Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 8 Jul 2008 21:17 On Jul 7, 7:45 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:7b8ae166-6369-43d9-9a73-74e6975c43c2(a)e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 9:42 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >> > On Jul 6, 5:06 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >> rbwinn wrote: > >> >>> On Jul 6, 11:02�am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > >> >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >> >>>>> My definition of sin was willful disobedience of God. �Bearing > >> >>>>> false > >> >>>>> witness about me would fall under the category of willful > >> >>>>> disobedience > >> >>>>> of God. > >> >>>> In that case you are totally guilty of that exact sin. > >> >>>> We have already established by your own definitions that you are a > >> >>>> sinful person (onkl Jesus is free of sin you said) , and your lack > >> >>>> of > >> >>>> charity excommnunicates you as a Christian. (you wont talk to God on > >> >>>> anyones behalf..) > >> >>>> I think you are in deep trouble, dude. > >> >>> No, I am fine. I say a little prayer every once in a while about > >> >>> atheists. > >> >> That one ever get answered? ;-)- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> > Well, I know one atheist who became a Christian. > > >> Ah nice. I was just such a man. I eventually grew out of it though. :-)- > >> Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Well, you were just an atheist working undercover. > > If you were going back to atheism, you were never really a believer. > > Robert B. Winn > > Every single atheist in this newsgroup started out as an atheist. (so did > every Christian too, for that matter) > Some of us converted to Christianity from atheism, then back again. > I have a two year old who is an atheist, he has absolutely no belief in God > whatsoever. > > -- > Steve O Well, the child is trying to be like its parent. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 8 Jul 2008 21:18 On Jul 7, 7:46�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:8cfdd6f7-1a69-475a-b259-7a71bf07fe49(a)k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Spirit could also be called intelligence. > > Robert B. Winn > > Is that why you are so mean spirited? > > -- > Steve O > a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) > B.A.A.W.A. > Convicted by Earthquack > Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence I am not mean spirited. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 8 Jul 2008 21:22 On Jul 7, 7:46�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:772d7da1-8773-470f-ba9b-3ba9ae7f84ea(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 6, 8:21 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Jul 6, 11:54 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 2:31 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 2:42 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >>> On Jul 4, 3:22 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >>>>> On Jul 3, 11:28 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> On Jul 3, 1:55 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 8:35 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 2:03 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 11:59 pm, BuddyThunder > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 1:04 pm, BuddyThunder > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 12:20 am, BuddyThunder > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 1:19?pm, Enkidu > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <fox_rgf...(a)trashmail.net> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:22183802-cf28-4305-af11- > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7d254b106...(a)d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the one being deliberately obtuse. ? The > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tunnel validates many other things said in the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bible about the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assyrian invasion of Judea. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The Hobbit" talks of ale, axes, and forests > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which we know exist. Does that > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validate Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, trolls, magic > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rings, walking trees and Tom > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bombadil? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enkidu AA#2165 ? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ULC, Modesto, CA > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw up? Like great public > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools, or health insurance for all? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? ? ?-Kurt Vonnegut > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you decide for yourself? You were the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one who thought of > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you try to defend your assertions? How > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we know we can > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trust what you say?- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter to me what you trust. You decide > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to trust. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can't provide any sensible reason to believe > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your fanciful > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims, then I guess we're done.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fanciful claims? I said that the Jews dug a tunnel as > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a conduit for > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water between Gihon spring and the pool of Siloam. Why > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is a fanciful claim? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not a fanciful claim. You and I both know that > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm referring to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your supernatural claims. Those would be the ones > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're completely > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unable to support with any evidence.- Hide quoted > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> text - > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have not made any claims to atheists except that the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jews dug a > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tunnel to be used as a conduit for water, and the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Assyrians built a > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ramp out of dirt to get over the city wall at Lachish.. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To an atheist > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> these might seem like supernatural claims because there > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> were actually > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> people working to accomplish both of these tasks instead > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of just > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> giving orders, criticism, etc., the way atheists do. