Strange

There are so many examples of bad design, it makes your "designer god" a pretty bad engineer.

Maybe for some people. I don't believe in a non-god any more than I believe in a god. It is just an irrelevant concept to me (like golf). So I don't see that belief comes into it. But if people want to believe that it is a belief, then that's fine with me! Why? How do you evaluate that probability? How do you calculate the probability that Xenu or Thor, or Allah or Zeus exists? It seems an impossible task.

That doesn't work because it is a relative effect. So from one frame of reference, the clock doesn't slow at all. From another frame of reference it might slow by 10%. Frome another frame of reference it might slow by 50%. How can this force act on the clock differently depending on who is measuring it?

Why? Because I disagree with your (baseless) assumptions?

Absolutely nothing. That is the point. No designer is required. Nope. And atheism isn't a belief, any more than not playing golf is a sport.

And this is a good example why science does everything can to avoid "common sense" and "obvious" conclusions. What is obvious to one person may be obviously wrong to another. Hence the need for objective evidence.

No. I suppose it is obvious if you already believe in supernatural beings and magic. Not otherwise.

What on earth are you jabbering on about? Evolution (I do hope you are not one of those god botherers who think this is incompatible with your god)

Evolution. I guess if you start with the assumption that it was designed then you can conclude that there must be a designer. This is why every article on the fallacy of begging the question includes at least one example from religion. I don’t share your assumption so I don’t accept your conclusion.

Not really. But adding SR to quantum mechanics made it a more complete theory.

So because you don't know how life arose, you have to invoke gods to do it. No, I don't believe you. Why is "an accident" the only alternative to "my fave god did it? Uh, no. Invoking gods is equivalent to invoking magic. "Wow: super powers! My god can do anything!" Saying "we don't know" is the sensible response to a lack of evidence or information. It seems to be a common human trait to fill gaps in knowledge with myths and fairy stories, but that is not rational. Any why should someone believe your creation myth rather than the hundreds of others out there?

! Moderator Note Why start a new thread?

That is a complete non-sequitur. So you think a god must have done it because we don't understand all the details of abiogenesis? We have a good idea of most of the possible mechanisms. We may never know exactly which were involved but it seems an extreme denial of Occam's Razor to invent a mythical being instead. That is not evidence for a godlike being. What a bizarre statement. What on earth makes you think I have been "destroyed emotionally"? One of the great things about religion is the fantastic art and music it has inspired. I can enjoy that (and art and music not inspired by a god) perfectly well without having to share the beliefs of the artist. Never had it in the first place. I think faith matters very much. It is a hugely important part of the human experience. I just don't share yours in a god or gods. (If I did believe in a god, why should it be your god rather than another one?)

! Moderator Note Note that the rules require you to present your idea here on the forum, not just link to a document. I would also very strongly recommend not downloading a Word document from an unknown source. If you need to provide a document to support your argument, it would be better to use PDF

I think all we can conclude is that they give us an idea of what a near death experience is like. Why? What evidence do you have for that? Did it? How do you know? The same as my motivation for not playing golf: bemused indifference. I have no opinion about gods. There are some entertaining stories about the old Greek and Roman ones. And Loki seems like a bit of a jerk.

I’m not terribly impressed by yours :-|

It is so worth spending time on that you can't be bothered. Right.

You should try using Google translate (as well as practising your written English). Then we might know what you are trying to say, and could then help you by correcting your English. As it is, I wouldn't know where to start because your sentences make no sense at all. Sorry.

No theory is ever proven. Quantum field theory is possibly the most extensively and most accurately tested theory in history. There is a chance it is "wrong" (incomplete, not accurate in all cases) but so far there is a disappointing lack of evidence for that. But that has nothing to do with saying "why don't we accept something that is known to be false". The only possible answer to that is "no".

Yes, this is experimental confirmed. It can be measured over quite small differences in height (less than a meter, I think, from memory).

Even here on Earth, different animals see different ranges of colours. Birds and insects can see into the ultraviolet and, in some cases, infrared. Some flowers are much more "colourful" in the ultraviolet range in order to attract pollinators. Humans have three colour receptors that, roughly, correspond to red, green and blue. Some animals have fewer (OK, we can understand that; they just don't see all the colours we see). Some birds have 4 colour receptors so they can see a range of colours that we can't even imagine. It is entirely possible that aliens (if they exist!) would see colours very different from us. (It is unlikely, for various reasons that they could "see" radio waves, but perhaps not impossible). But they would not see the planet as "blurry" necessarily; but their view could be weird compared to ours. The reason Jupiter looks "blurry and weird" is because all we see is clouds and complex weather patterns (and its a bit blurry because it is a long way away): https://www.universetoday.com/15132/weather-on-jupiter/

! Moderator Note Moved, belatedly, to Speculations

Why? If you don't think it is worth spending the effort on, why would anyone else?

Why don't we don't we accept that the earth is flat, or light moves at walking speed, or fire-breathing dragons exist, "just for this conversation". What is the point?

I think it is important to note that theories are very rarely proved to be completely wrong. I can think of four, maybe five, examples. It is much more common for a theory to be superseded by another theory that is either more accurate or applies in a wider range of conditions. For example, I would not say that Newton's theory of gravity is "wrong". It is still widely used. It works for a great many common situations. But there are other situations where it is not accurate. So for the greatest accuracy, and particularly for extreme conditions, GR is better.