Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 18 Jul 2008 03:15 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 17, 12:53 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 16, 12:48 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> 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. >>>> Totally irrelevant to the point. Just to remind you: people make stuff >>>> up about real places then write it down. Like in Harry Potter, like in >>>> the Bible. Why believe it just because it includes a real place?- Hide >>> I don't believe it because it includes a real place. I believe it >>> because it is true. >> Why have you been unable to demonstrate it's truth to us? We've been >> asking for confirming evidence, where is it?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, for instance, I used the example of Hezekiah's tunnel which > proves the veracity of certain Old Testament verses which describe the > construction of the tunnel. No, say atheists, we do not accept that > as evidence of anything. This shows that atheists will say the same > thing with regard to any evidence. If they will not accept something > that can be seen and even walked through, then it shows that their > minds are closed, their opinions are already dictated to them, and any > evidence shown to them will receive the same reaction. Well, it may well be the tunnel mentioned in the OT. Real people and places are written about in the Bible, alongside fantastical and fanciful supernatural claims. As an atheist, I'm entirely comfortable with that. I do believe SOME of the Bible.
From: BuddyThunder on 18 Jul 2008 03:18 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 17, 12:55 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 15, 11:57 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 14, 11:23 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> 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. >>>>>> 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.- Hide quoted text - >>>>> Well, obviously, you have not studied the history of that time. >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>> I haven't much, and yet I still know that. Additionally, the Bible >>>> contains some history, but doesn't qualify as a whole. It's far too >>>> unreliable.- Hide quoted text - >>> Well, I understan why atheists would want to believe Sennacherib's >>> account of the Assyrian invasion of Judea over the Biblical account, >>> but, obviously, Sennacherib was lying. Chaldean historians agree with >>> the Biblical account. Sennacherib lost his entire army at Jerusalem. >> Obviously. Ummmm..... why again? Why would either of them have to be the >> "gospel truth"?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Sennacherib had to lie about the loss of his army because he had been > left in a precarious position, as events soon proved when he was > murdered by two of his own sons. The Bible had to lie to promote the idea of an almighty god. That's my point, both sides have motive for lying. Why would you believe either one of the accounts? What really took place maybe very different from either one.
From: BuddyThunder on 18 Jul 2008 03:20 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 17, 12:59 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 16, 1:38�pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:42:35 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Well, the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel was very remarkable. �But >>>>>>> atheists do not like seeing remards about it. �Why is that? >>>>>> I have nothing against the tunnel. No, what I dislike is your butchery >>>>>> of logic.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> 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? >> Can you not defend your beliefs? If the Bible is anything like you say >> it is, there shouldn't be so much far removed from reality in there. >> >> Flying broomsticks are more believable than a global flood.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, I am sure that flying broomsticks are believable to atheists, > but that is irrelevant. The subject was the Bible, not sorcery or > flying broomsticks. Atheists always want to change the subject to > Harry Potter in any discussion. It seems about as plausible. Now, about that flood?
From: BuddyThunder on 18 Jul 2008 03:25 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 17, 1:02 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 16, 12:01 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 14, 11:29 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 14, 8:01�am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>> Only an atheist would want all choices made for >>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>> Now there was me thinking that that was the mark of a worshipper. It >>>>>>>> seems to me that atheists make their own choices, because they don't >>>>>>>> have decisions ready-dictated to them. >>>>>>> So you think it is a mistake to decide ahead of time not to commit >>>>>>> murder, not to steal, to attend church, not to commit adultery, etc. >>>>>> Why would you be so morally deficient so as to need to perform morning >>>>>> affirmations in order not to kill people? >>>>>> My moral decisions are made as the occasion demands it. Seems to work okay. >>>>> So are you saying that for each person you encounter, you make a >>>>> decision to kill or not to kill? >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>> No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I need not make that decision at >>>> all, because I'm not filled with murderous rage. >>>> As moral decisions need to be made, I make them according to my own values.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> So you would only decide to kill someone if you were filled with >>> murderous rage. A lot of serial killers seem to be the same way. >> I would've thought that would've gone without saying. Yes, to kill >> someone I'd have to be seriously enraged. It generally runs contrary to >> my nature. Is that somehow defective under the doctrines of your myth?- Hide quoted text - >> > > Well, my father was a Naval pilot in World War II, and his experience > seemed to be different. When he was dive bombing Japanese ships, he > said he felt sorry for the men on board who had families back in Japan > and probably did not want to be in a war. This would indicate that > only some people kill when enraged. Most people in wars kill because > they are ordered to kill by people who will enforce their orders if > they are not obeyed. I believe that some wars are just, but I don't know if I could shoot to kill in one. Evidently only 2% of soldiers in WWII aimed to kill. Standoff weapons must make it easier to kill tons of baddies without conscience. It's like Lockheed Martin is killing them, not you.
From: BuddyThunder on 18 Jul 2008 03:29
Smiler wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message > news:ad020ec9-a457-4dae-818d-182301ce08ba(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 16, 12:01 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 14, 11:29 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 14, 8:01?am, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> Only an atheist would want all choices made for >>>>>>> them. >>>>>> Now there was me thinking that that was the mark of a worshipper. It >>>>>> seems to me that atheists make their own choices, because they don't >>>>>> have decisions ready-dictated to them. >>>>> So you think it is a mistake to decide ahead of time not to commit >>>>> murder, not to steal, to attend church, not to commit adultery, etc. >>>> Why would you be so morally deficient so as to need to perform morning >>>> affirmations in order not to kill people? >>>> My moral decisions are made as the occasion demands it. Seems to work >>>> okay. >>> So are you saying that for each person you encounter, you make a >>> decision to kill or not to kill? >>> Robert B. Winn >> No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I need not make that decision at >> all, because I'm not filled with murderous rage. >> >> As moral decisions need to be made, I make them according to my own >> values.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > So you would only decide to kill someone if you were filled with > murderous rage. A lot of serial killers seem to be the same way. > ==================================== > Most of whom are 'beleivers' in one god or another. We've got one on trial over here at the moment. He shot a guy, then tried to decapitate two women with a katana. Apparently God told him to do it. Hopefully the jury disagrees. |