Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Lack of Evidence: I think I understand you on this one. It's difficult to talk about this one except on a case by case basis, which is still difficult. Just for the flood example, we could go back and forth all day long (because I do have a few things to say about that) but we wouldn't get anywhere. Anyhoo, if it were simple to reveal God simply through hard science and analytical evidence, somebody would have already done it. Equally, if it were simple to reveal God's non-exisitance through analytical means, somebody would have already done that as well.

Now your Manipulate the Masses idea: I agree wholeheartedly that there have always been people who have used religion as a tool to control others. But that doesn't mean that religion is incorrect. I believe in a God that respects our free will in all cases. We don't get to pick the consequences of our actions, but we are free in all cases to choose our actions. God does not use himself as a tool to control others. The only people who use religion as an opiate or to manipulate others are those who do not believe in nor follow God. Those who truly believe in God, and humble themselves before Him should respect the free will of others, just as God respects the free will of others. Those who use God as a threat or as psychological tool to control the actions of others cannot believe in him, and in fact, serve only their selfish desires, rather than any god.

The evil actions of others, even those in positions of authority of a denomination, in no way disprove the existance of God, though their actions may prove that they do not actually serve Him.

Ok, so let me sum up your arguments so I can see if you agree with my understanding of your objections.

1) God doesn't seem to follow his own pattern of prophets writing scriptures anymore.
2) If there were a God, why wouldn't he leave more tangible evidence, better proof of his existance?
3) Wicked people have very often turned religion into a tool to gain power, rather than a path to become closer to God.

Am I understanding you to your satisfaction?

Myes, indeed.

It would certainly be very well taken by EVERYONE who doesn't believe in god if god decided to sculpt the face of Maria on some huge mountain or something, rather then in a potato. Or evidence that the 'flood' wasn't just a local flood taken to the extreme by these prophet type people (it is often theorized that accounts of the big flood were actually documenting a flooding of the Red Sea, or some other Sea nearby, and that this was blown up to a global flood by ancient scriptures.

So, yes, god had better back up his own existance better. Not for those who already believe in him (for they have this faith thing), but for those who don't.

Yeah, I was poking around in the bible the other day, and nowhere could I find anything like "And in the days of his coming, there shall be many signs. The face of the Mary shalt appear on a brick wall, and there will be a crying tree..."

Back on point.

So do you think people want everything explained, backed up with evidence and proof, to believe in God? Or would one big thing that could only be attributed to God be enough?

In other words, would someone need to show proof for the flood, the creation, the tower of babel, so on and so on to prove God's existence? Or would one big thing thing that is only attributable to God work? If that is the case, one could present the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is hard to find proof that he was resurrected any more (that isn't really old). Maybe a couple thousand years ago, you could have gone down there, and done a proper investigation, right? But let's say you don't buy that old stuff, because obviously, you don't. So if there was something more modern, something that is irrefutably the work of God, and whose existance is inexplicable without God, something you can handle and study and see yourself, would that be enough?

I'm just trying to figure out what you would count as proof.

You see, you and other believes don't need proof and probably don't WANT proof. I myself place all religions, indiscriminatly, under 'fairy tales of old' untill proper evidence is found. By this 'proper' evidence I would mean:

Proof that 'religious experiences' are more then just hallucinations/seizures (Scientific trivia: certain parts of the brain become very active during intensive prayer or meditation (yes, you can see this). It has been noted that all brain activity in the area used for reasoning ceases during such moments). No matter how touching they may be, I cannot believe all those people have seen Jesus.

Proof that ghosts exist. They don't nessacary link directly to god, but they would provide proof of an afterlife, thus making god less questionable.

Proof that 'evil' ghosts/spirits or even demons exist. If evil can manifest itself in a physical form, so can good. And good, as you will tell me, is god.

Attempt to create True Artificial Intelligence. If we can never accomplish this, it probably means that more then machinery and lines of code are required for intelligent life, thus possibly implying a soul.

Find ET. If ET has a religion eerily similar to ours, god becomes.. fairly reasonable.

Something that I find interesting in your list; you will let aliens convince you that God exists, you will let man's failures convince you that God exists, you will let devils and demons convince you that God exists, you will let the dead convince you God exists. So outside of showing you aliens, devils, ghosts, and the entire future of our experimentation with AI, there is nothing that He can do to convince you of his existence?

I just want to make sure that you haven't ruled out that God could do something that we couldn't account for by any other means, to prove his existence.

Also: The reason I didn't mention your religious experience proof: How would/could you prove this? The rest are simple: See a ghost? Yes or No. But that other proof is NP-Complete.

Indeed. outside of things not really related to god that would sorta imply his existance, nothing can convince me.

Now you've lost me. So you are saying: Only things unrelated to God can convince you of his existance. Nothing else will work.

Right?

Indeed. You see, if it were directly related to god, I could not believe it, for god does not exist. However, if I think it is seperate from god but IMPLIES god, god may become a reality.

I know it's hard to understand, as it requires that you're an atheist to begin with

But let's say there is an object that exists.
Let's say that there are no convincing arguments that there is a source for that object other than God.
Does the existence of that object suggest the existence of God?

I think we would both agree yes. The object you had in mind is a devil or a ghost. But would the argument be any less true if it were an object that was good? Because in the sense that you are comparing them, devils and ghosts are directly related to God. They rely on His existence for theirs. Just the same as good things produced by God are directly related to him.

