Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 5 Aug 2008 23:03 On Aug 5, 1:49�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:e323a763-6e98-4845-981c-800015e7a2e3(a)s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 10:33 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> On Aug 5, 8:48 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > >> > On Aug 3, 10:42 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > >> > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> > > On Aug 2, 11:44 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > >> > > > 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 > > >> > > This is another of your more persistent lies. No-one said at any > >> > > stage that there is no tunnel. > > >> > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > >> > You continue to say that the Bible is nothing but mythology. If you > >> > say that the Bible is nothing but mythology, you are saying that the > >> > tunnel is mythology because the Bible describes the construction of > >> > Hezekiah's tunnel in three different books of the Old Testament. > >> > Robert B. Winn > > >> No. You continue to not see the point. It is quite disturbing. > >> Greek mythology mentions Mount Olympus and Athens, both of which exist > >> today. This does not mean that Athens is mythological. > >> Surely you can't be THAT stupid. > > > I am not so stupid as to believe that an atheist would ever do > > anything but deny that Hezekiah's tunnel exists. �If you tell me that > > you believe the tunnel exists, all you are doing is saying that you > > would tell the next person it does not exist. �That is how you do > > things. � Since that is the way you are, I just keep it simple by > > saying that you continue to deny the existence of the tunnel. �Denying > > the veracity of anything in the Bible is more important to you than > > the existence of the tunnel. � As long as it remains that way, you do > > not admit that the tunnel exists. �All you are doing is just putting > > words together in an attempt to deceive. > > Robert B. Winn > > Would it make you happy if an atheist walked through the tunnel? > For f**ks sake, I'd be willing to pay out to visit the bloody place and walk > through it just to shut you up. > What would that accomplish? You would still deny that the Bible describes the construction of the tunnel. Robert B. Winn
From: DanielSan on 5 Aug 2008 23:05 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 5, 1:46�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:558164f1-39f1-48fe-9b6f-90c711472882(a)k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> I will say it. You have serious mental disturbances. But that is as >>>> far as it goes. I am not a psychiatrist so I cannot prescribe you >>>> medications or enforce any institutionalisations. I think you would >>>> benefit from both, but as an uneducated opinion, it holds no weight. >>>> You have tried to get people to say they would like to lock you up on >>>> several occaissions. Why is that? >>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>> Because it is true. �If you were able to do it, that is what you would >>> do. �However, I know more about the atheistic court system than you do >>> and would be able to stop it from happening. �Secondly, if it did >>> happen, all I would have to do is talk to a psychiatrist, and I would >>> be released. >>> The reason I know so much about it is because I have already been >>> declared insane and institutionalized. �It is just a system of >>> accusation in which no proof is required. �All it takes are the >>> signatures of a judge and two medical doctors. >>> Robert B. Winn >> In any court, expert medical opinion is classed as valid evidence or proof.. >> Sorry. >> >> -- >> Steve O > > Well, here in the United States, defendants were supposed to have the > right to defend themselves. You could've waived your right to the an attorney and defended yourself. Did you? > I do not think you are sorry at all. You > atheists found a way to take away all rights of United States citizens > by just getting signatures from three corrupt individuals. I see. You're the only honest one; it's everyone else that's dishonest. ....wonder why you were institutionalized... -- **************************************************** * 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 23:06 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 5, 1:49�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:e323a763-6e98-4845-981c-800015e7a2e3(a)s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 4, 10:33 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> On Aug 5, 8:48 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>> On Aug 3, 10:42 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>> On Aug 2, 11:44 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> This is another of your more persistent lies. No-one said at any >>>>>> stage that there is no tunnel. >>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>>> You continue to say that the Bible is nothing but mythology. If you >>>>> say that the Bible is nothing but mythology, you are saying that the >>>>> tunnel is mythology because the Bible describes the construction of >>>>> Hezekiah's tunnel in three different books of the Old Testament. >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>> No. You continue to not see the point. It is quite disturbing. >>>> Greek mythology mentions Mount Olympus and Athens, both of which exist >>>> today. This does not mean that Athens is mythological. >>>> Surely you can't be THAT stupid. >>> I am not so stupid as to believe that an atheist would ever do >>> anything but deny that Hezekiah's tunnel exists. �If you tell me that >>> you believe the tunnel exists, all you are doing is saying that you >>> would tell the next person it does not exist. �That is how you do >>> things. � Since that is the way you are, I just keep it simple by >>> saying that you continue to deny the existence of the tunnel. �Denying >>> the veracity of anything in the Bible is more important to you than >>> the existence of the tunnel. � As long as it remains that way, you do >>> not admit that the tunnel exists. �All you are doing is just putting >>> words together in an attempt to deceive. >>> Robert B. Winn >> Would it make you happy if an atheist walked through the tunnel? >> For f**ks sake, I'd be willing to pay out to visit the bloody place and walk >> through it just to shut you up. >> > What would that accomplish? You would still deny that the Bible > describes the construction of the tunnel. Where has ANYONE denied that the Bible describes the construction of the tunnel? Post quotes. -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: rbwinn on 5 Aug 2008 23:12 On Aug 5, 7:09�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 5, 11:32 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > So, your preconceived ideas trump reality. �Can't say I'm surprised. > In fact you commonly ascribe to people things they never said, which > is another way of saying you lie about them. �Are you going to excuse > these lies as "knowing the way atheists think"? �Because you clearly > don't know how to yourself. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > I base my ideas on what atheists do over and over. If I see an atheist do something different, I will let you know. Robert B. Winn
From: Smiler on 5 Aug 2008 23:16
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:206c057e-698f-4c7a-9fe7-6308153d43fb(a)w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... 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. =================================== I took physics in what you would call high school, but I never took any lessons in Gibberish, which is what you appear to post in. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 |