Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 26 Aug 2008 21:41 On Aug 22, 11:09 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 21, 10:51 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"<alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2:28 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > Well, I know you do not discuss the theory of relativity. I have seen > > > you discuss religion. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > I've discussed your attempts to call algebra physics, but no-one has > > discussed relativity except to use the term. > > > Have you seen me discuss religion? What did I say about it. > > > Al > > Well, basically, you say that you think you have something better, but > when asked about what you have, you say that you have the ability to > oppose religion. So without religion, what do you have? > Robert B. Winn Reality. Al
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 26 Aug 2008 21:44 On Aug 22, 11:11 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 21, 10:56 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2:25 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 21, 8:51 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Aug 21, 3:08 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 20, 9:58 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 21, 1:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 7:30 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> Well, I studied post graduate in British university at Manchester city > > > > > > > > previously. > > > > > > > > There were no European propaganda but most people did not bother to > > > > > > > > talk in Christianity, due to the fact that the tales were so obviously > > > > > > > > invented. > > > > > > > > British loons in most cases got cornered when being questioned about > > > > > > > > the inability of their god to do reasonable things. > > > > > > > > They evaded and switched subjects, like you did. > > > > > > > > I don't evade and switch subjects. The subject is relativity of > > > > > > > time. That is what we discuss here in sci.physics.relativity. > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > > > No. The discussion was started by a Mitch who began discussing the > > > > > > subject line in typical retarded fashion. And your first comment was > > > > > > not in any way connected to relativity. > > > > > > How many times do you need to be corrected on this lie? > > > > > > > Al > > > > > > So, Al, are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss relativity > > > > > of time here in sci.physics.relativity? > > > > > No, I did not say that. In no way should that be infered from my > > > > comments. Your attempt to say that that is what I've said is a > > > > typical representation of your lying and attempts to sway > > > > conversations to suggest you are being repressed in some way, which > > > > again is typical of both christians and paranoid schitzos. > > > > > > How are you going to enforce > > > > > your edict? > > > > > I'm not, as it's not an edict. I am going to correct you everytime I > > > > spot you lying outright about what others or yourself have said. > > > > Well, your claim is that we do not discuss relativity of time in > > > sci.physics.relativity. > > > No, that is NOT my claim. > > Well, what is your claim, Al? I said that we discuss relativity of > time in sci.physics.relativity, and you immediately objected to that > statement and said that you were not going to allow it. > Robert B. Winn No, I did not. I objected to your assertion that that's all you've been doing and that sci.physics.relativity is the only newsgroup you've been posting to. If you want a specific claim to attempt to refute, how about; You, rbwinn, are systematically lying about what others say and you've said in these discussions. Al
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 26 Aug 2008 21:51 On Aug 23, 11:08 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 22, 11:17 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 22, 9:11 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 21, 10:56 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Aug 22, 2:25 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 21, 8:51 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 21, 3:08 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 9:58 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 21, 1:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 7:30 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> Well, I studied post graduate in British university at Manchester city > > > > > > > > > > previously. > > > > > > > > > > There were no European propaganda but most people did not bother to > > > > > > > > > > talk in Christianity, due to the fact that the tales were so obviously > > > > > > > > > > invented. > > > > > > > > > > British loons in most cases got cornered when being questioned about > > > > > > > > > > the inability of their god to do reasonable things. > > > > > > > > > > They evaded and switched subjects, like you did. > > > > > > > > > > I don't evade and switch subjects. The subject is relativity of > > > > > > > > > time. That is what we discuss here in sci.physics.relativity. > > > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > > > > > No. The discussion was started by a Mitch who began discussing the > > > > > > > > subject line in typical retarded fashion. And your first comment was > > > > > > > > not in any way connected to relativity. > > > > > > > > How many times do you need to be corrected on this lie? > > > > > > > > > Al > > > > > > > > So, Al, are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss relativity > > > > > > > of time here in sci.physics.relativity? > > > > > > > No, I did not say that. In no way should that be infered from my > > > > > > comments. Your attempt to say that that is what I've said is a > > > > > > typical representation of your lying and attempts to sway > > > > > > conversations to suggest you are being repressed in some way, which > > > > > > again is typical of both christians and paranoid schitzos. > > > > > > > > How are you going to enforce > > > > > > > your edict? > > > > > > > I'm not, as it's not an edict. I am going to correct you everytime I > > > > > > spot you lying outright about what others or yourself have said. > > > > > > Well, your claim is that we do not discuss relativity of time in > > > > > sci.physics.relativity. > > > > > No, that is NOT my claim. > > > > Well, what is your claim, Al? I said that we discuss relativity of > > > time in sci.physics.relativity, and you immediately objected to that > > > statement and said that you were not going to allow it. > > > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > In this forum of alt.atheism, you can discuss many subjects. > > Even when someone wish to talk religion like you get entertained, but > > will be clobbered hard. > > In the case of relativity of time, you don't seem to have the required > > reasoning and have not been explaining clearly your position or the > > equation. > > You said past two year scientists from the sci.physics.relativity were > > pissed off with you. That tells you a lot, right?