God doesn't exist (As proven by Mathematics)

[duckydonald]

Ok I'm gonna get straight to the point. Math is infallible and one of the few things we as humans are mostly sure of.

The chance of any deity existing is 50%, and the chance of any there being no deities at all is also 50%. Now, here's the fun part. Since the chance of "God" existing is 50%, and there are literally thousands upon thousands of gods and goddesses recorded in religions all around the world, from both the past and present(Egyptian Mythology has over 1,000 Gods/Goddesses for example), and each god/goddess must be given the equal right to exist, that means that the chance of any god or goddess existing is far lower than 1% when divided among the 50% chance that any of them could exist.

Basically, this means that the chance of any god from any religion on this planet throughout history existing, is far less than 1% and far, far less than the chance of them not existing. This also leads to the logical answer that all religions and their beliefs are wrong(Majority>Minority) and that while the chance of some omnipotent/present/scient being existing is equal to that of it not existing, the chance of any known religion's belief system being right is negligible.

Hope this helps change people's ignorant and biased belief systems, besides the math, you can also just take your time and really study theology. If you took apart the bible and actually read the various laws made by "god", you'd see that almost all of them(especially in the old testament) promote murder and violence, not love.

you dont know if those were there to teach us lesson, like the flood, He said we wont flood the earth again.  What if that was to teach us something?

Responding sequentially:

1)  Yes, math is infallible, but it's not without limitations (e.g. the problem of undecidability, etc.).  The scope of a purely mathematical approach is insufficient for commenting upon the matter as it leaves us without a means of synthesizing mathematics with the rest of reality.

2)  The chance that God exists is not 50/50.  Either a Creator exists or it doesn't.  Accordingly, the rest of what you say in this paragraph is irrelevant.  Oh, and "chance" is simply another word for "unknown causation" since the probability function(s) guiding so-called 'chance' events is concrete.

3)  This paragraph is also completely irrelevant because it follows your line of reasoning about 'chance.'

4)  You have no idea what you're talking about.  Why are you bringing morality into this when it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether God exists?

Now, I'll ask you something:  If it were demonstrated that reality is a mental construct (i,e, made of/from mind), would you be inclined to believe in intelligent design?  Because, well...I can.

You're not making any sense. " Either a Creator exists or it doesn't", that's called probability and the chance has to be equal. This is basic math you learn from elementary/primary school...

Morality plays a huge role in God's(Using the Abrahamic God as an ex) intended role, in the bible he is characterized by his followers as being a loving god, when in actuality, his actions (particularly in the Old Testament) show otherwise. That in itself puts doubt on the probability of God's existence or nature. Look, if you haven't at least studied Theology, then don't bother trying to argue, you look foolish, and frankly like a child with no schooling trying to appear intelligent.

I'm also not sure where you come up with Absolute Truth for. Absolute Truth is wrong, if anything Relative Truth is more accurate. Nothing is 100%, so you cannot state either or, you must use probability, and that makes it impossible for us to know whether "reality" is a construct of our minds or not. Where are you going with this? Lol.

Responding sequentially:

1)    So then, what's the probability that you exist?  Still 50/50?  You either exist or you don't.  Arbitrarily ascribing probabilities as you did increases the absurdity of your argument by 67%.

Seriously, though, I have absolutely no idea why you think you can just randomly ascribe some probability to something you haven't even confirmed to exist in the first place.  That's just all kinds of weird.

Think of it this way: consider a probability function as a law governing so-called 'chance' events.  Because we can observe these events but not the probability function itself,  things can appear random or probabilistic.  But really, the probability function itself is the causal mechanism for these events.

2)  The point here is that whether you agree or disagree with the morality of any given religious text says absolutely nothing about whether God exists.  Liking or disliking something does not cause things to exist or not exist.

I'd hold off on the trite comments if I were you.  Your ramblings are almost as incoherent as they are contradictory, and I'd like to remind you of the irony in using the contents of the Bible to support your argument when your argument calls the contents of the Bible into question.  That's what tends to happen when people are ignorant yet take pride in their belief they are not.  I would hold off on your assumptions about me and redirect your focus back onto your horrid line of reasoning if I were you.  That's the issue you need to address, not me.

3)  When you say "absolute truth is wrong," are you saying that absolutely or relatively?  On one hand, if you claim to be making an absolute statement, then you contradict your own argument.  On the other hand, if you claim to be making a relative argument, then you skip completely past contradiction and straight to irrelevancy (because you wouldn't be making a claim one way or the other about absolute truth).  Again, I would listen if I were you.

