Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Alex W. on 14 Jul 2008 21:21 "Antares 531" <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote in message news:72in74drr47ktr9l98raqph18ep0s1h4cp(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:25:09 -0400, Brian E. Clark > <reply(a)newsgroup.only.please> wrote: > >>In article <4d2a74pf351she9f40vri1ku32c7s40a9j@ >>4ax.com>, Antares 531 said... >> >>> Fulfillment of prophecies is the most convincing "evidence" for the >>> reliability of the Bible, >> >>Most convincing of all are those prophecies written >>after the events they predict. >> > Bryan, I see your point, but I maintain that there are many Biblical > prophecies that were written LONG before they were fulfilled, and the > history/dating can not have been manipulated. Even if the dating of, > say the prophecies of Daniel can be argued a bit, it can't be > stretched to a date later than the time of Jesus's life. If you > haven't already done so, please visit this site and check some of > these items out. There is no need to "stretch" anything when you are dealing with a work of multiple authors writing over a millennium or two. You take it on trust, pure and simple. Moreover, those prophesies are really quite vague (part of their intrinsic nature). Any major religion has predictions about the appearance of a redeemer figure, about salvation and whatnot. You merely latched onto Jesus -- it might just as well have been Mohammed, Bab, Baha'u'llah or a host of others.
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 14 Jul 2008 21:38 On Jul 14, 10:41 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 6:28�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >news:fc9d57b1-a5d8-4dea-b10c-2de186d77c39(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com.... > > On Jul 12, 5:43?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > >news:43c4adf8-d379-4a72-815c-bc35c1c84eaf(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Jul 11, 5:04?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:6ebcae55-3c20-4ea3-960e-25f802c31860(a)s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Jul 10, 8:51?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:1b629e70-db18-4208-a3da-4381dcebabb4(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups..com... > > > > > On Jul 8, 8:45?pm, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > > > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > There were some atheists who said Harry Potter went on the train > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > London to wizard's school. > > > > > > > And once again, child, you have confused fiction with reality.... > > > > > > Harry Potter is fiction. ?The woman who wrote the books said it was > > > > > fiction. ?I know this may come as a shock to atheists. > > > > > =================================== > > > > > > The bible is also fiction. We don't even know who wrote it. > > > > > I know this may come as a shock to christians. > > > > > Get over it. > > > > > No, Smiler, the Bible tells about the construction of Hezekiah's > > > > tunnel. ? Didn't we discuss this before. > > > > ================================ > > > > And the Harry Potter books tell us about Kings Cross station and London. > > > > Both the Harry Potter books and the bible are fiction. > > > > Get over it. > > > > > Smiler, > > > > If you want to believe that the Bible is fiction, it seems to me that > > > you are free to believe that the Bible is fiction. ?I will tell you > > > what. ?Why don't you decide for yourself what you believe, and I will > > > decide for myself what I believe? ?Does this seem unfair to you? > > > ============================================== > > > Not unfair if you keep your stupid beliefs out of a.a. > > > > Smiler, > > > The godless one > > > a.a.# 2279- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > As I said, take sci.physics and sci.physics relativity out of the > > header. > > ==================================== > > That won't stop your stupid comments from appearing in a.a., will it. > > You take a.a. out of your header. > > Think about it, Smiler. I am not going to go to alt.atheism. I have > no interest in atheists. > Robert B. Winn Well, stop posting to alt.atheism then. Al
From: Antares 531 on 14 Jul 2008 21:41 On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:25:49 -0700 (PDT), hhyapster(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Jul 14, 8:51 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:38:36 -0700 (PDT), hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: (snip) >> >> The primary purpose of our brief existence here in a mortal body is to >> learn about sin and rebellion. We learn by being directly involved and >> we learn by observation in those events with which we were not >> directly involved. We are expected to learn enough about sin and >> rebellion to assure God that none of us will ever want to go back and >> explore it any further, once we've been granted immortality and >> absolute sovereignty. >> >> Gordon > >Well, I do not wish to dispute your line of thinking. >However, what I think is not right is that "sin", "rebellion" were >from your god. >How on earth did he created all these and get us to learn about it? >Surely, if he is