SIMPLE EVIDENCE OF NO GODS

[rbwinn]

On Apr 14, 10:58?pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:02:44 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
>
>
>
>
>
> <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >> > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> >> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>
> >> > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> >give them...
>
> >> > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> >> > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>
> >> > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> >Jesus coming back!
>
> >> > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> >who keep their word.
>
> >> You're talking about fictional characters again?
>
> >I saw this in alt religion.
> >Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> >I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
> The "argument" that there's no evidence that God does not exist is a
> logical fallacy. Of course there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
> There's no evidence that anything doesn't exist. That isn't how it
> works. Quite simply, there's no such thing as evidence that something
> doesn't exist. Be it gods, unicorns, elves, fairies or theists'
> critical thinking skills, nonexistence is inferred from a lack of
> evidence that the thing in question does exist.
>
> So you see, the question of God's existence doesn't rest on whether or
> not there's any evidence that he doesn't exist, but rather on
> whether or not there's any evidence that he does exist, and, despite
> the rather frequent claims by theists to the contrary, there simply
> isn't. There is , on the other hand, an abundant lack of evidence.
>
> Yes, I know you think Martin Rees' "brute facts", as you insist on
> calling them, prove the existence of some sort of creator, and other
> theists will point to other "evidence" they believe proves their case,
> but it's all smoke and mirrors. Just your (and their) subjective
> interpretation of data that can be explained as well or better in
> purely naturalistic terms. Wishful thinking, nothing more.
>
> I don't begrudge you or any other theist your beliefs, I honestly
> don't. If believing in a creator makes you feel better about life,
> about yourself, or about what you see as your "ultimate destiny",
> that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. But please, don't waste
> our time and yours with logical fallacies, subjective interpretations
> and unsupported assertions. Anything can be interpreted as
> evidence for a creator, but that doesn't mean it actually is.
>
Well, I think that the best evidence that there is a God is the fact
that you cannot make Him disintegrate with your disclaimers. You seem
to have no power over his existence whatsoever. God is like the Bible
in one way. No matter what atheists say about the Bible, it continues
to exist and says what it was written to say. No matter what atheists
say about God, He continues to exist. Well, time for Bible study. If
you run into any atheists who want to talk about the theory of
relativity, let me know.
Robert B. Winn

 

[Jeckyl]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1176620143.730279.246980@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 14, 9:14?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176610026.070043.154360@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Apr 14, 6:59?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > Yes .. liars like you tend to enjoy works of fiction
> > I am not the one who believes wizards can shrink trains.
>
> There is no shrinking of trains .. and no wizards involved. Except perhaps
> in your warped imagination where reality takes second place to your
> continual lies. I wonder what Jesus would say about your continual lies ?
>
> What lie do you claim I told, Jeckyl?

Where to start .. just about every reply you make has some lie in it

> I said if lightning struck both ends of a moving train
> at the same time leaving marks on the track,
> the marks on the track would be the length of the train apart.
> You were going to try to prove to me that the marks would
> be some other length.

I did

> How does that make me a liar.

Do you really want me to go back and look at all the times you've accused me
of using 'ether theory' and of not proving things that I had just proved etc
etc etc etc

> The marks on the track would be the length of the train apart.
> A third grader could work this mathematics problem.

And be wrong

> Is it too difficult for you in some way?

I've already done it and given you the CORRECT answer.

Maybe you could get your third grader to explain that to you.

 

[Jeckyl]

Your claims of a combination of galillean transforms and a constant maximum
speed of light have been proven (for a century) to be self-contradictory and
so DO NOT WORK. Infact, ti is easily proved (and I have done so for you
already) that Galillean transforms do not work with ANY maximum possible
speed, or any speed that is the same in all intertial frames of reference.

I have demonstrated this every time you post it with your continual LIE that
they work ,and depsite your continual LIES that the disproves are using
'ether theory' or that LIE that I am claiming light to be oblate spheroid,
or the LIE that I believe trains are crushed by photons, or any of the many
other LIES that you post.