The existence of absolute truth is simply demonstrated, for any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence.  Saying "there is no absolute truth" is equivalent to saying "it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth."  Similarly, saying "truth is only relative" is equivalent to saying "the absolute truth is that truth is only relative."  Furthermore, saying "there is more than one absolute truth" is equivalent to saying "it is the absolute truth that there is more than one absolute truth."

This is what you need to understand:  Absolute truth is absolute, relative to conditional phenomena, and conditional phenomena is relative to both other conditional phenomena and to absolute truth.

I hoped you realized by now that I've stressed the point, that nothing is 100% on this world. Therefore, Absolute Truth may be unknowable or not exist(Read the word "may" again please..)

Using the bible to show the irony presented in their is perfectly logical, your arguments are not however. If according to the bible Jesus Christ is God, and promotes Love which strictly contracts with the rules and commands by the God of the Old Testament, then I can say something is wrong there, for how can someone who is apparently one and whole with the other, be so different.

I can also infer, based on that, that the "God" of the bible is either not 100% Good(Based upon his atrocious commands in the Old Testament) or he does not exist.

Again, you cannot be sure of something 100%, so you Cannot say "You either exist or you don't". You Must use probability. I don' think you understand that nothing we know can ever be assured 100% as fact, or truth, therefore probability must come in to play with everything we do. If anything, the only Absolute Truth may be that "Nothing is ever 100% assured of", as that reflects that we as humans cannot make a claim of anything as being a 100% (Which is what you're trying to do).

Your arguments are incoherent...

Let's get a record of what you've argued so far,

1) You've argued that there must "and" "or", which is not true since nothing is 100%, and we must use probability in every decision we make.
2) You've argued that I cannot use morality of God for whether he exists or doesn't, again, which isn't true as if God is praised and looked upon as being a being capable of doing only good, and the exact opposite is shown throughout the holy text meant to represent his "goodness", I can safely say that there is some hypocrisy there, and that God is not all good(In the bible) which would a test to his very existence.

[the joint]

Ok I'm gonna get straight to the point. Math is infallible and one of the few things we as humans are mostly sure of.

The chance of any deity existing is 50%, and the chance of any there being no deities at all is also 50%. Now, here's the fun part. Since the chance of "God" existing is 50%, and there are literally thousands upon thousands of gods and goddesses recorded in religions all around the world, from both the past and present(Egyptian Mythology has over 1,000 Gods/Goddesses for example), and each god/goddess must be given the equal right to exist, that means that the chance of any god or goddess existing is far lower than 1% when divided among the 50% chance that any of them could exist.

Basically, this means that the chance of any god from any religion on this planet throughout history existing, is far less than 1% and far, far less than the chance of them not existing. This also leads to the logical answer that all religions and their beliefs are wrong(Majority>Minority) and that while the chance of some omnipotent/present/scient being existing is equal to that of it not existing, the chance of any known religion's belief system being right is negligible.

Hope this helps change people's ignorant and biased belief systems, besides the math, you can also just take your time and really study theology. If you took apart the bible and actually read the various laws made by "god", you'd see that almost all of them(especially in the old testament) promote murder and violence, not love.

Responding sequentially:

1)  Yes, math is infallible, but it's not without limitations (e.g. the problem of undecidability, etc.).  The scope of a purely mathematical approach is insufficient for commenting upon the matter as it leaves us without a means of synthesizing mathematics with the rest of reality.

2)  The chance that God exists is not 50/50.  Either a Creator exists or it doesn't.  Accordingly, the rest of what you say in this paragraph is irrelevant.  Oh, and "chance" is simply another word for "unknown causation" since the probability function(s) guiding so-called 'chance' events is concrete.

3)  This paragraph is also completely irrelevant because it follows your line of reasoning about 'chance.'

4)  You have no idea what you're talking about.  Why are you bringing morality into this when it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether God exists?

Now, I'll ask you something:  If it were demonstrated that reality is a mental construct (i,e, made of/from mind), would you be inclined to believe in intelligent design?  Because, well...I can.

You're not making any sense. " Either a Creator exists or it doesn't", that's called probability and the chance has to be equal. This is basic math you learn from elementary/primary school...

