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

[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?

[1213]

[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.

But the goal is not really to make people to believe God exists. The goal is that people become righteous. If seeing God does not make you righteous, it would not be useful. And on the other hand, if person can be righteous without seeing God, there is no reason to see God.

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.

I think that is an important point, because you cannot see something that you do not know what it is. For example, if you would not know what a horse is and one would stand right in front of you, you would not know there is a horse. Obviously, you would see it, but you would not know it is a horse. Same can be with God, if you are looking for something else as God, you will not see it, because your definitions are wrong.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to 1213 in post #12]

But the goal is not really to make people to believe God exists. The goal is that people become righteous.

While that is entirely debatable, you can't become righteous if you don't believe in God. Ergo, you have to believe first.

Same can be with God, if you are looking for something else as God, you will not see it, because your definitions are wrong.

While I appreciate you POV here, I don't agree at all. Your POV seems almost mystical in a sense, not very straightforward. Maybe God has been playing games with people for so long you've bought into it totally. I don't play games. Knowledge is too important to do that. If God wants to play games (stand in front of m but not being able to be seen) God can go away. I don't have time for games.

That said, back to thread topic: based on evidence, which is more likely: popular cryptids or God?

[Dimmesdale]

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.

YES!

Do not take the side of either this OR that without EXCEEDING SCRUTINY of MUCH EVIDENCE.

[benchwarmer]

There's no footprints of God. No photos or videos or fossil record evidence.

Ahem.

I think the real question regarding that link is: Did it grow back?

As to the OP, I think Bigfoot is more likely (not that I believe Bigfoot exists at this point). This is primarily because we know animals exist that are similar to humans (apes), we know new species of animals are discovered all the time, and we are not - at least as far as I know - claiming Bigfoot is magical. However, it does seem unlikely at this point that such a large animal could remain hidden on land from human observation.

It's not like if Bigfoot were found we would all start worshipping it. It would just be another animal whose habitat we are likely encroaching on and/or destroying. It would be an interesting find for sure, but not something that would change our understanding of the universe as a whole.

I do firmly believe that if we ever were to discover a god through scientific observation, it would be nothing like many of the caricatures portrayed in holy books given the number of contradictions, inconsistences, and just plain dumb (obviously human) plots put forth.

[Purple Knight]

I do firmly believe that if we ever were to discover a god through scientific observation, it would be nothing like many of the caricatures portrayed in holy books given the number of contradictions, inconsistencies, and just plain dumb (obviously human) plots put forth.

But this is also a human picture frame for the Portrait of God... because you're a human. Presumably. I don't know.

Either way, the god entity might not be as contradictory as portrayed, or it might be more so because it is beyond logic. Now there's a scary thought. Can it make a rock so heavy it can't lift it? Yes. Can it lift that rock? Also yes.

It might be nicer and more humane than portrayed... or it might be even more genocidal and quick to punish. Being beyond logic, it might punish us for what it told us to do because it also expected us not to do that.

It's not like if Bigfoot were found we would all start worshipping it. It would just be another animal whose habitat we are likely encroaching on and/or destroying. It would be an interesting find for sure, but not something that would change our understanding of the universe as a whole.

Why not? Is it just because bigfoot doesn't have phenomenal cosmic power?

Imagine if there was a creature that possessed some human qualities and some animal qualities. Sentient enough perhaps to have rights, but not smart or placid enough to work 40 hours a week as a slave for bread crumbs like the rest of us. So this quasi-human thing can't be integrated into society. It needs thousands of acres to roam in, per individual, to forage enough to keep itself alive. Do we let it have those acres? What if it's human enough to interbreed with our species and there are half-bigfeets who also can't cope with society? Where do they go?

Things that make us reevaluate moral principles even if only in the face of absurd what-if scenarios are the things that change the universe for me. This is why I like good sci-fi so much.

I think the real question regarding that link is: Did it grow back?

......

[Dimmesdale]

It's not like if Bigfoot were found we would all start worshipping it. It would just be another animal whose habitat we are likely encroaching on and/or destroying. It would be an interesting find for sure, but not something that would change our understanding of the universe as a whole.

