Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 15 Jul 2008 02:53 Linda Fox wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:55:03 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> > wrote: > >> I do not have any children. I am not married. > > The two are not necessarily incompatible. Such a black-and-white kind of world, huh! Diversity rocks, Robert!
From: The Natural Philosopher on 15 Jul 2008 03:00 hhyapster(a)gmail.com wrote: > > 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. Now that is where you are wrong. Atoms do not exist in the material world: they exist in a conceptual space in principle no different to his God. Like his god, they are noumenous hypotheses. *Unlike* his God, they are sufficiently precisely defined to be tested, and have not failed the tests *so far*. That means that unlike biblical prophecies, the equations that govern their behaviour - or describe them, if you prefer - CAN be used to predict the future with an alarmingly high degree of accuracy and in considerable detail. In specific areas anyway. In the final analysis, God is an *emotional* explanation, atoms are a scientific and technical one. The purpose of the god explanation is to make people *feel better*. Like any placebo, it need not be based on anything that is real in a material or indeed scientific sense. >> Gordon >
From: hhyapster on 15 Jul 2008 03:07 On Jul 15, 9:58 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:34:50 -0700 (PDT), hhyaps...(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. Before you go further, please give us a valid reason that there is seven levels of heaven....when it can be 70 levels. > > >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. Now, who is the one that says that this universe in quantum level jump between multiverse? When you mention computer backups, you are talking about real things in the real world, dealing with real data. When you mention the above, you are essentially dealing with perceptions, mind wave, thinking and imaginations...all wishful, for you to fit into your concept of god. I am just thinking you are trying to equate electron with god, but at least here you are closer to a realistic world. But, multiverse....this is beyond any body's imagination. > > >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. If you above is associated or related to bible, then i would say you are worse than I thought. You equate yourself with the mentality of people 2000 years ago. There is no biblical information of any value...except that you should willingly give 10% of your hard earned money to your preacher. > > Gordon
From: Linda Fox on 15 Jul 2008 03:09 On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:57:45 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >On Jul 14, 8:26?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> When you make amends to us for your lies, I'll do that. > >Amends, amends, amends. Now, is it just me, or is there more than a hint of the muslim about that response? (as in cases of "divorce", "repentance" etc where the word declaimed three times is enough - or does that only work with snarks?) Linda ff
From: The Natural Philosopher on 15 Jul 2008 03:09
BuddyThunder wrote: > Antares 531 wrote: >> 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. > > Can I ask where this idea comes from? I'd be interested to know how you > formed this opinion. It's not an uncommon view: its actually shared with many eastern religions, and of course the Alchemical principles were based on this sort of world view: the World as a spiritual distillery. It's based on the observed fact that a mentalist approach to experience can lead to changes in consciousness. Now in its proper form this is merely an interesting fact. It took a culture infatuated with Purpose to decide that this process was in fact What Life Was All About, and indeed, enforce a way of life on everybody to Make Sure They Followed It. And of course 'God' left lots of stuff out of Earth's creation. He did not, for example, include fluorescent green unicorns, which would have been, I feel, an artistic touch. I have no problems with the facts on which religion is (probably) based: I have deep concerns about the reckless extrapolation that those facts undergo in the construction of a religious THEORY. One interesting philosophical question that you may care to ponder, is how we can conceive of something that definitely does NOT exist. Never mind things that MAY exist. |