Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Smiler on 20 Jun 2008 20:00 "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec(a)webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message news:485c3b9a$0$20193$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... > rbwinn wrote: > >> On Jun 20, 3:35 am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >> wrote: >>> rbwinn wrote: >>> > On Jun 19, 8:22 am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> rbwinn wrote: >>> >> > On Jun 18, 3:50 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> rbwinn wrote: >>> >> >> > On Jun 18, 10:11?am, Darrell Stec >>> >> >> > <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >> rbwinn wrote: >>> >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 2:53?am, Darrell Stec >>> >> >> >> > <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > Well, I analyzed the Bible. ?What I find is that God would >>> >> >> >> >> > not want His children to die and just cease to be or to be >>> >> >> >> >> > punished forever, so He sent his Son to overcome death. >>> >> >> >> >> > ?Because of wickedness, we see today that most people will >>> >> >> >> >> > reject God's gift of eternal life. Robert B. Winn >>> >>> >> >> >> >> Let me ask you a question. ?Who would know more about LDS >>> >> >> >> >> theology, one of the churches twelve apostles, or a Hari >>> >> >> >> >> Krishna monk> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >>> >> >> >> > Who do you think would know more about LDS theology? ?Why do >>> >> >> >> > you ask? Robert B. Winn >>> >>> >> >> >> Evasion noted. ?Why are you afraid to answer a couple of easy >>> >> >> >> questions? Why do you think I would ask? ?Could it be the >>> >> >> >> answer >>> >> >> >> might be obvious? >>> >>> >> >> > Well, if the answer is obvious, then there was no reason to ask >>> >> >> > the question. Go ahead and say whatever you were going to say. >>> >> >> > Robert B. Winn >>> >>> >> >> Why are you afraid to tell us whether or not one of the 12 >>> >> >> apostles >>> >> >> of the Mormon church would know more about LDS theology than an >>> >> >> Hari Krishna monk? What are you afraid of? I know the answer, but >>> >> >> I don't know if you do and that is why I am asking. >>> >>> >> >> -- >>> >> >> Later, >>> >> >> Darrell Stec dars...(a)neo.rr.com >>> >>> >> > Well, why don't you just make up your own mind about that? >>> >> > Robert B. Winn >>> >>> >> I already have made an informed and knowledgeable opinion. I am >>> >> trying to find out what you believe (asking what you think would be >>> >> unfair because you are shooting without bullets) to be the case. Why >>> >> are you afraid to answer the question? Is it because it has never >>> >> been discussed in bible school and you have nothing to copy and >>> >> paste? >>> >> Go ask your bishop what he thinks, as you allow others to think for >>> >> you until you pull stupid things out of thin air. >>> >>> >> -- >>> > Well, why don't you ask my bishop yourself? >>> >>> What is his name, email address, physical address and phone number and I >>> will ask him. I'll also send him a list of your more insane postings. >>> >>> > I told you athiests >>> > before that I was not going to be your researcher. >>> >>> What research do you need to do to answer a question as to whether an >>> apostle of your church's council of twelve would know more about LDS >>> philosophy than a Hari Krishna monk? That is a person opinion. Or do >>> you mean that nobody told you what to think in regard to the question so >>> you can't copy and paste it? >>> >>> > If you want to know what I believe,I can give you name to the >>> > missionaries as a referral , and they can tell you what I beleive. >>> >>> Why can't you give us your opinion yourself? Why are you having so many >>> problems answering an easy question? What are you afraid of? >>> >>> > Robert B. Winn >>> >> Well, the General Authorities of our church have counseled us to avoid >> contention with other churches. So if you have some bone to pick with >> the Hare Kirshna church, leave me out of it. >> Robert B. Winn > > Why are you avoiding the question? Why is it so difficult for you to > answer > the question? It is a simple one. Whom do you think knows more about LDS > theology, one of the twelve apostles making up the council of the LDS > church or a Hari Krishna monk? What are you afraid of. Certainly there > is > no injunction in your church against answering the question. Why are you > avoiding it? > It's against his 'religion' to answer ANY question! Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Alex W. on 20 Jun 2008 20:16 "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:485c2855$1(a)clear.net.nz... > Please don't mention cricket, I'm a Kiwi. > Ah, an Aussie with manners! Good on yer. :-) > You're right though, Marmite is actually the best reason to believe in God > that I've seen. Greases axles and puts hairs on your chest! Marmite, WD40 and gaffer tape -- what more does a man need?
