Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 21 Jun 2008 20:37 On Jun 21, 4:01 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > 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?- Hide quoted text - > So what is Buddy Thunder supposed to mean? If you want to believe Harry Potter exists, you are free to do that. I do not believe Harry Potter exists. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 21 Jun 2008 20:40 On Jun 21, 4:02 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 21, 8:19�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >>news:5de9de62-15db-436d-a09c-db8e21818eef(a)d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.... > > >> 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. > > >> ========== > > >> Do I now ... amazingly, I never noticed. > >> Would you be so kind and point out these features about my nanem and > >> signature? > >> Or is it something invisible which I will only be able to see using my > >> special-issue super-sikrit decoder ring? > > > Well, actually, Darrell Stec has yours included with his, since you > > support everything Darrell Stec says. > > Aaaaaah, the old atheist hive-mind canard again. You couldn't support it > before, will you now? > > YOU WILL BE... ASSIMILATED! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes, Darrell's signature specifically mentions sorcery. Other atheists call themselves witches, demons, etc. Yours mentions thunder. Robert b. Winn
From: rbwinn on 21 Jun 2008 20:41 On Jun 21, 4:04 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 21, 4:00 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jun 20, 3:22 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 18, 6:23 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...(a)webpagesorcery.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Steve O wrote: > >>>>>>> "asilentskeptic" <asilentskep...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>news:0cd8677a-e3af-4244-9680-0f635809616d(a)i18g2000prn.googlegroups..com... > >>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 12:14 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>news:c44cff96-90ef-45f4-badc-413fcf95321e(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 10:41�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>news:f8121cc3-37c1-4561-b7cc-b6292578b7f1(a)34g2000hsf.googlegroups..com... > >>>>>>>>>>>> All atheists I talk to indicate to me that if they do not have a > >>>>>>>>>>>> written record of something, then it did not exist, and if the > >>>>>>>>>>>> written > >>>>>>>>>>>> record is the Bible, then it still did not exist. > >>>>>>>>>>> Liar. > >>>>>>>>>>> We have simply told you on many occasions that the magical events > >>>>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>>>> were > >>>>>>>>>>> supposed to have taken place in your Bible are uncorroborated by any > >>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>> source. > >>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, all you can do is bleat about ramps and conduits, which > >>>>>>>>>>> offer > >>>>>>>>>>> no > >>>>>>>>>>> proof at all that the supposed magical events actually happened, or > >>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> main characters depicted in the book actually existed. > >>>>>>>>>>> You are either incapable of listening, or unwilling to listen.. > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Hey, you atheists thought Harry Potter was going to make the tunnels > >>>>>>>>>> and ramps disappear. > >>>>>>>>> We did no such thing. > >>>>>>>>> You simply offered that as a straw man argument to disguise your weak > >>>>>>>>> position. > >>>>>>>> I was going to keep up a discussion with the guy, but he either > >>>>>>>> doesn't grasp what you are saying, misinterprets what you said, or > >>>>>>>> goes off on some completely strange tangent that has no basis (or some > >>>>>>>> strange mind-warping basis) in what he is replying to. Not worth the > >>>>>>>> time or the effort. > >>>>>>> I had him pegged as a Loki, but Loki atheists don't normally insult other > >>>>>>> atheists directly while they're trying to make theists look stupid. > >>>>>> He is definitely a theist, a Mormon in fact who has had mental problems > >>>>>> (still does) and is now off his meds. > >>>>>> -- > >>>>> Well, I know a great deal more about it than you do.  What you refer > >>>>> to as meds is a drug called torazine which causes people to feel as > >>>>> though they are smothering 24 hours a day.  Atheists want laws passed > >>>>> requiring that any person who will not accept atheism to be given this > >>>>> drug or some similar tranquilizer.  I was fortunate to have such > >>>>> severe side effects from the drug that people in medical science after > >>>>> observing that I could not walk for a few months would become > >>>>> concerned and stop giving me the drug, not because they had any > >>>>> concern for me, but because they were worried they might get sued for > >>>>> malpractice.  