Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 3 Aug 2008 23:55 On Aug 3, 4:33�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 3, 9:09 am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:04:16 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > >> in alt.atheism: > > >>> 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. > >> We've been over this you mindless fool. The Bible is not evidence in any > >> way, shape or manner. I have read the Bible from cover to cover. Your > >> claims just don't hold water.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > It helps to comprehend what you read if you read something. > > Why? �Do you think he didn't comprehend it? > I don't think he comprehended it. Robert B. Winn
From: DanielSan on 3 Aug 2008 23:56 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 3, 4:29�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 15:24:56 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote >> in alt.atheism: >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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. >> The Bible still is not evidence. I asked for evidence.- Hide quoted text - >> > > The Bible is accepted as evidence in court. For what kinds of cases? -- **************************************************** * 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 23:57 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 3, 4:30�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Aug 3, 8:54 am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:50:37 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote >>>> in alt.atheism: >>>>> 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? >>>> Once again, you misrepresent the discussion.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> The discussion was whether a pregnant woman has a child in her womb. >>> You claimed she did not. >> There is a fetus in the womb from 9 weeks from conception to birth. >> Prior to 9 weeks, there isn't even a fetus. >> >> Did you parents ever teach you about the birds and the bees? �(Hint: It >> has nothing to do with avians or insects.) >> > I was taught from the time I was born that a pregnant woman has a > child inside her. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you were taught wrong. -- **************************************************** * 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 23:58 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 3, 4:33�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Aug 3, 9:09 am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:04:16 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote >>>> in alt.atheism: >>>>> 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. >>>> We've been over this you mindless fool. The Bible is not evidence in any >>>> way, shape or manner. I have read the Bible from cover to cover. Your >>>> claims just don't hold water.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> It helps to comprehend what you read if you read something. >> Why? �Do you think he didn't comprehend it? >> > I don't think he comprehended it. I think he comprehends it more than you do. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 4 Aug 2008 00:18
On Aug 2, 1:29 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 31, 8:55 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jul 31, 2:47 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>news:e614fbd1-1d14-42db-856a-84936af30751(a)s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > >>>>> OnJul30, 10:32 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > >>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >>>>>> OnJul31, 2:57 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> OnJul30, 6:07 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30Jul2008 17:57:19 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism > >>>>>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in > >>>>>>>> <4937d184-9c40-4146-a3bb-b72b0333d...(a)z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>: > >>>>>>>>> OnJul30, 3:43?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue,29Jul2008 21:46:16 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism > >>>>>>>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in > >>>>>>>>>> <5756c0f4-924c-42b6-b121-8d1294e14...(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>: > >>>>>>>>>>> OnJul22, 4:36?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21Jul2008 20:27:01 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn > >>>>>>>>>>>> <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> OnJul21, 6:51?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21Jul2008 17:58:47 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OnJul21, 5:15?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21Jul2008 06:27:20 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OnJul20, 4:53?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20Jul2008 14:57:06 -0700, DanielSan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OnJul20, 10:18 am, DanielSan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, Jesus didn't say it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul said it. ?He was one of the twelve apostles. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, Jesus didn't say it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, as we all know, Paul was not one of the Twelve. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, if you doubt that Paul was one of the twelve, why > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't you wait > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until after you are resurrected and ask Paul if he was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twelve? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are really ignorant about the Bible. No wonder you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insist on making > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fool of yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clue. Even Paul tells us he wasn't one of the Twelve. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there were aGod, He would strike you down for being > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a bad > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The book of Acts says Paul was ordained an apostle, Paul > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says he is an > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apostle. ?Paul was an apostle, regardless of how many > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheists of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today say he was not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you choose to lie rather than admit your error. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the entire Bibledoesit say that Paul was one of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Twelve. That was a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim you made up that was not true. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keep lying. Prove to us how much of a fake you are.- Hide > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quoted text - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Acts 14:14 ?Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of, they > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rent their clothes, and ran in among the people crying out. > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, as you can see, apostledoesnot mean 'one of the Twelve'. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Please, learn the myths you are trying to sell us. Yourgod > >>>>>>>>>>>> would be > >>>>>>>>>>>> embarrassed by your ignorance if he existed.- Hide quoted > >>>>>>>>>>>> text - > >>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>>>>>>>> Well, yes itdoesmean ?one of the Twelve. > >>>>>>>>>> Then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Go waste > >>>>>>>>>> some > >>>>>>>>>> time reading the Gospels, Acts and letters to find out that _no > >>>>>>>>>> one_ > >>>>>>>>>> thought that Paul was one of the Twelve.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>>>>> Well, Paul thought he was. I don't think he would have gone around > >>>>>>>>> lying about it. > >>>>>>>> You are lying about what Paul said. He never claimed to be one of the > >>>>>>>> Twelve.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>>>> He said he was an apostle. He would not have said that if he had not > >>>>>>> been ordained. > >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > >>>>>> I am an apostle. > >>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - > >>>>> So who ordained you an apostle? > >>>>> Robert B. Winn > >>>> You did. > >>>> You said that people who say they are an apostle are an ordained apostle, > >>>> and that they wouldn't say they were an apostle unless they were an apostle. > >>>> It's right up there, in the text. > >>>> -- > >>>> Steve O > >>> Paul was ordained an apostle. Al was not. > >> I ordain Al as an apostle. > > >> -- > > You would have to be an apostle to ordain an apostle. > > I've already been ordained an apostle. > w00t! Reverend and Apostle! I can be a saviour next. So long as it's not one of those martyr type saviours. Al |