Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2008 19:54 On Jul 2, 1:15�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:8477a37f-f1a9-4725-a891- > > > 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. > > Robert B. Winn > > It's not a future plan > It is a future inevitability. > You need to distinguish between the two. > > -- > Steve O > a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) > B.A.A.W.A. > Convicted by Earthquack, > Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence > "I have a miraculous picture of Jesus - if you look really closely at the > face, you can see a burnt tortilla" Well, I think that you will discover that your spirit does not stay in your body after you die. As I understand it, you want yours to decompose with your physical body. Rober B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2008 19:59 On Jul 2, 1:28 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Jul 2, 11:30 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > If you want to converse with the voices in your head, could you just > leave out alt.atheism in your replies?  Your posts are clearly not > related to anything you're clicking reply on. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - As I understand it I have given a response to one of your posts that does not comform to atheistic rules. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2008 20:01 On Jul 2, 1:32�pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:35:47 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Jul 1, 8:49?pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:14:36 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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.- Hide quoted text - > > >Do atheists have some special program for Chinese women in the United > >States? �We know they do in China. �However, there are a lot of women > >in the United States you do not even seem to consider, women in mental > >institutions, women in prisons, etc., but the one I know personally > >was just a woman who applied for welfare assistance. > > IOW, you have nothing to support your claim. Thanks for clearing that > up.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You are free to believe or disbelieve what I said about this woman, just as you are free to believe or disbelieve anything else I say. Does this seem unfair to you? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2008 20:05 On Jul 2, 1:51 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 1, 9:14�pm, raven1 <quoththera...(a)nevermore.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:25:57 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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?- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > If atheists could do it, they would reject everything in the Bible, > > including Herod, Pilate, Jerusalem, etc.  If atheists could do it, > > they would eradicate all Bibles from the face of the earth.  But it > > cannot be done.  Therefore, they pretend to be open minded about it > > and grudgingly admit that Herod existed, Pontius Pilate existed, > > Jerusalem exists, although maybe not forever, and if Hezekiah's tunnel > > exists, then the accounts of atheists who say it does not exist must > > be given more consideration than the Biblical account, etc.  Atheists > > do automatically reject everything in the Bible.  But if someone > > offers "evidence" that something in the Bible is true, then atheists > > will concede, but only after the 'evidence" is presented.  Otherwise, > > they say that the Bible is myth. > > Don't talk silly. I wouldn't want to eradicate the Bible any more than > I'd want to get rid of the Qu'ran, Tibetan Book of the Dead, or the Lord > of the Rings. These are great sources of story, culture, and important > parts of our history. We should be well beyond actually believing them > though!- Hide quoted text - > You are not required to believe anything. If there is a round object in the sky tomorrow morning that gives off light and heat, you are not required to believe that the sun has risen. You can believe whatever you want to believe. However, most people are going to believe it is the sun. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2008 20:06
On Jul 2, 1:54�pm, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_man...(a)aon.at> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > If atheists could do it, they would reject everything in the Bible, > > including Herod, Pilate, Jerusalem, etc. �If atheists could do it, > > they would eradicate all Bibles from the face of the earth. �But it > > cannot be done. �Therefore, they pretend to be open minded about it > > and grudgingly admit that Herod existed, Pontius Pilate existed, > > Jerusalem exists, although maybe not forever, and if Hezekiah's tunnel > > exists, then the accounts of atheists who say it does not exist must > > be given more consideration than the Biblical account, etc. �Atheists > > do automatically reject everything in the Bible. �But if someone > > offers "evidence" that something in the Bible is true, then atheists > > will concede, but only after the 'evidence" is presented. �Otherwise, > > they say that the Bible is myth. > > Robert B. Winn > > they do it real-time, you don`t know ;-)? (digtial-era) > > They are aware about the best religious book ever written IMHO, that it > is more dualistic than it seems to be on the first (your own I-Am-God > thinking is blocking in the first). > > They (atheists) should write something better yet... with their arabic > numbers and other statistics they can't have my attention, indeed ;-). > > Best regards, > > Daniel Mandic Well, numbers are pretty boring. Maybe that is why they call them numbers. Robert B. Winn |