Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: The Natural Philosopher on 15 Jul 2008 01:24 Antares 531 wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:57:14 -0700, DanielSan > <danielsan(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > (snip) >> Antares 531 wrote: >>> 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 >> There is no evidence of this "immortal existence", is there? >> > Daniel, there is no objective proof, and the only source of evidence > is the Bible, but this can be rejected if one chooses to do so. The > problem reduces to one of ferreting out the basic information given in > the Bible and checking this against our reasonably well understood > scientific information. There is no conflict between science and the > Bible except in the minds of those who don't adequately understand one > or the other or both of these sources of information. > > The best approach I can suggest is to learn about quantum > entanglements and Superstring-Membrane theory (SSM). The information > provided in these two subject areas lends a lot of support to the > "evidence" provided in the Bible. As a starter, let me suggest reading > Brian Clegg's book, The God Effect. ISBN 978-0-312-34341-5 > > This is a very well written book on quantum entanglement phenomenon. > It is a verbal discussion, not a mathematics/physics text format. This > book is easy for anyone with a fundamental education to understand. > > The cover jacket, inside the front cover, reads; > > What is entanglement: It's a connection between quantum particles, the > building blocks of the universe. Once two particles are entangled, a > change to one of them is reflected - instantly - in the other, be they > in the same lab or light-years apart. So counterintuitive is this > phenomenon and its implications that Einstein himself called it > "spooky" and thought that it would lead to the downfall of quantum > theory. Yet scientists have since discovered that quantum > entanglement, the "God Effect," was one of Einstein's few - and > perhaps one of his greatest - mistakes. > > > > > Check with your local library and see if they have a copy of this > book. It is worth reading, and I am firmly convinced that the > information and ideas discussed in this and other such books overlaps > and corroborates the information given us in the Bible. > Oddly enough I almost agree with you. It is perfectly possible that a highly superstitious, primitive, anthropocentric view of much of what constitutes science , written down in a primitive language, could easily result in the parts io the Bible that actually deal with natural philosophy. This mistake is to cling to those highly superstitious, primitive, anthropocentric views and use them as 'evidence' of a supernatural being *with a personal interest in mankind* mutatis mutandis, it makes little difference whether you regard the whole universe as one living being or a complex mesh of inanimate matter doing complex things. Its both and neither. What I object to is giving it purpose, and intention, and any sort of concern as to the fate of Man. This is pure anthropocentrism. Children's stories to tuck them in bed with. > Gordon
From: The Natural Philosopher on 15 Jul 2008 01:25 Linda Fox wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:52:13 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> > wrote: > >> On Jul 13, 3:48?pm, Linda Fox <linda...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:42:14 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jul 13, 8:44?am, Linda Fox <linda...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >>>>> 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. >>> Oh, hells bells, I just don't believe this! >>> >>> Listen, Robert, my stepson is also a qualified welder. The difference >>> is, he knows what irony is, and he knows it ain't got nuttin' to do >>> with iron! >>> >>> Linda ff >> You mean like adultery does not have anything to do with adults? > > I think you'd have to be an adult to commit adultery, though usually > infants cannot do infantry. I've yet to come across any old iron which > can spontaneously be ironic. > But any old infant can adulterate. > Linda ff
From: The Natural Philosopher on 15 Jul 2008 01:27 cjcountess wrote: > Hi this is Conrad > To the three that did respond to my post, all I did is put the > evidence out there that the structure of the Universe is parallel to > and resembles the structure of the mind. You totally missed the point: the reason the universe appears to resemble the mind, is because largely our conceptions of what it is are constructed by the mind. I am confident enough to let > the evidence speak for itself and don't have to resort to childish > insults. Why some want to turn the Google dialogs into the goo goo > gaga childish dialogs I don't know but it is probably because of > frustration. > The evidence speaks for itself and anyone comparing objectively what > it says to what you say will see which is more correct. > I don't have to argue this point Other's have been there well before you. > Conrad
From: rbwinn on 15 Jul 2008 01:56 On Jul 14, 8:27 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 14, 5:12�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >>news:44f19f98-4d96-4419-a87a-d6bdbd73f31b(a)c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.... > > >>>>> 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. > >>>> Exactly. Since we know therefore that harry potter isn't true, the fact > >>>> of hezekiahs tunnel means the bible is obviously false. Since we have > >>>> true facts referred to in works of complete fiction. > >>>> By your reasoning at least. > >>> Well, you have it exactly as atheists have been telling me it is. > >>> Don't ask me what it is supposed to mean. > >>> Robert B. Winn > >> Here is an example of rbwinn's logic. > > >> Sheep are mentioned in the bible > >> Sheep exist today > >> The bible is accurate and there is a God > > >> -- > >> Steve O > > Well, no, Steve O.  Here is an example.  Atheists were claiming that > > nothing existed on earth today that could prove anything in the > > Bible.  So I said, What about Hezekiah's tunnel?  These atheists had > > never heard of Hezekiah's tunnel.  So after they looked it up, they > > said, The fact that a tunnel exists no more proves the Bible to be > > true than Harry Potter leaving from the train station in London to go > > to wizard's school. > > The original assertion remains in force.  Hezekiah's Tunnel does not > prove anything. > > >   I really believe that it certainly does prove certain verses in the > > Old Testament to be true which describe the digging of Hezekiah's > > tunnel.  Otherwise, atheists need to explain why there is a tunnel > > exactly where the Bible in three books of the Old Testament says a > > tunnel was dug as a conduit for water. > > For the same reason that King's Cross Station exists. > > Wow, you REALLY aren't getting the analogy, are you? > There is nothing in the Book of 2 Chronicles about the construction of King's Cross Station. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 15 Jul 2008 01:58
On Jul 14, 8:30�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:66e61aa9-559f-4671-a2ea-6bc1905bebe9(a)a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > 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. > ============================ > Then why do your lying posts appear in a.a., LIAR? > > Smiler, > The godless one > a.a.# 2279- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Because you have not yet taken sci.physics and sci.physics relativity out of the header. Robert B. Winn |