Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 17 Jul 2008 08:20 On Jul 16, 7:42 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Jul 17, 5:37 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 11:45�pm, Linda Fox <linda...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:08:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > wrote: > > > > >If you are not posting in sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity, then > > > >I will never see your posts. > > > > And neither will anyone else who is getting these fascinating > > > exchanges through the physics ngs. Why should he stop communicating > > > with the rest of them because _you_ don't want to read them? > > > > Linda ff > > > Well, for one thing, discussions of atheism are off topic in science > > newsgroups. > > Robert B. Winn > > But not in atheism newsgroups.  Which is what a lot of us are > reading.  So, we're all perfectly on topic.  Why don't you stop then? > > Al- Hide quoted text - > I will keep posting in sci.physics relativity where Einstein's theory of relativity is on topic. Robert B. Winn
From: Jon Green on 17 Jul 2008 08:24 rbwinn wrote: > No, since you were in sci.physics.relativity, I posted equations for > relativity, which atheists did not want to discuss. > Robert B. Winn Why would they want to? Perhaps we (from cam.misc) ought to post random stuff about Cambridge (UK), in the hope that physicists would want to comment. It's about as relevant. Blame the brain donor who cross-posted this selection of groups, not their members. Jon -- SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines'.
From: rbwinn on 17 Jul 2008 08:27 On Jul 16, 8:55 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 16, 6:06 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jul 15, 5:24 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 14, 8:27 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>>>> 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.  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. > >>>>>> The original assertion remains in force.  Hezekiah's Tunnel does not > >>>>>> prove anything. > >>>>>>>   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. > >>>>>> For the same reason that King's Cross Station exists. > >>>>>> Wow, you REALLY aren't getting the analogy, are you? > >>>>> There is nothing in the Book of 2 Chronicles about the construction of > >>>>> King's Cross Station. > >>>> Wow, you REALLY aren't getting the analogy, are you? > >>>> -- > >>> Well, if you can provide a description of the construction of Kings > >>> Cross station from the time it was built, maybe we could compare it to > >>> the Biblical account of the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel. > >> ....I see.  So, since the Harry Potter books do not detail the > >> construction of King's Cross Station, it's not a correct analogy? > > >> Okay, fine.  In one of the Harry Potter books, the head of the Ministry > >> of Magic visits the new Prime Minister of England and informs him of the > >> fight against the Dark Lord. > > >> Since this Harry Potter book describes the Prime Minister of England at > >> the time that he got into office and, since it coincided with Tony Blair > >> getting into office, that means that Harry Potter is true? > > >> -- > >> ****************************************************** > >> *      DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226       * > > > Well, if you want to believe in Harry Potter, I am sure you will find > > a way to do it. > > No, see, that's what you're NOT getting.  I don't believe in Harry > Potter.  Harry Potter is fantasy.  It's not real.  And the events > therein have just as much evidence as the Bible has. > > That is:  None. > > -- > ****************************************************** > *      DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226       * > If atheists think something is fantasy, why is fantasy all they want to discuss? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 17 Jul 2008 08:29 On Jul 17, 3:37�am, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:30:25 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > >> >Well, choose for yourself what you like or dislike. ?It means nothing > >> >to me. ?If you or any other atheist decides to discuss the tunnel, > >> >come back and do it some time without trying to change the subject to > >> >Harry Potter. > > >> Making a comparison between two pieces of literature is hardly > >> changing the subject. > > >So you think the Bible is like a Harry Potter book. �What is the point > >of discussing it further with you then? > > Does this mean you're going to stop posting in alt.atheism? I think it means that you are going to stop posting to sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 17 Jul 2008 08:30
On Jul 17, 3:39�am, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:31:50 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Jul 16, 2:04?pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:29:26 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >> wrote: > > >> >> Stalin was a Russian Orthodox and an alcoholic... > > >> >Josef Stalin said he was an atheist. ?So atheists of today claim he > >> >was lying about that? > >> >Why did he try to end the Russian Orthodox Church if he believed in > >> >it? > > >> You'd have to understand Russian culture - they love to have tyrants > >> as rulers, regardless of what their philosophical beliefs are. > > >Well, Stalin told people that he was an atheist. �Why is it that you > >are now trying to portray him as a Russian Orthodox? > > Because politicians lie all the time.- Hide quoted text - > I think he was telling the truth when he said he was an atheist. Robert B. Winn |