Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Free Lunch on 1 Jul 2008 22:12 On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:39:53 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in <8477a37f-f1a9-4725-a891-baf2b1b9cfc7(a)59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>: >On Jul 1, 1:15�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:5c42571d-65ab-4824-a829-398f5d07ac36(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... .... >> > Were you aware, Steve that there are people who are experts at using >> > the PC who are not going to be saved, and there are people who never >> > even saw a PC who will be saved in the kingdom of heaven? >> > Robert B. Winn >> >> Saved from what??? >> We keep asking you, but you never tell us. >> Could you perhaps mean that people who don't use computers will be saved >> from your inane ramblings? >> >> -- >> Steve O > >Well, if I am not mistaken, you did say that you were going to die and >decompose. That was as far as we got with your future plans. That is what happens after death. You cannot offer a shred of evidence that anything else will happen.
From: Free Lunch on 1 Jul 2008 22:13 On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:25:57 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in <ae74734f-004f-4a5c-b27b-5a781d000e33(a)l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>: >On Jul 1, 1:14?pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:45:40 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Jun 29, 9:46?am, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:23:07 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >No, I do not have difficulty following conversations. ?Atheists said >> >> >that there was nothing in the Bible that could be proven. >> >> >> No atheist claims such a ridiculous thing. Obviously there are things >> >> in the Bible that can be proven. It is trivial, for example to >> >> demonstrate the existence of the city of Jerusalem, so I don't know >> >> why you're so insistent on the existence of a particular tunnel being >> >> significant. >> >> >> What atheists state cannot be proven are any of the *supernatural* >> >> claims in the Bible. Just as the historical existence of Troy does not >> >> prove that Eris, the goddess of chaos, rolled a golden apple inscribed >> >> "To the fairest" into a banquet on Olympus to set the events in motion >> >> that resulted in the Trojan War, the historical existence of Jerusalem >> >> does not prove that Jesus was crucified there and rose from the dead. >> >> What you think your tunnel might possibly prove I can't even begin to >> >> guess. >> >> >> > I said that >> >> >three books of the Old Testament describe the construction of >> >> >Hezekiah's tunnel, and sure enough, there is a tunnel right where the >> >> >Bible says there is. >> >> >> Again, so what? >> >> >> > ?Atheists say, That does not prove there was a >> >> >tunnel dug where the Bible says there was because atheists do not >> >> >believe anything in the Bible. >> >> >> Poppycock. I doubt there's an atheist on the planet who will deny the >> >> historical existence of Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate, Herod, or any >> >> number of other things mentioned in the Bible. >> >> >> > So far that has been the extent of >> >> >this conversation. >> >> >> The extent of the conversation has been you continuing to miss the >> >> point that the fact that the Bible mentions some cities and historical >> >> figures that actually existed is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of >> >> its other claims. That Bethlehem exists says nothing about whether >> >> Jesus was born there and laid in a manger wrapped in swaddling >> >> clothes. >> >> >Well, you claim to believe in Jerusalem even though it is mentioned in >> >the Bible. ?So why is it so impossible for an atheist to admit the >> >existence of Hezekiah's tunnel? >> >> How should I know? I'm willing to accept that such a thing exists, >> although I'm baffled as to what possible significance you might attach >> to its existence.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Well, it puts atheists in a position they do not like to be in. Here >is something describe being built in 701 B.C. in three different books >of the Bible, and it cannot just be dismissed by saying that the >Biblical account is myth. What evidence do you have that the biblical account is correct?
From: Free Lunch on 1 Jul 2008 22:39 On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:06:02 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in <a3debf6a-1527-4781-86f8-f3b676478f8e(a)y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>: >On Jul 1, 1:03?pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:3770038e-e7b0-4e64-9dd5-d442a816638a(a)m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > Well, there is your mistake, Steve. I am not arguing with anyone. >> >> > You atheists are free to believe whatever you want to believe. >> >> > Robert B. Winn >> >> >> Don't be so dumb. >> >> Your argument is that there is a God. >> >> > I never argue, Steve. ?If you want to be an atheist, that is your >> > privilege. ?I was just curious about what you were going to do after >> > you die. >> > Robert B. Winn >> >> Well, I was planning on decomposing, just like everyone else. >> >> -- >> Steve O > >Well, that is quite a plan. What do you do after you are decomposed? There is no you once you are dead
From: raven1 on 1 Jul 2008 23:49 On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:14:36 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >On Jul 1, 1:07?pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 00:17:22 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Jun 30, 3:58?pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:06:02 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >On Jun 29, 4:12?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:23:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >> >> >> >On Jun 29, 7:07?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:06:07 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >I did not lie. ?There actually is a conduit for water between Gihon >> >> >> >> >spring and the pool of Siloam. >> >> >> >> >> And, as you know, that is not the lie I have pointed out to you. You lie >> >> >> >> here by falsely and intentionally trying to distract us from the lie >> >> >> >> under discussion. You know that no one imposes abortion in the United >> >> >> >> States. That is another in a long line of lies that you refuse to repent >> >> >> >> of.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> >> >> >The Supreme Court and other atheists imposed abortion on the United >> >> >> >States. >> >> >> >> Abortion is not imposed. You know that. No one is ever forced to have an >> >> >> abortion by our government. Stop lying to us. >> >> >> >Women have been forced to have abortions in order to get welfare >> >> >assistance. >> >> >> Bullshit. Citation, please. >> >> >And our government still recognizes our right to trial by jury, >> >right? >> >> Nice attempt at distraction, but completely irrelevant. This has >> absolutely nothing to do with women being forced to have abortions in >> order to get welfare assistance. Which is still a completely bogus >> claim on your part. >> >> > How gullible do you think I am about "our government"? ?Or >> >maybe you are just including atheists when you say "our government". >> >> I didn't say you were gullible, I said you were lying. Your pathetic >> attempt to change the subject, rather than support your claim, just >> confirms my assessment. >I personally know one woman who was subjected to governmental >reproduction control. Was she Chinese? Seriously, put up, or shut up. You made a claim; now either back it up or retract it.
