Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Smiler on 27 Jun 2008 21:54 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:93faee1e-7aa9-4f18-b761-3a585ebcbaf0(a)v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com... 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? By god himself! > > 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. ----------------------------------- Just like your bible stories. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: rbwinn on 27 Jun 2008 21:55 On Jun 27, 11:28 am, "pba...(a)worldonline.nl" <pba...(a)worldonline.nl> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thank you for your input, Peter. Always happy to hear from our atheist friends in Europe. I think time is a lot more relative than any scientist believes. Robert B. Winn
From: BuddyThunder on 27 Jun 2008 22:01 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 27, 12:31 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 26, 5:59 am, "W.A. Sawford" <was1...(a)cus.cam.ac.uk> 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. >>>> 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... >>>> Wendy >>> Well, give me your address, and I can send you a Bible. So we will >>> run through what has been said so far. Atheists say that everything >>> in the Bible is mythology. >> No they do not. >> >> They sy it is a mixture of history, mythology and social mores.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > 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. No "they" weren't. > 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. <sigh>
From: BuddyThunder on 27 Jun 2008 22:02 Chris Shore wrote: > "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. How is this difficult to understand? Three thousand posts suggest that it is.
From: rbwinn on 27 Jun 2008 22:06
On Jun 27, 5:58�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > "Jack" <furgfurgf...(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 Don't atheists try to impose atheism on everyone? So everyone is trying to impose. Well, let's see who is the best at imposing, an imposing constest, as it were. Actually, imposing is a false teaching. Christianity teaches free agency. Robert B. Winn |