Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2008 09:30 On Jul 2, 12:13 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Jul 2, 3:34 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 6:43 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Jul 2, 11:27 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 1, 1:14 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 1, 12:34 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >>> On Jun 30, 12:25 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >>>>> On Jun 28, 6:06�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:26:59 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > > >>>>>>> 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. > > > > > >>>>>> Paul knew nothing about it. You mock the Bible with such silly > > > > > >>>>>> interpretations of it.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > > >>>>> I just believe what Paul said.  You seem a little upset that I do not > > > > > >>>>> believe your fable. > > > > > >>>> Can you please identify what he said about it? Please?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > > >>> 2 Tim 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure sound > > > > > >>> doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves > > > > > >>> teachers, having itching ears; > > > > > >>> 4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be > > > > > >>> turned unto fables. > > > > > >> I can't see any mention of evolution. I can't even see any description > > > > > >> of the theory, or even a theistic strawman description. Can you help me > > > > > >> out? You made a claim that seems difficult to substantiate.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Well, I think we are getting into subject matter that is too difficult > > > > > > for you.  Maybe we should go back to Hezekiah's tunnel. > > > > > > I'm not struggling, maybe you could point out the verse where evolution > > > > > is singled out. Maybe he's talking about the germ theory of disease. I'm > > > > > sure you believe that demons are behind illness, rather than pathogens.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Well, Paul said that in the last days, men would be turned to fables > > > > to explain things.  So today we see science explaining most things by > > > > fables. > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > Please explain how "evolution" counts as a fable?  And we'll show you > > > how you understanding of evolution is horribly wrong. > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Well, as Paul pointed out, in the last days men would be unable to > > endure sound doctrine and would devise a fable to try to explain the > > existence of mankind without a God. > > Robert B. Winn > > That doesn't relate evolution to a fable. > Do you ever answer a question that isn't just from your own > imagination? > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It happened just the way Paul said it would. Robert B. Winn
From: Kelsey Bjarnason on 2 Jul 2008 12:32 [snips] On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:11:23 -0700, rbwinn wrote: > Sorry, atheists, we have the word child as it was used more than two > thousand years ago. > Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife being great with > child. I hate to point this out to you, but the Bible was not written in English.
From: Kelsey Bjarnason on 2 Jul 2008 12:49 [snips] On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:11:43 -0700, rbwinn wrote: >> Parasites do exactly what they are supposed to do, and you think that >> means trhat they are not parasites? >> What a strange fellow you are. > Well, I am sorry I said something considered politically incorrect by > parasite protection societies. So how are your efforts to save the > tapeworm going? *This* is your idea of an argument for your case? What are you, six?
From: Kelsey Bjarnason on 2 Jul 2008 12:54 [snips] On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:07:53 -0700, rbwinn wrote: > So atheists claim that a baby inside its mother's womb is a parasite. Partially correct, but the correct term there isn't "atheists", but, rather, "anyone who understands the nature of parasites or the process of gestation." Which certainly includes some atheists, but also presumably includes many theists. > already knew that. I think we can expect to start to see a requirement > in public education that students acknowledge that an unborn baby is a > parasite Again, partially correct. The fetus is, indeed, a parasite. It may be a _desired_ parasite, but it is a parasite nonetheless; educating people to think a tail is a leg doesn't benefit anyone. In that part, you're basically right; your error lies in the phrase "unborn baby". There is no such thing as an "unborn baby". A baby is, by definition, born; what you are referring to is a fetus. , or they could be marked wrong on a test. Weren't you atheists > just trying to tell me that atheism is never imposed on public > education? No, it's not. Proper terminology, proper science, however, these are - and should be - part of a required curriculum.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2008 12:58
On Jul 2, 12:50 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 1, 6:43 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> On Jul 2, 11:27 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > >>> On Jul 1, 1:14 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 1, 12:34 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 30, 12:25 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 6:06�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:26:59 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno..com> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > >>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>>> Paul knew nothing about it. You mock the Bible with such silly > >>>>>>>>>> interpretations of it.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>>>>>> I just believe what Paul said.  You seem a little upset that I do not > >>>>>>>>> believe your fable. > >>>>>>>> Can you please identify what he said about it? Please?- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>>>> 2 Tim 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure sound > >>>>>>> doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves > >>>>>>> teachers, having itching ears; > >>>>>>> 4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be > >>>>>>> turned unto fables. > >>>>>> I can't see any mention of evolution. I can't even see any description > >>>>>> of the theory, or even a theistic strawman description. Can you help me > >>>>>> out? You made a claim that seems difficult to substantiate.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>> Well, I think we are getting into subject matter that is too difficult > >>>>> for you.  Maybe we should go back to Hezekiah's tunnel. > >>>> I'm not struggling, maybe you could point out the verse where evolution > >>>> is singled out. Maybe he's talking about the germ theory of disease. I'm > >>>> sure you believe that demons are behind illness, rather than pathogens.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> Well, Paul said that in the last days, men would be turned to fables > >>> to explain things.  So today we see science explaining most things by > >>> fables. > >>> Robert B. Winn > >> Please explain how "evolution" counts as a fable?  And we'll show you > >> how you understanding of evolution is horribly wrong. > > >> Al- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Well, as Paul pointed out, in the last days men would be unable to > > endure sound doctrine and would devise a fable to try to explain the > > existence of mankind without a God. > > That's such a reassuringly reinforcing doctrine, ain't it?! A great way > of ensuring that the meme endures. > > "They said you'd say that!!"- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, you seem very open minded for an atheist. So you are saying that you can see that it would be an advantage for God to have prophets. But I am sceptical that if you had been in Jerusalem when Jeremiah prophesied that the city would be taken by the Babylonians, you would have believed him. Robert B. Winn |