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?

[brunumb]

If we observe a door handle opening by itself every 15 minutes, and we have ruled out gravity, magnetism, a breeze, etc, all as factors that could influence its being opened. If we have done this under lab conditions and with many witnesses, we at least must revise our whole understanding of natural laws. Period.

I suppose that might be the case if such an event ever occurred. Has it? How does one rule out all natural causes when there may be some that are yet to be discovered. Appealing to the supernatural is not warranted until the supernatural can be established as genuine and not just the equivalent of 'magic'. It seems more appropriate that any event attributed to the supernatural should be considered as natural but as yet unknown. Recognising the existence of the supernatural without evidence just seems to be a way of letting gods in through the back door.

[Dimmesdale]

It seems more appropriate that any event attributed to the supernatural should be considered as natural but as yet unknown.

The truly unbiased thing to do would be to treat every event whose nature is unknown to NEITHER natural or supernatural causation. In other words, agnosticism is the only truly rational position. Not defaulting either to the left or right. In matters scientific.

[nobspeople]

[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.

I would be into that, as well. There's much more evidence outside the PGF we could explore!

[nobspeople]

...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?

In order to be righteous before God, you have to accept God's definition of righteousness. To do that, you have to accept God is real and understand what righteousness means to him. At least if one wants to be honest about it. Otherwise, they could say anything to pacify others.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #26]

There is no doubt far more evidence for God, both anecdotal and non-anecdotal, than for any cryptid.

I wouldn't agree as I've found there are way more cryptids than God. Multiple individual cultures have their own experiences of multiple cryptids, if you take experiences as evidence and not belief.
That said, if you want to take all the differing ideas of 'God' (this group says God meant this, that group said God meant that, for example) that may be different.

For many people, yes, eternal salvation means more to them than "actual" knowledge.

Why do you think that is? Does it make them 'feel good'? Does it allow them to relinquish control? What are your thoughts?

[1213]

...In order to be righteous before God, you have to accept God's definition of righteousness. ...

By what the Bible tells, that is not necessary. In Bible righteousness is wisdom of the just, like right understanding. There is no reason why person could not have that even if he has not heard of God’s definition for righteous.

I think person could be counted righteous, even if he has not heard the word or it definition, because:

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it isn't the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified (for when Gentiles who don't have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
Romans 2:12-16

[nobspeople]

...In order to be righteous before God, you have to accept God's definition of righteousness. ...

By what the Bible tells, that is not necessary. In Bible righteousness is wisdom of the just, like right understanding. There is no reason why person could not have that even if he has not heard of God’s definition for righteous.

I think person could be counted righteous, even if he has not heard the word or it definition, because:

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it isn't the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified (for when Gentiles who don't have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
Romans 2:12-16

So an atheist can be righteous? Or someone who worships another god? After all, anyone can be wise of the just and understand things correctly.

[RJG]

I think god is the least likely. About 25 years ago when we were on holiday in Scotland and visiting Loch Ness, I thought I saw a something in the loch which looked liked my idea of of Nessie, it was probably my imagination. Even when I was a Christian as a kid, I never had any experience convincing me that god existed.

[nobspeople]

I think god is the least likely. About 25 years ago when we were on holiday in Scotland and visiting Loch Ness, I thought I saw a something in the loch which looked liked my idea of of Nessie, it was probably my imagination. Even when I was a Christian as a kid, I never had any experience convincing me that god existed.

I had many 'religious' experiences - several profound - that convinced me, at the time, God was real and active in my life. As I grew up and matured, experienced others and their religions (or lack of), watched the infighting of 'Christians' and how many of these 'Christians' acted nothing like a Christian should (with the exception of murder, I've seen these 'Christians' commit all sorts of sins constantly), I started to doubt my faith.
As I started to study the paranormal and cryptozoology, I've realized how incredibly easy it is for people to create their own god, their own belief system - spiritual pareidolia as I call it. Combine all of these things, and I finally unshackled myself from modern Christianity and the modern 'understanding' of the Christian god.
So for me, while I'll never say 'There is no god, period!' I'm honest enough with myself to accept that, while possible, the god so many follow exists only in their minds. I've seen much more literal evidence of ghosts, shadow people, bigfoot, dogman, Jersey Devil, Dover Demon, Nessie, Mokele-mbembe, et al, than the Christian's god.

[1213]

...So an atheist can be righteous? Or someone who worships another god? After all, anyone can be wise of the just and understand things correctly.

I think person with correct understanding wouldn’t say “God doesn’t exist”, nor would keep something wrong as his God, like for example a golden calf.