Scientific proof that God exists?

[username18333]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

Vod, I have to argue against you here.  The FSM is in no way a valid counter argument to the existence of a monotheistic god.

The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

What is being highlighted by those analogies is the lacking falsifiability of the theory of "God" theists often espouse.

But it's not a sound analogy because, first of all, we already know that a monotheistic god is completely off the table as far as empirical study goes; the scope of empiricism doesn't extend that far.  Second of all, there are different types of falsifiability and the empirical kind differs from the logical kind. 

Science yields a posteriori knowledge, i.e. knowledge derived from experience and empiricism.  However, philosophy yields a priori knowledge which is independent of both experience and empiricism.  Scientists often forget this type of knowledge exists, and in fact scientists rely on a priori knowledge upon which the scientific method is founded.

Therefore, the question shouldn't be one in terms of empirical falsifiability, which, while great for the teapot and FSM, cannot be reasonably applied to a monotheistic god.  Instead, the question is whether we have access to enough a priori knowledge to formulate conclusions about the Universe/God. 

So long as a "God" is said to impact "His" world, "His" world will try that impact. If it cannot, "He" was not.

There's no need to make the unnecessary assumption that God "says" anything at all.  First, we need to establish a method of exploring the God concept to determine whether it must exist by logical necessity. You took it a step further by invoking a secondary characteristic.  

But truly, there is really only one good starting point from which you can begin to explore the God concept, and that is to start working on a theory of theories themselves.  Absolutely every single definition that we have for anything is actually a theory of that thing.  For example, if you look up "apple" in the dictionary, that is essentially a theory of the apple...of the things that gives an apple its apple-ness that allows it to be distinguished from everything else.  So, it's only logical that we must start with a theory of theories so that we can know how the theories we create in our minds are related to the things we form theories about.

My criticism speaks to what "is said" about "God," not what could be said thereabout.

To clarify, are you referring to the problem of putting the cart before the horse, i.e asserting a definition before exploration (which is similar to the scientific limitations resulting from the problem of induction)?

I'm speaking to the difficulties of evidencing one's fiction.

Okay, then yes, you are referring to the problem of induction.  I agree, it's a problem because it implies you already know what something is before you've explored it.

There's a better approach.  It's described here: http://ctmu.org/

Click on the link, and then click "here" in the first bullet point that says, "Christopher Langan's article on the Theory of Theories, can be viewed here."

I am speaking to the testimony of the "true believer"—not theorizations thereabout.

[Decksperiment]

This constantly quoting picture's of idiotic nonsense (fun in the beginning, but a pain in the end) need's to stop, and since the OP asked me to continue this thread, I shall ask ya to stop quoting every quote?

There's nowt worse than having to scroll through too many quote's, for the next line which has nothing to do with anything quoted?

If the fuckin spagetti brain didnae eat so much bolognese, he'd know how to start his own thread, solely in order to promote said shit..

[(oYo)]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

Vod, I have to argue against you here.  The FSM is in no way a valid counter argument to the existence of a monotheistic god.

The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

That argument is a logical fallacy. First of all, using your argument, there is no need to differentiate between monotheistic or polytheistic gods, since your argument is simply to state that "it's stupid". Second, if anything, Russel's Teapot and the FSM are true examples of monotheistic gods, whereby those theologies make no mention of there being any other gods in existance. On the other hand, the chistian god (which I assume you are using as your example) is actually a fine example for a polytheistic god, as it is made up of a Holy Trinity, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the majority of god worshipping people on this planet would agree that the chirstian god is a false god, since they believe the real one to be a different god such as Allah or Buddha. (Actually Buddha is not seen as being a god, but you get my meaning.)

What exactly do you mean that my argument implies that there is no need to differentiate between mono- and polytheistic gods?  Of course you need to differentiate between the two, which is exactly why using space teapots and flying noodles as analogues to a monotheistic god is invalid.  My argument wasn't that it's stupid, it's that the FSM is likened to a teapot (i.e. a conditional event) which is then likened to a monotheistic god (i.e. a unconditionally necessary event).  I'm not just using the word 'stupid' without explaining why.

