Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 1 Aug 2008 07:38 On Jul 31, 8:55�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 31, 2:47 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >>news:e614fbd1-1d14-42db-856a-84936af30751(a)s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.... > > >>> OnJul30, 10:32 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > >>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >>>> OnJul31, 2:57 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > >>>>> OnJul30, 6:07 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, 30Jul2008 17:57:19 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism > >>>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in > >>>>>> <4937d184-9c40-4146-a3bb-b72b0333d...(a)z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>: > >>>>>>> OnJul30, 3:43?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Tue,29Jul2008 21:46:16 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism > >>>>>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in > >>>>>>>> <5756c0f4-924c-42b6-b121-8d1294e14...(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>: > >>>>>>>>> OnJul22, 4:36?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21Jul2008 20:27:01 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn > >>>>>>>>>> <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > >>>>>>>>>>> OnJul21, 6:51?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21Jul2008 17:58:47 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn > >>>>>>>>>>>> <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> OnJul21, 5:15?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21Jul2008 06:27:20 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OnJul20, 4:53?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20Jul2008 14:57:06 -0700, DanielSan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OnJul20, 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 aGod, 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 Bibledoesit 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, apostledoesnot mean 'one of the Twelve'. > >>>>>>>>>> Please, learn the myths you are trying to sell us. Yourgod > >>>>>>>>>> would be > >>>>>>>>>> embarrassed by your ignorance if he existed.- Hide quoted > >>>>>>>>>> text - > >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>>>>>> Well, yes itdoesmean ?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 > >> You did. > >> You said that people who say they are an apostle are an ordained apostle, > >> and that they wouldn't say they were an apostle unless they were an apostle. > >> It's right up there, in the text. > > >> -- > >> Steve O > > Paul was ordained an apostle. �Al was not. > > I ordain Al as an apostle. > > -- You would have to be an apostle to ordain an apostle. Robert B. Winn
From: Free Lunch on 1 Aug 2008 07:39 On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:11:50 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Jul 31, 6:21?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: .... >> > Well, we have made progress to a point, that an atheist has admitted >> > that the Biblical account of the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel is >> > true. ?First of all, not all fiction books describe the construction >> > of something that can be observed. >> >> And that's irrelevant. >> >> > But your premise is wrong. ?Just because you can find a fiction book >> > that describes something that can be seen does not prove that all >> > books that describe something that can be seen are fiction. >> >> Doesn't prove they're nonfiction, either. ?You're starting to get it. >> Just because a book talks about the construction of something is >> irrelevant to the veracity of the book. > >No, it is not irrelevant. Sure it is. >> > ?The >> > furthest you can go ?would be to say that the book that describes >> > something that can be seen could be fiction or non-fiction, but you >> > cannot say that you have proven it to be fiction. ?So you would have >> > to find something else in the book that you claim is fiction, not >> > Hezekiah's tunnel, which has been proven to be non-fiction. ?I hope >> > this will help you in your studies. >> >> When you get on to proving that God thing as non-fiction, do let me know. >> >God already proved it. If you reject the atonement of Christ for your >sins, it is your problem, not mine. God proved nothing. There is no evidence that the Bible has anything to do with God. There is no evidence that God exists. There is no evidence that the doctrine of atonement is true. There is no evidence for a soul, an afterlife, heaven or hell. These doctrines are derived from a book that contains many, many serious errors of fact, yet you want us to believe doctrines that are completely unsupported by any evidence. When we are skeptical about this nonsense, you try to threaten us with a completely unbelievable and totally unsubstantiated judgement. It's no wonder that no one here takes you seriously. You just aren't being serious here. You try to sell a completely dishonest, unsupportable religion to us and get mad at us when we aren't persuaded.
From: Free Lunch on 1 Aug 2008 07:40 On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:23:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: .... >Well, no it does not. What you are claiming is that if you can find a >mistake or something debatable in a non-fiction book, then you have >proven it is fiction. What makes a book fiction or non-fiction is the >intent of the author or authors. A fiction book is an account of >imaginary events. A perceived mistake in a non-fiction book can >happen because of a misinterpretation of events by either the author >or reader of the book. Since you insist that the Bible is not just a collection of stories, then you are insisting that the Bible is completely and utterly unreliable. As statements of fact, the Bible fails again and again. Your ignorance of the failures of the Bible does not make the Bible true.
From: rbwinn on 1 Aug 2008 07:44 On Jul 31, 8:56�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > >>>> Why don't we just wait for him before judging them then? > >>>> I happen to think that if anyone needs judging it is the liars and > >>>> hypocrites. But you don't see me campaigning to remove their human > >>>> rights. > >>> Well, yes, I do. Like other atheists you campaign for abortion, > >>> which removes the right to live of the people who are killed. > >>> Robert B. Winn > >> Please show me evidence that I've campaigned for abortion. Because > >> that's a flat out lie. And is that your best effort at demonising > >> atheists? > > >> Al- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Atheists have caused more abortions than any other group of people. > > So, you can't show evidence where atheists (like Al) have campaigned for > abortion. �You have lied. > > -- Josef Stalin was an atheist like Al. While Josef Stalin was dictator of the Soviet Union, the number of abortions in Russia increased to about five per woman. In the People's Republic of China, women who have had one child are required by the state to abort any children conceived after the first child is born. Robert B. Winn
From: Free Lunch on 1 Aug 2008 07:43
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:06:46 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Jul 31, 6:01?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: .... >> > He said he would return. >> >> No, someone told you he would return. ?Why do you trust this third party? >> > >Well, it was the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost bears witness of all >truth. But, of course, that is not what Jesus is said to have said. You are finding another excuse for the inconsitency and unreliability of the Bible. |