Scientific proof that God exists?

[cryptodevil]

i take an agnostic stance, neither side has definite proof

Atheists don't need proof, they aren't the ones asserting anything. Atheists reject theist assertions on the grounds they are fallacious, not because atheism asserts a counter position to the theist assertion.

You might as well have said you take an agnostic side on the issue of invisible pink unicorns because neither side has definite proof.

[1714589034]

1714589034

[1714589034]

1714589034

[1714589034]

1714589034

[BADecker]

i take an agnostic stance, neither side has definite proof

Atheists don't need proof, they aren't the ones asserting anything. Atheists reject theist assertions on the grounds they are fallacious, not because atheism asserts a counter position to the theist assertion.

You might as well have said you take an agnostic side on the issue of invisible pink unicorns because neither side has definite proof.

How dishonest of you!

We all know that someone who doesn't take sides, might not be asserting something very much. Somebody who has a belief and who doesn't think about his belief except infrequently, and in a passing way, might simply be holding a belief. But when one asserts that he isn't asserting anything, he is simply a liar, contradicting himself by his non-assertion assertions.

Simply because you want to focus on part of a dictionary definition, this doesn't mean that the other parts don't apply as well.

If you are suggesting something simply because you are trying to show a point, okay. I showed you your point is misleading.

If you actually believe your point, you are warped and dishonest.

By the dictionary definitions of the words "atheism" and "religion," atheism is a religion. Of course, in your case, as it applies to you, atheism is a religion in a different way than a formal religion. A formal religion comes right out and says that it is a religion, expressing the things of religion that make it a religion.

Atheism is a religion that is deceptive because, it doesn't easily allow its followers to understand that they are in a religion by being atheists. Atheism is a religion of dishonesty more than any other religion. If it were a violent religion, it would have Islam beat hands down. Why? Because at least Islam acknowledges with its members that it is a religion.

Many people are agnostics regarding many things at times. But many theists are not agnostic, even in the most general or liberal sense of the word.

[QuestionAuthority]

What you're saying has no meaning and makes no sense (then again, believing in angels makes no sense either).

"I believe the sky is blue." That statement doesn't have any political or religious meaning, it's a simple statement of what I think.

"I believe the concept of God is bullshit."  Again, that has no political or religious meaning, it's what I think.

"I'm an atheist." That is just a faster more efficient way of stating the previous sentence.

Atheism

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

[Buffer Overflow]

i take an agnostic stance, neither side has definite proof

Atheists don't need proof, they aren't the ones asserting anything. Atheists reject theist assertions on the grounds they are fallacious, not because atheism asserts a counter position to the theist assertion.

You might as well have said you take an agnostic side on the issue of invisible pink unicorns because neither side has definite proof.

How dishonest of you!

We all know that someone who doesn't take sides, might not be asserting something very much. Somebody who has a belief and who doesn't think about his belief except infrequently, and in a passing way, might simply be holding a belief. But when one asserts that he isn't asserting anything, he is simply a liar, contradicting himself by his non-assertion assertions.

Simply because you want to focus on part of a dictionary definition, this doesn't mean that the other parts don't apply as well.

If you are suggesting something simply because you are trying to show a point, okay. I showed you your point is misleading.

If you actually believe your point, you are warped and dishonest.

By the dictionary definitions of the words "atheism" and "religion," atheism is a religion. Of course, in your case, as it applies to you, atheism is a religion in a different way than a formal religion. A formal religion comes right out and says that it is a religion, expressing the things of religion that make it a religion.

Atheism is a religion that is deceptive because, it doesn't easily allow its followers to understand that they are in a religion by being atheists. Atheism is a religion of dishonesty more than any other religion. If it were a violent religion, it would have Islam beat hands down. Why? Because at least Islam acknowledges with its members that it is a religion.

Many people are agnostics regarding many things at times. But many theists are not agnostic, even in the most general or liberal sense of the word.

No really sure why you keep pressing this Atheism is a religion thing. Think about it, it makes no difference at all if it's a religion or not.
Atheists don't believe in a God and that's that. Putting them in a religious box changes nothing. Your beliefs cannot be proven true and neither can theirs, which means they are just as valid as yours.

[username18333]

Your beliefs cannot be proven true and neither can theirs, which means they are just as valid as yours.

If, within a context, antithetical traits are in-differentiable, then, within the context, these must be identical. Accordingly, an assertion that is no more valid than it is invalid is “identically invalid.”

[Decksperiment]

According to anti-atheist's, athiest's do not believe in god, so atheism cannot be a religion for there is no god or diety, in fact, the general consensus, is that athiest's believe in nothing. In fact atheism and religion are two completely different entitie's, in that one does, the other does'nt.