How is a space teapot or the FSM like a monotheistic god?  I'm not sure why you think this would be the case.  Monotheistic gods are often described as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.  If that's the case, it would be akin to being a fly on an elephant such that, no matter which empirical angle you select, you will never be able to observe the whole elephant in it's entirety.  This is why monotheistic gods are beyond the scope of empirical study.  A space teapot/FSM, however, is not.  Point the Hubble towards the sun's orbit and you will conclusively be able to determine whether a teapot exists there (same goes for FSM).

And I'm not specifically talking about the Christian god.  I don't belong to any religion.  I'm mostly going by the "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent" definition of God which I find to be most common.

The word monotheism comes from the Greek monos, which means one, and theos, which means god. Thus, monotheism is a belief in the existence of a single god. Polytheism, is the belief in many gods. Neither definition specifies whether such gods need be "omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent" as there is no need for them to be as such. Therefore the teapot and FSM do qualify as being monotheistic gods in this respect.

Also, there is no need to liken the FSM to the teapot, just as there is no need to liken either of them to any other gods any more than there is a need to make any comparisons between Buddha and Allah. It was your choice to do so, but it was incorrect to assume it necessary to define any of them. Therefore I'd just like to reiterate, that the teapot and FSM are indeed monotheistic gods. Now if you like you can argue that they aren't as impressive as an "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent" god, but that in itself does not make them any less valid, just less appealing to worship. BTW, since it is stated that the FSM is the one and only god and it did create the universe, I do believe it is just as worthy of being worshipped as much as any other god you may have in mind.

<edit> Wow, it's late. Good night all. 

[Decksperiment]

Can you not take the hint, or plain stupid?

[(oYo)]

This constantly quoting picture's of idiotic nonsense (fun in the beginning, but a pain in the end) need's to stop, and since the OP asked me to continue this thread, I shall ask ya to stop quoting every quote?

There's nowt worse than having to scroll through too many quote's, for the next line which has nothing to do with anything quoted?

If the fuckin spagetti brain didnae eat so much bolognese, he'd know how to start his own thread, solely in order to promote said shit..

Can you not take the hint, or plain stupid?

First of all, IDGAF about what you say. You are the biggest flaming idiot here, whose contributions are often little more than just gibberish and insults. Second, why the fuck would the OP ask you (of all people) to babysit this thread? Regardless, if the OP felt the need to moderate this thread, he would've made it moderated. Third, if ever you don't like what you see and feel it should be moderated, then just hit the "Report to mod" button. We are actually on topic whereas you are not. Go here and here if you really want to learn of my god's existence, but we all know you won't because of your linkaphobia. Now either contribute something worthwhile or kindly fuck off and leave the adults to their discussion about god.

[the joint]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

Vod, I have to argue against you here.  The FSM is in no way a valid counter argument to the existence of a monotheistic god.

The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

That argument is a logical fallacy. First of all, using your argument, there is no need to differentiate between monotheistic or polytheistic gods, since your argument is simply to state that "it's stupid". Second, if anything, Russel's Teapot and the FSM are true examples of monotheistic gods, whereby those theologies make no mention of there being any other gods in existance. On the other hand, the chistian god (which I assume you are using as your example) is actually a fine example for a polytheistic god, as it is made up of a Holy Trinity, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the majority of god worshipping people on this planet would agree that the chirstian god is a false god, since they believe the real one to be a different god such as Allah or Buddha. (Actually Buddha is not seen as being a god, but you get my meaning.)

