Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 30 Jun 2008 02:49 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 12:11�am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> Smiler wrote: >>> "BuddyThunder" <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message >>> news:4866a92b$1(a)clear.net.nz... >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 28, 12:19 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 27, 6:38 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 12:58 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 21, 5:07 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 4:22 pm, Darrell Stec >>>>>>>>>>>>> <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 3:35 am, Darrell Stec >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 8:22 am, Darrell Stec >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:50 pm, Darrell Stec >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 10:11?am, Darrell Stec >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2:53?am, Darrell Stec >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I analyzed the Bible. ?What I find is that God >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not want His children to die and just cease to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or to be punished forever, so He sent his Son to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overcome death. ?Because of wickedness, we see today >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that most people will reject God's gift of eternal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me ask you a question. ?Who would know more about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theology, one of the churches twelve apostles, or a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hari >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krishna monk> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who do you think would know more about LDS theology? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?Why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you ask? Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evasion noted. ?Why are you afraid to answer a couple of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions? Why do you think I would ask? ?Could it be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer might be obvious? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, if the answer is obvious, then there was no reason >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask the question. �Go ahead and say whatever you were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you afraid to tell us whether or not one of the 12 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apostles of the Mormon church would know more about LDS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than an Hari Krishna monk? What are you afraid of? �I know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, but I don't know if you do and that is why I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Darrell Stec � � �dars...(a)neo.rr.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, why don't you just make up your own mind about that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already have made an informed and knowledgeable opinion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to find out what you believe (asking what you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfair because you are shooting without bullets) to be the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you afraid to answer the question? �Is it because it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never been discussed in bible school and you have nothing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and paste? Go ask your bishop what he thinks, as you allow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think for you until you pull stupid things out of thin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> air. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, why don't you ask my bishop yourself? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is his name, email address, physical address and phone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will ask him. �I'll also send him a list of your more insane >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I told you athiests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that I was not going to be your researcher. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What research do you need to do to answer a question as to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apostle of your church's council of twelve would know more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about LDS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophy than a Hari Krishna monk? �That is a person >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion. �Or do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you mean that nobody told you what to think in regard to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you can't copy and paste it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to know what I believe,I can give you name to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missionaries as a referral , and they can tell you what I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beleive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why can't you give us your opinion yourself? �Why are you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many problems answering an easy question? �What are you afraid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, the General Authorities of our church have counseled us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contention with other churches. �So if you have some bone to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Hare Kirshna church, leave me out of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you avoiding the question? �Why is it so difficult for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer the question? �It is a simple one. �Whom do you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about LDS theology, one of the twelve apostles making up the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the LDS church or a Hari Krishna monk? �What are you afraid of. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly there is no injunction in your church against >>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> question. �Why are you avoiding it? >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not avoiding it. �You said the answer is obvious, so >>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously, >>>>>>>>>>>>> you already know the answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>> I know the answer to the question. �I do not know what YOUR answer >>>>>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>>>>> question is because you are too afraid to answer a simple, direct >>>>>>>>>>>> question. >>>>>>>>>>>> Why is that? �I want to know what YOUR answer to the question is. >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Well, just write to church headquarters in Salt Lake City and get >>>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>> official answer from the church. �Anything I could tell you would >>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>> be my own opinion. >>>>>>>>>> Anything they tell us would only be theirs.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>> Well, so you are going to make up something then and attribute it to >>>>>>>>> us. �We have seen this before. >>>>>>>> I'm not sure where this claim comes from, can you tell me?- Hide >>>>>>>> quoted text - >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> It came from me. >>>>>> Maybe if you could show me where I did that? Why won't you back up >>>>>> anything you say?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> Well, for instance, I said that Hezekiah's tunnel exists, and you and >>>>> other atheists claimed that I had said that London, England, does not >>>>> exist. �I did not say a thing about London, England. �It all came from >>>>> atheists. >>>> No, it follows by the application of your logic. If you don't like the >>>> results then re-think the logic. <shrug> I guess it just depends on how >>>> consistent you want to be. >>> From his posts I can tell he wants to be consistently stupid, consistently >>> disengenous, consistently untruthfull and consistently illogical. >>> Such is the effect of religion on some. >> Maybe it's the only way that belief can be maintained? I would suggest >> that faith requiring irrational thought, compartmentalisation and >> bare-faced lies is not worth defending!- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, there is the beauty of the gospel. We do not need to defend > the faith. All we need to do is accept the atonement of Christ and > keep his commandments. I can't accept Christ's atonement without first believing in it. I don't. Why would I?
