Using MAD as indirect proof of a higher power

[dguy6789]

but is that the kind of believers God would want?

As opposed to people who believe anything they are told for no reason whatsoever?

 

[PlanetJosh]

It doesn't matter much to me whether or not god exists. It's just that it's been annoying to me wondering if the reason why a nuclear WW3 has not happened is because god has been delaying it. I'm not insisting that's the case. I was speculating or theorizing in the OP.

 

[Moonbeam]

Is God made out of atoms?

Is God a male? Does "he" have a penis? Freckles? Sperm? DNA?

If someone wants to believe in a personal god that has values, I don't mind. But there is no evidence of a God in any sense of the word "evidence".

God and the belief thereof is from faith.

Reality and the observation thereof is from science.

Trying to use faith for observation of reality, or trying to use science for belief in God is an exercise in futility.

It depends on what kind of science you are talking about. Suppose you have had an orgasm and a child who has not asks if there is some reason you like sex and you explain and he says you have a religious belief that something happens when you had sex but it actually didn't. You just wanted to think it did so you made up a bull shit story. Who is right. Can you tell? If you can then your argument here is also bull shit. You may know nothing of the science of conscious states, but such a science exists and God is when you are in the state of God consciousness. Because you know nothing about it or have never experienced it, doesn't mean a thing. The science of states is a secret that protects itself by hiding from egotists, folk who assume they know what they don't have any idea about, people like the religious to think God is in a book, or folk like you who think that because you can see through the silly notion of God that there isn't a meaningful one that can be known by experience.

 

[Blue_Max]

Nukes are gods, Wasteland 2? Anybody?

 

[nickqt]

It depends on what kind of science you are talking about. Suppose you have had an orgasm and a child who has not asks if there is some reason you like sex and you explain and he says you have a religious belief that something happens when you had sex but it actually didn't. You just wanted to think it did so you made up a bull shit story. Who is right. Can you tell? If you can then your argument here is also bull shit. You may know nothing of the science of conscious states, but such a science exists and God is when you are in the state of God consciousness. Because you know nothing about it or have never experienced it, doesn't mean a thing. The science of states is a secret that protects itself by hiding from egotists, folk who assume they know what they don't have any idea about, people like the religious to think God is in a book, or folk like you who think that because you can see through the silly notion of God that there isn't a meaningful one that can be known by experience.

Well, first off, that kid would be a pretty deep thinker, and to answer his/her question, I would state that there is certainly a way to test whether something is or isn't happening during sex. Both anecdotal evidence for that particular kid, and testable, measurable evidence that can be observed in testing of other people.

As an agnostic, I don't have a belief one way or the other. I think it is simple-minded to assume that there isn't a "God" (in the sense of something that is totally outside of our understanding) and also simple-minded to assume that there must be a God who has feelings and values, simply because there's (hundreds of different) books that claim that there is a God.

I think you agree with my main point, that God comes through faith, which can be experience, but is personal, and not testable and quantifiable. I brought up that point because OP is trying to find evidence of God through measured observations, which isn't something that measured observations are going to show. If you are going to assume that MAD didn't happen because of God and not because people ultimately decided that destroying all human life isn't particularly beneficial to their own human life, then you could also find evidence that there is a God because you're contemplating the very question, which also allow you to find evidence that there are aliens living in your eyes because you've contemplated the question of it. Or, to put it another way, Belief =! Evidence

You can test and measure an orgasm. You can't test and measure God's love, or desire for you to not eat certain foods on certain arbitrary days of the week.

 

[OverVolt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

He's talking about people like him I guess. In reality I think its fairly intrinsic to balk at the idea of launching a missle like that and starting WWIII.

 

[Vic]

Exactly, observable and repeatable proof will make believers out of all of you, but is that the kind of believers God would want?

God doesn't have wants.

 

[nickqt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

He's talking about people like him I guess. In reality I think its fairly intrinsic to balk at the idea of launching a missle like that and starting WWIII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

 

[Moonbeam]

God doesn't have wants.

Apparently folk not only have no faith in God, they have no faith that God is God according to the definition of what God would have to be to be God.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, first off, that kid would be a pretty deep thinker, and to answer his/her question, I would state that there is certainly a way to test whether something is or isn't happening during sex. Both anecdotal evidence for that particular kid, and testable, measurable evidence that can be observed in testing of other people.

As an agnostic, I don't have a belief one way or the other. I think it is simple-minded to assume that there isn't a "God" (in the sense of something that is totally outside of our understanding) and also simple-minded to assume that there must be a God who has feelings and values, simply because there's (hundreds of different) books that claim that there is a God.

I think you agree with my main point, that God comes through faith, which can be experience, but is personal, and not testable and quantifiable. I brought up that point because OP is trying to find evidence of God through measured observations, which isn't something that measured observations are going to show. If you are going to assume that MAD didn't happen because of God and not because people ultimately decided that destroying all human life isn't particularly beneficial to their own human life, then you could also find evidence that there is a God because you're contemplating the very question, which also allow you to find evidence that there are aliens living in your eyes because you've contemplated the question of it. Or, to put it another way, Belief =! Evidence

You can test and measure an orgasm. You can't test and measure God's love, or desire for you to not eat certain foods on certain arbitrary days of the week.

You can measure people experiencing God. What you can't do is have the experience yourself that way. All you have is data, whereas the God conscience have God. Some would say there is as much difference there as watching somebody have an orgasm and having one yourself.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Is God made out of atoms?

Is God a male? Does "he" have a penis? Freckles? Sperm? DNA?

If someone wants to believe in a personal god that has values, I don't mind. But there is no evidence of a God in any sense of the word "evidence".

God and the belief thereof is from faith.

Reality and the observation thereof is from science.

Trying to use faith for observation of reality, or trying to use science for belief in God is an exercise in futility.

Now replace 'god' with 'unicorn'.

 

[moonbogg]

If we die from a virus, no one will be here to be like, "that was a close call. Must be god". Know what I mean? So as long as you are alive, you can thank god for it. When you are dead, I will thank god for it. Know what I mean? That was mean. I was kidding.