Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Antares 531 on 9 Jul 2008 10:55 On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:31:58 -0700, ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: >rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: > >> You atheists do not hesitate to portray youraelves as experts >> concerning what Christians believe. > >That's because you Christards are always blathering on about what you >believe--without, of course, providing any evidence to support your >ridiculous, puerile claims. > An abundance of evidence exists, but it isn't transferable. Each of us has to do our own sleuthing. No one can be your deputy in these matters, and supply you with empirical evidence or objective proof. You'll have to do your own searching and make your own decisions. If the evidence was transferable no one would have a sovereign choice, and having a sovereign choice is an absolute requirement. So, the evidence is presented in a very balanced way such that each of us can assess it and go from there, making our own sovereign choice as to whether we accept or reject God's existence. Gordon
From: Ben Dolan on 9 Jul 2008 11:02 Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:31:58 -0700, ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) > wrote: > > >rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > >> You atheists do not hesitate to portray youraelves as experts > >> concerning what Christians believe. > > > >That's because you Christards are always blathering on about what you > >believe--without, of course, providing any evidence to support your > >ridiculous, puerile claims. > > > An abundance of evidence exists, but it isn't transferable. Each of us > has to do our own sleuthing. No one can be your deputy in these > matters, and supply you with empirical evidence or objective proof. > You'll have to do your own searching and make your own decisions. If > the evidence was transferable no one would have a sovereign choice, > and having a sovereign choice is an absolute requirement. > > So, the evidence is presented in a very balanced way such that each of > us can assess it and go from there, making our own sovereign choice as > to whether we accept or reject God's existence. Gordon I call bullshit, Gordon. Evidence is by definition transferable. What you're talking about isn't evidence, it's wishful thinking. You have accepted God's existence not on any evidence, but strictly on a deep rooted desire that it be true. Not the same thing at all.
From: Ye Old One on 9 Jul 2008 13:28 On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote: >On Jul 8, 1:17�am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >> > On Jul 6, 9:15 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >> > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >> On Jul 7, 1:13 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jul 6, 7:18 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >> >>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >> And? >> >> >> Al- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> > Photons were invented by Einstein. �He did not visualize them that >> > way, but that is how the Lorentz equations have them. >> >> Yes, he carved them out of purest phlogiston. Very good with his hands. >> What are you saying?!- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >I am saying that before Einstein invented the idea of photons, He didn't. > there >was a different theory of light which was called the corpuscular >theory. That was abandoned long before Einstein. >Robert B. Winn Tell me coward-boy, is there ANYTHING you actually understand about science? No, thought not. -- Bob.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 9 Jul 2008 13:39 Antares 531 wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:31:58 -0700, ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) > wrote: > >> rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >>> You atheists do not hesitate to portray youraelves as experts >>> concerning what Christians believe. >> That's because you Christards are always blathering on about what you >> believe--without, of course, providing any evidence to support your >> ridiculous, puerile claims. >> > An abundance of evidence exists, but it isn't transferable. Each of us > has to do our own sleuthing. No one can be your deputy in these > matters, and supply you with empirical evidence or objective proof. > You'll have to do your own searching and make your own decisions. If > the evidence was transferable no one would have a sovereign choice, > and having a sovereign choice is an absolute requirement. > > So, the evidence is presented in a very balanced way such that each of > us can assess it and go from there, making our own sovereign choice as > to whether we accept or reject God's existence. Gordon If only it were that simple. On the one hand we have an old dusty book. And the belief's of the faithful. On the other had we have a mysterious world, which is of course simply explained as 'Gods will' but this leads to no sort of predictive analysis of it. Whats constructs you use to explain it, or indeed whether you don't need to explain it at all, in order to carry on living, offer a huge range of options. As do pragmatic methods of relating to it. The Truth is we are all in the dark, brother, and those who think they have seen the Light, were probably only blinded momentarily by the reflection of the laser beam from their own weapons systems.;-)
From: Mark K. Bilbo on 9 Jul 2008 13:58
rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 8, 1:54�am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >> Steve O wrote: >>> All we said was that, contrary to your claim that the crucifixion was >>> the work of the devil, the crucifixion was essential for the redemption >>> of sin, therefore Judas did the world a favour. >> Until quite some time after the event, Judas was considered to have done >> Jesus a favour, by agreeing reluctantly to hand him over, according to >> Jesus's wishes. >> >> It was only when the evolving church needed an antihero that Judas's >> role was recast from tragic hero to traitor. >> >> TLA > > You atheists do not hesitate to portray youraelves as experts > concerning what Christians believe. Judas is not going to do you any > good. According to Peter in the book of Acts, Judas lost his > bishopric. In a poker game? |