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since atheists > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have been unable to visualize these two events, there is > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no reason to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proceed on to anything more complex. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Then we're in total agreement. A tunnel was dug a long > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> time ago and it > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> got mentioned in some ancient writings, providing > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> absolutlely no support > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> for any supernatural claims. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So why all the posts?- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> You do not seem to be visualizing it very well. The > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Assyrians came > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> into Judea with an army of hundreds of thousands on their > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> way home > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> after taking a big chunk of Egypt. Judea was a little dot > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> middle of the Assyrian kingdom, which extended from the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Caspian Sea to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Egypt. So why was there still a Kingdom of Judea when King > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sennacherib got back to his capitol city of Ninevah? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sennacherib > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> himself says there was on the column he had erected in > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ninevah. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Or so the story goes.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>>>> What do you mean so the story goes? The column erected by > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sennacherib > > > > >>>>>>>>> in Ninevah is still there today. He plainly says on it that > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hezekiah > > > > >>>>>>>>> paid tribute to him, and he was such a nice guy that he just > > > > >>>>>>>>> went home > > > > >>>>>>>>> after he got the money. > > > > >>>>>>>> Great. Sennacherib went home and left Jerusalem unsacked. > > > > >>>>>>>> That doesn't > > > > >>>>>>>> mean that it was due to the angel of the lord slaughtering > > > > >>>>>>>> 185,000 > > > > >>>>>>>> troops in a night. > > > > >>>>>>>> Why do you favour the oddly magical Biblical account over > > > > >>>>>>>> Sennacherib's?- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>> 186,000 troops. Chaldean historians of the same time said that > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>> Assyrian army died of plague while besieging Jerusalem, and > > > > >>>>>>> Sennacherib fled in great fear back to his own city of > > > > >>>>>>> Ninevah. > > > > >>>>>>> Sennacherib made no mention of losing his army on the column > > > > >>>>>>> he > > > > >>>>>>> erected. He seems to have pretended to his fellow Assyrians > > > > >>>>>>> that the > > > > >>>>>>> army was still somewhere doing something, but his own two sons > > > > >>>>>>> murdered him, probably because they were upset about him > > > > >>>>>>> losing the > > > > >>>>>>> army. > > > > >>>>>> So where are God's footprints in all of this? Arguments for > > > > >>>>>> both sides > > > > >>>>>> can be made without invoking magic.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >>>>> Well, from a military standpoint, the Jews had no chance > > > > >>>>> whatsoever > > > > >>>>> against the Assyrians. But when it was all over, it was the > > > > >>>>> Assyrian > > > > >>>>> king who lost everything, including his own life. So I would > > > > >>>>> say, let > > > > >>>>> atheists of today explain it their way, and let Christians > > > > >>>>> explain it > > > > >>>>> their way. The Jews explained it by saying that an angel of the > > > > >>>>> Lord > > > > >>>>> killed 186,000 Assyrian troops. That is a matter of record. It > > > > >>>>> is > > > > >>>>> recorded in three different books of the Old Testament. > > > > >>>> The Old Testament isn't particularly compelling evidence, it > > > > >>>> suggests > > > > >>>> that there was a global flood and special creation over the > > > > >>>> course of > > > > >>>> six days. It might be a "matter of record" on some things, but it > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>> definitely not on others.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >>> Well, I am sure the Jews feel bad that you do not like the Old > > > > >>> Testament, but it says what it says. It says in three different > > > > >>> books that an angel of the Lord went through the camp of the > > > > >>> Assyrians > > > > >>> and slew 186,000 soldiers. > > > > >> It also says that the universe was created a handful of thousands > > > > >> of > > > > >> years ago. The Bible is not reliable.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Well, as I said before, you atheists believe in relativity of time > > > > > unless you are talking about the earth. Then you insist on absolute > > > > > time. > > > > > Instead you make some ridiculous claims about the relativity of time > > > > completely without evidential basis, or... any rational support at > > > > all. > > > > The Earth is older than 6500 thousand years old. Much older. I'll go > > > > with the many independent lines of verification on that one.- Hide > > > > quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Well, that is fine, but why is relativity of time something that > > > exists except when talking about the earth? > > > Robert B. Winn > > > It's not. All time is relative to a frame of reference, but the > > effects of time dilation are very well understood and calculable. > > Meaning we can correct for dilation due to the earth's movement, if we > > wanted partial second accuracy. To have significant effects on time, > > like you are inferring, objects need to move at speeds close to the > > speed of light relative to each other. > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The planet Mercury was the first thing used as a proof of the theorry > of relativity, and its velocity is 30 miles per second. �At the > velocity of the planet Mercury, my own equations agree with the > Lorentz equations to about six decimal places.The Galilean > transformation equations with absolute time agree to just one or two. > � � � �Where the Lorentz equations fall apart is their need for a > distance contraction, which then causes the moving object to disappear > at the speed of light. > ---------------------------------------- > Duh! An object moving away from us at the speed of light would emit light > towards us at zero speed (+C -C = 0) > So it would *appear* to be invisible...disappeared...not there. We wouldn't > be able to see it. > I'm no physicist, but this seems obvious to me. > > Smiler, Well, that is why you are not a physicist. According to scientists, Light emitted by any source of light travels toward the point where it is observed at 186,000 miles per second, regardless of the velocity of the source of light.
