Instructables

If you could ask God one question what would it be?

          If God came to your house and said that you have one question you can ask him and he will answer it what would you ask?


1-100 of 150Next »
lemonie2 years ago
It doesn't work like that, your question is meaningless.

You probably want to ask something like "What's the question you'd most like to hear an answer that makes sense to?"

I'll guess that you've not being getting much sense out of God so far...?

L
daredevil499 (author)  lemonie2 years ago
how is it meaningless
It is based upon the premise that we can't ask God any question that we like anyway. This is contradictory to religious teaching in general, and I hadn't thought that most people would need that explaining.

L
daredevil499 (author)  lemonie2 years ago
do you think I should rephrase the question
Yes.
Do you ever ask God questions or pray?

L
daredevil499 (author)  lemonie2 years ago
is that what you think i put up there
It's not what you put up there.
I asked you a question and that isn't an answer.

L
daredevil499 (author)  lemonie2 years ago
yes i do and i posted a simple question that you seem to have trouble with
What is the "If God came to your house and said that you have one question you can ask him and he will answer it what would you ask" - question that you haven't asked God yet then?

L
daredevil499 (author)  lemonie2 years ago
i would ask this "When adam and eve sinned why didn't you squish'm and start over?" now are you happy
OK, this is interesting, now we're talking about something.
Your classic Church response is that God gave people the knowledge & free-will that was previously exclusive to God, and as such effectively delegated responsibility*.
God did "squish people with things like fire & brimstone, and floods etc. But then God decided to hang-out with humans as this chap we know as Jesus.

What question do you want an an answer to?

L

(I'm always happy, and peaceful)

*The established church likes to pass the buck and tell you that you're bad because you've not exercised your free-will properly.
daredevil499 (author)  lemonie2 years ago
1. jesus didn't come to hangout with people. he came to save them.
2.what do you mean by "what question do you want an answer to" because I told you already.
Jesus saved people by hanging-out with them; it's documented that he dined with e.g. tax-agents,
"When Adam and Eve sinned why didn't God squish 'em and start over?"(like Sodom, etc?) Well, if that happened God would have screwed-up by creating man badly, and we wouldn't be having this discussion; silly thought...

L
daredevil499 (author)  lemonie2 years ago
how many children did adam and eve have?
3
daredevil499 (author)  monsterlego2 years ago
actually they had more. Genisis 5:4 says "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and duaghters." If they didn't how would Seth and Cain multiply. I discovered this a few weeks ago. and thats the question I would ask God. to find out how many exactly.but good answer becuase that is the only 3 the bible mentions
i know one lived to be around 1,500 years old.
daredevil499 (author)  monsterlego2 years ago
the oldest man ever was methusulah who lived 969 years

That can't be true...

Kiteman didexo8 months ago

How dare you doubt the provenance of the Word of God!!

>LOL<

Goodhart Kiteman8 months ago

The problem with the question that I see (sorry I didn't see this earlier) is that, the first one I would like to ask (and it as hard to ask one god as any other) why they had to HIDE all the time, what reason did they have for hiding?
As my dad would say, "put that in your pipe and smoke it" :-P

Kiteman Goodhart8 months ago

“Why would an all-powerful creator decide to plant his carefully crafted species on islands and continents in exactly the appropriate pattern to suggest, irresistibly, that they had evolved and dispersed from the site of their evolution?”

― Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Why not? Perhaps we would have found any other placement and scenario equally as preposterous.

Furthermore, perhaps there are things we can and will learn about God and ourselves precisely because of this placement and pattern. That's been the case with previous scientific discoveries. It took time, of course. We are much too hasty to think incredulity is the same as impossibility.

"We are much too hasty to think incredulity is the same as impossibility."

Agreed, as that way lies unquestioning religion.

Do not read the next part if you find criticism of faith somehow offensive.

