Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: The Loan Arranger on 16 Jul 2008 05:13 Linda Fox wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:51:04 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> > wrote: >> Next you will be showing me on a magazine cover with a turban. > > A turban and nothing else? yuk Nothing else worth showing... TLA
From: Jon Green on 16 Jul 2008 05:16 pbamvv(a)worldonline.nl wrote: > 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:-) Thought it might be! I was pretty sure that naar wasn't right, but it was worth the dobbel-pun. ;) Thanks for the correction, I was hoping you'd set me right. Jon -- SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines'.
From: Alex W. on 16 Jul 2008 07:29 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:e04318f1-a75a-43de-a5c7-ef5c6ab4281e(a)l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com... Next you will be showing me on a magazine cover with a turban. ========= "Freak Accident in Turbine"? Why would we wish that on you?
From: Alex W. on 16 Jul 2008 08:07 "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:487d9ce4(a)clear.net.nz... > 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? >> Robert B. Winn > > No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I need not make that decision at all, > because I'm not filled with murderous rage. > > As moral decisions need to be made, I make them according to my own > values. Sort of yes, but not quite, IMO. There is a level of decision-making which is sub-conscious much of the time. You probably don't realise it at the time, but when you encounter someone, there is a whole routine you go through, a checklist for friend/foe, fight/flee, us/them, relative dominance. This does feed into any moral decisions you make regarding that person, such as whether and how much respect I accord the other person, or -- in a business setting -- how honest I will be in my dealings with him.
From: Alex W. on 16 Jul 2008 08:15
"The Natural Philosopher" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:1216188845.18724.1(a)proxy00.news.clara.net... > 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. I'm not so certain. It's a matter of discipline: it is rather harder to invent a hero who has to obey the same laws we do than to conceive of a superhero who can see through walls or clear entire buildings in one giant leap. If anything goes, the only limit is our imagination. > > At my age, the latter is definitely harder.. I shan't touch this straight line with a 10' pole .... |