Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 13 Jul 2008 17:43 On Jul 13, 8:46�am, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:25:11 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > >> > ============================================ > >> > Harry Potter left from platform 9 &3/4 to go to Hogwarts wizard school. > >> > That makes as much sense as you wholly babble quotations. > > >> well at lest its more amusing to read, and no one require that you > >> believe it to be literally true.. > > >Well, you have not talked to any of your fellow atheists lately. > >Their idea is that if Hezekiah's tunnel exists, then Harry Potter has > >to be true because the train station in London is mentioned in Harry > >Potter. > > Your speculations are utter rubbish... That is not speculation. That is what they actually said to me. Robert B. Winn
From: Antares 531 on 13 Jul 2008 17:43 On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:03:40 -0700, ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: >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. > Are you suggesting that I should show about the same level of respect for atheists as you show for Christians? I don't think I could do this without resorting to a lot of profanity and obscenity, and I really don't like using this in my communications...makes one look inadequate, insecure and unable to express one's self fluently. I'm not by any means suggesting that anyone give my insights more credence than those of an atheist. I just want to make my insights available to those who are still assembling information to help them make a decision on this. Gordon
From: rbwinn on 13 Jul 2008 17:44 On Jul 13, 8:48 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:f25bf15e-bfd1-4e2a-ace4-02d2addfdca1(a)59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 11:57 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >> > On Jul 12, 4:48 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:e0417c27-033a-4ca8-87d9-a81f7e04025f(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > >> >>> On Jul 12, 4:42 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >> >>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >> >>>>news:ad7f65d3-3fa2-4bfd-81f6-5ed6a97ccb30(a)34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > >> >>>>> 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. > >> >>>>>> Linda ff > >> >>>>> 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. > >> >>>>> Robert B. Winn > >> >>>> Clueless idiot. > >> >>>> -- > >> >>> And atheists generally try to punish truth. Is that what you say to > >> >>> your two year old when he tells the truth? > >> >>> Robert B. Winn > >> >> Is there any point in actually replying to you, you clueless fuckwit? > >> >> No, I don't think so. > > >> >> -- > >> >> Steve O > > >> > How do you think your son is going to react when you talk to him like > >> > that? > > >> Possibly with a little respect, if he wants any in return. > > > Well, as I said before, I think you are going to have problems with > > your son when he gets older.  If you talk to him like you talk to me, > > he is going to talk back to you the same way.  Are you ready for that? > > Robert B. Winn > > I talk to YOU exactly the way you deserve to be spoken to, and talk to my > son likewise. > It's called consistency, something alien to you. > Well, eventually your son is going to do something that displeases you. I would not want to be your son when that happens, because, unlike me, your son cannot just ignore you. Robert B. winn
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 13 Jul 2008 17:59 On Jul 12, 5:32 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. > > Ben, there is an ABUNDANCE of evidence that God exists, but this > evidence is not transferable between human minds. If you and other > atheists have your minds closed against God's existence, it will NEVER > be possible for anyone to overwhelm you and force you to change your > mind. To accept or to reject God is a fully volitional choice that you > and all of us have. If it were possible to overwhelm an atheist's mind > on this, they would NOT have a volitional choice at all. > > As I've said in previous posts, I'm not trying to re-direct you or > overwhelm you with my beliefs on these matters. I'm posting merely for > the benefit of those who are still searching for information, and who > might want to review the Christian perspective on these matters. > > 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. > > 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. > > Leaving this to chance would surely have resulted in a complete > failure of the process, or even the extinction of the life forms > involved. 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. > > 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. > > Some form of cosmic intelligence (God) was in control through the > critical developmental phase of all we can evaluate, objectively. It > didn't just happen, spontaneously. > > I'll agree, one has to be careful how one tries to conceptualize God. > God is spirit, not an oversized old man with a white beard, sitting on > a majestic throne somewhere off in deep space. That concept was > acceptable and favorable to those ancient people who knew nothing > about the scientific order of the multiverse. But, most of us modern > hominids have progressed beyond this, and now need an understanding of > God that is more congruent with our scientific knowledge. It isn't > that God doesn't exist, or no longer exists. It is merely that those > old sources of information on God are not easy to reconcile with our > current level of scientific knowledge. > > God is spirit and we must worship Him is spirit. That is to say, God > exists as a cosmic intelligence that permeates the entire multiverse, > and can interact across the entirety of the multiverse, instantly. > > This seems to fit right in with something in the realm of quantum > entanglements. Note; I'm NOT saying that quantum entanglements explain > the mind of God, but I believe this is pretty close. That is, > something at the quark level, that functions about like we've observed > in quantum entanglements, could perhaps provide means for > consciousness, somewhat like the synapses of our own brains do. > > Quantum entangled particles "communicate" at trans-light speed. That > is, they interact instantly, even across enormous distances. Something > similar to quantum entanglements, involving all the quarks of the > multiverse, could provide means for this cosmic consciousness that we > call God. > > A cosmic consciousness such as this would fit right in with Biblical > passages which state that God is aware of every hair of our heads, and > even things as insignificant as a sparrow. > > Gordon That's a big collection of handwaving that can be basically summarized by, "I think it is therefor it is." If evidence exists in your mind, and no-where else, then it's not evidence. Go talk to a psychiatrist or a psychology researcher about halucinations. Or even just read up about them. Al
From: Linda Fox on 13 Jul 2008 18:34
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:35:49 -0500, Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote: >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. Now why on earth would this be even remotely likely? "Allegorical sentient computer"? "convinced..."? "figment of the imaginations of other sentient computers..."???!!!??? It doesn't work, that allegory. Not even slightly. Sorry. > Right. You know that bit towards the end of the story of Cinderella where the prince comes around with the slipper she left behind, and says that whoever has the foot that will fit this slipper must be the girl he danced with and wishes to marry? And her sisters come to greet the prince when he gets to their house, and they cut off toes to fit the slipper, and he's fooled only until he sees the blood coming out of the sides of the slipper? That is what you are doing, Gordon. You are taking what I think you can see is a nonsensical state, and you are chopping it around until you can find an explanation, however ludicrous, that will fit it. The trouble is, we can still see the blood coming out round the edges... Linda ff In the beginning, Man created God in his own image. |