Am 19.01.2014 18:09, schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> I don't. See, the problem is, if you define god as some "ineffable
> something, we can't describe.", then you are correct, and that is
> invariably the "fallback" position of believers (since they can always,
> later, bait and switch back to the one they really do talk about all the
> time). However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of
> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc.,
> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes.

No, it doesn't - because the Bible /explicitly/ denies this testability, 
saying we can't / shall not put God to the test. (And then there's 
plenty of scripture that can be interpreted to implicitly affirm this.)

> The problem for the people believing in that version, while claiming,
> when cornered, that its the other vague one they really believe in, is
> that people *do* test those claims, including even some religious
> believers (like the whole prayers in hospitals fiasco), and the "god"
> involved spectacularly fails them.

... in which case they invoke - guess what - that we cannot put God to 
the test, and they may even reinterpret the "data" to confirm this 
aspect of God, rather than the one they intended to test for in the 
first place.

Post a reply to this message