Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 5 Aug 2008 22:13 On Aug 5, 11:35 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 9:55 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Aug 4, 10:14 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 3, 9:35 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Aug 2, 4:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > Yes you did. You said I campaigned for abortion. When asked about > > > > it, you said Stalin and Mao created societies with a higher incidence > > > > of abortion (with no cites), and suggested that this means I campaign > > > > for abortions. Your thinking is disjointed and unconnected to itself. > > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > > Well, I am certainly sorry, Al. All you have to do to clear up the > > > confusion is to say you are in favor of right to life. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > I am in favour of a right to life. But I feel you will misrepresent > > everything I say, as you have previously. > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > Oh, well then you weould not object if a mother in China was allowed > to have a second child instead of being required to abort it by the > government. > Robert B. Winn No. And I think you'll find the Chinese government doesn't either. It just refuses to pay for the upkeep of more than the first child. It does not enforce abortions. Yes, you could look at this stance as totalitarian, extreme, and encouraging abortions, but it doesn't enforce them. Your disregard for reality is getting annoying. Al
From: rbwinn on 5 Aug 2008 22:22 On Aug 5, 7:48�am, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...(a)newsguy.org> wrote: > In article <30bd7575-0739-49cb-b64b-fb03d1cf6...(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. Well, there is something you are missing here, Matthew. Einstein was discussing transmission of light, not electromagnetism. The Lorentz equations are not wrong for electromagnetism, as far as I know. That was what Lorentz was studying when he derived them. What is this supposed to be? x'=3Dx-vt. etc. It was not in any physics book when I was in school. In any event, you do not appear to understand what the Galilean transformation equations mean. You seem to think that the universe is controlled by scientists and their interpretation of time. The Galilean transformation equations can be applied to any two frames of reference using a common measurement of time. t'=t This time could be measured by degrees of rotation of the sun, degrees of rotation of the earth, or seconds on a clock in the frame of reference at rest. In all of these examples, t'=t. Since t' =t, it does not denote time on a clock in the moving frame of reference because experiment shows that a clock in the moving frame of reference is slower than a clock in the frame of reference at rest. Experiment also shows that a clock in the moving frame of reference measures the speed of light to be 186,000 miles per second. So we call the time on a clock in the moving frame of reference n' w=velocity of light x=wt x'=wn' wn'=wt-vt n'=t(1-v/w) So what is your experiment that shows there is a length contraction? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 5 Aug 2008 22:25 On Aug 5, 1:35�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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. > Show me the atheist who will admit that the Bible correctly shows the location of Hezekiah's tunnel. There is no such atheist. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 5 Aug 2008 22:27 On Aug 5, 1:38�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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? > > -- The sixth amendment to the Constitution says that the defendant has the right to trial by jury in "all criminal prosecutions". The judge in my case had just denied my right to trial by jury. Robert B. Winn
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 5 Aug 2008 22:29
On Aug 6, 12:05 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 10:38 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Aug 5, 8:52 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 3, 10:54 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Aug 3, 6:16 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 1, 11:57 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > 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 said that Al campaigned for abortion. Are you going to provide > > > > > > evidence for this? > > > > > > Sure. Ask Al if he is in favor of right to life. > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > What does that have to do with whether I've campaigned for legal > > > > abortions? > > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > > Well, I am certainly sorry if I have misjudged you, Al. I think you > > > are pro-abortion. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > That is because you are pidgeon-holing people based on misinformation > > from your church. > > I am neither pro- nor anti- abortion. I think it's something for women > > to decide on. It doesn't directly effect me, and I think it > > presumptuous for men to have a say. Not an opinion, but a say. > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > So you are pro-abortion. > Robert B. Winn No. I'm pro letting women make their own minds up. If asked, I would warn against it. But I'm not arrogant enough to tell women what to do. Just because you think the state should control women's bodies does not mean that my position that I (and the state) should have no say in it, is in any way pro-abortion. So you're pro-death then? Al |