Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 27 Aug 2008 21:56 On Aug 27, 6:42�pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 27, 10:40 am, 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 > > Steve is not even married, why should he be an adulterer? > Those prophecies were made up by ancient con.......stick this fact > into your usable part of the brain.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Maybe he has been looking at pornography. Jesus said that he who looks on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Robert B. Winn
From: Yap on 27 Aug 2008 22:07 On Aug 28, 3:48 am, Sam Brown <sambr...(a)bleusky.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > > Which commandments are impossible to keep? > > All of them. Hi Sam, I thought you are a diehard Christian, curious as to what you think about the commandments. We know they were nonsense, but if not, were meant for ancient barbarians.
From: Smiler on 27 Aug 2008 22:23 Yap wrote: > On Aug 27, 10:40 am, 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 > > Steve is not even married, why should he be an adulterer? > Those prophecies were made up by ancient con.......stick this fact > into your usable part of the brain. What part is that? AFAICT, none of his brain is usable. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Smiler on 27 Aug 2008 22:25 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 27, 6:42?pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Aug 27, 10:40 am, 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 >> >> Steve is not even married, why should he be an adulterer? >> Those prophecies were made up by ancient con.......stick this fact >> into your usable part of the brain.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Maybe he has been looking at pornography. Jesus said that he who > looks on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her > already in his heart. And the "Yellow brick road" leads to the Wizard's castle. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Alex W. on 28 Aug 2008 08:04
"Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwhipp(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:44690b15-7c9e-4c2c-90fe-ee643ee6b07d(a)25g2000prz.googlegroups.com... > 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? Borderline. In itself, the cross is no more than an abstract symbol, similar to the fish some idiots stick to their cars. The line is crossed when the cross becomes an object of veneration or when you go all Catholic and add the figure of a tortured man. > >> >> 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. Let alone lobster with sauce hollandaise or gratinated with cheese (mixing dairy with meat), or my mother's angels on horseback, made with prawns rather than oysters. |