Jim Henderson wrote:
> In other words, you not only would have to have the same message 
> delivered, but you'd have to have identical interpretations.  Given how 
> many ways people interpret something that many consider to be as 
> important as the Bible, I think that's unlikely. 

Well, yeah. Unless it's *GOD* delivering the message. See my point?

Of *course* anything that would convince me of the existence of God is 
going to be unlikely. That's why I'm an atheist. :-)

> Why does it have to be Christians, though?  How's about Buddhism?

That's fine. I don't think Buddhists are theists, tho. Or, at worst, 
they worship someone who said "don't worship me."  However, I'll happily 
admit I know very little about buddhism.

> Again, though, there would be interpretive questions.  Word for word in 
> what language, for example?  

The language of the Torah, of course.

You ask me what would convince me some God is real. I give a list of 
miracles that do it. You complain that the miracles are too unlikely. 
Well, yeah, that's why they're miracles.

> There is apparently some debate about this still, but just the idea that 
> we can't come to a common understanding of what the words even mean in 
> the Bible makes this increasingly unlikely, because in order to do "word 
> for word identical" or even "getting events in the same order" we have to 
> have a common definition to start from on Earth, and we don't even have 
> that.

Yeah, it would be quite miraculous, wouldn't it?

>> 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.
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
>> (See the "Giant's Star" novels.)
> 
> Will have to look them up.

Brief plot starter: Explorers on the moon find a 50,000 year old human 
skeleton in a space suit in a cave on the moon, with alien life forms in 
ration packs in the backpack. Much hilarity ensues while trying to 
figure out how that could have happened.

The first book was the best, but the two sequels aren't too bad.


>>>> 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?
> 
> There again, you defined it as a return, not the Rapture, armageddon, or 
> whatever word fits.  "Return to earth" is exactly what the Mormons 
> believe happened.  So again, it's a question of definition and details.

Yes. Granted. And while the Mormons think he already returned, all the 
Christians think he already came back to life, too. Note I didn't say 
"Jesus having returned to earth in the past."  I said "Jesus returning 
to Earth."

> Didn't Jim Jones claim that he was Jesus?  How would one prove that 
> someone claiming to be Jesus was in fact Jesus?

Miracles. Rapture. All the stuff that's supposed to happen when Jesus 
returns to earth.

>>>> 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."
> 
> I don't think it's "We understand" but "we have faith that there's a 
> reason for it".  There's a big difference there.

That's fine. But then don't accuse me of being irrational, if I don't 
agree with the faith.

>> 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.
> 
> Some people believe that, yes.  And I think that's nuts, and in 
> situations where someone puts their child's health at risk for that 
> belief, that's when society needs to step in.  It's one thing for an 
> adult to make that decision for themselves; quite another IMO for them to 
> decide that about someone else.  Falls under my "as far as my nose" (or 
> perhaps "others' noses" is a better analogy) rule for letting people 
> believe what they like.

I'll personally disagree on this one. Sometimes, you're just f'ed, and 
that's necessary for a free society.

> Well, yes and no.  But the situation set up is one that requires the 
> question be asked, because religion is defined in so many different ways 
> to different people.  It need not be organised, 

Fair. Again, I'm talking miracles. You're not going to convince me by 
saying "See, those three people who believe in FangleMork, the god of 
blue tomatoes, all share this wonderful trait in common."

> and I don't think I've ever met two who defined their beliefs in the same 
> way.  But they certainly can be very religious people, too.

Sure. But you just lumped them all together, right?

>>> 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.
> 
> Well, the devil *is* in the details, no? ;-)

Not really. When something like this actually happens, show it to me. 
Then we'll worry about the details. If it's not statistically unlikely, 
then no, it won't be too convincing.

>>>> 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.
> 
> See, that's the problem with it.  Big enough to be statistically unlikely 
> becomes difficult to quantify consistently.

Not especially. That's what statistics are for.

There was a volcanic eruption a few years ago in Hawaii. The flow came 
down, burned out a small town, carefully split and went around the 
shrine to Pele (the volcano goddess), and came back together and trashed 
the rest of the town.  I found that pretty convincing.

If this happened with every eruption, I'd start to wonder if there's 
something more to it.

>  10 churches?  20?  a 
> hundred?  What constitutes a disaster?  There's a lot of wiggle room 
> there for "that doesn't count".

Yes. So?

>> I think you know what I'm getting at. You're just arguing that I haven't
>> provided enough details.
> 
> I do know what you're getting at - and my list actually would be very 
> similar.  I just know, though, that the response from someone who is 
> truly religious is going to poke those kinds of holes in the required 
> proof.

Uh, you know something? I don't really care. In my experience, trying to 
describe the scientific basis for your beliefs to someone trying to 
convince you their religion is right just doesn't work. The logic isn't 
there.

> We're not so different in points of view, Darren - I hope you do see 
> that.  

Sure.

> I hope this has been an enjoyable conversation for you, it has been so 
> for me.  This sort of discussion gets me thinking and analyzing about 
> what I think and believe, and I enjoy that immensely for some reason.

Sure.

There's also the other fun kinds of conversations:
"Do you believe in Life After Death?"
    "Sure."
"Then you *are* religious."
    "No, why would you say that? Can't there be LaD without God?"

"Do you believe in UFOs?"
    "Sure. They just aren't alien space ships. They're unidentified."

And it constantly amazes me the number of people who try to support 
religion by pretending organization of structure is unimportant. That 
there must be some physical "thing" that represents the difference 
between a live person and a dead person, beyond how the parts are 
positioned.

-- 
   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