Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Steve O on 30 Jun 2008 06:26 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:bda38129-da05-4ba6-9411-e74f325c8f9a(a)i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > Well, if there was an atheist anywhere who would admit that the verses > of the Bible which describe the construction of the tunnel were true, > then we could discuss other verses. As long as atheists claim that > Hezekiah's tunnel is a myth, then we will just discuss Hezekiah's > tunnel. > Robert B. Winn <Sigh> Okay, I'll bite. I'll accept that Hezekiah's tunnel exists and is mentioned in the bible (but we'll ignore the fact that other tunnels such as Warren's Shaft and the Middle Bronze Age Channel don't get a mention) Now, what else would you like to discuss? -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack, Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence "I have a miraculous picture of Jesus - if you look really closely at the face, you can see a burnt tortilla"
From: The Natural Philosopher on 30 Jun 2008 06:44 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 2:11 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 27, 6:54�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: >>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>> news:93faee1e-7aa9-4f18-b761-3a585ebcbaf0(a)v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Jun 26, 5:05 am, RobertL <robertml...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Jun 26, 4:48 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 25, 7:27?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Actually, you ought to consider the consequences of a proof by God >>>>>>>> that he does not exist. >>>>>>> If that were to happen, people would have no choice except to believe >>>>>>> in God. >>>>>>> Why should anyone believe in a proven non-existent god? >>>>>> Proven by whom? >>>> By god himself! >>>>> A proof is a proof; it doesn't matter who proved it. >>>>> Robert >>>> Well, if there was no one who proved it, and nothing was proven, then >>>> it did not happen. >>>> ----------------------------------- >>>> Just like your bible stories. >>> Well, I believed in the story of Hezekiah's tunnel being dug, and sure >>> enough, there is a tunnel there today, just as the Bible says there >>> is. How do you explain it? >> ER..there was a tunnel? >> >> So what? >> >> >> >>> Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, if there was an atheist anywhere who would admit that the verses > of the Bible which describe the construction of the tunnel were true, > then we could discuss other verses. As long as atheists claim that > Hezekiah's tunnel is a myth, then we will just discuss Hezekiah's > tunnel. I never claimed Hezekiahs tunnel was a myth. I have no opinion and no data. I never claimed the Bible was all myth either. Just that some of it was. Its a collection of orally transmitted folkloer: some of it is family history, some of its is mythology, some of it is legal precendent, and some of it is philosophy. The new testament is largely Roman propaganda. You have to realize that Catholicism was a tool used to prop up an Empire created by an invading army. In the same way that today people preach 'freedom and democracy'. The romans being less stupid and more cynical, decided that instead of an army, they could send in priests to preach pacifism and brotherly love, which if possible would prevent too much need for the army. They then took oer all the N European pagan rituals and 'sanctified' them which is why we have the Birth celebrated at Christ-mass (who ever heard of sheep grazing out on the hills in mid winter) and the crucifixion celebrated (why one wold want to celebrate hanging someone who was supposed to be the goopd guy) at Easter, which is of course the festival of Oestrus, the Hare goddess of copulation and fertility.. Whether or not the world was created by a god, or just naturally, is an open question: whether or not the Church and religion was created by human beings, with intelligence and purpose, is not. It was. > Robert B. Winn
From: The Natural Philosopher on 30 Jun 2008 06:52 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 1:54 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 27, 12:34 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 26, 3:56�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 27, 6:09 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>>>>>> W.A. Sawford wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 5:05� am, RobertL <robertml...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 4:48� am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 7:27�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Well, if no one proved it, then it was not proven. � All you have done >>>>>>>>> is to say it was proven without showing any proof or anyone who is >>>>>>>>> suppsed to have done it. �Atheists have said they have proven all >>>>>>>>> manner of things. �Almost always it turns out to be something some >>>>>>>>> individual atheist put together that sounds good to other atheists. >>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>> I wasn't going to get involved in all this (unless it's Friday, which it >>>>>>>> isn't) but I can't stand it any longer (sigh). >>>>>>>> 'Atheists have said they have proven all manner of things.' >>>>>>>> Well, what exactly have they claimed to have proved, and which atheists >>>>>>>> have claimed it? �Atheists don't actually need to 'prove' anything, >>>>>>>> because there is not a shred of evidence that god exists in the first >>>>>>>> place. The onus is not on atheists to prove the non-existence of god any >>>>>>>> more than the non-existence of the ravening bug-blatter beast of Traal. >>>>>>> Completely wrong. The concept of God is not a scientific hypotheis, nor >>>>>>> a fact. >>>>>>> So it can't be proven or disproven. >>>>>>> Its simply a shorthand for 'all the wide and wonderful stuff we cant get >>>>>>> a handle on; and feel scared by' more or less. >>>>>>> Atheism isn't so much denying His existence, nor yet keeping and open >>>>>>> mind on the subject (agnostic) its merely sidestepping the whole mess as >>>>>>> something one can simply do without. >>>>>>>> Show me some real evidence and I'll think about belief. Although actual >>>>>>>> evidence would of course remove the need for belief in the first place... >>>>>>> That's the whole point. Belief