Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: The Natural Philosopher on 15 Jul 2008 04:18 Linda Fox wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:23:59 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> > wrote: > >> 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. > > Not all of the OT is theology - quite a fair amount of it is standard > Jewish history, whether by aural tradition or, in the later books, > written. As a parallel, we don't know how much of what we have from > Homer is true of Greece and Troy, since that too is based on aural > tradition which means it would have been embroidered, or even > falsified, along the way. My own feeling about that is that much of > the dynastic detail (apart from things like Helen being born out of > Leda by Zeus as a swan) is possibly more reliable because when it was > being passed down that was likely to have been the only kind of > chronicle they could make; just a theory, though, and I doubt we'll > ever know. > > Linda ff surely its oral - as in spoken - rather than aural, as in heard..tradition..? But broadly I agree. The Bible (OT) is the history, philosophy, myhology and moral codes of a bunch of desert tribes. The NT is a political document written by the romans to keep the barbarians in their place. With probably as much historical acccuracy as 'Conan the Barbarian'
From: Steve O on 15 Jul 2008 04:22 "Smiler" <Smiler(a)Joe.King.com> wrote in message news:d4Wek.8$5A2.2(a)newsfe29.ams2... > > "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message > news:13fb75d9-8d85-4cde-9d72-cd54a1b3c340(a)a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 13, 3:39?pm, Linda Fox <linda...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:44:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Well, eventually your son is going to do something that displeases >> >you. ?I would not want to be your son when that happens, because, >> >unlike me, your son cannot just ignore you. >> >> Right, and that was you ignoring Steve, was it? >> >> Linda ff > > Right. Steve's threats and cursings do not mean a thing to me. I > would not want to be his son. > ===================================== > I'm sure he wouldn't want you as his son, either. > Nothing, except your book of myths, fables, lies and fairy stories, means > anything to you, least of all, truth. > I'm sure this idiot doesn't understand how his lies and accusations provoke people. You know, you think you've met the biggest theist idiot of all, then along comes another one. Amazing. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Steve O on 15 Jul 2008 04:23 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:24b32052-2744-4a2b-a163-f33fab8642cb(a)d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >> If you want to think that you know more than I do, it seems to me that >> you are free to do that. �Why are you so unhappy about it? >> ========================================= >> I'm only unhappy that ignorant people like you exist. >> > Do you ever get so unhappy that you try to end the existence of people > you consider ignorant? > Robert B. Winn No, but he does try to end their ignorance. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Steve O on 15 Jul 2008 04:25 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:c6ff2090-3c5f-4de6-97bf-0641d818d2e2(a)l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> When are you going to admit you're a satanist, bobbie? >> > I have never been involved in atheism. > Robert B. Winn Satanism is a faith. It is not a subset of atheism. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: hhyapster on 15 Jul 2008 04:28
On Jul 15, 3:00 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > hhyaps...(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 No, Philosopher, atoms are real and bonded to form material. The conceptual existence is the electrons which does not stay in a respective space. So are the sub-atomic particles. |