Unless you have something else to offer, or some valid questions that
indicate a genuine desire to acutally learn, then you might as well leave
this discussion, as what you have said so far has been disproven and
restating it is not going to make it true.

Perhaps you might care to combine the constant speed of light with Lorentz
transforms, which DO work with a constant maximum speed ?

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 15, 1:12?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176620143.730279.246980@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 9:14?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1176610026.070043.154360@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >On Apr 14, 6:59?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > > Yes .. liars like you tend to enjoy works of fiction
> > > I am not the one who believes wizards can shrink trains.
>
> > There is no shrinking of trains .. and no wizards involved. Except perhaps
> > in your warped imagination where reality takes second place to your
> > continual lies. I wonder what Jesus would say about your continual lies ?
>
> > What lie do you claim I told, Jeckyl?
>
> Where to start .. just about every reply you make has some lie in it
>
> > I said if lightning struck both ends of a moving train
> > at the same time leaving marks on the track,
> > the marks on the track would be the length of the train apart.
> > You were going to try to prove to me that the marks would
> > be some other length.
>
> I did
>
> > How does that make me a liar.
>
> Do you really want me to go back and look at all the times you've accused me
> of using 'ether theory' and of not proving things that I had just proved etc
> etc etc etc
>
> > The marks on the track would be the length of the train apart.
> > A third grader could work this mathematics problem.
>
> And be wrong
>
> > Is it too difficult for you in some way?
>
> I've already done it and given you the CORRECT answer.
>
> Maybe you could get your third grader to explain that to you.

Well, you believe that mathematics is a democracy, and all you have to
do to change it is organize faction. Like all atheists, you believe
that all you have to do to prove there is no God is to claim that
anyone who says there is has told a lie. I have told you the truth.
I believe your mathematics is about as good as a Harry Potter novel
and just about as popular. The last scientist who became this obsessed
about trying change my mind left his computer and wandered outside
into the real world and ended up drowning in the ocean. You have
proven to me that what I thought you college people were doing is in
fact what you are doing. You have imposed a dictatorship in which
people who do not accept your false teachings are going to be
penalized until they do. Since people have no choice in your kind of
mathematics, it means nothing to me. As far as I am concerned, you
are people who believe in witchcraft and magic.
Robert B. Winn

 

[JessHC]

H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> > > >
> > > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> give them...
> > > >
> > > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> > > >
> > > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> Jesus coming back!
> > >
> > > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> who keep their word.
> >
> > You're talking about fictional characters again?
> >
> I saw this in alt religion.

So? Does that make your fictional character real?

> Where is the simple evidence of no God?

How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven? The xian
bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. Of
course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
deities, does it? How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
nonexistent before disbelieving in them? There is NO OBJECTIVE,
VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ANYWHERE. EVER. In light of
that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
accept the assertion.

> I have yet to see the proof of this claim.

I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
dollars, so I'm expecting a check.

What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 15, 1:19�am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Your claims of a combination of galillean transforms and a constant maximum
> speed of light have been proven (for a century) to be self-contradictory and
> so DO NOT WORK.

 

[Jeckyl]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1176639633.472689.29210@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 15, 1:12?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> I've already done it and given you the CORRECT answer.
>>
>> Maybe you could get your third grader to explain that to you.
>
> Well, you believe that mathematics is a democracy,

LIAR .. Don't tell me what I believe.

> and all you have to do to change it is organize faction.

Rubbish .. math doesn't depend on opinions (or your LIES)

> Like all atheists, you believe that all you have to
> do to prove there is no God is to claim that anyone
> who says there is has told a lie.

Not at all .. whether or not someone lies has no bearing on the truth (be it
math or any other truth) .. your LIES don't make your equations work.

> I have told you the truth.

About the only truth I've seen from you is your agreeing that the speed of
light is a constant maximum .. the very thing the undermines your futile
belief in Galilean transforms. But you just can't seem to understand the
truth.

> I believe your mathematics is about as good as a Harry Potter novel
> and just about as popular.

