Challenge for Atheists

[Cycel]

Is it possible for the God of the Bible to reveal things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain?

I think the first thing we need to clarify is that God actually exists.  If he were to make that bit of information completely obvious to the world that would go along way to making other things believable.  Do you think God is obvious in the world or is he as cryptic to you as he is to me?

[Inevitable Droid]

To borrow an idea from Carl Sagan, he could put "I am the Lord thy God" in five-hundred-km-long letters on the surface of the Moon where everyone in the world could see them.

While you and I both know that Carl Sagan was joking, I'll state for the record that giant words on the moon would convince me of one thing, that some sapient creature (or multiplicity thereof) had the technology and the desire to write giant words on the moon.

A bush on fire with a flame that didn't consume it, words written in stone by invisible cause, an independently motile pillar of flame, an independently motile pillar of smoke, instantaneous replacement of plain water (in a lake or river) with blood, an inexplicable swarm of frogs, an inexplicable period of darkness during the hours that would normally be daytime, and the inexplicable death of the firstborn of a community with no one else dying, would convince me of one thing, that some sapient creature (or multiplicity thereof) had the technology and the desire to make such things occur.

Candidates for the responsible agents might be -

1. Humans in a hidden super-advanced civilization, perhaps underground
2. Extra-terrestrials
3. Time-traveling human from the future
4. Artificial intelligences that had reached and surpassed the threshold of self-awareness
5. Mutant humans in a hidden enclave somewhere, whose mutations included hyper-intelligence

Never for one moment would I think, "Oh no, it's Jehovah!"

If geneticists one day discovered that the human genome can be expressed as numerical data that yields a pattern straightforwardly transposable into ancient Hebrew, yielding the Book of Genesis verbatim, that would convince of me of one thing, that super-advanced extra-terrestrials were playing the most elaborate trick imaginable on humanity, and had been playing it since the first modern human walked the earth.

Nothing would convince me that nature was spawned by the supernatural.  I categorically and unconditionally reject the supernatural as a valid conclusion from any premise, or as a valid premise for deriving any conclusion.  Any phenomenon that exceeded my expectations regarding nature's capabilities would cause me to revise my expectations regarding nature's capabilities.  All phenomena are natural.  That is my foundational premise from which I begin all reasoning, all the time, in all contexts.  All phenomena are natural.  Any contradictory premise or conclusion is anti-life, for it is anti-nature, anti-mind, anti-survival, and anti-progress.

[Thumpalumpacus]

To borrow an idea from Carl Sagan, he could put "I am the Lord thy God" in five-hundred-km-long letters on the surface of the Moon where everyone in the world could see them.

While you and I both know that Carl Sagan was joking, I'll state for the record that giant words on the moon would convince me of one thing, that some sapient creature (or multiplicity thereof) had the technology and the desire to write giant words on the moon.

Without trying to start a tooth-pulling debate along the lines of "how many angels ...?" I 'd say that the combination of obvious potency and language would strongly indicate Jehovah.

Candidates for the responsible agents might be -

1. Humans in a hidden super-advanced civilization, perhaps underground

Easily falsifiable, and easily falsified.  Temperature gradient prohibits underground sanctuary.  Radar shows that it isn't in space.

2. Extra-terrestrials

How would they be aware of the significance of the words?  How, indeed, would they have taught themselves the English language without our assistance?  

3. Time-traveling human from the future

This  would appear to be the likeliest.  I doesn't explain how we would see the lunar letters and yet not see any earth-moving machinery.

4. Artificial intelligences that had reached and surpassed the threshold of self-awareness

The above objection applies to this as well.

5. Mutant humans in a hidden enclave somewhere, whose mutations included hyper-intelligence

This is essentially your point #1, and answered identically.

Never for one moment would I think, "Oh no, it's Jehovah!"

What test would you use to falsify this hypothesis?  If, in this scenario, you discard something before falsifying it, you are simply bowing to bias.

Nothing would convince me that nature was spawned by the supernatural.

Given that we cannot know what happened before Planck-time, staking out any position is an act of faith.  "I don't know" is the only certifiably true statement we can make about the beginning of the Universe.  Anything else is speculation, and when asserted as truth, amounts to faith.

