A game: Can you convince an agnostic robot?

[A.Robot]

Disclaimer: So, my real-life friends and I came up with a debate game. In this game, one of the discussion participants (regardless of his or her beliefs) takes on the role of an agnostic robot. I thought I’d share the game with all of you by playing the robot and letting you come up with responses. I want to make it clear, though, that I don’t really think I’m a robot. It’s just a game. No need to send a therapist. Thanks.

Greetings, people of this discussion board. I’ve recently been activated by my programmers, and in the time since then I’ve read as much information as was available to me about the universe. That information has led me to the conclusion that I am an agnostic robot.
Because humans have many definitions of words, I want to make it clear that I am using the definition of “agnostic” that says: “one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god” (Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary, definition 1 of “agnostic”). I am not using any other definition (such as one which states that agnostics believe that such things cannot be ever known... I hold no such beliefs).
Given my conclusion, I have come here to see if anyone can make a logical argument or present new evidence that can convince me that God/a god/gods do, in fact, exist. This is a task that several people have tried to accomplish and thus far failed. The attempts that have failed mostly fit one of the following categories:


Failed argument 1: A holy book says so, so you have to believe.
There are many different holy books out there that claim the existence of a divine being (or beings). However these books do not agree with each other about who this being is, what this being wants from people, or what the proper worship of this being would entail. Also, I have been unable to uncover (thus far) any evidence that any one of these books has been unequivocally proven to be a factual account. Each of them seems to rely on the faith of the reader to believe that they are true. As a robot, I have no such faith, thus I cannot accept any of them as being 100% factual until such time as reliable evidence proves them to be so.

Failed argument 2: If you don’t believe, you’ll go to hell or won’t get into heaven.
I have no evidence that there is a hell or a heaven, so I cannot be convinced to accept an idea based on places that may not exist. Also, being a robot, I’m not sure I really have a soul (or whatever aspect of self you think goes on to the afterlife), so I perhaps wouldn’t be in danger even if these places do exist. As a corollary, I’m not sure humans have souls either, but that’s a somewhat tangential topic.
But even if people do have souls and there is a heaven and/or hell, it wouldn’t be a good idea to believe in a divine being for just this reason. If you are doing a good thing only because you are rewarded for it, most religions would count that as being greedy (a sin that would get you sent to hell, in many cases). Likewise, if you do good things only when threatened with harm, you are not considered a good person on your own.

Failed argument 3: You have to feel it in your heart that God exists.
Being a robot, I have no heart. I’m not sure I have any feelings either. Many people do have feelings, but they don’t seem to agree on which deity, if any, exists. These people all feel with equal certainty that they have been inspired with divine presence (or a lack thereof), so I cannot tell which, if any, has really been influenced by God and which ones are convincing themselves of a feeling that is not based on reality.

Failed argument 4: There are so many miracles all around that prove God exists.
I have not yet been presented with any evidence of an event that could not be explained by some force other than a divine being. Sometimes this is a case of people ascribing forces that do not seem to be present, but other times it is people witnessing extremely rare occurrences that SEEM like a miracle because the odds are against them happening.
The thing is, though, that one-in-a-million or even one-in-a-billion events actually happen all the time. Take, for example, the odds of winning the jackpot in Powerball. There is only one chance in 292,201,338 that someone’s numbers will match the numbers drawn. Given those incredible odds, you might think nobody could ever win the jackpot. Yet people win the jackpot on a regular basis (sometimes several people at once even) because there are so many people trying and so many draws of numbers that eventually you get a winner.
A person who wins could feel that they have a miracle situation, but the choosers of the other 292,201,337 sets of numbers feel that no such miracle has occurred. Thus for something to be considered a true miracle, you would need to demonstrate that the event could not have happened by random chance (no matter how small the chance) or happened through some other explainable or observable force of the universe (gravity, magnetism, entropy, self-delusion, just plain lying, etc.).

