Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 10 Aug 2008 21:15 On Aug 10, 5:13�pm, "Stanford" <s...(a)nospam.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:a5517c5b-bd07-4dc5-9778-926d84ae42a5(a)m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Aug 10, 4:04 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >>news:ebea8348-0adb-483b-a342-bc5f431497e8(a)r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Aug 10, 2:36 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:3a8943bc-713d-4cae-b105-c63cecb0830e(a)26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Aug 10, 12:09 am, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> >> >> On Aug 9, 5:35 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >news:4f79b964-3512-4992-bc67-6b9855148eef(a)26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > > You think the tsunami was bad, wait until some real disasters > >> >> >> > > happen. What the book of Revelation says is that atheists will > >> >> >> > > curse > >> >> >> > > God and die rather than repent of their sins. > >> >> >> > > Robert B. Winn > > >> >> >> > We are fully aware that Robert has mental health problems. > >> >> >> > However, I have heard supposedly sane and rational people say > >> >> >> > much > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > same > >> >> >> > thing as he says above. > >> >> >> > Frightening isn't it? > >> >> >> > Is there any way to distinguish a normal, healthy - minded person > >> >> >> > from > >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> > sick one when both of them are saying more or less the same > >> >> >> > thing? > > >> >> >> > -- > >> >> >> > Steve O > >> >> >> > a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) > >> >> >> > B.A.A.W.A. > >> >> >> > Convicted by Earthquack > >> >> >> > Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence > > >> >> >> Steve, > >> >> >> I guess they came under the same indoctrination, and therefore same > >> >> >> answers. > >> >> >> Its is just utterly stupid to content that god will come out to > >> >> >> save > >> >> >> human, while at the same time periodically created disasters to > >> >> >> kill > >> >> >> the innocent people. > >> >> >> It defies logic and make these loons stupidier than we can imagine. > >> >> >> Sad as we see ancient tales can still con our digital people in the > >> >> >> modern age.- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> >> > Almost all of these disasters can be predicted if people take the > >> >> > time > >> >> > and effort to study the situation. > >> >> > Robert B. Winn > > >> >> You really didn't follow what hhyaps was saying at all, did you? > >> >> He made a very valid point- I'll simplify it for you. > >> >> He was saying it was lunacy to believe that there was a God, who on > >> >> one > >> >> hand > >> >> was there to save humans from harm, whilst at the same time destroying > >> >> them > >> >> with tsunamis. > >> >> This has nothing to do with predicting disasters which is what you > >> >> were > >> >> babbling on about. > > >> > So you are claiming that if God protects people from all disasters, > >> > then you will believe in him. > > >> No, I was saying that it is ridiculous to imagine that there is a God who > >> "saves us" whilst at the same time destroys us. > >> What IS it with you and your reading comprehension problem? > >> Very annoying. > > > So your idea is that no one should suffer physical death? > > What other kind of death do animals (all us physical entities) experience?- Hide quoted text - > According to scripture, some will suffer spiritual death. Robert B. Winn
From: Smiler on 10 Aug 2008 22:17 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:e326ec6a-2a81-4947-a1b6-0f0f5f1400e6(a)y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... On Aug 10, 4:56?am, Masked Avenger <cootey...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 6, 2:08 am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >>news:9bdcfe91-2a42-4b75-8582-4f87ed8bfac3(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... > > >> If the Bible exists, then it is evidence. So does it exist or not? > > >> ========== > > >> At best iut is hearsay. > > > No, it is not hearsay. > > Robert B. Winn > > It must be ........ because NONE of it is contemporary eyewitness > accounts ....... The first book of the New Testament wasn't written > until at least 50 years after Jesus' alleged death ?...... and the > Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John ........ > Similarly ... how could Genesis be an eyewitness account ?? > > it is only hearsay ...... > And you know this by being an eyewitness? How did it happen. The apostle Peter said that the apostles were eyewitnesses. ============================================= Where did the supposed Peter supposedly say this, skippy. In a book written at least 50 years after the supposed events? Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 10 Aug 2008 22:29 On Aug 9, 12:19 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On 7 Aug, 21:21, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Aug 8, 12:37 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On 7 Aug, 18:17, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Aug 7, 11:13 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > No wonder no scientist wish to engage you. > > > > > > You don't explain well and you don't understand (no capability) > > > > > > anything at all. > > > > > > But I admire you guts to bring the formula out in the public to be > > > > > > humiliated.