Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Alex W. on 12 Jul 2008 03:40 "Antares 531" <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote in message news:4k3g7491mdnm7ajg6ghd0ooubho8sku4tg(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:31:36 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> > wrote: > >>On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:01:56 -0500, Antares 531 >><gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >>>On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:20:31 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> >>>wrote: >>> > (snip >>>> >>>>God made no prophecies. >>>> >>>Indeed He did! God spoke to us through the prophets. Gordon >> >>No evidence supports that proposition. >> > Indeed, an abundance of evidence supports this and no known evidence > falsifies it. How do you explain the consistent fulfillment of > Biblical prophecies if they weren't given to us from God. Can any mere > mortal reliably predict such highly improbable events in advance. Actually, any mere mortal can. All you have to do is to write up enough prophecies, couched in vague language, and have access to the texts so if need be you can edit the word to suit you. Stockmarket analysts do something similar all the time (except they actually work off genuine hard data). What you have is not evidence. It is unsupported second-hand hearsay.
From: Alex W. on 12 Jul 2008 03:56 "Smiler" <Smiler(a)Joe.King.com> wrote in message news:cuSdk.61467$7v1.53420(a)newsfe30.ams2... > > "Antares 531" <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote in message > news:a2af74t4f3e1lsfcv07k7fu8khq1vqqa0d(a)4ax.com... >> It is a lot easier to believe that an intelligent designer >> orchestrated the big bang and the formation of the multiverse, then >> created life on at least this one little insignificant planet, than it >> is to conclude that it was all a matter of chance. > > Maybe for morons like you, but those of us that live in the real world > know better. What gets me every time is the exceptionalist mindset: "we are special, we are different, we are the very pinnacle of creation, and that laone is evidence for divine favour and purpose". I for one have never seen any evidence that we are alone in the universe, and scant evidence that we are at the pinnacle of anything except our unmatched capacity for mischief and mayhem. > >> >> One little channel of thought on this subject...genetic mutations. In >> most cases any significant chain of mutations had to progress through >> MANY very well orchestrated steps, involving many totally separate DNA >> mutations, before any tangible Darwinian natural selection benefits >> could have guided the further refinement. > > Why? > Just being able to run at 1MPH faster than your predator is a natural > selection advantage. > I don't need to be able to run 1mph faster than the predator. I just need to be able to run faster than you. >> >> Leaving this to chance would surely have resulted in a complete >> failure of the process, or even the extinction of the life forms >> involved. > > Why? Not all the species mutate, only some individuals. > If the mutation(s) were not successful, only the mutated individuals would > die out. > The remainder would carry on as before. And if a life form goes extinct, so what? No species is so valuable that its demise would threaten Life itself. Extinction clears the decks, creates opportunities for other species. > >> Yet not just one, but millions of such chain-of-events >> evolutionary processes went to a very fine state of development in a >> very short period of time, in terms of the ordinary evolutionary >> processes time frame. > > Your evidence for this is? > >> >> Sure, evolution happens. Hereford cows and Angus cows are certainly >> different. But this micro evolution process doesn't spontaneously >> accomplish things like eyes in almost every advanced life form. > > The 'Irreducable Complexity' argument has been refuted many times. > Try talk.origins for an explanation. > >> >> Some form of cosmic intelligence (God) was in control through the >> critical developmental phase of all we can evaluate, objectively. > > Your evidence for this is? AAMOF, if there was, He ought to have his pay docked, because human biology alone has lots of evidence that any controlling cosmic intelligence was asleep during that shift. As a species, we're as buggy as Windows, and someone ought to get their money back. > >> and we must worship Him is spirit. > > Who says we MUST? And why worship? I may respect my mother who brought me into this world, but I sure as hell don't worship her. I suspect she'd find it embarrassing.
From: Alex W. on 12 Jul 2008 03:58 "Smiler" <Smiler(a)Joe.King.com> wrote in message news:LZSdk.61763$7v1.34194(a)newsfe30.ams2... > > "Alex W." <ingilt(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:6dpg30F3obruU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> "Steve O" <nospamhere(a)thanks.com> wrote in message >> news:6dpb2pF3pfehU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> >>> >>> <hhyapster(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:423233e8-bce0-4c74-a4e4-a131f86ed4be(a)m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Jul 11, 7:04 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>> On Jul 9, 7:31 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>>> > news:db1c5671-b400-4028-8821- >>>>> >>>>> > >> IME, children are naturally credulous. ?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.- Hide >>>>> > >> quoted text - >>>>> >>>>> > >> - Show quoted text - >>>>> >>>>> > > Or, like Steve O's little boy, if the parents say there is no God, >>>>> > > they try to believe what they hear their parents say. >>>>> > > Robert B. Winn >>>>> >>>>> > You obviously weren't listening. >>>>> > I haven't told him there is no God. >>>>> > I'm sure, like his sister, he can make his own mind up later on >>>>> > that. >>>>> > I just hope I can equip him with the critical thinking skills >>>>> > required to >>>>> > come to that decision. >>>>> >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Steve O >>>>> >>>>> So you are saying that you son does not know you are an atheist. >>>>> That is certainly very open minded. >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>> >>> You just don't listen. >>> My son is two years old- he doesn't know what an atheist is. >>> His sister who is 9, understands, and considers herself to be an >>> atheist. >> >> How horrible for you.. I can see it now -- sprog hits puberty and >> teenage rebel phase, refuses to wear makeup, won't shag pimply boyfriend >> or get a tattoo, and declares her firm intention to enter a convent over >> Friday fish.... > > At least he won't have to listen to rap 'music' played at full volume! Well, neither would full-volume plain chant or the collected speeches of Pope John Paul Aye-Aye leave me in rapture ...
From: Alex W. on 12 Jul 2008 04:00 "Smiler" <Smiler(a)Joe.King.com> wrote in message news:bySdk.61505$7v1.7932(a)newsfe30.ams2... > And the Harry Potter books tell us about Kings Cross station and London. > Both the Harry Potter books and the bible are fiction. > Get over it. One of my favourite Time Out "lies to tell tourists": "yes, there is a platform 9 3/4".
From: rbwinn on 12 Jul 2008 08:40
On Jul 11, 1:51�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:e730cc99-4f9a-47c2-a0e9-5a0b9903b552(a)y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Your two year old child is trying to be like you. �Didn't you say that > > you were an atheist? > > Robert B. Winn > > What is it about the outward appearance and behaviour of an atheist which > you imagine is noticeable or copyable for a two year old? I would say the fact that atheists are dishonest. A two year old is learning its behavior faster at that age than at any other time. Robert B. Winn |