Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 7 Aug 2008 17:58 On 7 Aug, 06:21, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On 7 Aug, 01:01, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> On Aug 6, 9:58 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > >>> On Aug 6, 1:50 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > >>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >>>> On Aug 6, 4:29 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 5, 7:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>> If the Bible exists, then it is evidence. So does it exist or not? > >>>>> Robert B. Winn > >>>> Yes, several of them exist. Several Harry Potter books exist too. > >>>> What was your point here anyway? > >>> If you want to talk about Harry Potter books, we can talk about Harry > >>> Potter books, Al. Do you believe that Harry Potter is going to save > >>> you? > >>> Robert B. Winn > >> How idiotic. > >> And you think that the bible is going to save you? > >> Save you from your insanity?- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > The only way anyone is going to be saved is through the Atonement of > > Christ. �That would include any atheists who change their minds about > > being saved. > > Sorry, but I don't need to be "saved". �I'm going to live my life to the > fullest and then die. �How about you? > > -- > I am going to be saved. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 7 Aug 2008 18:13 On 7 Aug, 09:44, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 7, 12:32 am, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: > > > > So you claim that anyone who questions Einstein's theory is insane? > > > > No, that's not what I claimed, child. > > > > There are many serious scientists who have spent years of their lives > > > working hard to understand and expand the works of Einstein. Questioning > > > is at the heart of the scientific method. Scientists question everything > > > they and their colleagues do, that's how scientific knowledge is built. > > > > And then there are the idiots like you... > > > > With your incoherent gibberish, you scream for attention you have not > > > earned and do not deserve. You have no real understanding of basic > > > undergraduate physics, and yet insist you have made breakthroughs that > > > the greatest minds in science (even Einstein!) have missed. Your > > > "discovery" is always some error in the most elementary theory of > > > physics, because of course, you can't possibly understand anything BUT > > > the most elementary theory of physics. > > > > Instead of respect and admiration for your work, though, you get > > > criticism and corrections. But you refuse to listen, you refuse to admit > > > to any errors no matter how basic. You feel persecuted because you are > > > upsetting "the establishment" who have a vested interest in "the status > > > quo". And you never try to learn from your mistakes because you are > > > unwilling or unable to admit that you have made any. > > > > And that is exactly what separates you from real scientists. > > > > So, is that insane? Let's see... > > > > Delusions of grandeur? Check. Refusal to confront reality? Check. > > > Incoherent or irrational thought patterns? Check. Inability to perceive > > > one's own self image? Check. > > > > Yup, that is insane. > > > Hey, Ben. > > You make a great mistake here by claiming what separates rbwinn from real > > scientist. He is just a welder and you put him into a status of scientist? > > Well, no, I would never put him in that category. There's no question > that he is no scientist. I did refer to him as an idiot, which IS a > category he belongs to. (Perhaps it's unfair to categorize a mentally > ill person that way, but then again, he could be mentally ill AND an > idiot...) > > The "This American Life" episode I mentioned had someone very similar to > Winn, a guy with a high school education, an electrician who believed he > could prove that "E = mc squared" was false. He quit his job and spent a > year polishing his "proof", and then was laughed at by every scientist > who looked at it, having made breathtakingly simple mistakes such as not > having the units in his equations agree (a mistake Bobby also makes). > > > With his high school standard, he can't even explain things clearly, let > > alone understand physic formula. He copied the formula from somewhere and > > posted it without explaining the basics and expecting others to follow. > > I know. It's painful to watch him try. I've read his posts for a couple > years now, and he really has never understood the profound depths of his > irrationality. > > > But I think we are partly to be blame....we catch hold of an insane > > person by the road side and started to explain normal things to him. > > He would turn around and claim we are insane. > > True enough. He really is a textbook case, which is what is so > interesting. You don't often get an opportunity to engage people like > this. I don't expect that what we say will ever get through to him, all > indications are that he is beyond help.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, what I would say to you atheists is, show that you are really serious about what you say. Go to the court where you live and petition for the institutionalization of a person believed to be insane. Otherwise you are just like any other atheist. You talk quite a bit but never do anything. Robert B. Winn
