Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 21 Jun 2008 13:40 On Jun 21, 8:20�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote in message > > news:6c4j1tF3e0cf4U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >news:7400364b-46e0-4427-b422-c4439607cf7f(a)27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > >> On Jun 21, 3:54?am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>> rbwinn wrote: > > >>> >> - Show quoted text - > > >>> > Well, you seem to have faith in Spiderman and Harry Potter. > > >>> And you don't believe that London exists.- Hide quoted text - > > >> I don't? �So where does the Queen of England live? > >> Robert B. Winn > > > We know where she lives. > > You're the one who doesn't believe in London, not us. > > I popped over and asked her. > She said "We are not amused."- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - That was the same thing she said to George W. Bush. Robert B. Winn
From: Alex W. on 21 Jun 2008 14:38 "Antares 531" <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote in message news:rqbo54lr1tasumu56qhapgslfe08ce8o5l(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:45:40 +1200, BuddyThunder > <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>Antares 531 wrote: >>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:21:10 +0100, "Steve O" <nospamhere(a)thanks.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>> news:81b43f22-3a29-4b8e-b9f2-819f09384aa1(a)u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>>> I do not get flattered by atheists. If you do not believe in God, >>>>> prove it. Find something else to talk about. >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>> I can certainly prove to you that I do not believe in God. >>>> >>> I'm sure yours was a fully volitional choice, made possible by reason >>> of the evidence being quite well balanced to support a decision in >>> either direction. You weren't overwhelmed and forced to knuckle under, >>> as would certainly have been the situation had there been rock solid >>> objective evidence that you could not overwhelm. >> >>I certainly hope that was the case too. >> >>> I still don't understand how life could have started, spontaneously, >>> and why there was such a flourish of what seems to have been a very >>> well orchestrated explosion of life forms during the Cambrian period, >>> unless there was an intelligent designer in control. Gordon >> >>I don't know how life started either, but for me to conclude that God >>must have dunnit would just be intellectually lazy. The cambrian >>explosion was well-orchestrated? In what way? >> > It was well orchestrated in that it moved very rapidly, without > faltering, in terms of geological/evolutionary time, and it produced > the necessary end results quite effectively, then quit, or slowed the > pace remarkably. Nothing much remarkable about it if you consider basic natural imperatives: if the parameters for lief change, so the ecosystem will adapt. Given a sudden increase in the number of rabbits, the number of foxes will also explode. Sudden and massive warming of the global climate would have vastly increased the range and possibilities for all life to expand -- which it duly did. It is certainly a more natural phenomenon than a slow and systematic expansion. > > I understand your position on the God or chance set of questions, but > I just can't resolve the chance side of this argument. It would be > somewhat like saying that it is statistically possible for a tornado > to sweep through a pine forest, snap off a bunch of logs, then > assemble them into a log cabin. I just don't think it has ever > happened, and if someone tried to convince me that it had, I'd be a > hard headed skeptic. > > As to being intellectually lazy, I think this is the prudent > description of those who refuse or decline to look into the available > information and try to build reinforcement for believing in God. Of > course we're back to that, "It can't be objectively proven." barrier, > but this also applies to spontaneous creation of life. So you go on the balance of evidence ...which is definitely balanced in favour of nature rather than some divine intervention. > When Jesus did those "miracles" mentioned in the Bible, was he really > doing miracles outside the natural laws of the multiverse, or was he > manipulating things back and forth between some of those other > universes? If indeed He was the creator of this multiverse, it seems > that he could have means for unrolling those other dimensions a bit > such that they were actively associated with this perceivable > universe. Maybe that is what He did when he appeared to be walking on > water. Could He have been walking down a solid path "street of gold" > in the first level of Heaven, but with the dimensions unrolled to > somewhat more than a Planck length, such that he was visible to the > men in the boat? Gordon If one accepts your assumption (barring evidence of his existence in the first place), then those miracles -- or at least those which cannot be explained by science -- may equally well have been performed by a "freak of nature" or an extraterrestrial. There is no evidence either way, so all possibilities are equal.
