Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 15 Jul 2008 02:29 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 14, 8:01�am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >> >>> Only an atheist would want all choices made for >>> them. >> Now there was me thinking that that was the mark of a worshipper. It >> seems to me that atheists make their own choices, because they don't >> have decisions ready-dictated to them. >> > > So you think it is a mistake to decide ahead of time not to commit > murder, not to steal, to attend church, not to commit adultery, etc. Why would you be so morally deficient so as to need to perform morning affirmations in order not to kill people? My moral decisions are made as the occasion demands it. Seems to work okay.
From: BuddyThunder on 15 Jul 2008 02:30 Antares 531 wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:14:55 GMT, Linda Fox <linda.ff(a)ntlworld.com> > wrote: > >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:51:07 -0500, Antares 531 >> <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote: >> >>> You're not the Linda Fox that I do genealogy research with, are you? >> No. There are surprisingly many of us around. There is one who lives >> in the road that leads off the one I live in, at the same house >> number. You couldn't make it up, could you? :o) >> >> Linda ff >> > I guess that wouldn't be as frustrating as having a given name and a > surname that many people will transpose, even when I state my names > clearly and concisely. I have had my names transposed and the records > obscured very frequently. In fact, when I was going through guided > missile training in the U.S. Army I was arrested one morning for being > AWOL in the next battery. They had my name on the log book there, > transposed, and thought they were dealing with an AWOL soldier. > > Gordon Richard, not Richard Gordon Tell me about it, I'm known as "the man with two first names". David Arthur - not that weird, is it?!
From: BuddyThunder on 15 Jul 2008 02:34 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. 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 If it can't or won't be defended, then it will surely simply be dismissed as another crackpot idea. <shrug>
From: BuddyThunder on 15 Jul 2008 02:46 Antares 531 wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:23:48 -0400, Brian E. Clark > <reply(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. >> 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. Does this qualify as evidence? (have to confess that I haven't read the book, just read your posts on the topic.) Feel free to map your religions tenets onto quantum theory, but any other organised religion could (and some have) do the same thing with as much conviction and rational basis.
From: hhyapster on 15 Jul 2008 02:48
On Jul 15, 9:41 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:25:49 -0700 (PDT), hhyaps...(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 You see, there are at least 2 flaws: 1). Essentially, if a god created sin and good, he is to test the human? But does human allow your god to judge? I certainly don't, unless the punish and reward are both tangible. 2). Yes, the process of human experience is lengthy, but this is a process of mankind growing from naive to a learned. And from young to old which is a life time. With each passing day, we are more mature and wiser....in a real world when experience is the guidance. But your concept of the god's temporal perspective is not real....merely imagination and close to a philosophical perspective, at best. I find that you want to cling onto your god and therefore you try to speak in justification while ignoring the true and realistic material world where the human experience pain, love, eat, drink, work and all other physical matters. The strong will always win, since he will always dirty his hand (never dirty his mind). The weak will always loose, since he will always dirty his mind (never dirty his hand). |