What exactly do you mean that my argument implies that there is no need to differentiate between mono- and polytheistic gods?  Of course you need to differentiate between the two, which is exactly why using space teapots and flying noodles as analogues to a monotheistic god is invalid.  My argument wasn't that it's stupid, it's that the FSM is likened to a teapot (i.e. a conditional event) which is then likened to a monotheistic god (i.e. a unconditionally necessary event).  I'm not just using the word 'stupid' without explaining why.

How is a space teapot or the FSM like a monotheistic god?  I'm not sure why you think this would be the case.  Monotheistic gods are often described as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.  If that's the case, it would be akin to being a fly on an elephant such that, no matter which empirical angle you select, you will never be able to observe the whole elephant in it's entirety.  This is why monotheistic gods are beyond the scope of empirical study.  A space teapot/FSM, however, is not.  Point the Hubble towards the sun's orbit and you will conclusively be able to determine whether a teapot exists there (same goes for FSM).

And I'm not specifically talking about the Christian god.  I don't belong to any religion.  I'm mostly going by the "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent" definition of God which I find to be most common.

The word monotheism comes from the Greek monos, which means one, and theos, which means god. Thus, monotheism is a belief in the existence of a single god. Polytheism, is the belief in many gods. Neither definition specifies whether such gods need be "omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent" as there is no need for them to be as such. Therefore the teapot and FSM do qualify as being monotheistic gods in this respect.

Also, there is no need to liken the FSM to the teapot, just as there is no need to liken either of them to any other gods any more than there is a need to make any comparisons between Buddha and Allah. It was your choice to do so, but it was incorrect to assume it necessary to define any of them. Therefore I'd just like to reiterate, that the teapot and FSM are indeed monotheistic gods. Now if you like you can argue that they aren't as impressive as an "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent" god, but that in itself does not make them any less valid, just less appealing to worship. BTW, since it is stated that the FSM is the one and only god and it did create the universe, I do believe it is just as worthy of being worshipped as much as any other god you may have in mind.

<edit> Wow, it's late. Good night all. 

Dictionary definition of God:

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms:   the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh; (God) the Father, (God) the Son, the Holy Ghost/Spirit, the Holy Trinity;...

See that "creator and ruler of the Universe" part?   Yes, there is nothing about 'monotheistic' or 'polytheistic' that speaks to this, but that's where the word "god" comes in.  There is nothing about space teapots that says anything about being ruler of the Universe, but the word 'god' does.  Referring to the FSM and asserting it to be "the one and only god and [creator of] the universe" as you did, let me point out the obvious which is that the FSM, made of spaghetti, would need to be spaghetti before creating a Universe that catalyzes spaghetti, thus invoking a contradiction.  That's not a poor rebuttal, either, it's just your fault for selecting a bad analogy for comparison.

But, if all you're talking about is a semantic difference, then I can play that game, too.  I'll just set the term 'absolute truth' equal to 'god,' and since the existence of absolute truth is easily proven, thus god is proven.  If you want to arbitrarily set FSM and space teapots to 'god,' then I can do the same with the term 'absolute truth' by your method of reasoning.  

[(oYo)]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

Vod, I have to argue against you here.  The FSM is in no way a valid counter argument to the existence of a monotheistic god.

The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

That argument is a logical fallacy. First of all, using your argument, there is no need to differentiate between monotheistic or polytheistic gods, since your argument is simply to state that "it's stupid". Second, if anything, Russel's Teapot and the FSM are true examples of monotheistic gods, whereby those theologies make no mention of there being any other gods in existance. On the other hand, the chistian god (which I assume you are using as your example) is actually a fine example for a polytheistic god, as it is made up of a Holy Trinity, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the majority of god worshipping people on this planet would agree that the chirstian god is a false god, since they believe the real one to be a different god such as Allah or Buddha. (Actually Buddha is not seen as being a god, but you get my meaning.)

