Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Alex W. on 18 Aug 2008 09:00 "Steve O" <nospamhere(a)thanks.com> wrote in message news:6gsn1nFh7jjiU1(a)mid.individual.net... > From now on, matey, I'll be playing you at your own game. > You're getting a lobotomy?
From: Alex W. on 18 Aug 2008 09:05 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:5c0838b0-234a-413f-b0ca-b87bc4b011c5(a)e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... How does evil exist without an evil spirit from which it originates? ============== Human nature. We do not need supernatural entities to teach us. We are, by our very nature, equally capable of the greatest of noble deeds as the most depraved of evil.
From: rbwinn on 18 Aug 2008 09:38 On Aug 17, 11:18�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 18, 4:11 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 17, 10:41 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Aug 18, 2:12 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 17, 8:24 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:22:07 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > > > wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > > > >On Aug 17, 7:47?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:40:26 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno..com> > > > > > >> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > >> >You do not seem to realize that I am not a Catholic. ?Augustine was an > > > > > >> >uninspired Catholic Church leader. > > > > > > >> I know that you adhere to a modern heresy. Your dismissal of Augustine > > > > > >> reflects your intentional ignorance of history.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > >Augustine is not going to save onyone, no matter how much atheists > > > > > >like what he said. > > > > > > No one is going to save anyone. Saving is a doctrine that is completely > > > > > without any evidence to show that it's true. > > > > > Well, prophets and apostles have testified otherwise. What you are > > > > saying is that the words of prophets and apostles cannot be accepted > > > > as evidence. > > > > Well, yes. All testimony is heresay, until backed up with physical > > > evidence. AND, these prophets and apostles are "interested parties", > > > meaning they can't be trusted. > > > > > So in your court system of atheistic evidence, only athests and > > > > scientists are allowed to testify. > > > > No, physical evidence that can be verified by independant sources is > > > trustworthy, and disinterested heresay is mildly convincing when > > > supported by other similar disinterested heresay. > > > > > That may adhere to European rules of evidence, but here in the United > > > > States, a person may testify anything in court. For example, a > > > > witness in a murder trial was allowed to testify about certain > > > > religious beliefs because the prosecution was trying to show that the > > > > witness was not a credible witness. The opposite is often true. A > > > > witness is often allowed to testify about religious beliefs to show > > > > that their testimony is reliable. > > > > Which would be a gross missinterpretation of "swearing on" religious > > > texts. That system is merely a system for imparting a seriousness > > > into the idea of being truthful during the proceedings. The godless > > > equivalent is more honest and truthful. > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > Well, atheists have no incentive to tell the truth. �It is not a sin > > for an atheist to lie according to atheists. �With atheists, it is > > just whatever what works in achieving the atheistic agenda. � A lie is > > just as good as truth to an atheist if it appears to work. > > Robert B. Winn > > Well, atheists are very honest in their motivations. �We acknowledge a > thing called society, which we prefer not to offend, as it tends to do > things to people who annoy it. > Whereas christians just do things wrong and "ask for forgiveness". > > Al- Hide quoted text - Well, now there is an unaccustomed display of honesty. Atheists do whatever the majority are doing, whether it is right or wrong. But their justification is that "everyone was doing it". The Christian position is that sin cannot be justified that way. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 18 Aug 2008 09:42 On Aug 17, 11:31�pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hey, old man winn, > Can you just speak for yourself? > For you, you cannot be good person without a god. This shows that you > have no conscious or barbaric in character, or have brain without > cells. You are un-human. > We, on the other hand, will act lawfully, help others, work on science > to benefit others, and persuade others to see your loony attitude, > without the existence of a god. > There is a gulf of difference between you and us. > You won't do anything without the existence of God. And the only reason why you do anything purported to be good is to compete with people who do believe in God and to prove to yourselves that you are better than they are. That is why sinners are such an asset in your society. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 18 Aug 2008 10:01
On Aug 18, 12:41�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:0d5b6148-cf70-4500-ae12-c17f2dcbe1ea(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> You seem to have a problem with understanding... words > >> ...simple ones. > >> Why is that? > > > You were the one claiming that a living person did not have a soul. > > Why do you suppose one person is breathing, and one is not breathing? > > Robert B. Winn > > So, you must think that only dead people can breathe, right? > As that is clearly not the case, it is evidence that the scriptures are > incorrect. > This is further evidence for this in Genesis. > A west facing garden is usually warmer. > Well, clearly you want to change the subject. I can certainly understand why your soul would yearn to change the subject. Robert B. Winn |