Scientific proof that God exists?

[Elite70]

Sorry to say my opinions, there is no God. There is no Adam and Eve. Bible is only manmade to trick people.

[BADecker]

Sorry to say my opinions, there is no God. There is no Adam and Eve. Bible is only manmade to trick people.

What do you base your opinion on?

The Bible is a record of the history of a nation... Israel. The history of Israel shows us a nation that has been destroyed and come back again, against all odds.

The Bible has influenced the lives of billions over the years. How could it be trickery and be so strong? For example. The Bible is the most printed book anywhere. It has more than twice as many copies as the next most printed book. Why would people print a book of stories if there wasn't some kind of power in it?

But that is talk about the Bible. It isn't science, except for the odds of it happening the way it did. As we are getting into science about God, we of the science age are coming closer to proving God than any other age. For example, everything in the universe is machinery. The construction of the universe is machines upon machines and within machines. There are mechanical levers and energy levers, just as you find in the various man-made machines. But universe machines are way more complex.

Nobody ever heard of a machine being made by accident. The more complex the machine, the more complex its maker... complex in thought, design, and capability.

All man-made machines are taken, by man, out of the machinery of the universe. There is nothing that man does and makes that is not a machine of sorts, and is not taken out of stuff of the universe. It is only in the age of science that we are finally recognizing, with scientific precision, that everything is complex machinery of highly complex design.

Machines have makers. They don't just pop into existence without a maker. The machine-Maker of the universe is God. Why would this Maker have to be God? Because the power and ability that this universe-maker would have to have to make this complexity, fits our definition of the word "God."

Having an opinion that God doesn't exist, is to have an opinion against science.

[Pachacouti]

By now you'd have seen the Lost city of the Monkey king. Strange how out of the Many cultures that point out a new human will be re-born, a monkey aquarian, cultures that existed before the bible, all pointing to a Monkey King being re-born. Only in the paedophiliac book called the bible is this made out to be a man. Strange that a succubus or incubus gave birth to a human freak called jesus in a virginial way, since sleeping with either succubus or incubus IS how mary got pregger's...

Thousands of years ago, succubus or incubus was how people had babies, and women's religions killed anyone who dared say it was him that did it.

I do make sense BADecker, you dont, you cant argue with the amount of people that have read your pish.

God is a MONKEY you know and others fear will live with them, hold them, and live with them always... holding them down on the cross of tesyract's.

This is from books far older than your paedo book, which is nothing more than a license to kill your firstborn. And fuck with kiddies.

Your lies are backed up by masonic sex case's everywhere, but NO-ONE else. FACT.

God is proven indeed.

Your all praying you dont get the virus. I hope you all do.

It's not a dead person your praying to.

Oh wait a minute.. god is not a person.

I found god jaweh is NOT god the almighty blah blah, but 7th after.

The Monkey KING will look you in the eve's forever upon your death.

God has nothing to do with it.

Freak babysacrificers do.

Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva.
Father, Son (jesus, aka all seeing eye), Lucifer.

Nuff sed.

I proved the Monkey king. Just wait till you see the statue, buried for now, but currently being dug up. Too big to move, so how did they move it to bury it? They buried it because masons fear the monkey, and cannot escape him. Bet on it.

[BADecker]

I do make sense BADecker, you dont, you cant argue with the amount of people that have read your pish.

Now why would I want to argue with you? Lol! You are doing a good enough job of arguing with yourself.

[actmyname]

Eh. The word "God" can be looked at as an abstraction and the concept or the term is limited by the very narrow perceptions and systems associated with the languages we use to describe the entity. How vague and incomplete, our definition.

[odolvlobo]

Machines have makers. They don't just pop into existence without a maker. The machine-Maker of the universe is God. Why would this Maker have to be God? Because the power and ability that this universe-maker would have to have to make this complexity, fits our definition of the word "God."

Issues with your argument:

1. Your classification of the universe as a machine would allow anything to be classified as a machine, so it is not meaningful.
2. You have not shown that a machine must have a maker and cannot exist without one. You assume it based on your biased observations. Lack of observations of a black swan do not prove that one doesn't exist.
3. You say that a god must be the creator of the universe because it is able to create it. That does not preclude something else from creating the universe. Perhaps your god found or inherited or even stole the universe after something else created it?

