Which god?

Commenter cl again:

Then you say, “The Undeniable Fact is that God does not show up in real life…”

I reject that entire paragraph. Don’t you equally scoff when Fundies treat their pet opinions as fact? You are not omniscient and you cannot make this claim in an intellectually honest manner, IMO.

Omniscience is not required for claims like this. I doubt that many people would scoff if I were to say, “The undeniable fact is that Santa does not show up in real life.” It’s not intellectually dishonest to make such a claim. And yet, if the Christian God were such that He actually existed and showed up in real life, He would have a much more significant impact on reality than Santa Claus. If I can know that Santa does not show up in real life when his impact on the world is so much less than God’s, why can I not do the same for the case where the impact would be so much greater, and is so clearly absent?

Truth is consistent with itself, so if God were willing and able to show up in real life, we ought to see the consequences that would be consistent with that desire and ability. Conversely, if God does not show up in real life, and is just a superstitious myth that people talk themselves into believing, then we ought to see the consequences of that as well, e.g. we ought to see the evidence for God being limited to coincidences, subjective feelings, and superstitious attributions in the absence of any genuine, objective, visible, audible, tangible manifestation of God Himself showing up in person. And when we look at the real world, it’s the latter set of consequences that we observe, not the former.

Moving on, cl writes:

However, I think your third paragraph clarifies everything for me. So, sans an empirically-detectable autograph, you’ll accept no miracle as proof of God or gods? IOW if today, you went outside for a smoke (or whatever you do outside), and somebody decapitated a man, then an hour later you witnessed this man’s head re-attach to his body enabling him to get up and go to the store, such would not be any reliable evidence for God IYO?

This is a perfect example of why I say these “miracles” that people attribute to God are not instances of God showing up in real life. Let’s say that I did have exactly the experience that cl describes: I see a man decapitated, lying dead for a hour, and then suddenly, for no visible reason, the head reattaches itself to the body, the man sits up, says “Ow, that’s going to leave a mark,” and rises to his feet and goes into a bar for a drink.

Is this evidence for the existence of God? Before we can answer that question, we need to know which God it would be evidence for, right? After all, if Zeus is the God who performed the miracle, then the miracle itself is not evidence for the existence of Krishna. But what if it wasn’t a God? What if it was an elf, or a pixie, or a leprechaun, or an invisible dragon? Or a SMERF—a Spontaneous Magical Entropy Reversal Field? Any of these things could be responsible, if they were real. Then again, the miracle itself is evidence that they are real, right? I mean, they’d have to be real if they’re going around miraculously healing decapitations.

So let’s look at the evidence, provided by the miracle, that tells us which deity or other supernatural phenomenon deserves the credit for performing this miracle. Hmm, that didn’t take too long, because there isn’t any. We can arbitrarily assume that one deity is real and that the rest are fake, and then arbitrarily assign credit for the miracle to our deity. But that’s just superstition again. There’s no tangible, verifiable factor here that would allow us to objectively differentiate between the different deities and supernatural phenomena. We must assume that God exists before we can use this miracle as evidence that God exists, which is circular reasoning.

But let’s up the ante a bit. Let’s say that during the hour the victim was decapitated, some saffron-robed monk wanders by and begins to pray, “Oh great Buddha, have mercy on this poor soul and heal him of his decapitation by your divine grace.” The rest of the story remains the same: after an hour, the head reattaches and the man walks away unharmed. Would this be evidence that Buddha is really God?

I think a lot of Buddhists would be fairly surprised if that were the case. But notice, the actual evidence of the miracle itself is no more specific than it ever was. The facts pertaining to the actual “recapitation” are exactly what they were before. All the prayer has really done is to create a context in which we might be prejudiced to prefer one superstitious attribution over another.

I’ve heard missionaries tell stories about being in strange and exotic lands where people worshipped other gods, and their prayers were answered. The missionaries explained this as being, not evidence that other gods were real, but merely the deceptive activities of demons. Even when viewing what they considered to be miracles, they did not agree that these miracles should be attributed to the gods that were being given the credit. Neither the gods nor the demons were actually showing up to perform these “miracles” in person, so it was entirely up to the personal prejudices and preferences of the individual to decide which entity to give the credit to.

Now imagine you’ve got two kinds of miracles to cite as evidence for God: Type A miracles, in which God shows up in person and can be photographed and videotaped in the actual act of performing the miracle, and Type B miracles, in which no deity (or elf or SMERF) actually shows up, and all you have is an unexplained phenomenon for which you superstitiously ascribe credit to the deity or magical entity of your choice. If you want to show that God does exist, why would you mention only Type B miracles, when Type A miracles are better suited to the goal you’re trying to reach?