My math was flawless .. yours was not. No matter how much you LIE you
cannot change that

> The last scientist who became this obsessed
> about trying change my mind left his computer and wandered outside
> into the real world and ended up drowning in the ocean.

As if anyone would think you were that important. You're not

> You have
> proven to me that what I thought you college people were doing is in
> fact what you are doing. You have imposed a dictatorship in which
> people who do not accept your false teachings are going to be
> penalized until they do.

No .. I just don't like to see LIARS like you peddle there false-physics to
people who may not recognise it for the LIES that it is

> Since people have no choice in your kind of
> mathematics, it means nothing to me.

Exactly .. there is no choice in math .. you cannot choose for your math to
be correct .. either it is, or it isn't .. and in your case, it isn't

> As far as I am concerned, you
> are people who believe in witchcraft and magic.

No .. that would be you .. along with your belief in theories disproved for
a hundred years.

Again. . you have nothing worthwhile to offer .. your equations have been
soundly shown to be self-contradictory and they simply do not correspond
with reality.

If you have something worthwhile to contribute, please do so. Maybe express
some opinions on God if you like. But keep your nonsense 'physics' out of
it .. and your continual lies .. unless you enjoy being shown to be a fool
every time you post it, as your have for a decade already.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 13, 11:03?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> >
> > > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to give them...
> >
> > > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> >
> > > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about Jesus coming back!
> >
> > > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people who keep their word.
> >
> > You're talking about fictional characters again?
>
> No, Jeckyl, there are actually people who keep their word. The fact
> that you are not one of them is irrelevant.

Well, your confusion explains the non sequitur, I suppose, but still
no evidence you're talking about anything other than fictional
characters.

 

[Jeckyl]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1176640430.538032.321750@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 15, 1:19?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Your claims of a combination of galillean transforms and a constant
> maximum
> speed of light have been proven (for a century) to be self-contradictory
> and
> so DO NOT WORK. Infact, ti is easily proved (and I have done so for you
> already) that Galillean transforms do not work with ANY maximum possible
> speed, or any speed that is the same in all intertial frames of reference.
>
> I have demonstrated this every time you post it with your continual LIE
> that
> they work ,and depsite your continual LIES that the disproves are using
> 'ether theory' or that LIE that I am claiming light to be oblate spheroid,
> or the LIE that I believe trains are crushed by photons, or any of the
> many
> other LIES that you post.
>
> Unless you have something else to offer, or some valid questions that
> indicate a genuine desire to acutally learn, then you might as well leave
> this discussion, as what you have said so far has been disproven and
> restating it is not going to make it true.
>
> Perhaps you might care to combine the constant speed of light with Lorentz
> transforms, which DO work with a constant maximum speed ?
>
> Well, as I understand what you are saying,

You understand very little, from what you've demonstrated here

> you believe that there are enough Harry Potter wizards
> like you to impose your interpretation of mathematics
> on the entire world.

Math is not subject to intperpreation. Your LIES about it don't alter it.

> I think that regardless of how successful you
> are in your enforcement of false teachings,

Your teachings on physics have been shown false .. to you personally for a
decade, and to for at around a century in general

> there will be human beings who will try to work
> mathematics correctly

Yes .. like me. Someone who actually understands what they are doing. Not
som uneducated dolts like you

> and who will be able to discern that if lightning
> strikes both ends of a train

Oh god no .. here we go again with your little train fetish

> simultaneously, the marks left on the railroad track are the length of
>the train apart. You are really in the same position that the
>enforcers of Ptolemic astronomy were in.
> You are in a position to enforce your teachings,
> but the universe proves you wrong.
> What should you do?

Continue to show that the universe proves YOU wrong. SR is proven correct
... your theories ahve been proven incorrect for a century. You just can't
understand truth

> Well, you will tell Galilleo that he cannot use his equations.

I would .. and I'm sure he'd agree with the scientists and mathematicians of
today

If we're lucky you've shuffle off sometime soon and can give him the
message.

> That will solve the problem. Besides, most of the people who believed
> Galilleo did not even know how to do the mathematics involved in
> epicycles.

Just like you don't know how to do the math that shows the transforms do not
work.