Morality plays a huge role in God's(Using the Abrahamic God as an ex) intended role, in the bible he is characterized by his followers as being a loving god, when in actuality, his actions (particularly in the Old Testament) show otherwise. That in itself puts doubt on the probability of God's existence or nature. Look, if you haven't at least studied Theology, then don't bother trying to argue, you look foolish, and frankly like a child with no schooling trying to appear intelligent.

I'm also not sure where you come up with Absolute Truth for. Absolute Truth is wrong, if anything Relative Truth is more accurate. Nothing is 100%, so you cannot state either or, you must use probability, and that makes it impossible for us to know whether "reality" is a construct of our minds or not. Where are you going with this? Lol.

Responding sequentially:

1)    So then, what's the probability that you exist?  Still 50/50?  You either exist or you don't.  Arbitrarily ascribing probabilities as you did increases the absurdity of your argument by 67%.

Seriously, though, I have absolutely no idea why you think you can just randomly ascribe some probability to something you haven't even confirmed to exist in the first place.  That's just all kinds of weird.

Think of it this way: consider a probability function as a law governing so-called 'chance' events.  Because we can observe these events but not the probability function itself,  things can appear random or probabilistic.  But really, the probability function itself is the causal mechanism for these events.

2)  The point here is that whether you agree or disagree with the morality of any given religious text says absolutely nothing about whether God exists.  Liking or disliking something does not cause things to exist or not exist.

I'd hold off on the trite comments if I were you.  Your ramblings are almost as incoherent as they are contradictory, and I'd like to remind you of the irony in using the contents of the Bible to support your argument when your argument calls the contents of the Bible into question.  That's what tends to happen when people are ignorant yet take pride in their belief they are not.  I would hold off on your assumptions about me and redirect your focus back onto your horrid line of reasoning if I were you.  That's the issue you need to address, not me.

3)  When you say "absolute truth is wrong," are you saying that absolutely or relatively?  On one hand, if you claim to be making an absolute statement, then you contradict your own argument.  On the other hand, if you claim to be making a relative argument, then you skip completely past contradiction and straight to irrelevancy (because you wouldn't be making a claim one way or the other about absolute truth).  Again, I would listen if I were you.

The existence of absolute truth is simply demonstrated, for any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence.  Saying "there is no absolute truth" is equivalent to saying "it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth."  Similarly, saying "truth is only relative" is equivalent to saying "the absolute truth is that truth is only relative."  Furthermore, saying "there is more than one absolute truth" is equivalent to saying "it is the absolute truth that there is more than one absolute truth."

This is what you need to understand:  Absolute truth is absolute, relative to conditional phenomena, and conditional phenomena is relative to both other conditional phenomena and to absolute truth.

I hoped you realized by now that I've stressed the point, that nothing is 100% on this world. Therefore, Absolute Truth may be unknowable or not exist(Read the word "may" again please..)

Using the bible to show the irony presented in their is perfectly logical, your arguments are not however. If according to the bible Jesus Christ is God, and promotes Love which strictly contracts with the rules and commands by the God of the Old Testament, then I can say something is wrong there, for how can someone who is apparently one and whole with the other, be so different.

I can also infer, based on that, that the "God" of the bible is either not 100% Good(Based upon his atrocious commands in the Old Testament) or he does not exist.

Again, you cannot be sure of something 100%, so you Cannot say "You either exist or you don't". You Must use probability. I don' think you understand that nothing we know can ever be assured 100% as fact, or truth, therefore probability must come in to play with everything we do. If anything, the only Absolute Truth may be that "Nothing is ever 100% assured of", as that reflects that we as humans cannot make a claim of anything as being a 100% (Which is what you're trying to do).

Your arguments are incoherent...

Let's get a record of what you've argued so far,

1) You've argued that there must "and" "or", which is not true since nothing is 100%, and we must use probability in every decision we make.
2) You've argued that I cannot use morality of God for whether he exists or doesn't, again, which isn't true as if God is praised and looked upon as being a being capable of doing only good, and the exact opposite is shown throughout the holy text meant to represent his "goodness", I can safely say that there is some hypocrisy there, and that God is not all good(In the bible) which would a test to his very existence.

Who are you talking to?  It shouldn't be me, because if it is then I'd advise you to go back, reread, and understand the argument before countering it.  Fortunately, I made it easy for you in that I provided you with complete, grammatically correct sentences that flow in a logical order.  I can't even read half your post without guessing what the hell you might be trying to say.