By that time I had learned to never discuss anything > >>>>> with psychiatrists except malpractice lawyers. > >>>> I am sorry for your illness, mental health should never be taken for > >>>> granted. > >>>> But why beat up that strawman demonisation of atheists, what has it done > >>>> to you?- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> There was no illness.  I was in good health.  The only problem I had > >>> was that I was put subject to atheistic administration by the > >>> signatures of two medical doctors and a judge. > >> Sorry about your negative experiences then, but "atheistic > >> administration"? It does sound a little crazy.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > What would you call it?  They did not allow prayer, scriptures, etc. > > Patients were forced to take tranquilizer drugs or injected with them > > if they refused.  It was the atheistic idea of heaven. > > Have you considered that you were exhibiting signs of a religious > meltdown, and they thought that more religion might be fuel on the fire? >  It certainly isn't my idea of heaven, then again heaven is an entirely > religious concept.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, that did not keep them from practicing their religion, Thorazine worship. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 21 Jun 2008 20:43 On Jun 21, 4:05 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 21, 4:01 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jun 20, 3:24 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 18, 11:42 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 18, 4:45 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>news:21d2e037-7498-4d49-bb95-5a308e107d58(a)j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 12:14 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>news:c44cff96-90ef-45f4-badc-413fcf95321e(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 10:41�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>>news:f8121cc3-37c1-4561-b7cc-b6292578b7f1(a)34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> All atheists I talk to indicate to me that if they do not have a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> written record of something, then it did not exist, and if the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> written > >>>>>>>>>>>>> record is the Bible, then it still did not exist. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Liar. > >>>>>>>>>>>> We have simply told you on many occasions that the magical events > >>>>>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>>>>> were > >>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to have taken place in your Bible are uncorroborated by any > >>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>> source. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, all you can do is bleat about ramps and conduits, which > >>>>>>>>>>>> offer > >>>>>>>>>>>> no > >>>>>>>>>>>> proof at all that the supposed magical events actually happened, or > >>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> main characters depicted in the book actually existed. > >>>>>>>>>>>> You are either incapable of listening, or unwilling to listen. > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey, you atheists thought Harry Potter was going to make the tunnels > >>>>>>>>>>> and ramps disappear. > >>>>>>>>>> We did no such thing. > >>>>>>>>>> You simply offered that as a straw man argument to disguise your weak > >>>>>>>>>> position. > >>>>>>>>> I was not arguing about anything.  If you atheists want to believe in > >>>>>>>>> Harry Potter, go ahead and believe in him.  I just said that there was > >>>>>>>>> a tunnel between Gihon spring and the Pool of Siloam, exactly the way > >>>>>>>>> three books of the Old Testament say there is, and there is an earthen > >>>>>>>>> ramp over the city wall at the ruins of Lachish.  You want to be cute > >>>>>>>>> about it, so go ahead and be cute. > >>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > >>>>>>>> Now explain why the existence of this tunnel and ramp and the fact that they > >>>>>>>> are mentioned in the bible is evidence that the rest of the magic story is > >>>>>>>> real. > >>>>>>> So what you would have me believe is that there are only two things > >>>>>>> mentioned in the Bible that are real, an earthen ramp and a conduit > >>>>>>> for water.  I think that there are other things mentioned in the Bible > >>>>>>> that are real. > >>>>>> I'm sure there are other things that are true in the Bible, but they > >>>>>> require independent verification before we'll know. > >>>>>> As you well know, London exists just as decribed in Harry Potter, but > >>>>>> that's no reason to accept flying broomsticks. Flying broomsticks would > >>>>>> require independent evidence. We don't have any. So there's no > >>>>>> compelling reason to believe in it. > >>>>>> Jerusalem exists, just as described in the Bible, but that's no reason > >>>>>> to accept a six-literal-day creation. A six day creation would require > >>>>>> independent evidence. We don't have any. We have overwhelming evidence > >>>>>> for an old earth. So there's no compelling reason to believe in a young > >>>>>> earth.