Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Free Lunch on 3 Aug 2008 19:15 On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:53:33 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Aug 3, 7:58?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:38:42 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote >> in alt.atheism: > >> >> >>> to do anything for men that they can do for themselves. >> >> >> You presume to speak for God? >> >> >> > I absolutely do. >> >> >> I'll make sure that God knows that you took it upon yourself to speak >> >> for Him. >> >> >Hebrews 5:1 ?For every high priest taken from among men is ordained >> >for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and >> >sacrifices for sins: >> >2 ?Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out >> >of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. >> >3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for >> >himself, to offer for sins. >> >4 ?And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of >> >God, as was Aaron. >> >> God didn't say that. > >God did say that. Provide the evidence. You have demonstrated, repeatedly, that your word is no good, that you are not trustworthy.
From: DanielSan on 3 Aug 2008 19:18 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 3, 8:12�am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> 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. >> > John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the > week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for > fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto > them, Peace be unto you. > > John 21:9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of > coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. > 10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now > caught. > 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great > fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so > many, yet was not the net broken. > 12Jesus saith unto them Come and dine, And none of the disciples durst > ask him , Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. > 13 Jesus then cometh , and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish > likewise. > > 14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his > disciples, after that he was risen from the dead. > No, that's not evidence. That's a claim. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: Free Lunch on 3 Aug 2008 19:18 On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:56:05 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On Aug 3, 8:08?am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: .... >> Which does not make them "pro-abortion". >I would definitely consider that to be pro abortion. I consider you to be pro-dishonesty. Can you point to a single post that you made in which you did not make a false claim. Keep making the LDS look bad, Mr. Winn. Keep making religion look bad.
From: DanielSan on 3 Aug 2008 19:22 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 3, 8:14�am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> 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. >> Stalin prohibited abortion and contraception. >> > So how did abortions in Russia reach an average of five per woman in > the lifetime of Russian women? I looked for this statistic and couldn't find it. Where did you come by this figure? -- **************************************************** * 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 19:25
rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 3, 8:21�am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Aug 3, 4:29 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>> 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. >>> Independent voters cannot run for public office. � >> Then how did Bernie Sanders get into office? >> >>> You said it >>> yourself. � >> Where? >> >>> As recent as the 1970's there were states where an >>> independent voter could run for President of the United States with 24 >>> nomination petition signatures. �That is no longer true. �Party >>> politicians have passed laws in almost all states since that time >>> putting candidacy for office out of the reach of independent voters. >>> Unless a person running for office has a party faction behind him, he >>> cannot meet the requirements to get on the ballot. �Party politicians >>> make certain that a person running for office has to solicit money and >>> organize faction, making all candidates automatically part of the >>> corruption of party politics. �Until recently in American government >>> this was not true. �When the government first started, elections were >>> conducted to include ordinary citizens. >> Then why can I find evidence of Independents running for office >> throughout our nation's history...up to this election? >> > Up until this election independent voters were allowed and able to > register as candidates in the United States, although since 1800, the > party controlled news media has never publicized anything except party > candidates. > Now in this election, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader is running as > an independent candidate. However, Mr. Nader is not an independent > voter. You would also discover that almost all independent candidates > in the United States have not been independent voters. How do you define "independent voters"? -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * **************************************************** |