Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)

4 views
Skip to first unread message

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 27, 2008, 11:21:32 PM4/27/08
to
Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what
awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives,
etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of
questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and
others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I
managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also
identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer
is this correct one.

Probably I am the only researcher on the Earth who have found a key to
the scientific understanding of God (see the web page named "god.htm")
and to a rational getting to know this superior being with the use of
modern scientific methods. This key turned out to be the "theory of
everything" called the "Concept of Dipolar Gravity (see the web page
named "dipolar_gravity.htm"). It is because of this "theory of
everything", that I managed to determine where, when, and how the self-
evolution of God took place. Outcomes of this determination are
described in item #B1 of the web page "evolution.htm" - about problems
of natural evolution. It is also because of this "theory of
everything", that I managed to formulate several formal scientific
proofs for the existence of God, immortal soul, other world, etc.
These formal proofs are described: in item #B3 of the web page
"god.htm" - about secular and scientific understanding of God (see in
there the "formal scientific proof for the existence of God"), in item
#C1.1 of the web page "nirvana.htm" - about the totaliztic nirvana
(see in there the "formal scientific proof for the existence of
eternal human soul"), in item #D3 of the web page
"dipolar_gravity.htm" - about the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (see in
there the "formal scientific proof for the existence of the counter-
world"), and in several further totaliztic web pages (see the web page
named "totalizm.htm"). Only because of findings of this "theory of
everything" I was also able to indicate to other people an entire
wealth of empirical evidence for the existence of God, which (the
scientific evidence) so-far was either overlooked, or intentionally
ignored by the official human science. (Descriptions of this empirical
evidence are provided in items #F1 to #F3 of the totaliztic web page
"bible.htm" - about the Bible authorised by God Himself.)

When formulating these formal scientific proofs for the existence of
God, and while researching God with scientific methods, I had numerous
opportunities to have a close look at what would happen if all people
unanimously recognised my proofs and rapidly started to believe (as
strongly as I do) that God in fact does exist. A positive consequence
of such a rapid converting of all atheists into the belief in God
would be, of course, that almost instantly all people would begin to
act morally. Means, that would disappear: crime, lies, cheating,
killing, exploitation, wars, etc., etc. However, in the present
situation of our civilisation, when people still just only "worship
God" instead of researching Him and instead of obeying laws that He
established, various undesirable consequences of such unanimous belief
in God would also appear. Namely, almost completely would then
diminish the accumulation of knowledge and the human motivation to
investigate the universe. After all, in present circumstances, for so-
called "typical bread eaters" the consequence of being sure that God
does exist is to loose the motivations for investigating and for
analysing the world around us. For every question about anything, for
these ones who strongly believe in God is just a single reply, namely
"because God created it so and He controls it in just such a manner".
Believers in God notoriously keep ignoring the well-known principle
that "God helps only those people who help themselves", and that by
failing to act even saints get nowhere. In order to summarise the
above, "typical consequences of increasing the faith in God in present
circumstances are: an increase in morality of people, which is
accompanied by the simultaneous decrease in knowledge, disappearance
of scientific research, and the lack of motivation for creative
searches".

Of course, if these are us who put ourselves in the position of God,
we would NOT like the situation when all people believe in Us and all
people worship Us, when all people act morally, but simultaneously the
progress of knowledge and technology rapidly falls down. After all, in
such a situation the human civilisation would never advance to a
higher level of development. So in our interest as God, would lie
finding a way to inspire in people somehow the creative searches and
the increase in their knowledge. As it turns out, this way depends on
persuading some people into the so-called "atheism". Atheists from the
very definition are forced to find out which mechanisms hide behind
events around them. After all, they negate God as the source of these
mechanisms. As such, the "atheism" is the propelling force for the
progress of knowledge and for the technical development of our
civilisation. Unfortunately, the "atheism" has this drawback, that it
causes also a moral decadency. This is because without believing in
the existence of God and without believing in the existence of eternal
soul, atheists try to gain from the life as much as they only can for
as little as they manage to get away with. But since the morality
stands on their way, then to hell with the morality. In order to
summarise the above, "typical consequence of "atheism" is the increase
of knowledge and the fast technical progress, which, however, is
accompanied by the simultaneous drop in the level of morality amongst
people".

Each one amongst two situations on the Earth described before has its
drawbacks. Namely, if all people are believers in God, then the
science, progress, and motivations of people to improve their
situation would diminish on the Earth, while the average level of
morality would increase. In turn, if all people on the Earth were
atheists, then the science and technology would bloom, while the
morality would fell down. The main reason is, that when something
undesirable affects believers in God, these typically state that this
is the "God's will" and do NOTHING to improve their situation. In turn
when something undesirable affects atheists, then they try to
determine what are reasons for this and then they fight with it. So
what God should do in order to make the humanity to stay on the path
of morality, but simultaneously people keep motivations to continue
research, progress, and improvement of their situations. Well, on the
present level of human awareness, the only choice is that "a correct
balance between the number of people who believe in God, and the
number of atheists, must be maintained on the Earth". Expressing this
in other words, if someone puts himself into the position of God
(means speaking scientifically - if someone would "simulate the
situation of God") then he would discover easily that God to the same
degree is interested in a correctly balanced propagation amongst
present people both the "atheism" as well as the "belief in God". In
turn the best evidence for this interest of God in a balanced
propagation of both, atheism and the belief in God, is the so-called
"free will" of people, and also the so-called "canon of ambiguity"
which God displays in everything that He does. The "free will" which
God gave to all people causes that each one of us has the right to
interpret everything on any way that he or she wishes. In turn the
"canon of ambiguity", which is embedded into every action of God,
depends on such doing everything God decides to do, that every person
can interpret later this God's action according to his or her own view
of the world and according to his or her personal philosophy - means
in any way that a given person wishes to interpret it. (Please notice
that descriptions of the "canon of ambiguity" are provided in
subsection JB7.4 from volume 7 of monograph [1/4] ?available free of
charge from the totaliztic web page named "xext_1_4.htm".)

Unfortunately, the maintenance of the correct balance on the Earth
between the number of atheists and the number of believers in God, is
immensely difficult. After all, people display so-called "sheep
mentality". Furthermore, on the Earth works inertia, fashion,
tradition, etc. Therefore, every now and again this healthy balance
becomes disturbed. So what God does in such cases. Well, he must take
various corrective measures. What these measures are we already saw in
the period of medieval times, and we also are starting to see it in
the present time. After all, similarly like previously this happened
already once near the end of antiquity, just recently again the
disturbance of this healthy balance took place. In the result of this
disturbed balance, the number of atheists grew to the level that it
endangers the moral progress of humanity. So God again must intervene,
and in fact He already intervenes. But He cannot appear openly in the
sky and start to electrocute atheists with lightnings. After all this
would destroy the "free will" of people - and thus would force every
atheists to become a believer in God. In the result another fall down
of progress in lifting knowledge and technology would take place in
the future of the Earth. Therefore God have chosen another method for
restoration of the balance. It is based on an old finding which is
excellently expressed by the proverb which states that "there are no
atheists amongst frightened". This method represents only a slight
modification of the method that God already used once on the humanity
during medieval times. In a short run it is going to turn very painful
for individual people. But on a long run it is going to turn very
beneficial for the entire human civilisation. The totaliztic web page
named "will.htm" (addresses of which are provided below) is trying to
describe systematically and scientifically what this method is all
about. Furthermore, the web page "will.htm" shares with the reader my
answers to questions that are stated at the beginning of this item.

