• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

What would "god" need to do in order to prove that she really existed?

AmyStrange said:
Go ahead, use logic, but that doesn't make any answer illegitimate to me.

I mean, all some folks need (like I keep posting) is the bible, and they're good to go.

That maybe an illogical answer to you, but it's a legitimate answer to me.

It's NOT important what I believe, but what they believe and that's ALL I'm asking.


-
Click to expand...
What does that even mean, "legitimate answer"? "Bananas prove God" is a "legitimate answer", but it doesn't make it any less stupid.

Are you just looking for divine revelation fanfiction?
 
AmyStrange said:
I know you didn't mean it that way, but would
fixing it be enough to convince you personally that she was god?

That's my question.

Everything else is just superfluous and doesn't really make anyone else's answer any less legitimate, except to you, but not to me.


-
Click to expand...
That is what the fix would be i.e. everyone would believe in god.
 
Olmstead said:
What does that even mean, "legitimate answer"? "Bananas prove God" is a "legitimate answer", but it doesn't make it any less stupid.

Are you just looking for divine revelation fanfiction?
Click to expand...


If that would prove she exist to you personally, then it's a legitimate answer to me.

It doesn't have to be legitimate to anyone else.

After all (as I keep pointing out), all some folks need to be convinced is the bible, and that may not be legitimate to you, but it's a legitimate answer to me. It wouldn't convince me, but that's not what I'm asking.

All I'm asking for is an answer, and I'm not judging the answer, but it seems that you want to call it stupid with nothing to back it up except your opinion.

In other words, there is NO wrong answer to my question, regardless of what you think.


-
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
That is what the fix would be i.e. everyone would believe in god.
Click to expand...


If it did convince you, then that would be a legitimate answer to me, but whether everyone was lying or not lying would be superfluous to the question, because all I'm concerned with is what would convince you.

If you (or anyone) wants to be superfluous, that's fine, but that doesn't make anyone else's answer illegitimate to me.


-
 
Last edited:
Well, "fixing it" would be making everyone, including me, believe the same thing. So the fix, whatever it was, would necessarily be convincing.

<aside> I know that bananas size and deliciousness and neat fit in the hand has been advanced as proof of God's benificence but they only got that way by selective breeding. I think "bananas prove God" might be a sincere answer, but it's probably too flawed to deserve to be called a legitimate answer.
 
Last edited:
I hadn't imagined anyone was lying. If I thought they were, then I suppose God's fix would not have been convincing enough for some, which is kinda where we are now.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I hadn't imagined anyone was lying. If I thought they were, then I suppose God's fix would not have been convincing enough for some, which is kinda where we are now.
Click to expand...


Exactly and thank you.

It's not what anyone else thinks should convince you, but what you personally think would convince you is my question.

Anything else is superfluous to the question.


-
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Very simple.

We would do an simple, incredibly easily repeatable experiment with a very high accuracy of measurement - a pendulum would do.

We would get a clear result, and then ask God to intervene to change the outcome.

Run the experiment again and check the result.
Click to expand...
God has a pair of scissors??
 
AmyStrange said:
If it did convince you, then that would be a legitimate answer to me, but whether everyone was lying or not lying would be superfluous to the question, because all I'm concerned with is what would convince you.

If you (or anyone) wants to be superfluous, that's fine, but that doesn't make anyone else's answer illegitimate to me.


-
Click to expand...
Still don't think you are getting my point.

The only thing god needs to do to convince anyone it exists is to make it so we are convinced it exists. No one could be lying about being convinced, no one could lie and say they aren't convinced because god would have made us all convinced it exists.
 
Darat said:
Still don't think you are getting my point.

The only thing god needs to do to convince anyone it exists is to make it so we are convinced it exists. No one could be lying about being convinced, no one could lie and say they aren't convinced because god would have made us all convinced it exists.
Click to expand...


Oh, I get your point.

If god made it so you were convinced that everyone else was convinced that she existed, then it wouldn't matter what anyone else really believed, because you'd believe she existed regardless.

I mean, the maga weirdoes think trump is god, and no matter what you told them, they'd still believe he was, and then just say you were lying.




-
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
I thought Darat's point was all she needs to do to is make Darat convinced she exists.
Click to expand...


