Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Linda Fox on 15 Jul 2008 13:04 On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:18:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a(a)b.c> wrote: >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..? Oops :o) must have been thinking about music exams as I typed, though in fact it must have been both, mustn't it? cheers Linda ff
From: pbamvv on 15 Jul 2008 13:10 On 15 jul, 18:54, Jon Green <jo...(a)deadspam.com> wrote: > pba...(a)worldonline.nl wrote: > > Anyway I always treat posters as if they can understand what I am > > saying, and I will keep doing do, however hard those posters are > > > trying not to. > > Om eerlijk te zijn, elke discussie die nu nog niet over het christendom > is dubbel-Nederlands naar rbwinn. :) Sorry that sentence is in desperate grammatical peril:-) The English translation for what is there woudl read "To be honest, avery discussion that does not now about Christianity is double Dutch towards rbwinn" Is think you might mean: "Om eerlijk te zijn, elke discussie die nu nog niet over het Christendom GAAT, is wartaal VOOR rbwinn" (to be honest, any discussion that is still not about Christianity, is double Dutch to rbwinn) . One of the reasons for posting in English The word Double-Dutch wasn't invented by exident! "Nederlands is een hele moeilijke taal" (K. Daengprasert) Love, Peter van Velzen July 2008 Amstelveen The Netherlands
From: BuddyThunder on 15 Jul 2008 16:01 DanielSan wrote: > rbwinn wrote: >> 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. > > Wow, you REALLY aren't getting the analogy, are you? After nearly six thousand posts, and having the parallel explained in literally dozens of different ways, the point has still not been grasped. I think it's "dangerous thinking" for Robert to even sensibly dwell on.
From: BuddyThunder on 15 Jul 2008 16:06 The Natural Philosopher wrote: > 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. I was wondering about some scriptural basis? Non-Catholic 'thumpers often at least attempt to back up a doctrine with some kind of scriptural support. It sounds like a "this makes sense given my world-view" kind of idea, I was looking for any external support. Not that I buy it! ;-)
From: Stan-O on 15 Jul 2008 16:07
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:51:36 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >> > So are you admitting that you have sins? �This would be a first for an >> > atheist. �All other atheists tell me that they do not have sins >> > because whatever they do is not sin. >> >> I have what YOU call sins. They aren't, because the concept is >> meaningless. In absolute terms. >> >Right. Atheist Josef Stalin said the same thing when he killed 12 >million people. Stalin was a Russian Orthodox and an alcoholic... |