On 1/19/2014 11:12 AM, clipka wrote:
> 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.)
>
Well, no, in point of fact, only when it was "convenient" for.. 
presumably the latest bunch of priests, dealing with some uppity 
parishioners, who wanted evidence, did it say that. There was some bit, 
I don't remember which part, where the guy did everything short of 
asking god to personal come down and buff his shoes, and god, quite 
happily, did them all, as "proof" that he really was god. Typically, 
believers pick the silly bit later, which says you shouldn't go around 
testing him, and gloss over the other earlier bit, where he was 
perfectly fine with it.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message