A question for atheists . . .

[Kbertsche]

There are many easily verifiable ways to confirm phone conversations. You can know their number, ask a question they should know, call the back on the desired number, and even arrange to meet them personally to confirm them physically. None of these are likely possible with anecdotal claims of discourses with God, unless God chooses to do so with a universal direct call without exceptions and conversation with all humanity.

Other than the physical meeting, couldn't all of these evidences be spoofed by a good artificial intelligence program?

(I DO like your qualification: "unless God chooses to do so with a universal direct call without exceptions and conversation with all humanity".)

[Doug Shaver]

No, not only to those who believe, but also to those willing to believe.

So, no one can disagree with you unless they're just being pigheaded, is that it?

[Roy]

How can you convince a skeptic that the vocal sounds are from a real person, and not from an AI program like Siri or Alexa?

I'd try acoustic analysis, noting that AIs have less inflexion and variation when pronouncing specific words.

But first I'd ask them to define "archaic".

[shunyadragon]

Other than the physical meeting, couldn't all of these evidences be spoofed by a good artificial intelligence program?

Actually, not likely, because (good?) artificial intelligence program would not likely know all the personal information knowable by the two parties. The issue is it can be verified beyond a reasonable doubt, and anecdotal claims of discourses with God cannot.

(I DO like your qualification: "unless God chooses to do so with a universal direct call without exceptions and conversation with all humanity".)

Not sure what you would like here considering the implications, because there are thousands++ of conflicting claims of such communications with God, and not happened so far as with 37818, and hansgeorge claim.

Are you making this claim?

[JimL]

How can you convince a skeptic that the vocal sounds are from a real person, and not from an AI program like Siri or Alexa?

I hope you're not hearing unverifiable voices in your head Kbertsche. Are you?

[Kbertsche]

I'd try acoustic analysis, noting that AIs have less inflexion and variation when pronouncing specific words.

But first I'd ask them to define "archaic".

This is true with current AI programs. But they've come a LONG way in the past decade, and the gap is certain to narrow over the next few decades. And some humans speak in monotones. I'm not sure that this is a reliable discriminator in principle.

[Kbertsche]

Actually, not likely, because (good?) artificial intelligence program would not likely know all the personal information knowable by the two parties.

I think I agree with you, depending on how well we know the friend. If we were to enter an invasive Orwellian society, or if we each had a personal AI tool to watch our lives, this discriminator might become less reliable, especially for a casual acquaintance. But for a close friend, I suspect there will always be a gap here for AI.

The issue is it can be verified beyond a reasonable doubt,

Depending on who is doing the verification, and how they are doing it.

and anecdotal claims of discourses with God cannot.

Again, depending on who is doing the verification, and how they are doing it. (e.g. Jn 4:16-18, 29)

Not sure what you would like here considering the implications, because there are thousands++ of conflicting claims of such communications with God, and not happened so far as with 37818, and hansgeorge claim.

Are you making this claim?

No, it's not I who is making this claim (but I happen to agree with it).

[37818]

<snip>

The Bible says god created the universe. The universe exists. Therefore God exists. . . .

No. That does not follow. What follows is on the premise that God created the universe is that the universe would be evidence of God.

Now as an atheist can you show that the universe is evidence that there cannot be God?

The universe is in evidence. It cannot be both evidence of God and there not being God.

[shunyadragon]

I think I agree with you, depending on how well we know the friend. If we were to enter an invasive Orwellian society, or if we each had a personal AI tool to watch our lives, this discriminator might become less reliable, especially for a casual acquaintance. But for a close friend, I suspect there will always be a gap here for AI.

Depending on who is doing the verification, and how they are doing it.

My point is that physical verification is in reality possible in the objective world of communication, and not in the anecdotal claims of discourses with God. Most mundane everyday communications over the phone can and are potentially verified even sufficient to be used in court cases.

Again, depending on who is doing the verification, and how they are doing it. (e.g. Jn 4:16-18, 29)

Depends here is problematic, because of the fallible nature of all humans. For this reason it would be extremely difficult to explain any sort of objective verification of claims of discourses with God. The range of claims is in different churches, religions and even the author of the Course of Miracles.

No, it's not I who is making this claim (but I happen to agree with it).

Agreeing with it puts you in the same boat. Hansgeorge, 37818, you and others may make this claim by belief, but it is not convincing, because of the fallible human claims for these claims are extremely conflicting.

