Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Antares 531 on 13 Jul 2008 18:51 On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:34:05 GMT, Linda Fox <linda.ff(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >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: >> (snip) >> >>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. > Your volitional choice, Linda. I wouldn't by any means deprive you of the right to make this choice. But, I'm sure glad you can't impose your choice upon me. My swallow pipe just isn't big enough to let that spontaneous creation thing pass down the tube. It's sort of like expecting to win the power ball lottery without buying a ticket. You're not the Linda Fox that I do genealogy research with, are you? Gordon
From: The Natural Philosopher on 13 Jul 2008 18:52 rbwinn wrote: > 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 Welding is a myth. Its not mentioned in the bible at all, therefore it cant exist. Which seems to make you a liar.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 13 Jul 2008 18:53 cjcountess wrote: > Hi my name is Conrad Countess > I noticed that this topic is very popular and a lot of people are > interested in the question of the existence of God. > I wrote a book entitled "Cosmic Alignment with the Cosmic Mind and > Cosmic Pattern", in which I outline a Parallel between the Universe > and the mind among other things. Oh dear, is that as far as you have got? Some coincidence huh? >It is not physics per se but it is > scientific and includes physics. In it I do introduce for the first > time the idea that, the speed of light squared is the speed of light > in the linear direction times the speed of light in the right angular > frequency direction, that I also describe further in other > conversations on Google such as "New Interpretation of E=mc^2"and > Geometrical interpretation of c^2. But the subject at hand is the > existence of God and so if anybody s interested in scientific evidence > concerning Gods existence you can click http://cjc123.com/ > and tell me what you think. > Mind if I don't bother? > Conrad Countess
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 13 Jul 2008 18:57 On Jul 14, 7:35 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:03:41 -0700, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) > wrote: > > >Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(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? Another argument from personal inability to think. > > 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. No, we've all used our DSL connections. That bunch of monkey brained theists keep sticking to the estimate on an old tape drive that's gone a bit funny though. Al
From: The Natural Philosopher on 13 Jul 2008 19:00
Antares 531 wrote: > > 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. > As apt a description of a closed mind christian as you are ever likely to find anywhere. The trouble us, dear boy, that some of us did get connected, but what we found wasn't your God at all..oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. How could that BE? It couldn't be because we weren't looking for Him, could it?..you see after a while we realised you could find whatever you WERE looking for, which made a bit of a mockery of the God thing, since it became obvious that wishful thinking got you where you wanted to go anyway..without any need to have a God pulling the strings. You might say we waved at God, and got past to the other side...you SHOULD study your Jewish teachings a bit more. They quite rightly equate the Christian god/paradise et etc. with merely a way station on the way to somewhere quite different. Its just the way it looks from down where you happen to be, that's all. > Gordon |