Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 20 Jun 2008 18:40 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 19, 12:06�am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> Well, what you are saying is that the Biblical account of the Assyrian >>> invasion of Judea is fiction. �What part of it do you claim is >>> fiction? �So far we have discussed the earthen ramp and Hezekiah's >>> tunnel. �Are you still claiming that those are fiction? >> You're still claiming London doesn't exist, huh? >> >> I don't know either account, so really don't have an opinion. Have you >> considered that maybe neither account is accurate? If pressed, I would >> go with the explanation with the best evidential support. I don't have a >> reason to decide at this point. >> >> Happy to be agnostic on something! > > OK, well, my opinion is that unless an atheist has an opinion about > Hezekiah's tunnel and the earthen ramp, it is a waste of time to try > to discuss the Bible with that person. Wow, why would you say that? It's a minor Biblical detail. They exist, is that opinion enough?
From: BuddyThunder on 20 Jun 2008 18:41 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 19, 8:30 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> On Jun 20, 10:00 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 19, 12:06�am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>> Well, what you are saying is that the Biblical account of the Assyrian >>>>> invasion of Judea is fiction. �What part of it do you claim is >>>>> fiction? �So far we have discussed the earthen ramp and Hezekiah's >>>>> tunnel. �Are you still claiming that those are fiction? >>>> You're still claiming London doesn't exist, huh? >>>> I don't know either account, so really don't have an opinion. Have you >>>> considered that maybe neither account is accurate? If pressed, I would >>>> go with the explanation with the best evidential support. I don't have a >>>> reason to decide at this point. >>>> Happy to be agnostic on something! >>> OK, well, my opinion is that unless an atheist has an opinion about >>> Hezekiah's tunnel and the earthen ramp, it is a waste of time to try >>> to discuss the Bible with that person. >>> Robert B. Winn >> Then why do you keep trying to discuss the bible with everyone? You >> were the one to raise the issue of the tunnel. No-one since has >> argued that the tunnel doesn't exist. Was there some other detail of >> the tunnel you wanted to discuss? The methods of stone work maybe? >> The previous two water courses? >> > Well, atheists were saying the Bible was not true. So I just pointed > out that it was true. Atheists became very upset that I would say > this. That is a bad summation of this thread. Really bad!
From: BuddyThunder on 20 Jun 2008 18:47 rbwinn wrote: <snip> >>> Suggest whatever you want to suggest. So does Hezekiah's tunnel exist >>> or not? Does the earthen ramp over the city wall at Lachish exist or >>> not? >> How about London? > > I actually do some work for a man from London. He does not believe in > Harry Potter either. He must be lying, you don't believe in London. It can't exist, because Harry Potter is fiction, right?
From: Antares 531 on 20 Jun 2008 18:55 On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:45:40 +1200, BuddyThunder <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >Antares 531 wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:21:10 +0100, "Steve O" <nospamhere(a)thanks.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>> news:81b43f22-3a29-4b8e-b9f2-819f09384aa1(a)u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com... >>> >>>> I do not get flattered by atheists. If you do not believe in God, >>>> prove it. Find something else to talk about. >>>> Robert B. Winn >>> I can certainly prove to you that I do not believe in God. >>> >> I'm sure yours was a fully volitional choice, made possible by reason >> of the evidence being quite well balanced to support a decision in >> either direction. You weren't overwhelmed and forced to knuckle under, >> as would certainly have been the situation had there been rock solid >> objective evidence that you could not overwhelm. > >I certainly hope that was the case too. > >> I still don't understand how life could have started, spontaneously, >> and why there was such a flourish of what seems to have been a very >> well orchestrated explosion of life forms during the Cambrian period, >> unless there was an intelligent designer in control. Gordon > >I don't know how life started either, but for me to conclude that God >must have dunnit would just be intellectually lazy. The cambrian >explosion was well-orchestrated? In what way? > It was well orchestrated in that it moved very rapidly, without faltering, in terms of geological/evolutionary time, and it produced the necessary end results quite effectively, then quit, or slowed the pace remarkably. I understand your position on the God or chance set of questions, but I just can't resolve the chance side of this argument. It would be somewhat like saying that it is statistically possible for a tornado to sweep through a pine forest, snap off a bunch of logs, then assemble them into a log cabin. I just don't think it has ever happened, and if someone tried to convince me that it had, I'd be a hard headed skeptic. As to being intellectually lazy, I think this is the prudent description of those who refuse or decline to look into the available information and try to build reinforcement for believing in God. Of course we're back to that, "It can't be objectively proven." barrier, but this also applies to spontaneous creation of life. Be that as it may, quantum physics provides us with a lot of insights into things that seem amazingly congruent with the idea of God's existence. Quantum entanglements or something very similar could provide means for the mind of God, on a cosmic scale. Super String - Membrane Theory (SSM Theory) posits a multiverse consisting of the perceivable universe and other space/time universes, much in harmony with the Bible's information on the levels of Heaven. When Jesus did those "miracles" mentioned in the Bible, was he really doing miracles outside the natural laws of the multiverse, or was he manipulating things back and forth between some of those other universes? If indeed He was the creator of this multiverse, it seems that he could have means for unrolling those other dimensions a bit such that they were actively associated with this perceivable universe. Maybe that is what He did when he appeared to be walking on water. Could He have been walking down a solid path "street of gold" in the first level of Heaven, but with the dimensions unrolled to somewhat more than a Planck length, such that he was visible to the men in the boat? Gordon
From: BuddyThunder on 20 Jun 2008 18:58
rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 19, 7:48�am, Ye Old One <use...(a)mcsuk.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 04:56:42 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> enriched this group when s/he wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 18, 6:01?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:29:16 -0700 (PDT), "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA >>>> Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>> On Jun 19, 8:19 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 18, 12:10 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>>> You say all this on the basis of absolutely no evidence. >>>>>> OK, so once again you are saying that the earthen ramp and Hezekiah's >>>>>> tunnel do not exist because there is no evidence of the Assyrian >>>>>> invasion of Judea. ?Well, what about the pillar in Ninevah with >>>>>> Sennacherib's account? ?Are you saying that does not exist also? >>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>> Do you ever stay on topic? ?Have you finished accusing people of >>>>> saying things they didn't? >>>> Isn't it amazing how completely dishonest he is in his reading of what >>>> others say? >>> The topic was the Assyrian invasion of Judea. �An atheist said there >>> was absolutely no evidence of this topic. >> Who? When? >> >>> I was saying there was. >> But little of it matches up with the characters of the fictionalized >> biblical version. >> >>> Robert B. Winn >> -- >> Bob.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > The Biblical version is obviously the true one. Obviously how? |