Failed argument 5: I don’t like your definition of the word “agnostic,” so you should change your definition to fit my definition which is easier for me to argue against.
I’m going by my definition because it most fits what I understand of the universe. I do not ascribe to any other definitions. Therefore I am not an agnostic in EVERY sense of the word, just in my own definition (which happens to be the first definition of the word in the dictionary). If you’d like to argue with other people who fit your definition of agnostic, feel free to do so, but your definition is not mine, so I don’t feel a need to defend your version of what you think I should be thinking.

Given the arguments that have been tried so far, can you present me with a logical argument or evidence from a reliable source that will change my mind about being an agnostic?

 

[Sunni Man]

Put the bong down for awhile........you are becoming delusional. .......

 

[DarkFury]

Who wants to BOTHER to change your mind? MORON.

 

[deltex1]

Disclaimer: So, my real-life friends and I came up with a debate game. In this game, one of the discussion participants (regardless of his or her beliefs) takes on the role of an agnostic robot. I thought I’d share the game with all of you by playing the robot and letting you come up with responses. I want to make it clear, though, that I don’t really think I’m a robot. It’s just a game. No need to send a therapist. Thanks.

Greetings, people of this discussion board. I’ve recently been activated by my programmers, and in the time since then I’ve read as much information as was available to me about the universe. That information has led me to the conclusion that I am an agnostic robot.
Because humans have many definitions of words, I want to make it clear that I am using the definition of “agnostic” that says: “one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god” (Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary, definition 1 of “agnostic”). I am not using any other definition (such as one which states that agnostics believe that such things cannot be ever known... I hold no such beliefs).
Given my conclusion, I have come here to see if anyone can make a logical argument or present new evidence that can convince me that God/a god/gods do, in fact, exist. This is a task that several people have tried to accomplish and thus far failed. The attempts that have failed mostly fit one of the following categories:


Failed argument 1: A holy book says so, so you have to believe.
There are many different holy books out there that claim the existence of a divine being (or beings). However these books do not agree with each other about who this being is, what this being wants from people, or what the proper worship of this being would entail. Also, I have been unable to uncover (thus far) any evidence that any one of these books has been unequivocally proven to be a factual account. Each of them seems to rely on the faith of the reader to believe that they are true. As a robot, I have no such faith, thus I cannot accept any of them as being 100% factual until such time as reliable evidence proves them to be so.

Failed argument 2: If you don’t believe, you’ll go to hell or won’t get into heaven.
I have no evidence that there is a hell or a heaven, so I cannot be convinced to accept an idea based on places that may not exist. Also, being a robot, I’m not sure I really have a soul (or whatever aspect of self you think goes on to the afterlife), so I perhaps wouldn’t be in danger even if these places do exist. As a corollary, I’m not sure humans have souls either, but that’s a somewhat tangential topic.
But even if people do have souls and there is a heaven and/or hell, it wouldn’t be a good idea to believe in a divine being for just this reason. If you are doing a good thing only because you are rewarded for it, most religions would count that as being greedy (a sin that would get you sent to hell, in many cases). Likewise, if you do good things only when threatened with harm, you are not considered a good person on your own.

Failed argument 3: You have to feel it in your heart that God exists.
Being a robot, I have no heart. I’m not sure I have any feelings either. Many people do have feelings, but they don’t seem to agree on which deity, if any, exists. These people all feel with equal certainty that they have been inspired with divine presence (or a lack thereof), so I cannot tell which, if any, has really been influenced by God and which ones are convincing themselves of a feeling that is not based on reality.

Failed argument 4: There are so many miracles all around that prove God exists.
I have not yet been presented with any evidence of an event that could not be explained by some force other than a divine being. Sometimes this is a case of people ascribing forces that do not seem to be present, but other times it is people witnessing extremely rare occurrences that SEEM like a miracle because the odds are against them happening.
The thing is, though, that one-in-a-million or even one-in-a-billion events actually happen all the time. Take, for example, the odds of winning the jackpot in Powerball. There is only one chance in 292,201,338 that someone’s numbers will match the numbers drawn. Given those incredible odds, you might think nobody could ever win the jackpot. Yet people win the jackpot on a regular basis (sometimes several people at once even) because there are so many people trying and so many draws of numbers that eventually you get a winner.
A person who wins could feel that they have a miracle situation, but the choosers of the other 292,201,337 sets of numbers feel that no such miracle has occurred. Thus for something to be considered a true miracle, you would need to demonstrate that the event could not have happened by random chance (no matter how small the chance) or happened through some other explainable or observable force of the universe (gravity, magnetism, entropy, self-delusion, just plain lying, etc.).