The explanations presented above, which illustrate that in order to
reassure a simultaneous increase of morality and the growth of
knowledge and technology on the Earth God is forced to maintain a
dynamic balance between the number of believers and atheists, are
adopted from item #A2 on the totaliztic web page named "will.htm",
update of 25 April 2008, or later. The latest update of the web page
"will.htm" should be available from following addresses (if it was not
sabotaged there by evil powers that recently rampage in the internet
and all over the Earth):

http://bible.webng.com/will.htm
http://energy.atspace.org/will.htm
http://evidence.ueuo.com/will.htm
http://evil.thefreehost.biz/will.htm
http://fruit.sitesled.com/will.htm
http://fruit.xphost.org/will.htm
http://god.ez-sites.ws/will.htm
http://karma.freewebpages.org/will.htm
http://memorial.awardspace.info/will.htm
http://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/will.htm
http://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/will.htm
http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/will.htm
http://parasitism.about.tc/will.htm
http://parasitism.xphost.org/will.htm
http://rubik.hits.io/will.htm
http://tornado.99k.org/will.htm
http://wszewilki.greatnow.com/will.htm

It is also worth to know that under each address indicated above ALL
totaliztic web pages should be available (unless some of these web
pages were sabotaged in the meantime). Thus, if someone wishes to view
descriptions from any other totaliztic web page, e.g. from a web page
listed in this message, or listed in other totaliztic messages, then
in the above addresses the name "will.htm" is just enough to exchange
for a name of the web page that he or she wishes to view, e.g. for the
name of web page god.htm? "bible.htm", "dipolar_gravity.htm",
"nirvana.htm", otalizm.htm? "evil.htm", "evolution.htm",
"wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm", "malbork_uk.htm", "memorial.htm",
"newzealand.htm", "free_energy.htm", "fe_cell.htm", "boiler.htm",
"partia_totalizmu_uk.htm", fruit.htm", "text_1_5.htm", etc., etc.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

P.S. This thread belongs to a longer series of discussion threads that
I authorise and that concentrate on providing and discussing
scientifically verifiable evidence, proofs, and explanations for the
existence of God, eternal soul, another world, etc. The aim of all
these threads is to restore the healthy balance between the
dissemination of "atheistic views" based on scientific findings, and
the dissemination of views which facilitate the rational research on
God and which also are based on newest scientific findings and on the
existing evidence. It is my hope, that by attempts to restore this
healthy balance I manage to reverse the trend to-date that rationally
thinking people were "tricked" into atheism because the
representatives of scientific fraternity either were scared to present
evidence and proofs regarding God, or ignored the evidence that was
known to them. In turn by restoring this balance, I hope to enable
people to take an "informed decision" in all matters relating to God
(instead, as presently, being just "tricked" into atheism).

Christopher A. Lee

unread,
Apr 27, 2008, 11:34:30 PM4/27/08
to
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:21:32 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:

>Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,

Speak for yourself, pig-ignorant liar who pretends he is too stupid to
understand that it's merely somebody else's religious belief.

[220 lines of in-your-face, mindless bullshit deleted]

Richo

unread,
Apr 27, 2008, 11:42:13 PM4/27/08
to
On Apr 28, 1:21 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
> whether we have eternal soul,

I am not interested in those.

what is the goal of our existence, what
> awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives,
> etc., etc.

Those are the impotant questions.

> I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of
> questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and
> others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I
> managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also
> identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer
> is this correct one.
>

You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions.

> Probably I am the only researcher on the Earth who have found a key to
> the scientific understanding of God (see the web page named "god.htm")

The scientific understanding of God is "That isnt a question that can
be meaningfully asked or tested".

Cheers, Mark.

John Baker

unread,
Apr 27, 2008, 11:50:19 PM4/27/08
to
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:21:32 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:


<PLONK!>

J

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 12:00:52 AM4/28/08
to

"John 'IBen' Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:6bia14t1digq6lo4c...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:21:32 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> <PLONK!>
>

You're so full of shit, IBen. When you say you'll <PLONK> someone, that
usually means you'll become obsessed with him


Uncle Vic

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 12:04:49 AM4/28/08
to
One fine day in alt.atheism, janp...@gmail.com wrote:

> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,

I'm one of those who doesn't bother, given the lack of evidence available.
Why did you cross post this into alt.atheism? Trolling?

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.


janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 12:55:04 AM4/28/08
to
On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions.
...
Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". Is
it from the time when your personal definition of what science should
do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific
fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and
also do answer, these type of questions. What even more important, my
answers to these questions are based on scientifically verifiable
evidence and on logical deductions. If you do not believe, then have a
look at other threads that I am authorising, e.g. at the threads:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/3511120c588e0a16/6c4ba1babcee49b5#6c4ba1babcee49b5
- which contains the formal scientific proof that "God does exist"
completed with methods of mathematical logic,

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/9d7e62b9be872ac3/2d70a1621314beb6#2d70a1621314beb6
- which contains the formal scientific proof that "another world (in
which God lives) does exist" completed with methods of mathematical
logic,

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/0b85905d2dc9f083#c374dc041f3c5fdf
- which provides scientifically verifable "evidence for the existence
of God" from the area of physical sciences,

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8040cef26d37261f#de22942cb8fe3aee
- which provides scientifically verifable "evidence for the existence
of God" from the area of biological sciences,

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/20892864b7f7690e/bbdc5b3dc1aed298#bbdc5b3dc1aed298
- which proves that there is NO evidence for the NON-excistence of
God, while simultaneously there is an abundance of evidence for the
existence of God,

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.misc/browse_thread/thread/08f2092eec0476ad#
- which provides folklore-based evidence for the existence of God.

Christopher A. Lee

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 1:01:52 AM4/28/08
to
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:55:04 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions.
>...
>Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". Is

Where did you demonstrate there was anything to have questions about,
in the real world outside your religion, moron?

DanielSan

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 1:11:30 AM4/28/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions.
> ...
> Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". Is
> it from the time when your personal definition of what science should
> do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific
> fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and
> also do answer, these type of questions.

Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
predicted, and repeated.

Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God?
How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
results?

Richo

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 2:52:55 AM4/28/08
to
On Apr 28, 2:55 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions.
>
> ...
> Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific".

Think on this:
You have in front of you two statues.
One of them is regarded by the makers of the statue as holy - they
sincerely believe that the divine is present in it - the other is an
art work that no living person regards as holy.
What scientific principle would you employ to distinguish the divine
statue from the non divine statue.

> Is
> it from the time when your personal definition of what science should
> do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific
> fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and
> also do answer, these type of questions.

Or you could be delusional.

> What even more important, my
> answers to these questions are based on scientifically verifiable
> evidence and on logical deductions. If you do not believe, then have a
> look at other threads that I am authorising, e.g. at the threads:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/3511120...


> - which contains the formal scientific proof that "God does exist"
> completed with methods of mathematical logic,
>

I will read it and reply - but I don't think you will like my
analysis.

Mark.

C3

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 3:02:08 AM4/28/08
to
> named ...
>
> read more �

Overall I think beleivers add more to progress. There is the Catholic
saying "In the World but not of the World." People who have spent an
incredible amount of time in prayer are actually just as erudite and
intelligent and well educated as the atheist group. Prayer itself
exists and this adds to ingenuity and progress.

C3

Richo

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 3:28:18 AM4/28/08
to
On Apr 28, 2:55 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/3511120...

> - which contains the formal scientific proof that "God does exist"
> completed with methods of mathematical logic,
>

<snip irrelevance>
> So here it is, the formal proof for the existence of God
> completed with the use of methods of mathematical logic:

> Theorem:
> "God does exist".

First problem: you have not defined God.
Presumably it's the eternal mind/spirit that created the universe -
but there are many variations on the idea so it good to say up front
which version you are pushing for.

> Basis propositions:
> (1) "Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent
> codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes
> are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent
> beings.

That contains several diverse assumptions that are not obviously true.
I know something of codes and I think you may be equivocating on
"language".
Shannon was a communications Engineer who was interested in
quantifying information content in coding schemes etc and I dont think
there is much meaning behind the statement "all codes
are versions of languages" unless you are simply declaring them
equivalent for the purposes of discussion. You make it sound profound.
Also since the theory of evolution through natural selection was
published over
150 years ago we know that many apparently designed systems can arise
without the intervention of a designer.

So you are off to a very poor start.

