Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 7 Jul 2008 02:33 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 6, 7:06�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> Free Lunch wrote: >>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:06:59 +1200, BuddyThunder >>> <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>> 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? ;-) >>> He didn't say what he was praying for. If you pray to God that He affect >>> nothing at all, He relibly answers. >> Like Homer S. praying to God, "if you agree, please give absolutely no >> sign!" Sure enough...- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, mostly I pray that I will not become like atheists are. Aw, now you're being mean. There's no apparent danger of that, I wouldn't worry about the prayers. Be assured, we wouldn't want to be like you, either.
From: Steve O on 7 Jul 2008 06:33 <hhyapster(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:60a85f66-8c4c-449b-b52f-bf773c5a84df(a)z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 5, 6:17 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:58898c9c-aad4-4d16-8b51-5ee0f0b2a835(a)a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jul 4, 9:29�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:2491245c-d5d7-4548-a60c-460baa59d9b4(a)z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> Sin is what you think it is. >> >> >> > I think sin is wilful disobedience to God. >> >> > Robert B. Winn >> >> >> In that case, I've never committed a sin. >> >> God has never personally told me to do anything, so how is it possible >> >> for >> >> me to disobey him? >> >> > Well, Joesf Stalin said something very similar when he killed 12 >> > million people. Atheists justify anything they do by saying there is >> > no God. >> > Robert B. Winn >> >> I don't think you are following the point here. >> I didn't say that there is no God, I said that God has never personally >> asked me to do or not do anything and it would therefore be impossible >> for >> me to wilfully disobey him if I have never once received an order or >> request >> from him. >> So do you agree that I am sinless, by your definition of sin? >> > > Steve, > I think you have presented your points incorrectly. > First of all, being an atheist, we don't subscribe to a god and > therefore we cannot say :"I didn't say there is no god...". There is > no god, period. That's fine, I was making that statement in the context of this conversation only, as in.. during this particular conversation, I did not claim there is no God, contrary to rbwinn's statement. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Steve O on 7 Jul 2008 06:37 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:db983fc6-d541-4907-ba1e-103490e27a51(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... > > It cannot be done. I talk to scientists in sci.physics.relativity. > That is all I am ever going to do. > Robert B. Winn I have a sneaking suspicion that they never talk to you. Rather like your relationship with God. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Steve O on 7 Jul 2008 06:42 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:63ab3449-0326-4096-b227-97ef9eb25141(a)y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 6, 5:02 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >> > On Jul 6, 11:04�am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> >> Alex W. wrote: >> >>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >>>news:b9d055c5-7a5b-4534-9703-63f1e75e9648(a)56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... >> >>> Your spirit is made of spirit. �You cannot transplant it. >> >>> ======= >> >>> There is always possession .... >> >> And actually the one thing we do know about spirit, is that is i NOT >> >> limited to an earthly body, so it can move independently of it if it >> >> wants. >> >> >> So yet one more lie from robbo. >> >> > The spirit of a human being wants to stay in the body because that is >> > the best place for it until the person dies. >> >> Where in the body is it housed? > > The entire body. > Robert B. Winn It's in your pee pee too? -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: The Natural Philosopher on 7 Jul 2008 06:48
BuddyThunder wrote: > rbwinn wrote: >> On Jul 6, 12:58 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>> rbwinn wrote: >>- >> >> Well, look spirit up in the dictionary. If you do not believe in >> spirit, then there is no way to explain it to you. > > I looked it up and found lots of vague notions of intermediaries between > body and soul. That kind of nonsense. > > So there is no meaningful definition of "spirit" in reality? You made a > positive claim about my "spirit", then choosing to define it in terms of > itself. A kind of "spirit is spirit, what's wrong with you" argument. > I'm none the wiser as to what you're actually referring to. The mediaeval understanding of spirit,was essentially what we today would call the mind, as distinct and somewhat independent of, the body. The concept of the 'objective observer' grew out of this particular worldview. Science owes religious philosophy that much, at least. |