Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: DanielSan on 14 Jul 2008 08:54 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 13, 7:10�pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:43:18 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote: >> >>>>> Well, you have not talked to any of your fellow atheists lately. >>>>> Their idea is that if Hezekiah's tunnel exists, then Harry Potter has >>>>> to be true because the train station in London is mentioned in Harry >>>>> Potter. >>>> Your speculations are utter rubbish... >>> That is not speculation. �That is what they actually said to me. >>> Robert B. Winn >> Your idiotic posts say more about you than anything any atheist posts. > > I said a long time ago that if atheists do not want to believe > Hezekiah's tunnel exists, they are free to believe it does not. That > will not change reality, but they are free to believe whatever they > want to believe. The existence of Hezekiah's Tunnel is irrelevant to the veracity of the book it is mentioned in. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/HezekiahTunnel.jpg Now, can you please provide the post where an atheist said that, if Hezekiah's Tunnel exists, than Harry Potter has to be true because the train station in London is mentioned in Harry Potter? -- ****************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *----------------------------------------------------* * "I distrust those people who know so well what God * * wants them to do because I notice it always * * coincides with their own desires." * * --Susan B. Anthony * ******************************************************
From: rbwinn on 14 Jul 2008 08:55 On Jul 13, 7:23�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:a151dbac-e47c-4e4f-a64a-94c34c1894d8(a)26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 13, 8:43?am, Linda Fox <linda...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:49:43 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > wrote: > > > >On Jul 12, 8:25?am, Linda Fox <linda...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > > >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:20:29 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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. > > >A two year old is concerned about what works. ?If the two year old > > >sees that lying is more effective in getting results than telling the > > >truth, then that is what the two year old is going to start doing. > > >Atheists generally reward untruth. > > > Right, now just go back and read again, a bit slower this time. How > > does the two-year-old know - from the example of his elders - that > > lying is more effective, when - are you still there? - he does not > > yeat recognise it as lying? > > > Linda ff > > In the beginning man created god in his own image- Hide quoted text - > > What you are claiming is that a two year old cannot tell if something > is true or untrue. �I take the position that a two year old is just as > capable of discerning as anyone, but might have more of a tendency to > try to say the answer he believes his parent wants to hear. > ============================================= > How many children do you have? > I do not have any children. I am not married. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 14 Jul 2008 09:00 On Jul 13, 8:35�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Jul 14, 12:10 pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:43:18 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > wrote: > > > >> >Well, you have not talked to any of your fellow atheists lately. > > >> >Their idea is that if Hezekiah's tunnel exists, then Harry Potter has > > >> >to be true because the train station in London is mentioned in Harry > > >> >Potter. > > > >> Your speculations are utter rubbish... > > > >That is not speculation. �That is what they actually said to me. > > >Robert B. Winn > > > Your idiotic posts say more about you than anything any atheist posts. > > Him and those others (Chung, Duck etc) do provide the single biggest > advertisement of what's wrong with religion I've ever seen. �They > could loose a debate with a tape recording that pipes up and says > "well, that's interesting" every couple of minutes. > > Al Well, there is your mistake, Al. There is no debate. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Robert B. Winn
From: Antares 531 on 14 Jul 2008 09:08 On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:59:07 -0700 (PDT), hhyapster(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Jul 14, 5:35 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:03:41 -0700, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) >> wrote: >> (snip) >> >> >Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: >> Believing that everything just happened by pure chance is the thing >> that I can't fathom. How do you swallow that load of horse barn >> sweepings? >> >> You remind me of the allegorical sentient computer that has never been >> connected to the Internet. Never having experienced an Internet >> connection, this sentient computer is convinced that the Internet does >> not exist, but is merely a figment of the imaginations of those other >> sentient computers that have a connection to the Internet. And, >> although this never-been-connected computer has all the hardware and >> software it needs it adamantly refuses to activate its DSL connection >> and find out for its self. >> >> Gordon > >You are trying to bullshit here that your god has no power to grant >sufficient intelligence to human to grasp the "meaning......" >What a silliest point one can make up. > God does indeed have infinite power and wisdom. He could handle this any way he chose to do. He chose to let us live as mortals and learn, hands-on, about sin and rebellion. The intention is to let us learn enough to assure God that we won't try to go back and explore it any further, once we've been granted immortality and absolute sovereignty. God is presently (by our temporal reference frame) in the process of separating good from evil. Those who reject God and are not willing to be with Him throughout eternity will be moved, along with all other aspects of existence that are not good. This will then be separated from God's domain, irreversibly. Some refer to this separated section as Hell. It will indeed appear to be burning, eternally, from a perspective on God's side of the separation nexus. From a perspective on the other side of this nexus, it will just be another multiverse, but everything there will be rife with all that God identifies as evil or not good. Gordon
From: rbwinn on 14 Jul 2008 09:10
On Jul 13, 9:15�pm, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > > Your volitional choice, Linda. > > Apparently "volitional" is your new favorite word, you seem to use it in > every post you make. I know it sounds impressive, but it doesn't do > anything for the utter nonsense of your argument. I think it does. Only an atheist would want all choices made for them. Robert B. Winn |