Yup, that's Darat's point, but does Darat really need to know for sure that everyone else is convinced or is it enough that Darat thinks everyone is convinced? Only Darat can answer that question. I'm not going to call them a liar just because I think otherwise.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me if everyone else was lying, because what convinces Darat that she exist is the real answer to my question.

Everything else is just superfluous to me.


-
 
Last edited:
That "magic wand" solution would, I suppose, be making Darat believe by changing something about Darat, rather than by changing the evidence available.

I don't suppose there's a better answer to the original question than "evidence". It's hard to imagine what evidence would change your mind about anything you believe, not just about gods. Lots of people believe things that ain't so, not so much because they reject the evidence but because they trust different sources about what the evidence is.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
What's the difference between knowing for sure and thinking you know for sure?
Click to expand...


If whatever you believe convinces you that she exist, then it doesn't matter what you think or know for sure.

That's ALL I'm asking.

Everything else is superfluous to me.


-
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
Oh, I get your point.

If god made it so you were convinced that everyone else was convinced that she existed, then it wouldn't matter what anyone else really believed, because you'd believe she existed regardless.

I mean, the maga weirdoes think trump is god, and no matter what you told them, they'd still believe he was, and then just say you were lying.




-
Click to expand...
Nope not at all.

I came up with a way for god to 100% convince 100% of the people on the planet (and off the planet) that it existed.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I don't suppose there's a better answer to the original question than "evidence". It's hard to imagine what evidence would change your mind about anything you believe, not just about gods. Lots of people believe things that ain't so, not so much because they reject the evidence but because they trust different sources about what the evidence is.
Click to expand...
I dabbled briefly in arguing with Facebook flat-earthers and one of the questions that washed in on every tide was "what would convince you?" from both sides. Completely futile, as you couldn't get an honest conversation about what the evidence is, let alone what its implications are.
 
Darat said:
Nope not at all.

I came up with a way for god to 100% convince 100% of the people on the planet (and off the planet) that it existed.
Click to expand...

Nope. It might convince you, but it wouldn't be the only thing to convince me, and I wouldn't call you a liar or stupid just because it didn't convince me.

You answered my question, and that's all that matters.

Everything else is just superfluous to me.


-
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
I dabbled briefly in arguing with Facebook flat-earthers and one of the questions that washed in on every tide was "what would convince you?" from both sides. Completely futile, as you couldn't get an honest conversation about what the evidence is, let alone what its implications are.
Click to expand...


I've been there. I know EXACTLY what you mean.


-
 
AmyStrange said:
Nope. It might convince you, but it wouldn't convince me, and I wouldn't call you a liar or stupid just because it didn't convince me. ...snip...
Click to expand...
Of course it would convince you, that's the act god would do i.e. make you convinced it exists. Indeed it is the only surefire way god can be certain doing something would convince you!
 
Darat said:
Of course it would convince you, that's the act god would do i.e. make you convinced it exists. Indeed it is the only surefire way god can be certain doing something would convince you!
Click to expand...


If it convinced you, then that's the answer to my question.

If convincing the rest of the world is what would convince you, then that's also a legitimate answer to me.

Everything else is superfluous to me, including your belief that you have the ONLY "correct" answer.

Hell, if she made trump denounce the presidency and give it to Harris because it was the right thing to do, that would convince me too, and it wouldn't matter what you or anyone else thought about it.

All I care about is what convinced you personally, and not what would convince everyone else in the world.

That's the point you don't get.


-
 
Last edited:
welshdean said:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.
A.C. Clarke
Any 'proof' would need to counter this possibility too. I'm afraid that I'm not intelligent enough to differentiate.
Click to expand...
Well, I'd think that all Nine Billion Names of God have been printed out by now, and the stars are still bright, so that's pretty good evidence for nonexistence. ;) (This is a reference to his short story if anyone hasn't read it.)
AmyStrange said:
Nope, I'm talking about something that would convince me personally that she was god.

If you have another answer, then that would be what convinced you personally.

My question is as simple as that.

If you want to make it complicated, then that's fine too.


