Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 5 Aug 2008 10:06 On Aug 4, 10:43�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 5, 8:59 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 12:00 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > You are just upset because Josef Stalin was so obvious about atheistic > > goals, Al. > > Robert B. Winn > > No, you keep trying to make it about Stalin. �The question was about > whether I campaigned for abortions. �You keep gibbering on about > Stalin. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You just campaigned for abortion in the preceeding post. Robert B. Winn
From: Matthew Johnson on 5 Aug 2008 10:48 In article <30bd7575-0739-49cb-b64b-fb03d1cf68ac(a)e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, rbwinn says... [snip] >These equations are in any high school physics text. > > x'=3Dx-vt > y'=3Dy > z'=3Dz > t'=3Dt > > They are called the Galilean transformation equations and were used >to describe transmission of light until the Michelson-Morley >experiment proved that ether did not exist. Then Einstein and Lorentz >substituted the Lorentz equations, which require a distance >contraction and are therefore obviously wrong. But as so often, what you declare 'obvious' is not even true. No, they are not "obviously wrong". They are, rather, obviously right, since they are required by Maxwell's equations. Since then, there has also been abundant experimental verification of the "length contraction" and time dilation. You deny it in vain.
From: Ben Dolan on 5 Aug 2008 11:04 rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: > I am not so stupid as to believe that an atheist would ever do > anything but deny that Hezekiah's tunnel exists. Don't sell yourself short, child. You're plenty stupid, don't ever let anyone try to tell you that you aren't...
From: Steve O on 5 Aug 2008 16:35 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:660f9180-eecb-4f30-a0e4-f28aca604d5a(a)s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 4, 9:36�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> On Aug 4, 9:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 3, 8:38 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> >> > > rbwinn wrote: >> > > > On Aug 3, 4:18 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> > > >> rbwinn wrote: >> > > >>> On Aug 3, 8:12 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> > > >>>> rbwinn wrote: >> > > >>>>> 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. >> > > >>>> I have a Bible. There's no evidence in there to back up your >> > > >>>> claim. >> > > >>> John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of >> > > >>> the >> > > >>> week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled >> > > >>> for >> > > >>> fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith >> > > >>> unto >> > > >>> them, Peace be unto you. >> > > >>> John 21:9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire >> > > >>> of >> > > >>> coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. >> > > >>> 10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now >> > > >>> caught. >> > > >>> 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great >> > > >>> fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so >> > > >>> many, yet was not the net broken. >> > > >>> 12Jesus saith unto them Come and dine, And none of the disciples >> > > >>> durst >> > > >>> ask him , Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. >> > > >>> 13 Jesus then cometh , and taketh bread, and giveth them, and >> > > >>> fish >> > > >>> likewise. >> > > >>> 14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his >> > > >>> disciples, after that he was risen from the dead. >> > > >> No, that's not evidence. That's a claim. >> >> > > > Well, you have to understand something about rules of evidence. If >> > > > something exists, it can be entered into evidence. The Bible >> > > > exists. >> >> > > This post exists. This post says that unicorns exist. Therefore, this >> > > post can be entered into evidence and unicorns must exist. Right? >> >> > > Or is "unicorns exist" just a claim? >> >> > No, it is evidence that you are not telling the truth. >> >> > > > So what is your position, that the Bible does not exist, therefore >> > > > it >> > > > cannot be entered into evidence? >> > > > This is the same tactic you have used from the beginning concerning >> > > > Hezekiah's tunnel. >> >> > > Um, no. And you cannot prove that any atheist has ever said anything >> > > about Hezekiah's tunnel not existing, so you might as well give up >> > > that >> > > tripe. >> >> > One atheist a few years back said that Hezekiah's tunnel was a hoax >> > perpetrated by Jerusalem tour guides. >> > Robert B. Winn >> >> And none in this discussion and no citation to back up this claim. >> And yet you ascribe all atheists with the property of denying tunnel >> exists. >> Why is that? �Could it be that you're another Liar-for-jesus? >> >> Al- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > No, it is just that knowing the way atheists are, if an atheist tells > me that he believes the tunnel exists, I do not believe that atheist > is really conceding its existence, but will continue to say that the > Bible is nothing but mythology even after being shown that it is not. > Robert B. Winn You simply cannot be that stupid. Then again, you could surprise me. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Steve O on 5 Aug 2008 16:38
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:b869657a-8ad3-4d4d-9f10-5440569a3345(a)34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 4, 10:01�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >> > On Aug 4, 3:54 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:147d2d46-ff33-4aac-b29a-7e24af243840(a)k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >>> On Aug 3, 8:56 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> >>>> rbwinn wrote: >> >>>>> On Aug 3, 4:29 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>>>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 15:24:56 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >> >>>>>> wrote >> >>>>>> in alt.atheism: >> >>>>>>> On Aug 3, 8:12?am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>> I have a Bible. ?There's no evidence in there to back up your >> >>>>>>>> claim. >> >>>>>>> John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of >> >>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>> week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled >> >>>>>>> for >> >>>>>>> fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith >> >>>>>>> unto >> >>>>>>> them, Peace be unto you. >> >>>>>>> John 21:9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire >> >>>>>>> of >> >>>>>>> coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. >> >>>>>>> 10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now >> >>>>>>> caught. >> >>>>>>> 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great >> >>>>>>> fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so >> >>>>>>> many, yet was not the net broken. >> >>>>>>> 12Jesus saith unto them Come and dine, And none of the disciples >> >>>>>>> durst >> >>>>>>> ask him , Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. >> >>>>>>> 13 Jesus then cometh , and taketh bread, and giveth them, and >> >>>>>>> fish >> >>>>>>> likewise. >> >>>>>>> 14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his >> >>>>>>> disciples, after that he was risen from the dead. >> >>>>>> The Bible still is not evidence. I asked for evidence.- Hide >> >>>>>> quoted >> >>>>>> text - >> >>>>> The Bible is accepted as evidence in court. >> >>>> For what kinds of cases? >> >>> For all kinds of cases. Clarence Darrow had the Bible entered as >> >>> evidence in the monkey trial. >> >>> Robert B. Winn >> >> All kinds if cases? >> >> You mean, "one type of case"? >> >> > No, a lawyer can attempt to introduce any physical object as evidence >> > in a court case. >> >> But, will it be ACCEPTED as evidence? >> >> You keep trying these clever games with your debating tactics. �Clever, >> to you. �Lame and flimsy to everyone else. >> > Not today. A judge today in the United States will not even allow the > Constitution of the United States to be entered as evidence. > Robert B. Winn It depends on what you are trying to prove. Why were you trying to introduce the Constitution as evidence, and how could it prove or disprove anything in relation to your particular circumstabces? -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence |