. Atheism is simply not believing in a god, I don't have to have a good comprehension of the concept in order to know I don't believe it.

Would you accept that kind of sloppy thinking in any relation to anything else? How about evolution? Does it fill you with a sense of recognition to see fundies deny evolution without understanding what it is they are doubting and with any kind of framework within which they can even examine the question?
Of course you have to know what is involved before you can make such a firm stance against it.

All I really have to know is that you are proposing an entity which is conscious, very powerful, not human and was involved in the creation of stuff. Since nothing I believe fits that category then I obviously do not believe in a god. However those criteria and woefully insufficient to form a testable hypothesis.

OK- at last we are getting to a few common attributes.
Now- what kind of material evidence would a universe that was the product of such a being as you have described, however vaguely, have to differentiate it from a universe that came about in some other way. You are making a specific claim here, so I would assume you have some kind of reasoning behind it. That's all we are asking for.
And it most certainly is testable- if not then your disbelief is no more rational or meaningful than any other. You may as well choose by flipping a coin if you can't make any kind distinctions between the two scenarios.

I could guess the attributes of the god and then go from there but that never works as the inevitable "but thats not MY god" comes out (either I didn't read the bible right, or it invalidates faith or some other junk).

I don't think may believers will argue with you over such basic concepts as power, consciousness, and the non-human nature of the Divine. But your incredible sensitivity to this imagined objection is noted.

And often they are right, or we get in the game of ever moving goal posts.

You haven't even tried to pick up the ball yet.

My biggest problem is that from the information I do know from the bible is that the Christian god is contradictory from my interpretation thus I can not come up with a coherent internally consistent concept that any Christian would accept as theirs.

Super- we're not asking for that. We're asking for something a little more basic.

I know what I believe in

Do you? Than why can't you spell it out?

and I know that it shares little similarities with any god concepts,

What are the differences?

I don't need a very detailed idea of the god concept in order to know I don't believe it.

If you are intellectually honest you do.

By the way I would have the same problem if you asked me this about psychic powers, would you be referring to telekinesis, mind reading, other ESP, foresight/fortune telling, etc. Though at least in that case I could make a good guess and address several due to the smaller number of options and it is easy to find definitions of each.

The material claims of psychic powers are pretty easily defined in material terms.

All I can say is that evidence would need to be repeatable and independently verifiable given the implications of the claim and how poorly it fits with my pre-existing knowledge.

What pre-existing knowledge? Spell it out for us. So far it seems to boil down to "I don't believe in anything non-material".

[Tyrathca]

I'm going to cut out bits to try and preserve brevity.

Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha

Did I say that? If the Divine exists, it exists objectively and people's descriptions of it (even your own reluctant examination of the subject) don't have to agree on the particulars, only to approach the truth.
The same goes for any other unknown- would you say that it was impossible to provide a working definition for gravity solely for the purpose of setting up some groundwork before even investigating the matter simple because so many people over so centuries had so many different ideas about what attracts one object to another?

Your assumption is that there is a clear agreement on the "what" of divinity. There has always been clear agreement on the "what" of gravity and a fairly simple one at that, the attraction of objects to the earth.

what kind of material evidence would you expect you to find for the transcendent Divine, not what kind of material evidence would satisfy you that Odin sits on the throne in Asgard. You are losing sight of the the Forest for the trees.

As I said before the term divine is meaningless to me. I can't make a a prediction with it because I don't know what you are talking about other than in reference to a supernatural deity. That you have now added further descriptive qualifiers to it (it's now the "transcendent Divine") for no apparent reason makes me wonder if even you can pin down the meaning.

Would you accept that kind of sloppy thinking in any relation to anything else? How about evolution? Does it fill you with a sense of recognition to see fundies deny evolution without understanding what it is they are doubting and with any kind of framework within which they can even examine the question?