-
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be convinced if it was just me, as I know that people, even the most intelligent, can be fooled. Unless it was something that was so far out of the realm of possibility, recorded and repeated, that it would be utterly convincing and obvious to the entire world.
 
alfaniner said:
Well, I'd think that all Nine Billion Names of God have been printed out by now, and the stars are still bright. (This is a reference to his short story if anyone hasn't read it.)

I wouldn't be convinced if it was just me, as I know that people, even the most intelligent, can be fooled. Unless it was something that was so far out of the realm of possibility, recorded and repeated, that it would be utterly convincing and obvious to the entire world.
Click to expand...


All I'm asking is what would convince YOU personally, not what would convince the rest of the world.

If convincing the rest of the world is what would convince you, then that's also a legitimate answer for me.


-
 
Last edited:
alfaniner said:
Well, I'd think that all Nine Billion Names of God have been printed out by now, and the stars are still bright, so that's pretty good evidence for nonexistence. ;) (This is a reference to his short story if anyone hasn't read it.)
Click to expand...


Thanks. I'll have to put that on my list of stories to read.

ETA: I was able to download a pdf of it, but it's only six pages long. Is that the correct length?


-
 
Last edited:
I not the first to say this but, IDK, Clarke's sufficiently advanced science looking like magic and all. Anything I can think of could generally just be technology beyond my understanding. But then, if the thing claiming to be God or just a god is that advanced, why not just call them god?
 
AmyStrange said:
Myself, one of the things that would convince me was for her (wearing a body cam) to go right into Gaza (or wherever Hamas has them) and get the hostages with bullets bouncing off her and everything. (Of course, bouncing off the hostages too).
Click to expand...
That would convince me that Superman really existed. Or Magneto.

Kinda depends on the god we're talking about. All Zeus has to do for me is throw a few thunderbolts, turn into a bull, and ◊◊◊◊ a swan.

The omnipotent, omnipresent creator entity responsible for all of existence and everything in it, more or less as promulgated by the Abrahamic religions and interpreted by their modern adherents? I'd need to see transcendence of spacetime on a cosmic scale. Making the sun stand still in the sky for a couple days, without any implications for the future of the solar system, would be a good start. Really any useful violation of the conservation laws. Turning water into wine, without any significant release or transfer of energy, for example. True resurrection, for another example.
AmyStrange said:
FINALLY (and this is to prove that you actually read my whole post):

I don't know if god does exist or if there is life after death, although, I do believe in life after because if it's true, I can say to all the non-believers, "I told you so," but they can't do the same to me if it isn't (hahaha).

Now, the most obvious question after that would be why do I think god is a she, and my answer would be, "why not?"
Click to expand...
Doctrinal symbology is my first thought. A father-god makes sense in the context of ancient Hebrew patriarchy. Once that's set, all the metaphors follow. God as groom, the church as bride. God as father, unbelievers as the prodigal son. (Though one of the psalms likens God to a mother hen, brooding over her eggs.)

There is also a more general observation: Because that's just not the way it's done. Historically, everyone likes a masculine supreme deity. Zeus. Odin. Allah. Zoroaster. The Buddha (at least to start). The root cause(s) of this tendency is left as an exercise to the reader.
 
theprestige said:
Doctrinal symbology is my first thought.
A father-god makes sense in the context of ancient Hebrew patriarchy. Once that's set, all the metaphors follow. God as groom, the church as bride. God as father, unbelievers as the prodigal son. (Though one of the psalms likens God to a mother hen, brooding over her eggs.)
There is also a more general observation: Because that's just not the way it's done. Historically, everyone likes a masculine supreme deity. Zeus. Odin. Allah. Zoroaster. The Buddha (at least to start). The root cause(s) of this tendency is left as an exercise to the reader.
Click to expand...

Yup, except if MEN are going to muddle god's inspirational, telepathic message, why go halfway, right? Or do you think god has a penis too?


-
 
AmyStrange said:
Yup, except if MEN are going to muddle god's inspirational, telepathic message, why go halfway, right? Or do you think god has a penis too?
Click to expand...
It depends which god we're talking about, and whether we're speaking literally or metaphorically or symbolically.
AmyStrange said:
Does it really matter which god we're talking about?
Click to expand...
Yes, it really matters. Different powers and jurisdictions are attributed to different gods. Professor X's mental abilities are truly godlike. But I wouldn't expect him to also perform the kinds of reality-bending miracles as Doctor Strange or the Scarlet Witch.
 
theprestige said:
It depends which god we're talking about, and whether we're speaking literally or metaphorically or symbolically.

