What Would You Ask God?

[Fred Cole]

This is a thread from another place, but I thought I'd post it here and we could kick it around:

If you could ask God just one question, .... What would you ask?

I'm an atheist, so the question rests on the existence of God, which the more I thought about it, would turn my world upside down.

I began asking for details, like how did I know it was God, what proof did he offer?

This was a bad thing to post in a forum full of theists.

But, I thought it might produce interesting results here.

[william.scherk]

I would ask 'which one of you is the real gawd?'

Which brings to mind Richard Dawkins's quips about Thor, Zeus, Wotan, etcetera. Most Christians are completely atheist with regard to Thor, Zeus, Wotan (and on and on) says he, the rascal.

I also think that the question is better placed in a believer forum. I surmise that the most honest questions would be cognates to 'Why did you kill Little Billy (my mom, my sister, the Jews, etc).'

Head-exploding time for those who are taught not to question gawd. The answer is apparently in scripture, but the theologists would lose tenure if they actually gave the honest/truthful answer, which is something like 'I don't have a fucking clue.'

Another question, should gawd refuse to incriminate himself, might be, 'What exactly do you do all day?'

Edited January 14, 2013 by william.scherk

[BaalChatzaf]

Only one question:

Nu?????

[Jonathan]

I'd pose the standard version of the omnipotence paradox: God, can you create a stone so heavy that even you cannot lift it?

J

[Jerry Biggers]

This is a thread from another place, but I thought I'd post it here and we could kick it around:

If you could ask God just one question, .... What would you ask?

I'm an atheist, so the question rests on the existence of God, which the more I thought about it, would turn my world upside down.

I began asking for details, like how did I know it was God, what proof did he offer?

This was a bad thing to post in a forum full of theists.

But, I thought it might produce interesting results here.

I am assuming that this question is being asked of an atheist (such as an Objectivist). In that case, it is a trick question (or as Rand would say, "improper"). Why? Because the question itself, presumes that there there is a god. By answering, you are accepting that premise (the existence of god). See discussions of the "fallacy of the stolen concept."

"the fallacy consists of the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends."

- Nathaniel Branden, "The Stolen Concept," The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol 2, January 1963.; and in The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism, pp. 45-46

The whole epistemological illogic of the Concept of God is also discussed in detail in the chapter of that name in Branden: The Vision of Ayn Rand.

[Brant Gaede]

I believe in me; I believe in thee.

--Brant

ask away, $5 a pop

[Brant Gaede]

I'd pose the standard version of the omnipotence paradox: God, can you create a stone so heavy that even you cannot lift it?

J

Of course! If I want to lift it I'll just make it lighter first.

--Brant

don't want to get a hernia

[Xray]

This is a thread from another place, but I thought I'd post it here and we could kick it around:

If you could ask God just one question, .... What would you ask?

I'm an atheist, so the question rests on the existence of God, which the more I thought about it, would turn my world upside down.

I began asking for details, like how did I know it was God, what proof did he offer?

This was a bad thing to post in a forum full of theists.

But, I thought it might produce interesting results here.

Just curious: what is the name of that forum "full of theists"?

[GALTGULCH8]

Ayn Rand said that it was pointless to argue with anyone who accepted anything on faith, once it became evident that reason carried no weight with them.

I have encountered at least one person who was raised in a religious family and was a churchgoer who appeared to be under the sway of religion but who was willing to listen to reason. Any human being by definition has a volitional conceptual consciousness which he or she might have suppressed in order to accept religious doctrines but it is still there to be awakened.

Richard Dawkins has suggested that it is time for atheists to become more militant in asserting the atheist position.

A recent poll indicates that one of five Americans do not identify with any formal religion although they may be spiritual but not religious.

Doesn't it make sense to be more aggressive, vocal and vigorous in advocating the Objectivist philosophy so that it is heard by those within the religious community who might still be open to hearing a more rational view of existence?

[Roger Bissell]

Dear God...I have some questions...

1. Have you always existed? If not, where did you come from?

2. Isn't it a little harsh to give someone eternal punishment for refusing to suspend the senses and reason you gave them and belief in you on faith? If all life, and all souls, are precious, then why not give them ~all~ eternal life? If Jesus somehow "absorbed" the sins of ~some~ people, why couldn't he just arbitrarily "absorb" the sins of ~everyone~? And since you are omnipotent, why can't you just go in and tweak the rotten-ness from the souls of those who don't accept Jesus as their savior? Win-win. Nobody has to burn forever.