> (2) The creation of a single "language of genetic
> programming" which would be capable to program and to express with
> genetic codes all attributes for the huge number and variety of living
> creatures that populate the Earth, required the work of either
> superior being of a supernatural knowledge, power, and efficiency of
> God, or a multitude of unanimously cooperating with each other human-
> like intelligent beings of capabilities and efficiencies similar to
> these of humans.

Why not natural selection in a soup of complex molecules doing what
comes naturally?
Anyhow you are just asserting this is true without justifying it.

I think there is little point in going on.

The logic of a proof can be perfect but the conclusion can be false -
it all depends on the truth of your assumptions.
(1) All cats are green
(2) I am a cat.
Conclusion: I am green.

Perfectly valid and wrong.
Your proof suffers the same problem "garbage in, garbage out"

Mark.

Dubh Ghall

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 6:44:41 AM4/28/08
to
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:21:32 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:

>Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
>whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what
>awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives,
>etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of
>questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and
>others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist,


Sorry sunshine, but *creation scientists*, don't actually count as
"scientists".

I have read some bollocks, in my time, but you are setting new
standards.

adman

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 6:55:56 AM4/28/08
to

"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:WuGdnQ_t0O4dwYjV...@comcast.com...

Let me know when you can make a universe and everything in it that can be

DanielSan

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 8:50:13 AM4/28/08
to

How is that an answer? Are you saying that those steps cannot be
applied to God?

John Baker

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 11:24:26 AM4/28/08
to
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:52 -0400, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:

>
>"John 'IBen' Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
>news:6bia14t1digq6lo4c...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:21:32 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> <PLONK!>
>>
>
>
>
>You're so full of shit, IBen.

In the unlikely event that I ever find myself in need of the opinion
of a complete and utter imbecile, you'll be the first person I ask,
IBen. Until then, shut the fuck up.

>When you say you'll <PLONK> someone, that
>usually means you'll become obsessed with him

Says the trolling lunatic who's so obsessed with me that he even stole
my name.

>

John Smith

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 11:35:52 AM4/28/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:510c60e8-6685-4ad0...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
> whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what
> awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives,
> etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of
> questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and
> others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I
> managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also
> identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer
> is this correct one.


IOW - you're no scientist - just another raving lunatic.


adman

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 11:46:51 AM4/28/08
to

"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rIKdncyHW_2eVYjV...@comcast.com...

No those steps cannot be applied to God

But there are alot of claims that science makes that is not and cannot be

tested, observed, predicted, and repeated.

So if you are willing to accept when science says there is a big bang that
created the universe, when the big bang is not tested, observed, predicted,
and repeated; then why be so unwilling to accept a creator that cannot be
tested, observed, predicted, and repeated?


Lord Vetinari

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 2:06:59 PM4/28/08
to

"John Smith" <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s9mRj.9373$E77.4445@trnddc05...

*NARF*

What're we going to do tonight, Brain?

Heh....


Wombat

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 2:30:53 PM4/28/08
to
On 28 Apr, 17:46, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> "DanielSan" <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:rIKdncyHW_2eVYjV...@comcast.com...| adman wrote:
>
> | > "DanielSan" <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> | >news:WuGdnQ_t0O4dwYjV...@comcast.com...

WTF do you think the CMB is evidence for? Red shift anyone?
Have you worked out yet how the Colorado River cut meanders in the GC
in 10,000 years?
Have you worked out how an ice dam collapse sent water south over
rising ground for about 700 miles before it cut a canyon in solid
rock?
The words motes and beams seem aposite.

Wombat

Ye Old One

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 4:34:22 PM4/28/08
to
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:46:51 -0500, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>So if you are willing to accept when science says there is a big bang that
>created the universe, when the big bang is not tested, observed, predicted,
>and repeated; then why be so unwilling to accept a creator that cannot be
>tested, observed, predicted, and repeated?

1) The BB was predicted.

2) Evidence for the BB was predicted, searched for and found.

3) Observations of the BB have been made.

4) There is no evidence for a creator, nor for the need for one.

--
Bob.

John Baker

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 4:59:01 PM4/28/08
to

Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world.


>

Christopher A. Lee

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 7:12:59 PM4/28/08
to
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:21:32 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:

>Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,

Liar.

DanielSan

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 8:59:44 PM4/28/08
to

So, God is not scientific. QED.

>
> But there are alot of claims that science makes that is not and cannot be
> tested, observed, predicted, and repeated.

Like what?

>
> So if you are willing to accept when science says there is a big bang that
> created the universe, when the big bang is not tested, observed, predicted,
> and repeated; then why be so unwilling to accept a creator that cannot be
> tested, observed, predicted, and repeated?

Ah, but the Big Bang HAS been observed. You can observe it today. It
can be tested and predicted and those tests and predictions can be
repeated by a multitude of scientists.

How do we do this for a creator?

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 10:49:00 PM4/28/08
to
On Apr 28, 5:11 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
> predicted, and repeated.
>
> Please show how these steps can be applied to God.  How do we test God?
>   How do we observe God?  How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
> results?

We can research God in exactly the same as we research every other
phenomena that science tries to research, but that cannot be tested,
observed, predicted, and repeated. If we exclude such phenomena from
the science's scope of interests, then e.g. scientists could NOT say
anything about the origins of the universe - as NO scientist was
present there, and NO scientist can be present when this origin may be
repeated. Similarly about the evolution - science has a lot to say
about it, but it cannot test or repeat it.

Humans have intelligence (at least some humans do). In turn
intelligence can overcome every obstacle. We just need to use it for
researching God. I am doing this since 1985. Some initial methods of
researching God I am planning to outline on the web page "will.htm"
indicated before. However, as I am describing these methods, I intend
to discuss them simultaneously. (I do discuss them on several threads
simulataneously - e.g. see also the thread (in Polish) at the address
http://groups.google.com/group/pl.soc.religia/browse_thread/thread/8887c148f441ea3b#
.)

DanielSan

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 10:52:20 PM4/28/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 28, 5:11 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
>> predicted, and repeated.
>>
>> Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God?
>> How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
>> results?
>
> We can research God in exactly the same as we research every other
> phenomena that science tries to research, but that cannot be tested,
> observed, predicted, and repeated.

Like what?

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 11:01:33 PM4/28/08
to
On Apr 29, 12:59 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Ah, but the Big Bang HAS been observed.  You can observe it today.  It
> can be tested and predicted and those tests and predictions can be
> repeated by a multitude of scientists.
...
Wow, so you do see the "big bang"! No wonder that you present here
such "interesting" views.

DanielSan

unread,
Apr 28, 2008, 11:03:54 PM4/28/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 29, 12:59 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Ah, but the Big Bang HAS been observed. You can observe it today. It
>> can be tested and predicted and those tests and predictions can be
>> repeated by a multitude of scientists.
> ...
> Wow, so you do see the "big bang"!

You can, too. Anyone can. That's the wondrous thing about science:
Anyone can back it up and anyone can invalidate it (providing they can
back up whatever they have).

John Smith

unread,
Apr 29, 2008, 1:37:53 AM4/29/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13e9e823-7df3-4248...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 28, 5:11 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
> predicted, and repeated.
>
> Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God?
> How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
> results?

We can research God in exactly the same as we research every other
phenomena that science tries to research, but that cannot be tested,
observed, predicted, and repeated.


***Then why has no one been able to do it - and provide valid, substantiated
evidence?
***By the way - which god?


If we exclude such phenomena from
the science's scope of interests, then e.g. scientists could NOT say
anything about the origins of the universe - as NO scientist was
present there, and NO scientist can be present when this origin may be
repeated.

***Were you there?
***Was anyone there - beside your imaginary god?
***EYEWITNESS ARE NOT all that is needed for evidence - dipshit!


Similarly about the evolution - science has a lot to say
about it, but it cannot test or repeat it.

***Science has tested it .... and science has repeated it.
***Shove your minibrain back up your fundy-asshole.

Humans have intelligence (at least some humans do). In turn
intelligence can overcome every obstacle.

***Apparently except the ignorance and mental corruptin of fundamentalist
relgious zealots.

We just need to use it for
researching God.

