Allergies and Other Proofs Against God

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

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.

Ok so you state it is impossible that a teapot orbits the sun yes ?
Ok let me make this short. Here is a picture of all known asteroids orbiting the sun.

Quite a lot hmmm ?
Now you might think you have told us something very very superextraintelligent by stating the rather obvious fact that velocity is relevant. No you havent.
What you actually DID was to show us how much you LACK knowledge here.

Here an elementary lesson in simple 2-object orbits.
1) Teapot (mass m) orbits the sun (Mass M) at velocity v in a radius of r
2) The force of this motion is F1 = m * v^2 / r
3) That force must be equal to the suns gravitational pull F2 = G * m * M / r^2
4) If we put that together we get r = G * M / v^2
What does that say ?
It says that all your nice numbers are totally irrelevant because that FRAGGING mass of the teapot, the earth or any other nonsense is TOTALLY irrelevant for an orbit around the sun. Neither is the "size" relevant. Got that ?

Of course this gets somewhat more complicated with more objects in a solar system. Then we do have several gravitational forces at once. But that doesnt really pose a problem. It is still solvable as we can actually OBSERVE IN THIS VERY SOLAR SYSTEM.
We can even minimize all gravitational factors from other planets by choosing an axis that suits us.

Of course we never spoke about the nature of the orbit anyway. Strictly speaking for example the moon doesnt orbit the earth. It actually gets away from us.

Anyway that whole discussion is ridiculous.
Here i sit and must tell some ******** that an object can orbit the sun... thats something children learn here in elementary school.

You remind me of Fatihah. Too stubborn to see or acknowledge even the most basic mistakes. "I" should go and learn science in order to talk to someone like "you"?

You should be kidding but i fear that you actually mean that.

 

[McBell]

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.

OK.
Enough of your Bull **** already.

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

Seems to me that you are trying real hard to divert the attention away from the fact that you have not proven anything.

Now enough of your attempts to divert away from your obvious faulty logic.

 

[richardlowellt]

Strictly speaking for example the moon doesnt orbit the earth. It actually gets away from us.

ROTFLMAO-----No fellow ********, the moon doesn't orbit the earth, and the earth is flat, and the sky is a dome over the flat earth------I just don't know what to say, I guess your right, I'm going to cancel my trip abroad as I don't want to fall off the edge of the earth, Yep the moon, "it actually GETS AWAY from us, yep moving straight out into space, I wonder how lang that has been going on. Maybe what you mean is it's orbit moves slightly further away, thats why we have mirrors the surface so as to measure the orbit with lasers. Must I tell you everything, do pay attention there will be a quiz latter.

 

[richardlowellt]

OK.
Enough of your Bull **** already.

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

Seems to me that you are trying real hard to divert the attention away from the fact that you have not proven anything.

Now enough of your attempts to divert away from your obvious faulty logic.

Sorry your having a hard time with this, but they really don't exist anyone who thinks for a moment that they can is illogical.

 

[McBell]

Sorry your having a hard time with this, but they really don't exist anyone who thinks for a moment that they can is illogical.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Richard, buddy, do you not see the flaw in this?

You are saying "Because it is ridiculous, X does not exist". Because something is ridiculous does not automatically mean it is untrue. It means it's unlikely.

 

[richardlowellt]

Richard, buddy, do you not see the flaw in this?

You are saying "Because it is ridiculous, X does not exist". Because something is ridiculous does not automatically mean it is untrue. It means it's unlikely.

I see the flaw in saying something like pixie dust is unlikely as this infers that a substance of this type just may be possible. Words like unlikely, implausible, questionable, doubtful, unrealistic, unconvincing, all walk the wavy line, always noncommittal. There becomes a point were something either exists or not. Knowing how our world works and what events are possible relies on knowledge. From the knowledge that both you and I are aware of, at this moment I, time I am fully justified to state that pixie dust does not exist.

 

[richardlowellt]

It says that all your nice numbers are totally irrelevant because that FRAGGING mass of the teapot, the earth or any other nonsense is TOTALLY irrelevant for an orbit around the sun. Neither is the "size" relevant. Got that

You do get confused don't you, mass and size do matter, the larger the mass the more effect gravitational forces has on the object. GOT IT!!

Of course velocity is also a factor in keeping orbits from decaying.

I'm still waiting fellow ********, for you to fully explain how the moon is NOT in an orbit around the Earth.

 

[richardlowellt]

:shout

 

[Vile Atheist]

I see the flaw in saying something like pixie dust is unlikely as this infers that a substance of this type just may be possible. Words like unlikely, implausible, questionable, doubtful, unrealistic, unconvincing, all walk the wavy line, always noncommittal. There becomes a point were something either exists or not. Knowing how our world works and what events are possible relies on knowledge. From the knowledge that both you and I are aware of, at this moment I, time I am fully justified to state that pixie dust does not exist.

And I fully understand why you make that claim. However, you have no empirical data to disprove pixie dust. Thus, the possibility - however ridiculous and miniscule - exists.

