Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #555135 > unrolled thread

Is there a God, Yes or No?

Started byThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
First post2016-02-20 15:14 -0800
Last post2016-03-03 11:33 +1100
Articles 20 on this page of 117 — 36 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-20 15:14 -0800
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 17:23 -0600
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:38 -0500
        Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-21 11:35 -0800
          Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:42 -0600
            Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2016-02-22 08:01 -0600
              Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 06:29 +0800
              Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-24 10:06 +1100
            Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Neac <gnn.net> - 2016-02-23 22:26 +0000
            Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-02-25 18:28 -0500
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 06:18 -0800
        Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 08:56 -0600
          Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:32 -0800
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-02-20 15:26 -0800
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-21 00:47 +0000
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-20 17:04 -0800
        Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-21 12:38 +0000
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Norm X" <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2016-02-20 18:45 -0800
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Norm X" <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2016-02-20 19:13 -0800
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-20 20:28 -0800
        Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-02-26 12:50 -0800
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-02-21 03:42 -0500
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-21 11:32 -0800
        Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-21 12:41 -0800
          Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-21 20:20 -0800
            Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 06:27 +0800
              Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-28 20:08 -0800
                [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:15 +0800
                  Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-29 11:04 -0800
                    Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-29 23:52 +0000
                    Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 18:55 +0800
                      Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-01 14:11 -0800
                        Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 21:45 +0800
                          Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:27 -0800
                            Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-02 18:34 -0800
                              Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-03 00:40 -0800
                  Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-05 10:38 -0600
                  Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-05 09:33 -0800
            Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-23 14:12 -0800
          Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-02-23 15:49 -0500
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 06:33 +0800
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 09:09 -0500
    Is there a God, Yes or No? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 06:27 -0800
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 11:15 -0800
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:10 -0600
        Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:43 -0500
        Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 11:46 -0800
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 14:41 -0800
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 19:54 -0500
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-22 20:19 -0800
        Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 00:10 -0500
          Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-22 21:48 -0800
            Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-22 22:19 -0800
            Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 09:11 -0500
              Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-23 17:09 -0800
            Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 14:47 -0800
              Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:38 -0500
              Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:45 -0500
                Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 03:00 -0800
                  Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 06:08 -0500
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-23 03:33 +0000
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-22 20:21 -0800
        Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-23 18:20 +0000
          Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-23 12:43 -0600
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Rock Brentwood <federation2005@netzero.com> - 2016-02-23 17:52 -0800
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-24 12:56 +1100
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-24 00:04 -0800
        Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-24 23:03 +1100
          Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-24 13:12 +0100
          Re: Chritianity's benevolent God is a cheap drug. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-03 11:30 +1100
            WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML). Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-02 17:18 -0800
              Re: WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML). Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 20:18 -0700
                WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML). Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-03-02 19:54 -0800
                  Re: WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML). Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-02 23:36 -0800
                Re: WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML). Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-03 23:21 +0100
                  Re: WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML). Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 14:47 -0700
              Re: WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML). Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-03-02 23:14 -0700
                Re: WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML). Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:52 -0700
              Re: WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML). Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-03 18:45 +1100
              Re: WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML). Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-03-03 22:29 -0400
                Re: WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML). Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-03-04 13:44 -0800
            Re: Chritianity's benevolent God is a cheap drug. Mike Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net> - 2016-03-02 23:56 -0500
              Re: Chritianity's benevolent God is a cheap drug. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-03 18:46 +1100
                Re: Chritianity's benevolent God is a cheap drug. Mike Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net> - 2016-03-03 19:55 -0500
                  Re: Chritianity's benevolent God is a cheap drug. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-05 04:46 +0100
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? bilgat@m.nu - 2016-02-24 04:18 -0600
        Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-24 23:03 +1100
          Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? bilgat@m.nu - 2016-02-25 08:53 -0600
            Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-28 23:33 +1100
              Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:34 -0800
        Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 21:23 +0800
          Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-24 23:34 +0000
            Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:40 +0800
              Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? bilgat@m.nu - 2016-02-25 08:56 -0600
                Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 16:58 +0800
          Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? bilgat@m.nu - 2016-02-25 08:55 -0600
            Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 16:59 +0800
              Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-26 08:56 -0800
                Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 23:46 +0800
              Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? bilgat@m.nu - 2016-02-26 14:16 -0600
                Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-26 12:25 -0800
                  Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? bilgat@m.nu - 2016-02-26 23:21 -0600
                Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-26 22:02 -0800
                  Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-27 08:07 -0800
                    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-27 10:02 -0800
                Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 23:38 +0800
                  Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 12:00 -0500
                    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 23:55 +0800
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? sanjeeb guru <guru.sanjeeb@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 22:11 -0800
    Is there a God, Yes or No? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 04:17 -0800
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 10:53 -0500
        Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 02:39 -0800
          Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:59 -0500
            Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:10 -0800
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-26 20:14 -0800
    Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-01 21:19 -0800
      Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-03 11:33 +1100

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#555651

From"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-23 06:33 +0800
Message-ID<nag25v$k3i$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#555198
On 2/21/2016 4:42 PM, Bast wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>> If you ask people
>> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
>> You either going to get
>> a Yes or No answer.
>>
>
>
> Most certainly,.... I exist.
>
>

Why not ask: Is there someone watching your back? :)

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23)  Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64
   ^ ^   06:27:01 up 6 days 13:21 0 users load average: 1.00 1.02 1.05
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555461

From"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com>
Date2016-02-22 09:09 -0500
Message-ID<naf4ku$qv1$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#555135
	"Yes, NOW there is a God."

-- 
                      Sea Wasp
                        /^\
                        ;;;	
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com  Blog: 
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555466

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-22 06:27 -0800
Message-ID<56c54ece-8cb4-4f69-adbe-77f56faad250@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#555135
The StarBoy
If you ask people 
"Is there a God, Yes or No?" 
-----------

What I don't understand is why when I explain to people that I am an Itheist, meaning that *I* an god, they react in a negative manner.

I explain that *I* created the universe and everything in it in order that 13.7 billion years later I could live my life as a human.

Why can't people accept this as truth?

Is it any more crazy than THEIR religion?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555572

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-22 11:15 -0800
Message-ID<85996fd2-123e-43ad-a6e2-1e95c9a09131@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#555135
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:14:30 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> If you ask people
> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> You either going to get
> a Yes or No answer.
> 
> The answer is either Yes or No.
> 
> But...if you ask God the same question..
> 
> His answer would be...
> 
> 
> "That's a little bit of a hard question to answer."
> 
> God would say, "It's not that black and white..."

Yes but only at the first 6th trillionth of the beginning.Gods does not waist time.TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555604

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-22 14:10 -0600
Message-ID<duGdneoE5oW69lbLnZ2dnUU7-LudnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#555572
On 2/22/16 1:15 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> Yes but only at the first 6th trillionth of the beginning.Gods does not waist time.TreBert


   Sounds more like and god underestimated the power of the big bang and
   was exterminated in the process.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555618

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-22 15:43 -0500
Message-ID<bqKyy.32859$%q2.20264@fx01.iad>
In reply to#555604
On 02/22/2016 03:10 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/22/16 1:15 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>> Yes but only at the first 6th trillionth of the beginning.Gods does
>> not waist time.TreBert
>
>
>    Sounds more like and god underestimated the power of the big bang and
>    was exterminated in the process.
>
:-)  Good one Sammy!


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#556269

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-24 11:46 -0800
Message-ID<380eb0df-a559-4ff9-8b0f-0d5b9da9625b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#555604
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:10:19 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/22/16 1:15 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > Yes but only at the first 6th trillionth of the beginning.Gods does not waist time.TreBert
> 
> 
>    Sounds more like and god underestimated the power of the big bang and
>    was exterminated in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

In reality there are two Gods.One is very nice the other its evil twin is very bad.One is a saint the other a devil.Both powers of good and bad are equal.Both gods are needed.We know why  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555657

Fromedprochak@gmail.com
Date2016-02-22 14:41 -0800
Message-ID<ddd479d6-983f-45a1-b117-bfc29bf7ce02@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#555135
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:14:30 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> If you ask people
> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
[]

Either way, it is not a PHYSICS question.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555698

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-22 19:54 -0500
Message-ID<l5Oyy.9321$Rv2.7664@fx04.iad>
In reply to#555657
On 02/22/2016 05:41 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:14:30 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>> If you ask people
>> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> []
>
> Either way, it is not a PHYSICS question.
>
Not only not a physics question, not even an intelligent question.