***Sorry - I'm currently trying to validate Godzilla as a known fact!

I am doing this since 1985. Some initial methods of
researching God I am planning to outline on the web page "will.htm"
indicated before.

***You canot research that which has no valid evidence for existence.

Wombat

unread,
Apr 29, 2008, 4:06:38 AM4/29/08
to
On 29 Apr, 04:49, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 28, 5:11 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
> > predicted, and repeated.
>
> > Please show how these steps can be applied to God.  How do we test God?
> >   How do we observe God?  How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
> > results?
>
> We can research God in exactly the same as we research every other
> phenomena that science tries to research, but that cannot be tested,
> observed, predicted, and repeated. If we exclude such phenomena from
> the science's scope of interests, then e.g. scientists could NOT say
> anything about the origins of the universe - as NO scientist was
> present there, and NO scientist can be present when this origin may be
> repeated. Similarly about the evolution - science has a lot to say
> about it, but it cannot test or repeat it.

You do realise that using your reasoning you will have to release
anyone from prison who was convicted solely by forensic means.

Wombat

>
> Humans have intelligence (at least some humans do). In turn
> intelligence can overcome every obstacle. We just need to use it for
> researching God. I am doing this since 1985. Some initial methods of
> researching God I am planning to outline on the web page "will.htm"
> indicated before. However, as I am describing these methods, I intend
> to discuss them simultaneously. (I do discuss them on several threads

> simulataneously - e.g. see also the thread (in Polish) at the addresshttp://groups.google.com/group/pl.soc.religia/browse_thread/thread/88...

John Locke

unread,
Apr 29, 2008, 8:26:28 AM4/29/08
to
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:21:32 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:

>Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,

>whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what

>awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives....
>
I don't need to wonder. I'm free from that childish baloney.
Only the religious our burdened with incorporeal nonsense.
So grind away and waste some more precious time looking for
the "meaning of life".


"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

JohnN

unread,
Apr 29, 2008, 2:43:40 PM4/29/08
to
On Apr 28, 10:49 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 28, 5:11 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
> > predicted, and repeated.
>
> > Please show how these steps can be applied to God.  How do we test God?
> >   How do we observe God?  How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
> > results?
>
> We can research God in exactly the same as we research every other
> phenomena that science tries to research, but that cannot be tested,
> observed, predicted, and repeated. If we exclude such phenomena from
> the science's scope of interests, then e.g. scientists could NOT say
> anything about the origins of the universe - as NO scientist was
> present there, and NO scientist can be present when this origin may be
> repeated. Similarly about the evolution - science has a lot to say
> about it, but it cannot test or repeat it.
>
> Humans have intelligence (at least some humans do). In turn
> intelligence can overcome every obstacle. We just need to use it for
> researching God. I am doing this since 1985. Some initial methods of
> researching God I am planning to outline on the web page "will.htm"
> indicated before.

Why not publish them in peer reviewed science journals?

> However, as I am describing these methods, I intend
> to discuss them simultaneously. (I do discuss them on several threads

> simulataneously - e.g. see also the thread (in Polish) at the addresshttp://groups.google.com/group/pl.soc.religia/browse_thread/thread/88...
> .)

Do your methods involve test tubes? How many grams of god do you use
for each experiment?

JohnN

Tokay Pino Gris

unread,
Apr 29, 2008, 5:42:15 PM4/29/08
to
John Smith wrote:
> <janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13e9e823-7df3-4248...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 5:11 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
>> predicted, and repeated.
>>
>> Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God?
>> How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
>> results?
>
> We can research God in exactly the same as we research every other
> phenomena that science tries to research,

Yep.

but that cannot be tested,
> observed, predicted, and repeated.

Then you cannot do "research".

>
>
> ***Then why has no one been able to do it - and provide valid, substantiated
> evidence?
> ***By the way - which god?
>
>
> If we exclude such phenomena

What phenomena?

from
> the science's scope of interests, then e.g. scientists could NOT say
> anything about the origins of the universe - as NO scientist was
> present there, and NO scientist can be present when this origin may be
> repeated.

Huh?

"Say" you can anything you want. That is free speech.

Science and the scientific method is another thing.


>
> ***Were you there?
> ***Was anyone there - beside your imaginary god?
> ***EYEWITNESS ARE NOT all that is needed for evidence - dipshit!
>
>
> Similarly about the evolution - science has a lot to say
> about it, but it cannot test or repeat it.

You don't understand "test".

And "repeat"? Not really necessary. Would be nice if possible, but no
break of a leg if not.

>
> ***Science has tested it .... and science has repeated it.
> ***Shove your minibrain back up your fundy-asshole.
>
> Humans have intelligence (at least some humans do). In turn
> intelligence can overcome every obstacle.


Where'd you get that from?

>
> ***Apparently except the ignorance and mental corruptin of fundamentalist
> relgious zealots.
>
>
>
> We just need to use it for
> researching God.

See above. We cannot research what cannot be "tested, observed,
predicted, and repeated".


>

> ***Sorry - I'm currently trying to validate Godzilla as a known fact!
>
> I am doing this since 1985. Some initial methods of
> researching God I am planning to outline on the web page "will.htm"
> indicated before.

Shit. Why'd you buggers always change your names?

>
> ***You canot research that which has no valid evidence for existence.
>
> However, as I am describing these methods, I intend
> to discuss them simultaneously. (I do discuss them on several threads
> simulataneously - e.g. see also the thread (in Polish) at the address
> http://groups.google.com/group/pl.soc.religia/browse_thread/thread/8887c148f441ea3b#
> .)
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
>
>

i looked at those. Bullshit through and through. Anyone in doubt: Take a
look.


Tokay

--

FINAGLE'S LAW: Once a job is fouled up, anything done to
improve it makes it worse.

panam...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 29, 2008, 5:51:40 PM4/29/08
to
On Apr 28, 4:59 pm, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:06:59 GMT, "Lord Vetinari"
>
>
>
>
>
> <vetin...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:s9mRj.9373$E77.4445@trnddc05...
>
> >> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >>news:510c60e8-6685-4ad0...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
> >>> whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what
> >>> awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives,
> >>> etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of
> >>> questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and
> >>> others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I
> >>> managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also
> >>> identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer
> >>> is this correct one.
>
> >> IOW - you're no scientist - just another raving lunatic.
>
> >*NARF*
>
> >What're we going to do tonight, Brain?
>
> >Heh....
>
> Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iJPFSNu_QNs

"...I think so, Brain-but what would I do with two tounges?"

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
ZORT!

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 12:15:16 AM4/30/08
to
On Apr 29, 3:03 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> Wow, so you do see the "big bang"!

> You can, too.  Anyone can.  That's the wondrous thing about science:
> Anyone can back it up and anyone can invalidate it (providing they can
> back up whatever they have).

If you are able to see, test, and validate the "big bang", how it
happens that every scientist has a different idea about each detail of
it? Also how it happens that there is no even a shred of
scientifically verifable evidence which would confirm the actuall
occurence of the "big bang"? How it happens that the science is still
unable to answer what existed before the "big bang", and also what
lies beyong the space occuped by the matter ejected in result of the
"big bang"?

Many enthusiasts of the "big bang" indicate as the "evidence" for the
actual occurence of this event the so-called "red shift" in the light
of stars. But this "evidence" is only good for lying to small
children, but NOT sdufficient for the rationally thinking people. For
example, why all stars display this "red shift" - if the "big bang"
would in fact occur, then some stars should have a "red shift" , while
some other stars should have an opposite effect (as some stars would
then move in our direction). The explaionation for this so-called "red
shift" is actually completely different - as I provided this
explanation in sub-item #D2... of the totaliztic web page
"dipolar_gravity.htm" which deals with the "theory of everything"
called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity. (This Concept of Dipolar
Gravity clarifies also conclusively the non-existence of the "big
bang" - proving that this "bang" never took place.) Namely, if the
light propagates in the direction opposite to the gravitational pull,
it creates the "red shift". In turn, when the light propagates along
the gravitational pull, then it produces the "blue shift". This is why
the sky above the Earth is blue, while light of all stars is red - the
stronger the gravity, the more red the light is. In other words, the
whole idea of a "big bang" is a pseudo-scientific rubbish invented by
people who cannot think rationally. There was never such thing as the
"big bang" in the universe! There is also NO undeniable scientific
evidence which would support the idea of the "big bang"! The entire
this idea was formulated by some under-educated scientists who have no
imagination, no ability to synthesize correctly, nor are able to think
and reason rationally.

