Bigfoot, Dogman, Lizard Man, Moth Man, God. Which is more likely?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Bigfoot, Dogman, Lizard Man, Moth Man, God. Which is more likely?

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

Yeti. Yowie. Grassman. Skunk Ape. There are said to be types of sasquatches - bigfoot as popularized by media over the last 40-ish years.
Dogman
Lizard man
Nessie (Loch Ness monster), Champ and Ogopogo.
Mothman
Even flying humanoids

All of these cryptids have claimed experiencers as well as evidence (photos, videos, tracks, verification of indigenous people from scientific documentation, etc) - some even have potential fossil records to prove they're possible.
While there have been proven fakes (see famous Nessie photo), not all evidence is proven fake.

All of these have more 'evidence' for them than God. There's no footprints of God. No photos or videos or fossil record evidence. The best we have is personal experiences (which, while many hold true fundamentally, there are variances in the how, where and what of the experience), a few claims here-n-there showing 'proof' of a work of God (how many times has Noah's Ark been found?) and a book written by people said to have been inspired by God.


As silly of a comparison as it sounds, there does seem to be more non-anecdotal evidence of Nessie, Bigfoot, Dogman, etc. than God with there being MUCH more believers in God than any of the cryptids.

So does this mean the ultimate outcome (eternal heaven) mean more to people than actual knowledge of something in the here and now?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Bigfoot, Dogman, Lizard Man, Moth Man, God. Which is more likely?

Post #2

Post by Difflugia »

nobspeople wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:07 pmThere's no footprints of God. No photos or videos or fossil record evidence.
Ahem.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Bigfoot, Dogman, Lizard Man, Moth Man, God. Which is more likely?

Post #3

Post by nobspeople »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:25 pm
nobspeople wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:07 pmThere's no footprints of God. No photos or videos or fossil record evidence.
Ahem.
I watched a Netflix shows a while back about the history of circumcision. It was fascinating both for its history and how many people feel like they were mutulated.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11342
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Bigfoot, Dogman, Lizard Man, Moth Man, God. Which is more likely?

Post #4

Post by 1213 »

nobspeople wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:07 pm ....All of these have more 'evidence' for them than God. There's no footprints of God. No photos or videos or fossil record evidence. ...
What do you think, should person know what God is, before he could see evidence?

Bible tells God is spirit and love, do you really expect to find fossils of love?

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.

1 John 4:8

We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.

1 John 4:16

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Bigfoot, Dogman, Lizard Man, Moth Man, God. Which is more likely?

Post #5

Post by Purple Knight »

The right answer to which is more likely or unlikely is firmly I don't know.

We can know how likely a penny is to land on heads because its weight is balanced and the number of sides is 2. We can also know because pennies have been flipped many, many times before.

We can't really know how likely Ogopogo or God is without deep knowledge of multiple universes and whether or not these beings exist in them.

That said, I'm not a trusting person. I don't care how many people think they've seen Nessie or God. Before I'll say either exists I want direct evidence. This should be reasonable even in the eyes of Christians because they would use this exact same principle to dismiss anyone who says God talks to them and tells them that Christianity is wrong.

"Hi, I'm Bladderman and God talks to me. Christianity is wrong and my peeing religion is right. Ignore whatever you think is good; what is actually good is peeing on everything. Go forth and flood the world."

The Christian should not trust this. The Christian would want direct evidence, even if the religion being preached was less obviously silly, or even if it had its own ancient holy book. That is right and proper. Now, just understand that I want direct evidence too.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Bigfoot, Dogman, Lizard Man, Moth Man, God. Which is more likely?

Post #6

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to 1213 in post #4]
What do you think, should person know what God is, before he could see evidence?
I think God should know everyone personally enough to know what to provide them that would be proof enough for them to believe. That's not happening equally across the gamut.
Bible tells God is spirit and love, do you really expect to find fossils of love?
Wow. You missed the entire point. But thanks for reply nonetheless.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Bigfoot, Dogman, Lizard Man, Moth Man, God. Which is more likely?

Post #7

Post by Purple Knight »

nobspeople wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 12:02 pmWow. You missed the entire point. But thanks for reply nonetheless.
Let's be more logically charitable than that. If God really is love then it exists. People obviously love one another. It's also a decent basis for right and wrong.

