scherado wrote:... The reason I asked will be revealed [in] a new thread. Oy.

(...)

Fallible wrote:Please, no.

(...) One assumes that a bold purple name isn't cheap!

Don't be silly. I don't have confirmation.

Some believe that everything is confirmation of a creator. This, hardly, compels belief. Let's admit that, if there were evidence that compels belief in rational people, then only cranks (and louts) would be Agnostics or Atheists.

We humans have been pondering the question since we could...cogitate, apparently, and many have looked off-Earth as well as on Earth. Has anyone asked what would constitute persuasive evidence in leui of The Big Cheese making an appearance? (Yes.) Now, you know the purpose of this thread. I will tell mine; you may tell us yours.

In no particular order:

1. Circular planetary and lunar orbits

B-b-b-b-b-b-but scherado, god could have created all of It, Shakey, Shakey, Shakey--Toss! and went off to play golf! for a trillion years

Yes, a long weekend for God.

"...
God wants silver
God wants gold
God wants his secret
Never to be told
..." - R.Waters, What God Wants, Part 2, off Amused To Death

2. [to be revealed later]

I set out to make a list, but it's not an easy task.

If you're not a believer, then what would constitute proof? (Again, other than an "appearance.")

The constellations rearranged instantaneously to write across the heavens “I am the LORD thy God”

scherado wrote:

[Snip]
If you're not a believer, then what would constitute proof? (Again, other than an "appearance.")

Is this a set up I see?
Whatever examples of 'proof' are offered will be followed immediately by 'Ah but how do you know it's god and not an advanced alien intelligence'?

The message in the sky using matter is considered an appearance.

The question, I thought, excluded an appearance event.

laklak wrote:All amputees spontaneously regrow limbs overnight. ...

That works for me, or would work.

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.

Here’s another, compliments of Carl Sagan: starting in the base 11 expansion of pi, to find a 121 digit sequence consisting merely of 0’s and 1’s such that when those 121 digits are arranged in a 11x11 matrix, a pictogram I’d a circle appears. Other similar patterns are also discovered in other bases.

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.

Y'know leaving your tongue stuck in cheek that long can lead to serious medical issues....

Might need remedial apparatus

scherado wrote:1. Circular planetary and lunar orbits

You mean elliptical.

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.

laklak wrote:All amputees spontaneously regrow limbs overnight. All cancer sufferers are healed. My fucking arthritis goes away.

Actually, if we all woke up one morning, and, with no warning, the above had happened, I don't think it would at all be evidence of the existence of a deity, much less any of the deities currently believed in by adherents of the world's current religions.

It would be extremely out of character for said deities, especially given the supposedly immutable nature of their sacred texts.

It would be much more likely to signal the arrival of a very benevolent, very advanced alien civilisation, fixing something very wrong, that any deity worth its salt would never have allowed to go wrong in the first place.

TopCat wrote:

laklak wrote:All amputees spontaneously regrow limbs overnight. All cancer sufferers are healed. My fucking arthritis goes away.

Actually, if we all woke up one morning, and, with no warning, the above had happened, I don't think it would at all be evidence of the existence of a deity, much less any of the deities currently believed in by adherents of the world's current religions.

It would be extremely out of character for said deities, especially given the supposedly immutable nature of their sacred texts.

It would be much more likely to signal the arrival of a very benevolent, very advanced alien civilisation, fixing something very wrong, that any deity worth its salt would never have allowed to go wrong in the first place.

Would it be better if there had been a warning that something was about to happen? Written in fiery letters? "In the sky. Lord, in the sky."

Immutability of sacred texts? Why take on the burden of history? Because you want to? Great!

Any sufficiently advanced technology and all that...

The ability to vaporise a city or even to talk to someone in the next village would confirmation of a God to a medieval peasant.

BlackBart wrote:Any sufficiently advanced technology and all that...

The ability to vaporise a city or even to talk to someone in the next village would confirmation of a God to a medieval peasant.

God as "power". We get to specify the degree. That is, we make up god to be whatever the fuck we want.

scherado wrote:

scherado wrote:... The reason I asked will be revealed [in] a new thread. Oy.

(...)

Fallible wrote:Please, no.

(...) One assumes that a bold purple name isn't cheap!

Does one, indeed. Perhaps one shouldn't assume so much. You know what they say it makes of you.

Don't be silly. I don't have confirmation.