3. Isn't it a little hypocritical to give us moral commandments that you are not willing to exemplify? E.g., getting someone else's fiancee pregnant (adultery), mass murder (The Flood, etc.) And if jealousy is such a sin, why the commandment not to worship other gods? ("The Lord thy God is a jealous God.)

4. Also, if it's not too much to ask: who were the parents of my great-great-grandfather, Pierce B. Bissell (1816-1870)?

Thanks in advance, Big G. Your non-imaginary friend, Roger B.

[william.scherk]

This is a thread from another place, but I thought I'd post it here and we could kick it around:

If you could ask God just one question, .... What would you ask?

I am assuming that this question is being asked of an atheist (such as an Objectivist). In that case, it is a trick question (or as Rand would say, "improper"). Why? Because the question itself, presumes that there there is a god.

Nope. What a tight-ass reaction. The guy said IF. Obviously one has to suspend the usual atheism to answer, but why get all corsetted and finger-waggy? Man .... some atheists ...

Edited January 16, 2013 by william.scherk

[Jerry Biggers]

This is a thread from another place, but I thought I'd post it here and we could kick it around:

If you could ask God just one question, .... What would you ask?

I am assuming that this question is being asked of an atheist (such as an Objectivist). In that case, it is a trick question (or as Rand would say, "improper"). Why? Because the question itself, presumes that there there is a god.

Nope. What a tight-ass reaction. The guy said IF. Obviously one has to suspend the usual atheism to answer, but why get all corsetted and finger-waggy? Man .... some atheists ...

Well, well,.. a few responses:

1) Presumably then, all of the Objectivist philosophy - and certainly its originator - (and the current pretender to her "intellectual heir", Leonard),and all those who subscribe to this philosophy,...have sphinctor disorders (My doctor suggests Lomotil.,,your mileage may differ).. After a suitable laxative, we can all play games and come up with alot of questions such as: "Err, excuse me, but could you tell me exactly where Ayn is right now? Has she finished her long-promised comprehensive statement of her philosophy? Did Jesus help? Is she having interesting discussions with Einstein, Jefferson, Marx, Lenin (She may soon get help to set him as well as Bohr, Heisenberg, etc., on the right path). What does Jesus think about this? Has he read Galt's Speech?" "Have you?"

And on and on. "How many angels could you stand on the head of a pin?" What's wrong with that question? I think you know.

2) How about this for "tight ass" (and no, I can't compete with the ARIans): Either words, concepts, questions have meaning, or they don't A question was asked "If you could ask God one question, what would you ask?" You're right, it started with "If" And that's the point, the questioner is asking you to accept -his premise. If you do, you have already conceded that God exists Any religionist/theist worth his salt would jump on that, "A ha! Then you are not an atheist! Else, why would you be asking a question of what you have previously held to be a non-entity? Isn't that a rather irrational, not to mention, silly thing for an atheist to do?"

3) That answer upsets you? You want to offer me a laxative? Okay, let's reverse the question - by asking the theist an equivalent question, You ask a Catholic, "If Objectivism is correct in its atheist position, what one question would you ask the Pope?" Not a Catholic? Okay, ask a pentecostalist, "If Ayn Rand is correct, what question should you be asking yourself about speaking in tongues? Who were you speaking to?" Too specific? O.K., fill in the same type of question to any religionist. What would their response be? Most likely their response would be along the lines of, "The question is absurd, because it presumes that I agree that no God exists! Therefore, I refuse to accept that question!". .

[jts]

Disclaimer:

I don't believe in God. I have no use for any religion. I have no use for the Bible (or the Koran or any other holy book).

http://youtu.be/q5f1LBYIeIg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm more mushy on religion than I used to be.

Where once I had certainty of a negative, now I carry an admission of ignorance.

I just don't know, one way or the other. At a deep level, I feel I would betray my self-honesty If I claimed I know what I know not.

Will I ever know? Not as things stand right now.

And I'm happy with this limitation. I even found peace in it because I have no nagging doubts. I'm absolutely certain that I don't know if God exists and that I will most likely never know.

