Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 21 Jun 2008 06:51 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 20, 3:13�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>> The Petrine epistles were not written by the fisherman character Peter. >>>> Those epistles were written at the end of the second century CE or >>>> beginning of the third century CE. �The Greek in the Petrine epistles is >>>> very refined. �It would be like reading Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richards >>>> Almanac with references to Gandalf, Frodo, trains and planes. >>> Well, you atheists have some strange ideas. �Your problem is that all >>> you have is talk. �We have the Bible. >> How do you think that handicaps us? I'm very happy to accept honest >> inquiry over ancient myth.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > The only thing you ever talk about is the Bible. What an odd thing to say.
From: BuddyThunder on 21 Jun 2008 06:54 rbwinn wrote: > 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. And you don't believe that London exists.
From: BuddyThunder on 21 Jun 2008 06:55 rbwinn wrote: > 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. You're both religiously deluded about that by your own standards.
From: BuddyThunder on 21 Jun 2008 07:00 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 20, 3:22 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 18, 6:23 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Steve O wrote: >>>>> "asilentskeptic" <asilentskep...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:0cd8677a-e3af-4244-9680-0f635809616d(a)i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> On Jun 18, 12:14 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>> news:c44cff96-90ef-45f4-badc-413fcf95321e(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 10:41�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:f8121cc3-37c1-4561-b7cc-b6292578b7f1(a)34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>> All atheists I talk to indicate to me that if they do not have a >>>>>>>>>> written record of something, then it did not exist, and if the >>>>>>>>>> written >>>>>>>>>> record is the Bible, then it still did not exist. >>>>>>>>> Liar. >>>>>>>>> We have simply told you on many occasions that the magical events >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> supposed to have taken place in your Bible are uncorroborated by any >>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>> source. >>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, all you can do is bleat about ramps and conduits, which >>>>>>>>> offer >>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>> proof at all that the supposed magical events actually happened, or >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> main characters depicted in the book actually existed. >>>>>>>>> You are either incapable of listening, or unwilling to listen. >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Hey, you atheists thought Harry Potter was going to make the tunnels >>>>>>>> and ramps disappear. >>>>>>> We did no such thing. >>>>>>> You simply offered that as a straw man argument to disguise your weak >>>>>>> position. >>>>>> I was going to keep up a discussion with the guy, but he either >>>>>> doesn't grasp what you are saying, misinterprets what you said, or >>>>>> goes off on some completely strange tangent that has no basis (or some >>>>>> strange mind-warping basis) in what he is replying to. Not worth the >>>>>> time or the effort. >>>>> I had him pegged as a Loki, but Loki atheists don't normally insult other >>>>> atheists directly while they're trying to make theists look stupid. >>>> He is definitely a theist, a Mormon in fact who has had mental problems >>>> (still does) and is now off his meds. >>>> -- >>> Well, I know a great deal more about it than you do. What you refer >>> to as meds is a drug called torazine which causes people to feel as >>> though they are smothering 24 hours a day. Atheists want laws passed >>> requiring that any person who will not accept atheism to be given this >>> drug or some similar tranquilizer. I was fortunate to have such >>> severe side effects from the drug that people in medical science after >>> observing that I could not walk for a few months would become >>> concerned and stop giving me the drug, not because they had any >>> concern for me, but because they were worried they might get sued for >>> malpractice. By that time I had learned to never discuss anything >>> with psychiatrists except malpractice lawyers. >> I am sorry for your illness, mental health should never be taken for >> granted. >> >> But why beat up that strawman demonisation of atheists, what has it done >> to you?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > There was no illness. I was in good health. The only problem I had > was that I was put subject to atheistic administration by the > signatures of two medical doctors and a judge. Sorry about your negative experiences then, but "atheistic administration"? It does sound a little crazy.
From: BuddyThunder on 21 Jun 2008 07:01
rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 20, 3:24 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 18, 11:42 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 18, 4:45 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:21d2e037-7498-4d49-bb95-5a308e107d58(a)j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> On Jun 18, 12:14 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:c44cff96-90ef-45f4-badc-413fcf95321e(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 10:41�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:f8121cc3-37c1-4561-b7cc-b6292578b7f1(a)34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>>> All atheists I talk to indicate to me that if they do not have a >>>>>>>>>>> written record of something, then it did not exist, and if the >>>>>>>>>>> written >>>>>>>>>>> record is the Bible, then it still did not exist. >>>>>>>>>> Liar. >>>>>>>>>> We have simply told you on many occasions that the magical events >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> supposed to have taken place in your Bible are uncorroborated by any >>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>> source. >>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, all you can do is bleat about ramps and conduits, which >>>>>>>>>> offer >>>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>>> proof at all that the supposed magical events actually happened, or >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> main characters depicted in the book actually existed. >>>>>>>>>> You are either incapable of listening, or unwilling to listen. >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Hey, you atheists thought Harry Potter was going to make the tunnels >>>>>>>>> and ramps disappear. >>>>>>>> We did no such thing. >>>>>>>> You simply offered that as a straw man argument to disguise your weak >>>>>>>> position. >>>>>>> I was not arguing about anything. If you atheists want to believe in >>>>>>> Harry Potter, go ahead and believe in him. I just said that there was >>>>>>> a tunnel between Gihon spring and the Pool of Siloam, exactly the way >>>>>>> three books of the Old Testament say there is, and there is an earthen >>>>>>> ramp over the city wall at the ruins of Lachish. You want to be cute >>>>>>> about it, so go ahead and be cute. >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>> Now explain why the existence of this tunnel and ramp and the fact that they >>>>>> are mentioned in the bible is evidence that the rest of the magic story is >>>>>> real. >>>>> So what you would have me believe is that there are only two things >>>>> mentioned in the Bible that are real, an earthen ramp and a conduit >>>>> for water. I think that there are other things mentioned in the Bible >>>>> that are real. >>>> I'm sure there are other things that are true in the Bible, but they >>>> require independent verification before we'll know. >>>> As you well know, London exists just as decribed in Harry Potter, but >>>> that's no reason to accept flying broomsticks. Flying broomsticks would >>>> require independent evidence. We don't have any. So there's no >>>> compelling reason to believe in it. >>>> Jerusalem exists, just as described in the Bible, but that's no reason >>>> to accept a six-literal-day creation. A six day creation would require >>>> independent evidence. We don't have any. We have overwhelming evidence >>>> for an old earth. So there's no compelling reason to believe in a young >>>> earth.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Well, you atheists insist on relativity of time except in one >>> circumstance, the creation of the earth. When it comes to dinosaurs, >>> you insist on absolute time, just like Isaac Newton. >> You think that a 6000 year old planet that looks 4.5 billion years old >> can be accounted for by the theory of relativity? Could you explain the >> mechanism in layman's terms? I'm not an expert.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, as I said, you atheists do not want relativity of time applied > to this particular thing, which the Bible does in more than one > place. There are two definitions of time at the present, only one of > which scientists will discuss, what they call local time or scientific > time. This is defined by a certain number of transition of a cesium > isotope molecule. Then Einstein's theory shows that if a cesium > isotope molecule is moving relative to another cesium isotope > molecule, then the time of its transitions will be slower than the > transitions of the molecule that is not moving. So time is relative, > except when scientists are talking about dinosaurs or the time of the > planet earth. Where can I read the peer-reviewed publication of this fascinating new theory? That's quite something, you should write it up if no-one has, it's Nobel Prize material! |