Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 16 Jul 2008 15:42 On Jul 15, 11:58 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > 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? > > I have nothing against the tunnel. No, what I dislike is your butchery > of logic.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, choose for yourself what you like or dislike. It means nothing to me. If you or any other atheist decides to discuss the tunnel, come back and do it some time without trying to change the subject to Harry Potter. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 16 Jul 2008 15:44 On Jul 16, 12:01 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So you would only decide to kill someone if you were filled with murderous rage. A lot of serial killers seem to be the same way. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 16 Jul 2008 15:48 On Jul 16, 12:02 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 15, 12:25 am, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> On Jul 15, 11:17 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > >>> On Jul 14, 3:36�pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> Hi this is Conrad > >>>> To the three that did respond to my post, all I did is put the > >>>> evidence out there that the structure of the Universe is parallel to > >>>> and resembles the structure of the mind. I am confident enough to let > >>>> the evidence speak for itself and don't have to resort to childish > >>>> insults. Why some want to turn the Google dialogs into the goo goo > >>>> gaga childish dialogs I don't know but it is probably because of > >>>> frustration. > >>>> The evidence speaks for itself and anyone comparing objectively what > >>>> it says to what you say will see which is more correct. > >>>> I don't have to argue this point > >>>> Conrad > >>> Conrad, > >>>     Are you any good at math?  I am trying to figure out if the > >>> Lorentz equations predict a Doppler effect.  The result I keep getting > >>> is that the frequency and wavelength in the moving frame of reference > >>> are the same as the frequency and wavelegth in the frame of reference > >>> at rest. > >>> The reason I ask is because you said you had frequency figured into > >>> your equations. > >>> Robert B. Winn > >> No, he has the same level as you...high school standard and never > >> think straight, have lots of day dreaming, and always wishful > >> thinking. > >> But at least i cannot conclude if he is of the same mental problem as > >> you...- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > High school graduates are the most open minded people with regard to > > relativity of time. > > Possibly because they have among the most limited grasps of the subject > matter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, scientists will promote equations they know cannot be right because they make a lot of money doing it. The only thing that would change the situation would be other scientists with equations that agree more closely with experiment, which is not likely to happen as long as the government is appropriating billions of dollars every year for accellerators, colliders, and other projects relating to the Lorentz equations. Robert B. Winn
From: BuddyThunder on 16 Jul 2008 15:48 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 15, 5:24 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> 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? >> >> -- > Well, if you can provide a description of the construction of Kings > Cross station from the time it was built, maybe we could compare it to > the Biblical account of the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel. Totally irrelevant to the point. Just to remind you: people make stuff up about real places then write it down. Like in Harry Potter, like in the Bible. Why believe it just because it includes a real place?
From: BuddyThunder on 16 Jul 2008 15:52
The Natural Philosopher wrote: > 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. Yeah, that working towards Nirvana kind of deal, but I hadn't picked Antares as a Buddhist! |