Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Steve O on 12 Jul 2008 14:58 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:9befe6a5-fc3f-4d47-93b0-bddbfa97bb06(a)34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 12, 6:54 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:845bca25-7a13-463b-94c1-1f466a5ea605(a)z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 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. >> >> My irony meter just shattered. >> I have rarely seen dishonesty from any atheist in this newsgroup, yet I >> have >> witnessed a constant stream of lying, deceptive and downright unpleasant >> theists, of which you happen to be the latest. >> >> > A two year old is learning its behavior faster at that age than at any >> > other time. >> > Robert B. Winn >> >> So you think a two year old is capable of distinguishing the difference >> between theism and atheism? >> More evidence of you delusional condition, I'm afraid to say. >> >> -- >> Steve O > > A two year old is learning to lie or tell the truth. If a two year > old sees its parents lie all the time, then the two year old is going > to do the same thing. > Robert B. Winn What on earth is it, in your twisted and convoluted mind, that you imagine atheists lie about? YOU are the one who is making the silly and unsubstantiated claims, and lying through your teeth as you do so. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Antares 531 on 12 Jul 2008 16:27 On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:53:46 -0700, ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: >Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:14:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a(a)b.c> >> wrote: >> (snip) >> 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. > >Then you would think that God would wait until man HAD advanced so that >they could grasp the basic meaning. It seems like the big fella would be >smart enough to figure that out, wouldn't you? I mean, you claim YOU >have figured it out, with your elaborate gobbledygook about multiverses >and quantum particles. Why not wait and communicate it directly to you? > Those who volitionally choose to understand God have always been able to grasp the basic meaning and those who volitionally choose to reject God have also been able to generate this mind-set. No one from any age or culture has ever had an advantage over anyone from another age/culture. Gordon > >> Allegories, parables, similes, etc., are the way this was achieved. > >Don't you think it possible that those allegories and parables came >about the way they all did, as plain old inventions of the human >imagination? After all, these same stories (virgin conceptions, for >example) were around well before Christ. > The parables, allegories, etc., were selected by God as he passed His information along to those prophets. True, they often used existing legends, etc., but the message from God was fitted into these stories, thus making it easy for the people to remember them. Gordon > >> 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. > >Your claim of God as the omniscient science teacher remains >unconvincing, and is hardly original. I have no idea how you arrived at >this point of view, but it is on the whole rather ridiculous. > God IS the source of all our science. God IS the creator of all this. God used the same science we are beginning to understand, to carry out His creation program. Gordon
From: Antares 531 on 12 Jul 2008 16:40 On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:10:20 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:00:13 -0500, Antares 531 ><gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism: > >>On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:31:36 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> >>wrote: >> (snip) >>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. > >The stories were not actually valid, testable prophecies. Even the >famous prophecy in Isaiah that supposedly predicts Jesus is so vague as >to be meaningless, but the one thing that is clear is the name. Of >course, Jesus did not have that name. > Leaving all people the freedom to volitionally choose to reject the whole thing. Gordon > >>Can any mere >>mortal reliably predict such highly improbable events in advance. > >Vague prophecies? Sure, anyone can. I can predict disasters and know >they will come about. It's even easier if I'm writing after the event >took place.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 12 Jul 2008 16:51 Antares 531 wrote: > > In the beginning, God created the Heavens (multiverse) The heavens came no existence. >and the Earth > (this perceivable universe). was created by its perceivers. > And this perceivable universe was without > form and void Then it wasn't perceivable. >(it had neither form nor void. It was just a point). You can't even say that. "it's everywhere and nowhere baby, that's where its at' > > Then the big bang occurred and this perceivable universe was under > way. But, there was no light, initially. It was just a quark soup with > no source of photons. > > And so on through the whole sequence...... "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". Wlliam of Occam. No need to introduce a god anywhere in all of that. Superfluous flummery. > > Gordon
From: rbwinn on 12 Jul 2008 18:32
On Jul 11, 4:14�pm, 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.. How about this prophecy? x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) y'=y z'=z t'=t You atheists have no trouble believing this miracle. An object in motion relative to a frame of reference contracts in length until at the speed of light its length is zero. Robert B. Winn |