Existence of a god or gos

If gravity did not exist it would not have fallen back down to the roof. it would have floated away. Just because it didn't hit the ground does not mean it was not effected by gravity.

 

Where and how was the object "caught on the roof"? The roof had plenty of slope to allow it to continue moving. Within the statement, there is a clause which reads.."it will ALWAYS fall to the ground." that portion of the statement is an absolute. Meaning it is supposed to be 100% accurate. Whereas the opening of the statement was ambiguous ..."something like" and "something like" and "caught". Because of the ambiguity of the statement, I can claim that God stopped the object from falling to the ground, thus denying the effect of gravity. Prove my claim wrong.

"trollery"... that is twice I have encountered that word. What is the meaning of that term? How is it applicable to this thread?

 

He is right, I did say that. It was a poor choice of words on my part. What I should have said is that gravity will always cause something to return back down to earth. If it is caught on a roof, then it just means that the roof was in the way, when it fell back down.

He seems to not understand the concept that gravity not existing means that something will float away and leave the atmosphere.

 

Google friction for me.

Whoa whoa whoa, hold up. I'm talking about empirical evidence as literally defined. I know of no examples of the scientific community cherrypicking evidence, feel free to correct my view though.

As far as string theory is concerned, it is just that: a theory. That means that it accurately explains many observable phenomena but it hasn't been proven like a law. So we accept it as a working theory, while admitting its flaws, and we continually seek to perform more and more experiments that will either confirm or deny the validity of the theory.

 

Do you know what a 5 in 12 pitch is on a roof line? Do you know what a standing seam roof is? Lay a hammer down on such a roof, and friction will not hold that hammer in place. Drop a hammer on such a roof, and friction does not stand a chance. God held the object in place. Now prove me wrong.

 

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Science is repeatable. Your "observation" is not repeatable, because every time someone else will and has done it, it's failed.

Roof surfaces have high static friction coefficients. I could see a hammer staying on one. I have a hard time believing you measured the pitch of the roof.

But since baseless claims are okay, I'll prove you wrong: God didn't hold the hammer in place. There. I win.

See? Follows your logic: The hammer didn't fall because God held it in place. God held it in place because it didn't fall. Prove me wrong!

 

I thought you were out to disillusion those who like Daggdag hold gravity as proven but now you're saying that God held your object in place. I don't understand that. Why would God hold an object in place if gravity were not in effect?

 

The plural of anecdote is "not data."

 

Why should I attempt to prove you wrong, when science cannot show PROOF of anything? As for baseless claims... your claims are baseless due to the presumptions that they are built upon. You presume that the experiment cannot be replicated and you presume that I did not measure the pitch of the roof, and you presume that I was merely presenting an anecdote as opposed to an actual experience.

Presumptions. That is all you have.

 

Educated assumptions are better than bull(*)(*)(*)(*) stories.

And yes, your results are not repeatable.

If they are repeatable, then you can make God do it again here, right? I'm going to drop this pencil to the ground. Tell me when you've prayed for God to interfere, and I'll conduct the experiment.

I'll be waiting.

 

What is education? What is your preferred definition of 'educated'?

Can you prove that claim?

You mean here on the computer screen, here at my residence, there at your residence? What precisely do you mean? Also, you are aware of the fact that I am not more powerful than God and therefore, I cannot make God do anything. I can ask, but that does not mean that He will give me a favorable response. How many times have you said 'no' to a request made by your children? How about "maybe" or even "well that depends on particular conditions"?

It is you that is asking for the manifestation of a Godly thing, so you ask for your own self. Do you also want someone to come tuck you in for beddie bye?

No! Don't wait,,, pray, asking that God will intervene for you. I don't cast my seeds (prayers) before God for the swine to trample them under foot.

 

Only one never does, cause such a god that created the world and disappear is not interesting, not to me nor to the believer. This kind of god has no substance, it matters not had it been or not, cause it has no influence on the current universe.
The kind of god that people use, is a kind that has current implications.
I argue that such a god can be disproved using science.
Again if that god happen to be too boring, it may not be the case, but we can check them "on need to disprove bases".

 

Well, here is your opportunity to "disprove such a god".

Now disprove such a god.

 

I see. Well, I won't wish you good luck on your endeavor because I know that luck has as much application in this as science, which is of course none, but I will wish you happy dreams.

 

Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually contradictory.

QED: No god with both those characteristics can exist.

 

Infinite existence is incomprehensible. God is incomprehensible. I'd offer that up as a parallel.

 

Why do you have any problem comprehending infinite existence?

 

It's easy to know the definition and what it means but lets just say you can't count that high. You can't 'imagine' infinity just as you can only imagine nothingness so far.

You can't imagine non-existence but you know what it means.Same concept.

 

I do not see your problem. I have no issue imagining either infinity or nothingness. Both seem trivially conceivable to me.

Actually... yes, I can. As an atheist I not only completely imagine it, I fully expect it.

 

Expecting it is not fully conceiving it. If you cannot fully conceive it, you can't imagine it. We are talking about nothingness forever.

You can't imagine going to sleep and never waking up, you can only understand the concept

 

And again... what do you find difficult about conceiving it? You certainly just described it perfectly.

I see no distinction between conceiving it and imagining it. How are those not the exact same thing?

 

Because our imagination only goes so far. Forever is out of the minds boundary by quite a lot. lol

 

Nothingness is just as incomprehensible as infinite existence.

I'll let you take a guess which one God is.

 

I have to tell you, prospect. You must be speaking only for yourself.

Forever is entirely understandable to me.

 

I can agree with that.