A thought:

What if the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot really was a supernatural entity rather than a mere animal? What if that is the reason more of its kind haven't been videotaped -- because it uses it's supernatural powers to remain hidden in an especially effective way?

I have watched analyses of the PG film and I am very much impressed by its authenticity and credibility. A suit like that could not have been created in our time without enormous effort and expenditure. The fact that they would have attached bouncing breasts and that the musculature flexes so well on film, are other aspects which to my mind lend it credibility.

But anyway, assuming it was just an animal, in 1963,.... that assumes there were at least up to that time populations, communities of it, that would have escaped detection for decades in the American west. Would it be more plausible to think such animals would have lived and been dispersed in the New World, despite the fact of no other ape like creatures exists living in close proximity in North America.... They were an outlier, then. They escaped extinction, detection, and also no real fossil records.... that is impressive. If this were a spirit being only taking on physical form for a time, that would better explain these things, rather than if it were a dumb animal without the capacity for human-level complexity of thought and subterfuge.

But of course, most naturalists balk at this because it doesn't gell with their presuppostions.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Again, The Bible is clear the universe itself is sufficient evidence for a Creator, and that man is without excuse for not believing despite this (Rom 1:20).

I tend to agree.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #17]

Start a thread of the Patterson-Gimlin film, and lets discuss it there. I am fascinated by the whole thing, quite frankly.

[1213]

...While that is entirely debatable, you can't become righteous if you don't believe in God. ...

Please explain why do you think so and what do you think righteous means?

[benchwarmer]

It's not like if Bigfoot were found we would all start worshipping it. It would just be another animal whose habitat we are likely encroaching on and/or destroying. It would be an interesting find for sure, but not something that would change our understanding of the universe as a whole.

A thought:

What if the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot really was a supernatural entity rather than a mere animal? What if that is the reason more of its kind haven't been videotaped -- because it uses it's supernatural powers to remain hidden in an especially effective way?

First, if this Bigfoot is supernatural then it could likely not be filmed at all as it would not belong to the natural world. i.e. if we can observe it, it has become part of our natural world, regardless of how weird or wonderful it might be.

I have watched analyses of the PG film and I am very much impressed by its authenticity and credibility. A suit like that could not have been created in our time without enormous effort and expenditure. The fact that they would have attached bouncing breasts and that the musculature flexes so well on film, are other aspects which to my mind lend it credibility.

But anyway, assuming it was just an animal, in 1963,.... that assumes there were at least up to that time populations, communities of it, that would have escaped detection for decades in the American west. Would it be more plausible to think such animals would have lived and been dispersed in the New World, despite the fact of no other ape like creatures exists living in close proximity in North America.... They were an outlier, then. They escaped extinction, detection, and also no real fossil records.... that is impressive. If this were a spirit being only taking on physical form for a time, that would better explain these things, rather than if it were a dumb animal without the capacity for human-level complexity of thought and subterfuge.

But of course, most naturalists balk at this because it doesn't gell with their presuppostions.

What it doesn't gell with is repeatable observation. Anything can be claimed to exist if we slap the 'supernatural' label on it and we are left with an unfalsifiable claim. Maybe that was a Leprechaun disguised as an ape out for walk looking for gold. This claim is no less 'valid' than claiming Bigfoot is a supernatural entity and that's why it's hard to find.

Keep in mind I'm not saying Bigfoot does not exist. If it does, like many things such as gods, fairies, etc., there is currently no clear definition for it or verifiable evidence of it so slapping extra labels on it to make it more plausible is a futile exercise. If they exist as an animal, we are going to eventually find solid evidence for it. If it's supernatural, we will never be able to explain it as by definition, we cannot observe the supernatural since it would exist outside of nature.

All we can say for sure about the PG film is that something was definitely filmed. Was it an ape well out of it's habitat? Perhaps escaped from a zoo? Was it a man in an elaborate costume? Was it an animal we have no prior observation of?

What we shouldn't do is claim "It's bigfoot!". What we should do is say "I don't know yet without further evidence". For some reason some people are deeply troubled by having unanswered questions and feel the need to cry 'supernatural' so they can move on.