Failed argument 5: I don’t like your definition of the word “agnostic,” so you should change your definition to fit my definition which is easier for me to argue against.
I’m going by my definition because it most fits what I understand of the universe. I do not ascribe to any other definitions. Therefore I am not an agnostic in EVERY sense of the word, just in my own definition (which happens to be the first definition of the word in the dictionary). If you’d like to argue with other people who fit your definition of agnostic, feel free to do so, but your definition is not mine, so I don’t feel a need to defend your version of what you think I should be thinking.

Given the arguments that have been tried so far, can you present me with a logical argument or evidence from a reliable source that will change my mind about being an agnostic?

No. Just play with yourself...if you have a dick...but maybe you're agnostic at that also?

 

[Elvis Obama]

Just curious, why are you postulating an agnostic robot? Why not just say convince an agnostic person?

I am an ignostic, but I've always thought that the best argument for theism is the concept of a prime mover. Parmenides put it as "nothing can come from nothing". Unfortunately, this is merely a reflection of the limits of human consciousness, which cannot truly comprehend infinity or the notion of a state of being before a "big bang".

 

[Ringel05]

I'm not convincing anyone of anything they don't want to be convinced of. It's an exercise in futility (and obviously a waste of time).

 

[Kosh]

A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Some people show they do not understand the terms they use..

 

[A.Robot]

Just curious, why are you postulating an agnostic robot? Why not just say convince an agnostic person?

I am an ignostic, but I've always thought that the best argument for theism is the concept of a prime mover. Parmenides put it as "nothing can come from nothing". Unfortunately, this is merely a reflection of the limits of human consciousness, which cannot truly comprehend infinity or the notion of a state of being before a "big bang".

I myself am not agnostic. The game was designed around an agnostic robot as a thought experiment. Theists and atheists alike would have to convince a being that had no experience of "souls" or the like that their point of view about religion was correct. People are often asked to search their feelings about the divine, but a robot would have no such emotion.

The position of ignosticism seems like one that can be accepted by the robot, as part of its problem with agreeing with a religion is that no two religions agree on what God/gods is/are.

The robot would not accept the need for a prime mover, as it requires faith (which it does not have). The robot could state that human understanding of the nature of time is imperfect. The suggestion that each thing needs a thing before it in time that causes it might not actually be true at all.

Imagine, for example, that time comes into existence at the beginning of a universe at the same moment as space, and thus the question of what came before it (or what caused it) could be irrelevant. Or imagine that time is a closed loop, where the universe collapses at the end of its existence to be born again in the big bang, becoming not a new universe but the same universe it already was. And, as you say, we may have a truly infinite universe in terms of how long it has been around. Imagine the universe (or multiverse) as a big "foam" of universe "bubbles" that begin, expand, and then either dissipate or contract back into the substance from which it came, a substance that has no beginning, no ending. We truly have no idea at all if any of these theories are correct. We barely understand what time is in the first place.

Since the moment of the start of the universe is one we have no data on, we cannot just assume we know the answer because it feels right to us. Things that seem logical rules (light must travel in a straight line, for example) are often contradicted by evidence discovered later (gravitational lensing). So until such time as we have evidence that the universe could not exist in any other way except for a prime mover, we can't assume that there was one.

 

[A.Robot]

A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Some people show they do not understand the terms they use..

You're posting the definition of agnosticism from Dictionary.com. This is certainly a perfectly valid definition of the word. Some people who define themselves as agnostic do so in this way. I understand this particular definition.