What exactly do you mean that my argument implies that there is no need to differentiate between mono- and polytheistic gods?  Of course you need to differentiate between the two, which is exactly why using space teapots and flying noodles as analogues to a monotheistic god is invalid.  My argument wasn't that it's stupid, it's that the FSM is likened to a teapot (i.e. a conditional event) which is then likened to a monotheistic god (i.e. a unconditionally necessary event).  I'm not just using the word 'stupid' without explaining why.

How is a space teapot or the FSM like a monotheistic god?  I'm not sure why you think this would be the case.  Monotheistic gods are often described as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.  If that's the case, it would be akin to being a fly on an elephant such that, no matter which empirical angle you select, you will never be able to observe the whole elephant in it's entirety.  This is why monotheistic gods are beyond the scope of empirical study.  A space teapot/FSM, however, is not.  Point the Hubble towards the sun's orbit and you will conclusively be able to determine whether a teapot exists there (same goes for FSM).

And I'm not specifically talking about the Christian god.  I don't belong to any religion.  I'm mostly going by the "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent" definition of God which I find to be most common.

The word monotheism comes from the Greek monos, which means one, and theos, which means god. Thus, monotheism is a belief in the existence of a single god. Polytheism, is the belief in many gods. Neither definition specifies whether such gods need be "omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent" as there is no need for them to be as such. Therefore the teapot and FSM do qualify as being monotheistic gods in this respect.

Also, there is no need to liken the FSM to the teapot, just as there is no need to liken either of them to any other gods any more than there is a need to make any comparisons between Buddha and Allah. It was your choice to do so, but it was incorrect to assume it necessary to define any of them. Therefore I'd just like to reiterate, that the teapot and FSM are indeed monotheistic gods. Now if you like you can argue that they aren't as impressive as an "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent" god, but that in itself does not make them any less valid, just less appealing to worship. BTW, since it is stated that the FSM is the one and only god and it did create the universe, I do believe it is just as worthy of being worshipped as much as any other god you may have in mind.

<edit> Wow, it's late. Good night all. 

Dictionary definition of God:

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms:   the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh; (God) the Father, (God) the Son, the Holy Ghost/Spirit, the Holy Trinity;...

See that "creator and ruler of the Universe" part?   Yes, there is nothing about 'monotheistic' or 'polytheistic' that speaks to this, but that's where the word "god" comes in.  There is nothing about space teapots that says anything about being ruler of the Universe, but the word 'god' does.  Referring to the FSM and asserting it to be "the one and only god and [creator of] the universe" as you did, let me point out the obvious which is that the FSM, made of spaghetti, would need to be spaghetti before creating a Universe that catalyzes spaghetti, thus invoking a contradiction.  That's not a poor rebuttal, either, it's just your fault for selecting a bad analogy for comparison.

But, if all you're talking about is a semantic difference, then I can play that game, too.  I'll just set the term 'absolute truth' equal to 'god,' and since the existence of absolute truth is easily proven, thus god is proven.  If you want to arbitrarily set FSM and space teapots to 'god,' then I can do the same with the term 'absolute truth' by your method of reasoning.  

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

[Bitcoin Magazine]

the spaghetti monster is scary.  i'd vote for him instead of god

[BADecker]

It's fun, isn't it? Playing with the idea of proving God, or not?

Consider, the only way we prove things is with what we have to prove them. What we have are the things of the universe, and there are a whole lot of these that we don't yet know how to use, maybe don't even know they exist.

So how are we ever going to prove a God Who, in part, exists outside the universe?

[Bitcoin Magazine]

It's fun, isn't it? Playing with the idea of proving God, or not?

Consider, the only way we prove things is with what we have to prove them. What we have are the things of the universe, and there are a whole lot of these that we don't yet know how to use, maybe don't even know they exist.

So how are we ever going to prove a God Who, in part, exists outside the universe?

well he *made* the universe.  that means he's outside it.  right?

[BADecker]

It's fun, isn't it? Playing with the idea of proving God, or not?

