»WANTED : God«
|
|||
 Take a look at this site :  Can you prove that God exists?
I will pay $1,000,000.00* (that's one million dollars) to anyone who can do so! All you have to do is prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists. It is really that easy! PS: Due to numerous emails, we will define god for our challenge purpose and we will keep it very simple. A god can be any being with supernatural powers who claims to be a god, and who can perform supernatural acts that defy rational explanation. This fellow has an opinion/comment page, and there he bashes witless fundies who quote the bible. This is the response I get : email apprecaite word games. Admin -----Original Message----- From: Ralph Angelus [mailto:ralph---] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 3:38 AM To: admin@thinkandreason.com Subject: Email from Think and Reason.com --------------------------------------------------------------- The following information was submitted by: Ralph Angelus on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 03:38:04 From:  --------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Ralph Angelus email: ralph---- message: You have not even begun to define what your challenge is. What are supernatural powers? How do you define 'supernatural'? Anything that defies the accepted laws of science? The laws of science as defined or accepted by whom, The Royal Society? There is no universally accepted standard of what the 'laws of nature' are, so how can you decide what is supernatural or not? If you go by the reason that anything which cannot be explained with contemporary scientific theories is supernatural, than anyone who discovers a new phenomenon of nature and develops the technology to control it, would be someone with 'supernatural powers' and would be according to your definition, god. Obviously, this challenge is ridiculous, at least as of now, as it has not been defined adequately. What do you think? Is my query baseless? Is this guy just a fundie-basher? posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsWANTED : God |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 ralph_angelus: What do you think? Is my query baseless? Yes and no. But if I was this guy, I'd describe what I want: A god is someone who does EVERY of the following:
However, this defines only a small god ("What? Just 1 tiny miserable orange?"), a better test would involve huge amount of areas. Probably something as several lightyears. So the definition of a god would be: A being who totally controls an infite amount of space, time, energy by will alone. The less it can control the lesser god it is. Thus, true, this guys definition shows lack of concept. posted by knn |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||
|
Quote: A god is someone who does EVERY of the following:
nanotechnology Quote: * Reverses the time so that we can watch the vase I broke re-uniting Same thing again, molecular assemblers Quote: * Changes the character of a grumpy person into a lovely one in, say, one minute without touching or talking pooh, anti-depressants. Administered through tiny machines or whatever. Quote: * Resurrects a dead animal from the dead Cell repair.. OK, this nanotech thing is getting out of hand! Quote: * Can be heard talking in our room while kilometers away Telephone, videoconferencing, directional mic, whatever. Telephone so advanced you wouldn't recognise it. Quote: * Moves objects by will alone (yes, by will, not by emanating tractor beams) And how would you know he moved it by will alone? "Was that a tractor beam or supernatural powers?" "Supernatural powers" "OK Then, here's your cool mil" Quote: * Tells the name of wife of the man who built the house we are in. Neuro-link up to huge database. Quote: However, this defines only a small god ("What? Just 1 tiny miserable orange?"), a better test would involve huge amount of areas. Probably something as several lightyears. How would you recognise a test which involves several lightyears? "Ok, I'm gonna show you a supernova now" "Oh wait it take 500 million years for you to see it" Make the Sun move? It could be just very good special effects. Quote: So the definition of a god would be: A being who totally controls an infite amount of space, time, energy by will alone. Exactly; the key word here is infinite. Anything else could be just cool new tech or unexplained phenomena, fodder for new scientific theories and physical laws. But human beings are quite unable to perceive anything but that which is finite. This guy is ignoring strong agnosticism and traditionalism. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 What molecular assemblers? What nanotechnolgy? I want that god to do the things ALONE. Dressed in pants only. And you are argueing with the possibility of some future technology that could emulate such powers. But the 1million bucks test takes place now. OK, if everything fails then make it do the following as a test: A god is only a god if it can make you a god too. Then you would know that it's a true god. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: What molecular assemblers? What nanotechnolgy? I want that god to do the things ALONE. Dressed in pants only.
