Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 18 Aug 2008 15:22 On Aug 18, 5:59�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:3e888bd6-08cb-40c4-a20b-69b645286751(a)m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > Sorry, but good cannot exist without God. > > ========== > > In other words, those who do not believe cannot be good > persons doing good things. �So an atheist donating his > organs or volunteering in the soup kitchen is not, in fact, > doing good, and there is no such thing as a good Buddhist > Samaritan. �Do I have this right? You would have to ask God about it. He was the one who created atheists and Bhuddists. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 18 Aug 2008 15:26 On Aug 18, 11:56�am, "Dan Drake" <d...(a)dandrake.com> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:11:24 UTC, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > On Aug 17, 10:41 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Aug 18, 2:12 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 17, 8:24 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:22:07 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > > > > > wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > > > >On Aug 17, 7:47?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:40:26 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno..com> > > > > > >> wrote in alt.atheism: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > >> >You do not seem to realize that I am not a Catholic. ?Augustine was an > > > > > >> >uninspired Catholic Church leader. > > > > > > >> I know that you adhere to a modern heresy. Your dismissal of Augustine > > > > > >> reflects your intentional ignorance of history.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > >Augustine is not going to save onyone, no matter how much atheists > > > > > >like what he said. > > > > > > No one is going to save anyone. Saving is a doctrine that is completely > > > > > without any evidence to show that it's true. > > > > > Well, prophets and apostles have testified otherwise. What you are > > > > saying is that the words of prophets and apostles cannot be accepted > > > > as evidence. > > > > Well, yes. All testimony is heresay, until backed up with physical > > > evidence. AND, these prophets and apostles are "interested parties", > > > meaning they can't be trusted. > > > > > So in your court system of atheistic evidence, only athests and > > > > scientists are allowed to testify. > > > > No, physical evidence that can be verified by independant sources is > > > trustworthy, and disinterested heresay is mildly convincing when > > > supported by other similar disinterested heresay. > > > > > That may adhere to European rules of evidence, but here in the United > > > > States, a person may testify anything in court. For example, a > > > > witness in a murder trial was allowed to testify about certain > > > > religious beliefs because the prosecution was trying to show that the > > > > witness was not a credible witness. The opposite is often true. A > > > > witness is often allowed to testify about religious beliefs to show > > > > that their testimony is reliable. > > > > Which would be a gross missinterpretation of "swearing on" religious > > > texts. That system is merely a system for imparting a seriousness > > > into the idea of being truthful during the proceedings. The godless > > > equivalent is more honest and truthful. > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > Well, atheists have no incentive to tell the truth. �It is not a sin > > for an atheist to lie according to atheists. �With atheists, it is > > just whatever what works in achieving the atheistic agenda. � A lie is > > just as good as truth to an atheist if it appears to work. > > Robert B. Winn > > Well, as long as we're going to go all Americocentric and talk about > American law -- as somebody was a couple of postings above, apparently > somebody called rbwinn if I count the arrows properly -- one needs to > point out that the basic law of the United States of America takes an > entirely different view. In two separate places it specifies that an > official must swear an oath of office -- or *affirm* the same text. > Affirming is what you do when you refuse to swear an oath, you know. It's > legally binding, just as much as if you decided to defy the words of Jesus > Christ by swearing in the name of God Almighty. (You have read the Sermon > on the Mount, I presume?) > > An affirmation was good enough for Madison, Hamilton, Washington, and all > those guys. Not to mention Franklin, who didn't even hate Muslims! But > that's what you get when you let a bunch of 18th-century Enlightenment > gentlemen overthrow the King and institute new Government, laying its > foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as > to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. > > (Sorry, I had a brief fit of patriotism there. Always happens when I think > of that document.) > > Good thing we managed to fix all that and make it a religiously based > country once those guys were safely dead. > > -- Well, technically all countries are religiously based countries. The earth on which all of these countries exist was created by God. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 18 Aug 2008 15:41 On Aug 18, 12:11�pm, "Dan Drake" <d...(a)dandrake.com> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:30:18 UTC, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > On Aug 13, 9:22 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 14, 11:40 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 13, 8:00 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 12, 11:06 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 12, 2:03 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 12:42 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 4:03 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > If sound waves happened to be travelling at speeds in excess of (say) > > > > > > > > 10% of C, then they would be obviously wrong. > > > > > > > > But, as it is they're so mildly wrong it doesn't make any difference. > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > The error is noticeable whether the wave/particle moving is light or > > > > > > > > not. It's just rare to find things other than light travelling at > > > > > > > > relativistic speeds. > > > > > > > > But it doesn't really matter which equation you start with if you're > > > > > > > > going to assign a zero time difference. > > > > > > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > The speed of sound in air is 1087 feet per second. This speed can be > > > > > > > increased by raising the temperature of the air or slowed by lowering > > > > > > > the temperature of the air. But with regard to a description of > > > > > > > transmission of sound in air, the Galilean transformation equations > > > > > > > are