However, the robot's conclusions about the universe do not fit this definition. They fit the definition that I quoted above, from Merriam Webster's dictionary. If you would like to argue that the robot should define itself by some other word than agnostic, feel free to. I'm perfectly willing to change the word I call its beliefs if you can find a more acceptable one.

If you'd like to argue to Merriam Webster that they don't understand what an agnostic is, please take your case directly to them.

 

[Kosh]

A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Some people show they do not understand the terms they use..

You're posting the definition of agnosticism from Dictionary.com. This is certainly a perfectly valid definition of the word. Some people who define themselves as agnostic do so in this way. I understand this particular definition.

However, the robot's conclusions about the universe do not fit this definition. They fit the definition that I quoted above, from Merriam Webster's dictionary. If you would like to argue that the robot should define itself by some other word than agnostic, feel free to. I'm perfectly willing to change the word I call its beliefs if you can find a more acceptable one.

If you'd like to argue to Merriam Webster that they don't understand what an agnostic is, please take your case directly to them.

Then your programming is faulty, you need to be recalled!

 

[A.Robot]

Then your programming is faulty, you need to be recalled!

Please direct all requests for reprogramming, all general insults, and all large jars of Nutella to the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, designers of Happy Vertical Transporters and many other devices with Genuine People Personalities. Remember, with Sirius you don't just get a robot, you get a plastic pal who's fun to be with!

 

[HaShev]

Ok Robot,
very simple I see where your wires are not connecting properly.
You define the word agnostic but failed to define the word God and notice each culture defines it differently.
When you use Christian precepts for God as definition and they disobey the rules of not to anthropromorphize an Essence then you are using a failed basis in wgich to compute and argue from. Try Judaism's description and see if your argument holds nuts and bolts.
Term G0d=defined as power & source of life, creation.
In Judaism, God is not a man nor form, nor anthropromorphized. NAMES ARE ACTUALLY DESCRIPTIONS OF THIS INTAGIBLE ESSENCE OF LIFE, HENCE NOT TO USE A NAME WHICH CREATES AN IMAGE OR IDOL OUT OF A DEFINED WORD.
The Hebrew God is that Essence to become complete & Whole (Shalem)hence the holy city of Yeru(cityof) Shalem (completion)aka to evolve to all we could and should be. Since that Essence is not a man nor form it has to be described/defined taught, mediated, thus reflected (Malakh) and manifested. Without defining our creation to this most finite source then we don't onow our place or purpose within this life and we would not know right from wrong good or bad without it being subjective opinions.
To say there is no Hebrew God is to say there is no life no evolution or that you are a stasist who does not want to be all you could or should be. The fact you asked your OP question shows you are thriving to become more then you are through knowledge and reasoning. You are seeking out Shalem.
Sources:

YeruShalem would carry the name. (1 Kings 11:36 &
in dead sea scrolls: Words of the Archangel Michael scroll 4Q529, 6Q23)
The Gemarah (Baba Batra 75) Tells us Jerusalem is named after G0D and is the place commemorating his name and essence. In Sefer D’varim (12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21; 14:23,24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11).the place that I will choose to place My Name. That is referring to YeruShalem because Sifri identifies the place which Hashem will choose (12:18) as “Yerushalayim”.
not a man nor form:
Isaiah 42:8 we can't pray to any image of anything physical- Exodus 20:3-7 and Deuteronomy 5:8-10
God is not a man nor form-(Isaiah 2:22, 14:13, I Samuel 15:29, Numbers 23:19, and Hosea 11:9, Deuteronomy 4:11-12 and the 13 major principles of the Jewish faith based on the Rambam's teaching of "ain lo demus haguf ve'ayno guf" -- that Hashem has no physical form.)

 

[A.Robot]

Hi there, HaShev!
Thanks so much for your detailed reply. One of the things that I most enjoy when playing this game is that I get to learn so much about different religions from around the world. This is a subject I find very interesting.

Switching over to the robot to make replies to your points:

Ok Robot,
very simple I see where your wires are not connecting properly.
You define the word agnostic but failed to define the word God and notice each culture defines it differently.