I do know this. Something is greater than me and it's called reality. If people want to call that God, then I believe in God. If not, I have to claim lack of knowledge. I simply don't know what else is out there, if anything. I would like there to be a God, but I'm aware that my likes and facts are not the same.

Anyway.

I'll hazard a question to God.

"Even if the traditional stories in religion are correct, it really doesn't matter whether I believe in You, does it?"

(I formulated that with profound gratitude in my heart, but no dogmatic certainties.)

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

This is a thread from another place, but I thought I'd post it here and we could kick it around:

If you could ask God just one question, .... What would you ask?

I am assuming that this question is being asked of an atheist (such as an Objectivist). In that case, it is a trick question (or as Rand would say, "improper"). Why? Because the question itself, presumes that there there is a god.

Nope. What a tight-ass reaction. The guy said IF. Obviously one has to suspend the usual atheism to answer, but why get all corsetted and finger-waggy? Man .... some atheists ...

Well, well,.. a few responses:

1) Presumably then, all of the Objectivist philosophy - and certainly its originator - (and the current pretender to her "intellectual heir", Leonard),and all those who subscribe to this philosophy,...have sphinctor disorders (My doctor suggests Lomotil.,,your mileage may differ).. After a suitable laxative, we can all play games and come up with alot of questions such as: "Err, excuse me, but could you tell me exactly where Ayn is right now? Has she finished her long-promised comprehensive statement of her philosophy? Did Jesus help? Is she having interesting discussions with Einstein, Jefferson, Marx, Lenin (She may soon get help to her set him as well as Bohr, Heisenberg, etc., on the right path). What does Jesus think about this? Has he read Galt's Speech?" "Have you?" And on and on. "How many angels could you stand on a pin?" What's wrong with that question? I think you know.

2) How about this for "tight ass" (and no, I can't compete with the ARIans): Either words, concepts, questions have meaning or they don't A question was asked "If you could ask God one question, what would you ask?" You're right, it started with "If" And that's the point, the questioner is asking you to accept -his premise. If you do, you have already conceded that God exists Any religionist worth his salt would jump on that, "A ha! Then you are not an atheist! Else, why would you be asking a question of what you have previously held to be a non-entity? Isn't that a rather irrational, not to mention, silly thing for an atheist to do?"

3) That answer upsets you? You want to offer me a laxative? Okay, let's reverse the question, You ask a Catholic, "If Objectivism is correct in its atheist position, what one question would you ask the Pope?" Not a Catholic? Okay, ask a pentecostalist, "If Ayn Rand is correct, what question should you be asking yourself about speaking in tongues? Who were you speaking to?" Too specific? O.K., fill in the same type of question to any religionist. What would their response be? Most likely their response would be along the lines of, "The question is absurd, because it presumes that I agree that no God exists! Therefore, I refuse to accept that question!". .

Jerry, rethink your last paragraph. First of all, it's not a good "reversing" of the question. Instead, I'd suggest something along the lines: "If God doesn't exist, then what would you ask an atheist?" The number one question, I think, would be: "If God is dead or doesn't exist, then why be moral?" A good Objectivist, and certain other atheists, would jump on that question in a flash. (See our colleague Joe Rowland's book "Why Morality Needs No God.")

Secondly, as for "refusing to accept" a question because it has a false premise doesn't get you very far down the road in discussions with religious people either. Because these are the very people we ~want~ to entertain the (to them) counterfactual premise that there is no God, and explore the possibility of morality ~without~ God. This is often one of the major stumbling blocks between religious believers and a rational rejection of faith in God.

Thirdly, in Nathaniel's lecture on God, he examined some of the paradoxes such as if God is omnipotent and all-good, then why is there evil? Why is it considered good form to use such arguments (trick questions) ~against~ theists, and utter whim-worship or other pointless irrationality to fantasize briefly about answering a question pointed in the other direction?

Cheers!

REB

P.S. -- Having heard nothing from Heaven since earlier posing my questions, I figure that God realizes most of my questions were just rhetorical, and the last one is something He wants me to figure out on my own. :-)

[Jerry Biggers]

(Edited from original post to clarify what I was saying )

Roger,

O.K., for the moment, I'll go along with this game of asking questions of a non-entity. In that case, I like your questions as formulated in post #10 , but I do have reservations about your post #15. On all three points.

