Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Stan-O on 18 Jul 2008 23:07 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:41:45 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >On Jul 18, 6:21�am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> >> No, BT wasn't talking about floods, he was talking about "that flood". >> You know, the global one. >> >> -- >> ****************************************************** >> * � � � � �DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 � � � � � �* > >I was not there. You might want to talk to Noah after the >resurrection. ....and here we go again. Robert can't answer a direct question, so he pulls this stunt instead of discussing something himself. From now on, every time I see this answer from Robert, I am going to cyber-slap him. Here is the first one... <THWACK!> Of course, I don't read all of Robert's posts, so feel free to slap him all you want...
From: BuddyThunder on 18 Jul 2008 23:11 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 18, 5:34�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:05:32 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >>> On Jul 18, 3:58�pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >> ... >> >>>>> Why don't you just take some time and decide for yourself? >>>> Why don't you address the point rather than simply issuing glib >>>> responses like the one above?- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> There is no point that I can see. �He is claiming that these four >>> books prove the Bible wrong in some way. >>> Robert B. Winn >> Reality shows us that the Bible is full of mistakes. Novels show us how >> the Bible is like other fiction. > > So you are saying you read novels so that you can see the Bible is > full of mistakes. I do not really believe that is why you read > novels. Heh, goofy theist.
From: Stan-O on 18 Jul 2008 23:16 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:31:42 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >> The Supreme Court follows the Constitution of the United States of >> America, the federal law of the land. >> >> What were you saying again? >> >> -- >During my lifetime the Supreme Court has not made even one decision >that did not promote atheism. It does not matter if they all claim to >be religious. Actions speak louder than words. Wrong! They voted to leave the phrase, "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance a few years back.
From: DanielSan on 18 Jul 2008 23:19 Stan-O wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:31:42 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > >>> The Supreme Court follows the Constitution of the United States of >>> America, the federal law of the land. >>> >>> What were you saying again? >>> >>> -- >> During my lifetime the Supreme Court has not made even one decision >> that did not promote atheism. It does not matter if they all claim to >> be religious. Actions speak louder than words. > > Wrong! They voted to leave the phrase, "under god" in the Pledge of > Allegiance a few years back. That promoted atheism, y'know... ....wait, what? -- ****************************************************** * 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: Smiler on 18 Jul 2008 19:36
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:b46f8ffd-6256-49ec-90d1-88d01aa7171b(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com... On Jul 18, 12:15 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, believing some of the Bible does not constitute faith in Jesus Christ, which is the first principle of salvation. ==================================== Well, believing some of the Harry Potter story does not constitute faith in Harry Potter. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 |