If the Universe was created in such a manner as to appear natural and un-created, then surely that creator is dishonest, a fraudster if you will? Further, they are deliberately entrapping questioning humans - anybody who takes the evidence at its face value will deduce that the Universe and Life came to exist without the intervention of a creator, so, logically, there is no creator. However, according to Believers, all those who look at the evidence and say it was not created are damned to [insert eternal punishment of choice]. That is not the act of a kind, loving creator, but a cruel, thoughtless child, the cosmic version of pulling the legs of spiders.

TLDR: The Universe looks un-created, therefore either it is un-created, or it was created as a deliberate deception.

Not offensive at all.

If the Universe was created in such a manner as to appear natural and un-created

My assessment of the evidence is exactly the opposite. Every drop of the universe as I understand it suggests creation. As much as this site suggests there are people making things, the existence of elephants, atoms and galaxies suggests that these things were caused. I see how a presupposition that there is no creator would lead you to make the opposite assessment, but both positions depend on believing on the possibility or impossibility of a creator. So that kinda creates a circular logic.

then surely that creator is dishonest, a fraudster if you will?

You are assuming that a creator would be bound to some moral standard that was set in place by...whom? I don't believe creation is deceptive at all on this point...mysterious and beyond our grasp constantly, but not deceptive. I've read many an Instructable I didn't understand, but I didn't think the author was trying to trick me. A few of those challenged me to come to a new understanding. Some are still beyond my grasp. While we (humans) are always making progress at discovering causes in the world around us we are still bound within a system of cause and effect. The consistency of the universe is the foundation of science. But what causes this consistency? I am a questioning human, and I do not find it logical that there would be no creator.

However, according to Believers, all those who look at the evidence and say it was not created are damned to [insert eternal punishment of choice]. That is not the act of a kind, loving creator, but a cruel, thoughtless child, the cosmic version of pulling the legs of spiders.

This might be a good argument against the correctness and consistency of the believers, but not necessarily against a creator. If God does exist and he has in any way revealed himself to us, it does not follow that we (humans) will immediately understand. Nor does it follow that we will perfectly respond. Sure, "believers" have used hell to scare and manipulate. Unbelievers have been willing to do the same thing. You shouldn't think, however, that just because someone misuses a truth or misconstrues a truth that the truth isn't there.

If one believes that God doesn't exist because he is too slow to reveal himself, too slow to act against evil, too lax in allowing pain, then one is making a value judgment based on a gut feeling. In making things we are quick to "eyeball" our situation and think we have it figured out. When we finally get the tools to make a accurate measurement we often find we were utterly wrong.

Too long. I know. Sorry if it comes off as preachy, but I just think a reasoned discussion deserves to continue beyond propaganda statements and bumper sticker rhetoric. I've seen and benefited from a lot of your work, creativity, and intelligence on this site. (Thanks, by the way.) Keep up the good work!

Creation, especially as described by the Abrahamic religions, would not leave traces of evolution, either cosmic or biological.

Especially biological - going by biblical creation, all humans should be genetically identical, even make and female.

"You are assuming that a creator would be bound to some moral standard that was set in place by...whom?"

How about that set in place by the alleged creator, which humans are expected to live (and die) by. Something about not bearing false witness...?

To a truly inquisitive mind, there is nothing to suggest the existence of a deity (although there are sound, evolutionary reasons for the existence of religion amongst pre-literate cultures). The Universe is a wonderful, awe-inspiring place, full of incredible natural phenomena, but, all the evidence that exists points to an ancient, naturally-occuring Universe, with all that it contains being consequenctial to the original expansion event.

Until you can show otherwise, point to an event, process or phenomenon that cannot be explained through natural processes, I'm afraid this is where I stand; firmly in this amazing reality.

I love thinking about these things. Please read all of the following as nice, positive, and (hopefully) constructive. That is genuinely how I mean it. I know these type discussions can come across as otherwise.