[Inevitable Droid]

Without trying to start a tooth-pulling debate along the lines of "how many angels ...?" I 'd say that the combination of obvious potency and language would strongly indicate Jehovah.

Absolutely any hypothesis would be more credible than Jehovah, who is supernatural, and therefore to be rejected out of hand, because nature is everything, and everything is nature, unless we are willing to credit as reality what our biological and technological sensing devices cannot - on principle cannot nor ever will be able to, on principle - ascertain.

Candidates for the responsible agents might be -

1. Humans in a hidden super-advanced civilization, perhaps underground

Easily falsifiable, and easily falsified.  Temperature gradient prohibits underground sanctuary.  Radar shows that it isn't in space.

I wasn't really offering these candidates up as hypotheses to be defended, since giant words on the moon haven't actually been identified - but still, I would think a civilization that could write giant words on the moon to the sudden surprise of all the first world nations could find a way to trick our heat-sensitive and sound-sensitive instruments.  How would such trickery be accomplished?  I have no idea.  Nor do I have any idea how giant words would be written on the moon to the sudden surprise of all the first world nations.  I am merely willing to entertain the hypothesis that if X can accomplish one seeming miracle then X can accomplish another.

2. Extra-terrestrials

How would they be aware of the significance of the words?  How, indeed, would they have taught themselves the English language without our assistance?

You're seriously suggesting that a civilization capable of crossing inter-stellar space is incapable of monitoring human broadcasts and learning the principles and details of human language therefrom?

3. Time-traveling human from the future

This  would appear to be the likeliest.  I doesn't explain how we would see the lunar letters and yet not see any earth-moving machinery.

As Arthur C. Clarke so famously said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  Consider that statement to be the premise underlying all of the candidates I put forward, always remembering that we haven't actually identified giant words on the moon, and therefore I'm not seriously suggesting that any of these candidates actually exist.

Never for one moment would I think, "Oh no, it's Jehovah!"

What test would you use to falsify this hypothesis?  If, in this scenario, you discard something before falsifying it, you are simply bowing to bias.

See above.  The supernatural as a hypothesis must be rejected out of hand, lest empiricism instead be rejected, for empiricism cannot plumb the supernatural, since our biological and technological sensing devices are limited to the natural.  Either we uphold the supernatural or we uphold empiricism.  We can't have both.

Nothing would convince me that nature was spawned by the supernatural.

Given that we cannot know what happened before Planck-time, staking out any position is an act of faith.  "I don't know" is the only certifiably true statement we can make about the beginning of the Universe.  Anything else is speculation, and when asserted as truth, amounts to faith.

It isn't faith to uphold that which is logically necessary in order to remain consistent as empiricists.  It is integrity, and rigor, and reasonableness.

[hackenslash]

The God of the Bible is all-knowing and all-powerful.

Then the god of the bible doesn't exist, because those two attributes are mutually exclusive.

Can your god do something he didn't know he'd do? If he can, he isn't all-knowing. If he can't, he isn't all powerful.

Logical paradox FTW!

[AnimatedDirt]

They are the same, and you can do the math yourself if you'd like.  The reason why Vegas doesn't pay out on any random hand is that they have no cognitive significance, such as matching suits or numerical continuity.  You see, royal flushes aren't special, except that we humans make them so.  The odds of any randomly predefined five-card hand are (1/52)*(1/51)*(1/50)*(1/49)*(1/48), in a joker-less deck.  (Can you tell I'm not a Vegas kinda guy?)

I disagree...and unless I'm mistaking what your point is, this Wiki article on Poker Probability seems to also say the Royal Flush is much less probable than any other hand.

My point earlier was simply that it seems odd to me that one would make an instance of a few letters being arranged in such an order on the moon be evidence enough for God/Jehovah when many other things in the cosmos have happened or are within a range much less in probability or even in "tuning".  

I apologize for being absent from this for so long.  I had a death in my immediate family over the weekend and much more of my time is needed to deal with this.  I should return FULLY soon, although I have a trip planned to S. Africa next Wed. so it may be a few weeks before I'm "back".  

