Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 31 Jul 2008 16:19 On Jul 30, 10:32�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Jul 31, 2:57 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 6:07 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:57:19 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism > > > rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in > > > <4937d184-9c40-4146-a3bb-b72b0333d...(a)z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>: > > > > >On Jul 30, 3:43?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:46:16 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism > > > >> rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in > > > >> <5756c0f4-924c-42b6-b121-8d1294e14...(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>: > > > > >> >On Jul 22, 4:36?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:27:01 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > >> >> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > >> >> >On Jul 21, 6:51?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:58:47 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > >> >> >> >On Jul 21, 5:15?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:27:20 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > >> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > >> >> >> >> >On Jul 20, 4:53?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:57:06 -0700, DanielSan <daniel....(a)speakeasy.net> > > > >> >> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >rbwinn wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 20, 10:18 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy..net> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> >> >> ... > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> So, Jesus didn't say it. > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Paul said it. ?He was one of the twelve apostles. > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >So, Jesus didn't say it. > > > > >> >> >> >> >> And, as we all know, Paul was not one of the Twelve. > > > > >> >> >> >> >Well, if you doubt that Paul was one of the twelve, why don't you wait > > > >> >> >> >> >until after you are resurrected and ask Paul if he was one of the > > > >> >> >> >> >twelve? > > > > >> >> >> >> You are really ignorant about the Bible. No wonder you insist on making > > > >> >> >> >> a fool of yourself. > > > > >> >> >> >> Clue. Even Paul tells us he wasn't one of the Twelve. > > > > >> >> >> >> If there were a God, He would strike you down for being such a bad > > > >> >> >> >> example.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >> >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > > >> >> >> >The book of Acts says Paul was ordained an apostle, Paul says he is an > > > >> >> >> >apostle. ?Paul was an apostle, regardless of how many atheists of > > > >> >> >> >today say he was not. > > > > >> >> >> Once again, you choose to lie rather than admit your error. Nowhere in > > > >> >> >> the entire Bible does it say that Paul was one of the Twelve.. That was a > > > >> >> >> claim you made up that was not true. > > > > >> >> >> Keep lying. Prove to us how much of a fake you are.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > > >> >> >Acts 14:14 ?Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they > > > >> >> >rent their clothes, and ran in among the people crying out. > > > > >> >> So, as you can see, apostle does not mean 'one of the Twelve'. > > > > >> >> Please, learn the myths you are trying to sell us. Your god would be > > > >> >> embarrassed by your ignorance if he existed.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > > >> >Well, yes it does mean ?one of the Twelve. > > > > >> Then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Go waste some > > > >> time reading the Gospels, Acts and letters to find out that _no one_ > > > >> thought that Paul was one of the Twelve.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >Well, Paul thought he was. I don't think he would have gone around > > > >lying about it. > > > > You are lying about what Paul said. He never claimed to be one of the > > > Twelve.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > He said he was an apostle. �He would not have said that if he had not > > been ordained. > > Robert B. Winn > > I am an apostle. > > Al- Hide quoted text - So who ordained you an apostle? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 31 Jul 2008 16:22 On Jul 31, 3:14�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:6ae29228-aa4f-4c68-a5af-211b12dc6a24(a)i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 6:28 pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:27:57 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >> wrote: > > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> Steve O > >> >> >> a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) > >> >> >> B.A.A.W.A. > >> >> >> Convicted by Earthquack > >> >> >> Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> >> >Well, with regard to that, psychiatrists only treat patients who are > >> >> >financially profitable to them. ?That makes psychiatrists among the > >> >> >most useless people on earth, along with lawyers. > > >> >> Slyly, Robert tries to change the subject...- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> Nothing in the discussion included lawyers until you decided to start > >> spewing your paranoid delusions.- Hide quoted text - > > > All discussions of today include lawyers. �Who do you think the people > > are who allow discussions to take place? > > Robert B. Winn > > Now you're really starting to lose it. > > -- > Steve O Was that the meltdown you were talking about? