Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Steve O on 29 Aug 2008 08:49 "Smiler" <Smiler(a)Joe.King.com> wrote in message news:ksJtk.22262$Ff2.3678(a)newsfe13.ams2... >>>>>> Well, Al, I am sorry you feel that was. ? Maybe we could discuss >>>>>> the prophecy that if a man denies God and asks to see a sign, >>>>>> that man is an adulterer. ?Steve suddenly left when that subject >>>>>> came up. Robert B. Winn >>> >>>>> Steve is not even married, why should he be an adulterer? I was married the last time I checked. She's at work at the moment. Who knows, I could be wrong. ;-) It's interesting how Winn perceives that first of all, I have left the group (which I haven't, I have simply kill filed him) and secondly , that he thinks I have left to avoid discussing adultery. I couldn't give a damn whether Winn thinks I am an adulterer or not, so I haven't got a clue where he gets that idea from. He has such a strange mind, don't you think? >>>>> Those prophecies were made up by ancient con.......stick this fact >>>>> into your usable part of the brain.- Hide quoted text - >>> >>>>> - Show quoted text - >>> >>>> Maybe he has been looking at pornography. ?Jesus said that he who >>>> looks on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her >>>> already in his heart. So it's not real adultery then? Only in the heart. Got it, thanks. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence "I like Jesus, but he loves me, so it's awkward"
From: rbwinn on 29 Aug 2008 14:55 On Aug 29, 5:49�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote in message > > news:ksJtk.22262$Ff2.3678(a)newsfe13.ams2... > > >>>>>> Well, Al, I am sorry you feel that was. ? Maybe we could discuss > >>>>>> the prophecy that if a man denies God and asks to see a sign, > >>>>>> that man is an adulterer. ?Steve suddenly left when that subject > >>>>>> came up. Robert B. Winn > > >>>>> Steve is not even married, why should he be an adulterer? > > I was married the last time I checked. > She's at work at the moment. > Who knows, I could be wrong. ;-) > It's interesting how Winn perceives that first of all, I have left the group > (which I haven't, I have simply kill filed him) > and secondly , that he thinks I have left to avoid discussing adultery. > I couldn't give a damn whether Winn thinks I am an adulterer or not, so I > haven't got a clue where he gets that idea from. > He has such a strange mind, don't you think? > > >>>>> Those prophecies were made up by ancient con.......stick this fact > >>>>> into your usable part of the brain.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>>> Maybe he has been looking at pornography. ?Jesus said that he who > >>>> looks on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her > >>>> already in his heart. > > So it's not real adultery then? > Only in the heart. > Got it, thanks. > > -- Well, as I understand it, it counts the same. Robert B. Winn
From: foolsrushin. on 4 Sep 2008 16:13 On 30 Jul, 15:14, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT), > mitch.nicolas.raem...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >No. I don't think so. > >"I want to know how God created this universe. All the rest are just > >details." Albert Einstein > >Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 > I would like some insights and opinions on the book, Science and > Religion by Paul Kurtz. Also, what is the general take on the > magazine, Skeptical Inquirer? > Are both these slanted severely to support the agnostic/atheist > perspective, or are they relatively unbiased and reliable sources of > intellectual insights into the matter of science and religion. > Gordon Gordie, I don't know anything about the Kurtz book, though Skeptical Inqurier - mind you, I have only read a few issues - strikes me as a debunking mag, ironically entertaining, mildly mocking, then going on the attack against anything that challenges (a) the slightest notion that we have not explained everything to date, and (b) alleging that no matter what happens, there will be an explanation within our grasp. -- foolsrushin.
From: foolsrushin. on 6 Sep 2008 07:49 On 4 Sep, 21:13, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 30 Jul, 15:14, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT), > > mitch.nicolas.raem...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > >No. I don't think so. > > >"I want to know how God created this universe. All the rest are just > > >details." Albert Einstein > > >Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 > > I would like some insights and opinions on the book, Science and > > Religion by Paul Kurtz. Also, what is the general take on the > > magazine, Skeptical Inquirer? > > Are both these slanted severely to support the agnostic/atheist > > perspective, or are they relatively unbiased and reliable sources of > > intellectual insights into the matter of science and religion. > > Gordon > > Gordie, I don't know anything about the Kurtz book, though Skeptical > Inqurier - mind you, I have only read a few issues - strikes me as a > debunking mag, ironically entertaining, mildly mocking, then going on > the attack against anything that challenges (a) the slightest notion > that we have not explained everything to date, and (b) alleging that > no matter what happens, there will be an explanation within our > grasp. > -- > foolsrushin. Well, we have not explained everything to date, and I do not mean just WT7! Physics works, and that is all you need to know to proceed! Isn't it? Hyperdimensional physics works better: try Hoagland and Bara's site http://www.enterprisemission.com/ and read Dark Mission: the Secret History of NASA ( though sometimes a bit biting, lots of humour, too!) -- foolsrushin.
From: jonathan cyriax brast on 15 Sep 2008 03:12
Let try: The creation of something (including the universe) was gods biggest possible wonder. But it would be a bigger wonder if he had created the something with an handicap. So the biggest possible wonder would be the creation of everything with the biggest handicap. Therefore he created everything with the biggest possible handicap. The biggest possible handicap is nonexistence. Therefore god did not exist when everything was created. |