Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 27 Jun 2008 08:51 On Jun 27, 12:34 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > 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 > > Correct. > > Religious beliefs cannot be proven wrong, because they are  not a > scientific theory: Since religion  predicts nothing that can be tested, > its is never open to challenge on a scientific basis. > >  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. > > A 'miracle' is worthy of funding if it can be tested and leads to > consistent results. > > > > > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text - > Well, that was what the people who were fed by the loaves and fishes said also. I do not personally see any reason to be giving scientists trillions of dollars every year just because they say they believe in one miracle. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 27 Jun 2008 08:56 On Jun 27, 1:10�am, Virgil <Vir...(a)gmale.com> wrote: > In article <1214552129.152...(a)proxy01.news.clara.net>, > �The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > 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 > > > Correct. > > > Religious beliefs cannot be proven wrong, because they are �not a > > scientific theory: Since religion �predicts nothing that can be tested, > > its is never open to challenge on a scientific basis. > > And while that sort of religious belief cannot be proved wrong by > science, it also cannot be proved right. > > On matters of religion, as on many non-religious matters, science says > nothing. > > However when the religious say that science is wrong, they usually have > no idea what they are talking about. > > E.g., creationists and intelligent design freaks.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, the fact is that scientists of today say that absolute time does not exist. Except when they are talking about the length of time the earth has existed. Then there is no relativity of time whatsoever. The Bible talks about relativity of time all the way through. The sun stood still in the days of Joshua, the sundial went backward in the days of Hezekiah, a day to God is a thousand years to man, etc. I would have to lean toward relativity of time. Everything I have encountered in life indicates that relativity of time exists. Robert B. Winn
From: Jack on 27 Jun 2008 09:38 > I am upset by *people* who > believe that the Bible is anything more than mythology and try to impose > their > beliefs on me using the Bible as evidence. How can someone impose a belief on you? Just believe whatever you want to believe.
From: Chris Shore on 27 Jun 2008 10:29 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:621f5b5c-8511-45b7-ae9f-03c8a9914fd5(a)s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >Well, they do now that I have brought up the subject of Hezekiah's >tunnel and the earthen ramp, which can both be seen today. Before >that, they were saying there was nothing in the Bible that was not >mythology and nothing in the Bible that could be proven. Atheists say >whatever they think will fly. It just so happened that I knew about >Hezekiah's tunnel, so what they usually say was not sufficient for >this conversation. So now they are saying that the Bible has some >history in it, but they are not happy about having to say that. They >would rather be saying what they said when this conversation started, >that the Bible is nothing but mythology. Of course the Bibel has some history in it. And of course some of it is verifiable. So are various parts of various other ancient texts from other ancient historical/religious cultures. This prove absolutely nothing. Chris
From: W.A. Sawford on 27 Jun 2008 11:49
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Tiger wrote: > On Jun 27, 9:25 am, "W.A. Sawford" <was1...(a)cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > > My mistake, I actually saw him last week at the restaurant at the end of > > the universe, chatting with the young conservatives from Syrius B. ;) > > Young Tories from the Dog Star? You can't be Sirius! Ewww....I need a pan-galactic gargle blaster after that. |