From: Smiler on 20 Jun 2008 20:36 "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:485c2855$1(a)clear.net.nz... > Alex W. wrote: >> "Free Lunch" <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >> news:e1cj549ar4tpoi7d34brkf5fku9tp0up1a(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:50:50 +0100, "Alex W." <ingilt(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote >>> in alt.atheism: >>> >> >> >>>> I don't need to imagine Marmite. I eat it every day. God's food. >>>> Puts >>>> hair on your chest. >>> Is God evil in your pantheon? >> >> Au contraire -- Marmite and its colonial variant Vegemite are signs of >> divine favour! It's heaven-sent manna to sustain the British Empire on >> its manifest destiny of carrying the white man's burden. A slice of >> toast with Marmite and a cup of Yorkshire Gold Blend tea for breakfast >> give us the strength to go forth and bring the blessings of civilisation >> and cricket to the benighted peoples of the world. With Marmite in our >> bellies, we fear nothing, even ugly native mobs armed with bananas or >> loganberries! > > Please don't mention cricket, I'm a Kiwi. > > You're right though, Marmite is actually the best reason to believe in God > that I've seen. Greases axles and puts hairs on your chest! Even if you're a woman..... :-) Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Darrell Stec on 20 Jun 2008 20:47 rbwinn wrote: > 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. No I did not. You are lying again. After 200 CE would be the third century CE. You aren't paying attention. > because atheists of today have said that no synagogues > existed before that time. Again you are lying. I said Jewish and Christian archaeologists have determined that. Why do you keep lying about what other people said, especially in light of the fact that those statements can be reviewed from a few hours or few days earlier? > 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? There weren't. There is no evidence any of the books attributed to either Luke or Paul wrote in the first century. In fact the absence of such physical evidence of synagogues in the first century CE, and the presence of evidence that the area which is now Nazareth was a graveyard in the the first century CE, speaks against a first century creation of those works. -- Later, Darrell Stec darstec(a)neo.rr.com Webpage Sorcery http://webpagesorcery.com We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
From: rbwinn on 20 Jun 2008 21:02
On Jun 20, 3:20 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 20, 3:15 am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > > wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jun 19, 8:34�am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery..com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 18, 3:54�pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>> Right now, just about every reader on these newsgroups is convinced you > >>>> are nothing but a liar and cannot defend your absurd statements by > >>>> providing evidence. > >>>>> Well, I > >>>>> could not remember Andrew and Thaddeus when I tried to think of them. > >>>>> What do we do now? > >>>> Read your bible and tell us the names of the twelve apostles (which you > >>>> claim, not I). �Why are you avoiding answering this very easy question? > >>>> �Is it because you actually know you cannot reliably number them even > >>>> using the bible? �Is it because you actually know you cannot reliably > >>>> name them even using the bible? > >>>>> Robert B. Winn > >>> Well, I have seen atheists gert worked up about this before.  What > >>> difference does it make to an atheist?  I thought you did not believe > >>> in the apostles.  So why are you so worried about what their names > >>> were? > >>> Robert B. Winn > >> Just to demonstrate that you are a liar and cannot name them.  You are wrong > >> about the number and wrong about the fact you can name them.  Being an > >> atheist has nothing to do about investigating the contents of a work of > >> literature, fiction, that has been handed down through the millenia.  I > >> don't have to believe any events in The Lord of Rings to actually discuss > >> the contents of the trilogy while at the same time I can challenge someone > >> who might assert that Gandalf wore a robe of purple and pink where the > >> story does not provide evidence of it. > > >> Using your logic, nobody would study any literature that was a work of > >> fiction if they did not believe the contents were true and if they believed > >> that evidence could not be provided to back up the stories.  You do know > >> that both private and public schools require studying the fictional stories > >> of Shakesphere, don't you? > > >> -- > > Yes, and I know atheists require study of Harry Potter.  That does not > > mean I think it is a good thing.  What I do notice about the Bible is > > that from what exists today, the Bible seems historically accurate, > > whereas, some other accounts of history such as Sennacherib's account > > of the Assyrian invasion of Judea seem inaccurate and self-serving. > > Then we have the kind of atheistic ideas that you continually expound, > > but have no proof are true.  It is my opinion that anti-Christ agendas > > are always based on false information. > > You're still denying that London exists, huh? > > Could you point to the evidence of a global flood? How about a young > earth? The historicity of Moses? Is the Bible really historically accurate? > > You're probably not in a position to demand evidence.- Hide quoted text - > My friend Stuart Dowling says that London exists. He says that is is Harry Potter who does not exist. Robert B. Winn |