all mighty, he should be able to prevent human from >those silly things, right? >Or, are you saying that he was actually non-mighty? >As I had said before, if your god really is the entity that can create >human, what did he wish to create all the calamities to kill living >things....? >All these believes do not match up and you did not provide convincing >arguments whatsoever. > I can see your point, but don't quite agree with all you've said. Of course I was wrong one time before...that time when I thought I was wrong but actually wasn't. ;-) Would God's creation have been perfect had He left anything out? It seems to me that he had to create sin and rebellion along with all that is good, then separate them into their own domains. This process of separating of good from evil is what we are going through, presently, and we each get to make our choice as to which side of the line we will be on. It seems long and tedious from our temporal perspective, but from God's temporal perspective it is almost instantaneous. Gordon
From: Antares 531 on 14 Jul 2008 21:46 On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:21:17 +0100, "Alex W." <ingilt(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >"Antares 531" <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote in message >news:72in74drr47ktr9l98raqph18ep0s1h4cp(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:25:09 -0400, Brian E. Clark >> <reply(a)newsgroup.only.please> wrote: >> >>>In article <4d2a74pf351she9f40vri1ku32c7s40a9j@ >>>4ax.com>, Antares 531 said... >>> >>>> Fulfillment of prophecies is the most convincing "evidence" for the >>>> reliability of the Bible, >>> >>>Most convincing of all are those prophecies written >>>after the events they predict. >>> >> Bryan, I see your point, but I maintain that there are many Biblical >> prophecies that were written LONG before they were fulfilled, and the >> history/dating can not have been manipulated. Even if the dating of, >> say the prophecies of Daniel can be argued a bit, it can't be >> stretched to a date later than the time of Jesus's life. If you >> haven't already done so, please visit this site and check some of >> these items out. > >There is no need to "stretch" anything when you are dealing with a work of >multiple authors writing over a millennium or two. You take it on trust, >pure and simple. > >Moreover, those prophesies are really quite vague (part of their intrinsic >nature). Any major religion has predictions about the appearance of a >redeemer figure, about salvation and whatnot. You merely latched onto >Jesus -- it might just as well have been Mohammed, Bab, Baha'u'llah or a >host of others. > Alex, I've seen this rebuttal before but I've never had anyone point out to me any list of successfully filled complex prophecies other than those revealed in the Bible. Can you please direct me to a source such as this one, but for some of the other major religions? http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml Gordon
From: Antares 531 on 14 Jul 2008 21:58
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:34:50 -0700 (PDT), hhyapster(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Jul 14, 8:55 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:08:07 -0700 (PDT), hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: (snip) >> >> >So, all things are different in your god's perspective....pls tell >> >every one here how is that useful for human, then? >> >This is exactly what I have said, the god's heaven is for god, what >> >has that got to do with human? >> >> This mortal phase of our existence is temporary, and is primarily a >> means for learning about sin and rebellion. We learn jointly and >> separately about sin and rebellion, and when we've moved on to >> immortal existence we should never want to go back and explore it any >> further. Gordon > >OK, I know what you mean. >However, we do not believe that there is a human world and a virtual >world. > This is where Superstring Membrane (SSM) theory seems to fit in so well. Those extra dimensions and other universes closely associated with our perceivable universe seem to corroborate the Biblical seven levels of Heaven quite well. > >When human die, there is no spirit or soul that depart from our body >to stay "alive" immortally. > This can not be verified. But, in view of the fact that many of the "physical" properties and interactions of this perceivable universe are, at the quantum level, jumping back and forth between the other universes of the multiverse, it doesn't seem to far fetched that there could be some form of consciousness that links with our minds and survives beyond our mortal death. A computer back-up onto a remote storage medium, sort of thing, perhaps. > >Its just a wishful thinking. >Also, you would not know what condition existed in the virtual >world....it may really be a "hell" to you spirit. But since no one >ever come back to tell, you assume it to be there and to be able to >enjoy. >This is what I called a great flaw in your thinking. > All we have on this is the information given us in the Word of God, the Bible. But this Biblical information seems to fit so congruently with the known physical world properties we do understand, I don't see how it can be tossed aside. Gordon |