Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 2 Aug 2008 09:39 On Aug 1, 7:34�pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On 1 Aug 2008 14:03:57 -0700, Matthew Johnson > > <matthew_mem...(a)newsguy.org> wrote: > >In article <kir6949o6ultktihc9isa7vimf11k3h...(a)4ax.com>, Stan-O says... > > >[snip] > > >>Don't try to figure it out. Robert's brain is one non-sequitor after > >>another... > > >Your own posts meet that description, too. After all: you are completely off > >topic for sci.physics, cam.misc and alt.sci.physics. You are on topic only for > >alt.atheism. > > If so, that makes you a fake because you are doing exactly the same > thing. > > >And the term is "non sequitur", not "non sequitor"! If you can't spell Latin, > >stop trying to impress the masses with Latin phrases you don't understand > >yourself. It doesn't work! > > So, shoot me because I didn't hit the spell check when using the Latin > phrase for an illogical statement or progression of statements...(Even > if I have fat fingers, I still know what it means, so nya nya!) > > >And why are you cross posting to so many groups? Even if Robert posts to > >sci.physics, you don't have to answer him here, you can refer him to your answer > >in alt.atheism. > > I make you a deal...I'll KF him if you will... Maybe Matthew wants to discuss Einstein's theory of relativity with me. Here are the equations x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t w=velocity of light x=wt x'=wn' x'=x-vt wn'=wt-vt n'=t(1-v/w) w= x/t = x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vt/w) = (x-vt)/(t-vx/w^2) = (x- vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma = x'Lorentz/t'Lorentz Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 2 Aug 2008 09:41 On Aug 1, 7:35�pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:33:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > >> In Canada, that is considered hate speech. It doesn't matter if you > >> live in another country. You posted this to an international news > >> group and you'll be hearing from our lawyers and psychiatrists...- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > >Yes, Canadians are such civilized people. � I don't think I would want > >to ride a Greyhound bus there, though. > > That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but coming from you, it > isn't surprising... Two days ago a passenger on a Greyhound bus in Canada stabbed and decapitated another passenger. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 2 Aug 2008 09:44 On Aug 1, 7:51�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 1, 7:34 am, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > >> rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > >>> What makes a book fiction or non-fiction is the intent of the author or > >>> authors. A fiction book is an account of imaginary events. > >> Exactly so, and THAT is why the Bible is fiction. I'm glad you > >> understand that, you may be making progress. > > > The proclamation of an atheist has no real power. �It does not change > > reality. > > And the proclamation of a religious nutter such as yourself has even > less power. �It doesn't even acknowledge reality. > So why was I the one who acknowledged that Hezekiah's tunnel exists while atheists tried to claim that tour guides in Jerusalem were taking tourists through solid rock? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 2 Aug 2008 09:46 On Aug 1, 7:53�pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...(a)newsguy.org> wrote: > In article <e1543692-d292-4ac9-a5a5-d14b6b49f...(a)f36g2000hsa.googlegroups..com>, > rbwinn says... > > > > >On Aug 1, 7:34=EF=BF=BDam, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > >> rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > >> > What makes a book fiction or non-fiction is the intent of the author or > >> > authors. =EF=BF=BDA fiction book is an account of imaginary events. > > >> Exactly so, and THAT is why the Bible is fiction. I'm glad you > >> understand that, you may be making progress. > > >The proclamation of an atheist has no real power. �It does not change > >reality. > >Robert B. Winn > > Newsflash: your proclamations have no real power either: except to annoy people. Well, we could always discuss Einstein's theory of relativity, Matthew. As long as scientists do not want to discuss what is on topic in this newsgroup, I do not see why they should complain about what is discussed. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 2 Aug 2008 09:52
On Aug 1, 8:11�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn 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. > > When alt.atheism is in your headers, you ARE going there. �I don't care > about talking to you or not. �If you care about not talking to atheists, > however, you're going to have to snip alt.atheism from your headers. > > Otherwise, we're going to keep attacking your very tenuous grasp on reality. > > If that's the course you wish to take, by all means, keep alt.atheism in > your headers. I don't care about not talking to atheists. It does not bother me to talk to atheists any more than anyone else. Atheists are the ones complaining about it. Robert B. Winn |