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Well, here are the equations, hhyaps. > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > So just go ahead and show the mistake you have found. As soon > > > > > as I arrived at these equations, scientists quit talking to me. At > > > > > one time when I was using the wrong equations, about half of the posts > > > > > in sci.physics.relativity were directed at me. So since you are a > > > > > scientist who says these equations are wrong, just go ahead and show > > > > > what is wrong with them. > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > The error is in checking with reality, what it thinks. Physics isn't > > > > algebra. > > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Physics isn't algebra? Well, tell us what physics is, Al. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > Physics is science as it relates to matter, motion and energy. > > Science isn't maths. It often uses maths. But the maths is in > > service to the science, not the other way around. You can derive any > > of a a multitude of different equations that are mathematically > > correct. But until you test them vs reality, they're just maths. Not > > science. See String Theory. > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > Well, as the math applied to describing transmission of light, until > 1887 scientists used the Galilean transformation equations. > x='x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t And no longer used except as a rough approximation. > These are the equations that are still used to describe transmission > of sound. Due to sound waves travelling significantly slower than light, the errors encountered by using the simple equation is negligible. It doesn't change it from being wrong. Just that the errors are small enough to be ignorable. <SNIP 19thC physics> Again, I'd say that monkeying around with the equations has nothing to do with reality. Until you make predictions and test them, it's not science, just maths and philosophy. And a quick hint for free, if you set t'=t, you can say whatever you want about velocity, it doesn't freakin matter. And it proves nothing. Al
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 10 Aug 2008 22:31 On Aug 9, 12:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On 7 Aug, 21:23, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Aug 8, 1:07 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On 7 Aug, 19:01, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Aug 7, 9:45 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > never appoint Steve to be our spokesman. > > > > > > > You have confused with the message that Steve was putting across. > > > > > > > You have never see the point that any story can make reference to an > > > > > > > existing object, place, event, people, government, race, animal and > > > > > > > etc, but the tales are made up (imagined). This is exactly what Harry > > > > > > > Potter did. > > > > > > > So, if the Harry Potter referred to London, does it make the character > > > > > > > in the tales real? > > > > > > > The bible that you value so much is also the same as Harry Potter, > > > > > > > tales imagined in someone's head.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > The construction of the tunnel is described in the Bible. The > > > > > Assyrians were invading Judea and had taken several cities. The Jews > > > > > at Jerusalem decided to hide the water from Gihon spring because they > > > > > did not want the Assyrians using that water when they besieged > > > > > Jerusalem, so they CONSTRUCTED a conduit for water to take the water > > > > > to the pool of Siloam inside Jerusalem. They used picks and shovels, > > > > > as is explained in the inscription they left on the wall of the > > > > > tunnel, written in ancient Hebrew. The fact that they wrote in > > > > > ancient Hebrew shows that the tunnel was made before the Babylonian > > > > > captivity which took place in 600 B.C. The Assyrian invasion took > > > > > place in 701 B.C. > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > So, the bible tales were written after the existence of tunnel, right? > > > > Your Harry Potter stories also was written after the existence of > > > > London . > > > > No, the book of Isaiah was being written while the tunnel was being > > > dug. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > Which would make it natural for them to have included it in their > > fiction. > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Isaiah was not writing fiction. > Robert B. Winn Well, somehow after all the translations, that's what it's ended up as. Al
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 10 Aug 2008 23:51
On Aug 11, 9:58 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 10, 8:19 am, "Stanford" <s...(a)nospam.com> wrote: > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > > > > Well, you atheists claim to be able to make an exact copy of a human > > > from human cells. > > > Wrong again, atheism is not a claim of any sort, > > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." > > So you are saying that all of the people in medical science who are > involved in cloning are devoutly religious. > Robert B. Winn No, you are seeming to suggest that to be an atheist, one must be involved in human cloning experiments. As far as I'm aware (apart from some practice runs) I'm not involved in artificial human cloning. Suggesting that all atheists are involved in cloning is more logically flawed than suggesting all christians are pedophiles. Al |