Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 6 Jul 2008 20:05 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 6, 11:07 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 6, 1:01�am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> Smiler wrote: >>>>> "Free Lunch" <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >>>>> news:i2nt649tvtdd1sofkag02co4c9n4s1vt6e(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 19:26:01 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote >>>>>> in alt.atheism: >>>>>>> On Jul 4, 8:42?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:28:00 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote >>>>>>>> in alt.atheism: >>>>>>>>> On Jul 4, 3:03?am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Alex W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:9fadb87c-6364-49eb-9ca6-c8fd555f6cd3(a)a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 6:05?am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:f807e4d0-b40f-4cb8-bb4c-12f00021898d(a)34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, the scriptures say that the wicked would be more miserable >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> the presence of God than with the devils in hell. >>>>>>>>>>>> =========== >>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, since we are all sinful by definition, the smart >>>>>>>>>>>> choice is >>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for hell in the first place. ?Nice morality .... >>>>>>>>>>> No, the smart choice is to repent of sins. ?However, atheists claim >>>>>>>>>>> that nothing they do is sin, so they are not going to repent. >>>>>>>>>> Which to me indicates you have no idea what sin, or repentance, is. >>>>>>>>>>> ========== >>>>>>>>>>> Sin is a social construct. ?It exists irrespective of the god(s) >>>>>>>>>>> worshipped >>>>>>>>>>> ... or not, as the case may be.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>> Sin is wilful disobedience of God. ?Repentance is confessing and >>>>>>>>> forsaking sin. >>>>>>>> As far as we can tell, God is a human invention. God never told us to do >>>>>>>> anything. Sin, therefore, is also a human invention.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> So once an atheist enters into sin, there is no turning back from >>>>>>> it. � I guess that was why Josef Stalin killed 12 million people. >>>>>> God is still a human invention. Clearly the fear of God does not stop >>>>>> you from lying in almost every post. >>>>>> I will not respond to you for a while, you have become far too nasty in >>>>>> your discussions here. >>>>> That's exactly what he wants! >>>>> If everyone ignored him, he would be free to spread his lies without >>>>> opposition. >>>>> The answer is to fight his lies, nastyness and stupidity with the reply it >>>>> deserves...Ho! <whack>. >>>> If there's something worth a response, I will respond. If it's nothing >>>> but silly lies, unevidenced assertions or "atheists are Nazis" nonsense, >>>> then the whacking will come.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> I believe that atheists are exactly like Nazis. That has been my >>> experience with them. >>> Robert B. Winn >> I believe fundamental christians are just like Nazis. >> >> they both know they are justified in anything, because they are >> completely right (wing?) >> .- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Not me. I am registered as an independent voter. You can be right-wing without being aligned with any major political party. I'm a leftie, but I'm not a member of the Greens or the Labour Party here in NZ.
From: BuddyThunder on 6 Jul 2008 20:06 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 6, 11:02�am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >> >>> My definition of sin was willful disobedience of God. �Bearing false >>> witness about me would fall under the category of willful disobedience >>> of God. >> In that case you are totally guilty of that exact sin. >> >> We have already established by your own definitions that you are a >> sinful person (onkl Jesus is free of sin you said) , and your lack of >> charity excommnunicates you as a Christian. (you wont talk to God on >> anyones behalf..) >> >> I think you are in deep trouble, dude. >> >> > No, I am fine. I say a little prayer every once in a while about > atheists. That one ever get answered? ;-)
From: Smiler on 6 Jul 2008 20:23 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:5e0b68ed-05f0-4a55-bccc-016c53155b3c(a)8g2000hse.googlegroups.com... On Jul 6, 1:01?am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Smiler wrote: > > "Free Lunch" <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > >news:i2nt649tvtdd1sofkag02co4c9n4s1vt6e(a)4ax.com... > >> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 19:26:01 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >> wrote > >> in alt.atheism: > > >>> On Jul 4, 8:42?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:28:00 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >>>> wrote > >>>> in alt.atheism: > > >>>>> On Jul 4, 3:03?am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > >>>>>> Alex W. wrote: > >>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>news:9fadb87c-6364-49eb-9ca6-c8fd555f6cd3(a)a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>> On Jul 3, 6:05?am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>news:f807e4d0-b40f-4cb8-bb4c-12f00021898d(a)34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>> Well, the scriptures say that the wicked would be more miserable > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> the presence of God than with the devils in hell. > >>>>>>>> =========== > >>>>>>>> In other words, since we are all sinful by definition, the smart > >>>>>>>> choice is > >>>>>>>> to aim for hell in the first place. ?Nice morality .... > >>>>>>> No, the smart choice is to repent of sins. ?However, atheists > >>>>>>> claim > >>>>>>> that nothing they do is sin, so they are not going to repent. > >>>>>> Which to me indicates you have no idea what sin, or repentance, is. > >>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>> Sin is a social construct. ?It exists irrespective of the god(s) > >>>>>>> worshipped > >>>>>>> ... or not, as the case may be.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>> Sin is wilful disobedience of God. ?Repentance is confessing and > >>>>> forsaking sin. > >>>> As far as we can tell, God is a human invention. God never told us to > >>>> do > >>>> anything. Sin, therefore, is also a human invention.- Hide quoted > >>>> text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> So once an atheist enters into sin, there is no turning back from > >>> it. ? I guess that was why Josef Stalin killed 12 million people. > >> God is still a human invention. Clearly the fear of God does not stop > >> you from lying in almost every post. > > >> I will not respond to you for a while, you have become far too nasty in > >> your discussions here. > > > That's exactly what he wants! > > If everyone ignored him, he would be free to spread his lies without > > opposition. > > The answer is to fight his lies, nastyness and stupidity with the reply > > it > > deserves...Ho! <whack>. > > If there's something worth a response, I will respond. If it's nothing > but silly lies, unevidenced assertions or "atheists are Nazis" nonsense, > then the whacking will come.