From: Alex W. on 21 Jun 2008 14:46 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:5f0f793d-9e10-488e-b6f4-e69df9f38e17(a)z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com... On Jun 21, 8:16?am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote in message > > news:6c4ja8F3erpl2U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > > If you think that Harry Potter is fiction then you must also think that > > London doesn't exist right? > > You'd better tell that to all of the people who live there, it may come > > as > > a surprise to them. > > Like the esteemed Mr Winn Esq, London councils have no doubt whatsoever > about the existence of London. ?At least, that is what they profess when > they send out council tax demands. Taxes. Well, that is something that should convince some atheists. Taxes are something they will never deny. ============ True. So when I receive that tax demand from my case worker Jesus of the Eternal Revenue Service, I shall being shouting "hallelujah, the Lord be praised".
From: BuddyThunder on 21 Jun 2008 18:27 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 21, 4:22 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 20, 4:37 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 20, 2:40 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 20, 5:34 am, TT <tte...(a)wowway.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 5:55 am, TT <tte...(a)wowway.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Well, go ahead and talk about God, but I can tell you ahead of time, >>>>>>>>>>> you do not know anything about God. No atheist does. >>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>> nahh...we'll discus what we want...you choose your fiction..and >>>>>>>>>> that's all you have been expressing faith in..nothing else...and we'll >>>>>>>>>> point out our fiction...and we won't base a worldview on our inability >>>>>>>>>> to deal with reality like you do....Don't like it? Pray for >>>>>>>>>> us...otherwise..tough... >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> �Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the >>>>>>>>>> question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it >>>>>>>>>> right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is >>>>>>>>>> neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one >>>>>>>>>> it is right.� >>>>>>>>>> Martin Luther king Jr.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>> Well, people would do better if they learned to do their own praying. >>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>> Thinking is preferred by everyone else here..it actually does >>>>>>>> something... >>>>>>> Well, so you think that you can destroy Christianity. That was what >>>>>>> this conversation was about when it began. That was why I was >>>>>>> pointing out that the Bible was the best selling book in the world. >>>>>>> Not so, said atheists. Harry Potter is the best selling book in the >>>>>>> world. >>>>>> That's a bit melodramatic, isn't it? I'm just interested in your beliefs >>>>>> and how they're rationalised. Destroying Christianity is a ridiculous >>>>>> aspiration, you'd constantly be disappointed!- Hide quoted text - >>>>> So why do atheists have schools teaching that Christianity is false? >>>>> If they do not have the aspiration, why are they trying to do it? >>>> Do we? What schools? What fresh hell is this?!- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Public schools. >> Could you explain how they teach that Christianity is false?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > The same way Darrell Stek does. They promote the teachings of modern > atheists and claim that anything written about Christ is fiction. Total rubbish. Or can you actually substantiate that claim with anything other than baseless assertions? Schools have a duty to impart knowledge about reality, if that guides people to be less religious, then perhaps your religion is at fault for not according better with reality. If schools were to teach about Christ (which would be okay in a comparitive religion class), then they must also teach about other major religious beliefs too, as they're all just as well supported, and just as dear to sections of the population.
From: BuddyThunder on 21 Jun 2008 18:30
rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 21, 12:43�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:c5f85d3b-d62a-4cf8-925f-661796bd9082(a)t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> All public education in the United States is now atheistic. >> >> ========== >> >> IOW, it conforms to the law of the land. > > The law of the land guaranteed freedom of religion, right to trial by > jury, free and open elections, and many other things that do not exist > in the United States today. You don't feel free to practice your religion? Weird. It's a VERY religious country. Public education shouldn't teach people things that are not shown to be true. They shouldn't teach Christianity, Islam, Odinism OR Hinduism. Why is that wrong? |