Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: hhyapster on 13 Jul 2008 23:48 On Jul 14, 3:12 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> 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. 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. > > Conrad Countess Ah, so you are Conrad, the soon to be "great con"?
From: hhyapster on 13 Jul 2008 23:51 On Jul 14, 3:15 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:30:31 GMT, Linda Fox <linda...(a)ntlworld.com> > wrote: > > >On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:22:42 -0500, Antares 531 > ><gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > > >>You've overlooked His power of omnipresence. Using His power of > >>omnipresence He can meet with each of us at the same time and converse > >>with all of us in a few minutes. Gordon > > >Will a few minutes be enough for you? > > >Linda ff > > A few minutes at a time will probably work out fine. But, we will have > an eternity to socialize and enjoy. > > Gordon Incoherent talk. There has never been your god that come to you since your were born, and now you are talking about eternity time to enjoy? And you plainly assuming your god will socialize with you? So you are god as well?
From: hhyapster on 13 Jul 2008 23:59 On Jul 14, 5:35 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? > > 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 You are trying to bullshit here that your god has no power to grant sufficient intelligence to human to grasp the "meaning......" What a silliest point one can make up.
From: hhyapster on 14 Jul 2008 00:03 On Jul 14, 5:43 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:03:40 -0700, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) > wrote: > > >Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(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 And your "insight" is made up of bullshit. You are trying to cover up all the great inadequacies of your bible, with your invented words/explanations.
From: Ben Dolan on 14 Jul 2008 00:15
Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote: > Your volitional choice, Linda. Apparently "volitional" is your new favorite word, you seem to use it in every post you make. I know it sounds impressive, but it doesn't do anything for the utter nonsense of your argument. |