I think my reversing of the question (which I will admit could be formulated more elegantly than my suggestions) is closer to a reversal of the original question, than what you are suggesting. A reversal in this case, would be a re-statement directed back to the theist - he is to answer the question. But instead, you have the theist asking an atheist, "If god doesn't exist. then what would you ask an atheist?" Huh? That's not a reversal. Your second suggested question, is more likely a question that a theist would be asking of an atheist. (And, in fact, theists often do pose this question to non-believers). But I was suggesting a reversal, to turn the tables and ask the theist to answer.

Your second point is that challenging the theist by pointing out that his question requires you to accept a premise which you do not accept, is unlikely to help convince him to re-examine his own beliefs. Well, atheists have offered countless arguments challenging the theists, but to no avail. They continue to beiieve anyway. Why? At least, in part, because the traditional atheist arguments do not cause the theist to question his own premises. (This is also true on questions dealing with altruism).

I think that the Objectivist argument, the "fallacy of the stolen concept," is revolutionary. At least in how Rand is using it. This is why conservatives have got nowhere in challenging collectivism, they don't challenge its premises!. No matter how good the economic arguments for the free market, the majority of the people keep coming back to accept some form of the welfare state/socialism. Again, why? Because they believe that altruism/collectivism is right on moral grounds. No amount of Milton Friedman patiently explaining why capitalism is the best economic system will convince enough people. In their hearts, they are convinced it is immoral.

Now, you are most likely correct that posing the Objectivist argument is not going to convince a lot of theists to reconsider. Partly, that is because most people have decided what they think about the existence of God, at least by college age, and they are not inclined to reconsider once they got it "figured out." I have seen certain prominent objectivist-libertarians, when confronted by an earnest theist, start to backpedal, and claim that that you can come to the same conclusions, ethically and politically, as Rand - but reject her atheism. All this usually does is convince the theist that you are not really sincere in your beliefs.

I do not agree that the majority of the adult populace needs to be converted to Objectivism (this is highly unlikely to happen - now or in the forseeable future. IMHO) in order to save the country, which is what Peikoff is saying when he says 1) That only Objectivism can save us; and 2) those who accept part of Objectivism must instead swallow it whole. But there are essential parts.

Finally, I do not agree that questioning the existence of God, as Branden does in Chapter 4, amounts to "trick" questions. Challenging theistic premises is not a trick. Are you suggesting that they should not be challenged? I am not sure what you are saying here . Of course, you/me/everyone can engage in fantasy questions as idle speculation. Fun, but that would hardly be useful in a serious conversation in, say, a philosophy class (I hope) .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I suppose we could ask a devout Christian or Muslim, etc., if they believed in Objectivism, what would they ask Peikoff.

Michael

[Guyau]

.

What does the dyslectic, agnostic, insomniac do at night?

[BaalChatzaf]

.

What does the dyslectic, agnostic, insomniac do at night?

He skcaj ffo.

ba'al chatzaf

[Jerry Biggers]

I'm more mushy on religion than I used to be.

Where once I had certainty of a negative, now I carry an admission of ignorance.

I just don't know, one way or the other. At a deep level, I feel I would betray my self-honesty If I claimed I know what I know not.

Will I ever know? Not as things stand right now.

And I'm happy with this limitation. I even found peace in it because I have no nagging doubts. I'm absolutely certain that I don't know if God exists and that I will most likely never know.

I do know this. Something is greater than me and it's called reality. If people want to call that God, then I believe in God. If not, I have to claim lack of knowledge. I simply don't know what else is out there, if anything. I would like there to be a God, but I'm aware that my likes and facts are not the same.

Anyway.

I'll hazard a question to God.

"Even if the traditional stories in religion are correct, it really doesn't matter whether I believe in You, does it?"

(I formulated that with profound gratitude in my heart, but no dogmatic certainties.)

Michael

Michael,

Well, I can be as mushy as the next guy. But, in the case of the question originally posed at the start of this thread, I was taking it seriously. As to whether religion (on the existence of God) is correct, from my standpoint, I don't think it holds up to questions posed by skeptics, in general. In the case of the Objectivism, in my opinion, the Randian critique is devastating. The attempts that I have seen by theists to answer Rand/Branden/Smith have been unconvincing (and that is a gross understatement) and for the most part do not even take her critique head-on. Instead, they distort what Rand, etc., said, and attack the strawman that they have constructed. This may work with some believers who are eager to accept such distortion. Others, including me, are not impressed with this tactic (Objectivism may be open to criticism, but not in that manner). When pressed, the theists resort to their usual fallback, faith. That is not an answer, it is an evasion of an answer. Sorry, but on that issue, I totally agree with Rand as stated, for example, in her Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World.

