Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: DanielSan on 5 Aug 2008 22:49 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 5, 1:38�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:b869657a-8ad3-4d4d-9f10-5440569a3345(a)34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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. >>> Robert B. Winn >> It depends on what you are trying to prove. >> Why were you trying to introduce the Constitution as evidence, and how could >> it prove or disprove anything in relation to your particular circumstabces? >> >> -- > The sixth amendment to the Constitution says that the defendant has > the right to trial by jury in "all criminal prosecutions". The judge > in my case had just denied my right to trial by jury. Then you can appeal. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: hhyapster on 5 Aug 2008 22:52 On Aug 5, 9:30 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 9:22 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Aug 5, 11:08 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 5:34 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 05:02:25 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in > > > > <df36fbb3-4bc6-4217-93a7-eb8537d50...(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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > The last time I was in court. I attempted to introduce the > > > Constitution of the United States as evidence. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > Yes, the constitution was written in modern time and is not a story. > > The bible was written more than 2000 years ago and was a collection of > > tales meant to con the young into sleep. > > You do not know the significance of a constitution and a fictional > > story book.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I said I attempted to enter the Constitution as evidence. Judges in > America today do not allow the Constitution in their police state > courts. > Robert B. Winn Are you try to lie? Any one can introduce the Constitution as evidence, but this must be done by the lawyer. And you should know that the judges have much more knowledge in the Constitution than any one else? If he refuse your lawyer's request, he must have seen the irrelevance. And you lied again that the courts are police state court.
From: hhyapster on 5 Aug 2008 22:54 On Aug 5, 9:32 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> 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, 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. > Robert B. Winn You are very very confused. Mental problem getting worse, go to the V.A. to get help fast, before coming back.
From: Ben Dolan on 5 Aug 2008 22:56 DanielSan <danielsan(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > William Jennings Bryan claimed to be an expert on the Bible. He was > > unable to answer Clarence Darrow's questions about the Bible. > > So, it didn't have anything to do with the truthfulness of the Bible > itself. It could've just as easily been the Lord of the Rings or > Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It could've easily been a frikkin' > Mickey Mouse cartoon. > > It has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the content. It had to do > with the expertise of the witness. Well, perhaps the child does not understand that Bryan was the prosecutor of the case, and Darrow the defense lawyer. So Bryan's inability to defend the Bible's truthfulness really was to expose the book for what it is, a collection of ancient fairy tales and superstitions. As Darrow put it so succinctly, "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States", a lesson that had to be relearned a few short years ago in a Pennsylvania courtroom. The Winn child, here in this newsgroup, clearly hasn't learned that lesson yet...
From: rbwinn on 5 Aug 2008 23:02
On Aug 5, 1:46�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:558164f1-39f1-48fe-9b6f-90c711472882(a)k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > >> 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 > > In any court, expert medical opinion is classed as valid evidence or proof.. > Sorry. > > -- > Steve O Well, here in the United States, defendants were supposed to have the right to defend themselves. I do not think you are sorry at all. You atheists found a way to take away all rights of United States citizens by just getting signatures from three corrupt individuals. Robert B. Winn |