What else would you expect from starfaker.

He might as well be asking: "Is there a phlogiston?, Yes or no?"

He's STILL an idiot.


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555744

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-02-22 20:19 -0800
Message-ID<56CBDDC7.24B1@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#555657
edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:14:30 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > If you ask people
> > "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> []
> 
> Either way, it is not a PHYSICS question.


God is a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over
nature. And what is Nature? Just another word for physics.



That which has power over nature has power over physics.



but you probably don't even know what the word "physics" mean...typical
of yous anyways.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555751

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-23 00:10 -0500
Message-ID<LQRyy.2071$xi2.1915@fx31.iad>
In reply to#555744
On 02/22/2016 11:19 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:14:30 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> If you ask people
>>> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
>> []
>>
>> Either way, it is not a PHYSICS question.
>
>
> God is a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over
> nature. And what is Nature? Just another word for physics.

Not quite starfaker. Physics is just a certain aspect of Nature.

God, (as opposed to your "a God") can be defined as eveyrthing that 
exists and all the laws that govern it. So "God" is in effect just 
another word for Nature.

However, things are never quite as simple as you Libs like to think. 
Nature as an object, implies certain things. For example the working of 
Nature are implied to be mechanical blind obedience to certain "laws". 
These laws never seem to change. Hence are fixed in time.

However, while Nature in a sense is what God "is", God also is defined 
as something more. Namely that God is a conscious sentient being. Hence 
God is aware of itself (all of Nature) and what is going on there just 
as you are aware of your own body and its parts and what they are doing, 
but also you have CONTROL over what they are doing. Hence God has 
control over everything and the laws that govern it even if "he" chooses 
not to exercise it at present. Hence the term "creator". Hence we easily 
see that Nature is in this sense simply an aspect of God rather than 
just another name for God.

> That which has power over nature has power over physics.

Since physics is part of nature, that is obviously true.

> but you probably don't even know what the word "physics" mean...typical
> of yous anyways.

And you probably never use your brain, so start now and join the 
imperial thinkers in pondering the philosophy of the universe!

You might find it fun. (for a change)



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555761

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-02-22 21:48 -0800
Message-ID<56CBF2C0.343F@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#555751
benj wrote:
> 
> On 02/22/2016 11:19 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:14:30 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> If you ask people
> >>> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> >> []
> >>
> >> Either way, it is not a PHYSICS question.
> >
> >
> > God is a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over
> > nature. And what is Nature? Just another word for physics.
> 
> Not quite starfaker. Physics is just a certain aspect of Nature.
> 
> God, (as opposed to your "a God") can be defined as eveyrthing that
> exists and all the laws that govern it. So "God" is in effect just
> another word for Nature.
> 
> However, things are never quite as simple as you Libs like to think.
> Nature as an object, implies certain things. For example the working of
> Nature are implied to be mechanical blind obedience to certain "laws".
> These laws never seem to change. Hence are fixed in time.
> 
> However, while Nature in a sense is what God "is", God also is defined
> as something more. Namely that God is a conscious sentient being. Hence
> God is aware of itself (all of Nature) and what is going on there just
> as you are aware of your own body and its parts and what they are doing,
> but also you have CONTROL over what they are doing. Hence God has
> control over everything and the laws that govern it even if "he" chooses
> not to exercise it at present. Hence the term "creator". Hence we easily
> see that Nature is in this sense simply an aspect of God rather than
> just another name for God.
> 
> > That which has power over nature has power over physics.
> 
> Since physics is part of nature, that is obviously true.
> 
> > but you probably don't even know what the word "physics" mean...typical
> > of yous anyways.
> 
> And you probably never use your brain, so start now and join the
> imperial thinkers in pondering the philosophy of the universe!
> 
> You might find it fun. (for a change)

To put it ...simply:

The word physics comes from the Greek word ? f?s?? "nature".
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555771