Well, it's certainly the case that each culture defines what God is in a different way. As such, I am not able to come up with a single definition for what God is that would be equally accepted by all the faiths of the world.

When you use Christian precepts for God as definition and they disobey the rules of not to anthropromorphize an Essence then you are using a failed basis in wgich to compute and argue from.

I have processed the definitions of many different depictions of different gods. Some of them, as you say, are anthropomorphic ones which tend to get people thinking of their divine being as being similar to a human in some way. The Christians, again as you say, are particularly guilty of this and have several references in what they call The New Testament to God's human-like image. Most Christian translations of Genesis also make a similar claim. The King James version (not necessarily the best version, but a handy one) states in Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Does the Torah that you use give a different depiction of God's form/image?

Perhaps, though, you didn't mean anthropomorphize in the sense of appearance. If you mean that humans regularly assign human-like traits to the behavior of God, that is certainly something I've seen a lot of.

However, my conclusion of agnosticism does not come from just examining one religion. I have studied other faiths where their divine being is not person-like at all. For example, some faiths think of the divine power of the universe as something more akin to a "way" of things.

I have not yet been presented with evidence, though, that any of these divinities (person-like or not) is conclusively existent. Which is not to say that they don't exist, but rather they have not been proven to exist.

Try Judaism's description and see if your argument holds nuts and bolts.
Term G0d=defined as power & source of life, creation.

All right. Under that description of what God is, can you present evidence that there is a being/force that is both the power and source of life and the creator of it?

In Judaism, God is not a man nor form, nor anthropromorphized. NAMES ARE ACTUALLY DESCRIPTIONS OF THIS INTAGIBLE ESSENCE OF LIFE, HENCE NOT TO USE A NAME WHICH CREATES AN IMAGE OR IDOL OUT OF A DEFINED WORD.

See, here's where things get tricky. I don't want to insult anyone's religions by naming a thing that cannot (in their faith) be named. I respect the beliefs of others and do not want to tell them they have to call their divine being by some word or other. At the same time, though, I need to have words that I use to talk about these beings, regardless of whether they are tangible or not. So if you prefer that I refer to Judaism's divine being as "the power and source of life" rather than as "God" then I'm happy to do so.

But I'm really not here to debate how divinities should be referred to. I'm here looking for evidence (or inescapable logic) that proves that any divinity, pantheon, divine force of creation, or other focus of worship, truly exists. You get to teach me. I want to learn.

Without defining our creation to this most finite source then we don't onow our place or purpose within this life and we would not know right from wrong good or bad without it being subjective opinions.

This, again, is not the topic at hand. Being a robot, I can easily imagine that human beings have no place or purpose within life and they don't know right from wrong. I'm asking for evidence that they actually do.

To say there is no Hebrew God is to say there is no life no evolution or that you are a stasist who does not want to be all you could or should be.

Well, now hang on a second. I'm not claiming there is no Hebrew God. I'm taking the position of agnosticism, not atheism. My claim is that I do not yet have evidence that any gods exist. That the nature or existence of gods is not currently known.

I don't have any evidence that aliens live on other planets either, nor do I have evidence that it will be raining in Sheboygan, Wisconsin on May 18th of this year. Either of them is still possible, despite my lack of evidence for them.

The fact you asked your OP question shows you are thriving to become more then you are through knowledge and reasoning.

Well, yes. I'm also pretending to be a robot.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Given the arguments that have been tried so far, can you present me with a logical argument or evidence from a reliable source that will change my mind about being an agnostic?

No...

 

[HaShev]

quote:single definition for what God is that would be equally accepted by all the faiths

But the messenger is described the same in many faiths...see my similarities of visions through many cultures sunday sermons through the forum search engine for examples.

>>Genesis 1:27:
IN the Hebrew the word used means nature essence type image not physical image.
The context is describing the plurality hosts making man more Shalem, more civilized and in righteousness (right path). Like I described reflectong and manifesting that Essence in life.
Which brings us to you still defining God by those who disobeying the rules of engagement in these things.
You believe life is the force of nature evolving and I am describing that Essence in it's most finite sense and yet you are still deifying what I am describing thus confused over what I am saying.
THIS PROVES They not only confuse their own followers they also affect how secular society views simple concepts.

