Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 19 Jun 2008 15:59 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 18, 10:40 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 18, 1:07 pm, asilentskeptic <asilentskep...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jun 18, 12:51 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 16, 11:29 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jun 16, 1:19 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 16, 12:50 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 15, 6:32�am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:46:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 6:33?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:48:13 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 6:52?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:45:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 9:45?pm, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you should explain your ideas to the twelve apostles after the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resurrection takes place, Darrell. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you do not know how many there are (if any) or their names >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you just hide behind the statement above to cover your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. ?Just like in your failed attempts to argue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics, you do not even know enough to argue your religious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs and have to retreat to claiming ignorance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not claim ignorance. ?I just told Darrell to look them up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You admit failure, no matter how you describe it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why, because Darrell is not going to look them up? ?I do not care what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Darrell does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told him to look it up because you didn't have the evidence. You ran >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from the question.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. �I told atheists a long time ago I was not going to be their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> researcher. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You refuse to do the research to back up your own claims. You are no >>>>>>>>>>>>> one's researcher. You worship ignorance.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I did a little better than the atheists on Hezekiah's tunnel >>>>>>>>>>>> and the ramp over the city wall at Lachish. >>>>>>>>>>> No. You only think you did. For some reason. Could you tell us why?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>> Yes, I can do that. There is an actual earthen ramp built by the >>>>>>>>>> Assyrian army that still exists today. There is an actual conduit for >>>>>>>>>> water between Gihon spring and the Pool of Siloam, just as the Bible >>>>>>>>>> says there is. The problem that atheists have is that J.K. Rowling is >>>>>>>>>> from northern England. When she wrote about Harry Potter leaving from >>>>>>>>>> the train station in London, probably the only thing she knew about >>>>>>>>>> the train station was its name. So comparing the Biblical account, >>>>>>>>>> which can be easily verified by going to Israel and looking at the >>>>>>>>>> ramp and the conduit for water, to what J.K. Rowling wrote in a book >>>>>>>>>> which she said was fiction means nothing to me, however sacred it may >>>>>>>>>> be to you atheists. >>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>> So, substituting ... >>>>>>>>> Yes, I can do that. There is an actual major city founded by the >>>>>>>>> Romans that still exists today. There is an actual railway station, >>>>>>>>> just as Harry Potter says there is. >>>>>>>>> We know that Harry Potter is fiction. You're claiming Biblical authority >>>>>>>>> SOLELY on the existence of some mentioned ancient sites. We're pointing >>>>>>>>> out that by the same logic, you would be forced to admit Harry Potter's >>>>>>>>> authority. If can't t accept its authority, then your argument need >>>>>>>>> reexamination. Maybe the Bible needs more support for its extraordinary >>>>>>>>> claims.