Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Yap on 27 Aug 2008 21:15 On Aug 27, 8:34 am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Yap" <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4f94802f-8881-41d3-a931-aa30e106e1a0(a)p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 26, 7:47 pm, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote in message > > >news:6hhhfiFltptvU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > The last time I set fire to a barbecue, it certainly didn't end up clean > > > afterwards. > > > Yeah, but who cares? > > It's an immutable law of nature that the wife cleans the barbecue after > > you're done cooking. > > ;-) > > Hey Alex, > You must be still single? > Or if you are happily married, your wife must be an obedient Thai? > But if your are unhappily married, then your message above should be > one of the cause . > > ============ > > I'm not married. > I still have a life. Yes, no wonder you have that sort of opinion which can be a source of dispute with a partner. But if you do get married one day, make sure you keep your ideas to yourself if you want lasting relationship. Of course, if you want a divorce, then that sort of opinion can be of help.
From: Smiler on 27 Aug 2008 21:22 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 27, 1:29?pm, Sam Brown <sambr...(a)bleusky.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Aug 27, 12:48 pm, Sam Brown <sambr...(a)bleusky.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >> >>>>> Which commandments are impossible to keep? >>>> All of them. >> >>> If it was impossible to keep a commandment, God would not give it. >> >> Which one have you never broken? > > Thou shalt not kill. Yet you were in the armed forces, directing others where to go to kill, weren't you, skippy? You may not have pulled the 'trigger', but you pointed the 'gun' which makes you just as guilty, lying hypocrite. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: rbwinn on 27 Aug 2008 21:35 On Aug 27, 5:38�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 28, 6:15 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 1:40 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > > > > "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagenews:89bf4f65-862d-4371-91b8-ee9e57563b8a(a)q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > 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 > > > > He thinks I have left. > > > He doesn't have the wit to understand that I have simply kill-filed him, Al. > > > It was interesting when he came up with that "If you deny God- you must be > > > an adulterer" thing. > > > Pity he doesn't understand that is exactly the kind of statement which > > > demonstrates their way of thinking. > > > The critical reasoning skills of these people are truly appalling and > > > doesn't differ much from the days when they were running around burning old > > > women and saying "Only a witch would deny they are a witch!" > > > I kill- filed the sad sack when his posts started to become a little > > > sinister. > > > He had started talking about how he wasn't interested in society, wants the > > > world to end etc. > > > Coupled with his mental health problems, that's a dangerous mix. > > > I didn't want to push him any further. > > > I've seen what happens to those type of people before, and in Winn's case, > > > all of the indicators are there. > > > > -- > > > Steve O > > > Steve didn't want to talk about adultery. > > Robert B. Winn > > I suspect he just didn't want to read any more of your gibberish. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Uh huh. So did you figure out yet how a slower clock in a sattelite computes the same velocity for the sattelite that a faster clock on earth computes? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 27 Aug 2008 21:37 On Aug 27, 5:46�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 28, 9:22 am, Sam Brown <sambr...(a)bleusky.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Steve O wrote: > > > > "Sam Brown" <sambr...(a)bleusky.net> wrote in message > > >news:q5CdnU6ijccOTCjVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > >> rbwinn wrote: > > >>> On Aug 27, 1:29 pm, Sam Brown <sambr...(a)bleusky.net> wrote: > > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > > >>>>> On Aug 27, 12:48 pm, Sam Brown <sambr...(a)bleusky.net> wrote: > > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > > >>>>>>> Which commandments are impossible to keep? > > >>>>>> All of them. > > >>>>> If it was impossible to keep a commandment, God would not give it.. > > >>>> Which one have you never broken? > > > >>> Thou shalt not kill. (murder). > > > >> You've never been angry at anyone? > > > > How does anger count as murder??? > > > Are you one of those people who equate thinking about breaking a > > > commandment is the same as breaking one? > > > I've never heard it asked quite in that fashion before, i.e. "thinking > > about breaking a commandment". But, yes, we have it on good source that > > if you are angry with someone, some manuscripts add "without a cause", > > then you are guilty of killing that person. Or, if you look upon a > > woman, besides your wife, with lustful intent, then you are guilty of > > committing adultery. > > > Yes, I'm one of *those* people. But you can call me a Christian. > > I wouldn't mind it a bit. ;) > > You do realise that that point of view is somewhat retarded? �Yes, it > is better not to be angry at someone than to be angry at them. �But > anger and murder are not even in the same ballpark. �Acting on > impulse, and the ability to choose not to act are part of what makes a > society work. �Equating the urge and the act can only lead to a > lessening of the perceived gap between the two. �And as it's clear to > all who aren't in need of serious antipsycotics, there are quite a few > anti-social urges that are just part of humanity. �You can't choose to > never get angry. �You can choose to minimise your anger and not to act > on it. > But if there's no difference between getting angry and killing > someone, then why not just go the extra step? > > Al- Hide quoted text - > Well, that seems like an atheistic question. Why don't we get an atheist to answer it? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 27 Aug 2008 21:38
On Aug 27, 5:49�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 28, 10:05 am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > >news:090e3cd3-ea26-4934-a078-e6c0f3bdd11b(a)y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.... > > On Aug 27, 4:10?am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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? > > > Which commandments are impossible to keep? > > > ======= > > > For one thing, unless you are chemically castrated or practise some fairly > > peculiar sexualorientation, there is no way any male can go through life > > without ever thinking to himself "cor, look at that woman, I'd really like > > to sleep with her". > > > Deuteronomy 4:15-18 prohibits you from making any kind of image of any idol, > > human or animal. �Will you tell us that you never took even a single holiday > > snap? > > Or mayhap a cross? > > > > > Deuteronomy 14:8 bans you from eating pork. �Ever have a rasher of bacon for > > breakfast? > > Oh, pork's just unclean. �Crabs/lobsters etc are abominations. > > > > > Do you wear clothes of mixed fabric? �Do your clothes have the appropriate > > tassels at each corner? �If the answer is "yes" and "no", then you have > > broken divine commandments. > > > And so on and so on .... > > Yeah, the list isn't endless, but it might as well be. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Atheists really seem to be intrigued by the Law of Moses. I guess you atheists did not know that the Law of Moses was fulfilled when Jesus Christ was born. Robert B. Winn |