Allergies and Other Proofs Against God

[richardlowellt]

As for your pixie dust, we currently know of no dust-like particle that could give humans flight. It is reasonable to believe that pixie dust does not exist. However, this is not the same as saying "pixie dust does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist".

You seem to forget that people, not so long ago, believed it was impossible to fly to the moon. And before that, they believed it was impossible to fly period. And yet we have airplanes.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, some dust-like particle substance could be created which would give humans relatively unaided flight. It sounds like something nano-technology could look into.

Plain and simple, Pixie dust does not exist at this point in time, there is NO possibility that it exists NOW, nor has it EVER existed. It may however exist in the distant future.

 

[Falvlun]

Plain and simple, Pixie dust does not exist at this point in time, there is NO possibility that it exists NOW, nor has it EVER existed. It may however exist in the distant future.

What about aliens?

 

[richardlowellt]

What about aliens?

A belief in the possibilities of Aliens does not alter or suspend our natural laws, however if they did, it would be entirely logical to credit whatever it was to an advanced technology. Maybe they would have a magic "pixielike " dust the enables one to fly.

 

[McBell]

No i don't see a problem with denying pixie dust and it's properties, apparently you have a problem with the non-existence of pixie dust, which I can only conclude that you think it just might be possible. It becomes very difficult to converse with someone who thinks it just might be possible to have magic pixie dust sprinkled on them and defy the laws of gravity by flying around the room and then zooming off into outer space---Don't forget to hold your breath as there is no oxygen, not sure just what you'll do to combat the near zero temperatures and the vacuum, have fun in never never land!!

I cannot help but wonder who you are trying to convince, me or yourself.
Of course, your fascination with pixie dust is most concerning.

 

[richardlowellt]

Of course, your fascination with pixie dust is most concerning.

As is your contention that this substance may just possibly exist.

 

[McBell]

As is your contention that this substance may just possibly exist.

Source please.

A post number will do.

 

[richardlowellt]

Ahem,
i know what you wrote after this "intro". Just thought i wanted to emphasize it again


Of course it doesnt work. Stupid me. You see THATS EXACTLY the reason why earth is going to crash with jupiter ...very soon..... isnt it ?

I have a valuable suggestion for you---LEARN SOME SCIENCE, it will keep you from looking completely foolish. What would possibly prompt you to say something as stupid as this? Maybe your just not paying attention, or your comprehension level is very low.

 

[richardlowellt]

Source please.

A post number will do.

#135--"You still haven't proved Peter pan does not exist"

# 204---"your logic does not work with Peter pan"

# 273--I still haven't proven pixie dust does not exist"

Your continually denying that these things are unproven means you must think there is a slight possibility that they may exist.

 

[McBell]

#135--"You still haven't proved Peter pan does not exist"

# 204---"your logic does not work with Peter pan"

# 273--I still haven't proven pixie dust does not exist"

Your continually denying that these things are unproven means you must think there is a slight possibility that they may exist.

assume much?

And you dare call me a liar?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The fact is that you have not proven that they do not exist.
Your inability to comprehend this fact is something you will have to work on.
However, I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to dictate to me what I do and do not believe exists.

 

[richardlowellt]

The fact is that you have not proven that they do not exist.

See what I mean!!!

 

[McBell]

The fact is that you have not proven that they do not exist.

See what I mean!!!

The fact is you haven't.
You can whine and cry and pout and whatever else you like, but it still does not change the fact that you have not disproven anything.

Now to take that sentence and twist it to claim that I believe pixie dust exists is just flat out lieing.

Your being unable/unwilling to see that fact is yet another problem you will have to work on.

 

[richardlowellt]

but it still does not change the fact that you have not disproven anything.

Ok, you win, I have not proved that Peter Pan, and pixie dust do not exist, so that must mean that there is a possibility that they may. It has to be one or the other, either they do exist, or they do not exist, there is no wiggle room here, my question to you is---DOES PETER PAN EXIST? IS THERE A SUBSTANCE CALLED PIXIE DUST? WHEN SPRINKLED WITH THIS DUST CAN ONE FLY INOT OUTER SPACE? Three very simple questions, would you care to provide the answers, remember, no wiggle room, either they do or do not exist. Go for it!!

