Gravity is known to be a force that exists between 2 objects with mass and is directly related to the distance between those 2 objects. We can measure the force, we are positive of it's existence but have we found the particle responsible for it (graviton)?
Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable
Please understand that if you ask someone who has been indoctrinated in a religion, they will say that they 'learned all about it' from experts and a trustworthy system. When you say 'we know exactly' how things work, you actually mean someone you trust knows exactly how it works, and you believe them; you have not proven or experienced these things for yourself. I would go so far to say that most people do not know how a computer works-- sure we can generalize, but do we know the essentials of binary logic, or silicone sub-straights? I challenge you to describe to me how the 'real time clock' in a computer functions without looking it up and parroting what someone else has written.
ive made counters in electronics classes. all you need is some IC chips, a bread board and some wires. also whatever other diodes/resistors and things you need for the circuit. its just a bunch of what they call gates. each chip has certain kinds of gates in all different combinations. from what i remember there are and, or, nand, and nor gates. theres others too. those gates, wired in different combinations, can and do create timers along with TONS of other things.
That about sums it up for me. The only thing I'd add is the willingness that (most) religious people have to modify or modernize their beliefs to suit their lifestyle or when facts contradict them. Getting harder to debunk evolution..just work it in somewhere and give God credit. Nobody'll notice.
Moving the goalpost
That you don't think you are equivocating on the word is irrelevant to whether or not you really are.
Perhaps one of the ways we could improve communications to actually read and consider what each other are saying. You apparently did not read the pages of discussion on faith that preceded your comment, which pointed out the error of this type of reasoning.
like heisenburg said, why would we have to prove god doesnt exist? shouldnt the ones providing the evidence be the people making the claim that he does exist? why dont you go ahead and tell me what the hell would prove god doesnt exist... would god himself have to come down and tell you he doesnt exist for you to believe it?
over and over again you and others have waved this flag in the face of believers, seemingly secure in your false logic. what you discount, through blindness or perhaps just overweening pride, are the volumes of what many consider to be historical documentation. though twisted by centuries of interpretation, the various scriptures of mankind's religions provide accounts of the miraculous and the divine and you merely disregard them without any proof that they are false. there is no test you can put these claims to and no way of verifying or disproving them, so you merely call them lies. just because the works of man cannot reproduce those of the gods, you choose to ignore what the vast majority of humanity sees as basic truth. this is what requires proof or, lacking that evidence, one must be forced to conclude your opinions are based on nothing but faith in your own unsubstantiated refutation.
So? If enough people step up and say my television manual is the word of god, does that make it true? Talk about false logic; just because you have a large volume of baseless opinions doesn't mean they aren't baseless, it just means you have a lot of them.
its silly to argue over religons,after all,we're all humans,with our own personal beliefs.i find it pretty ignorant when people dismiss other peoples beliefs when they're beliefs arent that convincing themselves...just my 2 cents
this is precisely what i've been trying to get through your head, the inability of science to measure certain phenomena. science, at least in its present state, is not the be all and end all of the quest for knowledge. just as twelfth century man was incapable of determining atomic structures and measuring the distances of the far universe, so too does twenty-first century man's science have its limitations. we may theorize from what we do know and extrapolate from the observable, but these methods do not justify the wholesale discounting of the supposed documentation.
The difference is that the bullshit you are spouting is untestable in principle. It's not limited knowledge or resources stopping us, it is untestable period. Measuring atomic and cosmic distances has never been untestable in principle.