[Roy]

<snip>

The Bible says god created the universe. The universe exists. Therefore God exists. . . .

No. That does not follow.

Of course it doesn't. But since that was and is the form of your argument, that's your problem.

Now as an atheist can you show that the universe is evidence that there cannot be God?

I have never claimed any such thing.

Can you show that forests are evidence that there cannot be Winnie-the-Pooh?

[Aractus]

Science in the gaps ... that makes us all feel better.

Look at it this way. 100 years ago we knew we were a part of the Milky Way Galaxy, but we didn't know cor certain that other galaxies existed. The discovery that there are other complete galaxies outside of the Milky Way was made on 30 Dec 1924.

Christianity can't explain how God achieved his intelligence either. Now we have Christians claiming that he's a trans-dimensional being existing outside of our universe. If that's the case then for all we know his has a TREE(3) number of universes he created, all filled with quintillions (or more) of planets with intelligent life. So much for being a personal and loving creator. Stephen Hawking has said he believes we will discover intelligent life on other planets within our own galaxy within our lifetime. In fact if we don't, you could argue there is something fundamentally wrong with current astrophysics science.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Now we have Christians claiming that he's a trans-dimensional being existing outside of our universe.

This isn't quite right. Christians don't believe that God exists in some other dimension. They believe God exists wholly separate from all dimensions.

Stephen Hawking has said he believes we will discover intelligent life on other planets within our own galaxy within our lifetime. In fact if we don't, you could argue there is something fundamentally wrong with current astrophysics science.

This is certainly incorrect. There is absolutely nothing in modern astrophysics which predicts that there should exist intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, let alone that we should find such within our own galaxy in the next 100 years. That's not even a question for astrophysics, but rather one for xenobiology-- and even that field cannot make any such prediction with any real force.

Personally, I'm extremely skeptical that there DOES exist intelligent life anywhere else in the universe.

[Aractus]

This isn't quite right. Christians don't believe that God exists in some other dimension. They believe God exists wholly separate from all dimensions.

That's what I said.

This is certainly incorrect. There is absolutely nothing in modern astrophysics which predicts that there should exist intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, let alone that we should find such within our own galaxy in the next 100 years.

That's not what Hawking said. Here listen for yourself (it was geo-blocked so I made a mirror, source): "I believe we will encounter alien organisms in our lifetime, the mathematics predicts it".

Personally, I'm extremely skeptical that there DOES exist intelligent life anywhere else in the universe.

Well we don't know whether there is or isn't. But there should be assuming that humans are the result of natural processes, and that we're not the result of some fragile and highly unlikely chance-driven coincidence (which is what Christians claim that Scientists believe).

[Boxing Pythagoras]

That's what I said.

No, you referred to God as transdimensional, which would imply that God subsists within and across multiple dimensions. This is not the same-- and, in fact, is the polar opposite-- of a being which does not subsist in any dimension (whatever that might mean).

That's not what Hawking said. Here listen for yourself (it was geo-blocked so I made a mirror, source): "I believe we will encounter alien organisms in our lifetime, the mathematics predicts it".

Hawking does not say that astrophysics predicts it. He says that "the mathematics" predicts it, which raises the question, "What mathematics?" Again, there is certainly nothing in astrophysics which makes such a prediction. I suspect Prof. Hawking is referring to something like the Drake equation.

Well we don't know whether there is or isn't. But there should be assuming that humans are the result of natural processes, and that we're not the result of some fragile and highly unlikely chance-driven coincidence (which is what Christians claim that Scientists believe).

I don't agree at all that there "should be" other intelligent life in the universe. By "intelligent," people mean human-like cognition, symbolic representation, and reasoning. These are extremely specific things which developed as a result of extremely specific environmental conditions. The likelihood that such specific features would develop by convergent evolution in some remote species of life is extremely unlikely.

[37818]

Of course it doesn't. But since that was and is the form of your argument, that's your problem.I have never claimed any such thing.

No. In regard to God and the universe, if I cited anything, "In the beginning God created . . . ." the universe. And that the universe is evidence. Now the argument is then either the universe is evidence of the Bible claim or it is not.

Our human intelligence is also in evidence. And it is understood, I would think, that something cannot come from nothing.

So the universe is either evidence of God or is it evidence that there cannot be a God?