Go back to the dark ages where you belong.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:58?pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:02:44 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
> > <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > >"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >> rbwinn wrote:
> > >> > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > >> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> >
> > >> > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> > >give them...
> >
> > >> > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > >> > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> >
> > >> > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> > >Jesus coming back!
> >
> > >> > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> > >who keep their word.
> >
> > >> You're talking about fictional characters again?
> >
> > >I saw this in alt religion.
> > >Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> > >I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
> >
> > The "argument" that there's no evidence that God does not exist is a
> > logical fallacy. Of course there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
> > There's no evidence that anything doesn't exist. That isn't how it
> > works. Quite simply, there's no such thing as evidence that something
> > doesn't exist. Be it gods, unicorns, elves, fairies or theists'
> > critical thinking skills, nonexistence is inferred from a lack of
> > evidence that the thing in question does exist.
> >
> > So you see, the question of God's existence doesn't rest on whether or
> > not there's any evidence that he doesn't exist, but rather on
> > whether or not there's any evidence that he does exist, and, despite
> > the rather frequent claims by theists to the contrary, there simply
> > isn't. There is , on the other hand, an abundant lack of evidence.
> >
> > Yes, I know you think Martin Rees' "brute facts", as you insist on
> > calling them, prove the existence of some sort of creator, and other
> > theists will point to other "evidence" they believe proves their case,
> > but it's all smoke and mirrors. Just your (and their) subjective
> > interpretation of data that can be explained as well or better in
> > purely naturalistic terms. Wishful thinking, nothing more.
> >
> > I don't begrudge you or any other theist your beliefs, I honestly
> > don't. If believing in a creator makes you feel better about life,
> > about yourself, or about what you see as your "ultimate destiny",
> > that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. But please, don't waste
> > our time and yours with logical fallacies, subjective interpretations
> > and unsupported assertions. Anything can be interpreted as
> > evidence for a creator, but that doesn't mean it actually is.
> >
> Well, I think that the best evidence that there is a God is the fact
> that you cannot make Him disintegrate with your disclaimers. You seem
> to have no power over his existence whatsoever. God is like the Bible
> in one way. No matter what atheists say about the Bible, it continues
> to exist and says what it was written to say. No matter what atheists
> say about God, He continues to exist. Well, time for Bible study. If
> you run into any atheists who want to talk about the theory of
> relativity, let me know.

So your assertion is that all "holy" writings that exist are true?
You think that's an intelligent position?

 

[H. Wm. Esque]

"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1176640427.794998.147610@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose
to
> > give them...
> > > > >
> > > > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus
Christ
> > > > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap
about
> > Jesus coming back!
> > > >
> > > > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are
people
> > who keep their word.
> > >
> > > You're talking about fictional characters again?
> > >
> > I saw this in alt religion.
>
> So? Does that make your fictional character real?
>
> > Where is the simple evidence of no God?
>
> How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven?
>
I don't. I made no such claim. So. I have nothing to prove.
The burden of disproof rest not on me. Try as you might
you cannot disprove this claim. Therefore, since you
cannot and I have made no claims, then obviously no one
has any burden of proof. It isn't required.
>

The xian
> bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
> e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
> Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. Of
> course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
> but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
> deities, does it? How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
> nonexistent before disbelieving in them? There is NO OBJECTIVE,
> VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ANYWHERE. EVER. In light of
> that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
> responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
> prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
> accept the assertion.
>
> > I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
> I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
> dollars, so I'm expecting a check.
>
> What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
> objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.
>

 