From: Smiler on 8 Jul 2008 21:24 "Enkidu" <fox_rgfszx(a)trashmail.net> wrote in message news:Xns9AD5712078748255229(a)130.133.1.4... > "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote in news:pklck5-ofd.ln1(a)75-104- > 203-5.cust.wildblue.net: > >> But no matter how big a fraction of c you're moving away from me, any >> light you emit in my direction is traveling at c. Even we're both > moving >> away from each other at a healthy fraction of c, the light we emit is >> going to be moving at c when we (or anybody else) measures it. > > Think about it in a different way, say throwing mables off a train at > pedestrians. If the train has a velicity of 10 m/s, and you can throw the > .01 kg marbles at 5 m/s, the marbles would hit pedestrians ahead of the > train with a kinetic energy of 1.125 kgm^2/s^2. Marbles thrown at > pedestrians behind the train would have a kinetic energy of > 0.125 kgm^2/s^2. I'm not certain of this, but if you throw the marble forwards (wrt the direction of the train) it's initial velocity (wrt the ground) will be +10 + 5 m/s =15 m/s forwards. If you throw the marble backwards (wrt the direction of the train) it's initial velocity (wrt the ground) will be +10 - 5 m/s =5 m/s forwards. Therefore no marble could ever hit a pedestrian who was *behind* the train at the moment you threw it (ignoring ricochet, etc.), given those parameters. To hit a pedestrian behind the train wouldn't you have to throw the marble (backwards) with a velocity greater than the train's forward speed. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Enkidu on 8 Jul 2008 21:30
"Smiler" <Smiler(a)Joe.King.com> wrote in news:erUck.5$xs1.2(a)newsfe28.ams2: > > "Enkidu" <fox_rgfszx(a)trashmail.net> wrote in message > news:Xns9AD5712078748255229(a)130.133.1.4... >> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote in >> news:pklck5-ofd.ln1(a)75-104- 203-5.cust.wildblue.net: >> >>> But no matter how big a fraction of c you're moving away from me, >>> any light you emit in my direction is traveling at c. Even we're >>> both >> moving >>> away from each other at a healthy fraction of c, the light we emit >>> is going to be moving at c when we (or anybody else) measures it. >> >> Think about it in a different way, say throwing mables off a train at >> pedestrians. If the train has a velicity of 10 m/s, and you can throw >> the .01 kg marbles at 5 m/s, the marbles would hit pedestrians ahead >> of the train with a kinetic energy of 1.125 kgm^2/s^2. Marbles thrown >> at pedestrians behind the train would have a kinetic energy of >> 0.125 kgm^2/s^2. > > I'm not certain of this, but if you throw the marble forwards (wrt the > direction of the train) it's initial velocity (wrt the ground) will be > +10 + 5 m/s =15 m/s forwards. If you throw the marble backwards (wrt > the direction of the train) it's initial velocity (wrt the ground) > will be +10 - 5 m/s =5 m/s forwards. Therefore no marble could ever > hit a pedestrian who was *behind* the train at the moment you threw it > (ignoring ricochet, etc.), given those parameters. To hit a pedestrian > behind the train wouldn't you have to throw the marble (backwards) > with a velocity greater than the train's forward speed. Sure you can. The marble hits him from behind! You are correct, I shoud have picked other numbers. But you get the idea, right? -- Enkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." --Randall Terry, August 16, 1993 |