Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 3 Aug 2008 02:12 On Aug 2, 8:52�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 23:37:25 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > in alt.atheism: > > > > > > >On Aug 1, 8:26?am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >> > On Jul 31, 6:21 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> >> rbwinn wrote: > >> >>> On Jul 31, 5:52 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >> >>>>> On Jul 30, 10:15 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >> >>>>>>> On Jul 30, 6:14 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >> >>>>>>>>news:9dcddedb-bce6-457f-b0c5-d9a6d2bb6bd7(a)m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > >> >>>>>>>> On Jul 22, 10:04?am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >> >>>>>>>>>news:8ab589a3-2731-4a92-a41e-d6870a4e6f4b(a)k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 10:08 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >> >>>>>>>>>>>news:efa8da13-56b6-4386-bfe5-c571b689a669(a)d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no evidence at all about God.- Hide quoted text - > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Would you like me to send you a copy of the Bible? > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > >> >>>>>>>>>>> You could, but it would be much better if you could provide some > >> >>>>>>>>>>> evidence > >> >>>>>>>>>>> of > >> >>>>>>>>>>> God as well. > >> >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Steve O > >> >>>>>>>>>> God sent His Only Begotten Son, Steve. ?If that was not enough for > >> >>>>>>>>>> you, nothing I could do or say is going to convince you of anything. > >> >>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > >> >>>>>>>>> Got any evidence that Jesus was the son of God? > >> >>>>>>>>> Please don't say, "the Bible" - that isn't evidence of anything at all, > >> >>>>>>>>> it's > >> >>>>>>>>> just an old, old story. > >> >>>>>>>>> -- > >> >>>>>>>>> Steve O > >> >>>>>>>> Well, actually the Bible is evidence of Hezekiah's tunnel. Three > >> >>>>>>>> different books of the Old Testament describe the construction of > >> >>>>>>>> Hezekiah's tunnel. > >> >>>>>>>> ================================ > >> >>>>>>>> Several of the Harry Potter books mention Kings Cross station.. > >> >>>>>>>> Does that make the Harry Potter stories true? > >> >>>>>>>> Smiler, > >> >>>>>>> Why don't you spend some more time studying it, Smiler, and decide for > >> >>>>>>> yourself? I know that atheists are a little lacking in self- > >> >>>>>>> confidence, but I think you could decide this question for yourself. > >> >>>>>> I've studied Hezekiah's Tunnel since you brought it up. I still fail to > >> >>>>>> see what its existence has to do with the truthfulness of the Bible. > >> >>>>>> -- > >> >>>>>> ****************************************************** > >> >>>>>> * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * > >> >>>>> Well, first you would have to make a decision about Hezekiah's > >> >>>>> tunnel. Does the tunnel really exist or is it just a hoax the way one > >> >>>>> atheist claimed? > >> >>>> Which atheist? Provide a quote. > >> >>>>> Then if you decide it exists, how does that relate > >> >>>>> to the description of its construction in the Old Testament? Was the > >> >>>>> tunnel seen today the tunnel described in the Old Testament, or is it > >> >>>>> some other tunnel the way atheists continue to say in this newsgroup? > >> >>>> Which atheists? Provide quotes. > >> >>>>> I know this is difficult, but it really is possible for an atheist to > >> >>>>> make a decision about this. > >> >>>>> The verses of the Bible that describe the construction of Hezekiah's > >> >>>>> tunnel are either true, or they are false. So far, having said that > >> >>>>> the Bible is only myth, atheists are not willing to admit that there > >> >>>>> are verses describing the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel that are > >> >>>>> obviously true. > >> >>>> How about this mindblower: > >> >>>> Hezekiah's Tunnel exists. The Bible talks about it. The Bible is > >> >>>> true...on this fact only...but has nothing to do with the truthfulness > >> >>>> of the Bible. > >> >>>> Look at every fiction story ever written. A great majority of them > >> >>>> write about the Earth. An even greater majority talk about humans.. > >> >>>> Does that mean that the book itself is now nonfiction since it describe > >> >>>> the Earth exactly how we see it today and how humans are? > >> >>> 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. > > >> Yes. ?Yes, 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 has done nothing of the sort. ?Someone told you that God proved it, > >> but do you have any evidence that he did? > > >> PS: Your threat given vicariously through some dead guy we can't even > >> show to exist is summarily rejected. > > >There is no threat. �You atheists say that you do not want to enter > >heaven. > > Once again, you have chosen to lie. What we have said is that there is > no reason to believe in heaven because no evidence at all backs up your > claim that heaven exists. We have said nothing about wanting or not > wanting to enter it, though it is true that the heaven that many > Christians describe is hellishly oppressive. > > >You will get exactly what you say you want. �So where is the > >threat? > > You act as if there is a hell. No evidence backs it up, yet you continue > to yammer on about this imaginary place. > > >It is a threat to give someone what they say they want? > > Hell and heaven are both fantasies. No evidence backs up anything about > them. Every time you talk about it, you show us how completely deluded > you are.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I wasn't talking about hell, you were. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 3 Aug 2008 02:14 On Aug 2, 9:37�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 18:43:56 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > in alt.atheism: > > >On Aug 2, 1:17?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > ... > > >> You presume to speak for God? > > >I absolutely do. > > Anyone can say anything and claim that he is speaking for God and God > _never_ contradicts the speaker. It's almost as if God does not exist or > just doesn't care. Anyway, I have no respect for your teachings or your > hubris. Well, go respect whatever you want to respect. I don't care what you respect. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 3 Aug 2008 02:21 On Aug 2, 9:38�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:14:24 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > in alt.atheism: > > > > > > >On Aug 1, 3:35?pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...(a)newsguy.org> wrote: > >> In article <e41a1737-acad-4cdc-ae31-4f6523f32...(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? > > >Well, scientists were all done talking to me about the theory of > >relativity two years ago when I finally figured out how the Galilean > >transformation equations describe relativity of time �If any > >scientists decide they want to talk to me, I would certainly rather > >talk to them than these atheists. > > You already demonstrated to us how confused you are in that area. > Please, don't bring it up again. Didn't you learn anything from those > who critiqued your 'work'?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t w=velocity of light x=wt x'=wn' x'=x-vt wn' = wt -vt n'=t(1-v/w) w = x/t = x'/n' = (x-vt)/(t-vt/w) = (x-vt)/(t-vx/w^2) = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma = x'Lorentz/t'Lorentz Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 3 Aug 2008 02:23 On Aug 2, 9:40�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 06:29:38 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > in alt.atheism: > > >> Sorry, but there's no such thing as a pro-abortion political candidate.. > > >Well, you vote for the candidates you like, and I will vote for the > >candidates I like. > > Will you be voting for the one that promises to make the poor hungry and > homeless?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I usually vote for myself, but party politicians have made it too difficult to register as a candidate. Robert B. Winn
From: DanielSan on 3 Aug 2008 07:29
rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 2, 7:16�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> Most independent voters do not have the means to meet the requirements >>>>> for ballot access that party politicians have imposed. >>>> Most PEOPLE do not have the means to meet the requirements for ballot >>>> access that the party politicians have imposed. >>> Well, I am sure that you Europeans are very impressed by that, but we >>> Americans would like to have our own system of elections in effect. >>> Democrats and Republicans see the voters as their personal property >>> the same way Nazi party members saw the people of Germany as their >>> personal property before World War II. >> I notice you TOTALLY ignored the demolition of your claim. >> > Well, you Party members do not like to be ignored, I know that much. > Sorry, but I registered as an independent voter the first time i > voted. So did I. And your claim that Independent voters cannot run for office was demolished. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * **************************************************** |