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>> There is also a woman who calls herself J.K. Rowling who says she >>>>>>>> wrote the Harry Potter books as fiction, regardless of how many >>>>>>>> atheists believe them. >>>>>>>> I am not claiming Biblical authority SOLEY on the existence of some >>>>>>>> mentioned ancient sites. An atheist claimed that there was nothing in >>>>>>>> the Bible that could be verified by anything that exists today, so I >>>>>>>> mentioned Hezekiah's tunnel. It was not an argument. >>>>>>> We'll have to take your word about the claim, but okay. You were >>>>>>> correct, and I don't think that point is contended. Some things in the >>>>>>> Bible are verifiable. >>>>>>>> It was information about something mentioned in the Bible that can be seen >>>>>>>> today. And as we can see, atheists still claim that Hezekiah's tunnel >>>>>>>> is exactly like Harry Potter leaving for wizard's school, including >>>>>>>> you. No, Hezekiah's tunnel is not exactly like Harry Potter leaving >>>>>>>> for wizard's school. You atheists are not going to be able to >>>>>>>> convince me that Hezekiah's tunnel is exactly like Harry Potter >>>>>>>> leaving for wizard's school. As long as you continue to try to >>>>>>>> convince me that Hezekiah's tunnel is exactly like Harry Potter >>>>>>>> leaving for wizard's school, I will continue to say that you do not >>>>>>>> believe Hezekiah's tunnel exists because Harry Potter does not exist >>>>>>>> and wizard's school does not exist. >>>>>>> Then you would be persisting in your error. If you were simply trying to >>>>>>> say that at least SOME of the Bible is true, then okay, you've made your >>>>>>> point. We thought you were arguing for the accuracy of the WHOLE on the >>>>>>> basis of these minor points. Okay, a whole lot of arguing over nothing >>>>>>> now that we know what your claim really is. (Is that it?) >>>>>>> If you are saying that Hezekiah's >>>>>>>> tunnel is exactly like Harry Potter leaving for wizard's school, then >>>>>>>> you are saying that Hezekiah's tunnel does not exist. >>>>>>> That is of course a deliberate misrepresentation, but I think I can >>>>>>> understand why you're making it now.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>> It is not a deliberate misrepresentation. The Biblical account of the >>>>>> Assyrian invasion of Judea is much more believable than any other >>>>>> account of the same events, including the account of Sennacherib, the >>>>>> Assyrian king, which is the account that atheists promote because it >>>>>> is different from the Biblical one. >>>>> You would need to say WHY you find it more believable than the >>>>> mainstream account if you want any support for your views. I don't have >>>>> any familiarity with the events in question, so I don't have an opinion >>>>> either way (or some third, unexplored option), depite being an evil atheist. >>>>>> But none of these ancient >>>>>> accounts have anything to do with Harry Potter, a character in a >>>>>> modern work of fiction. >>>>> I agree, they don't have anything to do with it, except that drawing >>>>> support for the Bible's claims on this basis is like trying to support >>>>> Harry Potter by mentioning London. If you believe the Bible is Truth >>>>> because of these sites, then you should believe that Harry Potter is >>>>> Truth for the same reason. >>>>> Nevertheless, all I had to do to get a >>>>>> response about Harry Potter was mention Hezekiah's tunnel, a conduit >>>>>> for water constructed during the Assyrian invasion or the earthen ramp >>>>>> that the Assyrian army built to get over the city wall at Lachish. >>>>>> According to atheists, these evidences of the Assyrian invasion were >>>>>> exactly like Harry Potter leaving for wizard's school. >>>>> We believe you're trying to show Biblical authority by mentioning these >>>>> sites. While you persist in this logical fallacy, we're going to stick >>>>> with the Harry Potter comparrison. :-) >>>>> Anyone hysterical yet? >>>> I gave up after using two further examples and some further comments. >>>> Spiderman and the Iliad. >>>> I don't like to deal with the deliberately obtuse.- Hide quoted text - >>> Well, you don't accept the evidence I offer, and I don't accept the >>> evidence you offer. I have better evidence./ >> Do you believe your stance is logically consistent?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Yes, I believe my stance is logically consistent. How about that! :-)
From: BuddyThunder on 19 Jun 2008 16:08 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 18, 10:41�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>> Anyone hysterical yet? >>>>> I gave up after using two further examples and some further comments. >>>>> Spiderman and the Iliad. >>>>> I don't like to deal with the deliberately obtuse. >>>> Yes, Mr. Winn has gone beyond merely being obtuse to being intentionally >>>> dishonest. Even the LDS and other Christians should chastise him for his >>>> lies. I don't expect him to ever repent of his foolish dishonesty.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Well, I mentioned two things, a ramp and a conduit for water >>> constructed during the Assyrian invasion of Judea. �Which of those do >>> you claim I lied about? >> You are in error about their implications.- Hide quoted text - >> > > Well, go ahead and show how I am in error about their implications. > This always results in a lecture about Harry Potter. The evidence of this thread shows that you're unwilling or unable to understand the point. It's been explained in dozens of posts, in dozens of different ways. You can review the thread if you like, I don't think I can make it any more plain. Any other takers?