Abrahamic religions teach that creation is a miraculous event. Miracles generally do not leave scientific evidence, only witnesses with their possibly flawed points of view. For example if I turn water into wine and do a good job of it, any scientific test you do on the wine won't show it to have been water just moments ago. Is that deception? Only if I claim that I did no miracle and the water had actually always been wine. So what you might call deception, I would call doing a competent job at making a miracle.

Holding a mythical creator to a mythical standard may serve as evidence against the creator, but it also serves as evidence against the standard. If deception is bad (according to God), God is a deceiver, and therefore does not exist, then you need a new reason to believe that deception is bad. If deception is sometimes good, then God is not necessarily inconsistent. If deception is always bad...why is it always bad? I digress.

"To a truly inquisitive mind..." I can only imagine saying that with a British accent with one eyebrow raised, pipe in hand. Haha! But I feel pretty inquisitive, and my curiosity makes me entirely open to the possibility of a deity. The fact that I continue to discover new truths makes me more and more confident that there is a Truth. If that is correct then I feel the proper conclusion is that there is a cause (and meaning) for existence. Perhaps I should be looking to the original expansion event for meaning, but I feel I should look at least one step further.

I recognize that science has its limits when it comes to that. So if scientific observation is to be the only tool, I feel we are hopelessly limited in our knowledge. If belief is limited that way then belief itself is a contradiction. You don't really believe anything, you just have the data. But truthfully, we have to form all kinds of ideas and make all kinds of decisions without evidence or proof that it is correct. If being awestruck, or angry, or in love, is just the product of our evolutionary development, then what does it matter what anybody believes about anything?

Sorry, that is biased interpretation.

There is nothing in the available reliable evidence that indicates or could indicate any form of supernatural involvement in the origins, arrangement or operation of the Universe or anything in it.

If you know otherwise, though, please feel free to enlighten me.

I think all interpretations are biased. Bias is at least one of the things that makes us human. I think it has more to do with every person's belief than reason or science (though almost everyone considers themselves reasonable).

Reliable evidence is a subjective idea. I acknowledge there is not sufficient scientific evidence to prove anything supernatural. Anything that there is reliable scientific evidence for is by definition "natural." I would say that there is plenty that "could indicate" supernatural involvement, but I feel like you are more interested in things that definitely indicate the supernatural. For that I'm ill equipped.

For me, the human search for Truth and Beauty is a suggestion that there is more than an accidental form of existence. Seems just as plausible to me and answers (or begins to answer) all the questions I find important. Ultimately, it is my personal faith journey that has led me to believe what I believe. I'm not expecting you to accept that as enlightenment or anything. Just describing where I'm coming from.

Now bow your head and close your eyes. Pray to the Skygod with me...

"Reliable evidence is a subjective idea."

No, it isn't. That's kind of the point.

"Anything that there is reliable scientific evidence for is by definition "natural." "

No, it just means that it is real. If that evidence can be explained by existing theories, then it is natural. If it cannot, then we can consider the super-natural.

"For me, the human search for Truth and Beauty is a suggestion that there is more than an accidental form of existence."

Absolutely not, it is the affirmation that humans have evolved to the point where we can not only see patterns in the Universe around us, but seek to explain them and the deeper history behind them.

Well, to play devil's advocate, epistemology IS a perfectly valid field of philosophical inquiry and debate (which is, I think, where the "reliable evidence is a subjective idea" statement is coming from).

I'm certainly not disputing that knowledge of the outside world via science - that is, via observation - is the most reliable method in the history of humankind.

But there's a catch. The scientific method relies upon sense data. And sense data is inherently subjective, which leads us right down the rabbit hole. (Yes, I know, peer review - but then you have Descartes' problem with which to wrangle...)

My ultimate point: we - and I do mean we - must remember to acknowledge that scientism is indeed a philosophical position* - that it is predicated upon a certain philosophical framework. That's what made it so revolutionary! Denial of the same is aught but the dogmatism of fundamentalist theology.

