Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: The Natural Philosopher on 16 Jul 2008 02:11 BuddyThunder wrote: > 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! ;-) I think its more or less the basis of Buddhism, except there you are already in 'hell' and you get an eternity of life cycles until you step off the wheel of karma.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 16 Jul 2008 02:14 Alex W. wrote: > "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. > > I dont think its any harder t concieve of e.g. sudddebly being somewhere else, as in teleportatiion, than being in bed with your favorite movie star. At my age, the latter is definitely harder..
From: The Natural Philosopher on 16 Jul 2008 02:16 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 14, 11:29 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 14, 8:01�am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> Only an atheist would want all choices made for >>>>> them. >>>> Now there was me thinking that that was the mark of a worshipper. It >>>> seems to me that atheists make their own choices, because they don't >>>> have decisions ready-dictated to them. >>> So you think it is a mistake to decide ahead of time not to commit >>> murder, not to steal, to attend church, not to commit adultery, etc. >> Why would you be so morally deficient so as to need to perform morning >> affirmations in order not to kill people? >> >> My moral decisions are made as the occasion demands it. Seems to work okay. > > So are you saying that for each person you encounter, you make a > decision to kill or not to kill? Only if you BELIEVE that everything a person does is dictated by his choices. > Robert B. Winn
From: Linda Fox on 16 Jul 2008 02:42 On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:51:04 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> 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. A turban and nothing else? yuk Linda ff
From: Linda Fox on 16 Jul 2008 02:45
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:08:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >If you are not posting in sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity, then >I will never see your posts. And neither will anyone else who is getting these fascinating exchanges through the physics ngs. Why should he stop communicating with the rest of them because _you_ don't want to read them? Linda ff |