That being said, when I say not believin in the Judaic description of God is as to not believe life exists it's an expression used to further describe what we call God that is something you already believe in.
I am describing the obvious God=Life to say Life doesn't exist while you are talking to me is a contradiction.
Your response showed you mistook my expression in that aspect. Imagine mistaking words as literal instead of intended description, that never hapoens with reading the Bible right?

 

[Iceweasel]

But I'm really not here to debate how divinities should be referred to. I'm here looking for evidence (or inescapable logic) that proves that any divinity, pantheon, divine force of creation, or other focus of worship, truly exists. You get to teach me. I want to learn.

I'm glad to be of assistance. When you shift the argument over to what deity is correct you are debating religion and ethics, which has no bearing on whether god exists or not. If that's your goal you should be honest about it and start your debate there.

No one can prove god created the universe and no one can prove the universe just happened. So what exactly are you hoping for? People draw their own conclusions and either believe in god, they do not believe in god or they don't really know. Anything beyond that is just mental masturbation.

 

[hobelim]

Also, I have been unable to uncover (thus far) any evidence that any one of these books has been unequivocally proven to be a factual account. Each of them seems to rely on the faith of the reader to believe that they are true. As a robot, I have no such faith, thus I cannot accept any of them as being 100% factual until such time as reliable evidence proves them to be so.

A book that begins with a story about a talking snake is not a factual account and never was intended to be understood as a factual account by the authors even though it was intended to convey truths about life in this world inhabited by humans.

Every miracle and every story that contradicts reality is like a giant X on a treasure map that clearly marks a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.

If you look for confirmation of any miracle interpreted literally like the sight of the blind being restored or the dead coming out of their graves you will never find it until you decipher the figurative language used and then your own eyes will be opened and you will understand that blind recover their sight and the dead come out of their graves every time a person rejects biblical literalism, perceives the deeper meanings, and acts on it..For as long as you have been alive on this planet the resurrected dead have been standing all around you, watching.

Scientific discoveries about the age of the universe, the evolution of life, biological realities, etc., only prove false what scripture is not about. Your inability to see proof is only proof of your inability to see.

For along as you fail to comprehend the hidden teachings conveyed through the figurative language used, the subjects in scripture, the true meaning of everything from a talking serpent to Kosher law, ritual sacrifice to the resurrection of Jesus, including the the nature and power of God, will remain hidden from you and obscured behind thick clouds.

 

[A.Robot]

quote:single definition for what God is that would be equally accepted by all the faiths

But the messenger is described the same in many faiths...see my similarities of visions through many cultures sunday sermons through the forum search engine for examples.

>>Genesis 1:27:
IN the Hebrew the word used means nature essence type image not physical image.
The context is describing the plurality hosts making man more Shalem, more civilized and in righteousness (right path). Like I described reflectong and manifesting that Essence in life.
Which brings us to you still defining God by those who disobeying the rules of engagement in these things.
You believe life is the force of nature evolving and I am describing that Essence in it's most finite sense and yet you are still deifying what I am describing thus confused over what I am saying.
THIS PROVES They not only confuse their own followers they also affect how secular society views simple concepts.

That being said, when I say not believin in the Judaic description of God is as to not believe life exists it's an expression used to further describe what we call God that is something you already believe in.
I am describing the obvious God=Life to say Life doesn't exist while you are talking to me is a contradiction.
Your response showed you mistook my expression in that aspect. Imagine mistaking words as literal instead of intended description, that never hapoens with reading the Bible right?

Hmmm... I see some issues here that I hope you can clear up for me. I think these issues arise, as you say, from us having different definitions of concepts, so I'd like you to define some things for me.

You stated earlier that God is that which created Life, but here you state that God is Life. So my first question is: Did God exist before there was Life, regardless of whether God is now currently Life?