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 31 Jul 2008 16:23 On Jul 31, 3:55�am, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:13:31 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >> >> >> Steve O > >> >> >> a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) > >> >> >> B.A.A.W.A. > >> >> >> Convicted by Earthquack > >> >> >> Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> >> >Well, with regard to that, psychiatrists only treat patients who are > >> >> >financially profitable to them. ?That makes psychiatrists among the > >> >> >most useless people on earth, along with lawyers. > > >> >> Slyly, Robert tries to change the subject...- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> Nothing in the discussion included lawyers until you decided to start > >> spewing your paranoid delusions.- Hide quoted text - > > >All discussions of today include lawyers. �Who do you think the people > >are who allow discussions to take place? > > You have really gone off the deep end. You need to get some > professional help before it's too late...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You mean like hire a lawyer or psychiatrist? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 31 Jul 2008 16:28 On Jul 31, 5:36�am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 30, 9:49 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jul 30, 6:04 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 30, 3:40 pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:42:53 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Under World Communism one of the pre-requisites for being a dictator > >>>>>>>>>>> was being an atheist. > >>>>>>>>>> Why? > >>>>>>>>> Because Karl Marx said that religion was the opiate of the people. > >>>>>>>>> Religious people were not allowed to be Communist dictators. > >>>>>>>> ...and to think that Marx himself was Jewish...- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>>>> Marx said that he was an atheist. How is it that now that Communism > >>>>>>> has failed, all of these Communist icons are suddenly religious men? > >>>>>> Because you read filtered propaganda instead of doing any research > >>>>>> into their backgrounds. > >>>>> Well, I knew that Karl Marx was born to a Jewish family and became an > >>>>> atheist. I knew that Josef Stalin was born into a Russian Orthodox > >>>>> family and became an atheist. Those are just facts. So how do > >>>>> atheists of today hope to change the facts by claiming that these two > >>>>> individuals were religious men? > >>>> So, you believe Marx and Stalin when they claimed to be atheists? > >>> I absolutely do. They sound just like atheists of today. > >> You mean, you don't think they were lying for political gain? > > > Yes, they were lying for political gain > > Therefore, it's possible they weren't atheists. > > <snip lie> > > -- > ****************************************************** > * � � � � �DanielSan -- alt. Well, no, it is not possible. There were no Communist dictators who were not atheists. Robert B. Winn
From: The TimeLord on 31 Jul 2008 17:08
Am Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:14:43 -0500 schrieb Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> in njt094524c4mp3ehncr8391vs6lo8o3udd(a)4ax.com in sci.physics.relativity (redirected to sci.skeptic): > On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT), > mitch.nicolas.raemsch(a)gmail.com wrote: > >>No. I don't think so. >> >>"I want to know how God created this universe. All the rest are just >>details." Albert Einstein >> >>Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 >> > I would like some insights and opinions on the book, Science and > Religion by Paul Kurtz. Also, what is the general take on the magazine, > Skeptical Inquirer? I'm not familiar with Paul Kurtz, but I do get the Skpetical Inquirer with every cup of latte them weasels at Starbucks charge me usurious prices for, and found (generally) that they try to give a balanced approach to the truth, whether it is Global Warming, God, psychics, UFOs, alternative medicine, etc. Their general position seems to be that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of an omniscient, omni- present intelligent being such as God and whether or not you believe in Him, as far as science is concerned, should be considered a matter of faith, not science. > > Are both these slanted severely to support the agnostic/atheist > perspective, or are they relatively unbiased and reliable sources of > intellectual insights into the matter of science and religion. Not true. I have found nowhere in Skeptical Enquirer where agnostic or atheistic views are even remotely endorsed. They simply promote the idea that there is no *scientific* evidence for God. Whether you believe in Him should be a matter of faith, not science. I find myself agreeing with them even though I consciously *choose* to believe in God. It is in realizing that God can not be scientifically proven that I can fully support both my faith/religion and science. If I were forced to choose between the two, ie faith and science, as some egomaniacs want, I would choose science over faith, because I *know* the precepts of science to be true. However, science never ever rules out the unknown. For if the unknown were ruled out, then that would imply that we know everything and that was disproven by Kurt Gödel in his famous Theorem. Therefore the agnostic Kurt Gödel himself proved mathematically that there is room in our lives for both science and faith in God. - Just my opinion. -- // The TimeLord says: // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! |