Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 21 Jun 2008 02:29 On Jun 20, 4:56�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagenews:0031b0a4-7361-43c8-a329-7be595f6a1bf(a)j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 19, 10:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 18, 9:19 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Jun 19, 1:18 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 18, 5:41?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:07:49 -0700 (PDT), asilentskeptic > > > > > <asilentskep...(a)gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > > > >On Jun 18, 12:51 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >> > On Jun 16, 11:29 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> >> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >> >>> On Jun 16, 1:19 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> > > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>> On Jun 16, 12:50 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> > > > > > >> >>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>> On Jun 15, 6:32?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:46:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 6:33?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:48:13 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 6:52?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:45:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 9:45?pm, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you should explain your ideas to the > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twelve apostles after the > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resurrection takes place, Darrell. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you do not know how many there are (if any) or > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their names > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you just hide behind the statement above to > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cover your > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. ?Just like in your failed attempts to > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> argue > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics, you do not even know enough to argue your > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs and have to retreat to claiming ignorance. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not claim ignorance. ?I just told Darrell to > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> look them up > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> himself. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You admit failure, no matter how you describe it. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Why, because Darrell is not going to look them up? ?I > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> do not care what > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Darrell does. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> You told him to look it up because you didn't have the > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> evidence. You ran > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> away from the question.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Nope. ?I told atheists a long time ago I was not going > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> to be their > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> researcher. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> You refuse to do the research to back up your own > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> claims. You are no > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> one's researcher. You worship ignorance.- Hide quoted > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> text - > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Well, I did a little ?better than the atheists on > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Hezekiah's tunnel > > > > > >> >>>>>>> and the ramp over the city wall at Lachish. > > > > > >> >>>>>> No. You only think you did. For some reason. Could you > > > > > >> >>>>>> tell us why?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >> >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > > >> >>>>> Yes, I can do that. ?There is an actual earthen ramp built > > > > > >> >>>>> by the > > > > > >> >>>>> Assyrian army that still exists today. ?There is an actual > > > > > >> >>>>> conduit for > > > > > >> >>>>> water between Gihon spring and the Pool of Siloam, just as > > > > > >> >>>>> the Bible > > > > > >> >>>>> says there is. ?The problem that atheists have is that J..K. > > > > > >> >>>>> Rowling is > > > > > >> >>>>> from northern England. ?When she wrote about Harry Potter > > > > > >> >>>>> leaving from > > > > > >> >>>>> the train station in London, probably the only thing she > > > > > >> >>>>> knew about > > > > > >> >>>>> the train station was its name. ? So comparing the Biblical > > > > > >> >>>>> account, > > > > > >> >>>>> which can be easily verified by going to Israel and looking > > > > > >> >>>>> at the > > > > > >> >>>>> ramp and the conduit for water, to what J.K. Rowling wrote > > > > > >> >>>>> in a book > > > > > >> >>>>> which she said was fiction means nothing to me, however > > > > > >> >>>>> sacred it may > > > > > >> >>>>> be to you atheists. > > > > > >> >>>>> Robert B. Winn > > > > > >> >>>> So, substituting ... > > > > > >> >>>> Yes, I can do that. ?There is an actual major city founded > > > > > >> >>>> by the > > > > > >> >>>> Romans that still exists today. ?There is an actual railway > > > > > >> >>>> station, > > > > > >> >>>> just as Harry Potter says there is. > > > > > >> >>>> We know that Harry Potter is fiction. You're claiming > > > > > >> >>>> Biblical authority > > > > > >> >>>> SOLELY on the existence of some mentioned ancient sites. > > > > > >> >>>> We're pointing > > > > > >> >>>> out that by the same logic, you would be forced to admit > > > > > >> >>>> Harry Potter's > > > > > >> >>>> authority. If can't t accept its authority, then your > > > > > >> >>>> argument need > > > > > >> >>>> reexamination. Maybe the Bible needs more support for its > > > > > >> >>>> extraordinary > > > > > >> >>>> claims.