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I believe ======================== Ho! <whack> Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: BuddyThunder on 6 Jul 2008 20:33 Free Lunch wrote: > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:59:50 +1200, BuddyThunder > <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in alt.atheism: > >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 6, 12:57 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 5, 2:40 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 4, 8:37?pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jul 4, 11:32 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:26:53 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> in alt.atheism: >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 4, 2:57 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 4:15?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 03:44:40 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>> in alt.atheism: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 5:28?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your claim is completely without support. Since you rely on an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indefensible claim for the rest of your doctrine, your doctrines are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worth considering. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I consider God to be sufficient support. ?If you think He is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not, ?go ahead and try to prove it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide any evidence that any claim ever made about God is true. >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, there is an earthen ramp that the Assyrian army built to get >>>>>>>>>>>> over the city wall at Lachish. >>>>>>>>>>> So? I have built several earthen ramps. >>>>>>>>>>> Am I then God? >>>>>>>>>>>> Atheists do not believe in the earthen ramp. >>>>>>>>>>> well firstly that is false, because I do believe in earthen ramps, >>>>>>>>>>> having built many, and I am an atheist. >>>>>>>>>>> And secondly what has the fact that ?person B may or may not believe >>>>>>>>>>> statement X, have to do with the existence, or not, of personality Z? >>>>>>>>>> God did not build the earthen ramp. ?The Assyrian army did. ?God would >>>>>>>>>> have preferred that they did not build it and had left the city of >>>>>>>>>> Lachish and its inhabitants alone. >>>>>>>>> Are you saying that God was powerless to stop them? >>>>>>>> The bible contains enormous mistakes to glorify god yet plainly >>>>>>>> telling us that god is a useless being. >>>>>>>> The early Jews who wrote it were not educated, or might be drunk. Yes, >>>>>>>> more drunk than wake.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> Well, as you say, if you think God is a useless being, then you will >>>>>>> choose to be with the beings you think of as being useful, other >>>>>>> atheists. >>>>>> So you concede there are many mistakes or untruths in the Bible then?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> Why does it depend on me? The Bible is what it is. If you do not >>>>> like the Bible, read something else. >>>> No answer? I just wanted to know how reliable you thought the Bible was. >>>> I know it to be full of errors and distortions, just wondered what your >>>> position on it was. You seem to think it better than other sacred texts >>>> for some reason.- Hide quoted text - >>>> >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> I think the Bible is very reliable. The Jews were very meticulous as >>> far as preserving ancient writings. For instance, the Dead Sea >>> scrolls of Isaiah are a good example of how accurately the Bible was >>> translated. >> The Bible was very accurately transcribed - for humans. They did an >> amazing job. Not a perfect job, there are lots of differences between >> the early versions we have, but not bad for a bunch of people. >> >> It's the content that I find even less reliable though, that's what I >> was driving at, and I think you know that. >> >> Much reported as history in the Bible simply never happened. No global >> flood, no special creation, no exodus... > > Yes, copying a mistake faithfully does not make the mistake go away. Well, quite!
From: BuddyThunder on 6 Jul 2008 20:44
Antares 531 wrote: > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:59:50 +1200, BuddyThunder > <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 6, 12:57 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: > (snip) >> The Bible was very accurately transcribed - for humans. They did an >> amazing job. Not a perfect job, there are lots of differences between >> the early versions we have, but not bad for a bunch of people. >> >> It's the content that I find even less reliable though, that's what I >> was driving at, and I think you know that. >> >> Much reported as history in the Bible simply never happened. No global >> flood, no special creation, no exodus... >> > Few of those Biblical stories are to be taken literally. Most are > allegory, parable, simile, etc., sometimes based upon an existing > legend. The purpose was to make it possible for a mostly illiterate > people to get the embedded meaning, retain the story, and pass it on > from generation to generation with little drift. > > The flood was probably based upon the ancient stories about the > flooding of the Mediterranean basin shortly after the last ice age > ended. The Strait of Gibraltar was breached as the Atlantic ocean > level raised. When this happened the whole Mediterranean basin was > flooded in a very short time...like 40 days and 40 nights. The relics > of those stone walls and buildings that were out in what is now the > Mediterranean are still available for divers to see. > > The main point I'm making is that we should not get hung up on the > literary form used in the Bible. We can read it and interpret it just > as effectively as those ancient people could. Neither of us has an > advantage over the other. Gordon They can't sensibly be taken literally, as they apparently never happened. I think you're right, these things were sometimes adapted from existing legend, which all points to a concerted human authorship effort rather than divine origins. The Bible presents these things as if they happened. Jesus was clear when he was speaking in parables, why couldn't the OT be similarly up-front? I'm unconvinced that we're meant to disbelieve in the story of Noah. Why would the dimensions of the ark be given if it was a parable? Anyway, where do you draw the line between literal truth and "symbolic allegory", or falsified story? How do I know which bits really happened and which bits are fancy? If I can't depend on all of it, how can I depend on any of it? |