Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: DanielSan on 15 Jul 2008 22:16 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 15, 1:04 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a3c2b9ae-59ae-4bfd-b7cf-fcda98b26225(a)d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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. >> Here's where you get confused every time. (or deliberately lie) >> When they said "nothing exists on earth today that could prove anything in >> the bible" they were talking about the SPECIAL claims in the bible, not the >> ordinary mundane things such as tunnels, sheep, goats or shekels. >> Yet, for some reason, you choose to lie about this and attribute claims to >> atheists which don't exist. >> You are either a complete liar or you are stuck on stupid. >> >> -- >> Steve O >> a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) >> B.A.A.W.A. >> Convicted by Earthquack >> Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence >> >> >> >>> 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. >>> Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel was very remarkable. But > atheists do not like seeing remards about it. Why is that? Which atheist? Names, Bobby. Even nicknames'll do. -- ****************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *----------------------------------------------------* * "I distrust those people who know so well what God * * wants them to do because I notice it always * * coincides with their own desires." * * --Susan B. Anthony * ******************************************************
From: DuhIdiot on 15 Jul 2008 22:13 DanielSan, on 15 Jul 2008, in alt.atheism, decided this was a worthy use of a keyboard: > rbwinn wrote: >> On Jul 15, 12:09�am, Linda Fox <linda...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:57:45 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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 >> >> Next you will be showing me on a magazine cover with a turban. > > Muslims don't wear turbans. > > I think you're Sikh'ing another religion... Oh, why even bother taking a Punjab at Bobby? I take it for Granthed he's too dumb to get it. -- No S-P-A-M in my email.
From: hhyapster on 15 Jul 2008 22:31 On Jul 15, 5:16 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > 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. > > No, they are constructs. As in fact is 'material' itself. > > solidity is according to quanutm physics, an illusion ;-) > > > The conceptual existence is the electrons which does not stay in a > > respective space. > > Not at all. Atoms and electrons cane equally be 'detected' by using > cathode ray tubes, bubble chambers. electron microscopes and the like.. > > Its important to recognise that the only actual reality is what lies > behind our perceptions, and our memory of them. Without memory there is > no time...perceptually.. > > we sense the world that we assume lies around us, as a data stream of > various impulses that get *interpreted* into something that becomes the > world we recognise: none of this is real at the point of perception, its > all a construct. > > The fact that it works pretty well, is perhaps strong evidence that it > correlates to something that IS real pretty closely, but its not > overwhelming proof. > > Oh, and if you want to know where God lives in all that..look into the > perceptual process itself. Deus, in this case is definitely IN Machina..;-) > > Something exists (in?) us that definitely is a Creator, and does indeed > bring Order of perception out of the Chaos..of sensation. > > You would probably call it something like consciousness. and indeed it > DOES have a personal connection ..and is amenable to manipulation by > ritual, prayer and other typically 'religious' techniques. And indeed it > can completely transform the way you see the world..in fact that seems > to be its only function ;-) > > Which is why I have much sympathy for religion *as a way to frig with > the human operating system*. BUT you don't need to 'believe in God' to > use it that way. Although Faith, as an ACTIVITY, has its uses. > > There is not actually 'real' and 'not real' More, there is a hierarchy > extending from the most numinous concepts down to the reality of our > sensations,which is about as close to fact as we can ever get. Normal > perception of the world is at least two steps removed from *sensation* > of it though. > > Only those whose normal perceptions have not been developed or > socialised - typically 'small children' or those whose perceptions are > severely disrupted by trauma, (mental) illness, or deliberate > steps..drugs, fasting, deep meditation and the like..are in a position > to actually go a step closer..and 'enter the kingdom of heaven' etc blah > blah. > > A process, the return from which is akin to being reborn... > > So when I read 'except as ye become as little children, ye shall not > enter the kingdom of heaven' it makes perfect sense to me. Likewise the > myth of death and rebirth. Its the stock in trade of all shamanic > traditions..the descent to the underworld where some powerful spirit > re-makes the body of the shaman etc. > > Also eternity: if you knock out the perceptual processes that are to do > with memory, you will exist in a timeless instant present. If you knock > out most of the interpretive process, you will end up in a state of > blissful innocence. > > I have always had a sneaking suspicion that the story of rip Van Winkle > is an allegorical reference.. > > If you remove the social aspects of religion, what is left is remarkably > similar in all traditions: A set of ways to change consciousness, and > some lessons derived from so doing. And usually some fairly strange > powers associated with those who *can* do so. > > Yu can even chart the rise of the god concept - originally nature > spirits, that are actually analogues of what we would call 'natural > laws' ..then gods of emotional and mental states - the greek pantheon > being more or less that..and finally monotheism,which at least makes the > point that all of these are aspects of one thing. You would call it > 'consciousness': I call it something different, but that's because of my > personal history. > > > So are the sub-atomic particles. A very good philosophical perspective. However, I must beg to differ in some of your points. I also would share the point regarding human suffering, which tends to lead to religious inclination. The pain and mental suffering is not easy to manage; human ability to tackle is limited in a lot of cases. However, this is exactly the biological process of the wear and tear, or imbalance if you like, that the body and mind is subject to. But in reality, the body has its own defence, much like the healing of a cut. I can understand your deeper thoughts in regards to religion and you have found similarities. But, in most cases as we have seen, the people are not equating religion as to a life process, much as you do. In fact, the religious preaching never go down that road and merely points to an entity that is supposed to be of use only in the after-life. There is actually no concrete choice for human when we are alive in this world, let alone in the after life scenario. Since life is short, this is the most interested arena when we do not wish to be not in control. This is also why a lot of people wish to be happy in life.
