Comments on: Man who sues God gets a response

By: Mr. Me TToo

Mr. Me TToo — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:50:03 +0000

God is not obliged to prove his existance under any test or circumstance. There’s no reason to debate, simply because it is no way to “save” someone, but I will put in a little of my knowledge cuase I’m bored. BTW I enjoyed reading your argument Raven. It’s a great argument, and could be a great way to prove the point (The ORIGINAL POINT), that we need to find a way to eliminate frivilous lawsuits. Anyways, God is never going to help anyone prove or disprove his existance. He gave us free will, so that we could BELIEVE. If he proved his existance, there would be no other choice, but to beleive, which is not free will. Also the bible says ( And yes I know this will hold no credit by your standards Raven) that we are not to test our God, as we have proof everywhere we look, I.E, the ocean, mountains, life, and death. “Some see, and so believe, but blessed are those who do not see, and Believe”. Faith is a big part of my life, that noone understands. Faith is not something you can measure in a lab. Sorry, my thoughts are in a few places but thats all for now. I have to finsih a paper. :D I look forward to your reply Raven.

By: Suricou Raven

Suricou Raven — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:34:59 +0000

In view of that run of heads, im revising my test: In future, I shall ask God to *alternate* heads and tails. It makes the task no more difficult to God, but eliminates any chance of a biased coin causing a false positive.

By: Suricou Raven

Suricou Raven — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:35:24 +0000

It wasn’t gambling. Its just the standard test of God’s existance. I will demonstrate:

God! As you are omniscient, I know you can hear this. As you are omnipotent, I know you have the power to influence the flip of a coin. As you wish people to believe in you, as revealed by your influence in the bible, and as you love all humans yet are obliged by your own law to punish those who do not accept you, you are also obliged to take any minor actions which would result in my conversion and salvation. Thus I ask you to cause this coin to land heads thirty times consecutivly. The chances of this happening without your divine intervention are one in a billion, and this is sufficient to satisfy me that you do indeed exist.

Heads.
Heads.
Heads.
Heads.
Heads.
Heads.
Heads.
Heads.
Heads.
Heads.
Heads.
Tails.

Good run! Ive never had it land heads eleven times before – the chances of that are slim. But, its not thirty times, so God fails the test.

By: Patricia

Patricia — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:03:02 +0000

You’re asking him for the wrong things. It is “his will be done”. He is omniscient and gives you want you need not what you want. Gambling is probably not on his high list of priorities for your life.

By: Suricou Raven

Suricou Raven — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:52:10 +0000

We dont need to get God out. God never *does* anything. I cant even get him to influence a coin-toss to prove his existance to me.

By: Patricia

Patricia — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:46:44 +0000

Try as you may you will never get God out of anywhere, anytime, anyhow you choose.

By: G-A-Y

G-A-Y — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:16:49 +0000

Well, FRC, the idea that Kathy Griffin's Emmy acceptance speech has even the slightest thing to do with hate crimes legislation strikes us as just about as nutty. http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/09/tonys-red-haire.html

By: Suricou Raven

Suricou Raven — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:50:09 +0000

The omniscient should have better legal knowledge: God is subject to the laws of the state in which He holds residence, of course. And, being omnipresent, its clear that God must be a resident of every state, both American and otherwise – thus He is subject to the laws of every jurisdiction. It is rediculous for God to claim he is not subject to the laws of the state in which He resides (ie, all states).

God could quite easily get off by fleeing the country, as noone has an extradition treaty with Heaven. This would require God withdraw His presence entirely from the US though.

Alternatively, God could just ignore the whole thing – the worst possible outcome for Him would be an arrest warrant. God would become a wanted criminal, but who could catch Him? Perfect stalemate.

God’s chosen second defence, free will, is terrible legal stratagy – its not even a defence. God is claiming that he did indeed commit the crimes, but that his previous good deeds outweigh this. Such a good deed has no bearing on his liability though.

I also notice that, in addition to this civil complaint, God appears to be guilty of a great many criminal offenses. The greatest of these may be withholding evidence vital to national security, or aiding terrorism. God, being omniscient by definition, must have had advance knowledge of every major terrorist attack – including 911, the Iraq violance, and all smaller incidnts. By refusing to supply this information to the authorities, He allowed the attacks to take place.

God claims to have created numerous biological weapons of mass destruction. Some of the more deadly of these – variations of the influenza virus, the bubonic plague – have killed millions. Some, less spectacular, may have casualties in the billions. The cumulative death toll is beyond imagining.

Based on these, I think God should be forced to either leave the US entirely, or to answer for His crimes according to the laws of the country in which He chooses to reside.

Its not all bad for God though – as he was in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans, He can probably be recognised as a native inhabitent and get a fee handouts.

By: Patricia

Patricia — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:46:40 +0000

Then Chambers admits that God exists. What was God’s answer?