Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 6 Aug 2008 23:29 On 6 Aug, 17:15, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 6, 11:58 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 6, 1:50 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Aug 6, 4:29 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 5, 7:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 5, 6:50 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > So you are saying that the Bible is like Hezekiah's tunnel, it does > > > > > > not exist. > > > > > > Um. No. > > > > > If the Bible exists, then it is evidence. So does it exist or not? > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > Yes, several of them exist. Several Harry Potter books exist too. > > > What was your point here anyway? > > > If you want to talk about Harry Potter books, we can talk about Harry > > Potter books, Al. �Do you believe that Harry Potter is going to save > > you? > > Robert B. Winn > > No. �What makes you think I need saving? > I think the H Potter books draw heavily on pre-existing fairy tales to > create a mythology that feels vaguely right. �Much like the bible drew > on pre-existing mythology to create it's own. �A clear sign of fiction > is that it is derivative of prior fictions. > Well, so you feel comforted and secure when you read Harry Potter books. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 6 Aug 2008 23:35 On 6 Aug, 17:38, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 6, 3:25 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Aug 5, 7:29 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > >>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >>>> On Aug 6, 12:05 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > >>>>> 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 > >>>> No. I'm pro letting women make their own minds up. If asked, I would > >>>> warn against it. But I'm not arrogant enough to tell women what to > >>>> do. > >>>> Just because you think the state should control women's bodies does > >>>> not mean that my position that I (and the state) should have no say in > >>>> it, is in any way pro-abortion. > >>>> So you're pro-death then? > >>>> Al- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> Pro-life. > >> I think you're pro-death. > > > You are certainly welcome to your own opinion. > > Yep. �But it's also a fact that you're pro-death. > Everyone dies. That does not make me pro-death. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 6 Aug 2008 23:39 On 6 Aug, 17:45, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 6, 3:32 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Aug 5, 7:34 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 5, 6:42 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>> Does the Bible say that King's Cross Station exists? > >>>> No, because, when the Bible was written, the station was not built yet. > >>>> When the Bible was written, it didn't even REFERENCE the entire > >>>> country that would later be known as England. > >>> Well, then you cannot prove the Bible wrong by using King's Cross > >>> Station. You would have to use something in the Bible. > >> Well, then you cannot prove the Bible right by using Hezekiah's Tunnel.. > >> You would have to use something else in Bible. > > >> (Oh, by the way, there was no world-wide flood.) > > > The verses describing the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel were > > certainly proven true. � > > And irrelevant. > > > Were there some other verses you were > > interested in? > > Acts 5. �Luke talks about Gamaliel's speech. �Gamaliel's speech was > given sometime between 35-40 CE. �Luke refers to the revolt of > Theudas...in the past tense...even though the revolt wouldn't happen for > � at least another 6 years (between 46-47 CE). �Furthermore, Gamaliel is > claimed to have said that "Judas the Galilean" raised the revolt of > Theudas...even though Judas' revolt was FORTY YEARS BEFORE the Theudas > revolt. > > Can you explain? > > Also, did God create animals in Eden first...or man? > I guess you have never read Josephus. About every other person was named Theudus, Judas, or Jesus, or John. I have no idea what persons Gamaliel was talking about in his speech, and neither do you. The Bible says that animals were created first and then Adam was created. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 6 Aug 2008 23:41 On 6 Aug, 17:46, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 6, 3:33 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Aug 5, 7:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 5, 6:45 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>>>> 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? > >>>>> Go ahead and try. Show where one of these police state judges has > >>>>> allowed the Constitution in police state court. > >>>> So glad for your permission. > >>>> United States v. Donald Fell > >>>> Case summary: Is the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 unconstitutional > >>>> as per the 8th Amendment?http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/usfell92402opn.pdf > >>> This defendant was obviously given a trial by jury. This case does > >>> not apply. > >> This case most certainly applies. You asked for a case wherein the > >> Constitution was used as evidence. The Constitution was used as > >> evidence in this case. > > > If there was a jury, then police state justice was not imposed on the > > defendant. �You need to find another case. > > Sorry, bub. �You moved the goalposts. �I won't play your games. �You lose. > I said police state court. A police state court has only a judge who denies the right to trial by jury. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 6 Aug 2008 23:43
On 6 Aug, 17:46, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 6, 3:33 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Aug 5, 7:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 5, 6:50 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>>> -- > >>>>> So you are saying that the Bible is like Hezekiah's tunnel, it does > >>>>> not exist. > >>>> Um. No. > >>> If the Bible exists, then it is evidence. So does it exist or not? > >> It exists, but is not evidence. > > > If it is not evidence, then in what way does it exist? > > As a fiction book. > OK, so what things exist besides fiction books that you claim are not evidence? Robert B. Winn |