Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Steve O on 4 Aug 2008 19:06 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:3e40bec6-65db-4724-9c8a-eced3dad81aa(a)k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > You continue to say that the Bible is nothing but mythology. That is an inaccurate straw man statement of your own. That is NOT our claim, and you know it, yet you choose to deliberately lie about what we claim. What we actually say is that the SPECIAL claims of the bible are nothing more than mythology. You can continue to lie about it if you want- it isn't really that important. >If you say that the Bible is nothing but mythology, you are saying that the > tunnel is mythology because the Bible describes the construction of > Hezekiah's tunnel in three different books of the Old Testament. > Robert B. Winn Fortunately, that is not what we are saying. That claim is simply a construct of your own deluded imagination. I for one, would agree that the bible is entirely accurate when it comes to the existence of sheep, amongst other things. (or tunnels, if you like) However, when it comes to the special, supernatural claims mentioned in the bible, (pick any one of them)- then I must advise you that their existence owes much to the fact that almost all of the events described in the Old Testament and New Testament have become so heavily mythologised over the intervening years that they are virtually worthless as fact. (insert your error message here - the one where you advise me to discuss my ideas with Jesus when he returns.) -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Free Lunch on 4 Aug 2008 20:34 On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 05:02:25 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in <df36fbb3-4bc6-4217-93a7-eb8537d50404(a)s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>: >On Aug 3, 8:56?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> 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? >> >For any kind of case. A lawyer can request that a Bible be entered as >evidence in any court case. Clarence Darrow had the Bible entered as >evidence in the famous "monkey trial". When did you last check the rules of evidence?
From: Free Lunch on 4 Aug 2008 20:36 On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:33:44 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in <147d2d46-ff33-4aac-b29a-7e24af243840(a)k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>: >On Aug 3, 8:56?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> 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? >> >For all kinds of cases. Clarence Darrow had the Bible entered as >evidence in the monkey trial. I really don't have any idea if your story is true or not or for what purpose it would have been used if it had been admitted. I do know that it would not be allowed under similar circumstances today. Our rules of evidence don't allow fantasy to be called evidence now.
From: Free Lunch on 4 Aug 2008 20:42 On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 04:32:29 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in <17a1fccc-540b-4356-b597-5b2190c2b80a(a)59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>: >On Aug 3, 5:29?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 15:56:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote >> in alt.atheism: .... >> >The United States Supreme Court. >> >> In which case? Hint, it is not Roe v. Wade.- Hide quoted text - >> >Roe v. Wade makes it possible for the government and medical science >to kill any unborn child they want to kill. Such lies you tell. You are no follower of Jesus. You mock Him with your lies. > The fact that they only >kill certain ones now does not mean they will not do what China has >done and start killing unborn children that the parents want to be >born. Roe v. Wade means that all Americans are just as protected by >the law as unborn children are. More lies. Let me know when you are going to stop lying. Right now, you aren't worth conversing with, you are too vile, too despicable, too disgusting for me to respond to. I'll check back in a few weeks to see if you have repented of your evil ways.
From: DanielSan on 4 Aug 2008 22:13
rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 3, 8:57�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> 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. >> >> -- > You are saying that my mother was lying to me about my younger > brothers and sisters? No. She was taught wrong, too, if she claimed that she had children in her womb. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * **************************************************** |