Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 26 Aug 2008 22:40 On Aug 26, 6:44�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, Al, I am sorry you feel that was. Maybe we could discuss the prophecy that if a man denies God and asks to see a sign, that man is an adulterer. Steve suddenly left when that subject came up. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 26 Aug 2008 22:42 On Aug 26, 6:51�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > Well, that is something we could discuss. What was the real world data that proved my equations wrong? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 26 Aug 2008 22:43 On Aug 26, 6:55�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, send them by, Al. I never said I would not help people who are not of my faith. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 26 Aug 2008 22:45 On Aug 26, 7:22�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 26, 1:07 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > >> No one should presume the unknown future of our death....yet this is > > > >> exactly what is happening in the bigotry world.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > Well, it would be up to you people who practice bigotry to change what > > > > you do. > > > > Give us objective evidence for the existence of any god, and we'll change. > > > How is that being bigotted? > > > I can send you a copy of the Bible. �Where shall I send it? > > Robert B. winn > > Well, now that you mention it, it's winter here, and I'm out of logs. > Do you have any hard-cover copies? > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If someone sent you a Gutenburg edition, would you burn it? Robert B. Winn
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 26 Aug 2008 22:49
On Aug 27, 12:38 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > 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 Equations are neither wrong nor right. Yours simply don't match the data that comes from observing reality. Please provide an experiment where your "equations" predict a different result from the equations from the generally accepted general relativity and ask independent third parties to run the experiment. Until then, you're just messing with algebra. Again, without religion, I like to stick to this reality stuff. Theories need testing and preferably independent verification. Which is one area where your religion fails you horribly. Al |