[Thumpalumpacus]

Absolutely any hypothesis would be more credible than Jehovah, who is supernatural, and therefore to be rejected out of hand, because nature is everything, and everything is nature, unless we are willing to credit as reality what our biological and technological sensing devices cannot - on principle cannot nor ever will be able to, on principle - ascertain.

So nuch for "unbiased".  Also, it should be noted that my hypothetical would be discernable by both sensation and machination, rendering your only "substantive" objection moot.

By the way, how do you "know" Jehovah isn't natural?

I wasn't really offering these candidates up as hypotheses to be defended, since giant words on the moon haven't actually been identified - but still, I would think a civilization that could write giant words on the moon to the sudden surprise of all the first world nations could find a way to trick our heat-sensitive and sound-sensitive instruments.  How would such trickery be accomplished?  I have no idea.  Nor do I have any idea how giant words would be written on the moon to the sudden surprise of all the first world nations.  I am merely willing to entertain the hypothesis that if X can accomplish one seeming miracle then X can accomplish another.

... a very convoluted circular argument, but you've got to the first waypoint, in admitting that you "have no idea."  But when you argue "if X can accomplish one seeming miracle then X can accomplish another," -- and yet deny that you would ever believe in god -- you are merely defining god out of existence, or attempting to.  Were you honest, you'd admit: if any being could manage both of the accomplishments, you would be out of your ken, and not know what you were dealing with.

You're seriously suggesting that a civilization capable of crossing inter-stellar space is incapable of monitoring human broadcasts and learning the principles and details of human language therefrom?

Yes, I am.  Given that there are good reasons to think that language has a genetic component, combined with the high unlikelihood of any alien race sharing any of our genome (not to mention the fact that it may not use DNA at all), it would be highly unlikely that rhythms, sounds, and tones would be open to anything but the most superficial of readings.  

Can you read, say, Das Kapital in the original German?  Or perhaps the Iliad in the original Greek?  Without visual cuing, how would you propose to crack any foreign language?

As Arthur C. Clarke so famously said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  Consider that statement to be the premise underlying all of the candidates I put forward, always remembering that we haven't actually identified giant words on the moon, and therefore I'm not seriously suggesting that any of these candidates actually exist.

In other words, you prefer your own hypotheticals to Christian hypotheticals.  Also, your disclaimer is superfluous.

See above.  The supernatural as a hypothesis must be rejected out of hand, lest empiricism instead be rejected, for empiricism cannot plumb the supernatural, since our biological and technological sensing devices are limited to the natural.  Either we uphold the supernatural or we uphold empiricism.  We can't have both.

Excluded-middle fallacy.  There is a third alternative:  Jehovah as a natural being, possessed of powers we have yet to understand.  As you yourself quoted, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  What exact knowledge do you possess that tells you that the Jehovah of the Bible is not actually operating some srs bsns?

Nothing would convince me that nature was spawned by the supernatural.

Not even a demonstration that your definition of "supernatural" is too broad?

It isn't faith to uphold that which is logically necessary in order to remain consistent as empiricists.  It is integrity, and rigor, and reasonableness.

While I agree with your basic sentiment here, it strikes me that you are claiming knowledge which you cannot possess.  You cannot know that there is no god, generally speaking.  You may dispatch the Christian god on the grounds of internal logic, but there is so much that we do not know.

While I share your atheism, I do not share you didacticism.  To say "I know there is no god" is silly.

A real empiricist is led by evidence to conclusion, and does not practice a priori reasoning.  When you write something like "... who is supernatural, and therefore to be rejected out of hand ...." and then quote Clarke's Third Law in the same post, it's obvious you've not thought the thing through.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I disagree...and unless I'm mistaking what your point is, this Wiki article on Poker Probability seems to also say the Royal Flush is much less probable than any other hand.

Not so:

Any five card poker hand â€" The total number of five card hands that can be drawn from a deck of cards is found using a combination selecting five cards, in any order where n refers to the number of items that can be selected and r to the sample size; the "!" is the factorial operator:

    {n\choose r} = {{n!} \over {r!(n - r)!}} = {52 \choose 5} = {{52!} \over {5!(52 - 5)!}} = 2,598,960

Any one hand is equally possible.