Yes, it really matters. Different powers and jurisdictions are attributed to different gods. Professor X's mental abilities are truly godlike. But I wouldn't expect him to also perform the kinds of reality-bending miracles as Doctor Strange or the Scarlet Witch.
Click to expand...


If it matters to you, then that's fine, but It doesn't matter to me.

Anyway, how would your interpretation of god prove to you personally that she was the one and only?

BTW, MEN muddled up their "telepathic" interpretations from her because their male egos wanted men to be in charge rather than women.


-
 
ahhell said:
I not the first to say this but, IDK, Clarke's sufficiently advanced science looking like magic and all. Anything I can think of could generally just be technology beyond my understanding. But then, if the thing claiming to be God or just a god is that advanced, why not just call them god?
Click to expand...
Because the existence of super advanced aliens or whatnot doesn't really address the main purpose of God: a solution to the varied horrors of existence, chief amongst which is existential angst (technically, any God we can imagine wouldn't do that either, but the giant and nebulous God-shaped hole can accommodate a ridiculous amount of vain hope). So, if the super advanced aliens are not fit for purpose as gods (and they won't be, no concept, and certainly no technological advancements, can actually fix existential angst), why not just call them super advanced aliens?
 
AmyStrange said:
If it matters to you, then that's fine, but It doesn't matter to me.

Anyway, how would your interpretation of god prove to you personally that she was the one and only?
Click to expand...
I'm agnostic about interpretations of god. Also I already gave you two answers.
AmyStrange said:
BTW, MEN muddled up their "telepathic" interpretations from her because their male egos wanted men to be in charge rather than women.
Click to expand...
I have no opinion about that.
 
Well for starters, of God's a She now after calling Themselves a He for millennia, I gotta go change my postings on trans issues poste haste.
 
A god as most religion within the Christian realm have it is singular, omnipotent and omnipresent.
It would know all, have any power to fulfill any whim it had in any manner. No matter what we want.
It could reveal this or be the bum at the bus stop scratching his backside.

I picture it to be as portrayed in the Jim Carey movies Oh God./II.
I would hope it to be benevolent and even a bit playful with humans, but also finally just magically eliminate our toys that we off each other with, all at once, instantly. That would convince me. Thats omnipotent.
All of them fail at once. It would be about freakin time we had some useful interference. Much better than hoping it helps our side win.

But if not benevolent, we're screwed and it wouldn't give us a chance to say "oh ◊◊◊◊' as we understood.
 
AmyStrange said:
I've been having these religious discussions in the msn and fox forums, and my main question was, "Why is God a male and wouldn't that mean that they had a penis?"
Click to expand...
Depends on your interpretation of God. In my view, your question suggests that you interpret God in an overly literal and narrow fashion. If your interpretation of God is along the lines of Zeus, then yes there's a penis. Also Zeus is male because that's the way he is.

The Judeo-Christian God is usually interpreted as an ideal being of consummate knowledge and power. He is usually described in masculine terms, not because he's male, but because that's as close as our limited understanding can get, to what He really is. Maleness is a mere physical shadow of true Godhood. So no, He doesn't have a penis. What he does have is a generative organ of infinite power and virility, something that probably exists on planes of reality we cannot ever hope to comprehend. The male penis is a mere shadow and feeble metaphor for the true power of creation.
AmyStrange said:
I've learned a lot about ALL the religions around the world with that question, but my second premise was that GOD DID NOT write any of the bibles. Man actually wrote most of them (if not ALL of them), and I think their egos might've muddled up the waters enough (in their "holy" translations) so they could run things their way rather than hers.
Click to expand...
This seems unnecessarily sexist and completely unprovable. Also rude.
AmyStrange said:
The final premise that I offered was that, "She didn't give a rat's a*** which religion or bible we followed as long as we followed the Golden Rule.
Click to expand...
Where did this and your other premises come from? Did you just make it up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom