🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 13, 3:23 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 11:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >>> On Jul 11, 4:14�pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> >>>> Antares 531 wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:17:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Antares 531 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:15:08 -0700, ben_dolan_...@reet.com (Ben Dolan)
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> (snip)
> >>>>>>> Ben, there is an ABUNDANCE of evidence that God exists,
> >>>>>> Which God though?
> >>>>> The One whose prophecies are repeatedly and accurately fulfilled.
> >>>> OH, you mean a SCIENTIST.
> >>>> I thought we were talking religion..
> >>> How about this prophecy?
> >>>                               x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >>>                               y'=y
> >>>                               z'=z
> >>>                               t'=t
> >>> You atheists have no trouble believing this miracle.   An object in
> >>> motion relative to a frame of reference contracts in length until at
> >>> the speed of light its length is zero.
> >> Speed of light relative to what Robbo?
>
> >> You don't even begin to understand this 'miracle'
>
> >> I bet you don't even begin to understand the 'miracle' that you are
> >> reading this on.
>
> >> All science is about accurate prediction of the future. If you type
> >> something here, and all the proper elements of the satanic rituals are
> >> in place, and all the little satanists have connected the plugs and
> >> wires, and all the little satanic devices have been properly
> >> manufactured, and everything in a vast technical infrastructure all
> >> based on applied science are in place, and have been properly tested to
> >> be working, then magically the words *will* appear on several hundred
> >> computer screens all over the world. After you press the send button.
>
> >> Now that doesn't make Scientific theorems on which all this is based,
> >> including quantum physics, TRUE, but at least the stuff does something
> >> pretty useful and miraculous.
>
> >> Whereas the best you can come up with is an ill defined set of rules and
> >> behaviours that will, after I am dead, somehow save me from something
> >> and catapult me into something else: however I can find no instance of
> >> anyone actually having been there and back to even begin to confirm
> >> whether this will in fact happen or not.
>
> >> Ok there's an old story about one guy who allegedly did, but he could
> >> have been lying anyway.
>
> >> And you want me to accept this as absolute cast iron FACT? purleeze..
>
> >> It's just more of Kiplings Bandar Log..
>
> > As I said, you accept Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz
> > equations because it was used to produce nuclear weapons, something
> > you find useful in your philosophy.  
>
> No, I don't *accept* it, except insofar as it matches the data we have.
> And hasn't been found wrong yet.
>
> Whether or not its valid for a real object at the speed of light, we
> cannnot say, as it is impossible to generate enough energy to get
> something to that speed. As far as we have taken objects towards the
> speed of light, it seems to be holding up so far,. that's all.
>
> >And Scientists did it.  However,
> > as I said, it requires a miracle.  
>
> what is miraculaous about it?
>
> If an object moves, it gets shorter
>
> > in length, if it is accellerated to the speed of light, it has a
> > length of zero.  That is what the equations say.   This is a miracle
>
> Its not a miracle: its just what *seems* to happen. It's no more
> miraculous than lightning and thnder.
>
> > you can accept because scientists believe it.  So you and scientists
> > have a religion that is acceptable to you which only requires one
> > miracle.
>
> Not in the slightest. YOur logic start from false premises, and blunders
> on making unjustified inferences and deductions from those premises.
>
> In short Robbo, you are as bad a philosopher as you are a woman.
>
> Your mistake is to assume that similar faith based processes are
> operating in Science as they are in your mind, but its simply not true.
>
> The only 'faith' a scientists needs to operate is to assume that there
> IS a real physical world, and that our awareness of it is not totally
> illusory: The rest follows from observation of that world, according to
> what most people, christians included, find reasonable, and the
> construction of models of the way that world appears to behave.
>
> If you had studied the philosophy of science, you would also discover
> that nowhere in any of this is any claim made that these models are The
> Truth. All we can safely say is they work and they haven't been proved
> wrong yet although we can construct experiments to attempt to do so.
>
> Contrast you assertions about God, which cant be proved wrong, and have
> no quantifiable effects that can be tested, so are far far weaker as
> claims to be The Truth, and yet which you insist ARE The Truth.
>
> You star from the position that God exists, and that he is what the
> bible says he is, and if anything else doesn't ft, it's a
> misinterpretation of the Bible. Or a miracle.
>
> Whilst at one level, this is a perfectly reasonable and coherent logical
> structure, it leads precisely nowhere. Its an explanation that leads to
> nothing at all.
>
> So, as non-theists, we simply ignore it and get on with stuff that does
> lead somewhere.
>
> >    By accepting this one miracle, you have a religion which allows you
> > to do anything that you can imagine, as long as you can get away with
> > it, and if you get away with something on this earth, it is forgotten
> > forever.
>
> That sounds like Christianity to me. Aslong a you repent you will be all
> right, you can murder people to your hearts content, as long as you come
> to Jesus before its too late.
>
> Atheists may have no abstract morality, but society runs on very real
> moral principles: You can call it game theory if you like, but is simple
> natural laws. If I go around killing people, I am increasing the chances
> of getting killed, because I have become important to people in a very
> negative way.
>
> And since i have no afterlife, I am very concerned about making the best
> of what life I have. Murdering people is *so* 13th century passe..I'll
> leave that to the Christians..
>
> >     However, that is not reality.  Everyone who lives on this earth
> > will be resurrected because Jesus Christ was resurrected.  
>
> Prove it.
>
> >So there is
> > nothing hidden that will not be brought to light, there is nothing
> > unjust that will not be brought to justice.
> >      So you can claim that scientists and their little false religion
> > of one miracle are supreme, or you can believe Jesus Christ.  I
> > personally believe Jesus Christ.
>
> WEll more fool you for falling for the Prince of Lies biggest trick. You
> were warned, and you chose to close your ears.
>
And to an atheist , the Prince of Lies would be whom?
Robert B. Winn