🚀 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.
>
>
>
> > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry, Natural, but the equations clearly say that an object gets
shorter the faster its motion and disappears when it reaches the speed
of light.  It does no good to say that is what "seems " to happen.
That is what the equations say happens.
Robert B. Winn