Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Darrell Stec on 21 Jun 2008 22:11 rbwinn wrote: > 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. Idiot. An atheist does not believe in gods, or demons or supernatural forces. Witches and demons cannot be atheists. > Yours mentions thunder. > Robert b. Winn -- Later, Darrell Stec darstec(a)neo.rr.com Webpage Sorcery http://webpagesorcery.com We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
From: Darrell Stec on 21 Jun 2008 22:14 rbwinn wrote: > 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. Yes you do because you believe London exists and London is mentioned in the Harry Potter books and therefore if something exists in a book even if it is a book of fiction then everything in that book must be true. That is what you said about the bible and therefore logic suggests if you are right then it also applies to Harry Potter. Therefore you believe in Harry Potter. Stop lying. > Robert B. Winn -- Later, Darrell Stec darstec(a)neo.rr.com Webpage Sorcery http://webpagesorcery.com We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
From: Darrell Stec on 21 Jun 2008 22:17 rbwinn wrote: > 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 That is not how it works, but then you know nothing about science or scientists. If someone could prove that Einstein was wrong, they would make multiples more money than acception. Scientists accept Einstein's theories because all the evidence supports it. -- Later, Darrell Stec darstec(a)neo.rr.com Webpage Sorcery http://webpagesorcery.com We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
From: Free Lunch on 21 Jun 2008 22:23 On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:14:45 -0400, Darrell Stec <darrell_stec(a)webpagesorcery.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >rbwinn wrote: > >> 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. > >Yes you do because you believe London exists and London is mentioned in the >Harry Potter books and therefore if something exists in a book even if it >is a book of fiction then everything in that book must be true. That is >what you said about the bible and therefore logic suggests if you are right >then it also applies to Harry Potter. Therefore you believe in Harry >Potter. Stop lying. You assume that Mr. Winn is remotely capable of being honest or understanding logical consistency. His behavior here shows us that either assumption would be a profound mistake.
From: rbwinn on 22 Jun 2008 01:04
On Jun 21, 4:09 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 21, 8:16�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote in message > > >>news:6c4ja8F3erpl2U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > >>> If you think that Harry Potter is fiction then you must also think that > >>> London doesn't exist right? > >>> You'd better tell that to all of the people who live there, it may come as > >>> a surprise to them. > >> Like the esteemed Mr Winn Esq, London councils have no doubt whatsoever > >> about the existence of London. �At least, that is what they profess when > >> they send out council tax demands. > > > Taxes.  Well, that is something that should convince some atheists.. > > Taxes are something they will never deny. > > Are taxes evidence that any gods exist?- Hide quoted text - > Taxes are evidence that atheists exist. Robert B. Winn |