Hypothetical ?-If God Physically Revealed Himself Would You Still Deny He Exists? (church, quote)

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by fishbrains

Your god did not leave any evidence of a visit 2000 years ago, so if the OP's god put in unquestionable appearance then left without a trace, then it would be entirely reasonable for a person in 4013 to disbelieve fantastic accounts.

That is the difference between the gospels and evolution. There is no evidence for the gospels, but there is plenty of evidence for evolution.

You just proved my point.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Shirina

Hey Eusebius. I'm still waiting for you to show me the location of the cherubim and the flaming sword God posted to guard reentry into Eden. Surely if your stories are true, those guardians should still be here, performing their duties, no? And with all of our exploration and satellites and whatnot - no sign of either. So why not show me where they are and I'll give the Bible a second look. Otherwise ... you're just clinging to mythology in the same way that Jupiter worshipers still clung to the "old ways" as Rome turned Christian.

He doesn't need to guard what is no longer there. The world-wide flood of Noah's day wiped everything clean.

Secondly, there are no "first hand" accounts of creation - God didn't personally
pen Genesis which means whoever wrote it wasn't there to see it. Unless, of
course, you would have us believe that humans were created before humans so they
could see what happened before humans. *boggle* Yeah ... but why not? You ask us
to believe in stranger things.

Please prove your points in the immediate paragraph above. I'll wait. I'm a very patient man.

And yes, those little amoeba couldn't write. You know why? Because there is no
"magic" in evolution. We don't have to rely on mystical explanations that allow
amoebas to write - or snakes to talk or virgins to give birth or seas to part,
etc.

There is plenty of magic to evolution. How did them thar clever little single-celled amoebas figure out the millions of different critters, both male and female from the giant dinosaurs to the microscopic bugs? How did mankind come from fish? especially since no fish has ever grown arms and legs and hands with fingers and feet with toes and hair and a large enough brain to survive? It is all based on magic and cute cartoons. That's all. No proof. Just cartoons. Heck, anyone can do that.

No, that's not what we're doing. First of all, you're now begging the question
(how many fallacies are you going to use?) To claim that we're doing the same
thing with the Bible today that our distant grandchildren would do 2,000 years
from now if God appeared today is assuming that your premise is true. You can't
build an argument on a premise that itself is in question. Yep, that's a
fallacy. *sigh*

But that is exactly what is happening.

Secondly, you have yet to offer up any evidence that suggests your creation myth
is any more or less credible than any other. Yeah, we could be denying the
existence of Zeus even though there are eyewitness accounts of Zeus back in the
day. So what does that prove? That Zeus existed?

Sorry, I can't prove any creation myth. I don't deal with myths, just the facts mam.

The fact that an accident of birth placed you in a Christian nation does not mean that Christianity is true by default. I know you think it's true because you believe in it - but there are a billion Hindus who think the same thing about their gods because an accident of birth landed them in a Hindu nation. I tell people like you all the time that your staunch belief in Christianity is mostly due to where you were born and has almost nothing to do with any inherent truth. I can guarantee that if you had been born in Calcutta, stories like Adam and Eve would merely make you giggle politely and nothing more.

I don't believe in accidents of birth. I believe "God is operating all in accord with the counsel of His will" and "He gives to all, life and breath and all."
That is just not true as to places of birth. There have been maybe millions born in non-Christian lands who came to faith in the truth as revealed in the Bible. You see, right after the flood everyone believed the same about God and the world-wide flood. Of course there were only 8 people in the world after the flood but once they began re-populating the earth each country built their own kind of religion in accord with the spiritual forces of wickedness controlling each country. Even the Israelites would, at times, leave the one true God for the false gods of the surrounding nations only to have God bring them back.

Peace.

[Velvet Jones]

Originally Posted by pastorALly

This isn't some trick question. If God revealed Himself to the entire world, I'm not sure how He would do this, and it doesn't really matter, let's just say He has unquestionably done so. Would you accept that He exists? Would you seek to learn more of Him or to follow Him?