[BADecker]

Machines have makers. They don't just pop into existence without a maker. The machine-Maker of the universe is God. Why would this Maker have to be God? Because the power and ability that this universe-maker would have to have to make this complexity, fits our definition of the word "God."

Issues with your argument:

1. Your classification of the universe as a machine would allow anything to be classified as a machine, so it is not meaningful. - You are starting to get it. Even energies lever off other energies.
2. You have not shown that a machine must have a maker and cannot exist without one. You assume it based on your biased observations. Lack of observations of a black swan do not prove that one doesn't exist. - There is no example whatsoever of a machine existing without a maker. Yet there are  countless examples of machines where we know who the maker is. Scientifically, when the odds are zero in one direction, and countless in the other direction... science considers that to be proof.
3. You say that a god must be the creator of the universe because it is able to create it. That does not preclude something else from creating the universe. Perhaps your god found or inherited or even stole the universe after something else created it?

I didn't really say that. If something else created the universe, then the "something else" is God. Why? The nature of the universe is such that it would take a God by our dictionary and encyclopedia definition of "God" to create it. My god doesn't have anything to do with it. We are talking about God... He who is everybody's God... even the God of those who don't understand that God exists.

[odolvlobo]

1. Your classification of the universe as a machine would allow anything to be classified as a machine, so it is not meaningful. - You are starting to get it. Even energies lever off other energies.
2. You have not shown that a machine must have a maker and cannot exist without one. You assume it based on your biased observations. Lack of observations of a black swan do not prove that one doesn't exist. - There is no example whatsoever of a machine existing without a maker. Yet there are  countless examples of machines where we know who the maker is. Scientifically, when the odds are zero in one direction, and countless in the other direction... science considers that to be proof.

Your "countless examples" consist only of man-made machines. What about machines that are not man-made? Can you show that they also have makers? There are certainly many more examples of machines that are not man-made than there are of man-made machines, so if it were actually true that you could use odds to prove something in this case, you would still be wrong.

3. You say that a god must be the creator of the universe because it is able to create it. That does not preclude something else from creating the universe. Perhaps your god found or inherited or even stole the universe after something else created it?

I didn't really say that. If something else created the universe, then the "something else" is God. Why? The nature of the universe is such that it would take a God by our dictionary and encyclopedia definition of "God" to create it. My god doesn't have anything to do with it. We are talking about God... He who is everybody's God... even the God of those who don't understand that God exists.

You don't know that the universe was created by the entity that you call "God". The fact that "the nature of the universe is such that it would take a God [to create it]" does not imply that God created it. You believe that God created it because you assume that there is and always has been exactly one entity (God) capable of creating the universe. I reject that assumption because there is no good reason to accept it.

Furthermore, you are begging the question. Your statement "If something else created the universe, then the 'something else' is God"  defines God as that which created the universe, and elsewhere you try to prove that God created the universe. In other words, you are trying to prove that God created the universe by using a definition of God as the creator of the universe.

[BADecker]

1. Your classification of the universe as a machine would allow anything to be classified as a machine, so it is not meaningful. - You are starting to get it. Even energies lever off other energies.
2. You have not shown that a machine must have a maker and cannot exist without one. You assume it based on your biased observations. Lack of observations of a black swan do not prove that one doesn't exist. - There is no example whatsoever of a machine existing without a maker. Yet there are  countless examples of machines where we know who the maker is. Scientifically, when the odds are zero in one direction, and countless in the other direction... science considers that to be proof.

Your "countless examples" consist only of man-made machines. What about machines that are not man-made? Can you show that they also have makers? There are certainly many more examples of machines that are not man-made than there are of man-made machines, so if it were actually true that you could use odds to prove something in this case, you would still be wrong.

Can you show even one example of a machine that you absolutely know does not have a maker? Our vast experience is that machines have makers, without even one example of a machine not having a maker.

3. You say that a god must be the creator of the universe because it is able to create it. That does not preclude something else from creating the universe. Perhaps your god found or inherited or even stole the universe after something else created it?

I didn't really say that. If something else created the universe, then the "something else" is God. Why? The nature of the universe is such that it would take a God by our dictionary and encyclopedia definition of "God" to create it. My god doesn't have anything to do with it. We are talking about God... He who is everybody's God... even the God of those who don't understand that God exists.