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2008 02:50 On Jun 29, 1:56�pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > 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. ;-) I thought you said you did not believe in God. Robert B. Winn
From: BuddyThunder on 30 Jun 2008 02:50 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 8:44�am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:26:23 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 29, 12:13�am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 28, 2:15 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 28, 7:04?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:01:05 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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. >>>>>>> I thought you atheists did not believe evil exists. �If there is no >>>>>>> devil, everything is good, isn't it? >>>>>> Evil sounds like a religious concept to me, but why would you think that >>>>>> we can't differentiate right from wrong. Another strawman? >>>>>> We seem to be able to discuss without lying, can you?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> Sure. �A while back you were saying that there was nothing wrong with >>>>> killing children before they are born. �So are you saying that killing >>>>> children before they are born is a good thing? >>>> Where did I say that? Can you show me, or is that another lie? Abortion >>>> is deeply unpleasant, however I don't think it should be banned. They're >>>> not children yet, by the way.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Not children yet? �What do you think they are? >> Embryos and fetuses.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > So you are saying that people who call them unborn children are lying? Shades of grey. Technically, I would say, they're incorrect. Isn't it a bit like saying "live corpse"?
From: BuddyThunder on 30 Jun 2008 02:50 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 10:57�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1c31d316-2b91-43f6-b6c0-3fb4dbf97774(a)z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> On Jun 29, 12:13 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> rbwinn wrote: >>>> On Jun 28, 2:15 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 28, 7:04?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:01:05 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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. >>>>>> I thought you atheists did not believe evil exists. If there is no >>>>>> devil, everything is good, isn't it? >>>>> Evil sounds like a religious concept to me, but why would you think >>>>> that >>>>> we can't differentiate right from wrong. Another strawman? >>>>> We seem to be able to discuss without lying, can you?- Hide quoted >>>>> text - >>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>> Sure. A while back you were saying that there was nothing wrong with >>>> killing children before they are born. So are you saying that killing >>>> children before they are born is a good thing? >>> Where did I say that? Can you show me, or is that another lie? Abortion >>> is deeply unpleasant, however I don't think it should be banned. They're >>> not children yet, by the way.- Hide quoted text - >>> - Show quoted text - >> Not children yet? �What do you think they are? >> >> =============== >> >> Technically speaking, they are parasites living off a grown female.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, thank you for your answer, Alex. So human beings are nothing > except parasites in atheist theology. Read it again, this time trying to understand as you go.
From: BuddyThunder on 30 Jun 2008 02:54
rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 29, 1:01 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 29, 12:13 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 28, 2:15 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 28, 7:04�am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:01:05 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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. >>>>>>> I thought you atheists did not believe evil exists. If there is no >>>>>>> devil, everything is good, isn't it? >>>>>> Evil sounds like a religious concept to me, but why would you think that >>>>>> we can't differentiate right from wrong. Another strawman? >>>>>> We seem to be able to discuss without lying, can you?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> Sure. A while back you were saying that there was nothing wrong with >>>>> killing children before they are born. So are you saying that killing >>>>> children before they are born is a good thing? >>>> Where did I say that? Can you show me, or is that another lie? Abortion >>>> is deeply unpleasant, however I don't think it should be banned. They're >>>> not children yet, by the way.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Not children yet? What do you think they are? >> A human embryo =/= a human child. One has been born.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > So you are saying that people who speak of unborn children are lying. It's not the only option. |