Some believe that everything is confirmation of a creator. This, hardly, compels belief. Let's admit that, if there were evidence that compels belief in rational people, then only cranks (and louts) would be Agnostics or Atheists.

We humans have been pondering the question since we could...cogitate, apparently, and many have looked off-Earth as well as on Earth. Has anyone asked what would constitute persuasive evidence in leui of The Big Cheese making an appearance? (Yes.) Now, you know the purpose of this thread. I will tell mine; you may tell us yours.

In no particular order:

1. Circular planetary and lunar orbits

B-b-b-b-b-b-but scherado, god could have created all of It, Shakey, Shakey, Shakey--Toss! and went off to play golf! for a trillion years

Yes, a long weekend for God.

"...
God wants silver
God wants gold
God wants his secret
Never to be told
..." - R.Waters, What God Wants, Part 2, off Amused To Death

2. [to be revealed later]

I set out to make a list, but it's not an easy task.

If you're not a believer, then what would constitute proof? (Again, other than an "appearance.")

You should probably define 'creator'. Then you should consider that the existence of something other than the thing you're looking for 'proof' of is never going to class as 'proof' of that thing.

Cito di Pense wrote:

TopCat wrote:

laklak wrote:All amputees spontaneously regrow limbs overnight. All cancer sufferers are healed. My fucking arthritis goes away.

Actually, if we all woke up one morning, and, with no warning, the above had happened, I don't think it would at all be evidence of the existence of a deity, much less any of the deities currently believed in by adherents of the world's current religions.

It would be extremely out of character for said deities, especially given the supposedly immutable nature of their sacred texts.

It would be much more likely to signal the arrival of a very benevolent, very advanced alien civilisation, fixing something very wrong, that any deity worth its salt would never have allowed to go wrong in the first place.

Would it be better if there had been a warning that something was about to happen? Written in fiery letters? "In the sky. Lord, in the sky."

Well, of course. If you have prior knowledge that something extremely unlikely is about to happen, and you predict it, and it happens, then it's a lot more impressive than if you hadn't predicted it. It's at least a suggestion that the unlikely thing wasn't random.

'Better', but not necessarily good enough. If someone started successfully predicting lottery numbers, we'd initially put it down to skulduggery before we thought they could actually predict the future. But if it was genuine, then eventually the efforts to falsify would fail enough for actual future prediction to be the best explanation of the observations.

Immutability of sacred texts? Why take on the burden of history? Because you want to? Great!

Not sure what you mean here - I said 'supposedly' immutable - as claimed by the religious adherents. If God hasn't been regrowing amputated limbs for the last 4000 years, why would he start now?

TopCat wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Would it be better if there had been a warning that something was about to happen? Written in fiery letters? "In the sky. Lord, in the sky."

Well, of course. If you have prior knowledge that something extremely unlikely is about to happen, and you predict it, and it happens, then it's a lot more impressive than if you hadn't predicted it. It's at least a suggestion that the unlikely thing wasn't random.

Well, especially if it wasn't random, we could still try to explain it using scientific methods. Don't assume an event has no scientific explanation. That's just an 'unexplained' event, and there is no need to invoke miracles.

What you mean is that the 'prior knowledge' is a miracle, but even if you have no explanation for the prior knowledge, don't imagine that somebody has not been hiding his cards. There aren't any fucking miracles. There are only unexplained events.

In order for there to be miracles, you have to assume miracles are in the cards. Don't be spooked by the burden of history.

scherado wrote:Has anyone asked what would constitute persuasive evidence in leui of The Big Cheese making an appearance? (Yes.) Now, you know the purpose of this thread. I will tell mine; you may tell us yours. ... If you're not a believer, then what would constitute proof? (Again, other than an "appearance.")

To begin, let me suggest you check out both spelling and meaning of lieu.

Yes, I have asked myself what would constitute persuasive evidence of The Big Cheese making an appearance, and I have come up with two answers approximately 40 years ago. Which one applies depends on what brand of big cheese you're asking about. Do you have the personally meddlesome, interfering type in mind or the sort metaphorically referred to as 'the divine watchmaker'?

Hermit wrote:or the sort metaphorically referred to as 'the divine watchmaker'?

The "divine watchmaker" is a substitute for not understanding probability, or else for not understanding that 'existence' carries no referent, that is, by assuming that everything that exists has to be 'made'.

The latter only implies a failure of intellect, including an analysis of what 'manufacture' denotes. That's what 'creator' signfiies, and calling it 'divine watchmaker' does not solve the problem.