Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 17 Jul 2008 16:05 rbwinn wrote: > 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. Yeah, a ton of money in scientific enquiry! All the scientists are getting rich off our backs. If you have serious science to do, do it seriously. Publish your results in the primary literature, and await your Nobel prize. If you're a kook, just keep complaining on usenet. :-)
From: BuddyThunder on 17 Jul 2008 16:08 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 17, 4:11 am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 15, 6:39�am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 14, 10:38 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>>>>>> So are you admitting that you have sins? �This would be a first for an >>>>>>> atheist. �All other atheists tell me that they do not have sins >>>>>>> because whatever they do is not sin. >>>>>> I have what YOU call sins. They aren't, because the concept is >>>>>> meaningless. In absolute terms. >>>>> Right. �Atheist Josef Stalin said the same thing when he killed 12 >>>>> million people. >>>> As opposed to Adolf Hitler ("I am now as before a Catholic and will >>>> always remain so." - quoted in John Towland's biog). >>>> Not to mention several Popes, who were happy to ordain the >>>> indiscriminate massacres of Moslems in the name of the Cross. >>>> Not to mention the Christian fundamentalist GWB (and his father), who >>>> seems happy to go to war against the people of any Moslem country that >>>> has the audacity not to kow-tow to his government's wishes. >>>> There is no point in claiming that atheism breeds immorality, or that >>>> Christianity is the cure, because there are so many counter-examples in >>>> both cases that the only conclusion any sensible person can draw is that >>>> some people are good, some people are bad, and anyone can be drawn to or >>>> away from religion. >>>> TLA >>> So was this John Towland an atheist? >> I have no idea, and it's not relevant anyway. He just wrote a biog of >> Hitler. >> >>> Anyway, Hitler was a politician saying what would make him popular >>> with the German people. His actions in his life show that he did not >>> believe he would be punished for sins, much like atheists of today. >> ...and any psychopath with temporal lobe epilepsy or schizophrenia who >> believes that massacring groups or whole races is OK, because they've >> God on their side. However, the point that you're trying to dodge, and >> failing, is that as much evil is done in the name of religion, in this >> case Christian religion, as is done by those with none - probably more. >> If you don't find that an uncomfortable truth, you need to recalibrate >> your humanity. >> >> TLA- Hide quoted text - >> > Well, I don't really see much evidence of it. Stalin and Pol Pot were > both atheists. But politicians who killed large numbers of people > cannot compare with the numbers of people killed by abortion, which > was done by governments controlled by atheistic political factions. Your vitriol against atheists is kinda cute in a psycho sort of way. Where do I sign up for the genocides? I need to do my atheistic duty. Is it the same place Mormons get their brains removed?
From: Smiler on 16 Jul 2008 20:19 "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. > Why should I concieve the former when the latter is far nicer? > At my age, the latter is definitely harder.. Conceiving the latter is not difficult at any age, remembering what to do once it's been conceived is the problem! Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Smiler on 16 Jul 2008 20:27 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:ad020ec9-a457-4dae-818d-182301ce08ba(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... 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. ==================================== Most of whom are 'beleivers' in one god or another. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Smiler on 16 Jul 2008 20:59
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:71e6297f-a1f3-4489-b2c9-82ed1966908f(a)c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... On Jul 15, 12:16?am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "Antares 531" <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote in message > > news:72in74drr47ktr9l98raqph18ep0s1h4cp(a)4ax.com... > > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:25:09 -0400, Brian E. Clark > > <re...(a)newsgroup.only.please> wrote: > > >>In article <4d2a74pf351she9f40vri1ku32c7s40a9j@ > >>4ax.com>, Antares 531 said... > > >>> Fulfillment of prophecies is the most convincing "evidence" for the > >>> reliability of the Bible, > > >>Most convincing of all are those prophecies written > >>after the events they predict. > > > Bryan, I see your point, but I maintain that there are many Biblical > > prophecies that were written LONG before they were fulfilled, and the > > history/dating can not have been manipulated. Even if the dating of, > > say the prophecies of Daniel can be argued a bit, it can't be > > stretched to a date later than the time of Jesus's life. If you > > haven't already done so, please visit this site and check some of > > these items out. > > >http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml > > > Gordon > > I read it. > Am I missing something? > What exactly is impressive about Daniel's prophecy? > > -- > Steve O You are missing comprehension. The head of gold is the Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, =================================== So you claim. Got any evidence for that assertion? ================================== then there are the Persians, =================================== So you claim. Got any evidence for that assertion? ================================== then the Greeks, ================================ So you claim. Got any evidence for that assertion? ================================== then the Romans, etc., ================================== So you claim. Got any evidence for that assertion? ================================== till you get to the iron mixed with miry clay, which signify the kingdoms of modern Europe. ===================================== So you claim. Got any evidence for that assertion? ================================== Most people are capable of understanding the prophecy, ==================================== Translation: Most 'believers' will read between the line to "see" what isn't there in order to prop up their beliefs. ==================================== but probably no atheist would be able to do it. ================================= Translation: No atheist would be that gullible. =============================== The prophecy was given in 600 B.C. ================================ How do you know this? Where you there? Were there any independent witnesses? Age does not imply truth. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 |