Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: RobertL on 26 Jun 2008 08:05 On Jun 26, 4:48 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 7:27�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > Actually, you ought to consider the consequences of a proof by God > > > that he does not exist. > > > If that were to happen, people would have no choice except to believe > > in God. > > Why should anyone believe in a proven non-existent god? > > Proven by whom? A proof is a proof; it doesn't matter who proved it. Robert
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2008 08:23 On Jun 26, 5:05 am, RobertL <robertml...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 4:48 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 25, 7:27�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > > Actually, you ought to consider the consequences of a proof by God > > > > that he does not exist. > > > > If that were to happen, people would have no choice except to believe > > > in God. > >  > > Why should anyone believe in a proven non-existent god? > > > > > Proven by whom? > >  A proof is a proof; it doesn't matter who proved it. > > Robert Well, if no one proved it, then it was not proven. All you have done is to say it was proven without showing any proof or anyone who is suppsed to have done it. Atheists have said they have proven all manner of things. Almost always it turns out to be something some individual atheist put together that sounds good to other atheists. Robert B. Winn
From: W.A. Sawford on 26 Jun 2008 08:59 On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 26, 5:05 am, RobertL <robertml...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 26, 4:48 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 25, 7:27�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > Well, if no one proved it, then it was not proven. All you have done > is to say it was proven without showing any proof or anyone who is > suppsed to have done it. Atheists have said they have proven all > manner of things. Almost always it turns out to be something some > individual atheist put together that sounds good to other atheists. > Robert B. Winn I wasn't going to get involved in all this (unless it's Friday, which it isn't) but I can't stand it any longer (sigh). 'Atheists have said they have proven all manner of things.' Well, what exactly have they claimed to have proved, and which atheists have claimed it? Atheists don't actually need to 'prove' anything, because there is not a shred of evidence that god exists in the first place. The onus is not on atheists to prove the non-existence of god any more than the non-existence of the ravening bug-blatter beast of Traal. Show me some real evidence and I'll think about belief. Although actual evidence would of course remove the need for belief in the first place... Wendy
From: The Natural Philosopher on 26 Jun 2008 16:09 W.A. Sawford wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, rbwinn wrote: > >> On Jun 26, 5:05� am, RobertL <robertml...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Jun 26, 4:48� am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 25, 7:27�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: >> Well, if no one proved it, then it was not proven. All you have done >> is to say it was proven without showing any proof or anyone who is >> suppsed to have done it. Atheists have said they have proven all >> manner of things. Almost always it turns out to be something some >> individual atheist put together that sounds good to other atheists. >> Robert B. Winn > > I wasn't going to get involved in all this (unless it's Friday, which it > isn't) but I can't stand it any longer (sigh). > > 'Atheists have said they have proven all manner of things.' > > Well, what exactly have they claimed to have proved, and which atheists > have claimed it? Atheists don't actually need to 'prove' anything, > because there is not a shred of evidence that god exists in the first > place. The onus is not on atheists to prove the non-existence of god any > more than the non-existence of the ravening bug-blatter beast of Traal. > Completely wrong. The concept of God is not a scientific hypotheis, nor a fact. So it can't be proven or disproven. Its simply a shorthand for 'all the wide and wonderful stuff we cant get a handle on; and feel scared by' more or less. Atheism isn't so much denying His existence, nor yet keeping and open mind on the subject (agnostic) its merely sidestepping the whole mess as something one can simply do without. > Show me some real evidence and I'll think about belief. Although actual > evidence would of course remove the need for belief in the first place... That's the whole point. Belief is a state of mind that has utility. Its a little bit of Wise-ardry. Headology. Wise-ards understand that believing in something is an action, not a statement about its existence, or lack thereof. > Wendy > > >
From: WG on 26 Jun 2008 19:24
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o&feature=related .. |