But I digress. In your post, you state, in part, "Something is greater than me and its called reality" Okay, we are part of reality (I think someone called that, "Existence exists." Another guy added, "and only existence exists. There is nowhere else to go." [emphasis in the original oral presentation]. Then, you add, "If people want to call that God, then I believe in God.." Most defenses of Judaeo-Christian position, do not generalize to that extent. That merely obfuscates the issue. They usually are referring to the God of the Bible. That God is a little more active than just being "reality." As presented, he is an active entity, who creates the world and then goes around rearranging the furniture, either responding to prayer, or just because he wants to.

You then add, "If not, then I have to claim lack of knowledge. I simply don't know what else is out there, if anything." If the theist posits that God exists, it is up to him to provide the proof. If he cannot, or you find his explanations unsatisfactory, then he has lost the argument.

Put this issue differently, Someone says, "A green gremlin is sitting on your shoulder" You do not have to prove the gremlin is not there, it is up to the person who postulates that assertion to prove his case. If he cannot demonstrate the existence of the gremlin, then he has lost the argument. The issue is not unresolved. It is settled, unless or until he can prove his assertion.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

I know all those arguments, but they end up at the same place the theists do for me. Essentially both make what I call a claim from omniscience.

The theists claim faith is the way to omniscience and the Objectivist "settled" argument claims lack of proof as the way to omniscience. Or worse. The Objectivist claims he is not omniscient, but the burden of proof is on the other. So far so good. But then he treats this as proof for hard atheism--i.e. proof that a God couldn't possibley exist. In other words, what he says and how he treats the matter are different.

You might call it a stolen omniscience fallacy.

By omniscience here, I mean the capacity to know with certianty information about times and places outside the human capacity to observe.

I take observation both ways spatially from human size, both to outer space and to the quark level on down. The more I learn about both directions, the more I am convinced there are elements that exist that are not suited to perception by the five human senses. (There are actually more senses, but lets say the five traditional ones so we don't go off on a nitpicking tangent due to the different schools of thought. Iinstead lets have the five stand for all of them.)

We do come up with instruments to bring many of these elements to human observation size, but there are still so many unexplained things that I find any claim with certainty about them to be dogma. In my world, we have to wait and see.

Actually, I should say the five senses are not suited to perceiving such elements, not the contrary as I did. That implies growth, which I suspect is the case. To wit, I harbor a speculation that the human being has not stopped evolving (I see no reason that he--or any living species--should have stopped) and that there might be some kind of sense organ that will be a part of our species in the future that we do not have now.

To go by way of example, just becase a plant is blind, that does not mean the light spectrum does not exist. I specualte there are parts of reality humans might not be capable of perceiving right now.

As an extension of that speculation, since there is an enormous amount of subjective accounts from people--during centuries--all saying similar things about religious experiences, I could call them all fools, dishonest or deluded, or I could take the approach of looking at them without prejudice. In fact, making a speculated presumption about data, i.e., looking at all those accounts and treating them all as delusions or not correctly observed, is nothing more than that--a speculated presumption.

In the spirit of raising other possibilities to look into, i.e., not treating a speculated presumption as "settled," I speculate in my own manner on the possibility that these accounts might be half-glimpses from a sense organ still in development, i.e., not fully evolved. (I'm presuming that such evolution would require tens of thousands or hundreds of thousandss of years.)

I could go on and on about this, but I have written about it elsewhere several times.

I only mention it just now to indicate that I do not hold your garden-variety agnosticism that Objectivism "trounces" into a "settled" question of atheism.

I'm very happy with my approach, too. I feel totally honest with me. Like I said above, I am certain of my certainties and I am certain that I do not know what I cannot yet know. So I prefer to say, "I don't know," than "XXX does not (or cannot) exist." I know with certainty I have no means of observing that on a sufficient scale to make such a claim.

I will agree with you that, on a physical basis, a God as protrayed, say, in the Bible, does not exist. I have trouble imagining even the remote possibility of the physical existence of God making wagers with Satan, talking snakes, and so forth.