With the totalitztic salute,
Jan Pajak

DanielSan

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 12:29:25 AM4/30/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 29, 3:03 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> Wow, so you do see the "big bang"!
>
>> You can, too. Anyone can. That's the wondrous thing about science:
>> Anyone can back it up and anyone can invalidate it (providing they can
>> back up whatever they have).
>
> If you are able to see, test, and validate the "big bang", how it
> happens that every scientist has a different idea about each detail of
> it?

Because that's the nature of science.

> Also how it happens that there is no even a shred of
> scientifically verifable evidence which would confirm the actuall
> occurence of the "big bang"?

Really?

> How it happens that the science is still
> unable to answer what existed before the "big bang", and also what
> lies beyong the space occuped by the matter ejected in result of the
> "big bang"?

That's a different issue.

>
> Many enthusiasts of the "big bang" indicate as the "evidence" for the
> actual occurence of this event the so-called "red shift" in the light
> of stars. But this "evidence" is only good for lying to small
> children, but NOT sdufficient for the rationally thinking people. For
> example, why all stars display this "red shift" - if the "big bang"
> would in fact occur, then some stars should have a "red shift" , while
> some other stars should have an opposite effect (as some stars would
> then move in our direction). The explaionation for this so-called "red
> shift" is actually completely different - as I provided this
> explanation in sub-item #D2... of the totaliztic web page
> "dipolar_gravity.htm" which deals with the "theory of everything"
> called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity. (This Concept of Dipolar
> Gravity clarifies also conclusively the non-existence of the "big
> bang" - proving that this "bang" never took place.) Namely, if the
> light propagates in the direction opposite to the gravitational pull,
> it creates the "red shift". In turn, when the light propagates along
> the gravitational pull, then it produces the "blue shift". This is why
> the sky above the Earth is blue,

No, that's not the reason at all. Do you know anything about the
composition of our own atmosphere?

The "blue" you see is from Rayleigh scattering. Portions of the
spectrum with longer wavelengths pass through the atmosphere. Portions
of the spectrum with shorter wavelengths get diffused by the makeup of
the atmosphere. If you get rid of either the atmosphere or the light
from the sun, the sky turns black.

During sunset, the light has to pass through more atmospheric gases to
get to your eyes, causing the longer wavelengths to diffuse, creating a
red sky.

The color of the sky has NO bearing on doppler shifts.


> while light of all stars is red - the
> stronger the gravity, the more red the light is. In other words, the
> whole idea of a "big bang" is a pseudo-scientific rubbish invented by
> people who cannot think rationally.

And you know even though you cannot even define why the sky is blue?

> There was never such thing as the
> "big bang" in the universe!

From your assertions? The Doppler Effect is only *ONE* of the
evidences of the Big Bang...but I suspect these evidences will go over
your head, so I won't bother.

> There is also NO undeniable scientific
> evidence which would support the idea of the "big bang"! The entire
> this idea was formulated by some under-educated scientists who have no
> imagination, no ability to synthesize correctly, nor are able to think
> and reason rationally.

I would talk about people being "under-educated" if I were you there, bub.

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 11:28:48 PM4/30/08
to
On Apr 30, 4:29 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> No, that's not the reason at all.  Do you know anything about the
> composition of our own atmosphere?
>
> The "blue" you see is from Rayleigh scattering.  Portions of the
> spectrum with longer wavelengths pass through the atmosphere.  Portions
> of the spectrum with shorter wavelengths get diffused by the makeup of
> the atmosphere.  If you get rid of either the atmosphere or the light
> from the sun, the sky turns black.
>
> During sunset, the light has to pass through more atmospheric gases to
> get to your eyes, causing the longer wavelengths to diffuse, creating a
> red sky.
>
> The color of the sky has NO bearing on doppler shifts.
...
If the colour of light is the outcome of scattering of the light on
components of the atmoshere, then the light originating from the Moon
should also be blue. Unfortunately for the official human science,
this is NOT true - the light of Moon is "white", instead of being
"blue". So your explanation (or rather the current, errornoeus,
official scientific explanation which you repeat so blindly) is worth
nothing, as it is NOT supported by the existing evidence. I believe
that in time to come this explanation must be withdrawn from the use -
but of course firstly the present generation of "cemented" minds must
die out (as this always is the case with new scientific ideas).

However, the existing evidence fully supports the gravitational
explanation for the colour of light. So actually you can call me by
various names, but the truth is such that the current official
explanation for the so-called "red shift" is completely wrong. This
shift is NOT caused by a version of the the "Doppler Effect", but by
the interaction between light and difference of gravity fields at the
source and destination of the path of light. Of course, people who are
unable to think, but just repeat what they have learned, are also
unable to reason logically in order to distinguish between a true and
a false explanation.

Now regarding your sentence "The color of the sky has NO bearing on
doppler shifts" I would change it to transform it from expressing an
ambigous message into making it clear and true. Namely I would say it
"The color of the sky has NOthing to do with the Doppler Effect" (but
it has a lot to do with gravitational interactions).

DanielSan

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 11:46:47 PM4/30/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 30, 4:29 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> No, that's not the reason at all. Do you know anything about the
>> composition of our own atmosphere?
>>
>> The "blue" you see is from Rayleigh scattering. Portions of the
>> spectrum with longer wavelengths pass through the atmosphere. Portions
>> of the spectrum with shorter wavelengths get diffused by the makeup of
>> the atmosphere. If you get rid of either the atmosphere or the light
>> from the sun, the sky turns black.
>>
>> During sunset, the light has to pass through more atmospheric gases to
>> get to your eyes, causing the longer wavelengths to diffuse, creating a
>> red sky.
>>
>> The color of the sky has NO bearing on doppler shifts.
> ...
> If the colour of light is the outcome of scattering of the light on
> components of the atmoshere, then the light originating from the Moon

Err, light doesn't originate from the moon.

> should also be blue. Unfortunately for the official human science,
> this is NOT true - the light of Moon is "white", instead of being
> "blue".

"White" is made up of all the visible colors. The moon can appear blue,
given sufficient atmospheric conditions (the light that is reflected off
the moon is insufficient to scatter enough to be detected by the human eye)

> So your explanation (or rather the current, errornoeus,
> official scientific explanation which you repeat so blindly) is worth
> nothing, as it is NOT supported by the existing evidence. I believe
> that in time to come this explanation must be withdrawn from the use -
> but of course firstly the present generation of "cemented" minds must
> die out (as this always is the case with new scientific ideas).

Is that why a moon rise has the moon appearing reddish brown just like
the sunset sky?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0511/moonantarctica_behrens_f.jpg

http://www.vahine-island.com/Images%20TO/sunset3.jpg

<snip uneducated assertions>

Dubh Ghall

unread,
May 1, 2008, 10:55:16 AM5/1/08
to
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:28:48 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 30, 4:29 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>> No, that's not the reason at all.  Do you know anything about the
>> composition of our own atmosphere?
>>
>> The "blue" you see is from Rayleigh scattering.  Portions of the
>> spectrum with longer wavelengths pass through the atmosphere.  Portions
>> of the spectrum with shorter wavelengths get diffused by the makeup of
>> the atmosphere.  If you get rid of either the atmosphere or the light
>> from the sun, the sky turns black.
>>
>> During sunset, the light has to pass through more atmospheric gases to
>> get to your eyes, causing the longer wavelengths to diffuse, creating a
>> red sky.
>>
>> The color of the sky has NO bearing on doppler shifts.
>...
>If the colour of light is the outcome of scattering of the light on
>components of the atmoshere, then the light originating from the Moon
>should also be blue. Unfortunately for the official human science,
>this is NOT true - the light of Moon is "white", instead of being
>"blue".