(*And therefore subject to philosophical definition and debate, which is what has happened with the statement "reliable evidence is a subjective idea.")

Epistomology may be a valud field of inquiry, but its existence is not in itself evidence of the supernatual, which is what Justbennet states.

...

From an article on epistemological Reliabilism; "In order to have a valid claim of knowledge for any proposition, one must be justified in believing "p" and "p" must be true."

To me, both the justification of the belief, and the demonstration of "truth" are provided by the same thing, [scientifically] reliable evidence.

As my old maths teacher used to say; "if you can't show your working, any right answer is just a lucky guess".

Screenshot_2013-06-20-19-55-07.png

>Epistomology may be a valud field of inquiry, but its existence is not in itself evidence of the supernatual

I'm not making that assertion, so we agree there. :)

I understand that Justbennet is making a somewhat different argument from what I'm addressing - specifically, he goes much farther. I certainly respect, and in practice myself adhere to, the pragmatist (with a small p, not a large one) position that "it works (or seems to, given everything I know about the world) so I'll use it." I'm just responding to what I read as philosophical undertones in their posts (the search for truth and beauty, the assertion that the objective is, in some sense, subjective, etc) - an aspect of this debate which it would be a real shame to gloss over. :)

I got that.

Sometimes the argument is its own end.

ah, good times. We haven't had that spirit here since 2009...

+1 caitlinsdad :D

I miss the old BBC science forums - we'd happily slice and dice at each other over creationism, free energy, homeopathy etc, then shake metaphoric hands and ask after each other's family.

Kiteman Goodhart8 months ago

“Why would an all-powerful creator decide to plant his carefully crafted species on islands and continents in exactly the appropriate pattern to suggest, irresistibly, that they had evolved and dispersed from the site of their evolution?”

― Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Okay.
Is it important?
It's more interesting to ponder incest and at what point that became wrong...

L
daredevil499 (author)  lemonie2 years ago
does it really matter if it's important. it's just a question!

and what is your question?
how many children did adam and eve have?
I'd rather know which ones were/weren't "getting into bed" with Adam & Eve.

L
daredevil499 (author)  lemonie2 years ago
nobody knows how many.

and WHAT WOULD YOU ASK GOD
you can ask God anything at anytime but my idea is he will definitly answer this one question because he doesn't always answer.
I told you my interest (I'd rather know which ones were/weren't "getting into bed" with Adam & Eve.)

If you don't get an answer, it's usually because the question isn't phrased in the right way. Or otherwise a person doesn't understand the answer, they maybe need to learn a bit by asking other questions first.

L
daredevil499 (author)  lemonie2 years ago
they probably had children with each other
Wouldn't you ask why he doesn't always answer?
I don't think there is an ible for first aid after getting hit with a lightning bolt or bolts. Someone should get on it.
he may have meant...

If you could ask Lemonie one question what would it be?
If Lemonie came to your house and said that you have one question you can ask him and he will answer it what would you ask?
At least half my friends know me by the name of "Jesus"...

L
Is that when you're moonlighting as a gardener?
:-P
sw50sw8sw578.gif
Well, I could have said "carpenter," but that seemed just a little too obvious...
The Longshoreman teamsters called and said to mention the fisherman thing.
He just rakes people through the coals...wait, that's the other dude's job. How come no one has a question for him?
Coal? You mean Santa? He's been off duty for almost a week now; cut him some slack, eh?
Yup, he's got a lot of hungry trolls elves to feed.
I don't do gardening, I've still got un-raked leaves on the lawn... I know people who do though.

L
I guess you must hate it when people scream your name in the middle of the night.
No, I'm asleep in a nice rural-spot; I can't hear them.

L
On the seventh day, he rested...
I don't like numerology, but if you like the number 7....

L

Very true.
I am truly impressed that you've continued to feed this troll for four and a half days. You do realize that they only grow stronger the more attention you give them, right?
Which one LiRa or Caitlin's?

