Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 11 Aug 2008 01:50 On Aug 10, 5:47�pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:8b87bb2b-d870-47c8-a646-110a073205bb(a)c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > 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 > > You keep using this expression, "So you are saying" ... then go on to say > something completely ridiculous and having no bearing at all on what the > person has actually said > Why is that? > Well, atheists say, There is no God, and then want to avoid all consequences of that statement. If you are claiming to be the most intelligent beings in existence, you cannot just say, We do not believe in God, so we are more intelligent than anyone else, but we are not responsible for anything we say. If you boys and girls are going to run the universe, you need to step up. OK, so you say you have a better plan than God's, let's see how well you do. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 11 Aug 2008 02:03 On Aug 10, 7:29�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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. Well, no, the equations are not wrong for sound. Sound is transmitted by air molecules hitting against each other. So air is a medium which is at rest relative to one of the frames of reference ahd which is moving relative to the other. Until 1887 scientists believed the same thing to be true with regard to light. They thought there was a medium called ether through which light was being transmitted. So your statement would be true with regard to transmission of light for frames of reference moving at slower velocities. For lower velocities, the errors are small enough to be ignorable. For a velocity such as the orbit of Mercury, 30 miles per second, the error is noticible. Robert B. Winn > > <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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: rbwinn on 11 Aug 2008 02:04 On Aug 10, 7:31�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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. Well, no, Al, even though there are errors in translation, the book of Isaiah is not fiction. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 11 Aug 2008 02:25 On Aug 10, 8:51�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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 Well, I would not think so. How many atheists are opposed to cloning? All Christians are supposed to be opposed to pedophelia. Robert B. Winn
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 11 Aug 2008 03:22
On Aug 11, 3:50 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 10, 5:47 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >news:8b87bb2b-d870-47c8-a646-110a073205bb(a)c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > 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 > > > You keep using this expression, "So you are saying" ... then go on to say > > something completely ridiculous and having no bearing at all on what the > > person has actually said > > Why is that? > > Well, atheists say, There is no God, and then want to avoid all > consequences of that statement. If you are claiming to be the most > intelligent beings in existence, you cannot just say, We do not > believe in God, so we are more intelligent than anyone else, but we > are not responsible for anything we say. If you boys and girls are > going to run the universe, you need to step up. OK, so you say you > have a better plan than God's, let's see how well you do. > Robert B. Winn No, as an atheist, we say we don't believe in any god. It's not the same as saying we believe there are no gods. Apart from freeing the mind from shackles of stupidity, there are no consequences. If anyone claims to be the most intelligent being in existence, they're likely deluded, and it's not a claim made from atheism. Al |