Okay, I'll bite.

First: The light from the moon is reflected light
Second: The moon is a lousy reflector, having a reflective index of
less than 15%.
Third: It is somewhat smaller in diameter, than the Earth.


As I have already stated, The moon is a lousy reflector, having a
reflective index of less than 15%.

Which means that only fifteen percent of the light that hits it, is
reflected.

On top of this, and considering both the moon, and Earth, as disks,
the moon is only about one thirteenth the size of Earth, which brings
the amount of reflected light down to about 1.2% of sunlight.

But as we know, the moon is a rough sphere, and that means that the
reflected light does not all come to earth.

What all this means is that only a tiny fraction of the sunlight that
hits the moon, perhaps less than a half of one percent, (I'd have to
do the math, and can't be bothered) ever reaches us.

Nonetheless, as you correctly point out, moon light is white.
Blue however, is one of the component colours of white.
but there is so little of it reaching us, it is insufficient to show
the colour of anything.

If the moon were a polished silver sphere, it would reflect more
light. The night sky would remain black, but a hint of colour might be
seen in the grass, flowers, etc..

If it were possible to replace the moon with a slightly
concave/focused mirror, of the same diameter as the moon, then the
night sky would be a deep blue.
How blue would depend on the phase of the mirror/moon.

Go a step farther, and use a focused mirror, of the same diameter as
earth, and when the mirror was "full", the sky would be as blue at
night, as it is during the day.

You would also feel the heat, just as if it was direct sunlight.

>So your explanation (or rather the current, errornoeus,
>official scientific explanation which you repeat so blindly) is worth
>nothing, as it is NOT supported by the existing evidence.

Actually, it is supported by evidence.

When are you people going to learn that, denying empirical evidence
does not make it go away?


>I believe
>that in time to come this explanation must be withdrawn from the use -
>but of course firstly the present generation of "cemented" minds must
>die out (as this always is the case with new scientific ideas).
>
>However, the existing evidence fully supports the gravitational
>explanation for the colour of light.

Please elaborate, as no one here seems to have heard of that one.

snip

Dubh Ghall

unread,
May 1, 2008, 10:57:18 AM5/1/08
to

No. That is because God hasn't finished polishing it.

Oh DanielSan, You can be soooo dense, some days. (:-).

Mark K. Bilbo

unread,
May 1, 2008, 11:09:21 AM5/1/08
to
On Apr 29, 11:15 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Many enthusiasts of the "big bang" indicate as the "evidence" for the
> actual occurence of this event the so-called "red shift" in the light
> of stars. But this "evidence" is only good for lying to small
> children, but NOT sdufficient for the rationally thinking people. For
> example, why all stars display this "red shift" - if the "big bang"
> would in fact occur, then some stars should have a "red shift" , while
> some other stars should have an opposite effect (as some stars would
> then move in our direction).

Wrong.

Clearly you haven't a clue about the subject.

Cary Kittrell

unread,
May 1, 2008, 1:12:28 PM5/1/08
to
In article <cd00e11d-7149-43a8...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com> janp...@gmail.com writes:
> On Apr 30, 4:29=A0pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =2E..
> > No, that's not the reason at all. =A0Do you know anything about the

> > composition of our own atmosphere?
> >
> > The "blue" you see is from Rayleigh scattering. =A0Portions of the
> > spectrum with longer wavelengths pass through the atmosphere. =A0Portions

> > of the spectrum with shorter wavelengths get diffused by the makeup of
> > the atmosphere. =A0If you get rid of either the atmosphere or the light

> > from the sun, the sky turns black.
> >
> > During sunset, the light has to pass through more atmospheric gases to
> > get to your eyes, causing the longer wavelengths to diffuse, creating a
> > red sky.
> >
> > The color of the sky has NO bearing on doppler shifts.
> =2E..

> If the colour of light is the outcome of scattering of the light on
> components of the atmoshere, then the light originating from the Moon
> should also be blue.

Beg pardon? If the colour of light is the outcome of scattering of the
light on components of the atmosphere, then the light originating from
the Moon should be redder, not bluer.

Which is indeed the case when the Moon is low on the horizon,
and you are seeing it through a significant tunnel of
the atmosphere.

Unfortunately for the official human science,
> this is NOT true - the light of Moon is "white", instead of being
> "blue". So your explanation (or rather the current, errornoeus,
> official scientific explanation which you repeat so blindly) is worth
> nothing, as it is NOT supported by the existing evidence. I believe
> that in time to come this explanation must be withdrawn from the use -
> but of course firstly the present generation of "cemented" minds must
> die out (as this always is the case with new scientific ideas).
>
> However, the existing evidence fully supports the gravitational
> explanation for the colour of light. So actually you can call me by
> various names, but the truth is such that the current official
> explanation for the so-called "red shift" is completely wrong. This
> shift is NOT caused by a version of the the "Doppler Effect", but by
> the interaction between light and difference of gravity fields at the
> source and destination of the path of light. Of course, people who are
> unable to think, but just repeat what they have learned, are also
> unable to reason logically in order to distinguish between a true and
> a false explanation.
>
> Now regarding your sentence "The color of the sky has NO bearing on
> doppler shifts" I would change it to transform it from expressing an
> ambigous message into making it clear and true. Namely I would say it
> "The color of the sky has NOthing to do with the Doppler Effect" (but
> it has a lot to do with gravitational interactions).


Gravitational shifting has been measured long ago, and was agreed
with the shift predicted by general relativity to within less
than one percent. Thus it is easy to take into account.


-- cary


Cary Kittrell

unread,
May 1, 2008, 2:00:11 PM5/1/08
to

You are aware that you are talking to someone who seems to think
that if you set off a stick of dynamite, about half the fragments
should fly TOWARDS one another?

(did that mention that a trillion stars in M31 are headed our
way at just under a half-million miles an hour. DUCK!!!
and yes, they're blue-shifted)


-- cary


janp...@gmail.com

unread,
May 1, 2008, 11:20:44 PM5/1/08
to
On May 2, 2:55 am, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
...

> First: The light from the moon is reflected light
> Second: The moon is a lousy reflector, having a reflective index of
> less than 15%.
> Third: It is somewhat smaller in diameter, than the Earth.
...
Well, the reflected light is still a light and it can be split with a
prism. But in spite of this Moon still is white. In your last sentence
above (i.e. in "It is somewhat smaller in diameter, than the Earth")
you confirm the reason which I am telling the all time - namely that
the gravity of the Moon is smaller than the gravity of the Earth, thus
the colour of Moon's light is NOT changed by this gravity. In turn all
other rubbish which you are pushing in your explanations and arguments
are just "scientific rubbish".

What I am trying to say here, is that the so-called "red shift" in the
light of stars originates from the fact that the light of these stars
goes against their gravity pulls, and this in turn creates the red
shift. On the other hand, if this "red shift" actually does NOT
originate from the "escape of galaxies", then there was NO such thing
as the "big bang". In other words, what you are telling to naive
people that the "big bang" appeared at the beginning of times, is just
a load of rubbish.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

P.S. Actually the "big bang" was used by me here to illustrate that
the present science tries to "research" things which cannot be
watched, experimented with, tested, measured, etc. - simply because
these things never existed. Thus, the same science can also research
God - even if it is difficult to put God under a microscope and have a
good look at Her.


monkfish

unread,
May 2, 2008, 12:20:46 AM5/2/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> P.S. Actually the "big bang" was used by me here to illustrate that
> the present science tries to "research" things which cannot be
> watched, experimented with, tested, measured, etc. - simply because
> these things never existed. Thus, the same science can also research
> God - even if it is difficult to put God under a microscope and have a
> good look at Her.