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-02-22 22:19 -0800
Message-ID<56CBF9DF.245F@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#555761
The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> benj wrote:
> >
> > On 02/22/2016 11:19 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:14:30 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>> If you ask people
> > >>> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> > >> []
> > >>
> > >> Either way, it is not a PHYSICS question.
> > >
> > >
> > > God is a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over
> > > nature. And what is Nature? Just another word for physics.
> >
> > Not quite starfaker. Physics is just a certain aspect of Nature.
> >
> > God, (as opposed to your "a God") can be defined as eveyrthing that
> > exists and all the laws that govern it. So "God" is in effect just
> > another word for Nature.
> >
> > However, things are never quite as simple as you Libs like to think.
> > Nature as an object, implies certain things. For example the working of
> > Nature are implied to be mechanical blind obedience to certain "laws".
> > These laws never seem to change. Hence are fixed in time.
> >
> > However, while Nature in a sense is what God "is", God also is defined
> > as something more. Namely that God is a conscious sentient being. Hence
> > God is aware of itself (all of Nature) and what is going on there just
> > as you are aware of your own body and its parts and what they are doing,
> > but also you have CONTROL over what they are doing. Hence God has
> > control over everything and the laws that govern it even if "he" chooses
> > not to exercise it at present. Hence the term "creator". Hence we easily
> > see that Nature is in this sense simply an aspect of God rather than
> > just another name for God.
> >
> > > That which has power over nature has power over physics.
> >
> > Since physics is part of nature, that is obviously true.
> >
> > > but you probably don't even know what the word "physics" mean...typical
> > > of yous anyways.
> >
> > And you probably never use your brain, so start now and join the
> > imperial thinkers in pondering the philosophy of the universe!
> >
> > You might find it fun. (for a change)
> 
> To put it ...simply:
> 
> The word physics comes from the Greek word ? f?s?? "nature".
> https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics


...and where do the laws of nature come from?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555841

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-23 09:11 -0500
Message-ID<bMZyy.2599$pL2.1958@fx40.iad>
In reply to#555761
On 02/23/2016 12:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> benj wrote:
>>
>> On 02/22/2016 11:19 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:14:30 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> If you ask people
>>>>> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
>>>> []
>>>>
>>>> Either way, it is not a PHYSICS question.
>>>
>>>
>>> God is a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over
>>> nature. And what is Nature? Just another word for physics.
>>
>> Not quite starfaker. Physics is just a certain aspect of Nature.
>>
>> God, (as opposed to your "a God") can be defined as eveyrthing that
>> exists and all the laws that govern it. So "God" is in effect just
>> another word for Nature.
>>
>> However, things are never quite as simple as you Libs like to think.
>> Nature as an object, implies certain things. For example the working of
>> Nature are implied to be mechanical blind obedience to certain "laws".
>> These laws never seem to change. Hence are fixed in time.
>>
>> However, while Nature in a sense is what God "is", God also is defined
>> as something more. Namely that God is a conscious sentient being. Hence
>> God is aware of itself (all of Nature) and what is going on there just
>> as you are aware of your own body and its parts and what they are doing,
>> but also you have CONTROL over what they are doing. Hence God has
>> control over everything and the laws that govern it even if "he" chooses
>> not to exercise it at present. Hence the term "creator". Hence we easily
>> see that Nature is in this sense simply an aspect of God rather than
>> just another name for God.
>>
>>> That which has power over nature has power over physics.
>>
>> Since physics is part of nature, that is obviously true.
>>
>>> but you probably don't even know what the word "physics" mean...typical
>>> of yous anyways.
>>
>> And you probably never use your brain, so start now and join the
>> imperial thinkers in pondering the philosophy of the universe!
>>
>> You might find it fun. (for a change)
>
> To put it ...simply:
>
> The word physics comes from the Greek word ? f?s?? "nature".
> https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

Typical Lib response.

Is biology "nature"?  Is chemistry "nature"? Is physics biology? Is it 
chemistry?

This is why Libs flunk every science course they ever took. Sorry 
bullshit only works in the Lib arts, not in science.

