Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Free Lunch on 5 Aug 2008 22:40 On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:30:13 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwhipp(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in <29775480-c2cd-4c35-8c11-3a387ee0cea9(a)u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>: >On Aug 6, 12:06 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> 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 > >Oh for fkcu's sake. Get some reading comprehension. It seems pretty clear to me that he understand and misrepresents. He's a bald-faced liar.
From: Ben Dolan on 5 Aug 2008 22:41 rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: > 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. Well, boo fuckin' hoo... Welcome to the real world, child, where wackaloons like yourself are treated like, well, like wackaloons...
From: DanielSan on 5 Aug 2008 22:47 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 5, 6:45�am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> 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. >> Want me to demolish that claim, too? >> > Go ahead and try. Show where one of these police state judges has > allowed the Constitution in police state court. So glad for your permission. United States v. Donald Fell Case summary: Is the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 unconstitutional as per the 8th Amendment? http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/usfell92402opn.pdf -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: DanielSan on 5 Aug 2008 22:47 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 5, 6:50�am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Aug 4, 10:10 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Aug 4, 8:35 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Aug 4, 8:02 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>> 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 any kind of case. A lawyer can request that a Bible be entered as >>>>>>> evidence in any court case. Clarence Darrow had the Bible entered as >>>>>>> evidence in the famous "monkey trial". >>>>>>> Riobert B. Winn >>>>>> A judge must be mad or loony if he were to allow for bible as >>>>>> evidence. >>>>>> You mean that ancient time recording can be the evidence for modern >>>>>> time crime or cases? >>>>>> This would also mean America is declining, at a rate faster than I >>>>>> thought.- Hide quoted text - >>>>> Well, it happened in 1934, or whenever it was. So we have that >>>>> precedent in American jurisprudence. >>>> In only one type of trial, if it happened at all. Your credibility is >>>> nil at this point. >>> Well, judges of today are very careful to make certain that only >>> atheism is allowed in courtrooms. � >> You mean, they'll only allow secular evidence? >> >>> That does not mean that the Bible >>> is not evidence. �No matter how hard atheists try, they are unable to >>> make the Bible disappear. �That is why it is evidence. >> Atheists are not trying to make the Bible disappear. >> >> It also isn't evidence, no matter hard you try to make it evidence. >> >> -- >> > So you are saying that the Bible is like Hezekiah's tunnel, it does > not exist. Um. No. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: hhyapster on 5 Aug 2008 22:47
On Aug 5, 9:25 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 9:03 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > On Aug 5, 6:53 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 3, 11:28 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Anyone who took physics in high school should be able to follow these > > > equations. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > Yes, unless the equations do not make sense. > > I am telling you that your equation did not have any meaning and was > > insufficiently represented. > > Where did you take them from? > > You being a high school standard has no capability or ability to make > > up a physics formula of any useful form, except to show your stupidity > > or insanity.- Hide quoted text - > > These equations are in any high school physics text. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > > 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. > > x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > y'=y > z'=z > t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > However, they do sow the speed of light to be c in both frames of > reference, which is what the Michelson-Morley experiment requires. > > To do the same thing with the Galilean transformation equations, you > have to use velocity of light instead of speed of light. > > w=velocity of light > x=wt > x'=wn' > > x'=x-vt > wn'=wt-vt > n'=t(1-v/w) > > n' is time on a cesium clock in the moving frame of reference. > > So tell me, hhyaps, do you know more now than you did before I > explained it to you? > Robert B. Winn OK, rbwinn. When I mentioned that you only have high school standard and should not try to bring up equations, I meant you no harm except to tell you that what has presented by you make no sense. First, I just would focus on the first part of this post: x' = x - vt y' = y z' = z t' = t If you can be any scientific standing or understanding, you would not post these to try to argue. The first equation doesn't even have y and z in its formula and you are trying to show what? You have to present full derivatives of how the equation come about and explain the problem before going one step further. Do you know that when I said there is no head and no tail? |