Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Stan-O on 12 Jul 2008 10:20 On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:19:36 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >On Jul 11, 8:25?pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:18:31 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> Why wouldn't you address the questions directly and sensitively, >> >> instead of talking something else? >> >> If you can answer, just keep quiet and we all understand. At least you >> >> will be in a position not to continue your bullshit.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> >So you are saying that I gave an answer that was not approved in your >> >society of atheists. ?Why don't you ask your question to another >> >atheist and get an answer that you are happy with? >> >Robert B. Winn >> >> Nice dodge...but then, that's all you ever do, isn't it? > >I answered the question. Atheists were not happy with the answer. So >it seems to me that atheists are free to believe whatever they want to >believe. As are you, but don't expect to come into an atheist newsgroup and not expect your nonsense to go unchallenged...
From: Stan-O on 12 Jul 2008 10:29 On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:21:44 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >You atheists seem to have a lot of trouble with the meanings of >> >words. ?There was another atheist who seemed to believe that adult and >> >adulterer meant the same thing. >> >Robert B. Winn >> >> ...which is an old joke that you obviously didn't get. > >It is a very foolish mistake. Although the two words look and sound >similar, they mean very different things. >Robert B. Winn I'd explain the meaning of "a play on words", but it would be like pouring water on a rock and expecting it to sink in...
From: Linda Fox on 12 Jul 2008 11:22 On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:58:08 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >Well, that could be. I had to give a speech because I had the best >grades in my high school class. I talked about how wonderful college >was going to be. More vague prophesies? Linda ff
From: Linda Fox on 12 Jul 2008 11:25 On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:20:29 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: > >A two year old is learning to lie or tell the truth. If a two year >old sees its parents lie all the time, then the two year old is going >to do the same thing. Ho-kayyyy - tell us please, because we'd love to know, how a two-year-old can tell its parents are lying when it does not know the truth itself. Unless it's by watching the nose grow longer and longer. Linda ff
From: Ben Dolan on 12 Jul 2008 12:53
Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:14:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a(a)b.c> > wrote: > > >Antares 531 wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:17:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a(a)b.c> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Antares 531 wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:15:08 -0700, ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) > >>>> wrote: > >> (snip) > >>>> Ben, there is an ABUNDANCE of evidence that God exists, > >>> Which God though? > >>> > >> The One whose prophecies are repeatedly and accurately fulfilled. > > > >OH, you mean a SCIENTIST. > > > >I thought we were talking religion.. > > > The Word of God is NOT in disagreement with any reliable scientific > knowledge. The confusion on this is caused by the way The Word of God > was given to humans. > > The Word of God had to be given to us such that those primitive people > could grasp the basic meaning, and also pass the information along > from generation to generation among illiterate people, with little > drift. Then you would think that God would wait until man HAD advanced so that they could grasp the basic meaning. It seems like the big fella would be smart enough to figure that out, wouldn't you? I mean, you claim YOU have figured it out, with your elaborate gobbledygook about multiverses and quantum particles. Why not wait and communicate it directly to you? > Allegories, parables, similes, etc., are the way this was achieved. Don't you think it possible that those allegories and parables came about the way they all did, as plain old inventions of the human imagination? After all, these same stories (virgin conceptions, for example) were around well before Christ. > Also, The Word of God had to be given to those early humans such that > they would have the same advantages that we have, today. That is, no > favoritism was shown by presenting the information in a form that only > a modern scientifically educated person could understand. Your claim of God as the omniscient science teacher remains unconvincing, and is hardly original. I have no idea how you arrived at this point of view, but it is on the whole rather ridiculous. |