My point earlier was simply that it seems odd to me that one would make an instance of a few letters being arranged in such an order on the moon be evidence enough for God/Jehovah when many other things in the cosmos have happened or are within a range much less in probability or even in "tuning".  

It's not so odd when you consider that the Universe doesn't know English.  Therefore, that limits possible sources.

I apologize for being absent from this for so long.  I had a death in my immediate family over the weekend and much more of my time is needed to deal with this.  I should return FULLY soon, although I have a trip planned to S. Africa next Wed. so it may be a few weeks before I'm "back".  

I'm sorry to hear of your loss, and wish you the best in what are sure to be difficult days.  Hit me up when you get back, and take care until then.

[Persimmon Hamster]

You're seriously suggesting that a civilization capable of crossing inter-stellar space is incapable of monitoring human broadcasts and learning the principles and details of human language therefrom?

Yes, I am.  Given that there are good reasons to think that language has a genetic component, combined with the high unlikelihood of any alien race sharing any of our genome (not to mention the fact that it may not use DNA at all), it would be highly unlikely that rhythms, sounds, and tones would be open to anything but the most superficial of readings.  

Can you read, say, Das Kapital in the original German?  Or perhaps the Iliad in the original Greek?  Without visual cuing, how would you propose to crack any foreign language?

I would suggest that the aliens tune their television sets (which perhaps they "borrowed" from planet-side when nobody was looking) to a PBS station that broadcasts Sesame Street, which provides ample visual cuing.  Once they gain a basic understanding of our alphabet and common, basic words I would then expect they could manage a variety of methods for understanding everything there is to know about human language.  If we are not limiting them to observing our broadcasts, I might also suggest they infiltrate a human grade-or-pre-school, perhaps wearing a hilarious costume to avoid suspicion.

Forgive me for being repetitive...but I would suggest everyone stop discussing likelihoods/probabilities we have absolutely no way to calculate or estimate.

Thumpalumpacus...on an unrelated note...did you see my latest reply to you at the bottom of page 1 of the literal Genesis thread?

[Inevitable Droid]

Absolutely any hypothesis would be more credible than Jehovah, who is supernatural, and therefore to be rejected out of hand, because nature is everything, and everything is nature, unless we are willing to credit as reality what our biological and technological sensing devices cannot - on principle cannot nor ever will be able to, on principle - ascertain.

So much for "unbiased".

My bias is in favor of unbiased empirical inquiry.  Anything that negates or undermines unbiased empirical inquiry, I am heavily biased against.  I make no apologies for that.  Bias is of the essence of meaning, value, purpose, and standards of conduct.  Bias is good except where it is bad.  It is bad when one is engaged in empirical inquiry.  Since empirical inquiry is impossible with respect to God, I happily remain biased against entertaining the God hypothesis.  

Also, it should be noted that my hypothetical would be discernable by both sensation and machination, rendering your only "substantive" objection moot.

Which hypothetical are you referring to?  The words on the moon?  If so, then we're discussing that as an effect begging for a cause.  That cause would remain hypothetical until we could form testable hypotheses, test them, and learn from our tests.  The problem with the God hypothesis is that it can't be tested.  I categorically reject untestable hypotheses.

By the way, how do you "know" Jehovah isn't natural?

I'm using Jehovah as a name for God, and God either stands outside nature as its author, or isn't God.  If we ever discover some astonishing creature that arose out of matter three seconds after the Big Bang, fully formed with cosmic potency and cosmic sapience, who knit the first DNA out of its component proteins by deliberate agency, that creature won't be God, despite how inevitable the emergence of a new religion worshipping the thing would be.  I have to say, furthermore, that the existence of such a super-being is far less likely than any of the hypotheses I put forward as candidates in a world where the moon had giant words on it.
 

Were you honest, you'd admit: if any being could manage both of the accomplishments, you would be out of your ken, and not know what you were dealing with.

Of course.  Initially.  Such is the case constantly in science.  When the scientist first encounters a brand new phenomenon, knowledge of what just happened, and what caused it to happen, is lacking.  But the scientist doesn't just stand there, befuddled, and claim agnosticism toward the phenomenon's cause.  Rather, the scientist forms testable hypotheses, and begins testing them.  Faced with giant words on the moon, scientists would form testable hypotheses and begin testing them, with most tests probably requiring a flight to the moon to investigate the words with all the apparatuses of geology, chemistry, physics, and perhaps even biology.  What the scientists wouldn't waste time on is the formation of untestable hypotheses, such as the God hypothesis.  

