Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Darrell Stec on 20 Jun 2008 19:41 mitch.nicolas.raemsch(a)gmail.com wrote: > Science cannot explain a rainbow. Science explains a rainbow very well. > After all how do the refracting > raindrops form an arc or a circle from the sky? > Your ignorance of science is noted. But you should not equate your ignorance with that of scientists. > It can't be explained. It not only can be explained but is explained in about any science textbook from grade school on up. In fact there is a popular kid's science program on TV that tackles that question at least once a year. > That is evidence for God. > No it is not. > Mitch Raemsch -- Later, Darrell Stec darstec(a)neo.rr.com Webpage Sorcery http://webpagesorcery.com We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
From: BuddyThunder on 20 Jun 2008 19:49 Antares 531 wrote: > 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. It was a remarkable arms race, alright. > 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. It's not like that at all. The analogy might be more effective if you could get the bits that happen to blow into right configuration to stick together inside the tornado. But the analogy still fails because it assumes a log cabin is the target, evolution is undirected towards any target. > 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. I haven't seen any reason to believe in Zeus, Odin, Allah or Jehovah. > 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. This is a nice flight of fancy. Pure speculation though. > 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 Did Jesus even exist? If so, are the accounts of his life reliable? They certainly aren't contemporary with him.
From: Smiler on 20 Jun 2008 19:56 "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwhipp(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:0031b0a4-7361-43c8-a329-7be595f6a1bf(a)j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com... On Jun 19, 10:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jun 18, 9:19 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 1:18 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 18, 5:41?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:07:49 -0700 (PDT), asilentskeptic > > > > <asilentskep...(a)gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > > >On Jun 18, 12:51 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >> > On Jun 16, 11:29 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> >> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >> >>> On Jun 16, 1:19 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >> >>>>> On Jun 16, 12:50 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> > > > > >> >>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>> On Jun 15, 6:32?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:46:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn > > > > >> >>>>>>>> <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 6:33?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:48:13 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 6:52?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:45:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 9:45?pm, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you should explain your ideas to the > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twelve apostles after the > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resurrection takes place, Darrell. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you do not know how many there are (if any) or > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their names > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you just hide behind the statement above to > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cover your > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. ?Just like in your failed attempts to > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> argue > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics, you do not even know enough to argue your > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs and have to retreat to claiming ignorance. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not claim ignorance. ?I just told Darrell to > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> look them up > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> himself. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You admit failure, no matter how you describe it. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Why, because Darrell is not going to look them up? ?I > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> do not care what > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Darrell does. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> You told him to look it up because you didn't have the > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> evidence. You ran > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> away from the question.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Nope. ?I told atheists a long time ago I was not going > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> to be their > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> researcher. > > > > >> >>>>>>>> You refuse to do the research to back up your own > > > > >> >>>>>>>> claims. You are no > > > > >> >>>>>>>> one's researcher. You worship ignorance.- Hide quoted > > > > >> >>>>>>>> text - > > > > >> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >> >>>>>>> Well, I did a little ?better than the atheists on > > > > >> >>>>>>> Hezekiah's tunnel > > > > >> >>>>>>> and the ramp over the city wall at Lachish. > > > > >> >>>>>> No. You only think you did. For some reason. Could you > > > > >> >>>>>> tell us why?- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >> >>>>> Yes, I can do that. ?There is an actual earthen ramp built > > > > >> >>>>> by the > > > > >> >>>>> Assyrian army that still exists today. ?There is an actual > > > > >> >>>>> conduit for > > > > >> >>>>> water between Gihon spring and the Pool of Siloam, just as > > > > >> >>>>> the Bible > > > > >> >>>>> says there is. ?The problem that atheists have is that J.K. > > > > >> >>>>> Rowling is > > > > >> >>>>> from northern England. ?When she wrote about Harry Potter > > > > >> >>>>> leaving from > > > > >> >>>>> the train station in London, probably the only thing she > > > > >> >>>>> knew about > > > > >> >>>>> the train station was its name. ? So comparing the Biblical > > > > >> >>>>> account, > > > > >> >>>>> which can be easily verified by going to Israel and looking > > > > >> >>>>> at the > > > > >> >>>>> ramp and the conduit for water, to what J.K. Rowling wrote > > > > >> >>>>> in a book > > > > >> >>>>> which she said was fiction means nothing to me, however > > > > >> >>>>> sacred it may > > > > >> >>>>> be to you atheists. > > > > >> >>>>> Robert B. Winn > > > > >> >>>> So, substituting ... > > > > >> >>>> Yes, I can do that. ?There is an actual major city founded > > > > >> >>>> by the > > > > >> >>>> Romans that still exists today. ?There is an actual railway > > > > >> >>>> station, > > > > >> >>>> just as Harry Potter says there is. > > > > >> >>>> We know that Harry Potter is fiction. You're claiming > > > > >> >>>> Biblical authority > > > > >> >>>> SOLELY on the existence of some mentioned ancient sites. > > > > >> >>>> We're pointing > > > > >> >>>> out that by the same logic, you would be forced to admit > > > > >> >>>> Harry Potter's > > > > >> >>>> authority. If can't t accept its authority, then your > > > > >> >>>> argument need > > > > >> >>>> reexamination. Maybe the Bible needs more support for its > > > > >> >>>> extraordinary > > > > >> >>>> claims.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >> >>> There is also a woman who calls herself J.K. Rowling who says > > > > >> >>> she > > > > >> >>> wrote the Harry Potter books as fiction, regardless of how > > > > >> >>> many > > > > >> >>> atheists believe them. > > > > >> >>> I am not claiming Biblical authority SOLEY on the existence > > > > >> >>> of some > > > > >> >>> mentioned ancient sites. ?An atheist claimed that there was > > > > >> >>> nothing in > > > > >> >>> the Bible that could be verified by anything that exists > > > > >> >>> today, so I > > > > >> >>> mentioned Hezekiah's tunnel. ?It was not an argument. > > > > >> >> We'll have to take your word about the claim, but okay. You > > > > >> >> were > > > > >> >> correct, and I don't think that point is contended. Some > > > > >> >> things in the > > > > >> >> Bible are verifiable. > > > > > >> >>> It was information about something mentioned in the Bible > > > > >> >>> that can be seen > > > > >> >>> today. ?And as we can see, atheists still claim that > > > > >> >>> Hezekiah's tunnel > > > > >> >>> is exactly like Harry Potter leaving for wizard's school, > > > > >> >>> including > > > > >> >>> you. ?No, Hezekiah's tunnel is not exactly like Harry Potter > > > > >> >>> leaving > > > > >> >>> for wizard's school. ?You atheists are not going to be able > > > > >> >>> to > > > > >> >>> convince me that Hezekiah's tunnel is exactly like Harry > > > > >> >>> Potter > > > > >> >>> leaving for wizard's school. ?As long as you continue to try > > > > >> >>> to > > > > >> >>> convince me that Hezekiah's tunnel is exactly like Harry > > > > >> >>> Potter > > > > >> >>> leaving for wizard's school, I will continue to say that you > > > > >> >>> do not > > > > >> >>> believe Hezekiah's tunnel exists because Harry Potter does > > > > >> >>> not exist > > > > >> >>> and wizard's school does not exist. > > > > >> >> Then you would be persisting in your error. If you were simply > > > > >> >> trying to > > > > >> >> say that at least SOME of the Bible is true, then okay, you've > > > > >> >> made your > > > > >> >> point. We thought you were arguing for the accuracy of the > > > > >> >> WHOLE on the > > > > >> >> basis of these minor points. Okay, a whole lot of arguing over > > > > >> >> nothing > > > > >> >> now that we know what your claim really is. (Is that it?) > > > > > >> >> If you are saying that Hezekiah's > > > > > >> >>> tunnel is exactly like Harry Potter leaving for wizard's > > > > >> >>> school, then > > > > >> >>> you are saying that Hezekiah's tunnel does not exist. > > > > >> >> That is of course a deliberate misrepresentation, but I think > > > > >> >> I can > > > > >> >> understand why you're making it now.