Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Smiler on 18 Aug 2008 21:53 Steve O wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message > news:ba94ba27-bb69-447d-8bc9-143705f4a605(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> On Aug 18, 11:56?am, "Dan Drake" <d...(a)dandrake.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:11:24 UTC, 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, as long as we're going to go all Americocentric and talk about >>> American law -- as somebody was a couple of postings above, >>> apparently somebody called rbwinn if I count the arrows properly -- >>> one needs to point out that the basic law of the United States of >>> America takes an entirely different view. In two separate places it >>> specifies that an official must swear an oath of office -- or >>> *affirm* the same text. Affirming is what you do when you refuse to >>> swear an oath, you know. It's legally binding, just as much as if >>> you decided to defy the words of Jesus >>> Christ by swearing in the name of God Almighty. (You have read the >>> Sermon on the Mount, I presume?) >>> >>> An affirmation was good enough for Madison, Hamilton, Washington, >>> and all those guys. Not to mention Franklin, who didn't even hate >>> Muslims! But that's what you get when you let a bunch of >>> 18th-century Enlightenment gentlemen overthrow the King and >>> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles >>> and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most >>> likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Sorry, I had a brief fit >>> of patriotism there. Always happens when I >>> think >>> of that document.) >>> >>> Good thing we managed to fix all that and make it a religiously >>> based country once those guys were safely dead. >>> >>> -- >> Well, technically all countries are religiously based countries. The >> earth on which all of these countries exist was created by God. >> Robert B. Winn > > Well, yes, but if man created the channel tunnel, there can be no God. > So, you must be saying that Jesus travelled through the tunnel, which > very clearly could not happen, therefore Jesus cannot exist either. Not unless he walked through solid rock :-) Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Smiler on 18 Aug 2008 21:59 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 17, 10:35?pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> On Aug 18, 1:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 17, 7:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:50:41 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >>>>> On Aug 17, 5:10?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:40:17 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn >>>>>> <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >>>> ... >> >>>>>>> The Bible consists of two testaments, both testifying of Jesus >>>>>>> Christ. Robert B. Winn >> >>>>>> There is no evidence at all that would be allowed in court or >>>>>> accepted >>>>>> by scientists that shows that Jesus existed as described. >> >>>>>> You want us to accept the Bible even though it cannot be >>>>>> confirmed and >>>>>> is riddled with errors because you have already been misled >>>>>> about it.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>> I want you to accept that the Bible exists and is not a >>>>> hallucination. Any court would accept the Bible as evidence on >>>>> that basis. No judge is going to say, The Bible is inadmissable >>>>> because it is only a hallucination. >>>>> A judge who said that would not last long as a judge. There is >>>>> evidence going back all the way to Johannes Gutenburg. >> >>>> Evidence for what? You still haven't acknowledged that it is >>>> utterly dishonest to claim that the Bible is historically or >>>> scientifically correct. Only the morally corrupt say this.- Hide >>>> quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> The Bible is historically and scientifically correct as far as it is >>> translated correctly. >>> Robert B. Winn >> >> So, is rabbit translated correctly? ?Is "chew the cud" translated >> correctly? >> >> Al- Hide quoted text - >> > I would suspect not. However, I would not personally consider that > particular scripture very significant or essential in any way to > salvation. The reason why it seems to mean so much to atheists is > that it is a scripture that they can remember. Nope. It is a scripture, amongst many others, that is demonstrably and patently wrong. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Yap on 18 Aug 2008 22:16 Now, real nonsense again? How could your god created people who did not believe in him? And Buddhists will tell you to fly kite, instead of making garbage statement. rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 18, 5:59�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > > news:3e888bd6-08cb-40c4-a20b-69b645286751(a)m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.... > > > > Sorry, but good cannot exist without God. > > > > ========== > > > > In other words, those who do not believe cannot be good > > persons doing good things. �So an atheist donating his > > organs or volunteering in the soup kitchen is not, in fact, > > doing good, and there is no such thing as a good Buddhist > > Samaritan. �Do I have this right? > > You would have to ask God about it. He was the one who created > atheists and Bhuddists. > Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 18 Aug 2008 22:45 On Aug 18, 6:43�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > rbwinn 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. > > So in your court system of atheistic evidence, only athests and > > scientists are allowed to testify. > > Nope. > > > That may adhere to European rules of evidence, but here in the United > > States, a person may testify anything in court. > > Anything that is pertinent to the case, yes. And may also, not be believed. > > �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. > > A 'christian' liar like you, no doubt. > > > The opposite is often true. �A > > witness is often allowed to testify about religious beliefs to show > > that their testimony is reliable. > > And he won't be believed by a sensible jury. > Somethines there are Christians on juries. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 18 Aug 2008 22:51
On Aug 18, 6:53�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > Steve O wrote: > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >news:ba94ba27-bb69-447d-8bc9-143705f4a605(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.... > >> On Aug 18, 11:56?am, "Dan Drake" <d...(a)dandrake.com> wrote: > >>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:11:24 UTC, 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, as long as we're going to go all Americocentric and talk about > >>> American law -- as somebody was a couple of postings above, > >>> apparently somebody called rbwinn if I count the arrows properly -- > >>> one needs to point out that the basic law of the United States of > >>> America takes an entirely different view. In two separate places it > >>> specifies that an official must swear an oath of office -- or > >>> *affirm* the same text. Affirming is what you do when you refuse to > >>> swear an oath, you know. It's legally binding, just as much as if > >>> you decided to defy the words of Jesus > >>> Christ by swearing in the name of God Almighty. (You have read the > >>> Sermon on the Mount, I presume?) > > >>> An affirmation was good enough for Madison, Hamilton, Washington, > >>> and all those guys. Not to mention Franklin, who didn't even hate > >>> Muslims! But that's what you get when you let a bunch of > >>> 18th-century Enlightenment gentlemen overthrow the King and > >>> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles > >>> and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most > >>> likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Sorry, I had a brief fit > >>> of patriotism there. Always happens when I > >>> think > >>> of that document.) > > >>> Good thing we managed to fix all that and make it a religiously > >>> based country once those guys were safely dead. > > >>> -- > >> Well, technically all countries are religiously based countries. �The > >> earth on which all of these countries exist was created by God. > >> Robert B. Winn > > > Well, yes, but if man created the channel tunnel, there can be no God. > > So, you must be saying that Jesus travelled through the tunnel, which > > very clearly could not happen, therefore Jesus cannot exist either. > > Not unless he walked through solid rock :-) > So atheists believe that the paparazzi were chasing Princess Diana through solid rock? Robert B. Winn |