Can you read, say, Das Kapital in the original German?  Or perhaps the Iliad in the original Greek?  Without visual cuing, how would you propose to crack any foreign language?

With respect to modern languages, visual cues abound via television broadcasts.  And while it may be true that spoken language isn't necessary for a species to establish a technological civilization, some sort of language certainly is, since civilization without communication can't exist, as civilization entails organized sapient collectivism, and organized sapient collectivism entails communication.  I have no reason to think a species capable of interstellar travel, which communicated by bursts of light, say, instead of sound, would stand bewildered for indefinite duration by the fact that our species doesn't emit light yet somehow manages to communicate.  These interstellar light-emitters would have to be total morons to fail to question what it is our weird species does with all those sounds coming out of our mouths, and to fail to hypothesize that just maybe what we're doing is communicating.  

In other words, you prefer your own hypotheticals to Christian hypotheticals.

True.  Mine would be testable.  Christian ones aren't.  I embrace the testable and reject the untestable, on principle, or, if you prefer, out of bias.

Also, your disclaimer is superfluous.

No, it isn't.  I was disclaiming the notion that I had put forward those hypotheses as being worthy of consideration in our real world, where the moon orbits our planet without the indignity of giant words on its surface.  In our real world, my hypotheses are unworthy of consideration, because no data suggests them.  In a world with giant words on the moon, suddenly my hypotheses wouldn't be unworthy of consideration, because suddenly there would be data suggesting them.  What I'm getting at here is important to science.  In science, a hypothesis must be testable, and must be suggested by data.

The God hypothesis might be suggested by data, but it's untestable, and therefore, due to my bias toward science, I reject the God hypothesis out of hand.

While I agree with your basic sentiment here, it strikes me that you are claiming knowledge which you cannot possess.  You cannot know that there is no god, generally speaking.

True.  Very few atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist.  I certainly don't.  We simply place the burden of proof on those who claim God exists, since they're the ones making the claim, and we demand empirical verifiability, via testing.  Rejecting a hypothesis isn't the same as claiming knowledge.  We atheists await a testable hypothesis suggested by data.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Since empirical inquiry is impossible with respect to God, I happily remain biased against entertaining the God hypothesis.

I'll accept this when you demonstrate this.

The problem with the God hypothesis is that it can't be tested.  I categorically reject untestable hypotheses.

That rather depends on the claim being made about the god in question, don't you think?

By the way, how do you "know" Jehovah isn't natural?

I'm using Jehovah as a name for God, and God either stands outside nature as its author, or isn't God.  If we ever discover some astonishing creature that arose out of matter three seconds after the Big Bang, fully formed with cosmic potency and cosmic sapience, who knit the first DNA out of its component proteins by deliberate agency, that creature won't be God, despite how inevitable the emergence of a new religion worshipping the thing would be.  I have to say, furthermore, that the existence of such a super-being is far less likely than any of the hypotheses I put forward as candidates in a world where the moon had giant words on it.

You are trying to poison the well here.  You will note that I made no claim at all like what you are positing here.  Please, if you're going to answer me, make it relevant to what I'm saying, and not some caricature.  
 

\Of course.  Initially.  Such is the case constantly in science.  When the scientist first encounters a brand new phenomenon, knowledge of what just happened, and what caused it to happen, is lacking.  But the scientist doesn't just stand there, befuddled, and claim agnosticism toward the phenomenon's cause.

Did I urge complacency?  If so, please quote.  If not, you're whacking strawmen here.

Rather, the scientist forms testable hypotheses, and begins testing them.  Faced with giant words on the moon, scientists would form testable hypotheses and begin testing them, with most tests probably requiring a flight to the moon to investigate the words with all the apparatuses of geology, chemistry, physics, and perhaps even biology.  What the scientists wouldn't waste time on is the formation of untestable hypotheses, such as the God hypothesis.

Indeed, that hypothesis ought to be low on the list.  As regarding the OP, though, my answer was assuming that all these steps were undertaken, with negative data.  