L
:-(
: )
I shall then refrain from commenting below that Mel Brooks was the 2000-year old man.
Thrasym lemonie2 years ago
Heh...I think I'd give God the silent treatment with a big "where ya been buddy?" quizzical look.
Regardless of whether or not you are a believer, how is the question meaningless? It makes sense both grammatically and conceptually, as long as you accept the basic underlying premise of the question - which is how all questions, indeed all language, works.
It is based upon the premise that we can't ask God any question that we like anyway. This is contradictory to religious teaching in general, and I hadn't thought that most people would need that explaining.

L
Just because it contradicts common ontology does not make it meaningless.
I don't like sentences which are formed in that way, the grammar feels wrong. I'd prefer something like "Contradicting common ontology does not render the question meaningless"
Anyway, if religious teaching in general is to be held as irrelevant, "God" is too poorly defined for the question to have meaning.

L
Mm, rereading that I agree that it could be prettier (insert excuse for poor writing here). Of course, now I have to point out your comma splice... ;)

I disagree with your last sentence, however, for two reasons:

a) there are uncountable numbers of religious teachings/traditions/faiths. They contradict one another in just about every single tenant (including whether God listens to prayers, responds to prayers, etc) - how can you use "religious teaching in general" to answer *anything*?
b) "God" is clearly defined in the dictionary without religious teaching, and using that definition for the question works quite well.
ARGH, tenent.
.
lemonietimemag.jpg
Old photo that, cigarettes got prohibitively expensive since then...

L
I believe they call that a "sin" tax. You can ask the big guy up there why it got so expensive.
My dictionary ain't so clear...
But I'll offer this: if you're to work on the premise that we can't ask "God" any question, it's of little use or interest to talk about questions to which you'll receive no answer.

L
It's not so much meaningless as incomplete.

If you could ask God one question what would it be?

Anyone can ask God anything at any time, that's kinda the idea of prayer. It doesn't mean there will be an answer though. Lemonie's point is that the answer is the key here... If you could ask God one question and be guaranteed a complete and correct answer, what would it be?
You understand me, that's nice to hear.

L
Oh, I wouldn't go that far...
I see your point, but maintain that the underlying assumption does not affect the validity but rather the clarity of the question.
It's not so much meaningless as incomplete.

stoopid noobs :P
You are not getting complete and correct answers now?
Maybe I should check my spam folder.
Kiteman2 years ago
What makes you think you're "god", and not just a madman in a tin foil hat?
Welp, my prediction (which was removed by Robot for reasons I cannot fathom) that this thread would turn into an atheist v. theist debate has come to pass...
It was the wording of the OP - I don't know any religion that casts god as a door-to-door salesman.
ilpug Kiteman2 years ago
(insert obvious Mormom joke here)
Goodhart ilpug2 years ago
Mormons and JW''s canvass regularly because apparantely God does not.
Kiteman Goodhart8 months ago

With Kingdom Hall only three minutes walk from my door, I get my share of door-knocking, and they generally leave with more than their share of sarcasm and unanswerable argument ringing in their ears.

They finally defeated me last week - instead of the usual suited-and-booted, forceful young men I get, they sent a pair of terribly nice little old ladies. I just couldn't bring myself to perform my usual theological surgery, we had a nice little chat, agreed that we each had a point of view, and then they went on their way.

I came *this* close to inviting them in for a cup of tea, it was frightening!

?
"If god came to your house..."

The only people who call at my house uninvited are trying to sell stuff.
Awww, sounds like someone needs a hug :-)
What if God was one of us?
< buzzes in > "What is, Are you sure you have the right house?"
Well for example.

Creating the universe

Making intelligent life

Saving peoples souls

etc. etc.
daredevil499 (author)  monsterlego1 year ago
yep
Gosh, you are confused, aren't you?
Any proof you've done any of that?
1-100 of 150Next »