Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: DanielSan on 5 Aug 2008 09:48 rbwinn wrote: > 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. .............atheistic translations?! BWAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAA!!!!! -- **************************************************** * 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 09:50 rbwinn wrote: > 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. You mean, they'll only allow secular evidence? > 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. Atheists are not trying to make the Bible disappear. It also isn't evidence, no matter hard you try to make it evidence. -- **************************************************** * 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 09:51 On Aug 4, 10:30�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 5, 8:46 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:19 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Aug 2, 11:22 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 5:34 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:20f1e376-9a97-48d1-9da4-f7cf581dcafc(a)w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Aug 1, 4:39?am, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 31, 1:11?pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > ============================ > > > > > > > > All Christs are false, even the first one. > > > > > > > > Well, I think that the best person to tell your idea would be Jesus > > > > > > > Christ. ?Why don't you take some time to tell him what you think when > > > > > > > he returns to judge the earth? > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Do you know that your mental illness is getting worse? > > > > > > You have no way to explain when asked, then you avoid like a scared > > > > > > dog losing its fight and ran with tail in between ?the legs.- Hide quoted > > > > > > text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > How did you come to this conclusion? > > > > > ================================== > > > > > We can all tell that you're as mad as a hatter and as thick as a housebrick > > > > > without us having any qualifications in psychiatry. > > > > > The evidence is in all your posts. > > > > > ======================================== > > > > > > Were you aware that trying to > > > > > practice psychiatry without a license is a felony? > > > > > ================================== > > > > > Show where is he PRACTISING psychiatry, skippy. > > > > > Any time that you declare a person insane you are practicing > > > > psychiatry. What the law requires you to do is to go to a court and > > > > submit a petition requesting the institutionalization of a person > > > > believed to be insane. > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > Nope. Telling someone they are crazy is not practicing psychiatry > > > anymore than noticing someone has flat feet is practicing podiatry. > > > Some people exhibit obvious enough symptoms for a layperson to provide > > > a rough diagnosis. > > > The purpose of certifying psychiatry is to restrict those who offer > > > services to others as such, and to control prescribing of drugs to > > > those with suitable training. > > > To institutionalise a person (in my country, not sure about yours) you > > > need both a medical practitioner and a justice of the peace, a > > > magistrate, or a judge. > > > Psychiatrists as medical practitioners, still need the assistance of > > > at least a JP. > > > In no way are psychiatrists required by law to institutionalise > > > everyone they find to be insane. And in fact they would be required > > > to sign their name to a statement that they believe the person is a > > > danger to themselves or others. Not, so much that they are mentally > > > ill. > > > > I'm wondering what your obsession with institutionalisation is about. > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > If you want to say I am insane, you should be willing to show the > > courage of your convictions. �I am just encouraging you to say > > something you really mean. > > Robert B. Winn > > I will say it. �You have serious mental disturbances. �But that is as > far as it goes. �I am not a psychiatrist so I cannot prescribe you > medications or enforce any institutionalisations. �I think you would > benefit from both, but as an uneducated opinion, it holds no weight. > You have tried to get people to say they would like to lock you up on > several occaissions. �Why is that? > > Al- Hide quoted text - > Because it is true. If you were able to do it, that is what you would do. However, I know more about the atheistic court system than you do and would be able to stop it from happening. Secondly, if it did happen, all I would have to do is talk to a psychiatrist, and I would be released. The reason I know so much about it is because I have already been declared insane and institutionalized. It is just a system of accusation in which no proof is required. All it takes are the signatures of a judge and two medical doctors. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 5 Aug 2008 10:03 On Aug 4, 10:33�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 5, 8:48 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:42 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Aug 2, 11:44 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 7:51 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote:> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 1, 7:34 am, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > > > > > >> rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > >>> What makes a book fiction or non-fiction is the intent of the author or > > > > > >>> authors. A fiction book is an account of imaginary events. > > > > > >> Exactly so, and THAT is why the Bible is fiction. I'm glad you > > > > > >> understand that, you may be making progress. > > > > > > > The proclamation of an atheist has no real power. It does not change > > > > > > reality. > > > > > > And the proclamation of a religious nutter such as yourself has even > > > > > less power. It doesn't even acknowledge reality. > > > > > So why was I the one who acknowledged that Hezekiah's tunnel exists > > > > while atheists tried to claim that tour guides in Jerusalem were > > > > taking tourists through solid rock? > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > This is another of your more persistent lies. No-one said at any > > > stage that there is no tunnel. > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > You continue to say that the Bible is nothing but mythology. �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 > > No. �You continue to not see the point. �It is quite disturbing. > Greek mythology mentions Mount Olympus and Athens, both of which exist > today. �This does not mean that Athens is mythological. > Surely you can't be THAT stupid. > I am not so stupid as to believe that an atheist would ever do anything but deny that Hezekiah's tunnel exists. If you tell me that you believe the tunnel exists, all you are doing is saying that you would tell the next person it does not exist. That is how you do things. Since that is the way you are, I just keep it simple by saying that you continue to deny the existence of the tunnel. Denying the veracity of anything in the Bible is more important to you than the existence of the tunnel. As long as it remains that way, you do not admit that the tunnel exists. All you are doing is just putting words together in an attempt to deceive. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 5 Aug 2008 10:05
On Aug 4, 10:38�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 5, 8:52 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:54 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Aug 3, 6:16 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 11:57 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > 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 said that Al campaigned for abortion. Are you going to provide > > > > > evidence for this? > > > > > Sure. Ask Al if he is in favor of right to life. > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > What does that have to do with whether I've campaigned for legal > > > abortions? > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > Well, I am certainly sorry if I have misjudged you, Al. �I think you > > are pro-abortion. > > Robert B. Winn > > That is because you are pidgeon-holing people based on misinformation > from your church. > I am neither pro- nor anti- abortion. I think it's something for women > to decide on. �It doesn't directly effect me, and I think it > presumptuous for men to have a say. �Not an opinion, but a say. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > So you are pro-abortion. Robert B. Winn |