Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Alex W. on 7 Jul 2008 08:47 <hhyapster(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6104bae3-7547-488d-a4a3-d51e1615fb15(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 5, 6:53 pm, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:62956527-c824-415d-93ab-cdbf47127a02(a)k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 4, 9:37 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> >> > For the umpteenth time, we cannot tell Jesus anything. >> > If he existed at all, he died nearly 2,000 years ago. >> > Apart from an alleged brief visit shortly afterward, he hasn't been >> > seen >> > since. >> > How can we tell him anything, huh? >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> Well, it is called prayer. Christians are commanded to pray. >> >> ==================== >> >> And you're sure your prayer gets through ... even though no-one in the >> history of Christian prayer has ever answered. You know, if I dial a >> number >> and get no connection, I may try a few more times, but sooner or later I >> realise that there's no phone at the other end .... > > The real trouble is, Alex, the loon never even try to dial. > Worse, a lot of them dialed but no tone or connection and still think > the number is right. > They tried and tried and tried.....until the last breath, still no > connection.....sad. That's not the real trouble. They do try to dial. Again and again and again. And then they dial their own number and end up speaking to themselves -- a closed loop that will always deliver the answers already present in the questioner's mind. It's the perfect conversation ....
From: Richard Meredith on 7 Jul 2008 09:06 In article <sba274h0m6sfce2dq2q7nqsrh2lca5pnva(a)4ax.com>, lunch(a)nofreelunch.us (Free Lunch) wrote: > *From:* Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> > *Date:* Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:24:39 -0500 > > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:25 +0100 (BST), richard(a)rmeredith.co.uk (Richard > Meredith) wrote in alt.atheism: > > >In article <dv3v641nlblt9lrl26j45pnb5v085e8m9o(a)4ax.com>, > >lunch(a)nofreelunch.us (Free Lunch) wrote: > > > >> >Atheists, theists - what's the difference? They're both equally > >> dogmatic > >> >that what they happen to believe is the one and only version of > the >> truth, > >> >despite a complete inability to prove it - or even put up a > decent >> set of > >> >repeatable and verifiable evidence that supports their position. > >> > >> What rubbish. Atheists say they don't believe in gods. The lack of > >> evidence for gods is sufficient not to believe in them. It is not > >> necessary for atheists to prove that gods do not exist to not > believe >> in > >> them. Do you believe in Thor because you cannot prove he does not > >> exist? > > > >I don't believe in Thor but that doesn't give me any authority to > insist > >on his nonexistence to someone who does: if someone does, or claims > to, > >that's their business and none of mine. The atheists who have the > marked > >similarity to theists are not those who happen not to share the > beliefs > >of the theists, but are content to let them believe whatever they > want to, > >but those who get in longwinded, dogmatic and frequently ill-tempered > >arguments about who is right, despite neither side having any real > >evidence either that they are right or that their opponent is wrong. > > Once again, you erroneously equate the lack of evidence that the > theists > have with the lack of evidence that those who reject the doctrine of > the > theists. They are not equivalent. In all analysis of whether A exists, > it is appropriate and necessary to start with the assumption that A > does > not exist and find evidence to disprove it. You defend silly claims, > the > flakier the better, because there is no evidence that the silly claim > is > false. If a claim is silly then evidence will exist that it is silly. If no such evidence exists there is no justification for describing it as silly. Your argument, therefore, is one of defending prejudice, since you are assuming that the position you are attacking is silly, without evidence that it is anything of the sort. There is an equal lack of evidence that the doctrines of theists and strong atheists are correct; in the lack of such evidence there is no justification for assuming that there is any fundamental difference in the status of a viewpoint supported by faith.
From: Ben Dolan on 7 Jul 2008 11:14 rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: > According to scripture unless a prayer is asked in faith it will not > be answered. > Robert B. Winn And according to empirical evidence, a prayer asked in faith will not be answered either.
From: Ben Dolan on 7 Jul 2008 11:35 rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: > > >>> There is always possession .... > > >> And actually the one thing we do know about spirit, is that is i NOT > > >> limited to an earthly body, so it can move independently of it if it > > >> wants. > > > > > The spirit of a human being wants to stay in the body because that is > > > the best place for it until the person dies. > > > > Where in the body is it housed? > > The entire body. > Robert B. Winn That's adorable! A child scientist educating us atheists about spirits! Tell me, Bobby, just how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?
From: Steve O on 7 Jul 2008 11:55
"The Natural Philosopher" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:1215427919.25085.1(a)proxy01.news.clara.net... > BuddyThunder wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 6, 11:04�am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>>> Alex W. wrote: >>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:b9d055c5-7a5b-4534-9703-63f1e75e9648(a)56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... >>>>> Your spirit is made of spirit. �You cannot transplant it. >>>>> ======= >>>>> There is always possession .... >>>> And actually the one thing we do know about spirit, is that is i NOT >>>> limited to an earthly body, so it can move independently of it if it >>>> wants. >>>> >>>> So yet one more lie from robbo. >>> >>> The spirit of a human being wants to stay in the body because that is >>> the best place for it until the person dies. >> >> Where in the body is it housed? > > In the same place a program is housed in a computer? In the hard drive? -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence > |