Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 20 Jun 2008 19:28 On Jun 20, 3:14 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 20, 5:44�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >>news:91aff9de-ef71-4690-8e27-742500d48b32(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.... > > >> Well, you atheists have some strange ideas. �Your problem is that all > >> you have is talk. �We have the Bible. > > >> ============= > > >> OK then, different tack. > > >> What do you have? > >> What is the Bible? > >> What makes up the Bible? > >> Who decided what is and is not part of the Bible? > >> Even if you believe, how can you TRUST a collection of documents that were > >> transcribed from oral tradition, that have been edited, redacted, translated > >> from previous translations, whose components were added or omitted according > >> to pervailing theological fashion over several millennia? > > > Well, in the church I belong to, we do it because we have further > > revelation on the same subject. > > The golden plates?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No, we do not have the golden plates. Robert B. Winn
From: Alex W. on 20 Jun 2008 19:33 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:c938efb7-94a8-4e1c-afeb-131dc6fc9d1e(a)34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... On Jun 20, 5:44?am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:91aff9de-ef71-4690-8e27-742500d48b32(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > Well, you atheists have some strange ideas. ?Your problem is that all > you have is talk. ?We have the Bible. > > ============= > > OK then, different tack. > > What do you have? > What is the Bible? > What makes up the Bible? > Who decided what is and is not part of the Bible? > Even if you believe, how can you TRUST a collection of documents that were > transcribed from oral tradition, that have been edited, redacted, > translated > from previous translations, whose components were added or omitted > according > to pervailing theological fashion over several millennia? Well, in the church I belong to, we do it because we have further revelation on the same subject. ============ Revelation received by fallible humans, written down by fallible humans, edited and redacted by fallible and political churchmen. Not very persuasive ....
From: BuddyThunder on 20 Jun 2008 19:37 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 20, 2:40 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 20, 5:34 am, TT <tte...(a)wowway.com> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 19, 5:55 am, TT <tte...(a)wowway.com> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> Well, go ahead and talk about God, but I can tell you ahead of time, >>>>>>> you do not know anything about God. No atheist does. >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>> nahh...we'll discus what we want...you choose your fiction..and >>>>>> that's all you have been expressing faith in..nothing else...and we'll >>>>>> point out our fiction...and we won't base a worldview on our inability >>>>>> to deal with reality like you do....Don't like it? Pray for >>>>>> us...otherwise..tough... >>>>>> -- >>>>>> �Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the >>>>>> question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it >>>>>> right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is >>>>>> neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one >>>>>> it is right.� >>>>>> Martin Luther king Jr.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> Well, people would do better if they learned to do their own praying. >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>> Thinking is preferred by everyone else here..it actually does >>>> something... >>> Well, so you think that you can destroy Christianity. That was what >>> this conversation was about when it began. That was why I was >>> pointing out that the Bible was the best selling book in the world. >>> Not so, said atheists. Harry Potter is the best selling book in the >>> world. >> That's a bit melodramatic, isn't it? I'm just interested in your beliefs >> and how they're rationalised. Destroying Christianity is a ridiculous >> aspiration, you'd constantly be disappointed!- Hide quoted text - >> > > So why do atheists have schools teaching that Christianity is false? > If they do not have the aspiration, why are they trying to do it? Do we? What schools? What fresh hell is this?!
From: rbwinn on 20 Jun 2008 19:39 On Jun 20, 3:16 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > 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. > > That's my point, you've got no reliable way of evaluating which IS the > correct alternative. > > Can you say how Darrell is wrong rather than simply issuing a denial?- Hide quoted text - > Darrell claims that there were no synagogues at the time of the life of Christ. According to him, the gospels had to have been written after 200 A.D. because atheists of today have said that no synagogues existed before that time. It is easy to see that Darrell and his atheist authorities are wrong about this because of the writings of Luke and Paul, who were Christian missionaries sent to Asia Minor. Whenever Luke and Paul went to a city in Asia Minor where they had not been before they always went to the Jewish synagogue. So if there were no synagogues at the time of Christ, why were there synagogues all over Asia Minor just after he was crucified?
From: rbwinn on 20 Jun 2008 19:40
On Jun 20, 3:18 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 19, 8:18 am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > > 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, > >> Paul was not an apostle.  He never met Joshua but rather made up his > >> theology using Hellenistic philosophy from the Greek classics, Hebrew > >> theology from the Old Testament, and epileptically induced hallucinations > >> of imagined conversations with god the father.  He even admits to that.  In > >> fact he goes further and says he learned nothing from any man.  That means > >> he never had any conversation with any apostle, nor any other human that > >> either met the apostles or Joshua.  It was not until he wrote a couple of > >> epistles and was well into his ministry by several years that he met James > >> and Peter. > > >> So far you have named four out of twelve apostles.  That is a grade of 33 > >> and 1/3 percent a solid 'F' if you were to give such sloppy results while > >> attending seminary.  Can't you open up a bible and type what you see about > >> the named apostles? > > >>> then there are > >>> writings of some people who were just disciples. > >> What writings were those?  We have no writings from any apostle nor any > >> disciple concerning Joshua.  As you have been told, and as you can find out > >> by looking at perfect facsimiles of the earliest manuscripts and bibles, > >> there were no names attached to the books of the New Testament until the > >> second or third copyists.  And none of the authors name themselves in the > >> books themselves. > > >>> All of these people > >>> seem more believable to me than you do Darrell.  Maybe it is just your > >>> attitude. > >> Mine and the attitude of honest Christian scholars of higher biblical > >> criticism.  In fact prefaces in many versions of the bible say the same > >> thing. > > >> But all you have is a knowledgeless opinion based solely on faith. > > >>> Robert B. Winn > > Well, that bodes well for me.  James says in his epistle, Without > > faith it is impossible to please God. > > Okay. Faith is fine for you, but I can't follow you there. Lots of > people have faith in many different religious beliefs. That doesn't show > me which of them is correct, if any of them at all.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, you seem to have faith in Spiderman and Harry Potter. Robert B. Winn |