From: raven1 on 2 Jul 2008 00:14
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:25:57 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >On Jul 1, 1:14?pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:45:40 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Jun 29, 9:46?am, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:23:07 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >No, I do not have difficulty following conversations. ?Atheists said >> >> >that there was nothing in the Bible that could be proven. >> >> >> No atheist claims such a ridiculous thing. Obviously there are things >> >> in the Bible that can be proven. It is trivial, for example to >> >> demonstrate the existence of the city of Jerusalem, so I don't know >> >> why you're so insistent on the existence of a particular tunnel being >> >> significant. >> >> >> What atheists state cannot be proven are any of the *supernatural* >> >> claims in the Bible. Just as the historical existence of Troy does not >> >> prove that Eris, the goddess of chaos, rolled a golden apple inscribed >> >> "To the fairest" into a banquet on Olympus to set the events in motion >> >> that resulted in the Trojan War, the historical existence of Jerusalem >> >> does not prove that Jesus was crucified there and rose from the dead. >> >> What you think your tunnel might possibly prove I can't even begin to >> >> guess. >> >> >> > I said that >> >> >three books of the Old Testament describe the construction of >> >> >Hezekiah's tunnel, and sure enough, there is a tunnel right where the >> >> >Bible says there is. >> >> >> Again, so what? >> >> >> > ?Atheists say, That does not prove there was a >> >> >tunnel dug where the Bible says there was because atheists do not >> >> >believe anything in the Bible. >> >> >> Poppycock. I doubt there's an atheist on the planet who will deny the >> >> historical existence of Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate, Herod, or any >> >> number of other things mentioned in the Bible. >> >> >> > So far that has been the extent of >> >> >this conversation. >> >> >> The extent of the conversation has been you continuing to miss the >> >> point that the fact that the Bible mentions some cities and historical >> >> figures that actually existed is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of >> >> its other claims. That Bethlehem exists says nothing about whether >> >> Jesus was born there and laid in a manger wrapped in swaddling >> >> clothes. >> >> >Well, you claim to believe in Jerusalem even though it is mentioned in >> >the Bible. ?So why is it so impossible for an atheist to admit the >> >existence of Hezekiah's tunnel? >> >> How should I know? I'm willing to accept that such a thing exists, >> although I'm baffled as to what possible significance you might attach >> to its existence. >Well, it puts atheists in a position they do not like to be in. Here >is something describe being built in 701 B.C. in three different books >of the Bible, and it cannot just be dismissed by saying that the >Biblical account is myth. Again, so what? I don't know of any atheist who insists that nothing in the Bible is true from an historical standpoint. This was addressed in detail above, in quotes that are still there. As I stated, "what atheists state cannot be proven are any of the *supernatural* claims in the Bible. Just as the historical existence of Troy does not prove that Eris, the goddess of chaos, rolled a golden apple inscribed "To the fairest" into a banquet on Olympus to set the events in motion that resulted in the Trojan War, the historical existence of Jerusalem does not prove that Jesus was crucified there and rose from the dead. What you think your tunnel might possibly prove I can't even begin to guess". And: "I doubt there's an atheist on the planet who will deny the historical existence of Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate, Herod, or any number of other things mentioned in the Bible." And: "The extent of the conversation has been you continuing to miss the point that the fact that the Bible mentions some cities and historical figures that actually existed is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of its other claims. That Bethlehem exists says nothing about whether Jesus was born there and laid in a manger wrapped in swaddling clothes." What part of this do you not understand? I have no problem accepting the existence of a particular tunnel described in the Bible, if it is backed by evidence, just as I have no problem accepting the historical existence of Jerusalem, Pilate, Herod, Bethlehem, the Temple, etc. What I do not accept are the Bible's theological claims, which are an entirely separate issue from the historical existence of a given person or place. Do you really fail to grasp the distinction? Or are you just locked into the mistaken and simple-minded belief that atheists automatically reject everything in the Bible, even when it is supported by evidence? |