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > >> > It is not a deliberate misrepresentation. ?The Biblical account > > > > >> > of the > > > > >> > Assyrian invasion of Judea is much more believable than any > > > > >> > other > > > > >> > account of the same events, including the account of > > > > >> > Sennacherib, the > > > > >> > Assyrian king, which is the account that atheists promote > > > > >> > because it > > > > >> > is different from the Biblical one. > > > > > >> You would need to say WHY you find it more believable than the > > > > >> mainstream account if you want any support for your views. I > > > > >> don't have > > > > >> any familiarity with the events in question, so I don't have an > > > > >> opinion > > > > >> either way (or some third, unexplored option), depite being an > > > > >> evil atheist. > > > > > >> > But none of these ancient > > > > >> > accounts have anything to do with Harry Potter, a character in > > > > >> > a > > > > >> > modern work of fiction. > > > > > >> I agree, they don't have anything to do with it, except that > > > > >> drawing > > > > >> support for the Bible's claims on this basis is like trying to > > > > >> support > > > > >> Harry Potter by mentioning London. If you believe the Bible is > > > > >> Truth > > > > >> because of these sites, then you should believe that Harry Potter > > > > >> is > > > > >> Truth for the same reason. > > > > > >> ? ?Nevertheless, all I had to do to get a > > > > > >> > response about Harry Potter was mention Hezekiah's tunnel, a > > > > >> > conduit > > > > >> > for water constructed during the Assyrian invasion or the > > > > >> > earthen ramp > > > > >> > that the Assyrian army built to get over the city wall at > > > > >> > Lachish. > > > > >> > According to atheists, these evidences of the Assyrian invasion > > > > >> > were > > > > >> > exactly like Harry Potter leaving for wizard's school. > > > > > >> We believe you're trying to show Biblical authority by mentioning > > > > >> these > > > > >> sites. While you persist in this logical fallacy, we're going to > > > > >> stick > > > > >> with the Harry Potter comparrison. :-) > > > > > >> Anyone hysterical yet? > > > > > >I gave up after using two further examples and some further > > > > >comments. > > > > >Spiderman and the Iliad. > > > > > >I don't like to deal with the deliberately obtuse. > > > > > Yes, Mr. Winn has gone beyond merely being obtuse to being > > > > intentionally > > > > dishonest. Even the LDS and other Christians should chastise him for > > > > his > > > > lies. I don't expect him to ever repent of his foolish dishonesty.- > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Well, I mentioned two things, a ramp and a conduit for water > > > constructed during the Assyrian invasion of Judea. Which of those do > > > you claim I lied about? > > > Robert B. Winn > > > You lied about the reason for posting those two "facts". The bible > > mentions cows too, and there are cows. We'll ignore the cud-chewing > > rabbits for the moment, but no-one said everything mentioned in the > > bible was falsehood. Just that it was generally a work of fiction. > > You then leapt in and told everyone that "Atheists are always saying > > everything in the bible is false." LIE. > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Well, no, it is not a lie, Al. Even if an atheist appears to say that > something in the Bible is true, there is always something in the > statement they make that claims it is also false. For instance, with > regard to the two things I mentioned, it is impossible for an atheist > to discuss these two things without also discussing Harry Potter, > Spiderman, or some other fictional thing that shows what they really > think about it. Look at your statement. The Bible mentions cows, but > the Bible mentions rabbits chewing cud, so the mention of cows in the > Bible proves that the Bible is untrue. Atheists are incapable of > discussing the Bible rationally. > Robert B. Winn I'm thinking you're incapable of discussing the bible rationally. I didn't at any stage say that the bible mentioning cows makes it false. Your interpretations of what people are saying is massively out of line with what is being said. What I think we can all agree on is that pretty much every book has some truths and some falsities. Yes, Cows and Tunnels do exist. But they can't be used to prove other aspects in the book. If there were hundreds of other sources claiming Rabbits chewed their cud then we might start to think it's true, and if we could physically verify that this happens, we would accept it as true. But we're not discounting it simply because it's in the bible. We're saying that is false because it's verifiably false because of what we can see about rabbit behaviour and several million dissections. It would be logically inconsistent to say something is wrong because it's in the bible. That would be a circular argument. ---------------------------------------------- He's quite comfortable with circular arguments.....He uses them all the time. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: TT on 20 Jun 2008 19:57 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 20, 12:15 pm, TT <tte...(a)wowway.com> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 20, 5:34 am, TT <tte...