Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: The Natural Philosopher on 8 Jul 2008 11:11 Steve O wrote: > > > "Alex W." <ingilt(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:6dh49mF2hjcqU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> "Steve O" <nospamhere(a)thanks.com> wrote in message >> news:6dg2m3F2d900U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> >>> >>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>> news:7b8ae166-6369-43d9-9a73-74e6975c43c2(a)e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >>> >>>> On Jul 6, 9:42 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> > On Jul 6, 5:06 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>> >> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> >>> On Jul 6, 11:02?am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>>>> >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My definition of sin was willful disobedience of God. >>>>> ?Bearing >>>>> false >>>>> >>>>> witness about me would fall under the category of willful >>>>> >>>>> disobedience >>>>> >>>>> of God. >>>>> >>>> In that case you are totally guilty of that exact sin. >>>>> >>>> We have already established by your own definitions that you >>>>> are a >>>>> >>>> sinful person (onkl Jesus is free of sin you said) , and your >>>>> lack >>>> of >>>>> >>>> charity excommnunicates you as a Christian. (you wont talk to >>>>> God >>>> on >>>>> >>>> anyones behalf..) >>>>> >>>> I think you are in deep trouble, dude. >>>>> >>> No, I am fine. I say a little prayer every once in a while about >>>>> >>> atheists. >>>>> >> That one ever get answered? ;-)- Hide quoted text - >>>>> >>>>> >> - Show quoted text - >>>>> >>>>> > Well, I know one atheist who became a Christian. >>>>> >>>>> Ah nice. I was just such a man. I eventually grew out of it though. >>>>> :-)- Hide quoted text - >>>>> >>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>> >>>> Well, you were just an atheist working undercover. >>>> If you were going back to atheism, you were never really a believer. >>>> Robert B. Winn >>> >>> Every single atheist in this newsgroup started out as an atheist. (so >>> did every Christian too, for that matter) >>> Some of us converted to Christianity from atheism, then back again. >>> I have a two year old who is an atheist, he has absolutely no belief >>> in God whatsoever. >> >> I'm not sure that counts, seeing as he believes in Santa Claus, the >> Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the Monster Under The Bed. > > Actually, he's also asantaist, abunnyist, afairyist and amonsterist too. > He's only two years old, Alex, he doesn't even know what those things > are yet, plus, we're very careful about what sort of fairy tales we tell > him anyway. > Besides, kids aren't dumb. > Any parent could see that kids operate on two levels anyway. > On one level, they like the fantasy/monster stories and enjoy being > scared by them, and on another level they are fully aware that it's only > make- believe. > They're not stupid but they enjoy the exciting pretence of it all > The only time it becomes stupid is when they carry that over to > adulthood and start believing that the magic stories are real. > >> >> IME, children are naturally credulous. > > Naturally trusting, not credulous. > There's a difference . > >> We pick explanations that fit the available facts. If our environment >> acts as if Santa Claus is real and we have no evidence to doubt that >> assertion, we believe. > > It all depends on what Mom and Pop tell us, right? > When we're telling them about Jack and the beanstalk, they know we're > not being serious, but still go along with the story. > The problem occurs when we tell them about Jesus walking on water and > raising the dead, and they naturally assume we are being serious about > that, because we always make the distinction either directly or > indirectly between one magic story and the other. > "Now forget about all of those silly magic stories we told you - here's > some REAL magic stories" > The Santa story is simply training wheels for the God story any way. > It amazes me that at my daughters school, she can have science lessons > one minute, where she is taught to examine facts using the scientific > method, and in the next Religious Education lesson straight afterward, > she is told to abandon any critical thinking skills and simply believe. > Why does the education system insist on trying to confuse our children > like that? > > No problem, provided she realises there is a sign over the RI classroom saying 'abandon reason, all ye who enter here'
From: The Loan Arranger on 8 Jul 2008 11:14 Steve O wrote: > Smiler, I appreciate what you are trying to do with Bobby, but when I > see your posts now, I know that I have to scroll down a whole pile of > Bobby drivel to see if you have written a response to him rather than > giving him a whack. > It's putting me off reading your posts and I might miss anything > interesting you have to say. Agreed. TLA
From: Ben Dolan on 8 Jul 2008 12:00 The Loan Arranger <noone(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: > Ben Dolan wrote: > > 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. > >> What do you call empirical evidence? > >> Robert B. Winn > > > > You hang out in physics newsgroups and you don't know what empirical > > evidence is? I'm talking about peer reviewed, double-blind studies on > > the efficacy--or more precisely, the complete lack of efficacy--of > > prayer. > > I hate to mention it, but have you read `The Efficacy of "Distant > Healing"' (Annals of Internal Medicine, 2000, 132/11 pp.903-910)? > > It was a study of peer-reviewed studies (mostly double-blind) into a > range of healing methods, including "healing touch" and intercessionary > prayer. Although it ruled that a number of the trials suffered from poor > protocols or inherent bias, it did conclude that a majority showed > statistically significant treatment effects, including trials considered > well structured and conducted. > > The article had a good range of grant fundings, including the Wellcome > Trust, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine > and the National Institutes of Health. > > One of the more interesting conclusions, by the way, is that although > Christian prayer appeared somewhat efficacious, a number of other > methods, some Pagan, some atheist (in the sense of having no worship > element), worked equally well or better. And the results of that study have been largely ignored because of the lack of reproducibility of any of the component studies, and because of flaws in the studies' methodologies. There have been many attempts to identify efficacy relationship between prayer and healing, and obviously, many desparately want it to be true, but non-reproducibility is its Achilles heel. The most recent results by Harvard's Herbert Benson et al (American Heart Journal, April 2006) shows no correlation whatsoever. In fact, it concluded that "certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications", which is a startling statement about the claimed benefits of superstitious beliefs.
From: DuhIdiot on 8 Jul 2008 12:01 The Loan Arranger <noone(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in news:DpudnXOM0_ 32Ge7VRVnygwA(a)bt.com: > Steve O wrote: >> Smiler, I appreciate what you are trying to do with Bobby, but when I >> see your posts now, I know that I have to scroll down a whole pile of >> Bobby drivel to see if you have written a response to him rather than >> giving him a whack. >> It's putting me off reading your posts and I might miss anything >> interesting you have to say. > > Agreed. > > TLA Gonna have to put my signature on this one, too, Smiler. You're a great contributor to a.a, but whacking Brain-Dead Bob 75 times a day is pulling down your average. -- No SPAM in my email.
From: Alex W. on 8 Jul 2008 12:02
"Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwhipp(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:acb8b966-a517-44c9-84ff-50263ff6239b(a)f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 7, 11:04 pm, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Are unicorns male? Definitely. Probably Muslim, too -- always hunting for virgins .... ;-) > >> <foot in sexism beartrap> >> >> Also consider that when it comes to non-sexual acts of creation, the male >> of >> our species does appear to have the edge. beethoven, Michelangelo, >> Shakespeare (OK, so he was probably Klingon), Leibniz, Kopernikus, >> Einstein >> </snap?> > > I won't whack you for it, but I'm gonna poke some holes in the > argument. > 1. Culture: It's been a common element in the cultures those examples > come from for the men to be the doers, the movers and shakers. blah > blah, cultural blah blah. Fill in the blahs how you feel. > 2. Compensation: Males feel the need to create, but don't birth > squalling brats, so direct the urges elsewhere. > 3. Averages vs standard deviation. On average, women are slightly > more intelligent (and unsupported logical leap to) and creative. But > the standard deviation is higher for men, so the historical spikes > happen in men more often than women. You don't so much poke holes as offer possible explanations why.... |