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >> >>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > > >> >>> There is also a woman who calls herself J.K. Rowling who says > > > > > >> >>> she > > > > > >> >>> wrote the Harry Potter books as fiction, regardless of how > > > > > >> >>> many > > > > > >> >>> atheists believe them. > > > > > >> >>> I am not claiming Biblical authority SOLEY on the existence > > > > > >> >>> of some > > > > > >> >>> mentioned ancient sites. ?An atheist claimed that there was > > > > > >> >>> nothing in > > > > > >> >>> the Bible that could be verified by anything that exists > > > > > >> >>> today, so I > > > > > >> >>> mentioned Hezekiah's tunnel. ?It was not an argument. > > > > > >> >> We'll have to take your word about the claim, but okay. You > > > > > >> >> were > > > > > >> >> correct, and I don't think that point is contended. Some > > > > > >> >> things in the > > > > > >> >> Bible are verifiable. > > > > > > >> >>> It was information about something mentioned in the Bible > > > > > >> >>> that can be seen > > > > > >> >>> today. ?And as we can see, atheists still claim that > > > > > >> >>> Hezekiah's tunnel > > > > > >> >>> is exactly like Harry Potter leaving for wizard's school, > > > > > >> >>> including > > > > > >> >>> you. ?No, Hezekiah's tunnel is not exactly like Harry Potter > > > > > >> >>> leaving > > > > > >> >>> for wizard's school. ?You atheists are not going to be able > > > > > >> >>> to > > > > > >> >>> convince me that Hezekiah's tunnel is exactly like Harry > > > > > >> >>> Potter > > > > > >> >>> leaving for wizard's school. ?As long as you continue to try > > > > > >> >>> to > > > > > >> >>> convince me that Hezekiah's tunnel is exactly like Harry > > > > > >> >>> Potter > > > > > >> >>> leaving for wizard's school, I will continue to say that you > > > > > >> >>> do not > > > > > >> >>> believe Hezekiah's tunnel exists because Harry Potter does > > > > > >> >>> not exist > > > > > >> >>> and wizard's school does not exist. > > > > > >> >> Then you would be persisting in your error. If you were simply > > > > > >> >> trying to > > > > > >> >> say that at least SOME of the Bible is true, then okay, you've > > > > > >> >> made your > > > > > >> >> point. We thought you were arguing for the accuracy of the > > > > > >> >> WHOLE on the > > > > > >> >> basis of these minor points. Okay, a whole lot of arguing over > > > > > >> >> nothing > > > > > >> >> now that we know what your claim really is. (Is that it?) > > > > > > >> >> If you are saying that Hezekiah's > > > > > > >> >>> tunnel is exactly like Harry Potter leaving for wizard's > > > > > >> >>> school, then > > > > > >> >>> you are saying that Hezekiah's tunnel does not exist. > > > > > >> >> That is of course a deliberate misrepresentation, but I think > > > > > >> >> I can > > > > > >> >> understand why you're making it now.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > >> > It is not a deliberate misrepresentation. ?The Biblical account > > > > > >> > of the > > > > > >> > Assyrian invasion of Judea is much more believable than any > > > > > >> > other > > > > > >> > account of the same events, including the account of > > > > > >> > Sennacherib, the > > > > > >> > Assyrian king, which is the account that atheists promote > > > > > >> > because it > > > > > >> > is different from the Biblical one. > > > > > > >> You would need to say WHY you find it more believable than the > > > > > >> mainstream account if you want any support for your views. I > > > > > >> don't have > > > > > >> any familiarity with the events in question, so I don't have an > > > > > >> opinion > > > > > >> either way (or some third, unexplored option), depite being an > > > > > >> evil atheist. > > > > > > >> > But none of these ancient > > > > > >> > accounts have anything to do with Harry Potter, a character in > > > > > >> > a > > > > > >> > modern work of fiction. > > > > > > >> I agree, they don't have anything to do with it, except that > > > > > >> drawing > > > > > >> support for the Bible's claims on this basis is like trying to > > > > > >> support > > > > > >> Harry Potter by mentioning London. If you believe the Bible is > > > > > >> Truth > > > > > >> because of these sites, then you should believe that Harry Potter > > > > > >> is > > > > > >> Truth for the same reason. > > > > > > >> ? ?Nevertheless, all I had to do to get a > > > > > > >> > response about Harry Potter was mention Hezekiah's tunnel, a > > > > > >> > conduit > > > > > >> > for water constructed during the Assyrian invasion or the > > > > > >> > earthen ramp > > > > > >> > that the Assyrian army built to get over the city wall at > > > > > >> > Lachish. > > > > > >> > According to atheists, these evidences of the Assyrian invasion > > > > > >> > were > > > > > >> > exactly like Harry Potter leaving for wizard's school. > > > > > > >> We believe you're trying to show Biblical authority by mentioning > > > > > >> these > > > > > >> sites. While you persist in this logical fallacy, we're going to > > > > > >> stick > > > > > >> with the Harry Potter comparrison. :-) > > > > > > >> Anyone hysterical yet? > > > > > > >I gave up after using two further examples and some further > > > > > >comments. > > > > > >Spiderman and the Iliad. > > > > > > >I don't like to deal with the deliberately obtuse. > > > > > > Yes, Mr. Winn has gone beyond merely being obtuse to being > > > > > intentionally > > > > > dishonest. Even the LDS and other Christians should chastise him for > > > > > his > > > > > lies. I don't expect him to ever repent of his foolish dishonesty..- > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Well, I mentioned two things, a ramp and a conduit for water > > > > constructed during the Assyrian invasion of Judea. �Which of those do > > > > you claim I lied about? > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > You lied about the reason for posting those two "facts". �The bible > > > mentions cows too, and there are cows. �We'll ignore the cud-chewing > > > rabbits for the moment, but no-one said everything mentioned in the > > > bible was falsehood. �Just that it was generally a work of fiction. > > > You then leapt in and told everyone that "Atheists are always saying > > > everything in the bible is false." �LIE. > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Well, no, it is not a lie, Al. �Even if an atheist appears to say that > > something in the Bible is true, there is always something in the > > statement they make that claims it is also false. �For instance, with > > regard to the two things I mentioned, it is impossible for an atheist > > to discuss these two things without also discussing Harry Potter, > > Spiderman, or some other fictional thing that shows what they really > > think about it. �Look at your statement. �The Bible mentions cows, but > > the Bible mentions rabbits chewing cud, so the mention of cows in the > > Bible proves that the Bible is untrue. �Atheists are incapable of > > discussing the Bible rationally. > > Robert B. Winn > > I'm thinking you're incapable of discussing the bible rationally. �I > didn't at any stage say that the bible mentioning cows makes it > false. �Your interpretations of what people are saying is massively > out of line with what is being said. > What I think we can all agree on is that pretty much every book has > some truths and some falsities. �Yes, Cows and Tunnels do exist. �But > they can't be used to prove other aspects in the book. �If there were > hundreds of other sources claiming Rabbits chewed their cud then we > might start to think it's true, and if we could physically verify that > this happens, we would accept it as true. �But we're not discounting > it simply because it's in the bible. �We're saying that is false > because it's verifiably false because of what we can see about rabbit > behaviour and several million dissections. > It would be logically inconsistent to say something is wrong because > it's in the bible. �That would be a circular argument. > ---------------------------------------------- > He's quite comfortable with circular arguments.....He uses them all the > time. > I am not the one denying Christ. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 21 Jun 2008 02:33 On Jun 20, 5:47 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> wrote: > 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    dars...(a)neo.rr.com > > Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com > We Put the Magic in Your Webpages- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, I don't really belive what you are saying, Darrell. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 21 Jun 2008 02:39 On Jun 20, 6:24�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:b3f38615-2ef2-416d-b5c8-dd1b4b0c7a19(a)w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > 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? > --------------------------------------------- > > Because the stories attributed to Luke and Paul were not written 'soon > after' your supposed jesus was supposed to have died. > They were written at least a hundred years after that supposed event. By > that time, there were synagogues all over Asia Minor. The writers didn't > know that the synagogues were a recent introduction. > > Your reply will, of course, be to either accuse me of lying or to change the > subject completely. > I expect no reasoned rebuttal from you. > Well, how did Jesus go to the synagogue at Nazareth and read from the Book of Isaiah? I guess you never thought about that. Robert B. Winn
From: Alex W. on 21 Jun 2008 03:40 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:56edcfa9-ed9c-4a17-a4bb-43924bb2fc7e(a)a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... So atheists are bigots by their own definition. ============ Not if they don't have any children.
From: Alex W. on 21 Jun 2008 03:43
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:c5f85d3b-d62a-4cf8-925f-661796bd9082(a)t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... All public education in the United States is now atheistic. ========== IOW, it conforms to the law of the land. |