From: Smiler on 7 Aug 2008 20:41 "DanielSan" <danielsan(a)speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:Q9adndMpd5KvcAfVnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... > rbwinn wrote: >> On 7 Aug, 00:36, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> On Aug 7, 1:29 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 6 Aug, 17:15, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>> On Aug 6, 11:58 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Aug 6, 1:50 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>> On Aug 6, 4:29 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 7:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> If the Bible exists, then it is evidence. So does it exist or not? >>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>> Yes, several of them exist. Several Harry Potter books exist too. >>>>>>> What was your point here anyway? >>>>>> If you want to talk about Harry Potter books, we can talk about Harry >>>>>> Potter books, Al. Do you believe that Harry Potter is going to save >>>>>> you? >>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>> No. What makes you think I need saving? >>>>> I think the H Potter books draw heavily on pre-existing fairy tales to >>>>> create a mythology that feels vaguely right. Much like the bible drew >>>>> on pre-existing mythology to create it's own. A clear sign of fiction >>>>> is that it is derivative of prior fictions. >>>> Well, so you feel comforted and secure when you read Harry Potter >>>> books. >>>> Robert B. Winn >>> I'm sure lots of people do, but as I've pointed out before, I haven't >>> done any Harry Potter readings. ?When I read that bible thing I mostly >>> get annoyed. >>> Is comfort your guide to what's true? ?If so, you might want to stay >>> away from reading anything on modern physics. >>> >>> Al- Hide quoted text - >> >> Well, I do read comedy from time to time. However, the best thing to >> read is non-fiction like the Bible. > > ...and one wonders why you were institutionalized. > Nope. I don't wonder at all. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Smiler on 7 Aug 2008 20:43 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:0db84a8a-33db-4f48-aa79-8afd64bad67e(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... On 7 Aug, 00:36, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 7, 1:29 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 6 Aug, 17:15, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Aug 6, 11:58 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 6, 1:50 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 6, 4:29 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 7:47 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > If the Bible exists, then it is evidence. So does it exist or > > > > > > not? > > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > > Yes, several of them exist. Several Harry Potter books exist too. > > > > > What was your point here anyway? > > > > > If you want to talk about Harry Potter books, we can talk about > > > > Harry > > > > Potter books, Al. Do you believe that Harry Potter is going to save > > > > you? > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > No. What makes you think I need saving? > > > I think the H Potter books draw heavily on pre-existing fairy tales to > > > create a mythology that feels vaguely right. Much like the bible drew > > > on pre-existing mythology to create it's own. A clear sign of fiction > > > is that it is derivative of prior fictions. > > > Well, so you feel comforted and secure when you read Harry Potter > > books. > > Robert B. Winn > > I'm sure lots of people do, but as I've pointed out before, I haven't > done any Harry Potter readings. ?When I read that bible thing I mostly > get annoyed. > Is comfort your guide to what's true? ?If so, you might want to stay > away from reading anything on modern physics. > > Al- Hide quoted text - Well, I do read comedy from time to time. However, the best thing to read is non-fiction like the Bible. ======================================== The bible is non-fiction? Now *that* is funny, skippy. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: rbwinn on 7 Aug 2008 21:21
On 7 Aug, 18:15, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 7, 11:04 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: - > > The Galilean transformation equations had two frames of reference, S > > and S', with S' in motion relative to S at velocity v. �If v changes, > > then you have accelleration or decelleration, but that does not change > > the speed of light. �The speed of light will remain the same, 186,000 > > miles per second in both frames of reference. > > � � �The Galilean transformation were thrown out because experiment > > showed that a clock in S' would show the speed of light to be 186,000 > > miles per second the same as a clock in S, �and the interpretation > > scientists had of the Galilean transformation equations was that the > > speed of light would change if S' was accellerated or decellerated. > > � � � My interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations is > > that the rate of a clock in S' changes according to the velocity of S' > > relative to S, so the speed of light remains 186,000 in both frames of > > reference, regardless of the velocity. > > There is no calculus involved in this, only high school algebra. > > Robert B. Winn > > You're still not actually doing any science, except to postulate some > basic algebra based on some other equations and just blaming clocks > without providing a mechanism to show how you blame the clocks. > Because you can't wrap your head around modern physics. > > I'll say it again. �If you want to poke holes in any theory, it's best > to understand it first. �And in this (and most physics theories) you > will need a basic mental toolkit that includes calculus. �Calculus > ain't hard. �Even I can do it. > > Al Wonderful, Al. So just take a few minutes and show how calculus applies to Einstein's explanation fo transmission of light. Robert B. Winn |