Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 15 Jul 2008 16:17 Alex W. wrote: > "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message > news:487c48bf$1(a)clear.net.nz... >> Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) wrote: > > >>> Most scientists today are atheists, yes. But it's like saying most >>> people with blonde hair have blue eyes. The two things aren't >>> actually related. >>> And you keep lying about how you started this. One fruitcake who >>> claims to be both a scientist and a christian (but bizarely doesn't >>> understand rainbows) cross-posted originally and you waded in with >>> your lies and confusion into a topic that was already about proving >>> this god thing. And proceeded to lie about everyone. >>> And now you keep using this myth you've invented about atheists >>> posting into YOUR conversation about physics. >> I think the two could be related. Not saying they are, I think that it's >> likely though. Just my opinion. > > Given that scepticism and incurable curiosity are necessary traits for any > scientist, I think that you think right. Bingo! Received/revealed wisdom just don't cut it for that kind of mind.
From: foolsrushin on 15 Jul 2008 17:38 On 15 Jul, 15:37, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > > 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. > You don't? Hmmm. > I suspect your obsession with string theory is much like Michael Behe's > laughable views on irreducible complexity. You began by assuming the > Bible is true and then go looking for scientific theories to support > that. In your case it is this kooky idea of multiverses and heaven. > That's a really poor way to conduct science and it's a poor way to > conduct spiritual investigation, because you presuppose what you're > trying to prove. In your case (like Behe's), you're trying to reconcile > ancient Bronze Age mythology with the modern world, but are unwilling or > unable to allow the idea that the mythology is just that--myths. You are > convinced that proving the existence of "eternal life" is just around > the corner if you can somehow just shoehorn it into some established > scientific theory--or even some unproven but sciency-sounding theory > like multiverses. That's a fool's errand. Arguing from one's conclusions to one's premises is the way many historians work! All the same, there may be in our past extraordinary and catastrophic events which can not be set aside or dismissed as mere mythology! Joseph Farrell thinks so: http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2007/11nov/RICR-071101.php -- 'foolsrushin.'
From: Alex W. on 15 Jul 2008 19:33 "The Natural Philosopher" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:1216105791.16115.0(a)proxy02.news.clara.net... > 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. Perhaps they are invisible fluorescent green unicorns, only visible to the naked eye after ingesting rather too much by way of divinely created chemistry ... > > 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. Even theory is not the problem. Theories are a dozen a dime. The trouble only starts with the attempt to implement theory and turn it into reality. > > 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. > You mean wishful thinking, wish-fulfilment phantasies? I'd say that it is actually easier to conceive of something that CANNOT exist (by virtue of contravening laws of physics, for instance) than to construct an imaginary something that COULD exist but definitely doesn't. It's ever so much harder if you have to respect the laws of the universe.
From: foolsrushin on 15 Jul 2008 21:11 On 16 Jul, 00:33, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "The Natural Philosopher" <a...(a)b.c> wrote in messagenews:1216105791.16115.0(a)proxy02.news.clara.net... > > BuddyThunder wrote: > >> Antares 531 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. > >> 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. > Perhaps they are invisible fluorescent green unicorns, only visible to the > naked eye after ingesting rather too much by way of divinely created > chemistry ... > > 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. > Even theory is not the problem. > Theories are a dozen a dime. > The trouble only starts with the attempt to implement theory and turn it > into reality. > > 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. > You mean wishful thinking, wish-fulfilment phantasies? I'd say that it is > actually easier to conceive of something that CANNOT exist (by virtue of > contravening laws of physics, for instance) than to construct an imaginary > something that COULD exist but definitely doesn't. It's ever so much harder > if you have to respect the laws of the universe. Except in a very narrow sense, I am not a paranormalist. The laws of physics seem, however, to be contravened by hundreds of incidents, only explicable if matter were impenetrable and gravity could be switched off. There is no explanation, apart from calling them liars or incompetent observers, when experienced pilots report objects which fall outside the definition of an 'UFO': for example, a weather balloon or camera-lenses artifacts. -- 'foolsrushin.'
From: rbwinn on 15 Jul 2008 21:33
On Jul 14, 11:23 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> 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. > > And yet you've been unable to produce these mythical posts. Well, you do > seem to like myths... > > >  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. > > In a slightly mangled sense, yes that was me. I'd never heard of > Hezekiah's tunnel. Now I have. I still can't see how it supports the > existence of any gods. Assuming it's the same tunnel (which hasn't been > established AFAIK), so what? People sometimes write things about stuff. > Does that automatically render it true? > > >   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. > > I might point out that the physical evidence doesn't accord well with > the account of the tunnel's construction. Even if you're right, it's > simply shows that a tunnel was built, not that gods exist. > > If you want to infer more than is logical from this, go for it! But to > maintain a degree of intellectual honesty, I cannot follow.- Hide quoted text - Well, obviously, you have not studied the history of that time. Robert B. Winn |