[H. Wm. Esque]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1176620861.079130.226190@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 10:58?pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:02:44 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > >"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >> rbwinn wrote:
> > >> > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter)
wrote:
> > >> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> >
> > >> > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose
to
> > >give them...
> >
> > >> > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus
Christ
> > >> > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> >
> > >> > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap
about
> > >Jesus coming back!
> >
> > >> > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are
people
> > >who keep their word.
> >
> > >> You're talking about fictional characters again?
> >
> > >I saw this in alt religion.
> > >Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> > >I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
> >
> > The "argument" that there's no evidence that God does not exist is a
> > logical fallacy. Of course there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
> > There's no evidence that anything doesn't exist. That isn't how it
> > works. Quite simply, there's no such thing as evidence that something
> > doesn't exist. Be it gods, unicorns, elves, fairies or theists'
> > critical thinking skills, nonexistence is inferred from a lack of
> > evidence that the thing in question does exist.
> >
> > So you see, the question of God's existence doesn't rest on whether or
> > not there's any evidence that he doesn't exist, but rather on
> > whether or not there's any evidence that he does exist, and, despite
> > the rather frequent claims by theists to the contrary, there simply
> > isn't. There is , on the other hand, an abundant lack of evidence.
> >
> > Yes, I know you think Martin Rees' "brute facts", as you insist on
> > calling them, prove the existence of some sort of creator, and other
> > theists will point to other "evidence" they believe proves their case,
> > but it's all smoke and mirrors. Just your (and their) subjective
> > interpretation of data that can be explained as well or better in
> > purely naturalistic terms. Wishful thinking, nothing more.
> >
> > I don't begrudge you or any other theist your beliefs, I honestly
> > don't. If believing in a creator makes you feel better about life,
> > about yourself, or about what you see as your "ultimate destiny",
> > that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. But please, don't waste
> > our time and yours with logical fallacies, subjective interpretations
> > and unsupported assertions. Anything can be interpreted as
> > evidence for a creator, but that doesn't mean it actually is.
> >
> Well, I think that the best evidence that there is a God is the fact
> that you cannot make Him disintegrate with your disclaimers. You seem
> to have no power over his existence whatsoever. God is like the Bible
> in one way. No matter what atheists say about the Bible, it continues
> to exist and says what it was written to say. No matter what atheists
> say about God, He continues to exist. Well, time for Bible study. If
> you run into any atheists who want to talk about the theory of
> relativity, let me know.
> Robert B. Winn
>
The problem with the claim that God exist is it's non- falsefiable.
But so is the claim that evidence of no God exist. No such
evidence can exist.

I can claim there is no other life in the entire universe, and claim
that it isn't my responsibility to prove my claim, it yours. But
it isn't. It isn't a rational claim. It might be life elsewhere and
it might not. But no one has the burden of proof in either case.
>

 

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:31:12 -0400, in alt.atheism
"H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<4HqUh.4108$XU4.3472@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
>
>"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
>news:9kd323lhu446krhj1d01iapo5r9jkqc1fp@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:02:44 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
>> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

....
>> >> You're talking about fictional characters again?
>> >>
>> >I saw this in alt religion.
>> >Where is the simple evidence of no God?
>> >I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>>
>>
>> The "argument" that there's no evidence that God does not exist is a
>> logical fallacy. Of course there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
>> There's no evidence that anything doesn't exist. That isn't how it
>> works. Quite simply, there's no such thing as evidence that something
>> doesn't exist. Be it gods, unicorns, elves, fairies or theists'
>> critical thinking skills, nonexistence is inferred from a lack of
>> evidence that the thing in question does exist.
>>
>This is true, however, I made no claim, therefore I have nothing to
>prove. There can be no evidence that God does _not_ exist, therefore
>it's an irrational claim. Rather it's irrational to present such a non
>supportable claim.

You were poorly educated. The default position for all critical
thinking, the null hypothesis, must be that X does not exist. People who
make assertions that something does exist _always_ bear the
responsibility of providing the evidence to support their claim. In the
absence of evidence to support such claims, it is valid to assert that
the null hypothesis is true. There is no evidence that leprechauns exist
so it is reasonable and accurate to say that there are no leprechauns.

This, of course, would be provisional, since evidence may arise at some
point in the future to show that leprechauns do exist, but it would be
irrational to rely on the existence of leprechauns since there is no
evidence whatsoever for them.


....

 

[Jeckyl]

"H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4HqUh.4108$XU4.3472@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> Actually, Martin Rees called his six fundamental constants
> as brute facts . This are facts that require explaination.

