Journal Some_Llama's Journal: On the topic of God 8
Every so often there is a story that causes people to debate God on slashdot.. a common meme or point i see made is if God exists then why doesn't he prove himself to us and instead make us use Faith.
After pondering this question (which seems quite fair) I realized he HAS done this.. many times.. people even tell stories about it and have documented these events.. in the Bible.
So when you see this question, think about this..
If God today came to earth and did some miracle for all to see as "proof" of his existence.. whatever he might do.. say make the earth stop revolving for 12-24 hours, make all the water in the great lakes turn to blood for a day then back to water, kill all of the first born sons of man.. whatever.. people would definitely believe. we would make documentaries, pass these down to our great great great grandkids, make monuments to his greatness (which he wouldn't approve of), but 2000 years from now we would be in the same exact place.
People would call us stupid and naive for believing obviously normal things that could attributed to nature in some way, they would still demand for "proof" in their time. they would call the documentation faulty because it had to be translated how many numerous times to be decipherable in their time period's language.
The only way to continually prove his existence is for him to always be here in the flesh providing miracles every day.. but if this was to happen who wouldn't follow him?
I think the reason he requires faith is so that we "choose" to follow him and not just pay lip service because he is standing right here in front of us.. he allows us to do evil and let's us act like he doesn't exist because if we were immediately punished for every sin, who would sin and how could he separate those who would truly follow out of love for him and those who didn't want to be punished?
Asking for God to prove himself to you is logically silly, and quite arrogant. Even when he lead people out of egypt by parting the red sea and providing mana from heaven, when he took moses away for a few days they people turned (ran) to idolatry, who can fault him for wanting us to prove ourselves to him rather than the other way around?
Fallacy (Score:1)
Considering that for an omniscient, omnivalent, omnipotent entity, the level of resource investiture necessary to fulfill such a request is infinitely less than the level of resource investiture of a human being's request for such evidence, the idea that this is arrogance or logical silliness only holds true if we are of no worth at all. And if we are of zero worth -- then why would we have been made in the first place?
The en
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and if he did make his presence known plainly to you, it wouldn't be a matter of belief, it would be a matter of knowing, which you would. wouldn't you agree anything that is of value is worth investing resources to obtain? I would think that if everything was
Re: (Score:1)
While the definition of an object's value is the amount of resources one would consider a fair exchange for that object, there is such a thing as "declining return on investment". What method would you propose that we use to discern the factuality of an incorporeal, atemporal, entity which interacts in no way with the physical world? (And on the seventh day, he rested).
Re: (Score:2)
He has and does many times.
"You want people to take god seriously? Get him on camera."
which is the crux of your argument, to which i reply, if God was to show you proof.. how would you capture that proof so that someone 2000 years from now would believe you?
"That is the difficulty with theists getting non-theists to
Re: (Score:1)
The two concepts are directly antithetical to one another, so -- yes, they are radically different. Furthermore, your idea of science here is incorrect. First you discern a problem, a question. Then, you make a hypothesis about this problem or question. Then, you test this hypothesis to determine its validity -- i.e.; you attempt to prove
Re: (Score:2)
Which is what i said.. skipping the "discern a problem part", which is just the motivation for the hypothesis.
"There must be no attachment to either outcome, or else the science is flawed. Based on this outcome, you then discern the next set
Re: (Score:1)
Why? Because all of science is founded on the "discern a problem". You say it
Re: (Score:2)
Um really? is that so.. care to point out that passage?
"Third example: Peter states in his letters that men of faith ought have their penises fully removed."
He didn't say that, you are confusing what he is saying. post the passage and i'll show you where you're mistaken.
"You say there are "two rules" -- but those are your selection
Actually it was Jesus. Have you actually Read the bible?
"GET HIM ON FILM.
It's not that co