Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 1 Aug 2008 18:09 On Aug 1, 4:40�am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:23:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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. Well, there is no great failure. Atheists tried for several months to say that Hezekiah's tunnel was a failure. But water kept going through it. You could get every atheist on earth to say that the Bible is a failure, and nothing would change. So what exactly is it that you are trying to do? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 1 Aug 2008 18:21 On Aug 1, 4:43�am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:06:46 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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. Matthew 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Robert B. Winn
From: Matthew Johnson on 1 Aug 2008 18:35 In article <e41a1737-acad-4cdc-ae31-4f6523f32d73(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, rbwinn says... >So what exactly is it >that you are trying to do? >Robert B. Winn I could ask you the same question, Robert. All you are doing is rattling cages. You aren't actually accomplishing anything else. Worse yet, you are still crossposting. You posted this to all of the following groups, whether you know it or not: sci.physics,cam.misc,alt.sci.physics,alt.atheism. Crossposting is always irritating, so it is almost never the right thing to do. It certainly isn't right here. Pick one group and stick with it. Pick one where it is on topic. Finally, make sure you know how to use your news client. Do you know how to coax it to display all the groups it is about to post to? Do you know how to turn OFF crossposting?
From: Free Lunch on 1 Aug 2008 19:39 On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:59:18 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Aug 1, 4:39?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:11:50 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Well, rejecting the atonement of Christ seems very foolish to me, but >you are going to have to make your own decision about it. So find out >for yourself whether the Bible is true. I don't reject atonement. I reject fantasy stories that are completely without foundation.
From: Free Lunch on 1 Aug 2008 19:40
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:09:13 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Aug 1, 4:40?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:23:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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. > >Well, there is no great failure. Atheists tried for several months to >say that Hezekiah's tunnel was a failure. But water kept going >through it. You could get every atheist on earth to say that the >Bible is a failure, and nothing would change. So what exactly is it >that you are trying to do? Why do you keep misrepresenting that discussion? My copy of the 10 Commandments tells me not to lie. Apparently you have a different Bible. |