Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: BuddyThunder on 21 Jun 2008 18:36 Alex W. wrote: > "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message > news:485c8ff5$1(a)clear.net.nz... >> Alex W. wrote: >>> "BuddyThunder" <nospam(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message >>> news:485c2855$1(a)clear.net.nz... >>> >>> >>>> Please don't mention cricket, I'm a Kiwi. >>>> >>> Ah, an Aussie with manners! >>> Good on yer. >>> :-) >> Cheers mate! > > No worries. > Just be gentle with our rugby lads .... See the game last night (this morning, no doubt for you)? Better show by the ABs, but I'll leave off about that if you promise never to mention the cricket. >>>> You're right though, Marmite is actually the best reason to believe in >>>> God that I've seen. Greases axles and puts hairs on your chest! >>> Marmite, WD40 and gaffer tape -- what more does a man need? >> Just a shed to chuck it all in. > > Hey now, why do you want to chuck it all in? There's a world out there full > of famous rugby victories, chardonnay and lamb chops, marmite and warm women > ... By "chuck it in" I meant a shed to put the Marmite stocks in, and do mysterious and unsafe "man stuff" with power tools. :-)
From: BuddyThunder on 21 Jun 2008 18:40 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 20, 10:30 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 20, 3:14 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 20, 5:44�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:91aff9de-ef71-4690-8e27-742500d48b32(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> Well, you atheists have some strange ideas. �Your problem is that all >>>>>> you have is talk. �We have the Bible. >>>>>> ============= >>>>>> OK then, different tack. >>>>>> What do you have? >>>>>> What is the Bible? >>>>>> What makes up the Bible? >>>>>> Who decided what is and is not part of the Bible? >>>>>> Even if you believe, how can you TRUST a collection of documents that were >>>>>> transcribed from oral tradition, that have been edited, redacted, translated >>>>>> from previous translations, whose components were added or omitted according >>>>>> to pervailing theological fashion over several millennia? >>>>> Well, in the church I belong to, we do it because we have further >>>>> revelation on the same subject. >>>> The golden plates?- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> No, we do not have the golden plates. >> Yes, I know. I was asking if that was the further revelation you rather >> mysteriously referred to?- Hide quoted text - >> > The golden plates were just golden plates. They were not revelation. I wouldn't have said that they were even that! ;-) Anyway, would you be willing to explain your revelation a bit more? I'd be interested to know how God is talking to his flock these days.
From: BuddyThunder on 21 Jun 2008 18:47 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 21, 3:51 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> 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.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > You have never discussed anything else with me. You're not the only person I've ever talked to. Would you like to discuss something else?
From: BuddyThunder on 21 Jun 2008 18:57 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 21, 3:54�am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Well, you seem to have faith in Spiderman and Harry Potter. >> And you don't believe that London exists.- Hide quoted text - >> > I don't? So where does the Queen of England live? It's your logic to defend. If you find it inconsistent, perhaps you need to revise it.
From: BuddyThunder on 21 Jun 2008 19:01
rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 21, 3:55 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> 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.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, no. Neither Stuart Dowling nor I suscribe to sorcery. > Atheists, on the other hand always have something about sorcery in > their signatures and nicknames similar to Ku Klux Klan members. We're applying your logic about tunnels and ramps supporting the bible to London supporting Harry Potter. None of the atheists here subscribe to gods. Christians on the other hand always have something about the supernatuaral in their signatures and nicknames similar to mentally deluded schizophrenics. Hang on, I don't even have a signature, that wouldn't be another lie for Jesus, would it? |