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I have a valuable suggestion for you---LEARN SOME SCIENCE,...

You can't even imagine how funny that remark is coming from you and adressing me.

it will keep you from looking completely foolish.

Looking foolish in your eyes is a compliment i must conclude after several pages of debate concerning a topic where you seem to be the only one who doesn't get the point and insists on dogmatic faith in an "ideological logic".

What would possibly prompt you to say something as stupid as this? Maybe your just not paying attention, or your comprehension level is very low.

Perhaps you would be so nice as to further show my stupidity by telling me what exactly you found to be so stupid.

Surely you couldnt mean that my example of the earth orbiting the sun being just an object like for example a teapot would be one. Of course instead of the earth we might also simply use one asteroid or piece of rock in the asteroid belt which also doesnt happen to fly into jupiter at the speed given by the so called "richardlowellt"-constant.
Strangely enough they all orbit the sun......
But of course a teapot couldnt....
...says richard the man who knows "science"

 

[richardlowellt]

Perhaps you would be so nice as to further show my stupidity by telling me what exactly you found to be so stupid.

Surely you couldnt mean that my example of the earth orbiting the sun being just an object like for example a teapot would be one. Of course instead of the earth we might also simply use one asteroid or piece of rock in the asteroid belt which also doesnt happen to fly into jupiter at the speed given by the so called "richardlowellt"-constant.
Strangely enough they all orbit the sun......
But of course a teapot couldnt....
...says richard the man who knows "science"[/QUOTE]

Ok, let's see if I understand what your saying. You are comparing the earth with a teapot orbiting the sun, and why, if the teapot could be drawn into the gravitational pull of the sun then why not the earth? Or why don't pieces from the asteroid belt fly into Jupiter? So you think size and speed has nothing to do with how objects are effected by gravitational influences?

Ok, first off pieces from the asteroid do in fact fall into Jupiter, their collective mass and speed around Jupiter keep the entire belt from being drawn into Jupiter's gravitational pull. Pieces influenced by this gravity also collide and break into smaller pieces, some through these collisions are thrown off into other directions and collide with other planets and moons in our solar system, our pock marked moon is a good example as is the Earth.

Now you utterly foolish premise comparing the Earth and a teapot, a teapot weights, humm, lets guess here, maybe less than a pound, the earth 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000, slight difference wouldn't you say, the earth orbits around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, most satellites orbit the earth at between 17,000 and 18,000 miles an hour, can you see the difference? When you learn how orbital speed and mass are effected by gravity, then maybe you'll see howe stupid your stance really is.

 

[McBell]

Way to completely miss the point.
Again.

 

[richardlowellt]

Way to completely miss the point.
Again.

You really do need to pay attention just a little more, come on you can do it!!!

 

[richardlowellt]

Way to completely miss the point.
Again.

I see the cat's got your tongue, are you ever going to pony up and answer the questions I asked in post 292?

 

[McBell]

I see the cat's got your tongue, are you ever going to pony up and answer the questions I asked in post 292?

I'm sorry.
Since I had already answered those questions, I thought you were merely being dense.
My mistake.


No, I do not believe they exist.
Despite the fact that you have not been able to prove they do not exist.

Now, care to explain how this has anything to do with the fact you have not proven their non-existence?

 

[richardlowellt]

No, I do not believe they exist.
Despite the fact that you have not been able to prove they do not exist.

And please share with us all just why you do not believe they exist. Thanks!

By saying that all things are possible you become like the mind numbing Christians who believe a global flood actually took place, or the foolishness presented in genesis.

 

[Vile Atheist]

No, I do not believe they exist.
Despite the fact that you have not been able to prove they do not exist.

And please share with us all just why you do not believe they exist. Thanks!

By saying that all things are possible you become like the mind numbing Christians who believe a global flood actually took place, or the foolishness presented in genesis.

I'd say you're comparing apples and oranges here.

A global flood is in the naturalistic realm. We CAN gather evidence to disprove it.

God and anything supernatural is outside of the naturalistic realm. We CANNOT gather evidence to disprove it. We can only have rational reasons for believing it to be highly improbable. There's a huge difference.