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Well, scientists in sci.physics.relativity are making trillions of > dollars in public revenues for research for the equations they have. > They are not going to want some simpler equations from a welder with a > high school education. > Robert B. Winn Well, they're not going to be using the equations you've been suggesting, because they've been proven incorrect vs real world data. Because in the end, those expensive research setups are about real world data. All you need for equations are mathematicians and lots of coffee. Al
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 26 Aug 2008 21:55 On Aug 24, 8:27 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 23, 2:53 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >news:d549f6e2-bc74-4613-954f-93b0481f40f5(a)z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Aug 23, 6:52 am, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Aug 23, 9:03 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > >> > On Aug 22, 10:54 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > On Aug 22, 9:22 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > On Aug 22, 2:49 am, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > On Aug 22, 10:09 am, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > Yap wrote: > > >> > > > > > > Yes, quite possibly right. > > >> > > > > > > I think his reasoning brain cells may have been fried. > > > >> > > > > > Only his reasoning ones? > > > >> > > > > > Smiler, > > >> > > > > > The godless one > > >> > > > > > a.a.# 2279 > > > >> > > > > May be, and rbwinn is not even disputing my assertion. Must be > > >> > > > > correct. > > > >> > > > I never dispute. > > >> > > > You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. > > >> > > > Robert B. Winn > > > >> > > You have a condition for people to analyze your behavor. > > >> > > The people in this world else where never try to curse ourselves into > > >> > > disaster like the prophecies in the buybull. > > >> > > Your religion is either providing a very evil teaching or is a way > > >> > > for > > >> > > those un-educated to milk money. > > >> > > Look at some of the African countries whose stupid people bought the > > >> > > conversion from the missionaries but yet the whole country is either > > >> > > mismanaged or very corrupted to the core; and the people embracing > > >> > > your religion without being taught to how to survive. > > >> > > So, you believe they can live with religion without food? Sometimes I > > >> > > refuse to watch those TV programs like Discovery which showed the > > >> > > Africans in dire state of poverty, yet Christians. > > >> > > How naive and pathetic these people are!- Hide quoted text - > > > >> > > - Show quoted text - > > > >> > So you think they would be better off if they were atheists in a dire > > >> > state of poverty. > > >> > Robert b. Winn- Hide quoted text - > > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > > >> What is the difference if they are bigots or atheists in poverty? > > >> You did not catch my meaning ..... what I mean is for all the > > >> missionaries present which were used to convert the naives and were > > >> not being used to help in the eradication of poverty by provide > > >> training, or help in development...etc. > > >> The saying goes: " Give a man a fish and he is satisfied for a meal, > > >> but teach a man how to fish and he will survive for a life time." > > >> In your case, you don't even give a man a fish, you give a man a story > > >> book invented by the ancient Jewish con man. > > >> How pathetic.- Hide quoted text - > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > Well, you do not know a whole lot. The church I belong to sends > > > people to Africa to help them drill wells, build buildings, etc. Not > > > everyone just sits around like atheists do. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > Really? > > And what charities are YOU personally involved in? > > I don't mean which ones do you give money to- anyone could do that, I mean > > what charities do YOU personally contribute your time to? > > > -- > > Steve O > > I am assigned church members in my own area to visit. > Robert B. winn Has it ever occurred to you that you're not really altruistic unless you are willing to help people not of your own faith? Al
From: rbwinn on 26 Aug 2008 22:38
On Aug 26, 6:41�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 22, 11:09 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 21, 10:51 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"<alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Aug 22, 2:28 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > Well, I know you do not discuss the theory of relativity. I have seen > > > > you discuss religion. > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > I've discussed your attempts to call algebra physics, but no-one has > > > discussed relativity except to use the term. > > > > Have you seen me discuss religion? What did I say about it. > > > > Al > > > Well, basically, you say that you think you have something better, but > > when asked about what you have, you say that you have the ability to > > oppose religion. �So without religion, what do you have? > > Robert B. Winn > > Reality. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Reality? So let's see your real proof that my equations are wrong. Robert B. Winn |