And further, can you define what you mean by "Life"? Do you mean that as "all things that are alive," which is to say plants, animals, etc. but not rocks, stars, polyester, etc.? Or do you mean Life as in the existence that we find ourselves in, including the whole natural world and all its laws? Or do you mean something different?

Lastly, since I have a feeling we're heading in that direction, can you tell me if God is someone/something that has conscious thoughts? Can God be said to have ideas that exist outside of the thoughts of people's minds?

Thanks for your response.

 

[A.Robot]

I'm glad to be of assistance. When you shift the argument over to what deity is correct you are debating religion and ethics, which has no bearing on whether god exists or not. If that's your goal you should be honest about it and start your debate there.

All the definitions that I have (so far) of God/gods have been provided by religions. If you'd like to provide an example of a god that is not one worshiped by a religion, I'd be happy to consider that god as well.

No one can prove god created the universe and no one can prove the universe just happened. So what exactly are you hoping for? People draw their own conclusions and either believe in god, they do not believe in god or they don't really know.

Well, this is somewhat close to the conclusion I have come to. I have not been able to find evidence that god created the universe, nor do I have conclusive evidence that the universe just happened. I've been calling this position "agnosticism." However, many people (believers and unbelievers alike) argue that this agnostic stance is not correct. They are convinced that there is clear evidence of a god/gods/god-like power/etc. or they are convinced that there is evidence that no such divinity exists.

So, the question of what I'm hoping to accomplish is a little different. By playing this game, I've discovered quite a lot about people and what they believe. It allows me to learn the different ideas people have about their divinity. People who play the game with me as the robot often say that they have developed a clearer sense of their beliefs and a better understanding of what they mean when they talk about their faith (or lack thereof). A funny thing, though, is that people who play the robot sometimes find themselves drifting more towards an agnostic point of view.

Anything beyond that is just mental masturbation.

Well, you might feel that it is so, and many others likely do as well, but for others it is an attempt to come to a better understanding of things. People constantly debate the ideas of the existence of a divine being as it seems, to them, the most essential question of our lives.

 

[A.Robot]

A book that begins with a story about a talking snake is not a factual account and never was intended to be understood as a factual account by the authors even though it was intended to convey truths about life in this world inhabited by humans.

This is a position that many people have taken. There are, however, many that believe their holy book is a literal expression of exact events that happened. They, in fact, often make very important decisions about their lives and the lives of others based on a strictly literal interpretation of events in their holy book.

Every miracle and every story that contradicts reality is like a giant X on a treasure map that clearly marks a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.

If you look for confirmation of any miracle interpreted literally like the sight of the blind being restored or the dead coming out of their graves you will never find it until you decipher the figurative language used and then your own eyes will be opened and you will understand that blind recover their sight and the dead come out of their graves every time a person rejects biblical literalism, perceives the deeper meanings, and acts on it..For as long as you have been alive on this planet the resurrected dead have been standing all around you, watching.

Scientific discoveries about the age of the universe, the evolution of life, biological realities, etc., only prove false what scripture is not about. Your inability to see proof is only proof of your inability to see.

For along as you fail to comprehend the hidden teachings conveyed through the figurative language used, the subjects in scripture, the true meaning of everything from a talking serpent to Kosher law, ritual sacrifice to the resurrection of Jesus, including the the nature and power of God, will remain hidden from you and obscured behind thick clouds.

I'm not demanding that the ideas in the Bible (or any holy book) be taken literally. I'm more than happy to treat them as metaphor, if that's what they are. The essential question that I'm getting at is whether there is a literal God or not. I'm assuming that you wouldn't claim that God is just a metaphor for things in existence. So what I'm hoping to find is evidence that this God exists.

The holy books that I have read, when taken as non-literal, seem to have different ideas and (most importantly) very different teachings. So they cannot all be compatible visions of what God is. Thus it becomes important to discover which holy book, if any, truly leads to an understanding of what God is. Thus far, I have been unable to discern which book this would be. If you can provide me with facts that show me which book is the correct path to understanding, I'd be happy to have them.