There is a clear difference with that and you know it. Evolution is a well defined concept which they are not simply saying they don't believe but that it is also wrong for reasons X, Y & Z. The equivalent comparison to me would be if I were to say an element of Christianity is wrong for reasons X, Y & Z. When I argue in favor of evolution for example I am also the one who presents the definition, the predictions, the evidence and the reasons it matches the prediction. I may also supply the reasons why other hypothesis are inferior at explaining this evidence. Fundies also often do not have a working definition of evolution but will refuse to update that definition to what is actually argued. Thus they often ask for evidence which is either not expected or would even invalidate evolution. So sue me I at least have learnt that I want to avoid doing that.

Of course you have to know what is involved before you can make such a firm stance against it.

I form firm stances against specific positions not against the amorphous concept of "divinity".

OK- at last we are getting to a few common attributes.
Now- what kind of material evidence would a universe that was the product of such a being as you have described, however vaguely, have to differentiate it from a universe that came about in some other way. You are making a specific claim here, so I would assume you have some kind of reasoning behind it. That's all we are asking for.
And it most certainly is testable- if not then your disbelief is no more rational or meaningful than any other. You may as well choose by flipping a coin if you can't make any kind distinctions between the two scenarios.

OK i'll give an answer tot his, but it is one I have given long before and been told something along the lines of "My god wouldn't do that".

He would have to communicate (2 way) with humans directly and at request while they are being observed, providing information they could not possibly know themselves and providing it to several different people. Also repeatedly answering prayers, and by that I mean things that have a probability of 0 or maybe 10^-200 (i.e. regrowing limbs instantly while recorded, teleporting cities or mountains would be even better. Something considered impossible to happen even once let alone repeatedly on demand) but occur with the prayer at a rate of ~1. All this must be recorded and independently verified.

However here is the obvious problem, many people would be correct in saying that "my god wouldn't do that" in fact it would directly contradict the finer details of some gods. This is why I ask for those details because despite your posturing they matter and I'm not going to act like a fundie and pretend they don't so you can beat up a strawman.

Note none of that at all considered what "divine" is, I simply considered what a conscious interventionist near omnipotent being could do

Do you? Than why can't you spell it out?

You'll have to be more specific or do you really want me to write an essay for you on my beliefs on every subject I can recall? I suspect the assumption in the question is that my belief system revolves around atheism thus making it an obvious start, that assumption would be false despite the label I put on myself during my posting on this forum. Thus I'm left scratching my head, where do I start? My beliefs on the affects of Christianity and other organised religions on the political, social and economic structure of our society? The reliability of the bible maybe? Or maybe something irrelevant to this thread like cost:benefit analysis of providing education to all members of society? The likelihood of extraterrestrial life?

The material claims of psychic powers are pretty easily defined in material terms.

Thanks for missing/ignoring the point. The problem is that psychic powers is a broad and non-specific term grouping a large number of disparate concepts. One could not make a testable prediction that would prove "psychic powers" as a whole as the evidence would generally only validate one specific concept not the wider term. Your question has the same problem only that as you point out the concepts within divinity/supernatural/whatever are harder to define, that doesn't invalidate the analogy it just means that the problem is even worse than the analogy implies.

What pre-existing knowledge? Spell it out for us. So far it seems to boil down to "I don't believe in anything non-material".

I am mainly referring to basic science that says X will always behave in Y way under conditions Z, the existence of supernatural would contradict that. It would imply ways of affecting the material world which as yet have not been detected, nor predicted by any existing validated theory. Anything that fits that criteria should be rigorously investigated to obtain a high standard of evidence and in science that is normally what happens, I see no reason to treat your claims any differently.

[PlastikBuddha]

Originally Posted by Tyrathca

I'm going to cut out bits to try and preserve brevity.
Your assumption is that there is a clear agreement on the "what" of divinity. There has always been clear agreement on the "what" of gravity and a fairly simple one at that, the attraction of objects to the earth.

