Guest rbwinn Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 "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. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 "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. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 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? Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 "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. > Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 "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. > Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 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. .... Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 "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' Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 "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. > >> > > > >> > > Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 "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 $s then the burden of proof is on you. > > What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any > objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours. > I made no such claim. > Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 On Apr 15, 5:33�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > H. Wm. Esque wrote: > > "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message > >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life. > > > > > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to > > give them... > > > > > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ > > > > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person. > > > > > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about > > Jesus coming back! > > > > > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people > > who keep their word. > > > > You're talking about fictional characters again? > > > I saw this in alt religion. > > So? Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:1324ete7qpva2c1@corp.supernews.com... > "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:4HqUh.4108$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. > Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 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. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 On 15 Apr 2007 09:26:55 -0700, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1176654415.157086.69110@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>: >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. �ou seem >> > to have no power over his existence whatsoever. �od is like the Bible >> > in one way. �o matter what atheists say about the Bible, it continues >> > to exist and says what it was written to say. �o matter what atheists >> > say about God, He continues to exist. �ell, time for Bible study. f >> > 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?- Hide quoted text - >> >Well, since God cannot lie, anything written by one of his prophets as >scripture would be true. How do you know that any of the writers were prophets of God? You have no evidence to support that contention. >Do you think it is an intelligent position >to deny the existence of God? As long as there remains no evidence to support the claim that God exists, the only valid choice is to deny the existence of God. >Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 On Apr 15, 5:40�am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@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. Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:96e42312lub84jke16c98kv11dhd84lj8k@4ax.com... > 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. > Appearently, you never read my post before responding. You would be right except, I personally made no claim. I took issue with an existing claim. Whoever or whatever entitled the above thread suggesting he/she/it had Evidence of No Gods is wrong! There can be no such _evidence_. It cannot exist. > 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. > One must first claim that there are such creatures. Without any such claim, there is nothing to prove. IOW I may believe there are leprechauns, but since it means nothing to me that you do not, I have no burden to prove their existence to you. The fact is you may entertain your opinion that no leprechauns exist. That's fine. But when you claim to have evidence that there are no such creatures, Ok, present your evidence. Mine is the duty to try and falsify you claimed data. You made the claim that no leprechauns exist, therefore, it must be important to convince me, otherwise why make such claim. > > 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. > Ok. lets wait and see. > > ... Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 H. Wm. Esque <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote: > I saw this in alt religion. > Where is the simple evidence of no God? > I have yet to see the proof of this claim. Translation: "I see nothing because I stand on the shoulders of intellectual midgets..." Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: > Well, since God cannot lie, anything written by one of his prophets as > scripture would be true. Not sure which is funnier, the first part of that sentence or the second... > Do you think it is an intelligent position to deny the existence of God? It most certainly is. Don't you know that? Quote
Guest Sippuddin Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 Jeckyl wrote: > "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' > > Ha ha! That's hilarious. You can't call a given statement a fact unless you can explain exactly how it is that a given statement is known to be in accord with the actual state of affairs so that anyone can check your observations in the particular case. See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8, "Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction" [Personal subjective conviction with no basis in fact has no bearing on demonstrating scientific discovery.] "Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or regularities, as is the case with repeatable experiments, can our observations be tested - in principle - by anyone. We do not take even our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which, on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively testable." -- Popper Quote
Guest jientho@aol.com Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 On Apr 15, 2:03 pm, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > Jeckyl wrote: > > "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@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' > > You can't call a given statement a fact False, Septic. He most certainly can and does _call_ them facts (which doesn't make them ones, of course). > unless you can explain exactly > how it is that a given statement is known to be in accord with the > actual state of affairs so that anyone can check your observations We're still waiting for you, Septic, to demonstrate that there exists any such thing as a required default presumption in logic as you claim, so that anyone can check _your_ supposed observation. I deny that there exists any such thing, and I deny that you have demonstrated that there exists any such thing. <cue the chirping crickets> Jeff Quote
Guest Mike Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 On Apr 14, 8:17 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > Billions of mathematicians and scientists and other people all over > the world have studied abortion and found nothing wrong with it. Silly comparison. An issue of mathematics and logic is not the same as a moral judgement about right and wrong. Frankly I decided to become a mathematician in part because of the objective and unversal quality of mathematical truths. Put a Christian, a Moslem, a Hindu, and a Russian atheist in a room and ask them to debate questions of politics or right and wrong and they will be unable to agree about anything. But if they happen to be mathematicians or scientists then the argument can be productive and the will reach usually the right results. The world's scientific community has in the past been wrong about scientific questions, but never over a simple point of logic. .. So you say that I have unpopular ideas. I already knew > that, Mike. Why is it impossible for you to consider that your ideas are "unpopular" simply because they are wrong? > I still do not see any trains shrinking in length just > because you and your friends say that they do. > I think that you and your friends read too many Harry Potter books. > So, once again, I will ask you about this problem that Albert > Einstein thought of. An oberver is beside a railroad track. A train > is coming down the track toward the observer with a velocity of v. On > the train at the middle is another observer . When the observer on > the train is at the position of the observer on the ground, bolts of > lightning strike both ends of the train leaving marks on the ends of > the train and marks on the railroad track. How far apart are the > marks on the train? How far apart are the marks on the track? > Since you refuse to answer the questions, I will answer them. > If the length of the train is L, the marks on the train are a distance > of L apart. If the length of the train is L, the marks on the track > are a distance of L apart. Your mistake as your false belief that simultaneity of the lightning strikes is the same for both observers. It is not. In my post above I gave a full derivation of the length contraction. If you study the argument you will see that the lack of agreement of simultaneity between the observers is the origin of length contraction. You show me the error in my derivation of Lorentz transformations and length contraction. I don't think I can add much to Jeckyl's detailed answer to you on that other thread. I did not read the entire thread in full detail, but in the posts I did look at carefully Jeckyl's analysis seemed completely correct. If you really want I can repeat the explanations for you. But first show me what is wrong with the standard derivation of Lorentz transformation and length contraction I posted for you. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 In article <mJidnbia-aRL9b_bnZ2dnUVZ_vrinZ2d@comcast.com>, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote: > Jeckyl wrote: > > "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' > > > > > Ha ha! That's hilarious. That is exactly what Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin has often said himself, and now objects to only because it is being used against him. Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:UYdUh.2730$Pq5.1784@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > "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. > Well, bless your little heart Jess, for admitting you would be an immediate, ardent and enthusiastic convert, were you assured that Jesus Christ is NOT a "fictional character", but an actual historical person. There is hope for you yet Jess!!! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.