Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 5 Aug 2008 09:42 On Aug 4, 10:06�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 4, 7:13 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Well, she was taught from the Bible. �The Bible says, > > > 4 �And Joseph also went up ........... > > 5 �To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. > > That's one translation. > > Another translation is: > "He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to > him and was expecting a child." > > If there were a child, why would they be expecting? �It's already there. > > In another translation: > "To be enrolled with Mary, his espoused wife, who was about to become a > mother." > > In another translation: > "He took with him Mary, his fianc�e, who was now obviously pregnant." > Well, the church I belong to does not accept some of these atheistic translations. Espoused wife does not mean fiancee. Robert B. Winn
From: DanielSan on 5 Aug 2008 09:42 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 4, 9:36�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> On Aug 4, 9:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 3, 8:38 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Aug 3, 4:18 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> Well, you have to understand something about rules of evidence. If >>>>> something exists, it can be entered into evidence. The Bible >>>>> exists. >>>> This post exists. This post says that unicorns exist. Therefore, this >>>> post can be entered into evidence and unicorns must exist. Right? >>>> Or is "unicorns exist" just a claim? >>> No, it is evidence that you are not telling the truth. >>>>> So what is your position, that the Bible does not exist, therefore it >>>>> cannot be entered into evidence? >>>>> This is the same tactic you have used from the beginning concerning >>>>> Hezekiah's tunnel. >>>> Um, no. And you cannot prove that any atheist has ever said anything >>>> about Hezekiah's tunnel not existing, so you might as well give up that >>>> tripe. >>> One atheist a few years back said that Hezekiah's tunnel was a hoax >>> perpetrated by Jerusalem tour guides. >>> Robert B. Winn >> And none in this discussion and no citation to back up this claim. >> And yet you ascribe all atheists with the property of denying tunnel >> exists. >> Why is that? �Could it be that you're another Liar-for-jesus? >> >> Al- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > No, it is just that knowing the way atheists are, You have shown time and again that you have NO knowledge of the way atheists really are. > if an atheist tells > me that he believes the tunnel exists, I do not believe that atheist > is really conceding its existence, but will continue to say that the > Bible is nothing but mythology even after being shown that it is not. Why? Because the tunnel exists? -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: DanielSan on 5 Aug 2008 09:42 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 4, 9:39�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> On Aug 4, 10:13 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 3, 9:31 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> On Aug 2, 1:07 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>> On Aug 1, 8:14 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:f012c137-ec7a-4f41-acf8-81a047bcb82d(a)8g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>> Smiler, >>>>>>> I never go to alt.atheism. >>>>>> Idiot - you are never out of it. >>>>>> Every time you hit that send button with alt.atheism in your headers, you go >>>>>> there. >>>>>> All I am doing is responding to posts in >>>>>>> sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity. >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>> And alt.atheism, cretin. >>>>> I don't care what is in the headers. I have already told you how to >>>>> avoid talking to me. Just take sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity >>>>> out of the header. I never go to alt.atheism. >>>>> Robert b. Winn >>>> The issue is really that some of us really object to lies. And when >>>> we see lies, we feel the need to publicly denounce them to the same >>>> audience as they were originally disseminated to. >>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> If you object to lies, then you should stop posting lies in >>> sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity. �Lies are off topic in these >>> newsgroups. >>> Robert B. Winn >> I haven't posted any lies. �You however, have demonstrably posted many >> lies > > It did not happen. I was the person who said that Hezekiah's tunnel > exists, which was demonstrated to be true. And King's Cross Station exists. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: rbwinn on 5 Aug 2008 09:44 On Aug 4, 10:10�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 4, 8:35 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> On Aug 4, 8:02 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > >>> 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". > >>> Riobert B. Winn > >> A judge must be mad or loony if he were to allow for bible as > >> evidence. > >> You mean that ancient time recording can be the evidence for modern > >> time crime or cases? > >> This would also mean America is declining, at a rate faster than I > >> thought.- Hide quoted text - > > > Well, it happened in 1934, or whenever it was. �So we have that > > precedent in American jurisprudence. > > In only one type of trial, if it happened at all. �Your credibility is > nil at this point. Well, judges of today are very careful to make certain that only atheism is allowed in courtrooms. That does not mean that the Bible is not evidence. No matter how hard atheists try, they are unable to make the Bible disappear. That is why it is evidence. Robert B. Winn
From: DanielSan on 5 Aug 2008 09:45
rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 4, 10:01�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Aug 4, 3:54 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>> news: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. >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>> All kinds if cases? >>>> You mean, "one type of case"? >>> No, a lawyer can attempt to introduce any physical object as evidence >>> in a court case. >> But, will it be ACCEPTED as evidence? >> >> You keep trying these clever games with your debating tactics. �Clever, >> to you. �Lame and flimsy to everyone else. >> > Not today. A judge today in the United States will not even allow the > Constitution of the United States to be entered as evidence. Want me to demolish that claim, too? -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * **************************************************** |