When I say, “God does not show up in real life,” what I’m saying is that there are no Type A miracles, because if there were, they’d be at the top of the list. There may be some transparent hoaxes, like at Zeitoun, but these only make the apologists’ problem worse. Why would you need a hoax if you had genuine Type A miracles? And if God were indeed willing and able to bolster the faith of believers, and bring healing and salvation to millions, then  “miracles” like Zeitoun ought to be commonplace. Yet they’re not, not even at Zeitoun, apparently.

A God Who is willing and able to show up in real life is a God Who is willing and able to be found by those who seek Him. Yet we do not find Him showing up in real life. We find Fantasy, Intuition, Superstition and Hearsay, i.e. all fallible, human sources of beliefs about God. But we don’t see the tangible, abiding, personal presence that would be the most fundamental and obvious consequence of having a loving Heavenly Father. Therefore I state, not just as my personal opinion, but as an empirical, verifiable, Undeniable Fact, that God does not show up in real life.

 
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...Loading...
Posted in Unapologetics. 10 Comments »

10 Responses to “Which god?”

  1. Arthur Says:

    “…we ought to see the evidence for God being limited to coincidences, subjective feelings, and superstitious attributions…”

    We ought also to see believers split into a vast array of slightly different denominations.

  2. jim Says:

    If somebody’s head re-attached itself at the behest of a Christian’s prayers (I’m changing it over to Christianity for the sake of context), that would certainly put me on the path of believing in ‘miracles’…I mean, a head rolling itself over to the body, lining itself up at the sever point, then spontaneously welding itself back into place could only be naturalistically reconciled by some extreme apologetical hoop jumping (reminiscent of some of the bad faith fisking inherent in this continuing conversation).

    However, this would only mark the beginnings of my inquiries. If it was an isolated incident, I’d be much more interested in the guy doing the praying than in the deity he’s supposedly praying to. After all, and as Duncan has pointed out, God still hasn’t shown up. This is just one isolated incident. An anomaly which, in Christ’s world, shouldn’t be an anomaly, but a rather ubiquitous occurrence. I’d be thinking more along the lines of the power of prayer bereft of any outside agent; you know, the mind as subset of a ‘Universal Mind’…that sort of thing. Or something equally New Age-y.

    Now, if this sort of thing (and there are a thousand other examples of manifestations which would equally serve to convince) started happening on a regular basis, and ONLY regarding Christian prayer, I’d be on the road towards believing in the Christian God. I might not accept Him as lord of my life due to disagreements with His moral doctrines, or simply because his method of communicating with mankind is so goddamned lame; but at some point inductive reasoning would have its way with me, and I’d believe. Of course, I could hold out through not accepting anything that isn’t deductively certain. And certainly there would always be gaps in knowledge that I could wedge my skepticism into. But thinking like that is neither reasonable, nor honest. *hint, hint*

    So, when that first head re-attaches itself, somebody let me know, ok?

  3. jim Says:

    Duncan:

    “The undeniable fact is that Santa does not show up in real life.”

    Ironically, there is exponentially more apparent evidence for Santa’s existence than there is for God’s, as is attested to by millions of people all over the world. Santa delivers!

  4. R. C. Moore Says:

    Jim said:

    “If somebody’s head re-attached itself at the behest of a Christian’s prayers (I’m changing it over to Christianity for the sake of context), that would certainly put me on the path of believing in ‘miracles’…”

    Exactly, because when predicted outcome has been fulfilled, one begins to trust the initial assumptions. This is completely different than retrofitting cherry picked evidence to bolster assumptions after the fact.

  5. pboyfloyd Says:

    How can you NOT believe in Santa and his miracle powers?

    Here is testable, scientific proof!

    Go to a mall around Christmas and observe Santa for a while. Hey, take a picture if you like!

    Now go to ANOTHER mall and observe. Santa miraculously beat you there!

    He is everywhere and nowhere ‘baby’, and in my books, ‘that’s where it’s at!’

  6. jim Says:

    pboyfloyd:

    Well, Santa seems to perform miracles that fly directly in the face of natural laws (or, so I’m told)…

    1. He shows up in thousands of places at once (and don’t tell me ALL those guys are fakes, just because some have been proven to be…have you investigated EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM?).