From: hhyapster on 15 Jul 2008 22:37 On Jul 15, 9:37 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:06:39 +0100, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> > wrote: > > >"Antares 531" <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote in message > (snip) > > >> Atheists and those who believe in God but decline to align with Him > >> can, and do indeed do good things. But, their choice > > >Why can't you understand that there is NO CHOICE involved? > >If you think there is, please explain how you CHOSE to not believe in > >Leprechauns. > > >Smiler, > >The godless one > >a.a.# 2279 > > Smiler, I haven't yet visited all the planets in the multiverse, thus > I haven't confirmed that there are no Leprechauns anywhere in the > multiverse, but I have exercised my "choice" to believe that no > Leprechauns or fossilized remains of any Leprechauns have ever been > found on this planet. Gordon Well, neither is there a fossile remains of a god. Not the multiverse as well.
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 15 Jul 2008 22:49
On Jul 16, 12:08 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 12:57 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Jul 15, 3:58 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 14, 8:30�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:66e61aa9-559f-4671-a2ea-6bc1905bebe9(a)a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Jul 13, 6:28?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:fc9d57b1-a5d8-4dea-b10c-2de186d77c39(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups..com... > > > > > On Jul 12, 5:43?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > > > > >news:43c4adf8-d379-4a72-815c-bc35c1c84eaf(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Jul 11, 5:04?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > >news:6ebcae55-3c20-4ea3-960e-25f802c31860(a)s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 8:51?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > >news:1b629e70-db18-4208-a3da-4381dcebabb4(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 8:45?pm, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There were some atheists who said Harry Potter went on the train > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > London to wizard's school. > > > > > > > > > > And once again, child, you have confused fiction with reality... > > > > > > > > > Harry Potter is fiction. ?The woman who wrote the books said it was > > > > > > > > fiction. ?I know this may come as a shock to atheists. > > > > > > > > =================================== > > > > > > > > > The bible is also fiction. We don't even know who wrote it. > > > > > > > > I know this may come as a shock to christians. > > > > > > > > Get over it. > > > > > > > > No, Smiler, the Bible tells about the construction of Hezekiah's > > > > > > > tunnel. ? Didn't we discuss this before. > > > > > > > ================================ > > > > > > > And the Harry Potter books tell us about Kings Cross station and > > > > > > > London. > > > > > > > Both the Harry Potter books and the bible are fiction. > > > > > > > Get over it. > > > > > > > > Smiler, > > > > > > > If you want to believe that the Bible is fiction, it seems to me that > > > > > > you are free to believe that the Bible is fiction. ?I will tell you > > > > > > what. ?Why don't you decide for yourself what you believe, and I will > > > > > > decide for myself what I believe? ?Does this seem unfair to you? > > > > > > ============================================== > > > > > > Not unfair if you keep your stupid beliefs out of a.a. > > > > > > > Smiler, > > > > > > The godless one > > > > > > a.a.# 2279- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > As I said, take sci.physics and sci.physics relativity out of the > > > > > header. > > > > > ==================================== > > > > > That won't stop your stupid comments from appearing in a.a., will it. > > > > > You take a.a. out of your header. > > > > > Think about it, Smiler. �I am not going to go to alt.atheism. �I have > > > > no interest in atheists. > > > > ============================ > > > > Then why do your lying posts appear in a.a., LIAR? > > > > > Smiler, > > > > The godless one > > > > a.a.# 2279- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Because you have not yet taken sci.physics and sci.physics relativity > > > out of the header. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > To remove your posts from alt.atheism, you would need to take a.a out > > of your headers. Us changing ours isn't going to change yours. > > Are you going to stop lying soon? > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > If you are not posting in sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity, then > I will never see your posts. > Robert B. Winn We don't care if you see our posts. We care that appropriate answers are given to your lies in the forum the lies are posted in. Secondary to that, is a wish that you will go away and stop posting to alt.atheism. Al |