It doesn't matter whether or not pixie dust actually exists. To say it doesn't exist definitively without definitive data is a statement of faith.

I fully see why you are making your claim. But this position is not defensible. "Pixie dust does not exist" is just as much of a positive claim as "Pixie dust does exist". You are required to fulfill a burden of proof for your claim. Instead the claim "Pixie dust very probably does not exist" is not a positive claim because it allows room for both possibilities.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Richy, I think this is what he means:

SPACE.com -- Moon Mechanics: What Really Makes Our World Go 'Round

 

[The Neo Nerd]

And I fully understand why you make that claim. However, you have no empirical data to disprove pixie dust. Thus, the possibility - however ridiculous and miniscule - exists.

It doesn't matter whether or not pixie dust actually exists. To say it doesn't exist definitively without definitive data is a statement of faith.

I fully see why you are making your claim. But this position is not defensible. "Pixie dust does not exist" is just as much of a positive claim as "Pixie dust does exist". You are required to fulfill a burden of proof for your claim. Instead the claim "Pixie dust very probably does not exist" is not a positive claim because it allows room for both possibilities.

The burdon of proof rests solely on the shoulders of those who make claims which cannot be verified by the five senses.

EG I believe in fairies. Since no one can see fairies i have to prove it. If you were to say there is no fairies you already have proof, theyve never been seen, thats pretty good proof for me.

 

[Vile Atheist]

The burdon of proof rests solely on the shoulders of those who make claims which cannot be verified by the five senses.

EG I believe in fairies. Since no one can see fairies i have to prove it. If you were to say there is no fairies you already have proof, theyve never been seen, thats pretty good proof for me.

Yes, the person who claims it does have a burden of proof. But then again, you are trying to say "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" which is demonstrably untrue. There perhaps may be a point in time (highly unlikely and next to impossible, but still a tiny chance) that we DO find evidence for pixie dust. There is no way we can definitively know that.

I don't believe in pixie dust just as much as you don't. But I admit there's still a small chance because we don't know if there actually is any more evidence that we can find to support its existence, no matter how much we rant about how ridiculous it is.

This argument sounds a little silly when applied to pixie dust because to anyone rational, it's demonstrable that it probably doesn't exist. But apply this to concepts that are not so clear-cut that you can make this call, and then it becomes clear what exactly is meant by that.

 

[Standup Philosopher]

So if we get a zit or are constipated, I suppose that also proves there is no God.
That is too funny.

 

[Vile Atheist]

So if we get a zit or are constipated, I suppose that also proves there is no God.
That is too funny.

Then how, friend, would you reconcile this with an omnibenevolent God? If God cared about suffering, why would he withhold my stool? Furthermore, the skin stretches on my knuckles when I clutch the toilet for support. God amplifies my suffering!!!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Which God? According to 2nd Corinthians (4:4) Satan is the god of this world of badness.

Adam was informed by his Creator that disobedience would bring death.
By Adam taking the law into his own hands and eating the forbidden fruit thus Adam became independent from God and chose Satan's rulership over him.

Revelation (12:12) shows Satan is the reason for the 'woes' on earth.

So if one wants to blame someone for troubles, then we can blame our inherited imperfection from Adam and the one he chose to obey, Satan.

 

[richardlowellt]

So if we get a zit or are constipated, I suppose that also proves there is no God.
That is too funny.

With either it would appear as though you are not taking proper care of yourself, nothing to do with the Demo God, but perhaps a parasite that burrows into the eyeballs of children would raise some doubts about an 'ALL LOVING GOD"

 

[richardlowellt]

Which God? According to 2nd Corinthians (4:4) Satan is the god of this world of badness.

Interesting, I wasn't aware that satan was responsible for the global flood that killed men women and children, along with millions of "Innocent" animals. See ya learn sumtin new every day.

 

[JustWondering]

It is my contention that no deity in his/her right mind would torture people thus.

An uber powerful deity would probably view us as nothing more than playthings.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Which God? According to 2nd Corinthians (4:4) Satan is the god of this world of badness.

Interesting, I wasn't aware that satan was responsible for the global flood that killed men women and children, along with millions of "Innocent" animals. See ya learn sumtin new every day.

Satan introduced sin into the world with his first lie (Gen 3:4) which ended up bringing death into the world. But that did not make Satan responsible for the Flood. The angels that joined Satan in being wicked and violent came to the extent as Genesis (6:2-5; Jude 6) shows to the point of filling the earth with violence. God brought the Flood through divine intervention to protect the righteous. No parent put themselves on the Ark nor their children even though Noah warned them (2 Peter 2:5) for decades.

The Flood was also divine intervention against Satan and his demons because no longer after that could the demons appear in human bodies. And prophecies about Jesus show there will once again be divine intervention, not by water, but as foretold (Isaiah 11:4; Rev. 19:11,15) when the words from Jesus mouth will be as sharp as a two-edged sword, an executioner's sword, and Jesus will rid the earth of all wickedness and usher in peace on earth and peace to men of goodwill.