    2. He visits every house in the world in one night, proving he exists outside of space/time, though he can interact with
    it (as testified to by millions of children AND their parents).

    3. He eats and drinks endless tons of milk and cookies, but doesn’t seem to have the need to go to the bathroom (a defecating Santa??? Blasphemy!)

    4. He knows when you’re sleeping, when you’re awake, when you’ve been bad, or good; so, he MUST live inside each of us (for goodness sake!).

    5. Something like 50% percent of mall retail business is generated by news of his coming, plus…

    His belly jiggles like a bowl full of jelly. Show me your naturalistic explanation for THAT!

    I suggest we’d all better just watch out.

  7. cl Says:

    DD,

    I tend to agree with most of this post. This is why I concluded that some people are simply not persuadable by miracles. However,

    The facts pertaining to the actual “recapitation” are exactly what they were before. All the prayer has really done is to create a context in which we might be prejudiced to prefer one superstitious attribution over another.

    That’s incorrect. The facts are not exactly the same as before. In the first hypothetical scenario, we had no Buddhist praying, hence no reasonable grounds to connect the incident to a Buddhist prayer. In the second example, we have stronger evidence – the event occurred after a Buddhist prayer – providing us with a verifiable connection that strengthens preliminary justification for the possibility that Buddha performed this particular miracle.

    Incidentally – regarding superstitiousness – would you say it’s superstitious to attribute the cause of an unexplained phenomena to any deity at any time? When would such not be superstitious in your opinion? Only when the deity lays tangible claim?

    I doubt that many people would scoff if I were to say, “The undeniable fact is that Santa does not show up in real life.” It’s not intellectually dishonest to make such a claim.

    It’s not intellectually dishonest to make such a claim. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend such a claim is categorically similar with the claim that God has never shown up in real life. If you really don’t understand why, I’d be willing to explain, but such should be obvious.

    Now imagine you’ve got two kinds of miracles to cite as evidence for God: Type A miracles, in which God shows up in person and can be photographed and videotaped in the actual act of performing the miracle, and Type B miracles, in which no deity (or elf or SMERF) actually shows up, and all you have is an unexplained phenomenon for which you superstitiously ascribe credit to the deity or magical entity of your choice. If you want to show that God does exist, why would you mention only Type B miracles, when Type A miracles are better suited to the goal you’re trying to reach?

    If Type A miracles didn’t exist even in the Bible, why are you justified in expecting them to exist now? Further, wouldn’t even Type A miracles retain capacity for doubt? How would you know the perpetrator in the videotape or photograph was God and not really Satan or some other deity?

    When I say, “God does not show up in real life,” what I’m saying is that there are no Type A miracles, because if there were, they’d be at the top of the list.

    So you’ll believe if someone can produce videotape of God performing a miracle? How would you know it was real? How would you know it was God? How would you know it wasn’t a hoax? I sure wouldn’t, and you’ve really got me confused.

    A God Who is willing and able to show up in real life is a God Who is willing and able to be found by those who seek Him.

    That’s your opinion of what God should be. Why should I be constrained by your opinion of what God should be?

    Therefore I state, not just as my personal opinion, but as an empirical, verifiable, Undeniable Fact, that God does not show up in real life.

    There’s no way you can know that unilaterally without being omniscient, and I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree here. I happen to believe what I believe, which is that you are wrong, but I’m not going to try and force my belief, my personal opinion down your throat as “Undeniable Fact” because that’s intellectually dishonest. By appealing to omniscience, you will always produce this disconnect with people like me. Why don’t you just state what you believe instead of claiming to know what you cannot possibly know? Reality is not yours, and you are not reality’s exclusive spokesperson.

    Like I said, at most you can claim you’re justified to believe that God doesn’t show up in real life on account of your own life experience, and not a scintilla more. And guess what? That’s the most any believer can claim, too.

  8. » Post hoc, ergo propter hoc Evangelical Realism Says:

    […] my post on “Which God?“, I discussed cl’s hypothetical case of a man being decapitated, and having his head […]

  9. » Founded on fallacy Evangelical Realism Says:

    […] any Type A miracles to offer as evidence of God’s existence? Commenter cl, however, takes it a step further. If Type A miracles didn’t exist even in the Bible, why are you justified in expecting them to […]

  10. » Claiming omniscience Evangelical Realism Says:

    […] argument with me continues: A God Who is willing and able to show up in real life is a God Who is willing and able to be […]