Probality of God

[Qwert]

The way you present completely unsubstantiated theories, whilst hopping from one diversionery subject to another and trying to associate them via segways, I think you must be drinking something a little stronger than milk.

He's drinking a secret christian equivalent of ambrosia - the God's drink.

Something in subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake

[gravityblock]

The way you present completely unsubstantiated theories, whilst hopping from one diversionery subject to another and trying to associate them via segways, I think you must be drinking something a little stronger than milk.

I haven't been hopping from one subject to another.  The subject I have been talking about has been what gravity really is and what it is not, thus there can be no association via segways as you wrongly asserted.  As soon as we erase our false assumptions of gravity, and learn it's true nature, then we can see how there is absolute scientific proof of God which is irrefutable, even by Wilby's standards.  Eatenbyagrue is starting to see where I am going with all of this.  He's starting to connect the dots (but he's been shackled, bamboozled and hoodwinked by this system of things, so he's fighting against it).  However, you have completely missed the boat.  I've been slowly grinding away at this, but you guys are totally closed minded and so dearly hold onto the incomplete theories of the scientific community which hasn't been fully substantiated.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

I'm taking a break.  I have a headache from looking at the screen.

Gravock

[hoptoad]

snip...
However, you have completely missed the boat.  I've been slowly grinding away at this, but you guys are totally closed minded and so dearly hold onto the incomplete theories of the scientific community which hasn't been fully substantiated.

Gravock

I don't hold on dearly to any theory, least of all unsubstantiated ones like yours.
And yes, you do present segways at every opportunity.

The statement you made below is a typical example.

"As soon as we erase our false assumptions of gravity, and learn it's true nature, then we can see how there is absolute scientific proof of God which is irrefutable, even by Wilby's standards."

Learning the truth about gravity isn't an automatic proof of your biblical god's existence.
Your statement above is one of many segways you have proffered.

[WilbyInebriated]

How is observing nature any different than observing an experiment which you or I may devise?  The scientific experiment you refer to, which substantiates my claim, is being provided by observing nature.  Do you really think it's necessary for mankind to devise an experiment which mimics nature, a requirement before it can be considered scientific evidence?  To wrongly imply or assert it is necessary, as you have done, is asinine!

Gravock

until you can measure it, arguing about something can be many things... but science is not one of them.