And you are argueing with the possibility of some future technology that could emulate such powers. But the 1million bucks test takes place now. OK, if everything fails then make it do the following as a test: A god is only a god if it can make you a god too. Then you would know that it's a true god. What if the pants are molecular assemblers? You wouldn't know. I'm not saying these things can be done with future technology, I'm just pointing out that all these tests only determine whether a person has superior technology or not, which is a very poor way of determining whether they are god. Or in other words, this test will fail if someone has superior technology. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 ralph_angelus: Or in other words, this test will fail if someone has superior technology. Except the last test I mentioned: Making YOU a god. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: http://www.randi.org/ has also a 1 million dollar test. Isn't it the same challenge? The link to Randi the challenge being funded by Randi made me think this fellow might be unbiased, but he seems to have the site just so he can bash selected emails from exceptional cases of misguided fundies and showcase them on his site and 'encourage people to think and reason' when in fact that admin needs to do some thinking himself. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: ralph_angelus: Or in other words, this test will fail if someone has superior technology. Except the last test I mentioned: Making YOU a god. Well, if it's making an accomplice or a third-party a 'god' that would be easy, just give them access to the same technology. But making the tester/observer a god would be more difficult, but not impossible for people with superior technology. Let's suppose that what proves 'godliness' is the ability to perform 'supernatural feats' (through nanotechnology or tractor beams or whatever as we secretly know) but then we have to give these powers to the testers. We could (using invisibly small nanobots or whatever) monitor the tester's thought processes and then perform whatever they think of or want, and make them believe they have the same powers. Of course, this is stretching things quite a bit, but at least it proves that you don't absolutely have to be an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient being to do these things, just have incredibly superior technology. We might even have these things in less than 200 years or so(nanotechnology). It would be quite senseless if the definition of god keeps changing every few centuries. The only answer is strong agnosticism. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: Well, if it's making an accomplice or a third-party a 'god' that would be easy, just give them access to the same technology. No, that doesn't make you a god. That makes you a user. ralph_angelus: Of course, this is stretching things quite a bit, but at least it proves that you don't absolutely have to be an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient being to do these things, just have incredibly superior technology. Exactly. And that shows you that if you could do all of the things NOW it PROVES that you are a god, since no such technology exists and is actually doubtfull it will (forseeing the future and making someone a user without him knowing it is a bit farfetched) posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 There are many metaphysicists who are of the opinion that there is no such thing as a "law of nature". If that is true it would be impossible to ever prove that laws of nature had been broken. Your question: "Which laws of nature are you referring to?" is a very good question. I think this person is, in fact, taking advantage of the fact that a 'miracle' will never convince a sceptic. While a religious person may claim it to have been caused by a God, the sceptic may always find some explanation. Science will always taken an exception to the rules of nature as just that, an exception. Science will never see something as a broken law of nature, since once a law is broken it is quite obvious that it was never a law. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: I think this person is, in fact, taking advantage of the fact that a 'miracle' will never convince a sceptic. While a religious person may claim it to have been caused by a God, the sceptic may always find some explanation. I cannot think of any explanation that would explain the wonders I have mentioned. Except some future scientific developments which had to include time travel, space travel and mind reading. Thus if someone could have these powers he could be considered god. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Molecule assemblers or nano-technology do not break 'laws of nature' by any stretch of the imagination. They are also not supernatural. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: Molecule assemblers or nano-technology do not break 'laws of nature' by any stretch of the imagination. They are also not supernatural. 1) They do not exist. 2) You cannot do everything I mention by your "molecule assemblers". 3) If you could do all the things I write about he will give you 1 million, too, I am sure. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: fatpie42: Molecule assemblers or nano-technology do not break 'laws of nature' by any stretch of the imagination. They are also not supernatural. 1) They do not exist. 2) You cannot do everything I mention by your "molecule assemblers". 3) If you could do all the things I write about he will give you 1 million, too, I am sure. He wouldn't say "prove there's not some rational explanation"? That's what I'd say if I were him! posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
1, 2 Next
Goto page
1, 2 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 23 May 2012, 22:08 php B.B. |