Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord

[turingtest]

Then you must also agree with Bart Ehrman that Jesus wasn't divine since the Jesus that Bart Ehrman says may have existed wasnt. Is that the same one you were thinking of?

Really. Argument from authority is a fallacy to begin with; but only DOC would argue from an authority who's actually saying the complete opposite of what he needs him to say.

 

[SezMe]

To just focus on the first item Vortigern mentioned: could you point us to some of that objective evidence presented in those libraries fulls of writings and journals on the subject?

Sorry, no. And that's my whole point. Countless people ranging from genuine scholars to simple-minded mountebanks have produced endless volumes of "objective" evidence which other scholars and mountebanks have knocked down. As the most current example, witness the other posts in this very thread.

IMO, Vortigern's questions are not serious and his thread belongs in Humor. YMMV.

Let me ask you a question, ddt: Did you really think Vortigern was asking an honest question when he used the phrase "superpowered invisible overlord"?

Yet with all those great minds and libraries of writings there is no answer strongly indicating that question itself is meaningless.

Yes, exactly.

 

[jakesteele]

The title says it all. Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord.

If you like, you can try to start with some objective evidence. Conclusive data of any kind.

Failing that, you may wish to use reasoned arguments to convince me that believing in this being is the right thing to do.



Good luck.

Existence.

 

[ddt]

Sorry, no. And that's my whole point. Countless people ranging from genuine scholars to simple-minded mountebanks have produced endless volumes of "objective" evidence which other scholars and mountebanks have knocked down. As the most current example, witness the other posts in this very thread.

IMO, Vortigern's questions are not serious and his thread belongs in Humor. YMMV.

Let me ask you a question, ddt: Did you really think Vortigern was asking an honest question when he used the phrase "superpowered invisible overlord"?

It was firmly tongue in cheek, that's for sure. However, it does leave the door open to serious discussion. There's at least one new (for me) person trying their teeth into the question.

 

[A'isha]

You must exclude asking Muslims to give evidence. It can apply to all theists, except for Muslims. Otherwise you are guilty of racism according to the local "cool kids" on this forum.

Say what now?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Say what now?

Come back in three weeks

 

[RoboTimbo]

Existence.

Explain.

 

[Vortigern99]

the Lord Jesus Christ was not invisible. Most biblical scholars believe he existed including Bart Ehrman who said "Jesus certainly existed" in his latest book, "Did Jesus Exist" pg. 173

Let me clarify. Surely in your theology you make a distinction between God the Father and Creator, and God the Son. I'm not requesting evidence for a human historical figure who may or may not have existed, I'm requesting evidence, or a rational argument, supporting the existence of a/the Creator deity.

Hope that clarifies the OP a bit.

 

[Vortigern99]

Cosmologists have determined that the existence of the universe, and the evolution of intelligent life is so improbable that they have invented the theory of infinite failed universes to explain the one we are in.
I cannot give you a list of all the reasons why life as we know it is improbable without some research, but I know there are many reasons. For example the force of gravity has to be just right to build planets, and we have to be just the right distance from the sun. There are many, many such things that have to be exactly right, or we would not exist.
Therefore I propose the universe has an intelligent designer. As this is more probable that that all we can survey throught the hubble telescope came into being by accident, and without meaning.

A statistician will be able to explain more persuasively than I the idea that, given the billions of stars in this galaxy alone, it is more probable than not that somewhere, at some time in the unfolding chronology of the universe, events favorable to the formation of the human animal would come to pass. Had events occurred differently owing to some meteoric catastrophe, global climate event or what-have-you, then some other lifeform might have achieved ascendency on this planet instead of us, and they might be thinking how miraculous it must be that they got to be the top dogs on this rock.

To believe otherwise presents a degree of narcissistic hubris.

 

[Vortigern99]

In what way does your concept of 'god' include "being limited to ordinary, human abilities"? If your concept of 'god' is not limited, it is "super-powered".

In what way does your concept of 'god' include "being visible"? If it is not "visible", it is "invisible".

In what way does your concept of 'god' include "not expecting, even scripturally demanding, obeisance, obedience, endless praise, and submission"; and "not threatening dire consequences for their lack"? In what way does your concept of 'god' not include "insisting upon being 'lord' of all"? If it arrogates sovereign power, particularly power over other sovereigns, it is, in fact, an "overlord"".

The vengeful, spiteful, inconsistent, murderous, arbitrary, immaterial, egoistic, praise-hungry, jealous, omnipotent/omniscient/ominibenevolent 'god' of the bible certainly does a creditable "superpowered invisible overlord" act, at any rate. If your concept of 'god' is actually different, it is possible that the OP was not, in fact, addressed to you.

This about says it all, far more articulately than I could hope to express it. More tersely, I would simply ask: in what way is the deity of the Bible not an invisible superpowered overlord? Let's try to falsify that statement before we entertain the premise that my OP is mocking or defamatory against the biblical God.

 

[Vortigern99]

I see a number of posters have eloquently rebutted the "fine-tuned earth" hypothesis, so:

The "fine tuning" argument has always struck me as a circular one. The only way to see life as we know it as more than just a result of the conditions in which it arose- to see it as the reason for those conditions- it to presuppose what the argument is meant to prove. That's fine for faith; but it ain't evidence.

ETA- as for the "improbability" of life- any string of contingencies can be said to have improbable results when those results are mischaracterized in hindsight as goals in prospect. My favorite example is taking a normal deck of 52 cards and laying them out one by one until you have a complete lay. If you lay them out non-normatively- i.e., with no particular outcome in mind, the way evolution works non-deterministically- the probability for any one result is the same as for any other- one in one, or 100%. If, OTOH, you lay them out predictively, your chances of getting a desired result is about 1 in 8x10^67- that's one in 80 followed by 67 zeroes. I doubt that even scorpion would lay out those cards, without a specific lay in mind, and then exclaim "but that couldn't have happened!" when that was what he got.

The "special puddle" argument for "fine tuning" has been offered, and countered, before. The universe is not, in fact, "fine tuned" for life as we know it. The vast majority of the universe is instantly inimical to LAWKI; The majority of even this "favored" planet is nearly equally inimical (as an example, until very recently, you would not have survived spending the night in my backyard without technological support).

The "fine tuning" argument shakes the dog at the stick. "These conditions" are not "fine tuned" for LAWKI. Instead, LAWKI developed in response to these conditions.

...Secondly: the argument that all physical constants are "just right" is a bunk. If they were different, physics and chemistry would be different, but would that make the development of life impossible? That is overlooked when the argument is made.

Thirdly: the argument that the earth is "just the right distance from the sun" is likewise bunk. There are millions of millions of stars in our universe, most of which have planets. Some of them are bound to have the right conditions for carbon-based life forms to develop. Right now, there may be many other planets which also have life. They're only too far away for us to observe.

Fourth: "it's life, Jim, but not as we know it". Life, essentially, is a complex set of molecules which can self-replicate. Who's to say that life must be carbon-based? Why not nitrogen-based or silicium-based, to name two other elements which are abundant and can form a wide variety of molecules?

In other words, the question [Scorpion] pose is falsely, and maliciously, posed to question the specific development of life as happened on earth, and not if life in general would develop.

And even in your intellectually lazy solution to posit a god - or "intelligent designer" as you put it, which is just disingenuous hiding of the religiosity behind the argument - there still is the question: where did god come from? You only shifted the problem one step away.

Thanks to one and all for stating what should be evident to any critically thinking person.

And now an attempt at poisoning the well:

Sorry, no. And that's my whole point. Countless people ranging from genuine scholars to simple-minded mountebanks have produced endless volumes of "objective" evidence which other scholars and mountebanks have knocked down. As the most current example, witness the other posts in this very thread.

IMO, Vortigern's questions are not serious and his thread belongs in Humor. YMMV.

Let me ask you a question, ddt: Did you really think Vortigern was asking an honest question when he used the phrase "superpowered invisible overlord"?

I'm looking for an earnest discussion on this topic with a lively and frank use of language. Cutting through the layers of artificial mystery that have been heaped on this fictitious invention called God, we see that he/it is absolutely presented in the holy texts of his/its adherents (ie, the Bible) as:

1. Invisible, or at least un-look-able-upon (please explain this distinction, if any)

2. Superpowered

3. The overlord of the earth and its inhabitants

Feel free to falsify any one of those assertions, before we move on to the evidence-presenting phase of this thread.

 

[Stone]

I'm looking for an earnest discussion on this topic with a lively and frank use of language. Cutting through the layers of artificial mystery that have been heaped on this fictitious invention called God, we see that he/it is absolutely presented in the holy texts of his/its adherents (ie, the Bible) as:

1. Invisible, or at least un-look-able-upon (please explain this distinction, if any)

2. Superpowered

3. The overlord of the earth and its inhabitants

Feel free to falsify any one of those assertions, before we move on to the evidence-presenting phase of this thread.

Hi Vortigern --

I appreciate your candor, and I do trust your motives. You appear honestly curious about anything new that can be brought to a discussion that first started in ancient India nearly three thousand years ago and shows no signs of abating.

I freely admit I have submitted my own take on this at one or two other boards already (not much more than that, though). However, it took on such a life of its own that it became a miniature essay in the end, and I now have it on my hard disk. I don't think I should submit it here without your express permission, due to its length.

I am not a Christian, nor a Buddhist, nor a Muslim, not a Jew, nor a Hindu, etc. But I do think that there is circumstantial evidence -- not proof -- indicating the distinct possibility of some sort of deity behind human consciousness. I don't subscribe to this deity having all the properties you outline above. So for many a believer on the web, I may not even count as a believer at all, since I circumscribe so strictly just what deity is and what deity emphatically is not -- IMO. Some have even asserted that my strictly limited construct suggests I don't really believe in the supernatural at all. Be that as it may, I do believe there is a deity of some kind, and the essay on my hard disk unwraps just what I surmise that deity to (most likely) be.

If you think you might be interested in seeing the (virtual) essay submitted here, I'm glad to oblige. But I hesitate to dump it here without an invitation from the OP-er -- which would be you, in this case.

Cordially,

Stone

 

[Donn]

Stone you sound like some flavour of Deist. I am sure your essay would be appreciated here. If it's too long, plonk it on the web some place a drop a link here.

 

[Lowpro]

My closest example to a proof of something akin to God is probably when I was in my High School English Class. I had mistaken the day of a test and walked into class one day and learned to my dismay that it was going to be that day instead of later; I didn't study and was essentially screwed. I remember getting the test and looking at the front page and I had no idea whatsoever what the hell it was about. In my panic I believe a sympathetic deity, some force of the universe knew how upset I was because one minute into the test a girl in class had a seizure and fell out of her desk, convulsing on the ground and split her head open. There was blood all over her and the floor and I remember the sound she made before she fell over; it was a sickening sound as if she tried to say something and stroked out the first syllable in. Anyways, we all were told to get out of the class while the school nurse and EMT's came in to take care of her. The test was pushed back and I studied up and made a B.

Now of course that's not proof of any deity at all but I'd like to think there's some pernicious force in the universe with a sick sense of humor that favors me, and when you read the Bible, God seems to be VERY similar to that, so if you take all that and put it together it has got to mean something, right? of course it doesn't...

And if that doesn't convince you then nothing will because that's about the sum total of all arguments for the existence of God. More blood for the blood God I say!

 

[Slowvehicle]

My closest example to a proof of something akin to God is probably when I was in my High School English Class. I had mistaken the day of a test and walked into class one day and learned to my dismay that it was going to be that day instead of later; I didn't study and was essentially screwed. I remember getting the test and looking at the front page and I had no idea whatsoever what the hell it was about. In my panic I believe a sympathetic deity, some force of the universe knew how upset I was because one minute into the test a girl in class had a seizure and fell out of her desk, convulsing on the ground and split her head open. There was blood all over her and the floor and I remember the sound she made before she fell over; it was a sickening sound as if she tried to say something and stroked out the first syllable in. Anyways, we all were told to get out of the class while the school nurse and EMT's came in to take care of her. The test was pushed back and I studied up and made a B.

Now of course that's not proof of any deity at all but I'd like to think there's some pernicious force in the universe with a sick sense of humor that favors me, and when you read the Bible, God seems to be VERY similar to that, so if you take all that and put it together it has got to mean something, right? of course it doesn't...

And if that doesn't convince you then nothing will because that's about the sum total of all arguments for the existence of God. More blood for the blood God I say!

Skulls for the Skull Throne!

 

[Resume]

Existence.

Explain.

Yes, please.

 

[stanfr]

Are you telling us that emotions and thoughts originate from something outside our brains?

No.

 

[stanfr]

No answers, as in none?

This is sort of an answer. Provisionally.

Sounds like an argument from incredulity

Correct, No answers--I believe nothing is certain. Kinda a heisenberg uncertainty of life
And no--not an argument at all--just a personal statement.

 

[stanfr]

No, not really. The idea behind science is to discard, as much as possible, any emotional basis of reasoning, to not take things on faith- to coldly demand only what's empirically demonstrable as evidence for what's accepted. To play with the analogy a little more- science is a fish with enough brains to build a device that would let him breathe the air in either environment.

Emotions being natural doesn't make it suitable, or a necessary basis, for science. Thought certainly is both; but there's no reason to assume it must always be coupled with emotion.

So, you never rely on your emotions? When chosing a spouse/companion, you ask them to fill out questionaires and then run the answers through a statistical database? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Lowpro]

Correct, No answers--I believe nothing is certain. Kinda a heisenberg uncertainty of life
And no--not an argument at all--just a personal statement.

What does it matter about your certainty though? Surely you don't rely on certainties when likelihoods work well enough. When people argue that they can't be certain about whether God doesn't exist that's honestly the most useless concession. No one cares about 100% when 99.9% is just as good. Begging for certainty is just an extension of Pascal's Wager and that's fallacious.

BTW since when was choosing a spouse a scientific endeavor? I thought it was mostly a matter of circumstance. Be careful about how you make your arguments, you're banking on non sequiturs right now.