Yes. As long as he looked like George Burns.

[hiker45]

Originally Posted by pastorALly

Would you seek to learn more of Him or to follow Him?

No, I would say something to irritate her. It would be fun to see her get really mad.

[eddie gein]

If it was the judeoChristian God we'd know he was real because he would be begging us for money.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

He doesn't need to guard what is no longer there. The world-wide flood of Noah's day wiped everything clean.

Where does it say that in the Bible?

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Please prove your points in the immediate paragraph above. I'll wait. I'm a very patient man.

I don't have to prove it. The logic is simple. If Adam was the first human, then everything that happened before the creation of Adam CANNOT be a first hand account. Even if God told someone what happened, it still is not a first hand account. Plus, the Bible doesn't say anything about some other guy floating around in nothing with God watching the universe being created so he can put it in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

There is plenty of magic to evolution. How did them thar clever little single-celled amoebas figure out the millions of different critters, both male and female from the giant dinosaurs to the microscopic bugs? How did mankind come from fish? especially since no fish has ever grown arms and legs and hands with fingers and feet with toes and hair and a large enough brain to survive? It is all based on magic and cute cartoons. That's all. No proof. Just cartoons. Heck, anyone can do that.

Please read an actual scientific (not creationist or apologist) book on evolution before trying to argue against it. I can tell straight away that you really have no idea what you're talking about beyond what Lane Craig or Ray Comfort told you.

Here's a bit of a primer for you:

"Walking fish, sometimes called ambulatory fish, is a general term that refers to fish that are able to travel over land for extended periods of time. The term may also be used for some other cases of nonstandard fish locomotion, e.g., when describing fish "walking" along the sea floor, as the handfish or frogfish."

Originally Posted by Eusebius

But that is exactly what is happening.

There you go, begging the question again.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Sorry, I can't prove any creation myth. I don't deal with myths, just the facts mam.

No, you can't prove them. But you can't disprove them, either - so they must be true.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

I don't believe in accidents of birth. I believe "God is operating all in accord with the counsel of His will" and "He gives to all, life and breath and all."

It was an accident of birth. You only have about a 2% chance of being born an American. You have roughly a 30% chance to be born in either China or India. If you had been born in one of those two nations, your religious beliefs would almost certainly be far afield of what they are now.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

That is just not true as to places of birth. There have been maybe millions born in non-Christian lands who came to faith in the truth as revealed in the Bible.

Yes, because missionaries prey on the weak, the impoverished, and the vulnerable - those feeling so much desperation that they would reach out to any life preserver thrown at them. How many missionaries go to Tokyo or Beijing or Pyongyang? Yeah ... I didn't think very many, because people who live in those places, despite being non-Christian, aren't easy pickings for missionaries promising a blanket in exchange for listening to a sermon.

They also tend to be destructive - for instance, the Catholic missionaries who are convincing Africans by the millions that they should not have contraception despite the entire southern half of the nation being wracked by HIV. Missionaries left chaos in their wake in places like Nigeria and Kenya where Christian pastors are convincing parents that their children are witches. In the city of Kinshasa, over 20,000 children under the age of 5 are homeless because of what the Bible says about "not suffering a witch to live."

Originally Posted by Eusebius

You see, right after the flood everyone believed the same about God and the world-wide flood. Of course there were only 8 people in the world after the flood but once they began re-populating the earth each country built their own kind of religion in accord with the spiritual forces of wickedness controlling each country. Even the Israelites would, at times, leave the one true God for the false gods of the surrounding nations only to have God bring them back.

You do understand that if there really was a Great Flood with only 8 people surviving, going by the timeline used by creationists, there would have only been around 10,000 people on the entire planet during the time of the Exodus. Surely you can see how none of this adds up.

Cheers.

[baystater]

Originally Posted by pastorALly

This isn't some trick question. If God revealed Himself to the entire world, I'm not sure how He would do this,

1. Well if one doesn' t know how....then how is one suppose to know that it is god (s) that is/are revealing itself/themselves to that individual/world?

