Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Alex W. on 17 Jul 2008 09:11 "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwhipp(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:a4ff8bef-575b-4700-971e-624283f3ce61(a)k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com... Well, Christian are those that say they follow a god of love, who in fact follow one of the most evil deities of all history. ====== I guess it depends on your definition of "love". If you include the obsessive-compulsive stalking sadistic bunny-boiling kind of love, Christians are right on track ....
From: Alex W. on 17 Jul 2008 10:13 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:0463d3f5-d482-449d-adb0-81af090ba244(a)2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com... Miracles are manifestations of higher laws. ============ Statistical (im)probability is a higher law?
From: The Natural Philosopher on 17 Jul 2008 10:34 Helgo Land wrote: > Jon Green schrieb: > >> rbwinn wrote: >>> Atheists are the people who are trying to make the Bible disappear. >>> Robert B. Winn >> No, atheists are the people for whom the Bible is someone else's problem. > > The real question is 'Does God need to exist'? ;) For robbo, the answer is of course yes. He never achieved emotional maturity to take control of his life, nor decide for himself on what basis he should act, or desist. He needs someone..a big Father Figure, to tell him when he's being good, and when he's being naughty, and tuck him in bed, and make him feel loved. The reality is, he will die in that misplaced trust. But by then it wont really matter, will it? The questin is, is robbos life better spent believing in a lie, or failing to get to grips with the terrifying truth. In robbos case, the answer is, he's better off living the lie. "Religion is for people who cant handle reality Reality is for people who cant handle drugs." (Old 60s graffiti)
From: Jon Green on 17 Jul 2008 10:44 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 17, 5:24�am, Jon Green <jo...(a)deadspam.com> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> No, since you were in sci.physics.relativity, I posted equations for >>> relativity, which atheists did not want to discuss. >>> Robert B. Winn >> Why would they want to? �Perhaps we (from cam.misc) ought to post random >> stuff about Cambridge (UK), in the hope that physicists would want to >> comment. �It's about as relevant. >> >> Blame the brain donor who cross-posted this selection of groups, not >> their members. >> > > Well, since you do not want to discuss relativity, why are you posting > to sci.physics.relativity? > Robert B. Winn I'm only pitching in to make a point, not to perpetuate a thread that's long past its use-by date. And you're seeing my post because (1) I wanted to make my point to you specifically, and (2) because the damn thread is cross-posted to all four newsgroups. If you don't want the traffic anywhere but s.p.r, remove all but that newsgroup from your responses, and the thread will fade away, because the a.a people won't see your comments any more, and won't feel the need to respond. Or simply don't respond to anyone who's clearly posting from a.a. But that would spoil your "fun", wouldn't it? Most of the reason why the thread won't die is that a certain Robert Winn has "contributed" about 560 messages to it so far, and won't stop doing so, and won't remove any newsgroups from his replies. Physician, heal thyself. (Luke 4:23, in case you wondered.) Jon -- SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines'.
From: Jon Green on 17 Jul 2008 10:52
The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Jon Green wrote: >> Perhaps we (from cam.misc) ought to post >> random stuff about Cambridge (UK), in the hope that physicists would >> want to comment. It's about as relevant. > > More so in fact, since it was there that Newton sat and pondered ....and (allegedly) plagiarised Liebnitz and Hooke! Actually, his most productive years were spent away from Cambridge, when he fled the plague, although he had returned by the time he published Principia. Jon -- SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines'. |