On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:44:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 4/23/2011 10:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:45:04 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the
>>>> atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient
>>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> No, I am not, that is the point. There being a God is to such an
>>> extend contradictory to being me, that I will never accept any
>>> evidence(, hence my reference to that book of my father). I think you
>>> will find that true for other atheists as well.
>>
>> That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational
>> evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it?  I find that *highly*
>> unusual.
>>
> Problem is the "rational evidence" part. How do you tell someone playing
> at god, with super advanced tech, or even abilities maybe, and that they
> "are" god in any real sense. Hell, to most of the people over thousands
> of years a Jedi would constitute a god, but we would, if any such person
> showed up, be looking at blood samples to work out how the hell they did
> it, not bowing to them in worship, a fact true even for most religious
> people. First, you need a coherent definition of god, then you can talk
> about what constitutes evidence.

Interesting, I hadn't looked at it that way, but that makes a lot of 
sense to me (andrel, is this the sort of thing you're talking about?)

> Since most of the stuff in religious texts fall into these categories:
> 
> 1. Things any two bit magician can replicate. 2. Things we could
> replicate now, with preparation. 3. Things we could at least imagine
> replicating, if we had certain technologies.
> 4. Things we couldn't replicate, like making a new universe, and then
> showing someone around in it, and which are probably not possible.

The first three things you state are things that make sense to me.  #4, 
though, I'm not sure 'probably not possible' seems a little wishy-washy 
to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message