an exact description if the exact velocity of the sound is known. > > > > > > > Set of coordinates S represents the frame of reference of the air > > > > > > > through which the sound is being transmitted. Set of coordinates S' > > > > > > > represents something moving relative to the air through which the > > > > > > > sound is being transmitted. If x, y, z, and t are the space and time > > > > > > > coordinates for an event in S, then x',y',z', and t' are the space and > > > > > > > time coordinates for the same event in S'. > > > > > > > If time in S' is t'=t, then a clock in S' reads the same as a > > > > > > > clock in S. That is what the equations say. If something is going > > > > > > > faster thn sound, then sound cannot catch up with it anyway. Sound > > > > > > > has to be transmitted with the molecules. > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > > > No you retard. That equation is merely a definition of velocity.. > > > > > > > I'm going to stop trying to discuss physics with you now. Because > > > > > > your inability to understand even the equations you're posting is > > > > > > making it too hard to continue. > > > > > > > Al > > > > > > Al, > > > > > Stop talking to him in the equation. > > > > > He doesn't understand anything and cannot put forward a correct valid > > > > > and meaningful equation. > > > > > If he could think properly, he wouldn't have been put into V.A. > > > > > Hospital twice and escaped. > > > > > Plus, he is only educated to the high school level.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > I think if you keep coaching Al, he can almost be like a real > > > > scientist. > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > No. > > > We are both not clear about what you have written. > > > I am just telling you that your formula make no sense. > > > The formula did not include the variables and not all variables are > > > included and you did not explain. > > > We can't start and argue with an invalid formula. > > > We may as well argue on the validity or more to the point, the > > > "usefulness to mankind"/"cruelty to human" of your god.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Galileo thought his equations were pretty good equations. �What do you > > atheists find wrong with them? > > Robert B. Winn > > Well, there are a couple of problems, neither having anything whatsoever > to do with atheism. > > First, and I greatly fear that someone will see this as nitpicking, though > it is impossible to understand Galileo's work without knowing this, is > that he didn't write equations. None. No algebra. He used the Eudoxian > theory of proportion instead, which was a splendid increase in power over > what people had a century a earlier when the standard translations of > Euclid had an awful error in the fifth book, which made the theory > gibberish; but it's horribly cumbersome to us, so people like to translate > the work into modern algebraic terms, as introduced by Descartes. Well and > good, but you don't know how he really thought till you've plowed through > some of the actual demonstrations. > > And of course, on a less pedantic level, his physical principles just > don't work in certain conditions that Galileo and Newton couldn't imagine.. > But of course you know that already. > > What's really wonderful about this thread is that apparently Galileo has > graduated from being a heretic to be the source of holy religious dogma > about science. I'd be more delighted by this if I could avoid thinking > just how violently he'd hate such a development. And what's really > miserable: not seeing the invective he'd hurl at anybody who talked that > way, if he didn't happen to be in one of his benign moods. > > BTW I note that though I picked this up in alt.atheism, it seems to come > from sci.physics or somewhere. Why is it that sci. physics of all groups > is the one (well, along with the relativity subgroup) in which Galileo is > brought up invariably in the support of utter crackpottery? It deserves > some sort of prize. > Galileo's equations say what they say. If scientists want to talk about frames of reference, Galileo's equations are the best ones to use. Here is the problem with the Lorentz equations. They require a length contraction in the direction of motion. If a sattelite is put in orbit around the earth, then a clock in the sattelite is running slower than an identical clock on earth. In the Lorentz equations, the speed of the sattelite is the same measured from the sattelite as measured with a clock on the ground. Since the clock in the sattelite is slower, that means that the circumfrence of the orbit of the sattelite is less as measured from the sattelite than measured from the ground. But an altimeter in the sattelite reads the same as the altitude measured from the ground. That makes pi a variable, not a constant 3.14. Atheists may say, pi should be a variable. But are they going to be able to enforce it? Robert B. Winn
From: Alex W. on 18 Aug 2008 19:34 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:b44e2c30-ee56-4a47-aa76-96dddacc403a(a)59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... On Aug 18, 5:59?am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:3e888bd6-08cb-40c4-a20b-69b645286751(a)m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > Sorry, but good cannot exist without God. > > ========== > > In other words, those who do not believe cannot be good > persons doing good things. ?So an atheist donating his > organs or volunteering in the soup kitchen is not, in > fact, > doing good, and there is no such thing as a good Buddhist > Samaritan. ?Do I have this right? You would have to ask God about it. He was the one who created atheists and Bhuddists. =========== But you are the one making claims as to what God wants or not, so I am asking you.
From: Steve O on 18 Aug 2008 19:24
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:b44e2c30-ee56-4a47-aa76-96dddacc403a(a)59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 18, 5:59�am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:3e888bd6-08cb-40c4-a20b-69b645286751(a)m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> Sorry, but good cannot exist without God. >> >> ========== >> >> In other words, those who do not believe cannot be good >> persons doing good things. �So an atheist donating his >> organs or volunteering in the soup kitchen is not, in fact, >> doing good, and there is no such thing as a good Buddhist >> Samaritan. �Do I have this right? > > You would have to ask God about it. He was the one who created > atheists and Bhuddists. > Robert B. Winn How could he create any of those things if he was not able to create the channel tunnel? You can deny the existence of the channel all you like, but it is still there, which is evidence that God does not exist and the bible is false. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence |