Probality of God

[WilbyInebriated]

So, if I understand you correctly, your proof that God doesn't exist, is God can't create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift.  If He can't lift the rock, then He can't do everything.  If He can lift the rock, then He can't do everything, because He couldn't make a rock too heavy to lift.  This is absurd, and isn't logical.  Is this your logical proof that God doesn't exist?  Asking God to do something which is contradictory to itself is irrational as one can get.  This doesn't prove what God can do or what He can't do, but it does prove your ignorance. Then you have the audacity to call the evidence which has been provided as proof of God, which this evidence isn't contradictory to itself, as irrational.

This is really a bad question, because the question itself tries to limit God by using contradictory terms in order to prove He can't do everything.  Let me show how we can remove these limitations which the question itself wrongly tries to impose on God.  God creates a rock which is too heavy to lift.  He then fills a container with water that is holding this rock, and easily lifts the rock (objects way less in water).  This may not be the best example, but it's definitely a much better and rational answer than the question itself.  Please don't say you can do this also, and this makes you God, for I will tell you to create your own water instead of using the same water God created.  You can't do anything on your own outside of what God has already provided for you!

Gravock

no, you moronic godtard...   YOU ASKED WHAT EXTANT MATERIAL EVIDENCE I WOULD ACCEPT... i have have NEVER CLAIMED "proof that god doesn't exist"...  IDIOT

I HAVE ASKED YOU REPEATEDLY FOR YOU TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT HE DOES EXIST.
EXTANT MATERIAL EVIDENCE AND/OR A LOGICAL PROOF.

AND YOU REPEATEDLY RESPOND WITH EVERY LOGICAL FALLACY KNOWN...

[WilbyInebriated]

Monkey see, monkey do.  You should be proud of yourself for having the intellect of a monkey.

Gravock

that still puts me ahead of you... the godtard with NO intellect...

[WilbyInebriated]

I guess a person can tell themselves anything and make themselves believe it.

Gravock

you godtards are certainly evidence of that...

[eatenbyagrue]

Scientists have got their terminology mixed. It appeared to them that the only thing that could conceivably maintain the Earth in orbit and account for its revolution was solar attraction, so they based all their calculations on this. In reality the opposite is the case. The Sun exerts a repulsive force on the Earth. Further, as it was obvious to them that a body could not maintain itself in an orbit when acted upon by a single force, they impute miraculous qualities to centrifugal force, believing that it was the second force that held the planets in their orbits. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Even if centrifugal force did give the necessary balance to a planet, which it does not, there is one glaring omission in this theory, namely the force that impels a planet in a certain direction.  They see that a planet is attracted, they also see that centrifugal force counterbalances this attraction, but they do not see that they have overlooked a third force which gives a planet movement. When one whirls a stone on the end of a string, the string represents the force of attraction and centrifugal force plays the part of repulsion, but the individual represents the third force which gives direction to the stone.

If y = F or f= y x M, then the element of propulsion F is necessary to make the Earth move, since it is this that imparts an acceleration to the mass M. It is logical that a body to which acceleration has been imparted should begin to move, but it is absurd to state that this acceleration could be initiated without a force and then maintained without one, especially as there is a loss of energy as the result of the movement of the body against the action of gravity.

Jupiter, with a mass 317 times greater than that of the Earth, should be subject to a far greater attraction than the Earth, yet the velocity in orbit is not high enough to counterbalance this and maintain it in orbit. This planet has a large mass and a low velocity. This being the case, either the orbital velocity of the Earth is too great for its mass, and it should be flung out of its orbit, or Jupiter's is too low, and it should be drawn into the Sun.  Note that I give Jupiter's mass as 317 times that of the Earth, which is based on the force of attraction of the Sun against centrifugal force. This figure, however, is incorrect and is actually 331.  Having explained this, we can understand why planets of large volume are situated at a considerable distance from the Sun. By taking note of their distance from the Sun and their volume, we can discover their true density, and this will also give us the magnetic force of its poles. Thus the planet Jupiter is of low density and, having a large diameter, it is more subject to the force of repulsion than that of attraction. If it were true that matter attracted matter in direct proportion to the mass of the bodies, Jupiter, with a volume 1,330 times greater than Earth and 331 times as much mass, should be much closer to the Sun than Earth is.

You might raise the objection that Jupiter, with its large mass, revolves in an outer orbit according to the theory that spheres of greater mass are said to be more subject to the action of centrifugal force. Against this we have the case of Mars which is smaller than the Earth, yet is farther from the Sun, or again, the planets beyond Jupiter which are smaller than it, and yet revolve at a tremendous distance from the Sun. Moreover their velocity in orbit is very low. So that does not make sense either.

Scientists forgot, when dealing with the movement of planets, that energy must have been used up as a result of solar attraction working against the two centrifugal forces mentioned. If no explanation was given as to the source of power necessary to sustain the movement, then it is because the problem was based on false premises.

In the theory which I contend is the correct one, this force is derived from difference of energy potential which sunlight sets up by illuminating one face of the planet while leaving the other in darkness. A body which is balanced between two opposing forces (attraction and repulsion) has no weight and moves like a stone whirled round on the end of a string, the radius of its orbit being represented by the string.

Gravock

Where are you getting all this nonsense?  Planets stay in orbit due to only 2 factors, the gravity of the Sun and their own inertia.  Planets want to keep on a straight path tangential to the Sun, but the Sun pulls them in with gravity, so there is an equlibrium.  Presumably, during the early days of our solar system, there were more collisions and so forth, and the planets we ended up with are those that were able to maintain a stable orbit.


Jupiter does not fall into the sun, despite its huge mass, because it is farther away from the Sun than the earth is, where the Sun's pull is weaker.

[hoptoad]

snip....
I guess a person can tell themselves anything and make themselves believe it.

Gravock

You certainly are proof of that.