However, if you start treating those ancient accounts in symbolic terms, you will find they reflect the form of the human psyche. And the human psyche does exist. These tales have been altered and polished over centuries and centuries of retelling before being committed to written form, so the stuff that survived is the stuff that resonated with the majority of people and situations.

This could be accidental storytelling that emerged to reflect the psyche for whatever reason, or it could be an incomplete sense organ struggling to make sense of incomplete perceptions. I find enough merit in both possibilities to consider them both.

Michael

[Guyau]

Michael, when I was a child I had what I think should have been called religious experiences in my culture. I believe I kept them to myself at the time. I’ve mentioned that before, and that I also was having grand mal seizures in those years, though the two sorts of episodes were not at the same time. In the late ’90’s I started having complex partial seizures. They have become well controlled with medication, though I had one last May. I don’t know when I had last had a “religious” experience, but I’m pretty sure it would have been in childhood. Then last spring I had one (not the seizure episode). It was wonderful. It was a perfect spring day. No bugs yet. Since getting our acreage, I have kept that bad vine that takes over down here cut off the trees in our woods. That’s what I was doing that day. It was in the back ravine. I had gone on and on in the green, wrestling in the green, lured into more characters to be uprooted or cut. Just absorbed in that activity in the green on and on. At some point, I realized I did not know where I was or what I was doing. It was only a recognition, nothing disconcerting, and what I had been doing was correct. I had just been in the green in the woods in perfect serenity, working without any reflection, on and on flown free of usual complex ties. I was just green more green.

I would casually call it a religious experience, a very distinct encapsulated experience. It is something purely natural. I don’t know what, yet there is no reason to suppose it is anything supernatural. It sits here fine in the natural world we know when awake with all pistons firing, just like dreams and hallucinations sit here within that world, not the other way around. This is all knowable just fine without yet knowing the neuronal processes and so forth.

You mentioned the ready knowledge that certain portrayals of God in the Bible are of stuff not real. There is something you did not mention in particular, but I put it in that class. That is the concept of God as an intelligent persona not confined to any particular body, indeed pure spirit. This sort of elementary theology, very salient in John, is instantly known false, only valiantly believed true, in our modern world especially. With that sort of cosmic super-intelligence out, God’s a goner. Yes, we can have our anomalous experiences, and some people with specific brain defects can even hear voices, but these experiences, and possible unknown sensors you mentioned, are all set in natural connections here in the natural world. Yes, the human psyche exists, and we know it. Yes, my religious experience exists. But our conception of that experience and the conception of it had by someone experiencing it in, say, the middle ages are as day and night, and I am giving the term religious a meaning dramatically opposed to its meaning to people in those days. There is a connection between them, but it is a connection of explanatory reduction, and in addition, it is death to their God, meaning what we know of religious experience entails that we know no such thing as their God exists in or through those experiences. On their god named God, you seem like me, atheist.

In addition to naturalistic explanatory reductions of their special experiences, we have also the naturalistic explanatory reductions of their constant valuation of God. It is valuation of the good, rising from value and consciousness of it here in its only realm, the realm of natural life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bob, with #19 you’ve satisfied two of the three constraints. Good try, but no cigar.

[Xray]

This is a thread from another place, but I thought I'd post it here and we could kick it around:

If you could ask God just one question, .... What would you ask?

I'm an atheist, so the question rests on the existence of God, which the more I thought about it, would turn my world upside down.

I began asking for details, like how did I know it was God, what proof did he offer?

This was a bad thing to post in a forum full of theists.

But, I thought it might produce interesting results here.

But one can also interpret the question as a hypothetical mind-game (= suppose X is the case [God exists]. What question would you ask)?

My question to God would be: "Why do you exist?"

[jts]

If you asked God a question and if God answered, how would you know it was God that answered?

A boy seemed to be lost and his parents called the police to find him. The police used a helicopter to find him and used a loudspeaker to tell him to go home. The boy went home and said "I think it was God."

[BaalChatzaf]

If you asked God a question and if God answered, how would you know it was God that answered?

A boy seemed to be lost and his parents called the police to find him. The police used a helicopter to find him and used a loudspeaker to tell him to go home. The boy went home and said "I think it was God."

You wouldn't. Anyone daft enough to believe god answers question is daft enough to believe any answer he may get.

Ba'al Chatzaf