As for deleting the evidence that the flood could not have happened because the sequoia tree's are still alive, that only proves my evidence is sound, for only the church or it's follower's would like to deceive the world with their deletion of the truth. What I mean is this: Do not do business with religious nut's who would like you to be with them, so they can fuck you over with lies. (majority of members here)

[SlickMoTwoToe]

According to anti-atheist's, athiest's do not believe in god, so atheism cannot be a religion for there is no god or diety, in fact, the general consensus, is that athiest's believe in nothing. In fact atheism and religion are two completely different entitie's, in that one does, the other does'nt.

As for deleting the evidence that the flood could not have happened because the sequoia tree's are still alive, that only proves my evidence is sound, for only the church or it's follower's would like to deceive the world with their deletion of the truth. What I mean is this: Do not do business with religious nut's who would like you to be with them, so they can fuck you over with lies. (majority of members here)

That has to be the worst use of apostrophe's Iv'e ever seen in any of these comment's

[Decksperiment]

Learn the queen's english then, for all are correctly placed..

[the joint]

Learn the queen's english then, for all are correctly placed..

Actually, not a single one is correct, except in the post I am quoting.  Although, here, your capitalization is incorrect.

Edit:

The apostrophe can also be used to pluralize; this takes us into an area where there are few objective rules (always a joy!). You will recall that apostrophes are not to be used to pluralize a name (the Smith's), though it is commonly done in error. It is a proper use where it clarifies, such as in the Oakland A's; without the apostrophe As would be confusing or ambiguous. Other illustrations:
"The word �matter' contains two t's."
"Schools should teach the three R's."
"Computers employ the binary system of O's and I's."
Compare, however, the following where the number and letter combinations are so well established that to omit the apostrophe creates no ambiguity:
"Two 747s landed side-by-side."
"There are two YMCAs in the city."
"There is a serious shortage of RNs."
The preference seems to be to omit the apostrophe except where the meaning is not clear; on the other hand to insert the apostrophe in these last three illustrations would not be proper.

[Xiaoxiao]

Crazy thread.  Tough to say.  Some arguments both ways of exactly what is a spirit.... For example nobody really knows what light is.... or time for that matter.... or how blackholes can possible suck time and light... so what are black holes exactly?

[mahi4ever]

Today it has became a debate between science and religion.
God is religion.
Then how can science prove it.

[QuestionAuthority]

Crazy thread.  Tough to say.  Some arguments both ways of exactly what is a spirit.... For example nobody really knows what light is.... or time for that matter.... or how blackholes can possible suck time and light... so what are black holes exactly?

Black holes are those prostitutes you have to buy when you're short on money.

[Decksperiment]

Learn the queen's english then, for all are correctly placed..

Actually, not a single one is correct, except in the post I am quoting.  Although, here, your capitalization is incorrect.

Edit:

The apostrophe can also be used to pluralize; this takes us into an area where there are few objective rules (always a joy!). You will recall that apostrophes are not to be used to pluralize a name (the Smith's), though it is commonly done in error. It is a proper use where it clarifies, such as in the Oakland A's; without the apostrophe As would be confusing or ambiguous. Other illustrations:
"The word �matter' contains two t's."
"Schools should teach the three R's."
"Computers employ the binary system of O's and I's."
Compare, however, the following where the number and letter combinations are so well established that to omit the apostrophe creates no ambiguity:
"Two 747s landed side-by-side."
"There are two YMCAs in the city."
"There is a serious shortage of RNs."
The preference seems to be to omit the apostrophe except where the meaning is not clear; on the other hand to insert the apostrophe in these last three illustrations would not be proper.

Spot the american remix.. I'll continue with the queen's english, you stick wi being a wank Oop's, sorry, yank..

[BADecker]

Learn the queen's english then, for all are correctly placed..

Actually, not a single one is correct, except in the post I am quoting.  Although, here, your capitalization is incorrect.

Edit:

The apostrophe can also be used to pluralize; this takes us into an area where there are few objective rules (always a joy!). You will recall that apostrophes are not to be used to pluralize a name (the Smith's), though it is commonly done in error. It is a proper use where it clarifies, such as in the Oakland A's; without the apostrophe As would be confusing or ambiguous. Other illustrations:
"The word �matter' contains two t's."
"Schools should teach the three R's."
"Computers employ the binary system of O's and I's."
Compare, however, the following where the number and letter combinations are so well established that to omit the apostrophe creates no ambiguity:
"Two 747s landed side-by-side."
"There are two YMCAs in the city."
"There is a serious shortage of RNs."
The preference seems to be to omit the apostrophe except where the meaning is not clear; on the other hand to insert the apostrophe in these last three illustrations would not be proper.

Spot the american remix.. I'll continue with the queen's english, you stick wi being a wank Oop's, sorry, yank..

Now, listen to Decky! He's not on a trip this time.   

[the joint]

Learn the queen's english then, for all are correctly placed..

Actually, not a single one is correct, except in the post I am quoting.  Although, here, your capitalization is incorrect.