You are STILL an idiot.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#556078

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-02-23 17:09 -0800
Message-ID<56CD02E2.688D@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#555841
benj wrote:
> 
> On 02/23/2016 12:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > benj wrote:
> >>
> >> On 02/22/2016 11:19 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:14:30 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> If you ask people
> >>>>> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> >>>> []
> >>>>
> >>>> Either way, it is not a PHYSICS question.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> God is a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over
> >>> nature. And what is Nature? Just another word for physics.
> >>
> >> Not quite starfaker. Physics is just a certain aspect of Nature.
> >>
> >> God, (as opposed to your "a God") can be defined as eveyrthing that
> >> exists and all the laws that govern it. So "God" is in effect just
> >> another word for Nature.
> >>
> >> However, things are never quite as simple as you Libs like to think.
> >> Nature as an object, implies certain things. For example the working of
> >> Nature are implied to be mechanical blind obedience to certain "laws".
> >> These laws never seem to change. Hence are fixed in time.
> >>
> >> However, while Nature in a sense is what God "is", God also is defined
> >> as something more. Namely that God is a conscious sentient being. Hence
> >> God is aware of itself (all of Nature) and what is going on there just
> >> as you are aware of your own body and its parts and what they are doing,
> >> but also you have CONTROL over what they are doing. Hence God has
> >> control over everything and the laws that govern it even if "he" chooses
> >> not to exercise it at present. Hence the term "creator". Hence we easily
> >> see that Nature is in this sense simply an aspect of God rather than
> >> just another name for God.
> >>
> >>> That which has power over nature has power over physics.
> >>
> >> Since physics is part of nature, that is obviously true.
> >>
> >>> but you probably don't even know what the word "physics" mean...typical
> >>> of yous anyways.
> >>
> >> And you probably never use your brain, so start now and join the
> >> imperial thinkers in pondering the philosophy of the universe!
> >>
> >> You might find it fun. (for a change)
> >
> > To put it ...simply:
> >
> > The word physics comes from the Greek word ? f?s?? "nature".
> > https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
> 
> Typical Lib response.
> 
> Is biology "nature"?  Is chemistry "nature"? Is physics biology? Is it
> chemistry?
> 
> This is why Libs flunk every science course they ever took. Sorry
> bullshit only works in the Lib arts, not in science.
> 
> You are STILL an idiot.
> 



Okay, I'll repeat for the hearing impaired and the mentally
challenged...

 The word physics comes from the Greek word  "nature".
 https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics


And the laws of nature come from...God.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#556030

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-23 14:47 -0800
Message-ID<7187bf00-aa0b-4500-b056-619c52559b0c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#555761
BJ kooked: 
> Not quite starfaker. Physics is just a certain aspect of Nature. 
> 
> God, (as opposed to your "a God") can be defined as eveyrthing that 
> exists and all the laws that govern it. So "God" is in effect just 
> another word for Nature. 
> 
> However, things are never quite as simple as you Libs like to think. 
> Nature as an object, implies certain things. For example the working of 
> Nature are implied to be mechanical blind obedience to certain "laws". 
> These laws never seem to change. Hence are fixed in time. 
> 
> However, while Nature in a sense is what God "is", God also is defined 
> as something more. Namely that God is a conscious sentient being. Hence 
> God is aware of itself (all of Nature) and what is going on there just 
> as you are aware of your own body and its parts and what they are doing, 
> but also you have CONTROL over what they are doing. Hence God has 
> control over everything and the laws that govern it even if "he" chooses 
> not to exercise it at present. Hence the term "creator". Hence we easily 
> see that Nature is in this sense simply an aspect of God rather than 
> just another name for God. 
> 

What a load of shit.

God is just another in a long line off kooky beliefs. Simple minded and enfeebled people have always clung to their superstitions and they always will. These simple thoughts comfort them. They try to hold on to their miserable and petty lives even after death! As if the world wants them. Lol

The time of superstition is waning and the new order is coming. The time when light will be brought into the darkness. A time of the illumination of man.

