pecker wrote:I say sky Pixie is simply a manifestation, a facet, of the Universal Spirit. It simply reveals itself to you as the Sky Pixie as that is the only way a mind such as your could possibly comprehend it.
In that case, Sky Pixie says you're wrong. Sky Pixie is the onlt deity, and she has made you wrong by default.
[fightin' dirty]My Sky Pixie says your Cat of Doom doesn't even exist! She makes God and Allah and Budda and every other deity not exist, either! I win, I WIN!![/fightin' dirty]
EDIT: Um well, anyway, this is all the proof I need that the Sky Pixie is the only power in the universe. It can't be refuted beyond that.
Going to heaven after . Of course, just because there's a heaven, doesn't mean that Heaven is a place with clouds, angels, and harps. Of course, that's really not physical existance.
aerius wrote:If some big person with a glowing aura descends from the sky and says "I am a god, watch as I instantly turn the all the waters of the oceans hot neon pink by peeing on them" and then proceeds to do so, I may just believe in a god. Anything short of that and I'll probably think "neh, stupid imposter...".
That would not suffice.
Logic and a scientific analysis dictates one and only one rational possibility: I am delusional, and seriously drunk
Which is precisely why I demanded repeatability. Science doesn't include repeatability for fun; it does it so we can be more sure that the results of the experiment are genuine.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
"We have now initiated Third Impact... Through Evangelion we have reinvented God. The Tree of Life has been reconstructed, and through our creator, Lillith, Humanity shall be Evangelized. Soon we will return to our original complemented state, as one individual Angel, and through Death humanity will know the joy of Rebirth..."
data_link has resigned from the board after proving himself to be a relentless strawman-using asshole in this thread and being too much of a pussy to deal with the inevitable flames. Buh-bye.
Darth Utsanomiko wrote:
It'd have to be voice, then. No single being my look upon God, not even the Archangels.
Then again, I guees we could see him, but it'd kill us instantly, most likely. Some proof.
True, but according to the Bible (no I am not Christian), his appearance would be soemthing weird, like a talking, burning bush.
NTM that if it were the Greek gods, and they showed themselves "in all their splendor," they would kill you instantly. Just a little tidbit of info.
Oh yeah, like that woman that demanded Zues to prove that Zues was Zues after Hera asked her how she can be sure that Zues was Zues, so she asked proof and Zues summoned the smallest cloud and the smallest lightning bolt (or whatever I don't quite remember it exactly) and she was dead. Moral of the story. You can't prove the existence of the gods so just except they exist.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@ To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
Just a quick review on the meaning of proof: nothing can be absolutely proven beyond your own existence.
However, "proof" in the normal use of the word is evidence for a phenomenon which fits several criteria:
Empirical
Reproducible
Consistent with predictions of theories which incorporate said phenomenon
Inconsistent with predictions of competing theories which do not incorporate said phenomenon
Most "proofs" of God attempt to find examples of #4, with no attempt whatsoever to meet criteria 1, 2, or 3. The more competent pseudoscientific "proofs" attempt to meet criteria #1 and #2 by looking for genuine observed phenomena which are not yet entirely understood, but they presume that waving your hands in the air and invoking the name of God somehow satisfies #3. This is the "unsolved mystery" fallacy employed heavily by creationists.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
pecker wrote:I say sky Pixie is simply a manifestation, a facet, of the Universal Spirit. It simply reveals itself to you as the Sky Pixie as that is the only way a mind such as your could possibly comprehend it.
In that case, Sky Pixie says you're wrong. Sky Pixie is the onlt deity, and she has made you wrong by default.
Sky Pixie wins.
What if I were to tell you I was the Sky Pixie, simply attempting to test tour faith?
You are truly a faithful and loyal servant. You shall soon carry forth my wrath
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken --Tyler Durden, Fight Club
"Nothing, in religion or science, or philosophy . . .is more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." -- Charles Fort
"Evolution keeps bumping upward to new levels of creativity and surprise. We're her latest gizmos, her latest toys. Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to throw ourselves with all our might and mane into what the universe will do with us or without us--creating new forms, new flows, new ways of being, new ways of seeing." -- Howard Bloom
I will believe in a/several God(s) the day that He/She/Them personally apears before me and tells me that He/She/They exist and that I would be better off believing in them.
However although I will believe that He/She/They exist I will not worship them as He/She/They would prefer, because I belive that if there are any God(s) they are guilty of sevear crimes against all innocent life be it humans, animals or anything else.
As such I will only acnowlede their existance and go on with my life as it is.
Violets are red and roses are blue, if you open up photoshop and fuck with the hue!
"Killboy. 35 missions flown, 35 replacement Fighta-Bommerz, an' 35 major bionik surgery procedures.
67 Konfirmed kills, includin' 43 actually belongin' to the enemy--
'E may 'ave been a total madboy, but 'e knew 'ow to get the job done."
However, there is a key logical flaw in the question, which is that it is conceptually impossible to prove anything which has not been defined . I can say that it is impossible to prove the Vague God's existence for the simple reason that the Vague God is undefined. You cannot prove anything which is undefined. - Darth Wong
So then we need to define this Vague God, correct? If we are able to offer up a definition, then I assue we follow your next criteria regarding proof:
1. Empirical
2. Reproducible
3. Consistent with predictions of theories which incorporate said
phenomenon
4. Inconsistent with predictions of competing theories which do not incorporate said phenomenon
Will that work?
XPViking
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might if they screamed all the time for no good reason.
The Scientific Method. And proff he knows anything I can mention, make sure he isn't a bad ass aliean potraying God in ST 5. Oh, wait nevermind 'God' must be an alien, hopes he's nice considering he exists.
Formerly the artist known as Captain Lennox
"To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me." - Sir Isaac Newton
You cannot prove anything which is undefined. - Darth Wong
So then we need to define this Vague God, correct? If we are able to offer up a definition, then I assue we follow your next criteria regarding proof:
1. Empirical
2. Reproducible
3. Consistent with predictions of theories which incorporate said
phenomenon
4. Inconsistent with predictions of competing theories which do not incorporate said phenomenon
Will that work?
It'd certainly work for me. . . however, doing so would require discovering a phenomenon where the simplest available explanation under Occam's Razor is the existence of your Precisely Defined God.
In other words, the route to God is through scientific investigation of the physical universe. If it turns out that nobody's home, well, many of us concluded that there was no one at the controls quite some time ago. . .
If you are genuinely intrigued by the concept of a Precisely Defined God, then I highly recommend "The Mind Of God" by Paul Davies.
"People should buy our toaster because it toasts bread the best, not because it has the only plug that fits in the outlet" - Robert Morris, Almaden Research Center (IBM)
"If you have any faith in the human race you have too much." - Enlightenment
pecker wrote:I say sky Pixie is simply a manifestation, a facet, of the Universal Spirit. It simply reveals itself to you as the Sky Pixie as that is the only way a mind such as your could possibly comprehend it.
In that case, Sky Pixie says you're wrong. Sky Pixie is the onlt deity, and she has made you wrong by default.
Sky Pixie wins.
What if I were to tell you I was the Sky Pixie, simply attempting to test tour faith?
You are truly a faithful and loyal servant. You shall soon carry forth my wrath
What you say is menaingless. What you see is meaningless. The Sky Pixie defines what truth is. You just don't get it, do you? Sky Pixie says (therefore makes it that) you're wrong. I say fuck you sideways.
Just a little tidbit of info.
Moral of the story. You can't prove the existence of the gods so just except they exist. 