The basics of divinity are pretty standard. I'd say that there far more about what a transcendent, monotheistic deity must be to qualify for the description as there has been historically for the nature of what we now call "gravity". You yourself listed them, powerful, supernatural, conscious. What does the name of such a being matter, or the exact nature of His character, when all we are trying to do is establish some kind criteria for examining the case for His existence?

As I said before the term divine is meaningless to me.

Really? It's just a sound, a collection of letters like asquafurium, with no kind of definition attached to it?
Then how on earth did you arrive at the conclusion that it doesn't exist with such assurance that you would use that position to describe yourself?
Give me a break.

I can't make a a prediction with it because I don't know what you are talking about other than in reference to a supernatural deity.

That's ALL you need to know about it.

That you have now added further descriptive qualifiers to it (it's now the "transcendent Divine") for no apparent reason makes me wonder if even you can pin down the meaning.

If you would like to discuss what I think of the Divine I would be happy to share, but would you even know what I was talking about since the word "divine" is meaningless to you?

The meaning depends on what you are trying to say about it. For the purposes of this discussion I am using the most general descriptions of God, avoiding the particulars of my own faith.

There is a clear difference with that and you know it. Evolution is a well defined concept which they are not simply saying they don't believe but that it is also wrong for reasons X, Y & Z. The equivalent comparison to me would be if I were to say an element of Christianity is wrong for reasons X, Y & Z. When I argue in favor of evolution for example I am also the one who presents the definition, the predictions, the evidence and the reasons it matches the prediction. I may also supply the reasons why other hypothesis are inferior at explaining this evidence. Fundies also often do not have a working definition of evolution but will refuse to update that definition to what is actually argued. Thus they often ask for evidence which is either not expected or would even invalidate evolution. So sue me I at least have learnt that I want to avoid doing that.

It sounds to me like you are doing exactly that.

I form firm stances against specific positions not against the amorphous concept of "divinity".

Taking that approach then, in order to be an honest atheist, you would have to examine each claim of divinity completely on its own merits- it wouldn't be atheism it would be endless list of a-odins, a-astoreths, a-Thoths, etc. Your stance is not just against a specific god, but all of them- on principle.

OK i'll give an answer tot his, but it is one I have given long before and been told something along the lines of "My god wouldn't do that".

He would have to communicate (2 way) with humans directly and at request while they are being observed, providing information they could not possibly know themselves and providing it to several different people. Also repeatedly answering prayers, and by that I mean things that have a probability of 0 or maybe 10^-200 (i.e. regrowing limbs instantly while recorded, teleporting cities or mountains would be even better. Something considered impossible to happen even once let alone repeatedly on demand) but occur with the prayer at a rate of ~1. All this must be recorded and independently verified.

However here is the obvious problem, many people would be correct in saying that "my god wouldn't do that" in fact it would directly contradict the finer details of some gods. This is why I ask for those details because despite your posturing they matter and I'm not going to act like a fundie and pretend they don't so you can beat up a strawman.
[
Note none of that at all considered what "divine" is, I simply considered what a conscious interventionist near omnipotent being could do

So you have gone from not being able to define divinity to defining as not just interventionist but the lackey to the whims of its own creation?
While I agree that the above "experiment" would certainly constitute proof of a very specific kind of god you yourself admit that this is merely something that God could do. Since that says nothing about what God must do it is unsuitable for determining the existence of the Divine.

You'll have to be more specific or do you really want me to write an essay for you on my beliefs on every subject I can recall? I suspect the assumption in the question is that my belief system revolves around atheism thus making it an obvious start, that assumption would be false despite the label I put on myself during my posting on this forum. Thus I'm left scratching my head, where do I start? My beliefs on the affects of Christianity and other organised religions on the political, social and economic structure of our society? The reliability of the bible maybe? Or maybe something irrelevant to this thread like cost:benefit analysis of providing education to all members of society? The likelihood of extraterrestrial life?

Considering the nature of our conversation so far I shouldn't have to specify- but...
About the non-existance of God as previously defined.

