Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 15 Jul 2008 02:13 On Jul 14, 9:54�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:13fb75d9-8d85-4cde-9d72-cd54a1b3c340(a)a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 13, 3:39?pm, Linda Fox <linda...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:44:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > wrote: > > > >Well, eventually your son is going to do something that displeases > > >you. ?I would not want to be your son when that happens, because, > > >unlike me, your son cannot just ignore you. > > > Right, and that was you ignoring Steve, was it? > > > Linda ff > > Right. �Steve's threats and cursings do not mean a thing to me. � I > would not want to be his son. > ===================================== > I'm sure he wouldn't want you as his son, either. > Nothing, except your book of myths, fables, lies and fairy stories, means > anything to you, least of all, truth. > Well, I think it is wonderful that Steve O and I could agree about something. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 15 Jul 2008 02:15 On Jul 14, 10:08�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:b5c22ec1-f268-4a3c-add6-247b8ad8eb0b(a)s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > 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. > =========================================== > So you have no experience of bringing up children and yet you think you have > the right to tell others how to bring up their children. > I've never done any welding. Would you take my advice on how to weld? > Yes, I have the right to talk about whatever I choose to talk about here in America. So you are saying it is different over there in Europe? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 15 Jul 2008 02:16 On Jul 14, 10:16�pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > Antares 531 wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:21:17 +0100, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> > > wrote: > > >> "Antares 531" <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote in message > >>news:72in74drr47ktr9l98raqph18ep0s1h4cp(a)4ax.com... > >>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:25:09 -0400, Brian E. Clark > >>> <re...(a)newsgroup.only.please> wrote: > > >>>> In article <4d2a74pf351she9f40vri1ku32c7s40a9j@ > >>>> 4ax.com>, Antares 531 said... > > >>>>> Fulfillment of prophecies is the most convincing "evidence" for the > >>>>> reliability of the Bible, > >>>> Most convincing of all are those prophecies written > >>>> after the events they predict. > > >>> Bryan, I see your point, but I maintain that there are many Biblical > >>> prophecies that were written LONG before they were fulfilled, and the > >>> history/dating can not have been manipulated. Even if the dating of, > >>> say the prophecies of Daniel can be argued a bit, it can't be > >>> stretched to a date later than the time of Jesus's life. If you > >>> haven't already done so, please visit this site and check some of > >>> these items out. > >> There is no need to "stretch" anything when you are dealing with a work of > >> multiple authors writing over a millennium or two. �You take it on trust, > >> pure and simple. > > >> Moreover, those prophesies are really quite vague (part of their intrinsic > >> nature). �Any major religion has predictions about the appearance of a > >> redeemer figure, about salvation and whatnot. �You merely latched onto > >> Jesus -- it might just as well have been Mohammed, Bab, Baha'u'llah or a > >> host of others. > > > Alex, I've seen this rebuttal before but I've never had anyone point > > out to me any list of successfully filled complex prophecies other > > than those revealed in the Bible. Can you please direct me to a source > > such as this one, but for some of the other major religions? > > Nor fr religion, no, but try Newtons 'Principia' for a book of > prophecies �that always get fulfilled pretty much to the letter. > > > > >http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml > > > Gordon- Hide quoted text - > Scientists of today do not like that book. They say they have disproven it. Robert B. Winn
From: BuddyThunder on 15 Jul 2008 02:23 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 14, 5:12�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:44f19f98-4d96-4419-a87a-d6bdbd73f31b(a)c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>> 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. >>>> Exactly. Since we know therefore that harry potter isn't true, the fact >>>> of hezekiahs tunnel means the bible is obviously false. Since we have >>>> true facts referred to in works of complete fiction. >>>> By your reasoning at least. >>> Well, you have it exactly as atheists have been telling me it is. >>> Don't ask me what it is supposed to mean. >>> Robert B. Winn >> Here is an example of rbwinn's logic. >> >> Sheep are mentioned in the bible >> Sheep exist today >> The bible is accurate and there is a God >> >> -- >> Steve O > Well, no, Steve O. Here is an example. Atheists were claiming that > nothing existed on earth today that could prove anything in the > Bible. And yet you've been unable to produce these mythical posts. Well, you do seem to like myths... > So I said, What about Hezekiah's tunnel? These atheists had > never heard of Hezekiah's tunnel. So after they looked it up, they > said, The fact that a tunnel exists no more proves the Bible to be > true than Harry Potter leaving from the train station in London to go > to wizard's school. In a slightly mangled sense, yes that was me. I'd never heard of Hezekiah's tunnel. Now I have. I still can't see how it supports the existence of any gods. Assuming it's the same tunnel (which hasn't been established AFAIK), so what? People sometimes write things about stuff. Does that automatically render it true? > I really believe that it certainly does prove certain verses in the > Old Testament to be true which describe the digging of Hezekiah's > tunnel. Otherwise, atheists need to explain why there is a tunnel > exactly where the Bible in three books of the Old Testament says a > tunnel was dug as a conduit for water. I might point out that the physical evidence doesn't accord well with the account of the tunnel's construction. Even if you're right, it's simply shows that a tunnel was built, not that gods exist. If you want to infer more than is logical from this, go for it! But to maintain a degree of intellectual honesty, I cannot follow.
From: BuddyThunder on 15 Jul 2008 02:25
Antares 531 wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:25:49 -0700 (PDT), hhyapster(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> On Jul 14, 8:51 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:38:36 -0700 (PDT), hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > (snip) >>> The primary purpose of our brief existence here in a mortal body is to >>> learn about sin and rebellion. We learn by being directly involved and >>> we learn by observation in those events with which we were not >>> directly involved. We are expected to learn enough about sin and >>> rebellion to assure God that none of us will ever want to go back and >>> explore it any further, once we've been granted immortality and >>> absolute sovereignty. >>> >>> Gordon >> Well, I do not wish to dispute your line of thinking. >> However, what I think is not right is that "sin", "rebellion" were >>from your god. >> How on earth did he created all these and get us to learn about it? >> Surely, if he is all mighty, he should be able to prevent human from >> those silly things, right? >> Or, are you saying that he was actually non-mighty? >> As I had said before, if your god really is the entity that can create >> human, what did he wish to create all the calamities to kill living >> things....? >> All these believes do not match up and you did not provide convincing >> arguments whatsoever. >> > I can see your point, but don't quite agree with all you've said. Of > course I was wrong one time before...that time when I thought I was > wrong but actually wasn't. ;-) > > Would God's creation have been perfect had He left anything out? It > seems to me that he had to create sin and rebellion along with all > that is good, then separate them into their own domains. This process > of separating of good from evil is what we are going through, > presently, and we each get to make our choice as to which side of the > line we will be on. It seems long and tedious from our temporal > perspective, but from God's temporal perspective it is almost > instantaneous. Can I ask where this idea comes from? I'd be interested to know how you formed this opinion. |