Edit:

The apostrophe can also be used to pluralize; this takes us into an area where there are few objective rules (always a joy!). You will recall that apostrophes are not to be used to pluralize a name (the Smith's), though it is commonly done in error. It is a proper use where it clarifies, such as in the Oakland A's; without the apostrophe As would be confusing or ambiguous. Other illustrations:
"The word �matter' contains two t's."
"Schools should teach the three R's."
"Computers employ the binary system of O's and I's."
Compare, however, the following where the number and letter combinations are so well established that to omit the apostrophe creates no ambiguity:
"Two 747s landed side-by-side."
"There are two YMCAs in the city."
"There is a serious shortage of RNs."
The preference seems to be to omit the apostrophe except where the meaning is not clear; on the other hand to insert the apostrophe in these last three illustrations would not be proper.

Spot the american remix.. I'll continue with the queen's english, you stick wi being a wank Oop's, sorry, yank..

https://books.google.com/books?id=kyjdAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT78&lpg=PT78&dq=queen%27s+english+apostrophe&source=bl&ots=cTP3QJXqNO&sig=bdyvqA3frW1PXlplK3cuQjDU1aU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gep1VY-IOcPLsAXgsoOIBw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=queen's%20english%20apostrophe&f=false

Never use an apostrophe in the plurals of ordinary words which are not possessive.

Your errors thus include: "anti-atheist's"; "atheist's"; "entitie's"; "tree's"; "follower's"; "nut's"

http://buteralaw.com/newsletters.asp?c=28&id=269

In oral conversation we use contracted words routinely (and properly)...we are doing two things; first, we are putting two words together (is and not, are and not, could and not, etc.), and second, we are omitting one or more letters

Your errors thus include: "does'nt"

http://www.gsbe.co.uk/grammar-the-apostrophe.html

With the sole exception of one’s, possessive pronouns do not take apostrophes.

Your errors thus include: "it's"

They are all in error.  How many more references about the Queen's English do you need to unlearn your shoddy understanding of it?  

[Mageant]

Using the following definition of God:

God := Everything that exists.

Since obviously "Everything that exists" exists,

therefore God exists.


Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

[username18333]

Using the following definition of God:

God ≔ Everything that exists.

Since obviously “Everything that exists” exists,

therefore God exists.

One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Be my imitators, even as *I* also [am] of Christ. Now I praise you, that in all things ye are mindful of me; and that as I have directed you, ye keep the directions. But I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman’s head [is] the man, and the Christ’s head God. Every man praying or prophesying, having [anything] on his head, puts his head to shame. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her own head to shame; for it is one and the same as a shaved [woman].

(All additions are original to the quoted text. Blue colorization is mine.)

[There is] one body and one Spirit, as ye have been also called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all.

(All additions are original to the quoted text. Blue colorization is mine.)

[username18333]

Crazy thread.  Tough to say.  Some arguments both ways of exactly what is a spirit.... For example nobody really knows what light is.... or time for that matter.... or how blackholes can possible suck time and light... so what are black holes exactly?

[…] Note that these additional terms are not ad hoc or hypothetical, but rather an unavoidable consequence of a quantum description of the contents of our universe. Also, since it is well known that Bohmian trajectories do not cross [19,20], it follows that even when 𝜃 (or ȧ) → −∞ , the actual trajectories (as opposed to geodesics) do not converge, and there is no counterpart of geodesic incompleteness, or the classical singularity theorems, and singularities such as big bang or big crunch are in fact avoided. This view is also supported by the quantum corrected geodesic deviation equation derived in [10], which suggested that trajectories can never actually access infinite curvatures. ⁴

(Red colorization mine.)

(Colorization underwent minor, cosmetic modification.)

[the joint]

Using the following definition of God:

God ≔ Everything that exists.

Since obviously “Everything that exists” exists,

therefore God exists.

One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Be my imitators, even as *I* also [am] of Christ. Now I praise you, that in all things ye are mindful of me; and that as I have directed you, ye keep the directions. But I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman’s head [is] the man, and the Christ’s head God. Every man praying or prophesying, having [anything] on his head, puts his head to shame. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her own head to shame; for it is one and the same as a shaved [woman].

(All additions are original to the quoted text. Blue colorization is mine.)

[There is] one body and one Spirit, as ye have been also called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all.

(All additions are original to the quoted text. Blue colorization is mine.)

You pull some really interesting quotes, but it would be nice (at least for me) if you explained your reasons for referencing them in some detail.

[username18333]

You pull some really interesting quotes, but it would be nice (at least for me) if you explained your reasons for referencing them in some detail.

Code:

∀𝑥∀𝑦∀𝑧 [( 𝑥 = 𝑧 ) ∧ ( 𝑦 ≠ 𝑧 )]  ⇒  ( 𝑥 ≠ 𝑦 )