Consider, the only way we prove things is with what we have to prove them. What we have are the things of the universe, and there are a whole lot of these that we don't yet know how to use, maybe don't even know they exist.

So how are we ever going to prove a God Who, in part, exists outside the universe?

well he *made* the universe.  that means he's outside it.  right?

Exactly! We build a house, and sometimes we are in it, and sometimes we are outside of it.

Think about a zoo. We build the zoo. Sometimes we go inside it, and sometimes we go outside. But we often keep the animals in cages, so that they can't go outside of the cages, even into the zoo proper, and certainly not outside of the zoo.

[Bitcoin Magazine]

It's fun, isn't it? Playing with the idea of proving God, or not?

Consider, the only way we prove things is with what we have to prove them. What we have are the things of the universe, and there are a whole lot of these that we don't yet know how to use, maybe don't even know they exist.

So how are we ever going to prove a God Who, in part, exists outside the universe?

well he *made* the universe.  that means he's outside it.  right?

Exactly! We build a house, and sometimes we are in it, and sometimes we are outside of it.

Think about a zoo. We build the zoo. Sometimes we go inside it, and sometimes we go outside. But we often keep the animals in cages, so that they can't go outside of the cages, even into the zoo proper, and certainly not outside of the zoo.

i once dreamed I was in a jungle wilderness.  and they put me in a cage, cause i wouldn't believe in G-d.  or the devil.  or that cigarettes caused harm.

[BADecker]

Well, it's the scientists who consider people to simply be an "extended form" of animal, isn't it? Certainly the animals wouldn't.

[username18333]

It's fun, isn't it? Playing with the idea of proving God, or not?

Consider, the only way we prove things is with what we have to prove them. What we have are the things of the universe, and there are a whole lot of these that we don't yet know how to use, maybe don't even know they exist.

So how are we ever going to prove a God Who, in part, exists outside the universe?

well he *made* the universe.  that means he's outside it.  right?

Exactly! We build a house, and sometimes we are in it, and sometimes we are outside of it.

Think about a zoo. We build the zoo. Sometimes we go inside it, and sometimes we go outside. But we often keep the animals in cages, so that they can't go outside of the cages, even into the zoo proper, and certainly not outside of the zoo.

"God" is said to impact this universe in ways that are tangible to humans (e.g., "touch their hearts"); therefore, should one find no such "touching," one has found there is no such "God."

[Decksperiment]

I'm very sceptical of anyone who think's it's cool to talk about God, but wont acknowledge him, in the form of 'G-d', yet you use the full word 'Devil'.. why dont you's who do this say the word GOD?

Why are you so afraid of 'O'?

This is more than a valid question, for there are many religious 'sect's', or 'cult's' who are nothing more than religion's. To be a member of a religion, you must believe in god or his/her opposing factor. What are you afraid of, creating the 'graven image'? Answer - YES. This 'graven image' is not the letter O, the number 0, but the LOOP, where life repeat's itself in all it's guise's, this would be the EVIDENCE of god full stop. But no-one will accept this. It's like, not quite a donut shape, or a toroid, but akin to these shape's, it's more like a loop where we discover everything in existance fit's into the smallest space that no microscope can see, even the hydron collector has problem's with it, for scientist's are 'seeing' a third light created when splitting a light particle and sending it (them) through two slot's, and when this happen's, it has been noted that there APPEAR'S a third light particle, yet everytime the scientist's attempt to record ths FACT, they cannot. They can see it for sure. They know it happen's every time they test.. but try recording it using camera's, or any scientific equipment as advanced as even the hydron collector, nope, they cant. They can see it with their own eye's, as can we if we had that type of access, but we cannot 'scientifically' prove what we see. We can agree, debate, argue, go fuckin insane, but we KNOW we can see the 3rd light, that, according to all our knowledge, CANNOT, but does, exist. Allow me to remix 'Thou shalt not create any graven image' - Thoust CANT create any graven image, ha, fuckin ha. This is proof of an intelligence that allow's us 'seeing', but NOT recording, said graven image, and lol, the FACT that this 'image' is nothing more than light. Or as I stated in earlier post's, the test equipment cannot record it, because they have not been made to. By design? Who know's

This thread has provided more than enough evidence for the proof of god in the following format:

'Proof' is regarded as accepted by many, as it was before any electronic gadjet's were made to provide scientific proof, in the form of test equipment or the like. By splitting one light particle into two, and as they pass through the 'card' with the two slot's in it, the third light is produced.