Facts don't have to be explained .. they just 'are'

 

[H. Wm. Esque]

"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:9kd323lhu446krhj1d01iapo5r9jkqc1fp@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:02:44 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >> > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> >> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> >> > >
> >> > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> >give them...
> >> > >
> >> > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus
Christ
> >> > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> >> > >
> >> > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap
about
> >Jesus coming back!
> >> >
> >> > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are
people
> >who keep their word.
> >>
> >> You're talking about fictional characters again?
> >>
> >I saw this in alt religion.
> >Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> >I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
>
> The "argument" that there's no evidence that God does not exist is a
> logical fallacy. Of course there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
> There's no evidence that anything doesn't exist. That isn't how it
> works. Quite simply, there's no such thing as evidence that something
> doesn't exist. Be it gods, unicorns, elves, fairies or theists'
> critical thinking skills, nonexistence is inferred from a lack of
> evidence that the thing in question does exist.
>
This is true, however, I made no claim, therefore I have nothing to
prove. There can be no evidence that God does _not_ exist, therefore
it's an irrational claim. Rather it's irrational to present such a non
supportable claim.
>
> So you see, the question of God's existence doesn't rest on whether or
> not there's any evidence that he doesn't exist, but rather on
> whether or not there's any evidence that he does exist, and, despite
> the rather frequent claims by theists to the contrary, there simply
> isn't. There is , on the other hand, an abundant lack of evidence.
>
> Yes, I know you think Martin Rees' "brute facts", as you insist on
> calling them, prove the existence of some sort of creator, and other
> theists will point to other "evidence" they believe proves their case,
> but it's all smoke and mirrors. Just your (and their) subjective
> interpretation of data that can be explained as well or better in
> purely naturalistic terms. Wishful thinking, nothing more.
>
Actually, Martin Rees called his six fundamental constants
as brute facts . This are facts that require explaination. But
to offer immagionary and unsupportable multiverses is just
as irrational as claims that hard evidence of God(s) exists.
>
> I don't begrudge you or any other theist your beliefs, I honestly
> don't. If believing in a creator makes you feel better about life,
> about yourself, or about what you see as your "ultimate destiny",
> that's fine.
>
I accept this. But when I go to the religious NGs and see
challenges to theist, it seem obvious, no everyone agrees
with your worldview.
>
> I don't have a problem with it. But please, don't waste
> our time and yours with logical fallacies, subjective interpretations
> and unsupported assertions.
>
I try not to make assertions which I cannot support. When I
make assertions I can almost always back them up by offering
references.
>
In regards to another of your issues, if I choose to address the
challenges I see on Religious NGs, how do you propose that I
do this? I do not believe it is the theist that are presenting these
challenges to other theist. But it is to the challengers, whom I
wish to address my response.

>
Anything can be interpreted as
> evidence for a creator, but that doesn't mean it actually is.
>
Maybe this is true, but when I observe footprints in the sand I
think it is safe to conclude that something or someone passed
this way.
>
The observations by Rees, Davies, Hawking, etc I believe
are footprints.
> >>
> >
> >>
> >

 

[H. Wm. Esque]

"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1176640427.794998.147610@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose
to
> > give them...
> > > > >
> > > > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus
Christ
> > > > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap
about
> > Jesus coming back!
> > > >
> > > > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are
people
> > who keep their word.
> > >
> > > You're talking about fictional characters again?
> > >
> > I saw this in alt religion.
>
> So? Does that make your fictional character real?
>
> > Where is the simple evidence of no God?
>
> How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven? The xian
> bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
> e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
> Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. Of
> course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
> but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
> deities, does it? How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
> nonexistent before disbelieving in them? There is NO OBJECTIVE,
> VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ANYWHERE. EVER. In light of
> that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
> responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
> prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
> accept the assertion.
>
As far as I can determine this post isn't addressed to me.
>
> > I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
> I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
> dollars, so I'm expecting a check.
>
I have seen no claim either way, therefore neither of us has the
burden of proof. You can claim I owe you a million dollars, but
it isn't my responsibility to prove I do not. Neither is it yours.
OTOH if I am the IRS, and I claim you owe the IRS a million $s
then the burden of proof is on you.
>
> What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
> objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.
>
I made no such claim.
>

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 15, 5:33�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>
> > > > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> > give them...
>
> > > > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>
> > > > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> > Jesus coming back!
>
> > > > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> > who keep their word.
>
> > > You're talking about fictional characters again?
>
> > I saw this in alt religion.
>
> So?