That's not an actual living entity with a will of its own and plans for the universe, though. It's one more product of the universe. A rather miraculous one (so is the fact that life exists at all), but still, nothing supernatural about it. One might worship it, but one also might worship tolerance, kindness (remember, we don't love everybody we're kind to; if we did we wouldn't need kindness), or even pleasure. We might say, whatever gives pleasure is good. Pleasure makes one happy, doesn't it? And happiness is good? The truth is I expect it to fall off the deep end into something unsavoury like hedonism when we're talking about worshiping an emotion.

God is more complex than that because it has to be. It smushes people who go against its plan, and that's not really a bad thing, because we do the same. We sometimes have to. We have to put people in jail who murder because murder is bad. If we were pure love or pure anything, we probably wouldn't do that. Same with God. But if we didn't do that, the results would be bad. In order for God to react to what happens and take appropriate action, in order for God to even disapprove of anything, it has to be a living (for... lack of a better word) entity with consciousness and a will. It can't just be love.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Bigfoot, Dogman, Lizard Man, Moth Man, God. Which is more likely?

Post #8

Post by nobspeople »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 12:17 pm
nobspeople wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 12:02 pmWow. You missed the entire point. But thanks for reply nonetheless.
Let's be more logically charitable than that. If God really is love then it exists. People obviously love one another. It's also a decent basis for right and wrong.

That's not an actual living entity with a will of its own and plans for the universe, though. It's one more product of the universe. A rather miraculous one (so is the fact that life exists at all), but still, nothing supernatural about it. One might worship it, but one also might worship tolerance, kindness (remember, we don't love everybody we're kind to; if we did we wouldn't need kindness), or even pleasure. We might say, whatever gives pleasure is good. Pleasure makes one happy, doesn't it? And happiness is good? The truth is I expect it to fall off the deep end into something unsavoury like hedonism when we're talking about worshiping an emotion.

God is more complex than that because it has to be. It smushes people who go against its plan, and that's not really a bad thing, because we do the same. We sometimes have to. We have to put people in jail who murder because murder is bad. If we were pure love or pure anything, we probably wouldn't do that. Same with God. But if we didn't do that, the results would be bad. In order for God to react to what happens and take appropriate action, in order for God to even disapprove of anything, it has to be a living (for... lack of a better word) entity with consciousness and a will. It can't just be love.
That's a lot under the assumption the God is love. Some believe God is hate and have their own churches speaking to that (albeit they're not as numerous).

The bolded section strikes me as a problem for a loving God. There would be no need to 'smush' people for a loving being as, with his beaming love everywhere, there wouldn't be people being anything other than loving to each other. Unless, of course, he's no longer in charge. Or, has an alterative motive.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Bigfoot, Dogman, Lizard Man, Moth Man, God. Which is more likely?

Post #9

Post by Purple Knight »

nobspeople wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 12:25 pmThere would be no need to 'smush' people for a loving being as, with his beaming love everywhere, there wouldn't be people being anything other than loving to each other. Unless, of course, he's no longer in charge. Or, has an alterative motive.
The usual answer to that is free will. It'd be boring for God to create entities that were simply robot copies of itself with less power. Arguably it'd be pointless. It wanted beings that could choose for themselves, arguably because it cares for those beings and wants them to have free will, which is indeed a great gift.

My response is that you don't give a gun to a toddler, but admittedly this is coming from the place of my own cynicism. It's for everyone to judge whether free will is worth it. If even one person does, then maybe it was worth it.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Bigfoot, Dogman, Lizard Man, Moth Man, God. Which is more likely?

Post #10

Post by nobspeople »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 12:48 pm
nobspeople wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 12:25 pmThere would be no need to 'smush' people for a loving being as, with his beaming love everywhere, there wouldn't be people being anything other than loving to each other. Unless, of course, he's no longer in charge. Or, has an alterative motive.
The usual answer to that is free will. It'd be boring for God to create entities that were simply robot copies of itself with less power. Arguably it'd be pointless. It wanted beings that could choose for themselves, arguably because it cares for those beings and wants them to have free will, which is indeed a great gift.

My response is that you don't give a gun to a toddler, but admittedly this is coming from the place of my own cynicism. It's for everyone to judge whether free will is worth it. If even one person does, then maybe it was worth it.
The usual response to that is 'why limit free will'? Why does the idea of free will have to include doing bad things and or being robots?
How can God be bored? Unless he is 'everything', which would mean the negative things, too. Then I suppose he could be or get bored.

But this thread isn't about free will or the like, it's about does this mean the ultimate outcome (eternal heaven) mean more to people than actual knowledge of something in the here and now?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

Post Reply