From: BuddyThunder on 19 Jun 2008 16:17 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 18, 10:56 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 18, 12:56�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>> reasonable to say "mainstream view" or something similar. Some theists >>>>>>>> really seem to feel that a cabal of atheists is fabricating the primary >>>>>>>> evidence across all disciplines to make God look irrelevant. Is it a >>>>>>>> persecution complex?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> No, it is a fact. � There is nothing that can be said today that does >>>>>>> not have at least a few pin-headed atheists presenting some kind of >>>>>>> opposing idea. >>>>>> So it's atheists involved in reality-denial, huh? *cough* >>>>> That is what atheists do. >>>> Why do you think that, can you justify it? Atheists tend to be more >>>> skeptical than credulous, quite the reverse is true of theists. Don't >>>> you think atheists would tend to test claims for reliability more than >>>> theists would? >>> Atheists have an agenda. They do not do anything whatsoever unless >>> they believe it will in some way disprove the existence of God. That >>> is why atheists are such useless people. >> What agenda do I, as an atheist, have? My every waking moment isn't >> dedicated to destroying the notion of God, I simply have much better >> things to get on with. I'm fascinated by religion and like to know more >> about how theists see the world, that's all. Sorry to threaten you, it >> wasn't intentional. >> >> I'm sad that you see me as useless too. Slightly offended, but mostly >> sad that you would blanket-judge a whole group, simply because they >> don't share your religious belief. >> >> For what it's worth, I see you as religiously deluded, but totally human >> - with all the nobility and weakness that it comes with. I also see you >> as an individual - it seems you cannot return that honour. I had hoped >> you would be a little more open-minded.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > No, I don't give atheists any slack. I know already what they will > do. Why are you fascinated by religion? If there was any truth in > atheism you would be fascinated by atheism. The fact is that atheism > means nothing, so you have nothing, and you spend all of your time > trying to tear down other people. > I do not get flattered by atheists. If you do not believe in God, > prove it. Find something else to talk about. Your unrepentant attitude towards tarring a whole minority with the same brush makes me entirely comfortable about calling you a bigot. I don't go there lightly. That attitude is equivalent to racism in intellectual rigour. Why would I be fascinated with atheism, it's the default position, and being fascinated by a LACK of religion would be a weird obsession! I was once a fundamentlist believer, so the phenomenon is personal to me, and the mental processes involved are interesting. I'm not trying to tear down anything, I come here for the discussion. If someone loses their faith, it's not the end of the world. It was a tough process for me, but I couldn't honestly sustain the belief in the end. I'm sure that you know that you can't prove a negative. I'll disprove God when you disprove the Tooth Fairy.
From: rbwinn on 19 Jun 2008 19:03 On Jun 18, 11:17�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 18, 1:08 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>> The tunnel, in an historical context 'could be called a fake'? > >>>> The ramp in an historical context 'could be called a fake'? > >>> That is correct, and in fact an atheist a few years back did claim > >>> that Hezekiah's tunnel was a hoax. � But we have to look at the world > >>> today and consider, who would move the amount of dirt in the ramp or > >>> dig a tunnel just to perpetrate a hoax? �The Biblical account is the > >>> correct one. > >> Did you find one? A tunnel-denier?! I'd LOVE to see the post!! I think > >> I'd frame the freakin' thing! > > >> Your conclusion is faulty. It MIGHT be right, but it likely isn't.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Well, it is not faulty. �Where are you going to find people today who > > would make a ramp or a tunnel without being paid a lot of money? > > Back then, they were working pretty much without pay. > > Can you produce that post? I really would love to see it, it might quell > those cries of "liar!" for a bit. :-) > > Not sure what point you're making about the sites. Can you expand on it?- Hide quoted text - > Some atheist a couple of years ago claimed that Hezekiah's tunnel was a hoax perpetrated by Jerusalem tour guides. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 19 Jun 2008 19:11
On Jun 18, 11:28 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 18, 3:59�pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > > wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jun 17, 5:34�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > >>> Well, Al, we have the ideas of atheists living today , and we have the > >>> writings of the apostles. > >> I hate to break this to you, but there is not one apostle for which we have > >> any writings. �None of the New Testament books (except for the Pauline > >> epistles) have any names associated with them. �And in fact the earliest > >> manuscripts did not have the names of the biblical books in them. �It is > >> apparent that the titles were added by a second or third copier because the > >> lettering is not in the hand of the first and oldest scribe. > > >>> Who should I believe? �This is really a > >>> tough one. > >> It isn't a tough one at all. �Your first statement is false. �So YOU are not > >> to believed because you wallow in ignorance. > > >>> Well, I think I will believe the apostles. > >> How will you do that? �They wrote nothing. > > >>> Robert B. Winn > > Let's see, Matthew was an apostle, John was an apostle, Peter was an > > apostle, James was an apostle, Paul was an apostle, then there are > > writings of some people who were just disciples.  All of these people > > seem more believable to me than you do Darrell.  Maybe it is just your > > attitude. > > What is your standard for assessment? You often say X "seems more > reliable" than Y. You apparently distrust the honest inquiry of subject > matter experts, so from that position of ignorance, how do you arrive at > the correct alternative?- Hide quoted text - > Well, that does not really matter, as long as I get to the correct alternative. At any rate, Darrell has quite a story to tell, but, just like Harry Pottrer, none of it is true. Robert B. Winn |