is a state of mind that has utility. Its >>>>>>> a little bit of Wise-ardry. Headology. >>>>>>> Wise-ards understand that believing in something is an action, not a >>>>>>> statement about its existence, or lack thereof. >>>>>>>> Wendy >>>>>> Your "god" is yours. �Different people have more or less >>>>>> anthropomorphic ideas of gods. �And the claim wasn't so much that your >>>>>> god of gaps was disproven (that would be a misnomer, as you're >>>>>> suggesting god is the stuff we don't know), but the literal biblical >>>>>> god is provably false. �The most obviously wrong points would be the >>>>>> age of the universe, origin of species/types, and a world-wide flood. >>>>>> There are lots of other smaller details that are contradictory to >>>>>> reality as well, but could more easily be argued as lack of knowledge >>>>>> by transcribers. >>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> So scientists can be proven wrong by >>>> Correct. >>>> Religious beliefs cannot be proven wrong, because they are not a >>>> scientific theory: Since religion predicts nothing that can be tested, >>>> its is never open to challenge on a scientific basis. >>>> their belief in the Loerentz >>>>> equations, which requires a miracle to describe relativity of time. >>>>> But a miracle described by equations is OK if it results in >>>>> appropriations from public revenues so that scientists can do >>>>> research, while miracles to feed the hungry are not allowed by >>>>> science. >>>> A 'miracle' is worthy of funding if it can be tested and leads to >>>> consistent results. >>>>> Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text - >>> Well, that was what the people who were fed by the loaves and fishes >>> said also. I do not personally see any reason to be giving scientists >>> trillions of dollars every year just because they say they believe in >>> one miracle. >> Thats not the reason why they get trillions of dollars, they get that >> for all the billions of little miracles that scienece has already made >> happen, like this machine you are looking at. >> >> In the compute stakes, >> >> Science 100% >> God 'Null point' >> >> Its not My fault that you are confusing religion and science and want to >> compare them: they are not comparable. >> >> Neither science nor religion are what you believe them to be. That's the >> trouble with belief in general. It very easy to believe in things that >> don't help, and are probably false. >> > Well, people today do that all of the time. Almost everything they > believe is propaganda. Indeed: Why cannot you extend that to yourself, and the Bible? You are half way there. You have seen that mostly waht people think about stuff is what they have been told or taught to thunk. The only difference bewteen you and me, is that I extended that to myself,and assumed that I also belived in a bunch of junk, and made a hard conscious descision to believe in as little as possible, in order to maintain a critical facility for everything, and even what I did blelive in, was not adhered to as an article of faith, merely as an af hoc predicate to conscious thought. In my humble arrogance, I think this makes me a truer Christian than you... > Robert B. Winn
From: The Natural Philosopher on 30 Jun 2008 07:09 BuddyThunder wrote: > rbwinn wrote: >> On Jun 29, 1:54 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>> rbwinn wrote: >>>> On Jun 27, 12:34 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>> Neither science nor religion are what you believe them to be. That's the >>> trouble with belief in general. It very easy to believe in things that >>> don't help, and are probably false. >>> >> Well, people today do that all of the time. Almost everything they >> believe is propaganda. > > How can you know anything about the world if not through scientific > inquiry? What if you picked the wrong religion?! Do you hate knowledge? Religion at the Faith level, is a way out of te cinundrum opf lies and falsehoods the civilisation surrounds itself in. iTs a half way house: by strict adherence to a path of Faith, humans avoid all te traps of bullshit that people set for them, except one. The trap of bullshit that Faith itself represents. So a man with Faith, and no reason, is somewhat better off than one with no Faith and no Reason. He will at least not be superstitiously afarid of every dark corner where a bogey man MIGHT lurk. Faith if you like reformulates the emotinal relationship between man and his environment into a single focus, where all fears and all hopes are encapsulated in one system. This for the superstitious, is an advance. However that system instead of becoming a useful stick, becomes an indispensable crutch. Such individuals are addicted to Faith. It is of course why religion is so good at 'curing' addicts: they replace one addiction with another less deleterious (physically) addiction. The trick is of course having risen above the multifarious bullshit that comprises what people think say and do, to also rise above the multifarious bullshit that comprisies what religious people think, say and do. DIY spiritual enlightenment as it were. I think its mentioned in the Bible somewhere 'No man comes to the Father except by me' well yes, what it doesn't say though is that the Way and the End are the same, or having got as far as Jesus you have to stop. Its far too shocking for most god btheres to even conceive that actually the Atheists are in the lead in the spiritual race as it were. "he that have ears, let him hear" ...well yea verily and toute cette crapola. We talk, we say, those with ears may listen, or go blindly unto death with their heads and hearts full of mythconceptions. in the grand scheme of things it matters not one Iota, except that it does seem a bit of a waste of a life sometimes. Robbie stumbles in here, trying perhaps to convert, or to understand. We can do no less than reflect his intention back to him, and try to convert, and make him understand what Atheism, at least on whatever level we ourselves understand it to be, is. It most certainly is not what he professes to think it is.
From: Alex W. on 30 Jun 2008 07:28
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:c16b095b-8e40-44db-9064-d22b0664b4aa(a)l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... God does not need support. Do you think God is a politician? =========== Sure he does. Otherwise, why bother with a Chosen People? |