Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 26 Jun 2008 18:56 On Jun 27, 6:09 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > 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 Your "god" is yours. Different people have more or less anthropomorphic ideas of gods. And the claim wasn't so much that your god of gaps was disproven (that would be a misnomer, as you're suggesting god is the stuff we don't know), but the literal biblical god is provably false. The most obviously wrong points would be the age of the universe, origin of species/types, and a world-wide flood. There are lots of other smaller details that are contradictory to reality as well, but could more easily be argued as lack of knowledge by transcribers. Al
From: hhyapster on 26 Jun 2008 21:45 On Jun 26, 11:48 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 7:27�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >news:884e5992-7364-40c6-9d03-4c22aafd215b(a)z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.... > > On Jun 25, 5:14?pm, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 18 Jun, 11:01, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > [cut] > > > > > >>>>>>> "I want to know how God created this universe. All the rest are > > > > >>>>>>> just > > > > >>>>>>> details." Albert Einstein > > > > >>>>>>> Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 > > > > [cut] > > > > Actually, you ought to consider the consequences of a proof by God > > > that he does not exist. > > > -- > > > 'foolsrushin.' > > > 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? > Robert B. Winn Well, proven by the fact that since the beginning until now in human time, no god appeared. Proven also by the fact that calamities were not averted or prevented by him....! Do you get it? I guess you have the inability to understand clear cut "true" statement. Your brain is clouded by your bigotry embracement.
From: hhyapster on 26 Jun 2008 21:48 On Jun 26, 3:57 pm, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On 25 Jun, 22:11, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 25, 1:05 pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Luke did not use Josephus. > > > > > > Have you read the Gospel According to Luke and Acts in Greek? Have you read > > > > >Josephus' entire works in Greek? If not then you don't have even the most > > > > > basic foundation to be able to discuss the matter. > > > > Since little Darrell hasn't done this himself, this is merely a > > > particularly dishonest attempt to silence criticism of a particularly > > > daft statement. > > > All the best, > > > >Roger Pearse > > > Thank you, Roger. Darrell has some very strange ideas. > > Robert b. Winn > > You're welcome. I'm afraid that the problem is not with wrong > information. Most atheists are more or less normal people, but a few > are willing to lie for their belief, and Darrell is one of them. > (I've just, regrettably, met another). > > All the best, > > Roger Pearse Atheists and scientists are all sane people with clear mind. Strong willed as they are as well. The only weak are the people who subscribe to invented stories/tales thousands of years ago.
From: hhyapster on 26 Jun 2008 21:50 On Jun 26, 8:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> 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: > > > > > 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 Are you saying that theists like you also do the same thing as us, in the matter of stories in the bible?
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2008 21:51
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 there was no one who proved it, and nothing was proven, then it did not happen. Robert B. Winn |