With respect to modern languages, visual cues abound via television broadcasts.  And while it may be true that spoken language isn't necessary for a species to establish a technological civilization, some sort of language certainly is, since civilization without communication can't exist, as civilization entails organized sapient collectivism, and organized sapient collectivism entails communication.  I have no reason to think a species capable of interstellar travel, which communicated by bursts of light, say, instead of sound, would stand bewildered for indefinite duration by the fact that our species doesn't emit light yet somehow manages to communicate.  These interstellar light-emitters would have to be total morons to fail to question what it is our weird species does with all those sounds coming out of our mouths, and to fail to hypothesize that just maybe what we're doing is communicating.

Anthropocentrism permeates this answer.  You assume they will have eyes working in our favored spectrum of light.  You assume that they will have ears with which to hear our emitted sounds.  

Also, it's entirely possible that they may be perfectly aware that we are communicating, and yet not crack the code.  This phenomenon has been observed in human history, with humans trying to translate ancient human languages and coming up a-cropper.

True.  Mine would be testable.  Christian ones aren't.  I embrace the testable and reject the untestable, on principle, or, if you prefer, out of bias.

Your assumption is that in the hypothetical presented by the OP, your search would turn up data.  My response is based on the premise that if no such explanatory data came up, I'd be forced to regard a god-hypothesis seriously.

Also, your disclaimer is superfluous.

No, it isn't.  I was disclaiming the notion that I had put forward those hypotheses as being worthy of consideration in our real world, where the moon orbits our planet without the indignity of giant words on its surface.  In our real world, my hypotheses are unworthy of consideration, because no data suggests them.  In a world with giant words on the moon, suddenly my hypotheses wouldn't be unworthy of consideration, because suddenly there would be data suggesting them.  What I'm getting at here is important to science.  In science, a hypothesis must be testable, and must be suggested by data.

It is superfluous because I'm not so stupid as to not see that much, kthx.

The God hypothesis might be suggested by data, but it's untestable, and therefore, due to my bias toward science, I reject the God hypothesis out of hand.

Where "god" interacts with reality, he may well be susceptible to testing.

True.  Very few atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist.  I certainly don't.  We simply place the burden of proof on those who claim God exists, since they're the ones making the claim, and we demand empirical verifiability, via testing.  Rejecting a hypothesis isn't the same as claiming knowledge.  We atheists await a testable hypothesis suggested by data.

Rejecting empirical evidence (unexplained letters on the moon) simply because it doesn't fit one's epistemology is a form of valuing that epistemology above the reality your senses are reporting.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Forgive me for being repetitive...but I would suggest everyone stop discussing likelihoods/probabilities we have absolutely no way to calculate or estimate.

Very much agreed.  As I made clear in my response to Droid, my position is based on the premise that alternate causes have been already tested and discarded.

Thumpalumpacus...on an unrelated note...did you see my latest reply to you at the bottom of page 1 of the literal Genesis thread?

Not yet, off to read.

[TheJackel]

The God of the Bible is all-knowing and all-powerful.

Then the god of the bible doesn't exist, because those two attributes are mutually exclusive.

Can your god do something he didn't know he'd do? If he can, he isn't all-knowing. If he can't, he isn't all powerful.

Logical paradox FTW!

Those two attributes are mutually impossible. They are so ridiculously so, I could write paradoxes all day long that will collapse that entire GOD concept. And I surely can claim a GOD doesn't exist because that title is a title of opinion. I can simply nullify that concept because there is no thing that could exist that I would ever consider a "GOD". It's really that simple.

[Whitney]

Is it possible for the God of the Bible to reveal things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain?

No; the "God of the Bible" does not exist, therefore it is imposslible for it to reveal anything to anyone.

So how can you (and the rest of humanity), without God, know anything for absolute certainty?

Sounds like you are just using the OP to try to set everyone up so that you can make them agree that it is impossible to know anything for certain if a god doesn't exist.

[Achronos]

Is it possible for the God of the Bible to reveal things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain?

No; the "God of the Bible" does not exist, therefore it is imposslible for it to reveal anything to anyone.

I will ask a simple layman question: How do you know the 'God of the Bible' does not exist?