Religion cannot really be used in this 'search', for no matter what one religion 'MAY' accept as proof, another will decry it as nonsense, despite the fact, 'Seeing is believing'.

I on my own provided more evidence using nothing more than my own head, and the fact that knowledge is wisdom, and far superior to any book conceived by man.. after all, just like the hydron collector, the religious book's only tell us what they want us to see, using nothing more than what is, at best, hearsay.

Do your search for the creative thought that grew in the abyss (of time - time is the abyss), for time existed before the creation spoken of in said book's.. This creative thought, is the first action of the mind that allow's us to form the word'(s) we speak. The thought come's from this 'chaos' (dunno why they call nothing, chaos) and vibrate's becoming the sound this diety used to speak the word's 'let there be light'. Look outside. How does all that fit in your head? It cant.

Because it's not up there.. Only when you learn to become 'formless' will you know the truth of what is written in this post alone. Accept it or not, this is the story of creation in it's simplest form.

Your just not allowed to record it.

[username18333]

I'm very sceptical of anyone who think's it's cool to talk about God, but wont acknowledge him, in the form of 'G-d', yet you use the full word 'Devil'.. why dont you's who do this say the word GOD?

Why are you so afraid of 'O'?

This is more than a valid question, for there are many religious 'sect's', or 'cult's' who are nothing more than religioun's. To be a member of a religion, you must believe in god or his/her opposing factor. What are you afraid of, creating the 'graven image'? Answer - YES. This 'graven image' is not the letter O, the number 0, but the LOOP, where life repeat's itself in all it's guise's, this would be the EVIDENCE of god full stop. But no-one will accept this. It's like, not quite a donut shape, or a toroid, but akin to these shape's, it's more like a loop where we discover everything in existance fit's into the smallest space that no microscope can see, even the hydron collector has problem's with it, for scientist's are 'seeing' a third light created when splitting a light particle and sending it (them) through two slot's, and when this happen's, it has been noted that there APPEAR'S a third light particle, yet everytime the scientist's attempt to record ths FACT, they cannot. They can see it for sure. They know it happen's every time they test.. but try recording it using camera's, or any scientific equipment as advanced as even the hydron collector, nope, they cant. They can see it with their own eye's, as can we if we had that type of access, but we cannot 'scientifically' prove what we see. We can agree, debate, argue, go fuckin insane, but we KNOW we can see the 3rd light, that, according to all our knowledge, CANNOT, but does, exist. Allow me to remix 'Thou shalt not create any graven image' - Thoust CANT create any graven image, ha, fuckin ha. This is proof of an intelligence that allow's us 'seeing', but NOT recording, said graven image, and lol, the FACT that this 'image' is nothing more than light. Or as I stated in earlier post's, the test equipment cannot record it, because they have not been made to. By design? Who know's

This thread has provided more than enough evidence for the proof of god in the following format:

'Proof' is regarded as accepted by many, as it was before any electronic gadjet's were made to provide scientific proof, in the form of test equipment or the like. By splitting one light particle into two, and as they pass through the 'card' with the two slot's in it, the third light is produced.

Religion cannot really be used in this 'search', for no matter what one religion 'MAY' accept as proof, another will decry it as nonsense, despite the fact, 'Seeing is believing'.

