Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: The Natural Philosopher on 29 Jun 2008 16:57 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. > > Chris > > Other than that people occasionally tell the truth, and write it down.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 29 Jun 2008 17:04 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 27, 7:02�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> Chris Shore wrote: >>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, there you go again denying the existence of Hezekiah's tunnel. > The existence of Hezekiah's tunnel proves that the Bible is accurate > aboput there being a conduit for water between Gihon Spring and the > Pool of Siloam. > Robert B. Winn With respect. so what? No one denies that along with many other ancient texts, there is a great deal of historical fact, semi fact as well as lots of other stuff. There is, for example, a very accurate description of pyroclastic flow - something no one in modern times had really seen and understood - by a Roman historian describing Pompeii. (Pliny. writing probably around the time of the crucifixion: AD 35 or so) Does this menathat everything Pliny wrote is total historical fact? No. Though much of it eems to be., Does this mean we should base a religion on what he wrote? No.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 29 Jun 2008 17:11 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 27, 6:54�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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. >> > Well, I believed in the story of Hezekiah's tunnel being dug, and sure > enough, there is a tunnel there today, just as the Bible says there > is. How do you explain it? ER..there was a tunnel? So what? > Robert B. Winn
From: The Natural Philosopher on 29 Jun 2008 17:12 BuddyThunder wrote: > rbwinn wrote: >> On Jun 27, 6:54�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: >>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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. >>> >> Well, I believed in the story of Hezekiah's tunnel being dug, and sure >> enough, there is a tunnel there today, just as the Bible says there >> is. How do you explain it? > > They dug a tunnel. It got written about. What's the big deal? Hell, even I have dug a tunnel.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 29 Jun 2008 17:32
pbamvv(a)worldonline.nl wrote: > 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. Not sure that follows: you have to presuppose that the laws of nature predate the universe, wheres they may simply be two sides of the same coin. Along with time itself, which is a way of measuring things anyway. Not necerssarily and absolute thing that predates the Big Bang. As usual recursion gets you. You ant talk about things outside of a space time energy universe from within a space time universe using the language of the space time universe: at best all you can say is 'everything started HERE'. and put a dot in a space time map. > If it was a black hole then, it is a black hole now. There was no then. > Current theories simply ignore this for no appearant reason. You dont apprecaite the extreme difficulty of the problem. Current theories are vastly simplified for popular consumption. I know JUST enough to know that its a lot more complicated than that. But sadly not enough to be able to pass any real understaning along to you. Other than to say something trite like 'the nature of the event that took place to create the Universe, is not something that the current universe is capbale of recreating'. Which says very little more than 'we don't do trans universe science: we only do intra universe science,and this is where it appears to stop'. The most important practical function of philosophy is to draw lines that limit the applicability of methods and ways of thinking to problems suitable for such: It is the greatest mistake of the half educated to extrapolate concepts beyond the limits of applicability. > Until someone explains me why > I will distrust current theories. Very right and proper attitude IMHO. Remember this is 'edge of reason' stuff. Not a done deal. The mathematicians are looking at classes of functions which are *not incsonsistent* with what seems to be the very early days of the Unvierse. Well early microseconds I suppose. The 'act of faith' here is to assume that even at this point some sort of order was there, rather than random chaos: the god myth recognises that issue as well..the Jewsish Mystics were not stupid, just handicapped by a lack of language and access to the data we have. If you take the active principle out of Genesis, it doesn't read too far from a modern scientific description, except the times are all wrong. The poinst of agreement are that there was a formless void, and then there was an event, light (energy) and chaos resulted, and order arose out of chaos. The anthropocentric view would have it that this was created explicitly for teh benefit of mankind, eraher than the more atheistic and less anthropocentric view that mankind is a simple end result down one particular chain of events, and that in a different Universe Man wouldn't be there to comment on it anyway. It's the arrogance of the average Christian to presume that God made the world for his benefit: Just as it is the humility of the atheistic scientist to assume that mankind is juts a minor footnote to the hitsory of the universe, and is no more necessary to its continued existence than Nike sneakers. > |