Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: hhyapster on 15 Jul 2008 02:00 On Jul 15, 5:56 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:23:48 -0400, Brian E. Clark > > <re...(a)newsgroup.only.please> wrote: > >In article <g3je745vhlou37gh340g2hhniu4vth4kpl@ > >4ax.com>, Antares 531 said... > > >> I'm not speaking for Robert, but my replies aren't to you, or to any > >> specific atheist. My replies are intended for other readers who > >> haven't yet passed the point of no return, > > >Don't be ridiculous; there is no "point of no > >return." There is only a lack of evidence. > > Rejecting any and all "evidence" and refusing to re-think the matter > is what I was referring to as the point of no return. Objective > proof...no, there is none. Evidence...yes there is an abundance of > evidence if one's mind-set is not such as to reject this evidence > without examining it more thoroughly. Obviously you have a mixed up here. We mean "evidence" that can be essentially led to objective proof. Sine you admitted no objective proof, it would also mean there is no "evidence", right? So, what point of no return you are talking about? > > >Should you or any of your brethren ever offer > >something beyond appeal to faith and saccharine > >sentiment, you would witness a conversion of atheists > >so grand and so quick that it will make Pentecost look > >like a hundred-year nap. > > Please read my other post on the subjects of quantum entanglements and > Superstring-Membrane (SSM) theory. Or, at least read Bryan Clegg's > book, The God Effect. Your local library should have a copy of this > book. What quantum entanglement? You mean your god is like the particles of atom that can be broken down to proton, neutron and electron....then further sub-particles? First you must realize that atoms are materials, existed in this real world, measurable, detectable even when we can't see them. Your god is an "imaginary" thing...nothing real and not measurable, not detectable, not even believable. > > Gordon
From: rbwinn on 15 Jul 2008 02:01 On Jul 14, 8:41�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > "Antares 531" <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote in message > > news:k40o74pg4tkilt0j8mr1lnkibela0rrgcg(a)4ax.com... > > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:21:17 +0100, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> > > wrote: > > >>"Antares 531" <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote in message > >>news:72in74drr47ktr9l98raqph18ep0s1h4cp(a)4ax.com... > >>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:25:09 -0400, Brian E. Clark > >>> <re...(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? > > The writers of the fiction called the NT were fully aware of those > 'prophesies' in the fiction called the OT. > They made their jesus character match with those 'prophesies' to make him > appear more believable. > And you idiots still fall for it after 2000 years. > Well, the Old Testament prophesied that a conduit for water was dug between Gihon Spring and the Pool of Siloam, and there are still people who believe that there is a conduit for water there. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 15 Jul 2008 02:04 On Jul 14, 8:50�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:848a8d5f-0b44-40d4-8d12-8a293bbbcf19(a)z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 13, 3:44?pm, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > > Here's the difference, Skippy. I reserve my scorn and mockery for > > individuals like yourself, in response to specific claims you have made.. > > I don't disparage "closed minded religionists" as a group. That's being > > prejudiced, which is why I accused you--not all closed minded > > religionists. > > > I also find it interesting when someone accuses atheists of being closed > > minded, when in my experience (and I'm not a minority in this), atheists > > generally are more opened minded, more educated, and more rational than > > religionists. > > > > 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. > > > There's a difference between fluency and content. While you are fairly > > fluent, the content of your claims are utterly preposterous. > > > And quite frankly, profanity and obscenity (whatever they are) provide a > > great deal of expressive power when used appropriately. Just listen to > > any of the late great George Carlin's monologs. > > > > 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. ? > > > Well, I have made a decision on this. The insights you offer are > > nonsensical, puerile, and clearly derived from years of religious > > indoctrination combined with some sort of bizarre pseudoscientific mumbo > > jumbo. As I said, hardly a glowing endorsement worthy of any fuckin' > > respect...- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I don't think Gordon likes being called Skippy. > ================================ > We should care, why? > ======================= > Maybe you could use his correct name next time. > ========================== > When he shows some respect for us by not posting his stupid delusions to > a.a. then we may show him some respect in return. > The same applies to you, Skippy #2. > > Smiler, That seems very petulant of you, Smiler. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 15 Jul 2008 02:06 On Jul 14, 8:59 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Jul 15, 10:11 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 14, 8:03�am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > Think about it, Smiler. �I am not going to go to alt.atheism. �I have > > > > no interest in atheists. > > > > That's why you post into alt.atheism, and engage with atheists in a > > > thread that spans many thousands of posts? > > > > TLA > > > As I said, take sci.physics and sci.physics relativity out of the > > header, and I will never see your posts. > > Robert B. Winn > > Take alt.atheism out of your headers and we won't feel the need to > point out your lies. > > Al I don't care what you do. I was just showing you a way to never see any posts from me. Well, if what you really want deep down inside is to learn about the Bible, maybe we could study the book of Isaiah. Robert B. Winn
From: BuddyThunder on 15 Jul 2008 02:12
rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 14, 1:30 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 13, 8:35�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> On Jul 14, 12:10 pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:43:18 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> Your idiotic posts say more about you than anything any atheist posts. >>>> Him and those others (Chung, Duck etc) do provide the single biggest >>>> advertisement of what's wrong with religion I've ever seen. �They >>>> could loose a debate with a tape recording that pipes up and says >>>> "well, that's interesting" every couple of minutes. >>>> Al >>> Well, there is your mistake, Al. There is no debate. You are free to >>> believe whatever you want to believe. >> Are people not free to take whatever side they choose in a debate?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, if you can find a debate, why don't you make that decision for > yourself? Are we all in perfect agreement, or are we trying to show each other the madness of the other's ways? It sounds like a debate to me. Don't do a nut, it's an unimportant point. |