I think my definition of god doesnt work with this exercise. If i believed in A god( a sentient, self aware, self contained entity) then i would say i'd have to have some otherwise impossible and grandois feat that was of a permanent nature....something like giant(100 ft tall+) stone letters appearing overnight that say "There IS a god"

however, my definition of GOD is the GOOD in all people. I am convinced of it's existence on a daily basis whenever i witness a kind act, or love between two people.

as far as slarti and hmonkey's debate, i think monkey is right.....if there was a specific omnipotent "god", he could prove his existence to any and all by simply making it so.

"Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."

I think it was Aasimov who said that, but using that as a caveat it's reasonable to put forward the idea that the only difference between a weeping statue and an atomic blast is that we know how the atomic blast happens and how to reproduce it.

And following the clock backwards we get electricity (lightning) and then fire and all of the many things we've figured out over time.

What we end up with is that miracles are either unexplained phenomena or charlatanry.

It will all come in time.

Come in time? Now that would be a miracle.

Dude, just get USA PATRIOT and the DMCA repealed (and no similar laws passed) within the next 2 years and I'll start worshipping you. Within reason; no virgin sacrifice, sorry. And you better drop me a note stating which church and such.

I'm a Christian. But I don't buy Catholicism, in fact I find many tenets of the Catholic Church are contrary to what's written in the bible. So I wonder about the Catholic-specific miracles. Why does the virgin Mary always appear in tortillas/certain wallpaper patterns/cloud formations at pilgrimage sites? Are these messages from God to man, mass hallucinations, or misinterpreted natural phenomena? The statues of Abe Lincoln never cry blood. If you're Catholic, have you ever considered the possibility that these visions are demonic in origin or caused by the combined psychic powers of 300 ardent believers all gathered in one place praying for a miracle?

You get into weird territory fast with miracles. [connect to original question] Don't these miracles serve to confuse rather than prove the existence of God?

I think that miracles form a more important part of Catholicism than many other forms of Christianity. It's the basis of their saint system. So Catholics are looking for miracles more actively. If I found a tortilla that had a mark that looked like Lincoln, I'd say "Hey check this out, it looks like Lincoln!", and then eat it. Or maybe sell it on Ebay. But I wouldn't consider it a miracle.

On the other hand, if I was always looking around for miracles, and I saw a potato that looked sort of like a hooded woman, maybe I'd latch on to that as justification for my earlier effort.

I'm reasonably certain the crying statues are bunk. They often say that scientists are baffled, but usually it is because the scientists are not allowed to do real research. Plus, what is really needed is a magician, not a scientist, to check for all the things that the magician would have done to get that effect.

Actually, for many of those 'look at the Virgin Mary in a french fry', and even the statues and paintings that cry, the Catholic Church makes no official acknowledgement of them. With saints, they look more to things like miraculous healings.

Right. I was thinking more along the lines of the general attitude of the religion. Catholics place more importance on miracles in general, so they are more succeptible to believing in them.

Arthur C. Clarke.

The statement is sometimes referred to as "Clarke's Law."

Herein lies the problem. I think Jim made the point that "God" would simply make us believe in him. It would just become so.

What if there existed a sufficiently advanced alien race with the technology to duplicate this phenomonon (do doo de doodo).

Presumably a race this advanced would, of course, have mastered the heretofore (to us) insurmountable problem of faster than light travel.

The point being, we would be as ignorant of the duplicity as a medieval serf confronted by a working television in his mud thatch hovel.

To continue the metaphor of the medieveal serf ...

Would we be terrified?

Or entertained?

Correct. It would not be enough to convince an outside observer. But for those affected, it would be considered proven. And God could make sure there were no unaffected outside observers.

actually, monkey made that point first.....i just agreed. on the assumption(which i do not happen to subscribe to) that there is a sentient god.


use the force, luke

If you take it far enough, it becomes reducto ad absurdum, but what is the practical breakpoint of omnipotence?

Omnipotence is unprovable, because you're trying to prove an infinite value.

To an aborigini, a gun is a magic weapon. Point it at an opponent, squeeze a lever and that opponent dies. Propellents, and ballistics and all of that aren't a knowable factor to them.

And thanks for correction Wolf.

Omnipotence is also relative. Compared to *you* tiny asshats, I'm omnipotent. Compared to say....the devil....I'm just a badass.


Tangent: Someone please tell Howard Dean to stop praying. It's over.