2. If god(s) is/are revealing itself/themselves to the "whole" world....wouldn't the world need to have a "complete" and "worldwide" agreement to what constitutes that god's(s) revealing?
To be honest from what I've seen so far...I don't see any indication, thus so far, that this agreement would happen.

and it doesn't really matter,

Of course it matters. See above comment.

let's just say He has unquestionably done so.

Well speaking for myself only. I can not and/or will not accept your premise of "unquestionably". I think Arthur C. Clark 3rd law best explains why I can't.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

So in essence if anyone/anything came and claimed it was god (s)...and even if that thing (s) looked, smelled, tasted, sounded, and most importantly felt like god (s).....even if that was so....in my mind there would always be that inkling of doubt. How could there not be.
I mean for your hypothetical scenario.....How do you or I know if this god (s) isn't/aren't just some other super advanced being/civilization out to manipulate (for some reason) the peoples of the world? How would we distinguish between the two?

To be honest I don't think there is anything that could convince me "undoubtedly" that God(s) exists while I am alive. Perhaps only when I die will there be a chance (maybe) of God(s) revealing him/her/itself to me as something that is actually real. So until that time comes. I think I'm just going to enjoy living life and do my best to peacefully coexist with the rest of humanity.

Would you accept that He exists?

See above.

Would you seek to learn more of Him

I don't know if I'd need to "seek" to learn from god. I mean couldn't god just "upload" all the knowledge to me....that is if my "mind" actually handle all the information.

or to follow Him?

Well. How hierarchal of you. Who says there needs to be any following or leading? Can't one just be with god? Or perhaps become part of god? etc. etc.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by pastorALly

This isn't some trick question. If God revealed Himself to the entire world, I'm not sure how He would do this, and it doesn't really matter, let's just say He has unquestionably done so. Would you accept that He exists? Would you seek to learn more of Him or to follow Him?

It's a good question. Particularly in view of those who get God in their heads and KNOW that he is real.

Despite the evidence that this must be a product of the individual brain and not a manifestation from outside.

In a way, it's like the evidence for UFO -piloting aliens. What would it take?

It would take something better than a one -off appearance. Let alone one reported by others. If they were around like Romanians or Ukip members and you even got to meet one occasionally, and there were the occasional documentaries on their Home World, and a saucer to look over at air shows...well, what reason woudl there be for anyone to refuse to accept such compelling evidence?

And yet the argument always seems to be aimed at coming up with good reasons why this is never going to be possible. In that respect it is very like the 'God cannot appear as it would nullify Faith' argument as to why God doesn't show up on a regular basis and comply with whatever would be necessary to convince up. Except that it can't be Faith of course but global panic. That's why they have to just do appearances to people that almost look convincing but not quite.

I did a post some time ago on why it just doesn't hold water that God is prevented from doing something that would put the matter beyond doubt and get the whole global populace bowing the knee in the churches which not all follow the one agreed religion and dogma and no need for debate about how we interpret 'Aeon'.

It looks very fishy that God was once so hands on, that you could take out a whole enemy army with a prayer (admittedly George Patton came pretty close ) but now just confined himself to arranging for winning drop - kicks, finding lost keys and cameo appearances on slices of Toast, preserving Faith by meticulously ensuring that this stuff isn't convincing except to those who already believe it.

The 'Faith' argument has worn as thin as the 'Global panic' argument. The nagging suspicion why either Flying saucer occupants and God don't appear in some form that would put the matter beyond doubt increasingly feels like They can't, for very solid and cogent reasons.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

You just proved my point.

How so - assuming that isn't just bland brass -neck? Your method increasingly seems to be plonking faith statements backed up be denial and demands that we (or Shirina, who is doing the King Arthur job (1) right now ) present evidence that has been presented to you more times than I care to remember and dismissed out of hand an equal number of times.

(1) worth seeing again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

[TroutDude]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

...snip...

(1) worth seeing again.


Monty Python-The Black Knight - YouTube

Indeed. Three of the funniest minutes in moviedom.

And quite apropos of the fundavangelists around these parts.