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>> Well, you atheists insist on relativity of time except in one > >>>>> circumstance, the creation of the earth.  When it comes to dinosaurs, > >>>>> you insist on absolute time, just like Isaac Newton. > >>>> You think that a 6000 year old planet that looks 4.5 billion years old > >>>> can be accounted for by the theory of relativity? Could you explain the > >>>> mechanism in layman's terms? I'm not an expert.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> Well, as I said, you atheists do not want relativity of time applied > >>> to this particular thing, which the Bible does in more than one > >>> place.  There are two definitions of time at the present, only one of > >>> which scientists will discuss, what they call local time or scientific > >>> time.  This is defined by a certain number of transition of a cesium > >>> isotope molecule.  Then Einstein's theory shows that if a cesium > >>> isotope molecule is moving relative to another cesium isotope > >>> molecule, then the time of its transitions will be slower than the > >>> transitions of the molecule that is not moving.  So time is relative, > >>> except when scientists are talking about dinosaurs or the time of the > >>> planet earth. > >> Where can I read the peer-reviewed publication of this fascinating new > >> theory? That's quite something, you should write it up if no-one has, > >> it's Nobel Prize material!- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > I write it up all the time in sci.physics.relativity. > > Posting in a usenet group is not an effective way of getting a > challenging new theory taken seriously. Why wouldn't you go through > accepted scientific channels? Do you not really believe your new theory?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I am the only one who does. I would suspect that sometime in the coming centuries that someone in science will decide to think about time, and then it will be accepted. Right now scientists are making too much money selling Einstein's idea. Robert B. Winn
From: TT on 21 Jun 2008 21:43
rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 20, 4:37 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 20, 2:40 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jun 20, 5:34 am, TT <tte...(a)wowway.com> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 19, 5:55 am, TT <tte...(a)wowway.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>> Well, go ahead and talk about God, but I can tell you ahead of time, >>>>>>>>> you do not know anything about God. No atheist does. >>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>> nahh...we'll discus what we want...you choose your fiction..and >>>>>>>> that's all you have been expressing faith in..nothing else...and we'll >>>>>>>> point out our fiction...and we won't base a worldview on our inability >>>>>>>> to deal with reality like you do....Don't like it? Pray for >>>>>>>> us...otherwise..tough... >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> �Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the >>>>>>>> question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it >>>>>>>> right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is >>>>>>>> neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one >>>>>>>> it is right.� >>>>>>>> Martin Luther king Jr.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> Well, people would do better if they learned to do their own praying. >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>> Thinking is preferred by everyone else here..it actually does >>>>>> something... >>>>> Well, so you think that you can destroy Christianity. That was what >>>>> this conversation was about when it began. That was why I was >>>>> pointing out that the Bible was the best selling book in the world. >>>>> Not so, said atheists. Harry Potter is the best selling book in the >>>>> world. >>>> That's a bit melodramatic, isn't it? I'm just interested in your beliefs >>>> and how they're rationalised. Destroying Christianity is a ridiculous >>>> aspiration, you'd constantly be disappointed!- Hide quoted text - >>> So why do atheists have schools teaching that Christianity is false? >>> If they do not have the aspiration, why are they trying to do it? >> Do we? What schools? What fresh hell is this?!- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Public schools. > Robert B. Winn It carries the same weight in a science classroom as say, the stork theory, and the multitude of other religious fantasies about how present day humans came to be. It's main work is studied in literature classes, and in sociology classes, it's effect on believers and the societies they live in is reviewed. History classes abound with christian references(well..in the West,anyway...in the east, they could care less). You have no reason to complain...it gets far more respect than it deserves... -- �Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.� Martin Luther king Jr. |