Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Free Lunch on 28 Jun 2008 10:04 On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:01:05 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Jun 28, 12:21�am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: .... >> > No, you were trying to hedge your bets. �You do not believe in faith, >> > but you are "on the edge of faith", so that counts in case you need to >> > have faith. �I know how atheists think. >> >> Why would I need to hedge my bets? I believe in faith, I just don't >> think it's rational. And believe me, you really *don't* know how >> atheists think.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >I know far better than atheists how they think. They have made a >wrong choice, so their options are limited. Your lies are indefensible. You celebrate the evil that you have fallen into.
From: rbwinn on 28 Jun 2008 10:05 On Jun 28, 12:26 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 27, 6:42�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> Jack wrote: > >>>> 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. > >> The wrong part is when people attempt to use the myth to formulate > >> public policy or indoctrinate children or inform foreign policy. > > > Well, actually they use fables.  The apostles Paul said they would be > > turned to fables in the last days.  A fable is a story about animals > > like the story about monkeys turning into humans. > > Wow, you're ignorant about evolution. Colour me surprised. In what way am I ignorant about evolution? Robert B. Winn
From: Free Lunch on 28 Jun 2008 10:17 On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:05:42 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Jun 28, 12:26�am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >> > On Jun 27, 6:42?pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> >> Jack wrote: >> >>>> 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. >> >> The wrong part is when people attempt to use the myth to formulate >> >> public policy or indoctrinate children or inform foreign policy. >> >> > Well, actually they use fables. �The apostles Paul said they would be >> > turned to fables in the last days. �A fable is a story about animals >> > like the story about monkeys turning into humans. >> >> Wow, you're ignorant about evolution. Colour me surprised. > >In what way am I ignorant about evolution? Monkeys and humans do share a common ancestor. Your denial of the fact does not change that fact.
From: pbamvv on 28 Jun 2008 10:25 On 27 jun, 09:29, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > 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- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - Netiher appeals to me. The big bang theory supposes an early universe that is comprised within it's own schwarzschild radius. Hence that universe was a black hole. If it was a black hole then, it is a black hole now. Current theories simply ignore this for no appearant reason. Until someone explains me why I will distrust current theories. (though not as much as theological theories:-) Peter van Velzen June 2008 Amstelveen The Netherlands
From: Alex W. on 28 Jun 2008 10:31
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:59977e4c-efee-4381-ada6-017ab2f32122(a)e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... I am not on drugs. ==== [ ] You are in denial. [ ] You are in withdrawal. [ ] You have run out. |