Or the liability when we all suffocate while waiting in the vacuum for the train to arrive. Or the liability of our organs exploding due to the G forces on acceleration. Or the liability of all those exploding organs coming out of our mouths when the train decelerates.

But think of the fun one can have putting pennies on the tracks. I bet they would melt. Or destroy a city block when the train derails - make that de-tubes.

Is it fast enough to alter time? Say, I enter the train Monday morning to go to work, and get off the train 10 minutes later, but on Tuesday? (Yes, I live 700 miles from work.)

XKCD reference

The problem I see with these resolutions is that they all necessarily must be imprecise in order to have any reasonable application. However, the lack of precision is the very thing that creates loopholes.

I have a resolution: Treat others as you want to be treated. Oh wait, that leaves a loophole for masochists.

Fuck it. Free for all!

There are two problems here: Language evolving in such a way as to smooth over or entirely rewrite history; and, language evolving in a such a way as to become ambiguous. Ghod forbid we lose our marklar to marklar, because before we know it, the marklar will marklar all our marklar, and then we will be left with marklar, and spend the rest of our marklar getting marklared up the marklar.

Don't forget: We voted for the dicks who passed this legislation. It's our own fault.

*cough* election year *cough*

No, but tested for five years does not equal 20 years of exposure. Those crazy unknown unknowns...

I think there must be some context within which our universe exists. Unfortunately, that line of thinking only leads to wondering in what context that universe exists, and so on.

The bible has one truly universal and useful passage: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If we could all live by that we would be just fine. Compassion cannot exist within an entirely logic-based construct; we must believe that something bigger than ourselves grants to each individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The alternative is the law under which the planet existed for untold millenia prior to the social contract, i.e., the state of nature. It is perfect and pure in its cold viciousness - well, other than the fact that it gave rise to humans. If some being actually entered a command into Window Universe to start life on earth, at this moment you can bet they are making a futile attempt to end the program.

It is really difficult to sell newspapers with the headline, "Muslim Walk Into Crowded Cafe and Buys Latte."

So if Einstein turns out to be correct, he is still nothing more than a liar because he lacked the ability to travel near the speed of light? Or does your reasoning only extend to the clergy?

I was raised going to church, so I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as far as being evil, mislead, or true believers trying to convince the rest of us. That said, I never trusted religion because it is quite simply man's set of rules for how to get to heaven, and its sole purpose is to be needed when in fact it isn't. These days I go by the motto, "When you die you're dead" (hat tip to James Davies) and I can't for the life of me figure out why people line up on either side of the religious debate and waste precious time arguing over that which cannot be proven.

And you've never known non-religious people who do the very same thing? The reality is that reality is subjective, despite what very logical people such as myself wish were true. People - everyone - engage in a form of truth manipulation whereby they accentuate those facts which further their cause and diminish those which either don't, or which further the cause of those whom they oppose. It is human nature, and not confined to religious people.

I'm not taking a stand for or against the existence of God; however, until you actually perform the same experiments your trust is no different than faith.

You just better hope those with moderator power use all their point before they scroll this far or you will be marked as flamebait.

One can no more be resolute in the belief in the absence of a god than the belief in the existence of the same. It is, as you state, simply unknowable. Granted, that which cannot be explained - an there is plenty to go around - does not necessitate a higher being of some type.

Strictly speaking, only mathematicians are correct, and only absurdists are not wrong.

Just to play the fictitious Devil's Advocate: You must therefore understand everything about every currently accepted theory, as you seem to have no need to believe anything.

We all have beliefs; some are just a little (or a lot) less plausible than others.