You don't know that the universe was created by the entity that you call "God". The fact that "the nature of the universe is such that it would take a God [to create it]" does not imply that God created it.

You seem to be attempting to bring my God into it. My God is not applicable. The Creator is simply God. Machines have makers. The machine universe is complex enough that a man can't create it, except, perhaps, if he is God. That wouldn't be you, would it?

You believe that God created it because you assume that there is and always has been exactly one entity (God) capable of creating the universe. I reject that assumption because there is no good reason to accept it.

Here is the good reason to accept it. We, being of the universe, only know the things of the universe. God, in creating the universe would have to be outside of it during the creation of it. We know only one thing about outside-the-universe. That one thing is "outside-the-universe." Since God created the universe, and since He was outside at the time He created, and since the outside is one (at least to our understanding), God is One.

Furthermore, you are begging the question. Your statement "If something else created the universe, then the 'something else' is God"  defines God as that which created the universe, and elsewhere you try to prove that God created the universe. In other words, you are trying to prove that God created the universe by using a definition of God as the creator of the universe.

Actually, you are giving God an additional name. You are calling Him "God," and you are calling Him "Something Else." Machines have makers.

[odolvlobo]

Your "countless examples" consist only of man-made machines. What about machines that are not man-made? Can you show that they also have makers? There are certainly many more examples of machines that are not man-made than there are of man-made machines, so if it were actually true that you could use odds to prove something in this case, you would still be wrong.

Can you show even one example of a machine that you absolutely know does not have a maker? Our vast experience is that machines have makers, without even one example of a machine not having a maker.

So here are examples of non-manmade machines with no maker: ribosomes (protein synthesizer), clouds (electrical generator), rivers (rock crusher), rain (irrigation). Of course I could go on and this list would be much longer than your list of machines with makers. Our vast experience is that most machines do not have makers, but you choose to ignore them in order to support your premise.

You believe that God created it because you assume that there is and always has been exactly one entity (God) capable of creating the universe. I reject that assumption because there is no good reason to accept it.

Here is the good reason to accept it. We, being of the universe, only know the things of the universe. God, in creating the universe would have to be outside of it during the creation of it. We know only one thing about outside-the-universe. That one thing is "outside-the-universe." Since God created the universe, and since He was outside at the time He created, and since the outside is one (at least to our understanding), God is One.

Ok, I get it. Part of your definition of God includes everything outside of the universe. I still reject your assumption because we don't know anything about anything outside of our universe, or even that an "outside-the-universe" exists. Furthermore, even if we assume that there is an "outside-the-universe", we don't know whether it created the universe or it was created along with the universe.

Furthermore, you are begging the question. Your statement "If something else created the universe, then the 'something else' is God"  defines God as that which created the universe, and elsewhere you try to prove that God created the universe. In other words, you are trying to prove that God created the universe by using a definition of God as the creator of the universe.

Actually, you are giving God an additional name. You are calling Him "God," and you are calling Him "Something Else." Machines have makers.

Simply stated, it is a logical fallacy to say that the creator is God, therefore God created everything. It's called begging the question. Also, stating that "machines have makers" over and over doesn't make it true.

[BADecker]

Eh. The word "God" can be looked at as an abstraction and the concept or the term is limited by the very narrow perceptions and systems associated with the languages we use to describe the entity. How vague and incomplete, our definition.

Exactly! We barely describe God because we are so weak. In addition, with all the distractions in life, people are drawn away from searching for God to find out what He is like.

God is the creator. Then, He is the Savior. Then He is the Seeker Who tries to find lost people to save them. Wouldn't it be easier to simply start over? This shows that God is loving towards all the people He made.

Romans 11:33:

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!

[BADecker]

Your "countless examples" consist only of man-made machines. What about machines that are not man-made? Can you show that they also have makers? There are certainly many more examples of machines that are not man-made than there are of man-made machines, so if it were actually true that you could use odds to prove something in this case, you would still be wrong.

Can you show even one example of a machine that you absolutely know does not have a maker? Our vast experience is that machines have makers, without even one example of a machine not having a maker.

So here are examples of non-manmade machines with no maker: ribosomes (protein synthesizer), clouds (electrical generator), rivers (rock crusher), rain (irrigation). Of course I could go on and this list would be much longer than your list of machines with makers. Our vast experience is that most machines do not have makers, but you choose to ignore them in order to support your premise.