Thanks for missing/ignoring the point. The problem is that psychic powers is a broad and non-specific term grouping a large number of disparate concepts. One could not make a testable prediction that would prove "psychic powers" as a whole as the evidence would generally only validate one specific concept not the wider term.

Of course you could. Regardless of the particular manifestation, spirit-knocking or remote viewing or what have you, there is a general definition of what a pyschic power is- something supernatural. A "hit" in any of the specific subcategories of pyschic power would be a result for the general catergory of overall psychic powers.

Your question has the same problem only that as you point out the concepts within divinity/supernatural/whatever are harder to define, that doesn't invalidate the analogy it just means that the problem is even worse than the analogy implies.

You've already defined them. For the purposes of discussing such a fundamental question as the existance or non-existance of Divinity there is no need for anything more specific.

I am mainly referring to basic science that says X will always behave in Y way under conditions Z, the existence of supernatural would contradict that. It would imply ways of affecting the material world which as yet have not been detected, nor predicted by any existing validated theory. Anything that fits that criteria should be rigorously investigated to obtain a high standard of evidence and in science that is normally what happens, I see no reason to treat your claims any differently.

Since God is by definition supernatural it seems to pretty silly to expect Him to be subject to the natural world, to always behave in Y way under conditons Z. I am not making any claims here about the nature of God- I'm just curious to know what claims YOU are making and why.

[Tyrathca]

Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha

So you have gone from not being able to define divinity to defining as not just interventionist but the lackey to the whims of its own creation?

As I said - "But that's not what my god would do"

I told you why I don't like to do this game of yours and this is why, inevitably I don't describe what you want. If you really want it could be part of the conversation he has with his creation concerning what he is or isn't willing to do in order to show himself, but the events must be clearly beyond what is statistically probable.

An important part I guess of the divinity is what it is willing or unwilling to do in order to show itself, but since that is variable between peoples beliefs I'll get your response. Plus theoretically there are versions which aren't possible to get evidence for because the being intentionally prevents detection (in which we get a paradox that evidence of it would be evidence against it).

While I agree that the above "experiment" would certainly constitute proof of a very specific kind of god you yourself admit that this is merely something that God could do. Since that says nothing about what God must do it is unsuitable for determining the existence of the Divine.

And if I said that would be a must what would you say?

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

Lighthouse, there is no point in talking to you. You have no idea what you're talking about and are just parroting from others.

Quit whining.

It is easier to change the heart of one man than a nation.

[PlastikBuddha]

Originally Posted by Tyrathca

As I said - "But that's not what my god would do"

No- "Is that what ANY god would do"?

I told you why I don't like to do this game of yours and this is why, inevitably I don't describe what you want. If you really want it could be part of the conversation he has with his creation concerning what he is or isn't willing to do in order to show himself, but the events must be clearly beyond what is statistically probable.

Game?
I'm trying to get you to explain what you think would be an rationally acceptable reason for believing in a supernatural creator.

An important part I guess of the divinity is what it is willing or unwilling to do in order to show itself, but since that is variable between peoples beliefs I'll get your response. Plus theoretically there are versions which aren't possible to get evidence for because the being intentionally prevents detection (in which we get a paradox that evidence of it would be evidence against it).

You're overthinking this. Very "Douglas Adams", though.
What would be an "obvious" difference between a universe that was created by Divine Consciousness and one that arose in some non-conscious fashion?

And if I said that would be a must what would you say?

Why?

[Granite]

Originally Posted by Quincy

You make a good point, there. Sometimes I think that is why some people are so adamant in supporting their political party. If you can make Washington a one party town, you basically get the same thing, for a couple years at least.

It might also explain why so many of them are rooting (brazenly, in some cases) for some of the most nightmarish events one might imagine.

I don't think it's any accident Gary North, for example, obviously wanted a nuclear shoot-out with the Soviets, or a complete meltdown following Y2K. Only something catastrophic and hideous would ever give these people the opportunity to do what they want, on a limited or large scale.