Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 26 Aug 2008 22:51 On Aug 27, 12:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > 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 That's probably because you saying that makes it perfectly clear to all that you've completely lost your mind. It makes no sense. What exactly did you want to discuss about it? Al
From: rbwinn on 26 Aug 2008 23:28 On Aug 26, 7:49�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - OK. Put a clock in a sattelite and orbit around the earth. Not too difficult of an experiment. It has already been done. Einstein predicted the clock would run slower than an identical clock on earth. What do you know? The clock ran slower than an identical clock on earth. My equations predict that a clock in the sattelite will run slower than an identical clock on earth. What do you know? The clock ran slower than an identical clock on earth. So which set of equations agree with the clock? They both do. At the velocity of the sattelite, my equations show the same time as Einstein's equations to six decimal places. However, you have to look at what each set of equations says. Einstien's equations say that in the sattelite with a clock running slower than an identical clock on earth, the sattelite is going at the same velocity as shown by the clock on earth. So, Al, just explain how that works, and we will take it from there. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 26 Aug 2008 23:30 On Aug 26, 7:51�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 27, 12:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > That's probably because you saying that makes it perfectly clear to > all that you've completely lost your mind. > > It makes no sense. �What exactly did you want to discuss about it? > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I believe the Bible. So what do you atheists believe about that prophecy? Robert B. Winn
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 27 Aug 2008 02:14 On Aug 27, 1:30 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 26, 7:51 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Aug 27, 12:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > That's probably because you saying that makes it perfectly clear to > > all that you've completely lost your mind. > > > It makes no sense. What exactly did you want to discuss about it? > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I believe the Bible. So what do you atheists believe about that > prophecy? > Robert B. Winn OK. So first we'll check we're talking about the same meanings. I'm assuming the following. Prophecy: 1. the foretelling or prediction of what is to come. Deny; 1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation. 2. to refuse to agree or accede to: to deny a petition. 3. to withhold the possession, use, or enjoyment of: to deny access to secret information. 4. to withhold something from, or refuse to grant a request of: to deny a beggar. 5. to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny one's gods. 6. to withhold (someone) from accessibility to a visitor: The secretary denied his employer to all those without appointments. Adulterer; One who commits adultery; voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse. So, you predict that those who refuse to acknowledge a god, and ask for (I assume you mean) proof of said gods, will turn into an adulterer. Now, by the definition of adulterer, this can only occur if all atheists get married first. AND then sleep with someone other than the person they are married to. Well, I think you will find that there will be some atheists who die unmarried. And there will be some who die married and having never cheated on their spouse. But the second item is of course harder to prove, so lets concentrate on the cases of unmarried atheists who die in that state. You have essentially said you predict that there will be no such people. Can you back this up with statistics at all? Al
From: Alex W. on 27 Aug 2008 07:10
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:045ba16c-666c-42ba-8eeb-c028260e7d31(a)c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... It is the people who bring the calamities. God said that if they keep His commandments, they will have His protection. The people say, No, we want the calamities. ========= And it doesn't bother you at all that He passed so many commandments that they are impossible to keep, that He is setting Man up to fail? You are happy to play a game that is rigged? |