Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: WG on 27 Jun 2008 00:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E&feature=related. ..
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2008 22:13 On Jun 26, 3:56�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So scientists can be proven wrong by their belief in the Loerentz equations, which requires a miracle to describe relativity of time. But a miracle described by equations is OK if it results in appropriations from public revenues so that scientists can do research, while miracles to feed the hungry are not allowed by science. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2008 22:14 On Jun 26, 3:58�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 26, 1:46 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote:> > > Have you seen the originals to confirm this? > > > What language were they in? > > > I don't need to. �If it says something wrong, it was not translated > > correctly. > > Robert B. Winn > > Who tells you what bits are wrong? �Mr Pastor again? > > Al- Hide quoted text - > Who is Mr. Pastor? Robert B. Winn
From: Pelerin Galimatias on 26 Jun 2008 22:55 In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.1080626134221.14285B-100000(a)libra.cus.cam.ac.uk>, was1000(a)cus.cam.ac.uk says... > >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. You aren't saying that there are people who don't believe in the bug-blatter beast of Traal?
From: The Natural Philosopher on 27 Jun 2008 03:29
Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) wrote: > 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. Nonono. Even the biblical god is not disproveable. Since and omnipotent intelligence is totally capable of fixing everything in the world so it LOOKS a billion years old. What you have essentially is the current'scientific' view wich projects time lines back to a divergence at the point of the big bang, and the creationist view which simply truncates them what - 60000 years ago? - and scribbles 'God' over the truncation. Both explanations - neither are really theories - demand one supernatural event. IN one case its the presence of a supernatural active intelligence, in the other its the breaking of symmetries in a non sentient somewhat mechanistic universe. The former appeals to some, the latter to others. > > Al |