Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 29 Jun 2008 16:13 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 12:21�am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> Smiler wrote: >>> "BuddyThunder" <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message >>> news:4865bc76$1(a)clear.net.nz... >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 27, 8:49?am, "pba...(a)worldonline.nl" <pba...(a)worldonline.nl> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 26 jun, 03:13, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Reading comprehension (for most of us) has nothing to do with >>>>>>>>>>>> prior >>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs. >>>>>>>>>>>> I can comprehend many books that I don't happen to believe are >>>>>>>>>>>> truth. >>>>>>>>>>>> If I had ever read any, Harry Potter books would be good examples. >>>>>>>>>>> Whjy would you read a Harry Potter book if you comprehended it? >>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>> Light entertainment. >>>>>>>>>> Why do you read if you don't comprehend? >>>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>> Well, each to his own. ?I never met an atheist yet who did not >>>>>>>>> believe >>>>>>>>> in Harry Potter. >>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - >>>>>>>> You mean to say you never met an atheist?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>> I have met atheists. ?I have never met one who did not think Harry >>>>>>> Potter was some kind of superhero who was going to defeat >>>>>>> Christianity. >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - >>>>>>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - >>>>>> You have only met Atheistic children? >>>>>> Where did you meet them, >>>>>> and why didn't you meet there parents?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> Atheists do not normally have children. �If they are going to have >>>>> children, they usually kill them before they are born, so I have only >>>>> met adult atheists. �They are the ones who believe in Harry Potter. >>>> Yeah, then we eat the foetus. Then we prowl the neighbourhood looking for >>>> small Christian children. Then we torture them into renouncing their gods, >>>> then we eat them too. You're priceless! >>> That reminds me! When's the next EAC <ntie> barbeque? >>> I've not eaten BBQ'd devilled baby <yummmy> for ages! >> Next weekend, I'll kill the fatted child!- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > I would certainly discourage that. You can't come. ;-P
From: BuddyThunder on 29 Jun 2008 16:14 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 12:22 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 28, 12:50�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:11:54 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>> On Jun 28, 7:17?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:05:42 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> Charles Darwin was not my ancestor. >>>> So? >>>> Evolution happens. Learn to deal with reality.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> I never have believed in evolution. I think it is a fable, just as >>> Paul said it was. >> Classic, got a scripture for that?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Yes, we are still on the scripture in Isaiah that says that a tunnel > was dug as a conduit for water between Gihon spring and the pool of > Siloam. Liar. Where did Paul tell you that evolution is a fable? Back up something. Just one thing...
From: BuddyThunder on 29 Jun 2008 16:15 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 12:23 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 28, 7:00�am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:47:11 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>> On Jun 27, 9:26�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>>> Well, I was the one who pointed out that the Bible in three books of >>>>>>> the Old Testament describes the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel. >>>>>>> Atheists still do not believe Hezekiah's tunnel exists. >>>>>> And you think London is a myth.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> No, I actually have a friend from London. �He says that Harry Potter >>>>> does not exist. �I think you should actually consider that >>>>> possibility. � I know this might be difficult for an atheist to do. >>>> There is a tunnel called Hezekiah's tunnel. That does not mean that the >>>> supposed authors of the Bible ever existed or wrote what was claimed >>>> that they wrote or that what was written ever happened. >>>> A few random facts in the Bible does not make the Bible true. This has >>>> been explained to you, so, it appears to me that you are just being >>>> stiff necked in playing your dishonest game. You mock the God you claim >>>> to worship with this behavior. Maybe you are just playing Loki. >>> Well, the tunnel got there some way. Why do you believe the Biblical >>> account is wrong? >> Because it's extraordinary supernatural claims are totally unsupported >> by evidence.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, the Bible says that the Jews took tools and dug the tunnel by > hand just before the Assyrian seige of Jerusalem in 701 B.C. Why do > you think that was a supernatural event? The same thing could be done > today if you could find people wiling to do that much work. If there's no connection to the supernatural in the account, then why do you think the supernatural draws any support from it?
From: The Natural Philosopher on 29 Jun 2008 16:54 rbwinn wrote: > 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. Thats not the reason why they get trillions of dollars, they get that for all the billions of little miracles that scienece has already made happen, like this machine you are looking at. In the compute stakes, Science 100% God 'Null point' Its not My fault that you are confusing religion and science and want to compare them: they are not comparable. Neither science nor religion are what you believe them to be. That's the trouble with belief in general. It very easy to believe in things that don't help, and are probably false. > Robert B. Winn
From: The Natural Philosopher on 29 Jun 2008 16:56
rbwinn wrote: > 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. > Robert B. Winn If you are as wrong about what is in the bible as you are about what people you have never apparently et think about it..God help you. ;-) |