Look into magnetism.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overthrow-physics

Three Words That Could Overthrow Physics: “What Is Magnetism?”
The standard model still doesn't describe magnets' spooky action at a
distance.
by Bruno Maddox


--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because atheists there
consider quoting the Bible proselytizing and as such it is prohibited by
their undebatable policy.
--
The best way to handle spams is to ignore them. But if you must reply to
them, you should at least set the followup-to header to something other
than your own newsgroup.

Ralph

unread,
May 2, 2008, 10:02:26 AM5/2/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7381a3d3-ea7c-48b4...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

The only thing that is rubbish is the ridiculous bullshit that you spread.

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
May 2, 2008, 11:18:56 PM5/2/08
to
On May 3, 2:02 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...

> The only thing that is rubbish is the ridiculous bullshit that you spread.

Your repetetive spitting and swearing at logical argumentation and at
scientific evidence which you are unable to invalidate, remainds me
the bahaviour of these mysterious individuals about which I presented
the thread from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
entitled "who pays these guys for turning internet (including this
group) into a gutter". Are you one of these individuals?

By the way, if you call "bullshit" the above logical argumentation
about true facts thaty everyone can check and verify, how then you
would name this misleading disinformation which you try to push onto
naive readers behind the smoke screen of the supposed "defence" of
errorneous claims of the official science?

Day Brown

unread,
May 3, 2008, 6:03:23 PM5/3/08
to
Nevertheless Jan, you decide what is relevant data, and want us to
accept your definition of what proof is. Why should we?

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
May 3, 2008, 9:10:00 PM5/3/08
to
On May 4, 10:03 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
...

> Nevertheless Jan, you decide what is relevant data, and want us to
> accept your definition of what proof is. Why should we?
...
Your do NOT need to accept my proofs - you missed my point. I do NOT
wish to make you believe in what I do bielieve. I only wish to open an
access to evidence and to proofs regarding God to all these people who
are ready to seek this evidence and proofs. The point is that
presently scientists intentionally hide evidence about God, or at
least refuse to talk about it openly, non metioning that science do
NOT even attempt to research God. The outcome is that the moral
standards of our civilisation are lowered down, and God reacts by
bringing on our heads various punishments lately. Because "there are
NO atheists amongst scared", this recent "God's revange" is going to
cause increasingly larger number of people to seek God. So my aim is
to make to these people available all the evidence and proofs they
need - if they are ready to accept it or at least to have a look at
it. As a civilisation we simply need to become more tolerant towards
each others. Means, instead of forcing everyone to become atheists -
as the science is doing this recently, we should be open and tolerant
to these people who wish to believe, and we should NOT hide from them
intentionally the wealth of scientific evidence regarding God.

Lorrill Buyens

unread,
May 5, 2008, 7:07:23 PM5/5/08
to
On Sat, 3 May 2008 18:10:00 -0700 (PDT), Temporal Voyager janp...@gmail.com, in
a desperate attempt to change the sci.skeptic timestream, said:

>On May 4, 10:03 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
>...
>> Nevertheless Jan, you decide what is relevant data, and want us to
>> accept your definition of what proof is. Why should we?
>...
>Your do NOT need to accept my proofs - you missed my point. I do NOT
>wish to make you believe in what I do bielieve. I only wish to open an
>access to evidence and to proofs regarding God to all these people who
>are ready to seek this evidence and proofs.

And you expect to find them in groups like alt.atheism? Good luck...

>The point is that
>presently scientists intentionally hide evidence about God, or at
>least refuse to talk about it openly,

Uh huh. And your proof of this is?

>non metioning that science do NOT even attempt to research God.

Deities aren't even remotely scientific. If you believe in one, good for you,
but don't try to convince anybody who doesn't share your beliefs that there's
*scientific proof* of His, Her or Its existence.

>The outcome is that the moral
>standards of our civilisation are lowered down, and God reacts by
>bringing on our heads various punishments lately.

A good spanking would be a much more effective deterrent, surely?

>Because "there are NO atheists amongst scared",

This wasn't true when it was phrased as "There are no atheists in foxholes," and
it still isn't true today.

>So my aim is
>to make to these people available all the evidence and proofs they
>need -

'Cause, like, a hurricane or an earthquake is *so* indicative of the existence
of an omnipotent and omniscient being...

>Means, instead of forcing everyone to become atheists -
>as the science is doing this recently,

In whose imagination?

>we should be open and tolerant to these people who wish to believe,

As the saying (roughly) goes, it's important to keep an open mind, but not so
open that your brain falls out.

>and we should NOT hide from them
>intentionally the wealth of scientific evidence regarding God.

Which is?


--
"One does wonder why God went to the trouble of making Man
rational, since there's evidently no bloody use for reason
whatsoever."
- Alan Hope, in a religious discussion in misc.writing

Christopher A. Lee

unread,
May 5, 2008, 7:15:07 PM5/5/08
to
On Sat, 3 May 2008 18:10:00 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:

>On May 4, 10:03 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
>...
>> Nevertheless Jan, you decide what is relevant data, and want us to
>> accept your definition of what proof is. Why should we?
>...
>Your do NOT need to accept my proofs - you missed my point. I do NOT
>wish to make you believe in what I do bielieve. I only wish to open an
>access to evidence and to proofs regarding God to all these people who
>are ready to seek this evidence and proofs. The point is that
>presently scientists intentionally hide evidence about God, or at

A liar as well as an idiot. You know perfectly well they do no such
thing. So why the stupid, paranoid, transparent lie?

>least refuse to talk about it openly, non metioning that science do
>NOT even attempt to research God. The outcome is that the moral
>standards of our civilisation are lowered down, and God reacts by
>bringing on our heads various punishments lately. Because "there are

Where did you demonstrate its existence in the world beyond your
religion, before saying something so question-beggingly stupid?

>NO atheists amongst scared", this recent "God's revange" is going to
>cause increasingly larger number of people to seek God. So my aim is

Where did you demonstrate there was anything to seek, brainwashed
moron?

>to make to these people available all the evidence and proofs they

What "all the evidence", liar?

>need - if they are ready to accept it or at least to have a look at
>it. As a civilisation we simply need to become more tolerant towards
>each others.

So when are you going to start tolerating those outside your religion,
who don't take its mythology seriously?

Or even those more moderate members of it who don't, who have a better
grasp of reality than you morons do?

> Means, instead of forcing everyone to become atheists -
>as the science is doing this recently, we should be open and tolerant

That is an outright lie, and you know it.

Because in the USA about four times as many Christians as atheists
accept evolution for what it is.

>to these people who wish to believe, and we should NOT hide from them
>intentionally the wealth of scientific evidence regarding God.

What "scientific evidence regarding God" are you lying about, liar?

And why are you lying about people hiding what isn't there, liar?

>With the totaliztic salute,
>Jan Pajak

What a fucking imbecile.

John Baker

unread,
May 5, 2008, 10:08:21 PM5/5/08
to
On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:15:07 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 3 May 2008 18:10:00 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On May 4, 10:03 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
>>...
>>> Nevertheless Jan, you decide what is relevant data, and want us to
>>> accept your definition of what proof is. Why should we?
>>...
>>Your do NOT need to accept my proofs - you missed my point. I do NOT
>>wish to make you believe in what I do bielieve. I only wish to open an
>>access to evidence and to proofs regarding God to all these people who
>>are ready to seek this evidence and proofs. The point is that
>>presently scientists intentionally hide evidence about God, or at
>
>A liar as well as an idiot. You know perfectly well they do no such
>thing. So why the stupid, paranoid, transparent lie?

That's just it. Lunatics like Jan actually believe that crap.

DanielSan

unread,
May 5, 2008, 10:12:01 PM5/5/08
to
John Baker wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:15:07 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 18:10:00 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On May 4, 10:03 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Nevertheless Jan, you decide what is relevant data, and want us to
>>>> accept your definition of what proof is. Why should we?
>>> ...
>>> Your do NOT need to accept my proofs - you missed my point. I do NOT
>>> wish to make you believe in what I do bielieve. I only wish to open an
>>> access to evidence and to proofs regarding God to all these people who
>>> are ready to seek this evidence and proofs. The point is that
>>> presently scientists intentionally hide evidence about God, or at
>> A liar as well as an idiot. You know perfectly well they do no such
>> thing. So why the stupid, paranoid, transparent lie?
>
> That's just it. Lunatics like Jan actually believe that crap.

