Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: hhyapster on 11 Jul 2008 23:48 On Jul 12, 2:27 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:15:08 -0700, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) > wrote: > > > > >Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > > >> >> 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. > > >> >As you said, a claim, but not evidence. > > >> There was evidence for me, but no transferable evidence. My point was > >> that there can be, and often is evidence that isn't transferable. > > >But there's plenty of evidence that alligators live in Florida, isn't > >there? So your claim is completely reasonable based on considerable > >supporting evidence. If your claim was that the baby Jesus had slithered > >across your front lawn, then that would be a different matter > >altogether, now wouldn't it? Believing you saw an alligator on your > >lawn isn't purely a matter of faith, but believing you saw Jesus would > >be (and Florida being a hotbed of religulous nutcases, I'm sure someone > >has made such a claim at some point.) Do you understand the difference? > > >Give it a rest, Gordon, we've heard this particular line of argument > >countless times before. You're not covering any new ground, and you > >still haven't addressed the basic issue: there is no evidence for the > >existence of supernatural gods of any sort--reptilian or otherwise. > > >"For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, that > >whosoever would believe in Him would believe any bullshit you threw at > >them..." > > This was given as merely an illustrative example, showing that not all > evidence is transferable. > > There never was a question as to whether or not alligators exist in > Florida. That has already been objectively proven, and every rational > minded person accepts it as truth. > > The issue was, did an alligator cross our front lawn? There was ample > evidence supplied to me. I watched the beast waddle from our driveway, > across the front lawn then into the street, and I wasn't drunk or high > on drugs. I was just coming home from work. > > But, that evidence supplied to me was not transferable to my wife or > to my neighbors. I really don't think anyone doubted me, but, none > the less, my statement could not be objectively proven because the > evidence was not transferable. > > Gordon If it was of any importance, such as a crime, then your wife would be looking for signs such as leg mark or trail in the grass/bush....or simply scout for it in a likely direction as the time lapse was not long. If not important and you are always a liar, then your wife would just have to brush off what you have just told, unless her children are outside. But if you are a gentleman, your wife would be taking your word for it, instead of investigation. In any case, your evidence as your "word" has been transferred to her mind...whether real or false, depending on the circumstances. And if she is having an affair, she would say:"Hey, go and catch it for me", hoping that you get swallowed.
From: hhyapster on 11 Jul 2008 23:57 On Jul 12, 7:15 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "Antares 531" <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote in message > > news:e0pf749gtttsrk8eso4lqjttd2u7gumuur(a)4ax.com... > > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:17:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> > > wrote: > > >>Antares 531 wrote: > >>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:15:08 -0700, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) > >>> wrote: > > (snip) > > >>> Ben, there is an ABUNDANCE of evidence that God exists, > > >>Which God though? > > > The One whose prophecies are repeatedly and accurately fulfilled. > > >http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml > > I checked out this link and read the first line, "Unique among all books > ever written, the Bible..." > If the opening line was anything to go by, there wasn't much point in > reading all of the rest. > ALL books are unique... unless it's the same book. > D'oh! > > -- > Steve O > a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) > B.A.A.W.A. > Convicted by Earthquack > Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence > > I see that he is not as learned as all of us, much like rbwinn with high school education. I should say the less education they have, there is a deficiency in the capability to analyze things and easily get conned. How else we can account for the of richness of those US TV preachers, a plenty.
From: hhyapster on 12 Jul 2008 00:13 On Jul 12, 8:23 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:14:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> > wrote: > > > > >Antares 531 wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:17:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> > >> wrote: > > >>> Antares 531 wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:15:08 -0700, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) > >>>> wrote: > >> (snip) > >>>> Ben, there is an ABUNDANCE of evidence that God exists, > >>> Which God though? > > >> The One whose prophecies are repeatedly and accurately fulfilled. > > >OH, you mean a SCIENTIST. > > >I thought we were talking religion.. > > The Word of God is NOT in disagreement with any reliable scientific > knowledge. The confusion on this is caused by the way The Word of God > was given to humans. > > The Word of God had to be given to us such that those primitive people > could grasp the basic meaning, and also pass the information along > from generation to generation among illiterate people, with little > drift. Allegories, parables, similes, etc., are the way this was > achieved. > > Also, The Word of God had to be given to those early humans such that > they would have the same advantages that we have, today. That is, no > favoritism was shown by presenting the information in a form that only > a modern scientifically educated person could understand. Gordon So, you are here indicating that you are primitive, since you accept the word of god? The rest of it is as meaningless as physics as to the caveman.
From: rbwinn on 12 Jul 2008 00:19 On Jul 11, 8:25�pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:18:31 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > >> Why wouldn't you address the questions directly and sensitively, > >> instead of talking something else? > >> If you can answer, just keep quiet and we all understand. At least you > >> will be in a position not to continue your bullshit.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > >So you are saying that I gave an answer that was not approved in your > >society of atheists. �Why don't you ask your question to another > >atheist and get an answer that you are happy with? > >Robert B. Winn > > Nice dodge...but then, that's all you ever do, isn't it? I answered the question. Atheists were not happy with the answer. So it seems to me that atheists are free to believe whatever they want to believe. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 12 Jul 2008 00:21
On Jul 11, 8:30�pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:54:35 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > >You atheists seem to have a lot of trouble with the meanings of > >words. �There was another atheist who seemed to believe that adult and > >adulterer meant the same thing. > >Robert B. Winn > > ...which is an old joke that you obviously didn't get. It is a very foolish mistake. Although the two words look and sound similar, they mean very different things. Robert B. Winn |