If GOD HIMSELF showed up and wanted to prove his existence, could he?

Why not? I do it with my professors all the time!

edited 12th Oct '11 5:29:42 AM by PacificState

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

Why? And how? Reciting a bunch of words is one thing. What I don't get is actually believing them. From what I've seen of real people, worship isn't just a ritual, it's an attitude. An attitude that I can't imagine me ever having towards anything, barring some sort of Mind Manipulation.

Yes, people seem proficient at coming up with things to worship. Also, they tend to assume that everything else in the universe has human-like emotions and thought processes, so they'd probably worship a sufficiently powerful entity even if the entity itself had no concept of worship.

Not really. A lot of people are trying to worship properly, to feel pleasure while doing it, but everyone knows it's one of the most boring things ever.

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

Oh, I see. You and I are talking about different things which share the same name. You seem to be talking about "worship" definitions 2 and 9, whereas I'm talking about 3, 7, and 10.

Oh, a Hundred Percent Adoration Rating? Hey, if they deserve it, I'll give it to 'em.

edited 12th Oct '11 11:11:09 AM by PacificState

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

Whereas I'm strongly skeptical of the idea that such a thing can even in principle be deserved.

I think that when God turned up in force, it would be impossible to take it as a possible Alien Invasion or something. It's something that we can talk about and conceive of, but not have a true understand of what it'd be like. Something like the "What's it Like to Be a Bat?" thought experiment. There's a small debate on logic going on. I'd like to point out that Catholics believe that God is not above logic as He is the source of it- as well as Goodness. It's not something that he possesses as an afterthought. Most other Christians would agree. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything- absolutely anything, as long as it can be done, which is how "anything" is defined. However, there is a strain of thought running around that says something like God is above things like rationality and morality, and is in fact a Being of pure will. He may contradict himself if he wishes. It's an extremely problematic point of view (that's a modern term for heretical btw) that sees things like goodness and logic as incidental to the universe. I think this is more of an Islamic thing though- that's what the Regensburg Address was about a few years back; all about the nature of God and rationality. Maybe I'm wrong- anyone know the mainstream Islamic view of God?

Could you please give detail on which part that you say is more on the Islamic thing?

If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?

I think Celestia's a pretty good example of one who really seems to deserve it. Regardless of what some fanworks would have you think. Do you like... hmmm... bananas?

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

It can't be proved that God exists, because proof denies faith and without faith he is nothing.

"Steel wins battles. Gold wins wars."

No, God is God no matter whenever is exist or not. Religios institute without faith is nothing.

Basicly, if God does exist and he makes himself clear to the world, it's no matter of "believe in God or go to hell", since there is no more room for faith. It becomes "accept God's authority or rebel at your own expense"

That clip (the one from the actual show, not the fan-vid) sort of demonstrates what I'm getting at. I view that kind of fawning devotion as essentially inherently bad no matter who or what it's directed at, so the concept of it being "deserved" doesn't make sense to me.

edited 13th Oct '11 8:25:07 PM by Tongpu

Which would be a lot more fair, in this one's opinion.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Eee-yup.

But there's a reason God doesn't show up personally. PEOPLE KEEP ASKING HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT LIFE, THE UNIVERSE, AND WHAT COLOUR THEIR KNWEESOCKS SHOULD BE. If he shared our world, he would have to govern us, and this would rob us of our freedom. He'd be like Princess Celestia, the tyrant!

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

That's true. Of course, without proof of his existence, there is no reason to believe.

This is, like, a really really serious conundrum, right? I mean, put yourself in God's place. "Should I leave them free to govern themselves, or should I mess with their lives and become the hub of all xanatos pileups?"

edited 14th Oct '11 9:32:46 AM by PacificState

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

We'd play beer pong, and if he wins, I'll acknowledge him as the God-Emperor and I'll get a nifty legion of super soldiers.

Not necessarily, as I mentioned and linked. Omnipotence can have many meanings, including the one mentioned in the post below yours regarding being above contradictions and absolutes. Therefore, negating the argument by introducing a being in which the argument has no meaning.

“Almighty” typically sidesteps the argument in the opposite fashion, by just saying the almighty can handle any situation that it needs or feels the need to address. Paradoxes thought up be finite beings may not necessarily be on the list.

You want me to start a thread in which I start by taking burden of proof by suggesting the positive existence of metaphysical beings and you counter by embracing the burden of proof by suggesting the negative possibility of metaphysical beings…That sounds like fun in the sense that running naked through a downpour of acid rain would be a new experience, so no thanks.

I reject your reality and substitute my own a reality that’s possibly been discussed since Aristotle.

As stated before, or at least hinted at in this thread, God having “omnipotence” that’s somehow bound by logic doesn’t really contradict Biblical scripture. It would likely be counter to what many think when they think of omnipotence, but I wouldn’t say “prove things that can’t be proven!” is a great test for any super powerful being. Especially if they somehow CAN.

For that we have Gnosticism…for that we have atheism or agnosticism… for that we probably have some ultra advance form of nihilism…for that…well..if one was even mentally functionally at that point, they probably aren’t beyond it…

I think my point is people usually draw a line in the sand eventually. We COULD discuss the validity of scripture Christian and Gnostic and philosophical concepts, but such things would put the length of this thread to shame and probably only be occupied by the most diehard of debaters.

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.