If God Writes Something With the Stars...

[thomas t]

You did [reveal a disconnect with rational reasoning and reality] and I explained it as well.

no, I don't have this disconnect between reason and reality. And I didn't reveal it and your examples and explanations showed nothing about me as a person or how I think in general.
Stop getting personal, stop posting disparaging remarks about me as a person here please.

I am debating the subject.

The subject of this thread is NOT Thomas T or they way I argue.
If you think there is a flaw in the title of the thread... please say "there is a flaw in the title".
Don't make the way I generally argue a topic here.


I'm not going to discuss anything with you,
unless you stop the verbal attacks against me.

It does and I gave plenty of example on how it does.

I stay with my opinion: I do not make any reasoning mistakes here.

 

[thomas t]

I am not atheist, but how would doing that be definitive evidence for God and rule out any other possible source of the writing?

I was asking a question in the title of the thread without having an answer to your question.

 

[leroy]

Or they just manifest as such, just like your "immaterial god" supposedly manifested as a "material jesus".

Well my own personal concept of unicorn and my own personal concept of God are objectively different. Meaning that you can in theory present evidence for one that would count as evidence for the other.


If in your own personal mind , you define God and unicorns as being the same then I see and grant your point.

Fallacious arguments aren't evidence.

In that case you would have to show and explain why are the arguments fallacious.


So
1 Que te the argument.
2 Spot the alleged fallacies
3explain why are they fallacies

 

[leroy]

Fallacious arguments don't tend to convince rational thinkers.

I'll accept God exists and did X the day the causal relationship between this God and X can be demonstrated.
As long as it is just asserted in unverifiable, unsupportable, undefendable ways.... why would I accept it?

Well I think this answers @9-10ths_Penguin question.

so why do you think God hasn't done it?

Such an event like the one described in the OP wouldn't convince fanatic atheists anyway.

 

[leroy]

[

@TagliatelliMonster SAID
The what-if in the OP is an example of assuming your answers.
It takes a(n imaginary) phenomenon and then just asserts that god-dun-it.

You need to actually demonstrate the causal chain of events - not just assert it.

.

1 The event described in the OP can only be explain with intelligent design.

2 the christian god would be the best candidate for being the cause of such a message.

---


Support for 1
Only intelligent minds can create complex --specified patterns like meaningful words and sentences in english.


Support for 2
Okams Razor: any other "God" or "Alien" hypothesis would require an additional argument namely that "he wrote the text and that he was lying"


Is this Good enough?........

 

[leroy]

Most likely. Possibly on par with me hallucinating. I don't even exclude it being a miraculous force, just that that would be my last thought and it would take a lot of evidence, not just me experiencing it. Experiences can be deceptive, science minimizes the possibility of delusion or deception.
When something goes against all the evidence that there is no magic, there would have to be just as much evidence for there being magic to balance my former conception.

Ok but my hallucinations hypothesis can be dropped by showing that others can also see the same message in the stars.


But the point is that even if you can find a naturalist explanation, you should still conclude that there was a mind behind the message.

For example let's say that given the laws of nature in a particular Galaxy the stars are obligated to be ordered in a pattern that looks like words and sentences in english (as proposed in the OP) ...... wouldn't you conclude intelligent design?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well I think this answers @9-10ths_Penguin question.


Such an event like the one described in the OP wouldn't convince fanatic atheists anyway.

It wouldn't convince any rational person.

Neither of you have really addressed the important questions:

- how would you know that the spectacular single event - whatever it is - is actually God?
- why wouldn't we see evidence all the time for a god who's supposedly there and active all the time?

 

[thomas t]

1 The event described in the OP can only be explain with intelligent design.

2 the christian god would be the best candidate for being the cause of such a message.

---


Support for 1
Only intelligent minds can create complex --specified patterns like meaningful words and sentences in english.


Support for 2
Okams Razor: any other "God" or "Alien" hypothesis would require an additional argument namely that "he wrote the text and that he was lying"


Is this Good enough?........

The quote in your post wasn't my quote.
Something went wrong with your quote function.
If you follow the link, you get to a post of mine that never said this.

 

[leroy]

It wouldn't convince any rational person.

what woudl convince a rational person

Neither of you have really addressed the important questions:

- how would you know that the spectacular single event - whatever it is - is actually God?

The event described in the OP could only be explained by intelligent design. Since it would be very unlikely that just by chance the stars happened to form a pattern that looks like meaningful words and sentences.

The God of the bible would be the best explanation because of Okams Razor, any other God or intelegent design hypothesis would require an additional assumption “that the designer lied and tried to fool us”


as an analogy
Imagine that you receive a whatsapp message that says “hey I am your neighbor John from apartment 102 just to let you know that I changed my phone number, if you need anything please contact me on this number”

how would you know that your neighbor John wrote the message ? well obviously you cant know for sure, maybe someone is trying to fool you, but okams razor says that you should prefer the John hypothesis over any other hypothesis” because any other hypothesus requeries adition assumptions ………..so the same applies to the message in the OP you should prefer the Christian God hypothesis over any other hypothesis because of Okams razor,

So in summary, granted I wouldn’t know for sure that The Christian God did it , but it would be the best hypothesis

- why wouldn't we see evidence all the time for a god who's supposedly there and active all the time?