 

[H. Wm. Esque]

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:1324ete7qpva2c1@corp.supernews.com...
> "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:4HqUh.4108$XU4.3472@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> > Actually, Martin Rees called his six fundamental constants
> > as brute facts . This are facts that require explaination.
>
> Facts don't have to be explained .. they just 'are'
>
I respectifully disagree. And for this reason during
the 17 and 1800s, mineralized (fossil) bones frequently
were found buried in stone.
These were bones of non-extant animals. These bones
were real they were facts. So, if "Facts don't have to
be explained....." then science has no role, and
Charles Darwin really did not need to explain anything
about them.


>

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 15, 5:34�am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176639633.472689.29210@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 15, 1:12?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >> I've already done it and given you the CORRECT answer.
>
> >> Maybe you could get your third grader to explain that to you.
>
> > Well, you believe that mathematics is a democracy,
>
> LIAR .. Don't tell me what I believe.
>
> > and all you have to do to change it is organize faction.
>
> Rubbish .. math doesn't depend on opinions (or your LIES)
>
> > Like all atheists, you believe that all you have to
> > do to prove there is no God is to claim that anyone
> > who says there is has told a lie.
>
> Not at all .. whether or not someone lies has no bearing on the truth (be it
> math or any other truth) .. your LIES don't make your equations work.
>
> > I have told you the truth.
>
> About the only truth I've seen from you is your agreeing that the speed of
> light is a constant maximum .. the very thing the undermines your futile
> belief in Galilean transforms.

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 15, 5:40�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 10:58?pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:02:44 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
> > > <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > >"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> rbwinn wrote:
> > > >> > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > >> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>
> > > >> > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> > > >give them...
>
> > > >> > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > >> > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>
> > > >> > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> > > >Jesus coming back!
>
> > > >> > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> > > >who keep their word.
>
> > > >> You're talking about fictional characters again?
>
> > > >I saw this in alt religion.
> > > >Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> > > >I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
> > > The "argument" that there's no evidence that God does not exist is a
> > > logical fallacy. Of course there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
> > > There's no evidence that anything doesn't exist. That isn't how it
> > > works. Quite simply, there's no such thing as evidence that something
> > > doesn't exist. Be it gods, unicorns, elves, fairies or theists'
> > > critical thinking skills, nonexistence is inferred from a lack of
> > > evidence that the thing in question does exist.
>
> > > So you see, the question of God's existence doesn't rest on whether or
> > > not there's any evidence that he doesn't exist, but rather on
> > > whether or not there's any evidence that he does exist, and, despite
> > > the rather frequent claims by theists to the contrary, there simply
> > > isn't. There is , on the other hand, an abundant lack of evidence.
>
> > > Yes, I know you think Martin Rees' "brute facts", as you insist on
> > > calling them, prove the existence of some sort of creator, and other
> > > theists will point to other "evidence" they believe proves their case,
> > > but it's all smoke and mirrors. Just your (and their) subjective
> > > interpretation of data that can be explained as well or better in
> > > purely naturalistic terms. Wishful thinking, nothing more.
>
> > > I don't begrudge you or any other theist your beliefs, I honestly
> > > don't. If believing in a creator makes you feel better about life,
> > > about yourself, or about what you see as your "ultimate destiny",
> > > that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. But please, don't waste
> > > our time and yours with logical fallacies, subjective interpretations
> > > and unsupported assertions. Anything can be interpreted as
> > > evidence for a creator, but that doesn't mean it actually is.
>
> > Well, I think that the best evidence that there is a God is the fact
> > that you cannot make Him disintegrate with your disclaimers.