Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 22 Jun 2008 21:26 On Jun 22, 3:46 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 21, 3:40 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jun 20, 10:30 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 20, 3:14 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 20, 5:44�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>news:91aff9de-ef71-4690-8e27-742500d48b32(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups..com... > >>>>>>>> Well, you atheists have some strange ideas. �Your problem is that all > >>>>>>>> you have is talk. �We have the Bible. > >>>>>>>> ============= > >>>>>>>> OK then, different tack. > >>>>>>>> What do you have? > >>>>>>>> What is the Bible? > >>>>>>>> What makes up the Bible? > >>>>>>>> Who decided what is and is not part of the Bible? > >>>>>>>> Even if you believe, how can you TRUST a collection of documents that were > >>>>>>>> transcribed from oral tradition, that have been edited, redacted, translated > >>>>>>>> from previous translations, whose components were added or omitted according > >>>>>>>> to pervailing theological fashion over several millennia? > >>>>>>> Well, in the church I belong to, we do it because we have further > >>>>>>> revelation on the same subject. > >>>>>> The golden plates?- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>> No, we do not have the golden plates. > >>>> Yes, I know. I was asking if that was the further revelation you rather > >>>> mysteriously referred to?- Hide quoted text - > >>> The golden plates were just golden plates.  They were not revelation. > >> I wouldn't have said that they were even that! ;-) Anyway, would you be > >> willing to explain your revelation a bit more? I'd be interested to know > >> how God is talking to his flock these days.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > The way he always did, through His prophet.  You atheists were > > claiming that because Moses did not seem to be world renowned at his > > time, he could not have existed.  The fact remains that he was the > > prophet of God until the Israelites entered the promised land.  So now > > you are saying that you did not know there was a prophet of God > > today.  I could tell you did not.  You had never even considered the > > possibility. > > Could you explain exactly how the revelation is delivered and received? > Is it recorded? Who is the prophet?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The prophet is Thomas B. Monson. All three members of the First Presidency of the church and all members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. Their counsel to members of the church is recorded. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 22 Jun 2008 21:29 On Jun 22, 3:56 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 21, 3:57 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> 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? > >> It's your logic to defend. If you find it inconsistent, perhaps you need > >> to revise it. > > > I do not need to revise anything.  I was not the one claiming the > > reality of Harry Potter. > > And in so doing you deny London's existence. Or does London being in > Harry Potter not really mean that the book is true? You will have to decide for yourself whether you believe Harry Potter is true. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 22 Jun 2008 21:31 On Jun 22, 4:00 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 21, 4:05 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jun 21, 4:01 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 20, 3:24 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 18, 11:42 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 4:45 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>news:21d2e037-7498-4d49-bb95-5a308e107d58(a)j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 12:14 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>>news:c44cff96-90ef-45f4-badc-413fcf95321e(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 10:41�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:f8121cc3-37c1-4561-b7cc-b6292578b7f1(a)34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All atheists I talk to indicate to me that if they do not have a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written record of something, then it did not exist, and if the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record is the Bible, then it still did not exist. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have simply told you on many occasions that the magical events > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> were > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to have taken place in your Bible are uncorroborated by any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> source. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, all you can do is bleat about ramps and conduits, which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof at all that the supposed magical events actually happened, or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> main characters depicted in the book actually existed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are either incapable of listening, or unwilling to listen. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, you atheists thought Harry Potter was going to make the tunnels > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and ramps disappear. > >>>>>>>>>>>> We did no such thing. > >>>>>>>>>>>> You simply offered that as a straw man argument to disguise your weak > >>>>>>>>>>>> position. > >>>>>>>>>>> I was not arguing about anything.  