Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Antares 531 on 10 Jul 2008 21:19 On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:56:23 -0700, ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: >Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote: > >> >> 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. >> > >> Do you truly love your significant other? Do you have any evidence of >> the deep running feelings you have for him/her? Is this evidence >> transferable? Gordon > >Do you really have to resort to this old chestnut that has been refuted >so many times? Is that the best you can do to defend your boneheaded >claims? > >Of course there's evidence for my deep feelings about my wife, but in >case you've forgotten, we were talking about evidence of existence, not >evidence of devotion. Not the same thing at all. > When I lived in Florida a few years back, I arrived home one evening just after sundown and saw a very large alligator slithering across our front lawn. I was afraid to get close to the beast but after it began moving away I parked the car and went inside to tell my wife about this alligator. We both came back out to look at the beast but it was gone and we could find no trace of it. I had ample "evidence" that an alligator had slithered across our front lawn, but I could not transfer this evidence. My wife could either reject my claim or accept it on faith. Gordon
From: hhyapster on 10 Jul 2008 22:53 On Jul 11, 12:23 am, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(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. Once cornered, loonies will come up with more nonsense. When asked:"When is your god going to appear...?" All loons will answer:"God will appear when the time is right...." In effect, this is like saying: "There is no god yet.....please wait", right?
From: hhyapster on 10 Jul 2008 23:00 On Jul 11, 1:47 am, Linda Fox <linda...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:46:09 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > > > >The Atonement of Christ did not happen on the cross. It happened in > >the Garden of Gethsemane. > > Oh, bloody Mary mother of dog! Is THAT what they are teaching in your > church? I'd stop going there if I were you. It goes completely against > all Christian doctrine. But then I'm beginning to suspect that you're > not a real Christian at all > > Linda ff What is what now? But can you say that rbwinn is not smart? He is trying to teach physics formula here in the public forum....the Lorz Equation, with his high school education.....
From: hhyapster on 10 Jul 2008 23:09 On Jul 11, 6:22 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 2:46�am, "Chris Shore" <chris.sh...(a)arm.nospam.com> wrote: > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >news:9be8380a-3a4f-4748-9f03-c7f57bedd527(a)t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.... > > > >Well, according to the Bible, natural events are controlled by humans > > >on the earth. �If the people obey God's commandments, they prosper in > > >the land, the elements are tempered in their favor, and their lives > > >are safe an protected by heaven. �This does not happen very often. > > > � �We know that in the last days, wickedness on earth will be greater > > >than at any other time in the history of earth. �So we cannot expect > > >favorable conditions. > > > � � �The choice to have things this way was not God's. �It was made > > >by men who reject God. �If the people in Noah's day had listened to > > >Noah, there would have been no flood. �So how do you figure it was > > >God's faullt? > > > Because the Bible clearly states that God made the flood happen. As I > > see it, he was perfectly free to choose not to do so. > > > Chris > > Well, OK, then, as I understand it, you as a lawyer are seeking > damages against God for allowing the flood to happen. What you need > to understand is that I am not a judge, so it does you no good to tell > me about this case. > Robert B. Winn You may not be the judge. But you certainly speak for him which means you are accessible to him. You have to do your job in seeking compensation, otherwise I would advise you not to go to heaven, since there are plenty of souls, killed by the great flood, waiting for you.
From: hhyapster on 10 Jul 2008 23:39
On Jul 11, 6:50 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 3:04 pm, James Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> wrote: > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > On Jul 8, 1:20�pm, James Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> wrote: > > >>rbwinn wrote: > > > >>>Well, all you are doing is saying that God is guilty of > > >>>murder every time a natural death occurs. �I do not > > >>>think you will get far with that idea. > > > [...] > > > >>Assuming that you choose to clarify what you are trying to > > >>say, thanks in advance. > > > Well, according to the Bible, natural events are controlled > > > by humans on the earth. > > > If I take this as the clarification I asked for, of what > > you mean by "natural death" (which I think most people > > would consider a death that is not caused by humans, > > not cause by diseases, not caused by anything identifiable), > > then I suppose you are saying that no deaths are > > natural deaths. Do I understand you properly? > > > If this is what you mean, then you shouldn't be > > surprised if others have difficulties understanding you. > > > > If the people obey God's > > > commandments, they prosper in the land, the elements are > > > tempered in their favor, and their lives are safe an > > > protected by heaven. This does not happen very often. > > > We know that in the last days, wickedness on earth > > > will be greater than at any other time in the history > > > of earth. So we cannot expect favorable conditions. > > > The choice to have things this way was not God's. > > > It was made by men who reject God. If the people in > > > Noah's day had listened to Noah, there would have been > > > no flood. So how do you figure it was God's faullt? > > > You seem to be arguing that God is not responsible for > > anything. That seems to fit well with my own position, > > although we do arrive there from very different > > directions. > > > Keep up the good work. We'll make an atheist of you yet. > > > Just kidding. I don't really believe you're serious when > > you argue this way. A few posts after you post how God > > is responsible for nothing, you will post that God is > > responsible for everything. > > > There is no consistency in what you write, but maybe > > you see no problem in that. Do you see logic as a trap for > > the conscience? > > > Jim Burns > > Well, you atheists were the ones who were saying God should be > indicted for murder because natural deaths occur. Which court do you > plan to file that case in? > Robert B. Winn Wait a minute, you only include natural death, what about the sins and deaths caused by your god? All must be filed in our human court, and you must drag your god to the criminal court, OK? |