Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: mizlee on 27 Jun 2008 12:04 On Jun 27, 8:37�am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > Teachers hired to teach in public schools are trained in college to > teach atheism. > > Robert B. Winn- As a former public school teacher, I am in a really, really good position to tell you that you are an absolute, bald-faced liar, in addition to being a barking mad looney. Seriously, dude, you need professional help.
From: Robert J. Kolker on 27 Jun 2008 13:39 Virgil wrote: > In article <1214551843.1522.0(a)proxy01.news.clara.net>, > The Natural Philosopher <a(a)b.c> wrote: > > >>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? > > > More like 6,000 years ago. But there are bristlecone pines older than > that. If think it is Sept 28, 4004 b.c.e., according to Bishop Usher. Bob Kolker
From: pbamvv on 27 Jun 2008 14:28 On 27 jun, 14:56, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > 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- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - I have noticed those bible places also, I suppose the text as we see it now, is possible corrupted or is perhaps trying to tell something else than it litterally says. The effect of the sun "standing" still would be all of us speeding up or breaking down 1500 km/h. As the passage about Joshua doesn't mention any tidal effects, the sun couldn't really have stood "still". A sundial going backwards would indicate a heavy earthquake or something similar. No way the earth's rotations is going to be backwards without all humanity dying. Time is relative but nont that relative:-) Best to you, and may tou sundial never go backwards! Peter van Velzen June 2008 Amstelveen The Netherlands
From: Smiler on 27 Jun 2008 20:58 "Jack" <furgfurgfurg(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f8GdnUtAK5PIcPnVnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d(a)posted.echolabs... >> 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. Did you not notice the word "try" in there? Aren't those who knock on my door trying to impose their beliefs on me? Aren't those who demand creationism/ID are taught in science classes trying to impose their beliefs on children? Aren't those who are trying to turn the US into a theocracy trying to impose their beliefs on all US citizens? Don't parents, who indoctrinate their children with their own religion, try to impose their beliefs on their children? Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Smiler on 27 Jun 2008 21:17
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:2612b88d-8906-4340-beae-1823b6ea0d69(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... On Jun 22, 1:09 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 21, 4:17 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jun 21, 4:14 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 20, 3:40 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 19, 12:06?am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>>>>> Well, what you are saying is that the Biblical account of the > >>>>>>>>> Assyrian > >>>>>>>>> invasion of Judea is fiction. ?What part of it do you claim is > >>>>>>>>> fiction? ?So far we have discussed the earthen ramp and > >>>>>>>>> Hezekiah's > >>>>>>>>> tunnel. ?Are you still claiming that those are fiction? > >>>>>>>> You're still claiming London doesn't exist, huh? > >>>>>>>> I don't know either account, so really don't have an opinion. > >>>>>>>> Have you > >>>>>>>> considered that maybe neither account is accurate? If pressed, I > >>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>> go with the explanation with the best evidential support. I don't > >>>>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>> reason to decide at this point. > >>>>>>>> Happy to be agnostic on something! > >>>>>>> OK, well, my opinion is that unless an atheist has an opinion > >>>>>>> about > >>>>>>> Hezekiah's tunnel and the earthen ramp, it is a waste of time to > >>>>>>> try > >>>>>>> to discuss the Bible with that person. > >>>>>> Wow, why would you say that? It's a minor Biblical detail. > >>>>>> They exist, is that opinion enough?- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>> Well, any person who will not admit that someing exists which can be > >>>>> seen is not going to admit the existence of things which cannot be > >>>>> seen. So conversation with atheists is totally unprofitable. > >>>> No-one *ever* denied their existence. If they did, then you have > >>>> consistently denied that London exists too. > >>>> All we demand is logical consistency. Would you like to talk about > >>>> Harry > >>>> Potter again? ;-)- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> No reason to talk about Harry Potter. There never was. > >> Then there was no reason to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel or earthern > >> ramps either. I agree with you. :-)- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > You said you wanted to talk about the Bible. So now are you saying > > that you only want to discuss the parts of the Bible that you select? > > I don't remember saying that, maybe if you could point me to the post? I > don't remember selecting the topic of discussion either, you brought up > Hezekiah's tunnel and invading army ramps. Discuss what you like Robert, > we might even find some common ground!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, actions speak louder than words. You do not want to discuss Hezekiah's tunnel. You do not want to discuss the earthen ramp. You will discuss certain verses of the Bible you can find fault with. ---------------------------------------- That would be most of them. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 |