I on my own provided more evidence using nothing more than my own head, and the fact that knowledge is wisdom, and far superior to any book conceived by man.. after all, just like the hydron collector, the religious book's only tell us what they want us to see, using nothing more than what is, at best, hearsay.

Do your search for the creative thought that grew in the abyss (of time - time is the abyss), for time existed before the creation spoken of in said book's.. This creative thought, is the first action of the mind that allow's us to form the word'(s) we speak. The thought come's from this 'chaos' (dunno why they call nothing, chaos) and vibrate's becoming the sound this diety used to speak the word's 'let there be light'. Look outside. How does all that fit in your head? It cant.

Because it's not up there.. Only when you learn to become 'formless' will you know the truth of what is written in this post alone. Accept it or not, this is the story of creation in it's simplest form.

Your just not allowed to record it.

Code:

∀x[nothing(x) ⇒ everything(¬x)] ∧ ∀x[quantity(x) ⇒ ¬x ≔ −x] ⇒ ∀x[nothing(x, quantity) ∧ x ≔ 0 ⇒ everything(¬x, quantity) ∧ ¬x ≔ −0] ⇒ −0 ÷ {x | x ∈ ℝ ∨ x ∈ ℂ} = −0

[Decksperiment]

That, is nothing more than man made nonsense (letter's n number's) which mean nothing in a formless world. This world, and all in it, only have form because we have been 'shown' it by said light, without that light, what we ALL wrote mean's nothing..

[username18333]

. . .

Code:

∀x[nothing(x) ⇒ everything(¬x)] ∧ ∀x[quantity(x) ⇒ ¬x ≔ −x] ⇒ ∀x[nothing(x, quantity) ∧ x ≔ 0 ⇒ everything(¬x, quantity) ∧ ¬x ≔ −0] ⇒ −0 ÷ {x | x ∈ ℝ ∨ x ∈ ℂ} = −0

That, is nothing more than man made nonsense (letter's n number's) which mean nothing in a formless world. This world, and all in it, only have form because we have been 'shown' it by said light, without that light, what we ALL wrote mean's nothing..

Here's the transliteration:

If

If

For all x, if

x is 'nothing.'

is true, then opposite x is 'everything.'

is true and

For all x, if

x is 'quantity.'

is true, then opposite x is negative x.

is true, then for all x, if

x is 'quantity' of 'nothing.'

is true and

x is zero.

is true then, opposite x is 'everything' of 'quantity' and opposite x is negative zero.

is true, then negative zero divided by x—such that x is an element of the set of all real numbers or an element of the set of all complex numbers—equals negative zero.

[BADecker]

. . .

Code:

∀x[nothing(x) ⇒ everything(¬x)] ∧ ∀x[quantity(x) ⇒ ¬x ≔ −x] ⇒ ∀x[nothing(x, quantity) ∧ x ≔ 0 ⇒ everything(¬x, quantity) ∧ ¬x ≔ −0] ⇒ −0 ÷ {x | x ∈ ℝ ∨ x ∈ ℂ} = −0

That, is nothing more than man made nonsense (letter's n number's) which mean nothing in a formless world. This world, and all in it, only have form because we have been 'shown' it by said light, without that light, what we ALL wrote mean's nothing..

Here's the transliteration:

If

If

For all x, if

x is 'nothing.'

is true, then opposite x is 'everything.'

is true and

For all x, if

x is 'quantity.'

is true, then opposite x is negative x.

is true, then for all x, if

x is 'quantity' of 'nothing.'

is true and

x is zero.

is true then, opposite x is 'everything' of 'quantity' and opposite x is negative zero.

is true, then negative zero divided by x—such that x is an element of the set of all real numbers or an element of the set of all complex numbers—equals negative zero.

Except when talking about people, that is. Man is opposite of woman, and woman is opposite of man. But when you put them together, they don't cancel out to zero. Rather they multiply into children.

 

[Decksperiment]

Cant we just take a hint out of all other lifeform's book, and just live, instead of caring about who created what?