Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: hhyapster on 4 Aug 2008 02:17 On Aug 3, 12:37 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 18:43:56 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > in alt.atheism: > > >On Aug 2, 1:17?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > ... > > >> You presume to speak for God? > > >I absolutely do. > > Anyone can say anything and claim that he is speaking for God and God > _never_ contradicts the speaker. It's almost as if God does not exist or > just doesn't care. Anyway, I have no respect for your teachings or your > hubris. Free Lunch, Of course rbwinn and all other x'tians know that their "god" did not exist. Therefore, they dare to speak on its behalf, and definitely get away with it.
From: hhyapster on 4 Aug 2008 02:28 On Aug 3, 2:21 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 9:38 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:14:24 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > > in alt.atheism: > > > >On Aug 1, 3:35?pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...(a)newsguy.org> wrote: > > >> In article <e41a1737-acad-4cdc-ae31-4f6523f32...(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > >> rbwinn says... > > > >> >So what exactly is it > > >> >that you are trying to do? > > >> >Robert B. Winn > > > >> I could ask you the same question, Robert. All you are doing is rattling cages. > > >> You aren't actually accomplishing anything else. > > > >> Worse yet, you are still crossposting. You posted this to all of the following > > >> groups, whether you know it or not: > > >> sci.physics,cam.misc,alt.sci.physics,alt.atheism. > > > >> Crossposting is always irritating, so it is almost never the right thing to do. > > >> It certainly isn't right here. Pick one group and stick with it. Pick one where > > >> it is on topic. > > > >> Finally, make sure you know how to use your news client. Do you know how to coax > > >> it to display all the groups it is about to post to? Do you know how to turn OFF > > >> crossposting? > > > >Well, scientists were all done talking to me about the theory of > > >relativity two years ago when I finally figured out how the Galilean > > >transformation equations describe relativity of time If any > > >scientists decide they want to talk to me, I would certainly rather > > >talk to them than these atheists. > > > You already demonstrated to us how confused you are in that area. > > Please, don't bring it up again. Didn't you learn anything from those > > who critiqued your 'work'?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > 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'/n' = (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 What are these nonsense? If you want to put forward any formula, be very clear about every step and what do they mean. There is no head and no tail to the above, and certainly nothing in between. Do you see any physicist respond to you?
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 4 Aug 2008 03:00 On Aug 4, 1:05 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 8:54 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 23:40:30 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > > in alt.atheism: > > > >On Aug 1, 8:29?am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > >> > On Jul 31, 8:56 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > >> >> rbwinn wrote: > > > >> >>>>>> Why don't we just wait for him before judging them then? > > >> >>>>>> I happen to think that if anyone needs judging it is the liars and > > >> >>>>>> hypocrites. But you don't see me campaigning to remove their human > > >> >>>>>> rights. > > >> >>>>> Well, yes, I do. Like other atheists you campaign for abortion, > > >> >>>>> which removes the right to live of the people who are killed. > > >> >>>>> Robert B. Winn > > >> >>>> Please show me evidence that I've campaigned for abortion. Because > > >> >>>> that's a flat out lie. And is that your best effort at demonising > > >> >>>> atheists? > > >> >>>> Al- Hide quoted text - > > >> >>>> - Show quoted text - > > >> >>> Atheists have caused more abortions than any other group of people. > > >> >> So, you can't show evidence where atheists (like Al) have campaigned for > > >> >> abortion. You have lied. > > > >> >> -- > > > >> > Josef Stalin was an atheist like Al. ?While Josef Stalin was dictator > > >> > of the Soviet Union, the number of abortions in Russia increased to > > >> > about five per woman. > > >> > In the People's Republic of China, women who have had one child are > > >> > required by the state to abort any children conceived after the first > > >> > child is born. > > > >> So, you have lied. > > > >No, I did not lie. > > > You lie to us all the time. This was one such example.- Hide quoted text - > > So you are claiming that abortions in Russia did not increase while > Josef Stalin was dictator of that country. > Robert B. Winn Lies followed by misrepresenting what others say. I'm assuming a human who can still breathe can't be THAT stupid, so I assume you lie with malice. Al
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 4 Aug 2008 03:05 On Aug 4, 9:02 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 9:09 am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:04:16 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > > in alt.atheism: > > > >On Aug 2, 8:53?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:08:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > > >> in alt.atheism: > > > >> >On Aug 1, 2:30?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > >> >> rbwinn wrote: > > > >> ... > > > >> >> > Discuss it with John after the resurrection. > > > >> >> No proof of this alleged "resurrection", is there? > > > >> >Well, actually there is. ?The apostles were witnesses of the > > >> >resurrected Christ on two separate occasions. > > > >> No evidence backs up your claim. > > > >Well, I could send you a copy of the Bible if you want one. > > > We've been over this you mindless fool. The Bible is not evidence in any > > way, shape or manner. I have read the Bible from cover to cover. Your > > claims just don't hold water.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > It helps to comprehend what you read if you read something. > Robert B. Winn whoopsie! There goes another irony meter. Al
From: hhyapster on 4 Aug 2008 03:10
On Aug 4, 2:56 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 11:32:47 -0700, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) > wrote: > > > > >DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > >>>>>> So, you were a killer, helping with a tool that was used to > >>>>>> destroy people. > > >>>>> Well, no, it was used to save the lives of pilots. ?A lot of them > >>>>> would have died if I had not been keeping the radar working. > > >>>> Pilots who ended up on bombing raids? > > >>> Pilots who were bombing North Vietnam every day. > > >> So, you admit to helping destroyers of human life. > > >"I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning..." > > >So indeed he is, by his own admission, a murderer of innocent women and > >children. I don't know why he wastes his time on the Jesus bullshit > >because it's clear he's going to hell when he dies. There's no other > >fate for people like him. > > Ben, what do you do for a living or as a hobby? Are you certain that > no spin-off effects from anything you've ever done have resulted in > some person being killed or injured? > > Are those who assemble, sell or service automobiles also murderers? > Automobile accidents do kill people, regularly. > > When I was a kid, a neighbor left a gate open and his saddle horse > wandered out into a nearby road. A fellow driving a convertible came > along late that night and slammed into the horse, killing the horse > and the driver. Did this make my neighbor a murderer? > > Gordon Wait, you are wrong here. Automobiles can kill people, of course by accident and with no intention. But a radar is specifically used for guiding the plane which is designed to drop bombs. You are twisting the two together. Your story also is flawed. Your neighbor was negligent that led to horse and driver got killed. He might not be the direct murderer, but he was certainly responsible and would have been sued. In some country, a negligent act can be criminal. If you don't buy this argument, what about if you are the driver? |