Jim Henderson wrote:
> That, for example, the Burning Bush incident didn't happen.  But again, 
> with scientific proof, there is room for doubt, so while we can say with 
> a high degree of certainty that things didn't happen 100% the way 
> described in Genesis, 

Of course they didn't. There aren't any Ice Giants mentioned at all.

Why does the argument always seem to be "why do you think the Bible is 
wrong", instead of "why do you think Thor isn't in charge of thunder?"

>> A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who
>> always won wars of oppression against them.
> 
> I don't think that could happen, unless all members were automatons and 
> also happened to have identical life experiences. 

Or that, maybe, God actually told them the same thing. By "believed the 
same things", I mean "believed the same things about their religion". 
Not "agreed in every way that blue is the prettiest color."

I.e., that after 500 years, you don't have 3000 warring sects. No 
buildings with statues of one group of Christians standing triumphantly 
on the heads of other Christians that just didn't follow the same humans.

>> Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying
>> they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.
> 
> I would think this would invite debate about whether or not the books 
> were in fact essentially the same.

Well, if they were word-for-word identical, I think that would count. 
I'd even go with the creation in 7 days in the same order (yes, I know), 
the flood, and a few other bits like that.

The real kicker is that if *humans* came from some other world, you have 
a lot of explaining how evolution made that happen to do.

(See the "Giant's Star" novels.)

>> Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.
> 
> There have been people who have claimed that this has happened.  The 
> Mormons, for example, believe that Jesus did return to Earth in North 
> America.  They've got entire books devoted to the subject (The Book of 
> Mormon is one book; it might also be covered in other books used by the 
> LDS church).  So that then leads to the question as to what would 
> constitute proof that it was in fact Jesus?

Rapture? People *actually* coming up out of graves to greet him? Demons 
with giant scales weighing you and dragging you off to pits of hell in 
shackles, as depicted on churches all over europe?

How about "Jesus actually returning to actual Earth after the invention 
of the television camera"?

>> Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer, and
>> spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs shortly
>> after.
> 
> That brings about the discussion of "why do bad things happen to good 
> people" which often ends in "it's part of God's grand plan, which we are 
> not privy to".  It would be great if that happened, of course.

Yeah. "You're too stupid to understand. But *we* understand why you're 
too stupid to understand. *We* understand God well enough to know that 
His grand plan requires suffering now."

Of course, Jesus disagrees, and says you shouldn't go to doctors, but 
just trust in God, and all your medical problems will disappear. Funny 
how that doesn't happen either.

>> A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth
>> defects.
> 
> How many people make up a religion?

Now you're arguing details. Obviously, it has to be a large enough 
population to make such a thing statistically unlikely.

> I'm not saying it has or hasn't been met in this instance, but it is 
> arguable that the stated requirements of the proof are vague enough that 
> you can come back and say "that doesn't count" when such a counter was 
> made.

See above.

>> Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So, move
>> a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week, and I'll
>> believe faith can move mountains.
> 
> Was Jesus being literal or figurative?  We have no way of knowing, but 
> based on my upbringing, I'd have to say he wasn't being literal, but was 
> being figurative, as in "anybody can change the world".

Except this story was in response to people being amazed that Jesus 
could kill an innocent tree just by cursing it. They said "Wow, how can 
we get that power?"  And he said basically "Believe in me."

Sure, it could be figurative, and an allegory. And as I've said numerous 
times, I have no trouble with people who treat the bible as fictional 
allegories and cherry-pick the bits they want, as long as they don't 
expect me to agree with them.

>> A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a
>> disaster or even lightning.
> 
> There again, not terribly difficult to prove that this has already 
> happened, given the variety of what constitutes a religion or a church 
> (for that matter).

Again, it has to be big enough to be statistically unlikely. If you're 
going to say *this* church is the only church for its entire religion, 
then sure, that can happen.

I think you know what I'm getting at. You're just arguing that I haven't 
provided enough details.

>> I'm not sure what "god must have meant this" has to do with what I said.
> It's a way of justifying "bad things happen to good people".

Right. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.

>> I'm talking about (say) Aztecs "converted" via force by the Europeans.
>> (I don't remember just which ethnic group it was, but there was some
>> leader that converted because his God lost to the invader's God.)
> 
> Well, God must've meant for that to happen as part of his greater plan 
> for the world. (That's what I mean)
> 
>>> and it's that faith in the impossible not happening that provides them
>>> with the comfort of their beliefs.
>> I have a great deal of faith that the impossible won't happen. I also
>> have a great deal of faith that gravity works and the sun will rise. But
>> if I wake up on the ceiling in the dark tomorrow, I'll have to rethink
>> those too.
> 
> The thing is, historically, God/gods/religion have been used to explain 
> the inexplicable.  (This is part of the reason I don't believe in a god, 
> because it seems to me to be the "easy way out" for explaining something 
> that defies explanation).  The second reason they exist is to provide 
> comfort to those who need comforting (like my mom, whom I mentioned 
> before, I believe).  For those people, like I said, if it works for them, 
> that's great - it doesn't work for me.
> 
>>> God:  I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
>>> without faith, I am nothing.
>>> Man:  But the babel fish is a dead giveaway, it proves you exist, and
>>> so therefore you don't.  Q.E.D.
>>> God:  Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that. (vanishes in a puff of logic)
>> The flaw there is that it's using logic.
> 
> Yes, but that's what makes it work; it is in the context of a humourous 
> work of fiction.
> 
>>> Funny, of course, but also drives at that idea that faith by definition
>>> is dependent on the absence of evidence.  Put another way, if there's
>>> evidence, you don't need faith.
>> Right. But you also need logic. Without Modus Ponens, all the evidence
>> in the world isn't going to help.
> 
> Yes, true, but the thing is that in a discussion about whether a 
> "miracle" has occurred (which several of your proof points seem to 
> imply), you can't really get to a point of any of those defined as p 
> would allow you to infer the "q of God's existence" with anything even 
> approaching 100% certainty.
> 
> It's late and I don't know if what I said there even makes sense now; I 
> guess what I'm trying to say is that if any of those were to happen, I 
> can see that the counter is "well, that's impossible, so there *must* be 
> some other explanation and I'm just not seeing it".
> 
> Jim


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message