Prove that these machines have no maker. The Antikythera mechanism is a machine that is over 2,000 years old. We don't know who the maker was. Maybe it didn't have a maker, right? Are you serious?

You believe that God created it because you assume that there is and always has been exactly one entity (God) capable of creating the universe. I reject that assumption because there is no good reason to accept it.

Here is the good reason to accept it. We, being of the universe, only know the things of the universe. God, in creating the universe would have to be outside of it during the creation of it. We know only one thing about outside-the-universe. That one thing is "outside-the-universe." Since God created the universe, and since He was outside at the time He created, and since the outside is one (at least to our understanding), God is One.

Ok, I get it. Part of your definition of God includes everything outside of the universe. I still reject your assumption because we don't know anything about anything outside of our universe, or even that an "outside-the-universe" exists. Furthermore, even if we assume that there is an "outside-the-universe", we don't know whether it created the universe or it was created along with the universe.

I didn't say that I define God as everything outside the universe. We don't even know if the word "everything" is even a word that we can use to describe "what" is outside the universe. Non-universal things are so extremely different than things of the universe, that we don't have a way of even considering them intelligently. So, we are in somewhat of agreement about outside-the-universe.

The point is, machines have makers. There are two observations regarding machines. We know who the makers of some of them are, and we don't know who the makers of other of them are. The thing that we can't even conceive of is that machines come into existence without a maker. But that idea - some machines don't have makers - actually fits the outside-the-universe God idea, because we barely understand the concept of o-t-u at all, just like we barely understand the concept of machines without makers.

Furthermore, you are begging the question. Your statement "If something else created the universe, then the 'something else' is God"  defines God as that which created the universe, and elsewhere you try to prove that God created the universe. In other words, you are trying to prove that God created the universe by using a definition of God as the creator of the universe.

Actually, you are giving God an additional name. You are calling Him "God," and you are calling Him "Something Else." Machines have makers.

Simply stated, it is a logical fallacy to say that the creator is God, therefore God created everything. It's called begging the question. Also, stating that "machines have makers" over and over doesn't make it true.

Try fitting a Ford Piston into a Chev engine. First we have no universe. Then we have a highly complex universe, the parts of which work together well, with a physics that can't be broken. All this made by something outside of the universe that we can't even conceive of. Even if God is a corporation, still one God. But since we can't even conceive of what o-t-u would be like, all we understand is one o-t-u... one God.

Perhaps after thousands of years, and much attempting - like we haven't been trying for thousands of years already - we will finally find a machine without a maker. This concept goes entirely against any idea of machines and machinery. You seem to be moving in the direction of religion when you talk like this.

[Pachacouti]

I do make sense BADecker, you dont, you cant argue with the amount of people that have read your pish.

Now why would I want to argue with you? Lol! You are doing a good enough job of arguing with yourself.

The scientific proof is impossible, for god is NOT of this earth, never mind this dimension.

I'll say it again. The Baby Sacrificing can stop. The Monkey got the message, born of:

Father, Son, Holy Ghost

God, Jesus, Lucifer

Brahma Vishnu SHiva.

A Monkey king that is to return at the end of mayan time, this is the closest we can get to 'who' is coming back, taken from all other cultures wiped out by freemasons, and the church, your paedophilac brethren, to sell their brand of who is coming back, with one flaw.

Even Jesus at one point had the higher intelligence in man, the Monkey MIND.

Whomever is irrelevant, for it's obvious when ancient culture's are studied. A new Human, a monkey aquarian, will return at the end of time. Now since the end of time by most account's has been accepted by most to be 2012, it begs the question, who's time is up, what end of time? We are all still here!

But as unwitting initiator Nick Splinter Smith knows, he unwittingly initiated a knowledgeable Monkey in 2012, in a year that was not a year of the monkey, creating the end of YOUR brethrens time.

You see, when I look at a little girls drawing, I see a wall of fire. I see a black cross casting a shadow on the flames, the little girl on her knee's praying. Primary crayon drawing, burnt into my mind, for this is my ex partner, all grown up. I'm having sex with her, and stretch oout my arms while holding her hand's, and she freaks. I only saw the drawing but 10 years after, wondering why she freaked. I got buddist monks bowing to me in the fuckin street, saying over and over, we're not worthy.

