Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 9 Jul 2008 20:33 On Jul 8, 9:39�am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > > Well, as the scientists of Galileo's day said, the safe way to go is > > to say that the sun orbits the earth because that is what the majority > > of scientists say. � I can certainly forgive you for believing that. > > Robert B. Winn > > No, the church said that. Also, they knew better. They were just trying > to save face because they had long since realized they were wrong. No, most scientists of that time went with Ptolemaic astronomy. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 9 Jul 2008 20:34 On Jul 8, 9:40 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 7, 3:37�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >>news:db983fc6-d541-4907-ba1e-103490e27a51(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com.... > > >>> It cannot be done. �I talk to scientists in sci.physics.relativity. > >>> That is all I am ever going to do. > >>> Robert B. Winn > >> I have a sneaking suspicion that they never talk to you. > >> Rather like your relationship with God. > > >> -- > >> Steve O > > > At one time when I was making mistakes, about half of the posts in > > sci.physics.relativity were directed to me.   Since I arrived at > > equations that hold together, scientists do not post to me. > > <snicker> > > I don't think you get why nobody over there posts to you anymore...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - They are waiting for someone like you who can snicker the way you do. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 9 Jul 2008 20:35 On Jul 8, 9:41�am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > > The planet Mercury was the first thing used as a proof of the theorry > > of relativity, and its velocity is 30 miles per second. > > Oh, wow, you are ignorance personified. > > > 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. > > You don't have a clue what the issue with Mercury's orbit was huh? > > > � � � �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. > > That doesn't even make sense. No, it does not make sense, but that is modern science for you. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 9 Jul 2008 20:58 On Jul 8, 11:06�am, Enkidu <fox_rgf...(a)trashmail.net> wrote: > "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote innews: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. > > Light works pretty much the same way, except the difference in energy > between photons emmitted forwards and backwards is not due to differing > velocities of the photons when they hit the pedestrians, but their > differing wavelengths when they hit. Welcome to the Dopler effect. > > -- > Enkidu AA#2165 � > EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, > ULC, Modesto, CA > > "All Bibles are man-made." > � � �Thomas Edison (1847-1931) Enkidu, That is the exact thing I have been working on. So far you anti-religion atheists seem to grasp this problem better than the scientific atheists. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 9 Jul 2008 21:06
On Jul 8, 1:20�pm, James Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > Well, all you are doing is saying that God is guilty of > > murder every time a natural death occurs. �I do not > > think you will get far with that idea. > > I have trouble thinking about "natural deaths" in connection > with God. For humans, calling a death "natural" means no one > did anything to bring it about. But doesn't Gospel assure us > : Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of > : them will fall to the ground apart from the will of > : your Father. [Matthew 10:29] > Insurance companies would probably call a natural death > an "act of God". What might a death that was NOT God's > will be like? > > Maybe you could clarify what you mean by "natural death" > in the context of God's activity in the world, whatever > that activity may be. > > First, what would you count as a life saved by God? > Spin some scenarios. It doesn't matter (for once) about > evidence that any of these scenarios has ever occurred. > I'm just asking for your opinion. > > What would you count as definitely a God-caused death? > Almost as important: what would you count as a death that > was definitely NOT God-caused? Some possibilities: > Drowning in Noah's flood? Drowning in any other flood? > A lightning strike? A lightning strike from an empty sky? > Cancer that did not receive a prayed-for miraculous remission? > Execution by church members doing God's will? > > Assuming that you choose to clarify what you are trying to > say, thanks in advance. > > Jim Burns Well, according to the Bible, natural events are controlled by humans on the earth. If the people obey God's commandments, they prosper in the land, the elements are tempered in their favor, and their lives are safe an protected by heaven. This does not happen very often. We know that in the last days, wickedness on earth will be greater than at any other time in the history of earth. So we cannot expect favorable conditions. The choice to have things this way was not God's. It was made by men who reject God. If the people in Noah's day had listened to Noah, there would have been no flood. So how do you figure it was God's faullt? Robert B. Winn |