He also thinks that the sky is blue because of the Doppler Effect.

--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I do not believe in God because I do not *
* believe in Mother Goose." *
* --Clarence Darrow, 1925 *
****************************************************

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
May 5, 2008, 11:03:36 PM5/5/08
to
On May 6, 11:07 am, Lorrill Buyens <buye...@interlacken.com> wrote:
...
> >Your do NOT need to accept my proofs - you missed my point. I do NOT
> >wish to make you believe in what I do bielieve. I only wish to open an
> >access to evidence and to proofs regarding God to all these people who
> >are ready to seek this evidence and proofs.
>
> And you expect to find them in groups like alt.atheism?  Good luck...
...

> >Because "there are NO atheists amongst scared",
>
> This wasn't true when it was phrased as "There are no atheists in foxholes," and
> it still isn't true today.
...
(1) Regarding the top comment: I was an "atheist" myself - so I know
why most of people are "atheists". We are just "tricked" into atheism
by official atheistic teachings and by official atheistic statements
of present science. The reason is that the atheistic science does NOT
allow the truth and scientific evidence about God to be disseminatedf
amongst people. So in order to let other "atheists" know, that there
is a lot of scientific evidence in support of the existence of God,
and thus to allow them to make a "well informed decision" regarding
God, I feel to be my duty to disseminate constructive information
about God (and also the scientific evidence which supports the God's
existence) also amongst "atheists" - thus also on the group
"alt.atheism".

(2) Regarding the word "foxholes" from the proverb, no many people
know that these "foxholes" are actually holes in the ground which
during the World War One were caused by bombs and by heavy artilery
shelling. So the expression "in foxholes" actually means "amongst very
scared people that hide from bombs and from heavy artilery shelling in
all possible holes made on the ground". This is why for clarity I
altered the original proverb. If in present times I would write this
proverb in the original version, many readers could thing that it may
mean "There are no atheists amongst foxes and other animals".

Anyway, thank you for your extensive comments. Although I disagree
with what you said, I agree that a "discussion extends horizons" and
also that "atheists are the primary source of knowledge and progress
on the Earth". Since God promotes and facilitates the knowledge and
progress on the Earth - this is probably why She does NOT kill all
"atheists" with a powerful ligtning, and tolerates their nonsences.

Mike Painter

unread,
May 6, 2008, 1:33:37 AM5/6/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> (1) Regarding the top comment: I was an "atheist" myself - so I know
> why most of people are "atheists". We are just "tricked" into atheism
> by official atheistic teachings and by official atheistic statements
> of present science. The reason is that the atheistic science does NOT
> allow the truth and scientific evidence about God to be disseminatedf
> amongst people. So in order to let other "atheists" know, that there
> is a lot of scientific evidence in support of the existence of God,
> and thus to allow them to make a "well informed decision" regarding
> God, I feel to be my duty to disseminate constructive information
> about God (and also the scientific evidence which supports the God's
> existence) also amongst "atheists" - thus also on the group
> "alt.atheism".

No we were not. We though about it and made the obvious choice.
As for "atheist science", most people are not atheists and have no trouble
doing science.

>
> (2) Regarding the word "foxholes" from the proverb, no many people
> know that these "foxholes" are actually holes in the ground which
> during the World War One were caused by bombs and by heavy artilery
> shelling.

How inane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxhole is what a foxhole has been
since at least WWII.


Christopher A. Lee

unread,
May 6, 2008, 3:45:46 AM5/6/08
to

He's lying through his teeth yet again. If he honestly thought that he
was never an atheist.

Tokay Pino Gris

unread,
May 6, 2008, 6:42:17 AM5/6/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 6, 11:07 am, Lorrill Buyens <buye...@interlacken.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> Your do NOT need to accept my proofs - you missed my point. I do NOT
>>> wish to make you believe in what I do bielieve. I only wish to open an
>>> access to evidence and to proofs regarding God to all these people who
>>> are ready to seek this evidence and proofs.
>> And you expect to find them in groups like alt.atheism? Good luck...
> ...
>>> Because "there are NO atheists amongst scared",
>> This wasn't true when it was phrased as "There are no atheists in foxholes," and
>> it still isn't true today.
> ...
> (1) Regarding the top comment: I was an "atheist" myself - so I know
> why most of people are "atheists".

No, you don't.

We are just "tricked" into atheism
> by official atheistic teachings and by official atheistic statements
> of present science.

Wrong.

The reason is that the atheistic science does NOT
> allow the truth and scientific evidence about God to be disseminatedf
> amongst people.

There is NO such evidence.

So in order to let other "atheists" know, that there
> is a lot of scientific evidence in support of the existence of God,
> and thus to allow them to make a "well informed decision" regarding
> God, I feel to be my duty to disseminate constructive information
> about God (and also the scientific evidence which supports the God's
> existence) also amongst "atheists" - thus also on the group
> "alt.atheism".

I have seen your "evidence" and your "arguments". You can try to get
them published in a peer reviewed paper. See what they think about it.

>
> (2) Regarding the word "foxholes" from the proverb, no many people
> know that these "foxholes" are actually holes in the ground which
> during the World War One were caused by bombs and by heavy artilery
> shelling.

Wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxhole

So the expression "in foxholes" actually means "amongst very
> scared people that hide from bombs and from heavy artilery shelling in
> all possible holes made on the ground".

In the context of the saying, that's about correct, yes.

This is why for clarity I
> altered the original proverb. If in present times I would write this
> proverb in the original version, many readers could thing that it may
> mean "There are no atheists amongst foxes and other animals".

Wrong. I have never been to a foxhole, my mother tongue is not even
english, and yet I know what a foxhole is better than you do.

>
> Anyway, thank you for your extensive comments. Although I disagree
> with what you said, I agree that a "discussion extends horizons" and
> also that "atheists are the primary source of knowledge and progress
> on the Earth". Since God promotes and facilitates the knowledge and
> progress on the Earth - this is probably why She does NOT kill all
> "atheists" with a powerful ligtning, and tolerates their nonsences.


Bullshit


Tokay


--

"That's it Lisa. Why compete with someone who is just going to kick
your butt anyway"

Bart

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
May 7, 2008, 12:10:33 AM5/7/08
to
On May 6, 5:33 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
> How inane.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxholeis what a foxhole has been
> since at least WWII.
...

The version of a "foxhole" that you are indicating is around 20 years
older than the time this name was coined. During the World War One
(NOT in WW2) a "foxhole" was just simply a hole in the ground which
was made by a bomb or by an artilery shell, and that was used by
soldiers to hide or to fight from. If your knowledge of science is
equal to your knowledge of history, then you would be unable to accept
any logical reasoning nor scientific explanations - what seems to be
the case.

By the way, I object you speaking on the behalf of all atheists. Your
only have rights to speak on your won behalf. In all matters of God
every person is reponsible individually for his or her views and
actions. So you have no rights to speak for, nor to represent, other
atheists. I also used to be an atheists and I would NOT wish you
represent me or my views.

With the totalizrtic salute,
Jan Pajak

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
May 8, 2008, 11:26:15 PM5/8/08
to
On May 9, 1:09 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> Reply: How many 'foxholes' have you dug, you POS?

In the historic sense (i.a. a "foxhole being a hele after a bomb or
artilery shell explosion") none - as I was NOT throwing nor exploding
any bombs. However when I was in the military service - a lot of them
(but in their modern understanding - i.e. as holes that are made by
soldiers).

Now how many "foxholes" have you produced, for what purpose you used
these, and why you are so curious about these holes while discussing a
topic relating to the major difference between atheists and believers?
Do you think that when God hits your country with a next hurricane or
cyclone, you may hide in one of these and be saved?