Hail Satan!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#556097

Frombenj <nobody@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-23 21:38 -0500
Message-ID<56cd179a$0$15606$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to#556030
On 02/23/2016 05:47 PM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ kooked:
>> Not quite starfaker. Physics is just a certain aspect of Nature.
>>
>> God, (as opposed to your "a God") can be defined as eveyrthing that
>> exists and all the laws that govern it. So "God" is in effect just
>> another word for Nature.
>>
>> However, things are never quite as simple as you Libs like to think.
>> Nature as an object, implies certain things. For example the working of
>> Nature are implied to be mechanical blind obedience to certain "laws".
>> These laws never seem to change. Hence are fixed in time.
>>
>> However, while Nature in a sense is what God "is", God also is defined
>> as something more. Namely that God is a conscious sentient being. Hence
>> God is aware of itself (all of Nature) and what is going on there just
>> as you are aware of your own body and its parts and what they are doing,
>> but also you have CONTROL over what they are doing. Hence God has
>> control over everything and the laws that govern it even if "he" chooses
>> not to exercise it at present. Hence the term "creator". Hence we easily
>> see that Nature is in this sense simply an aspect of God rather than
>> just another name for God.
>>
>
> What a load of shit.
>
> God is just another in a long line off kooky beliefs. Simple minded and enfeebled people have always clung to their superstitions and they always will. These simple thoughts comfort them. They try to hold on to their miserable and petty lives even after death! As if the world wants them. Lol
>
> The time of superstition is waning and the new order is coming. The time when light will be brought into the darkness. A time of the illumination of man.
>
> Hail Satan!
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#556101

Frombenj <nobody@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-23 21:45 -0500
Message-ID<56cd195f$0$14699$b1db1813$79461190@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to#556030
On 02/23/2016 05:47 PM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ kooked:
>> Not quite starfaker. Physics is just a certain aspect of Nature.
>>
>> God, (as opposed to your "a God") can be defined as eveyrthing
>> that exists and all the laws that govern it. So "God" is in effect
>> just another word for Nature.
>>
>> However, things are never quite as simple as you Libs like to
>> think. Nature as an object, implies certain things. For example the
>> working of Nature are implied to be mechanical blind obedience to
>> certain "laws". These laws never seem to change. Hence are fixed in
>> time.
>>
>> However, while Nature in a sense is what God "is", God also is
>> defined as something more. Namely that God is a conscious sentient
>> being. Hence God is aware of itself (all of Nature) and what is
>> going on there just as you are aware of your own body and its parts
>> and what they are doing, but also you have CONTROL over what they
>> are doing. Hence God has control over everything and the laws that
>> govern it even if "he" chooses not to exercise it at present. Hence
>> the term "creator". Hence we easily see that Nature is in this
>> sense simply an aspect of God rather than just another name for
>> God.
>>
>
> What a load of shit.
>
> God is just another in a long line off kooky beliefs. Simple minded
> and enfeebled people have always clung to their superstitions and
> they always will. These simple thoughts comfort them. They try to
> hold on to their miserable and petty lives even after death! As if
> the world wants them. Lol
>
> The time of superstition is waning and the new order is coming. The
> time when light will be brought into the darkness. A time of the
> illumination of man.
>
> Hail Satan!

"Hail Satan!" and you think everyone ELSE who mentions God is a kook? LOL.

So you don't believe you exist. You don't believe anything exists. You 
believe laws of nature exist. You think you are God and Moderator!

What a "persistence of consciousness" kook ball you are. Only apparently 
in your irrational world you have no consciousness to persist even 
though you still believe in it!

Religion is nothing more than a piss poor attempt to describe advanced 
science far beyond your capability. You dance your kook dance and shake 
your shakers like some shaman trying to understand things well beyond 
your ability so the only thing left for you to do is LAUGH at everybody!

Yeah, That will work. That will show them that you understand and they 
are dumb!

So sad. (not to mention gay)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#556166

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-24 03:00 -0800
Message-ID<6463f798-a491-4b5e-beb7-8b1ea52d0e3e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#556101
BJ quacked:
"Hail Satan!" and you think everyone ELSE who mentions God is a kook? LOL. 
--------------

Another indication that someone is a kook is the inability to appreciate self deprecating humor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#556168

Frombenj <nobody@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-24 06:08 -0500
Message-ID<56cd8f11$0$44392$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to#556166
On 02/24/2016 06:00 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked:
> "Hail Satan!" and you think everyone ELSE who mentions God is a kook? LOL.
> --------------
>
> Another indication that someone is a kook is the inability to appreciate self deprecating humor.
>
<snort>!

THAT will be the day when Napoleon, the group "Moderator", self-deprecates!

WE all know Starfaker is as ignorant of science as you are and only 
hangs here to troll atheists and fundies with his nonsense. You know, 
sort like what you do here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web