Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 3 Aug 2008 10:50 On Aug 2, 7:23�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > >> The word in question is "egkuos". This word can be defined as: > > >> swelling inside, i.e. pregnant -- great with child. > > >> You are using "great with child" and assuming that's what the writer of > >> Luke meant. Not sure how you get that, actually. Most people today > >> would use the word "pregnant", not the phrase "great with child". > > > Well, what you are saying is that you believe that Luke was so feeble > > minded that he would have believed there was something other than a > > child in the womb of a pregnant woman. � Nothing he wrote would > > indicate that he was feeble minded. > > No, I'm not saying that at all. > Well, you absolutely are. You regard me as so stupid that you think you can convince me that a pregnant woman does not have a child in her womb. Why would you treat Luke any different? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 3 Aug 2008 11:04 On Aug 2, 8:53�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:08:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > in alt.atheism: > > >On Aug 1, 2:30?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > > ... > > >> > Discuss it with John after the resurrection. > > >> No proof of this alleged "resurrection", is there? > > >Well, actually there is. �The apostles were witnesses of the > >resurrected Christ on two separate occasions. > > No evidence backs up your claim. Well, I could send you a copy of the Bible if you want one. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 3 Aug 2008 11:05 On Aug 2, 8:54�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 23:40:30 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > in alt.atheism: > > > > > > >On Aug 1, 8:29?am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >> > 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. > > >> So, you have lied. > > >No, I did not lie. > > You lie to us all the time. This was one such example.- Hide quoted text - > So you are claiming that abortions in Russia did not increase while Josef Stalin was dictator of that country. Robert B. Winn
From: DanielSan on 3 Aug 2008 11:07 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 2, 7:23�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: > >>>> The word in question is "egkuos". This word can be defined as: >>>> swelling inside, i.e. pregnant -- great with child. >>>> You are using "great with child" and assuming that's what the writer of >>>> Luke meant. Not sure how you get that, actually. Most people today >>>> would use the word "pregnant", not the phrase "great with child". >>> Well, what you are saying is that you believe that Luke was so feeble >>> minded that he would have believed there was something other than a >>> child in the womb of a pregnant woman. � Nothing he wrote would >>> indicate that he was feeble minded. >> No, I'm not saying that at all. >> > Well, you absolutely are. Well, I'm absolutely not. > You regard me as so stupid that you think > you can convince me that a pregnant woman does not have a child in her > womb. She does not have a "child" in her womb. "Child" begins at birth. > Why would you treat Luke any different? First of all, Luke didn't write the Gospel of Luke. Secondly, the Gospel of Luke was possibly written sometime in the late 1st century CE. In the late 1st century CE, they were still using wool, cabbage, eggs, and magic chants to cure diseases ("Natural History" by Pliny the Elder). Most could only cure minor problems. Major medical issues were outside the purview of even the most accomplished doctor. Most physicians of the day were operating with numerous errors in the anatomy of the human body because it was illegal according to Roman law to dissect a human body, even if it was dead. These errors remained until the Renaissance a thousand years later. No. I'm not going to take Luke or the writer(s) of Luke seriously where it comes to modern, 21st century CE medicine and health. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: DanielSan on 3 Aug 2008 11:12
rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 2, 8:53�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:08:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote >> in alt.atheism: >> >>> On Aug 1, 2:30?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >> ... >> >>>>> Discuss it with John after the resurrection. >>>> No proof of this alleged "resurrection", is there? >>> Well, actually there is. �The apostles were witnesses of the >>> resurrected Christ on two separate occasions. >> No evidence backs up your claim. > > Well, I could send you a copy of the Bible if you want one. I have a Bible. There's no evidence in there to back up your claim. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * **************************************************** |