Atheism

Electromagnetism, gravity, co-location and action at a distance...all elements of spatial adhesion. Keep trying.

 

You can't deny the truth:
http://www.randomfate.net/MT/media/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster-tm.jpg

 

Um, great. So, unless you have a different measurement, then I'll go with this as being the best we currently understand the situation.

I'll go with any type of physics that can currently be backed up with scientific data.

We know better? Perhaps you can lead me to the article that states where we have this all figured out.

Could? I thought we knew what was causing this. Is that a theory or a proven fact?

Given that, and the obvious questions and lack of our ability to explain many things, why do you not subject it to the same level of disdain as you do religion then?

To wit. I challenge you to find me one post, anywhere on this board where I seriously called into question any scietific theory, knowledge, or learnings and asked for them to be replaced by something religous or supernatural.

I don't think that you will be able to do so. And to be frank, I am about to lose my patience with you denegrating attitude. It is quite obvious that you do not hold yourself to the same standard that you expect from others.

There is ample historical and archealogical evidence of the events in the Bible. But again, you show yourself to expect more than you offer as you require proof to accept that there might be a God, but don't yet offer complete proof yourself.

 

You bore me, VP.

 

I am sure you get bored of being proven wrong.

 

the force exhibited by gravity is not constant. your like explains it:

F = Gm1m2 / r2

G is a constant, but it's really just a scalar to put F into units we like to work with. gravitational force is based on the masses of the objects and the distance between them. could there be more to it? sure. could there be other forces at work that we'd not roll into the definition of gravity? yeah. does that mean we can't launch a rocket from earth and have it swing around a planet's moon a few hundred million miles away in a year or so? apparently not.

not at all. in science, proof of something is really just a long history of experimentation never providing evidence to the contrary. the supernatural fails in this regard because it's not subject to experimentation.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecr...important_Sun_and_Moon_declared_good_too.html

 

huh? i am flawed?

i don't believe you because you've given me absolutely no reason to believe and ample reason to not believe. you say every explanation of the origin of the universe is equally valid, and yet you clearly have one you've selected and defend.

 

Gravity is a constant, but the force of that gravity is obviously dependent on distance. At least that is the way that I understand it.

Check out one of my responses to tharan. Current physics can't explain the acceleration of the edges of the universe.

 

And this takes use right back to the same question that I have asked in multiple threads. If you say that you don't know something, how can you start ruling out possibile answers?