Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: The Natural Philosopher on 10 Jul 2008 08:20 Alex W. wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message > news:08134c4b-46c5-454f-9a5f-47756eddfd59(a)s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > Without religion to oppose, atheists would do nothing at all. Thats not true. They just would walk away from any discussion on the subject thankfully, and get on with living, and in some case, trying to understand the extraordinary universe we seem to find ourselves in. Really the transition fom a Gaia type animism picture of the universe, to a personalised supernatural creator and law giver, to an impersonal set of amoral laws..is not as abrupt as the fanboys would like to think. What is unusual, historically, is the fanatical faith needed to maintain the concept of a personal and moral God, in the face of Reason. Mediaevally speaking, no one questioned that the world and events moved according to some vast and ineffable and mysterious pattern, and the concept of a supernatural intelligence and a plan, was pretty reasonable..until science started uncovering the rules, which turned out to be mindlessly simple, totally impersonal and implacable, and impervious to personal appeal. And no evidence of intelligence at all. Note that none of this necessarily negates the proposition that faith, belief, prayer, and a live lived AS IF there were an afterlife,is not a Good Thing for people and civilisations. But none of these even indicate that what is believed in must of necessity be true. Archers were able to hit targets long before Newton identified the Force of Gravity. Understanding of the presumed science behind phenonmena is no pre-requisite for learning to deal with them. Any ad-hoc theory that has pragmatic use will do. If you look at religion in that light, it makes a lot of sense. Mired in dogma however, the fanatical Theist simply persists in the useless, long past its sell-by date. > > ========== > > ..... other than get on with our lives .... > > >
From: The Loan Arranger on 10 Jul 2008 08:23 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 9, 7:06 am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> People who get heatstroke usually die fairly soon. >> You clearly know as much about medicine as you do about Biblical history. >> >> That's not a compliment, by the way. > > Well, you obviously do not know what heat stroke is. A person with > heatstroke is almost dead. You are thinking of heat exhaustion. I know exactly what heatstroke is, you berk. I wouldn't have made my comment if I didn't. Your claim that sufferers "usually die fairly soon" is completely incorrect. It is potentially fatal, particularly in the weak, if untreated, but the simple fact is that most sufferers manage a complete recovery after treatment. TLA
From: Alex W. on 10 Jul 2008 09:40 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:38913d89-3357-4b6f-bb31-0f96afd06bc8(a)d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... On Jul 9, 4:51?am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:912d9182-3778-4b3d-8e07-d1bb05ec37c6(a)59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 8, 4:46?am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > > Jesus told Judas at the last supper that he knew he was going to > betray ?him. ? He also told John that Judas was going to betray him. > > ========= > > And he acquiesced in the betrayal. > In other words, he gave Judas his blessing. No he did not give Judas his blessing. He told him that he was not going to stop him from carrying out the betrayal. ========== Which is effectively an endorsement. He could have stopped this at any time. He did not.
From: Spaceman on 10 Jul 2008 10:17 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 8, 7:27?pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:01:26 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> It looks to me like you might be in a few killfiles. >> >>> Maybe. ?However, the fact remains that the equations I have show >>> light to be traveling at 186,000 miles per second in two different >>> frames of reference without the distance contraction that causes >>> anything that reaches the speed of light to have a length of 0 in >>> the Lorentz equations. ?Scientists definitely do not want to >>> discuss those equations. >>> Robert B. Winn >> >> You'd better not let that sense of superiority go to head. > > There definitely is an advantage in having distances as they actually > exist. Oooh! look! physics in the God thread! Yes There is a great advantage to distances being exact. It is known as the crash and burn factor. You see if you think you are not moving as fast as you really are or if you think you are shorter as you move. You hit things that should not be there yet or you get sidesmashed by things that should have missed you. This is also true of timing things with one absolute time instead of a variable time. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: Ben Dolan on 10 Jul 2008 12:23
Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote: > For the sake of the argument, contemplate that it may have been > necessary for Jesus to be transposed into Hell (another level of the > Multiverse, as posited by Superstring Theory), That's one of the most absurd claims I've heard yet. Where exactly in the Bible does it describe Hell in terms of compactified ten dimensional space? > Of course this could have been accomplished in any of a number of > ways, but what is wrong with the way God chose to do it? Because God is nothing but a product of human imagination, borne of Bronze Age superstitions and ignorance, that's why. |