The evidence that we currently have is good enough to convince 99+% of the world’s population that has ever lived………….and given my experience with atheists no amount of evidence would ever convince most of the remaining 1% anyway.

Every time new evidence is presented, all atheist do is raise the bar higher and become more skeptical….. I mean honestly if we fInd 10 independent documents written by different people (romans, Christians, jews, etc.) from the first century confirming the empty tomb, and the post mortem appearances of Jesus, would that convince you that Jesus rose from the dead, or would you simply become more skeptical and reject those sources for whatever reason?

 

[leroy]

The quote in your post wasn't my quote.
Something went wrong with your quote function.
If you follow the link, you get to a post of mine that never said this.

THANKS

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was asking a question in the title of the thread without having an answer to your question.

If you do not know how to tell if something is or isn't God, then how do you propose to judge others for their not knowing?

 

[thomas t]

If you do not know how to tell if something is or isn't God, then how do you propose to judge others for their not knowing?

in this hypothetical scenario I personally would judge noone.

In general, I try my best to not judge persons.
Jesus will do, I try to leave this task for himself.

 

[Heyo]

Ok but my hallucinations hypothesis can be dropped by showing that others can also see the same message in the stars.

Exactly. That's a scientific method to verify a phenomenon by repeated, independent experiment

But the point is that even if you can find a naturalist explanation, you should still conclude that there was a mind behind the message.

No. That would be a non sequitur, especially a cum hoc ergo propter hoc. It would be basically the same as the watchmaker analogy. A connection seems probable but it is not established.

For example let's say that given the laws of nature in a particular Galaxy the stars are obligated to be ordered in a pattern that looks like words and sentences in english (as proposed in the OP) ...... wouldn't you conclude intelligent design?

No, I wouldn't. Not from one random event.

 

[leroy]

Exactly. That's a scientific method to verify a phenomenon by repeated, independent experiment

No. That would be a non sequitur, especially a cum hoc ergo propter hoc. It would be basically the same as the watchmaker analogy. A connection seems probable but it is not established.

No, I wouldn't. Not from one random event.

Well imagine that you are in another planet, you look at the clouds and you read a whole bunch of words and meaningful sentences spelled in the clouds.

Then an alien comes along and explains to you that given the current laws of nature the pattern is unavoidable, “the wind always blows in such a way that English words will always form”…………”the wind simply happens to blow at the correct speed, direction, angle etc. such that words will always form”

I would argue that this would indicate design. Wouldn’t you? …. My point is that given the complexity and specificity of this pattern a naturalistic explanation would not overcome the necessity of a designer

No, I wouldn't. Not from one random event.

Well imagine 10, 100 or 1,000,000 events as the described in the OP………..wouolnt you conclude design even if there is a naturalistic explanation?

 

[Heyo]

Well imagine 10, 100 or 1,000,000 events as the described in the OP………..wouolnt you conclude design even if there is a naturalistic explanation?

I would suspect some connection. But you can't conclude something from a correlation. There is a statistical connection of number of births with the presence of storks. Does that indicate the conclusion that the storks bring the children?
But there is another conclusion that could be drawn. Given that we know that the words and sentences form according to natural laws and the circumstances, it is only logical to conclude that humans have an inner mechanism parallel to the geology of the planet. They have to form English words and sentences. It is therefore that English has no meaning whatsoever and humans are automaton to produce English words.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

in this hypothetical scenario I personally would judge noone.

In general, I try my best to not judge persons.
Jesus will do, I try to leave this task for himself.

So if a Christian doesn't know for sure if God wrote anything, then what do you learn when an atheist says the same thing?

Your quest with that question is making less and less sense to me.

 

[leroy]

I would suspect some connection. But you can't conclude something from a correlation. There is a statistical connection of number of births with the presence of storks. Does that indicate the conclusion that the storks bring the children?
But there is another conclusion that could be drawn. Given that we know that the words and sentences form according to natural laws and the circumstances, it is only logical to conclude that humans have an inner mechanism parallel to the geology of the planet. They have to form English words and sentences. It is therefore that English has no meaning whatsoever and humans are automaton to produce English words.

They have to form English words and sentences. It is therefore that English has no meaning whatsoever and humans are automaton to produce English words

Ok but design would be the best explanation agree?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok but design would be the best explanation agree?

You just want to conclude design, because that is the answer you want regardless of any evidence. If there is a natural cause of a phenomenon is known and no design cause is known, why would you consider design as the best explanation? That an event is repeated numerous times does not make your desired explanation the explanation. These things actually have to be demonstrated and not just wished for. You might love the Wizard of Oz, but putting on ruby slippers and chanting is not going to get you home.

 

[thomas t]

So if a Christian doesn't know for sure if God wrote anything, then what do you learn when an atheist says the same thing?

Your quest with that question is making less and less sense to me.

the poll only had one reason: two fellow posters from the atheist side kept claiming that God "only" needed to put a signature on everything and they would believe (put in my words).

 

[leroy]

You just want to conclude design, because that is the answer you want regardless of any evidence. If there is a natural cause of a phenomenon is known and no design cause is known, why would you consider design as the best explanation? That an event is repeated numerous times does not make your desired explanation the explanation. These things actually have to be demonstrated and not just wished for. You might love the Wizard of Oz, but putting on ruby slippers and chanting is not going to get you home.

Every time you see text in English you conclude design, why would you make an arbitrary exception if you observe something as proposed in the OP ?