Now. If there is a devil, there is a God. You've stated that you can agree with that to a degree. So would a devil try and convince you that there is a devil? I don't think so, seeing that the devil wants nothing more than for you to not believe in God. The only reason you could see a devil would be because God showed that devil to you, and then we're right back to it being no different if God showed something good to you.

The things I referenced to are not 'objects'. Objects have been created by either man or loads and loads of time (and the objects created by humanity are composed of OTHER objects, which might just date back to the big bang. Atoms colliding, yo).

You're completely overshooting the generic ghost and heading straight for the demons. BEFORE I believe THOSE exist, first, the generic "booohooo, I am a ghost" ghost must be proven. Then those other things become reasonable.

No, I don't really think this god person would SHOW me those demons and such. Cause demons have this nasty habit of ruining crap, and god was a nice guy, right?

Of course I do not believe that god can 'show' me anything. Because at that point, I do not yet believe in him. Neither will I start believing the very SECOND such a thing is shown to me. First I must think, reason and compare. Should god survive this test, then whatever he showed me would have an origin other then neat optical illusions.

ANd as a final point: for ME, ghosts, demons and whatnot are in NO WAY related to god. Just so you know.

If they are in NO WAY related to God, then how would their existence have ANY bearing on God's existence?

When you consider that, you just have a funny way of saying there is nothing in Heaven, Earth, or Hell that could ever convince you away from your current stance. Are you claiming that could see demons, ghosts, speak with angels, and feel the voice of God himself, and that you would then close your eyes, plug your ears, and shut your heart; would you then state that since God does not exist, so you can't be actually seeing this? Would you discount it to hallucinations and seizures?

I think you're finally getting there: yes, all those things are so unlikely that INDEED NOTHING can convince me of any god's existance. Meh

Well that sure wraps up discussion.

So...because religions are different, they all are wrong? Doesn't work out so well, does it?

Actually.. it does. If those who DO believe in god can't work it out amongst themselves, it reinforces the beliefs of those who DON'T believe in god.

Oh please. Just because my 2-year-old son has trouble naming the colors doesn't mean the colors don't have correct names.

The many churches can make it confusing to figure out the exact nature of God, but that has no bearing on God's actual characteristics.

But Christians still agree in theese basic beliefs: That God created the Universe, loves all his Creation, & wants people to love Him back by accepting that He sent His Son to die on the Cross for our sins so that we wouldn't spend eternity in Hell being punished for our sins.

It's the details that different Christian gropus argure over so much.

_________________

The only way it does that is by making believers appear stupid.



You must be really attached to your current beliefs to be able to ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. I guess ignorance really is bliss. ...I'll be sure to pray for you.

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

I will tell you what I have told anyone else who would 'pray' for me: Don't. I wish not to be mentioned inbetween you thanking this god person for your food and slightly clean air.

Secondly, you think I do not LOOK for this evidence? It's just not there, or really, I would've seen it

Was it or was it not you who earlier stated that any evidence you encountered would be dismissed? You very clearly said that you would be satisfied to ignore all evidence that doesn't fit in with your preconceptions and prejudices, and dismiss it all as a seizure/hallucination.

Or is it that you are really saying, evidence would be great, I'd believe it, however, I really and confidently doubt you'll ever find any.

There's a big difference, and some things you said above seem to imply the former.

Also:

If this God-person doesn't exist, what's the harm in praying for you? The only way that could conceivably affect you is if he really did exist.

The reason I don't want you to pray for me is because that would make you a hypocrite. On one hand I am not a christian, and therefore I should be either 'saved' or ignored. But on the other you are praying for me. I'm kinda helping you avoid that strange paradox.

Indeed, evidence would be welcome. But we just haven't found anything

That would make me say one thing, and do another? What would make me a hypocrite would be if I said I will pray for you, and then get down on my knees and say "Burn him, God! Send him right to Hell!"

If God does exist, praying for you can do nothing but good for you, and if he weren't to exist, it still wouldn't hurt you. Nothing hypocritical there. Or maybe hypocrite does not mean what you think it means. I suppose that could be true, since though you do seem to have excellent english, it is still a second language. Right?

No-one should seek to prove or disqualify the intangible. Belief in God is called "faith," and can't be proven or disproven. Faith is a personal choice.

God doesn't flat-out "talk" to us. Rather, he "speaks" to us through "whispers" in our head. However, since you don't believe in Him, you choose to ignore Him.

_________________

Yeah. Metaphorically, you turn on really loud heavy metal (full blast) to drown out the whispers.

Indeed it is. I've boiled down my mistakes to 'then/than' and several minor typos, but apart from that, teh awexome.

Errr.. so I ignore god? Logicly speaking, I can't, because I don't believe in him, and I can't ignore something I don't believe in.

There are plenty of facts that point to the existence of God, it's just that for most it is a lot less convincing than the argument against Him. The existence of the Bible, religion, and people's testimonies is indeed an indicator of God, albiet they are not very convincing. Be sure to take them into account even if you don't agree with what they point to.

Even though you would be resistant to any attempts of mine to save you, there's no reason why I shouldn't wish you well regardless.

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

Sorry. Seen em, read em. Dismissed em. Can't be saved

Eh...anyone can be saved, KN. It's not all reserved for some and not others. I mean this as in anyone can have faith in God and be saved.

*commercial music*

I hope that I can think ANYONE could become an atheist. I know very well not everyone can. Sadly...