SafeAsMilk wrote:I don't see why we need to exclude an appearance event. I would be perfectly satisfied if God just made a really obvious, straightforward appearance to everyone, show his power in a really obvious, straightforward way, and then told us what we're supposed to be doing in a really obvious, straightforward way. Apparently this is far too difficult for our creator god.
Well, now you just are contemplating 'power'. Never mind 'god', then. It's obvious why 'power' is so fascinating, not least because it has the advantage of finding a referent.
Otherwise, this just recapitulates everything you've been conditioned to expect of deities. Why do you take on the burden of history? I'm not saying you have no reason to do so, and only suggest that your new reasoning should include your reasoning for doing so.
In a way, this is trivial, because you have no other basis for making up shit about deities (or, about 'power') than what's already on the books. I can still ask, why would you want to embark on this shitpile?
What if deities are not about 'power', and are only about 'meaning'? Does 'meaning' bend any spoons where there are no ground apes?
scherado wrote:If you're not a believer, then what would constitute proof? (Again, other than an "appearance.")
For an intelligent way to address your question, see above. I have no idea what you want 'proof' of until you specify it. Please don't use what's already on the books. That's just a recapitulation of a grim history. Miracles? Or just extreme improbabilities?
Miracles are (or should be) about stuff that isn't even merely improbable. Miracles are about stuff that can't otherwise happen without the intervention of a deity. For
circular definition, see "circular definition".
scott1328 wrote:scherado wrote:The message in the sky using matter is considered an appearance.
The question, I thought, excluded an appearance event.
Your stipulation was ambiguous.
Dare i say, "necessarily so"?
Thommo wrote:Deists believe there is a god. In the sense of the word "theist" as used above, deists are theists.
Although it would take wilful obfuscation to confuse the issue by trying to use qualitative labels to convey strict entailment.
They don't denote, but so what? As long as we don't specify, we can say, "I hold no belief". Theists and deists don't denote, either. Don't take them seriously.
scherado wrote:laklak wrote:All amputees spontaneously regrow limbs overnight. ...
That works for me, or would work.
it's actually possible, but improbable. How is it we came to associate improbable events with 'deities'?
Don't like the probabilities? Fuck off, then. Do you even get it when someone says, "there are no deities"? It's based on the pathetic definitions you've used, borrowing the burdens of history to compensate for an extreme fucking lack of imagination. If you don't have a bunch of preconceived notions about how a deity should appear, then you don't.