If you atheists want to believe in > >>>>>>>>>>> Harry Potter, go ahead and believe in him.  I just said that there was > >>>>>>>>>>> a tunnel between Gihon spring and the Pool of Siloam, exactly the way > >>>>>>>>>>> three books of the Old Testament say there is, and there is an earthen > >>>>>>>>>>> ramp over the city wall at the ruins of Lachish.  You want to be cute > >>>>>>>>>>> about it, so go ahead and be cute. > >>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > >>>>>>>>>> Now explain why the existence of this tunnel and ramp and the fact that they > >>>>>>>>>> are mentioned in the bible is evidence that the rest of the magic story is > >>>>>>>>>> real. > >>>>>>>>> So what you would have me believe is that there are only two things > >>>>>>>>> mentioned in the Bible that are real, an earthen ramp and a conduit > >>>>>>>>> for water.  I think that there are other things mentioned in the Bible > >>>>>>>>> that are real. > >>>>>>>> I'm sure there are other things that are true in the Bible, but they > >>>>>>>> require independent verification before we'll know. > >>>>>>>> As you well know, London exists just as decribed in Harry Potter, but > >>>>>>>> that's no reason to accept flying broomsticks. Flying broomsticks would > >>>>>>>> require independent evidence. We don't have any. So there's no > >>>>>>>> compelling reason to believe in it. > >>>>>>>> Jerusalem exists, just as described in the Bible, but that's no reason > >>>>>>>> to accept a six-literal-day creation. A six day creation would require > >>>>>>>> independent evidence. We don't have any. We have overwhelming evidence > >>>>>>>> for an old earth. So there's no compelling reason to believe in a young > >>>>>>>> earth.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>>>> Well, you atheists insist on relativity of time except in one > >>>>>>> circumstance, the creation of the earth.  When it comes to dinosaurs, > >>>>>>> you insist on absolute time, just like Isaac Newton. > >>>>>> You think that a 6000 year old planet that looks 4.5 billion years old > >>>>>> can be accounted for by the theory of relativity? Could you explain the > >>>>>> mechanism in layman's terms? I'm not an expert.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>> Well, as I said, you atheists do not want relativity of time applied > >>>>> to this particular thing, which the Bible does in more than one > >>>>> place.  There are two definitions of time at the present, only one of > >>>>> which scientists will discuss, what they call local time or scientific > >>>>> time.  This is defined by a certain number of transition of a cesium > >>>>> isotope molecule.  Then Einstein's theory shows that if a cesium > >>>>> isotope molecule is moving relative to another cesium isotope > >>>>> molecule, then the time of its transitions will be slower than the > >>>>> transitions of the molecule that is not moving.  So time is relative, > >>>>> except when scientists are talking about dinosaurs or the time of the > >>>>> planet earth. > >>>> Where can I read the peer-reviewed publication of this fascinating new > >>>> theory? That's quite something, you should write it up if no-one has, > >>>> it's Nobel Prize material!- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> I write it up all the time in sci.physics.relativity. > >> Posting in a usenet group is not an effective way of getting a > >> challenging new theory taken seriously. Why wouldn't you go through > >> accepted scientific channels? Do you not really believe your new theory?- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > I am the only one who does.  I would suspect that sometime in the > > coming centuries that someone in science will decide to think about > > time, and then it will be accepted.  Right now scientists are making > > too much money selling Einstein's idea. > > Read that back slowly and tell me if it sounds kooky.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No, it does not sound kooky. Scientists are allotted trillions of dollars every year to research Einstein's theory and the Lorentz equations, etc. So what do you think they are going to do, say that a welder has proven them wrong? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 22 Jun 2008 21:32 On Jun 22, 4:02 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 21, 4:09 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> 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. > >> Are taxes evidence that any gods exist?- Hide quoted text - > > > Taxes are evidence that atheists exist. > > Yeah, Christians don't like to pay their taxes, do they?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I don't like to pay taxes. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 22 Jun 2008 21:39
On Jun 22, 4:36�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:4463e85c-8fa0-408f-b1d2-10bf1990091b(a)x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 5:05?pm, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > "BuddyThunder" <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message > > >news:485d8115(a)clear.net.nz... > > > > 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? > > > He does not grasp that "freedom of religion" also means "freedom FROM > > religion".- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Well, then they should not be teaching atheism, either, but we see no > such restriction on that religion. > > ======== > > Atheism is not a religion. > Atheism is no more and no less than living in freedom FROM religion. > > The term you may be groping for is "secularism". > Google it.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No, I am not groping for anything. Atheism is a religion. Robert B. Winn |