Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Free Lunch on 1 Aug 2008 19:44 On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:42:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Aug 1, 2:49?am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:2f8bca3e-26ee-4410-a582-dcb675114aff(a)34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... .... >> > Well, it was the Holy Ghost. ?The Holy Ghost bears witness of all truth. >> > Robert B. Winn >> >> Are you saying that The Holy Ghost personally told you that Jesus would >> return, or yet again, has this information been delivered to you via a third >> party? >> (And, coincidentally, has that third party ever asked you for money as >> well?) > >The Holy Ghost does not use money. >Robert B. Winn Harvey doesn't either. Both are equally well documented.
From: Free Lunch on 1 Aug 2008 19:45 On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:21:17 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >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 Once again, you post a Bible quote that is completely unrelated to the claim you are supposed to be defending. Still, you have utterly failed to provide any evidence that the Bible should be used for any purpose at all.
From: Smiler on 1 Aug 2008 19:53 "Stan-O" <bndsna807(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:6fm594dmcraoq8p1am350koq2v8gh1eta3(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:52:33 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> > wrote: > >>On Jul 31, 5:11?pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 31Jul2008 13:23:32 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> >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. Youneedto get some >>> >> professional help before it's too late...- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> >> - Show quoted text - >>> >>> >You mean like hire a lawyer or psychiatrist? >>> >>> Anyone who will keep you from taking firearms and shooting at >>> imaginary Satans, since you've already referred to a couple of people >>> by that name... >> >>I was not referring to people. I was referring to the evil spirit >>that had possessed people. > > I feel sorry for any children that you have. You'd probably take them > to an exorcist... > No fear of that. He's 60 and unmarried. AFAICT, his "girlfriend" is his right hand. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Matthew Johnson on 1 Aug 2008 20:16 In article <cca0c2fa-98aa-446b-b2fc-0c027ef0dfba(a)59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, rbwinn says... [snip] >> How do you 'KNOW' that ? There are plenty of Christians who baptize >> their babies ..... are you saying they won't get into heaven ? What >> 'special' knowledge do you possess that they don't ? >> >> -- >Modern revelation. >Robert B. Winn And this, of course, is where Winn demonstrates a thoroughly broken, unscientific epistemology. To demonstrate how broken it is, how thoroughly useless both for science and theology, one only has to consider: what answer can he have is someone else pops up and claims to have a "modern revelation" that infant baptism is not only good, but a commandment from God? All he can do is complain that this other person is not following revelation from God after all. But wait! Why should we not say the very same about Winn? Who is really going to win this contest? That is yet another reason why none of his crossposts belong in sci.physics. He should have posted to alt.atheism only, and amused himself by watching the rattled cages there.
From: Free Lunch on 1 Aug 2008 20:33
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:38:28 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Aug 1, 2:46?am, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:04:53 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Your goal posts move faster than the eye can follow, don't they? >> >> No-one made the claim that "There is Nothing in the bible that can be >> >> proven." >> >> Several people pointed out that just because there is a tunnel where >> >> the bible says there is a tunnel,doesnot mean that anything else it >> >> said (even about the tunnel) is true. ?Because we would expect the >> >> authors, (fiction authors or historians) to know about the tunnel back >> >> then. ?They may not have known where it came from though, so we can't >> >> trust their account of that until it has been established by other >> >> methods. >> >> >> Al- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> >Well, I can trust their account. ?They were Jews, not atheists. >> >> Do you have to start every post with "Well"? It's quite annoying...- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Well, I don't have to, but I do. If it annoys atheists, there must be >a reason. I learned that pattern of speech from Ronald Reagan. Just >look how successful Ronald Reagan was. Ronald Reagan was successful in deluding his followers. As a leader he was mediocre at best. In honesty, he earned failing grades. I can see why you would be proud to follow a liar. |