(a)wowway.com> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 19, 5:55 am, TT <tte...(a)wowway.com> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> Well, go ahead and talk about God, but I can tell you ahead of time, >>>>>>> you do not know anything about God. No atheist does. >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>> nahh...we'll discus what we want...you choose your fiction..and >>>>>> that's all you have been expressing faith in..nothing else...and we'll >>>>>> point out our fiction...and we won't base a worldview on our inability >>>>>> to deal with reality like you do....Don't like it? Pray for >>>>>> us...otherwise..tough... >>>>>> -- >>>>>> �Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the >>>>>> question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it >>>>>> right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is >>>>>> neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one >>>>>> it is right.� >>>>>> Martin Luther king Jr.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> Well, people would do better if they learned to do their own praying. >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>> Thinking is preferred by everyone else here..it actually does >>>> something... >>> Well, so you think that you can destroy Christianity. That was what >>> this conversation was about when it began. That was why I was >>> pointing out that the Bible was the best selling book in the world. >>> Not so, said atheists. Harry Potter is the best selling book in the >>> world. >>> Robert B. Winn >> Christianity is nothing...it's not worth the energy to >> destroy...and we deftly pointed out the difference between a cult that >> buys truckloads of it's own book(and then rarely reads) and books that >> are purchased by people to actually read...but your head never the hole >> in the sand... >> >> -- >> �Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the >> question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it >> right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is >> neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one >> it is right.� >> Martin Luther king Jr.- Hide quoted text - > > I see. As opposed to Harry Potter books, which are always read and > believed. Well, you may have something there. > Robert B. Winn Believing Harry Potter would be safer for mankind...you're right.... -- �Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.� Martin Luther king Jr.
From: Smiler on 20 Jun 2008 19:58
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:1337fa11-b02a-4d42-8c30-27b99277500e(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... On Jun 19, 8:22 am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 18, 3:50 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > > wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >> > On Jun 18, 10:11?am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> rbwinn wrote: > >> >> > On Jun 17, 2:53?am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > > >> >> >> > Well, I analyzed the Bible. ?What I find is that God would not > >> >> >> > want His children to die and just cease to be or to be punished > >> >> >> > forever, so He sent his Son to overcome death. ?Because of > >> >> >> > wickedness, we see today that most people will reject God's > >> >> >> > gift > >> >> >> > of eternal life. Robert B. Winn > > >> >> >> Let me ask you a question. ?Who would know more about LDS > >> >> >> theology, > >> >> >> one of the churches twelve apostles, or a Hari Krishna monk> > > >> >> >> -- > >> >> > Who do you think would know more about LDS theology? ?Why do you > >> >> > ask? Robert B. Winn > > >> >> Evasion noted. ?Why are you afraid to answer a couple of easy > >> >> questions? Why do you think I would ask? ?Could it be the answer > >> >> might > >> >> be obvious? > > >> > Well, if the answer is obvious, then there was no reason to ask the > >> > question. Go ahead and say whatever you were going to say. > >> > Robert B. Winn > > >> Why are you afraid to tell us whether or not one of the 12 apostles of > >> the Mormon church would know more about LDS theology than an Hari > >> Krishna > >> monk? What are you afraid of? I know the answer, but I don't know if > >> you > >> do and that is why I am asking. > > >> -- > >> Later, > >> Darrell Stec dars...(a)neo.rr.com > > > Well, why don't you just make up your own mind about that? > > Robert B. Winn > > I already have made an informed and knowledgeable opinion. I am trying to > find out what you believe (asking what you think would be unfair because > you are shooting without bullets) to be the case. Why are you afraid to > answer the question? Is it because it has never been discussed in bible > school and you have nothing to copy and paste? Go ask your bishop what he > thinks, as you allow others to think for you until you pull stupid things > out of thin air. > > -- Well, why don't you ask my bishop yourself? I told you athiests before that I was not going to be your researcher. If you want to know what I believe,I can give you name to the missionaries as a referral , and they can tell you what I beleive. ----------------------------------------- You don't know what you believe? How strange! Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 |