Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Ben Dolan on 13 Jul 2008 17:03 Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote: > I'm not looking for converts. I'm simply posting my insights for the > benefit of those who may be in the decision making process and want > information other than that from a closed minded atheist. Oops, your prejudices are showing... And why should anyone give credence to your insights over those of us "closed minded atheists"? You strike me as nothing but a run of the mill religionist, complete with the requisite disdain of atheism. Hardly a glowing endorsement worthy of respect.
From: Ben Dolan on 13 Jul 2008 17:03 Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote: > 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 Selected by God, you say? God couldn't come up with his own parables, he had to rip off parables from some lowly humans? And how exactly, was "the message from God" fitted into these? Seems like a pretty pathetic God... > 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 That's nice, sweetie. Glad you still believe in fairy tales, just like Peter Pan: "God IS real! He IS! He IS!" What a frackin' cracker...
From: Antares 531 on 13 Jul 2008 17:35 On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:03:41 -0700, ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: >Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote: > >> 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 > >Selected by God, you say? God couldn't come up with his own parables, he >had to rip off parables from some lowly humans? And how exactly, was >"the message from God" fitted into these? > Not quite right...God had to use parables that those ancient people could grasp the meaning of. The messages are fitted into these parables in a form that any intuitive mind can easily understand. But this format is also easy for an obstinate mind to reject. Sovereign choice, eh wot? ? >Seems like a pretty pathetic God... > The primary objective was and still is to give us, jointly and severally, a hands-on learning process that will raise out understanding to the level that God will can safely grant us immortality and absolute sovereignty. That is, we will all know enough about sin and rebellion to assure God that none of us will ever want to go back and tinker around with it any more, once this mortal phase of our existence is completed. And, we won't have gotten to this level as pre-programmed puppets. We will be sovereign, and our mind-set will be based upon our own personal experiences and the reviewed experiences of all other humans. > >> 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 > >That's nice, sweetie. Glad you still believe in fairy tales, just like >Peter Pan: "God IS real! He IS! He IS!" > Believing that everything just happened by pure chance is the thing that I can't fathom. How do you swallow that load of horse barn sweepings? You remind me of the allegorical sentient computer that has never been connected to the Internet. Never having experienced an Internet connection, this sentient computer is convinced that the Internet does not exist, but is merely a figment of the imaginations of those other sentient computers that have a connection to the Internet. And, although this never-been-connected computer has all the hardware and software it needs it adamantly refuses to activate its DSL connection and find out for its self. Gordon
From: rbwinn on 13 Jul 2008 17:41 On Jul 13, 8:43�am, Linda Fox <linda...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:49:43 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Jul 12, 8:25?am, Linda Fox <linda...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:20:29 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >> wrote: > > >> >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. > > >> Ho-kayyyy - tell us please, because we'd love to know, how a > >> two-year-old can tell its parents are lying when it does not know the > >> truth itself. Unless it's by watching the nose grow longer and longer. > >A two year old is concerned about what works. �If the two year old > >sees that lying is more effective in getting results than telling the > >truth, then that is what the two year old is going to start doing. > >Atheists generally reward untruth. > > Right, now just go back and read again, a bit slower this time. How > does the two-year-old know - from the example of his elders - that > lying is more effective, when - are you still there? - he does not > yeat recognise it as lying? > > Linda ff > In the beginning man created god in his own image- Hide quoted text - > What you are claiming is that a two year old cannot tell if something is true or untrue. I take the position that a two year old is just as capable of discerning as anyone, but might have more of a tendency to try to say the answer he believes his parent wants to hear. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 13 Jul 2008 17:42
On Jul 13, 8:44�am, Linda Fox <linda...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:30:35 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Jul 12, 7:29?am, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:21:44 -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 > > >> I'd explain the meaning of "a play on words", but it would be like > >> pouring water on a rock and expecting it to sink in... > > >With atheists, it is not a play on words. �They really believe that > >adulterers are the most mature adults. > > And that irony means "a bit like iron"? Oh, sorry, of course it > probably does, to you. > That is correct. I know what iron is. I work as a welder. Robert B. Winn |