At a funeral, I see my deceased friend's sis look at me, and she too SAW.

Then I get bro's talking to me about your holy spirit, lucifer. Many point out Lucifer is aqaurian, being ruled by saturn, keeper of YOUR, and the rest of us's time. My date of birth IS the numbers that lead to light.

Stick with your small mind, honest, you too are one with the infinite brain, which devided itself up into lot's of smaller versions of itself, that it may have company. Jesus is nothing more than death of ego. That same ego YOU cant let go of, PRETENDING you love Jesus. Seems to me you have commited some seriously nasty shit on someone to go on about jesus the way you do. If you remember correctly, I was left in charge of this thread by the op, because I am qualified to point out only a MONKEY KING is to return, as is PROVEN, by many people all over the world, many whom believe in GOD.

Oh, look, he's been found. Google Lost city of the Monkey king.

Just look at every hand-over of the Isis space station. See each masonic astronaut's left hand over right signifying the end of their time? That time is now.

YOU FEAR THIS MONKEY, AS DO ALL HEATHEN WHO WORSHIP THE FALSE IMAGE ON A CROSS!

That image of a man on a cross is NOT god, but created by people, so keep jesus out of it for once, cause he's a sexual deviant, proven by your book.

This is why you try to convert those who are stupid enough to even read your pish.

Long live the MONKEY KING. I got the meassage.


The return of your son of god is nothing more than the rebirth of an aquarian monkey.

This means Jesus is alive today, born an aquarian monkey. I prefer the name RA, but I'll stick with Pachacouti here, a MONKEY reborn in 2012.

[BADecker]

I do make sense BADecker, you dont, you cant argue with the amount of people that have read your pish.

Now why would I want to argue with you? Lol! You are doing a good enough job of arguing with yourself.

The scientific proof is impossible, for god is NOT of this earth, never mind this dimension.

I'll say it again. The Baby Sacrificing can stop. The Monkey got the message, born of:

Okay. You said it again. So, I will show you the link again. Here it is - http://www.luminist.org/archives/.

Keep up your good science fiction work with all the rest of the sci-fi jokers. However, in the judgment you will be so disappointed with yourself for wasting your life on your sci-fi stuff, when you could have been out there working for God, and getting a reward for it following the judgment.

[Pachacouti]

You lose, by not accepting time, die loser, I've proven the Monkey GOD, good enough for me.. and all else with eye's to see, and WILL SEE

Deny Sequoia Tree, God's creation. Deny Pinus Longavious, Another of God's creation, that's two proofs alone, but the fact Jesus and his followers are sexual deviant's, is proven by the bible... why not comment on that? YOU LOSE PAEDO.

[Pachacouti]

Ps, typing too fast, and too early. The church is finito. The church of Lucifer won, as is obvious with BADecker preaching a sexual deviant as our saviour. Your not supposed to be saved. But this is how it is: Freemasonry wrote the bible, and forced it upon people using the knight's templar. They came back from the east travelling the origional silk road, selling dope back then as now. Freemasonry's 18th degree password, Hose-Anna proves they worship Lucifer. Google it. They know we die, and come back. Over and over. To damn your firstborns eternal soul is to make them the scapegoats for masonic/wiccan/christian abuse, by abusing these 1st born, freemasonry appears to have a purpose.

Alas, all is not lost, for there is and always will be but ONE soul, and  One Spirit. They sold their soul to be one with a spirit, they call god. The spirit die's, explaing why their spirit will disappear from the blue lodge on death, for it is the soul that is eternal, and cannot die.

Get it right. I've been here before. The place I prepared for you is dying at your hands.

BADecker, you cannot compete with my soul.


Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva
Father, Son, Holy Ghost
Your Dad, You, And the blood that flows, from father to son, aka lucifer.

[Pachacouti]

Ps:

What I have really done the last few years, is point to WHOEVER it is that was to be reborn. The discovery of the City of the Monkey GOD proves one thing: The Pachacouti were correct in that they stated their GOD, Pachacouti, would indeed be reborn in 2012. A monkey reborn as the 'NEW HUMAN'.

In a year that is NOT a year of the monkey.

Now go find WHEN this lost city was discovered. For it led to me discovering the Monkey God in me. Yup, pure co-incidence I will admit, my being ruler of the underground in solar astrology, and ruler of the underworld in lunar astrology. Both astrology's taken from the bible, itself, a book of the TARO., or TORAH.

All you have done is remain stuck in the past with no proof's of your son of this god, because you are not me, and I am not one with the serpent race you serve. But rest assured, they can hear me, they just cant figure out which of them thought what?

When I rise in the west, you will know who I AM. Aquarius. The end of sacrifice is NOW.

[BADecker]

^^^ Have you compiled your stuff into a book, yet. Newagers like this kind of stuff. You might be able to make a few bucks off it. I mean, since you are going to Hell anyway, why not make some money here?

[odolvlobo]

Your "countless examples" consist only of man-made machines. What about machines that are not man-made? Can you show that they also have makers? There are certainly many more examples of machines that are not man-made than there are of man-made machines, so if it were actually true that you could use odds to prove something in this case, you would still be wrong.

Can you show even one example of a machine that you absolutely know does not have a maker? Our vast experience is that machines have makers, without even one example of a machine not having a maker.

So here are examples of non-manmade machines with no maker: ribosomes (protein synthesizer), clouds (electrical generator), rivers (rock crusher), rain (irrigation). Of course I could go on and this list would be much longer than your list of machines with makers. Our vast experience is that most machines do not have makers, but you choose to ignore them in order to support your premise.

Prove that these machines have no maker.

Your entire argument rests on the claim that "our vast experience is that machines have makers". I have shown that you cannot identify the maker(s) of most machines, so you can't say that "our vast experience is that machines have makers". You believe that "machines have makers" because you are limiting "machines" to only those that are man-made. The problem arises when you generalize "all man-made machines have makers" to "all machines have makers". That's like saying black and white are shades of gray, therefore all colors are shades of gray.

[BADecker]

Your entire argument rests on the claim that "our vast experience is that machines have makers". I have shown that you cannot identify the maker(s) of most machines, so you can't say that "our vast experience is that machines have makers". You believe that "machines have makers" because you are limiting "machines" to only those that are man-made. The problem arises when you generalize "all man-made machines have makers" to "all machines have makers". That's like saying black and white are shades of gray, therefore all colors are shades of gray.

Why do you suggest that my entire argument... After all, the topic is scientific proof. The "machine" point hasn't delved into much science, yet.

If you come upon a machine, and you question about its maker, you have 3, basic, possibilities:
1. You know who the maker is;
2. You don't know who the maker is;
3. You don't know if it has a maker.

When you look at the machines of the universe, you can tell they are machines, because they use the same principles in their operation as the machines made by people. In fact, they use kinds of principles of people-machines, that people haven't thought to use, yet. But it is all machinery, right? It all uses principles that would classify it as machinery, right?

The thing that we are really looking for is number 3, above. Have we ever found a machine that we have proven that it doesn't have a maker? Like the Antikythera mechanism, we don't know if it has a maker or not. Could be "yes," could be "no." We don't have proof either way. Similarly, we don't have proof for any of the machines of nature. The closest we can come to proof is that they are all machines.

The thing we DO have proof for, is that we KNOW of the makers of many machines. We know who makes cars, computers, airplanes, and all kinds of other machines. We even know who fashions spoons, thereby manipulating the machinery of the universe to make a new shape that simply retains universe machinery status.

The point? Zero proof for any machine that doesn't have a maker. Countless proof for machinery that DOES have an identifiable maker.

Here is where science comes into the picture. It's called probability. When we have zero for something, and countless numbers of something else, the countless numbers overrule the zero.

Many people might join a lottery that is a billion to one for a winner. They think that there is just a chance that they might be the one in a billion. But what are the odds of winning when it is zero to a countless number?

Find us a machine that is proven to not have been made, or accept the odds as the scientists do... all machines have makers because we know of countless machines that have makers, but zero machines that don't have a maker.

All you are doing is like in the lottery that is going to have zero winners with countless players. You are suggesting that a non-player could be the winner if he played. Does that even make sense? That a non-play could win if he played when there were going to be zero winners?

Or, find us the proof of a machine that doesn't have a maker. Not "it must be proof" or "the proof has to be in there somewhere." Rather, the real proof. After all, we have real proof that there are countless numbers of machines that have makers.