Probality of God

[hoptoad]

No, I'm not retracting my claim.  They were wrong before, and they are wrong again.  According to them, Mercury is the only body in the solar system known to have an orbital/rotational resonance with a ratio other than 1:1.  This is my proof that Mercury isn't behaving like the other planets with a resonance, thus it's a satellite of the sun.

Gravock

So by your reasoning, if a dozen people act in a certain way, and a thirteenth person acts differently, then that person is not called a person, due to their different behaviour. 

[gravityblock]

So by your reasoning, if a dozen people act in a certain way, and a thirteenth person acts differently, then that person is not a person, due to their different behaviour. 

No, but this isn't the case with an object such as Mercury which has no awareness of it's own to change it's behavior to that which it is not.  Let's say we have a dozen rocks and a piece of petrified wood which looks similar in nature to the other rocks.  Is this petrified piece of wood behaving differently than the other 12 rocks?  No, so should we declare all 13 are rocks because they have the same behavior?  No, but if we run experiments on these objects, then we'll see one of them is of a different nature than the other 12.  This is the case with Mercury, which according to them, is the only body in the solar system with an orbital/rotational resonance which differ from the rest of the other planets. 

Gravock

[hoptoad]

No, but this isn't the case with an object such as Mercury which has no awareness of it's own to change it's behavior to that which it is not.  Let's say we have a dozen rocks and a piece of petrified wood which looks similar in nature to the other rocks.  Is this petrified piece of wood behaving differently than the other 12 rocks?  No, so should be declare all 13 are rocks because they have the same behavior?  No, but if we run experiments on these objects, then we'll see one of them is of a different nature than the other 12.  This is the case with Mercury.

Gravock

All the planets have at least one unique property. They are all uniquely different, but they are all called planets by international agreement. Suits me.

[gravityblock]

Well that depends on which "they" doesn't it.?  If you take the relativistic view of gravity founded in the early 20th century, (and which is currently still the most widely accepted view by western astronomers and cosmologists) , then gravity is described as an effect, not a force.

It would seem you haven't yet caught up with the 20th century, let alone the 21st century.

An effect without a cause, like the Big Bang.  I choose number 1 below.  It's the most rational.  And if gravity is described as an effect and not a force in the 21 century, then why are they trying to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature?  Makes no sense at all.  You totally contradicted yourself, or is science contradicting itself.  Doesn't really matter, because you believe this nonsense.

1.)  Everything (effect) from God (cause).
2.)  Everything (effect) from nothing (cause).

Gravock

[gravityblock]

All the planets have at least one unique property. They are all uniquely different, but they are all called planets by international agreement. Suits me.

Yes, and all of the bodies in the solar system share the same orbital/revolution resonance except for one, which makes it different than the others.  Categorize Mercury as a satellite as it is, then all of the planets in the solar system will share at least one common property so they may be referred to by the same name, such as planets.

Gravock