You can yell and scream and shout that you're right, but unfortunately, that doesn't make it so.  The stupid person thinks he's smarter than the smart person, and therein lies his stupidity.

[darkota]

Ok I'm gonna get straight to the point. Math is infallible and one of the few things we as humans are mostly sure of.

The chance of any deity existing is 50%, and the chance of any there being no deities at all is also 50%. Now, here's the fun part. Since the chance of "God" existing is 50%, and there are literally thousands upon thousands of gods and goddesses recorded in religions all around the world, from both the past and present(Egyptian Mythology has over 1,000 Gods/Goddesses for example), and each god/goddess must be given the equal right to exist, that means that the chance of any god or goddess existing is far lower than 1% when divided among the 50% chance that any of them could exist.

Basically, this means that the chance of any god from any religion on this planet throughout history existing, is far less than 1% and far, far less than the chance of them not existing. This also leads to the logical answer that all religions and their beliefs are wrong(Majority>Minority) and that while the chance of some omnipotent/present/scient being existing is equal to that of it not existing, the chance of any known religion's belief system being right is negligible.

Hope this helps change people's ignorant and biased belief systems, besides the math, you can also just take your time and really study theology. If you took apart the bible and actually read the various laws made by "god", you'd see that almost all of them(especially in the old testament) promote murder and violence, not love.

Responding sequentially:

1)  Yes, math is infallible, but it's not without limitations (e.g. the problem of undecidability, etc.).  The scope of a purely mathematical approach is insufficient for commenting upon the matter as it leaves us without a means of synthesizing mathematics with the rest of reality.

2)  The chance that God exists is not 50/50.  Either a Creator exists or it doesn't.  Accordingly, the rest of what you say in this paragraph is irrelevant.  Oh, and "chance" is simply another word for "unknown causation" since the probability function(s) guiding so-called 'chance' events is concrete.

3)  This paragraph is also completely irrelevant because it follows your line of reasoning about 'chance.'

4)  You have no idea what you're talking about.  Why are you bringing morality into this when it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether God exists?

Now, I'll ask you something:  If it were demonstrated that reality is a mental construct (i,e, made of/from mind), would you be inclined to believe in intelligent design?  Because, well...I can.

You're not making any sense. " Either a Creator exists or it doesn't", that's called probability and the chance has to be equal. This is basic math you learn from elementary/primary school...

Morality plays a huge role in God's(Using the Abrahamic God as an ex) intended role, in the bible he is characterized by his followers as being a loving god, when in actuality, his actions (particularly in the Old Testament) show otherwise. That in itself puts doubt on the probability of God's existence or nature. Look, if you haven't at least studied Theology, then don't bother trying to argue, you look foolish, and frankly like a child with no schooling trying to appear intelligent.

I'm also not sure where you come up with Absolute Truth for. Absolute Truth is wrong, if anything Relative Truth is more accurate. Nothing is 100%, so you cannot state either or, you must use probability, and that makes it impossible for us to know whether "reality" is a construct of our minds or not. Where are you going with this? Lol.

Responding sequentially:

1)    So then, what's the probability that you exist?  Still 50/50?  You either exist or you don't.  Arbitrarily ascribing probabilities as you did increases the absurdity of your argument by 67%.

Seriously, though, I have absolutely no idea why you think you can just randomly ascribe some probability to something you haven't even confirmed to exist in the first place.  That's just all kinds of weird.

Think of it this way: consider a probability function as a law governing so-called 'chance' events.  Because we can observe these events but not the probability function itself,  things can appear random or probabilistic.  But really, the probability function itself is the causal mechanism for these events.

2)  The point here is that whether you agree or disagree with the morality of any given religious text says absolutely nothing about whether God exists.  Liking or disliking something does not cause things to exist or not exist.

I'd hold off on the trite comments if I were you.  Your ramblings are almost as incoherent as they are contradictory, and I'd like to remind you of the irony in using the contents of the Bible to support your argument when your argument calls the contents of the Bible into question.  That's what tends to happen when people are ignorant yet take pride in their belief they are not.  I would hold off on your assumptions about me and redirect your focus back onto your horrid line of reasoning if I were you.  That's the issue you need to address, not me.

3)  When you say "absolute truth is wrong," are you saying that absolutely or relatively?  On one hand, if you claim to be making an absolute statement, then you contradict your own argument.  On the other hand, if you claim to be making a relative argument, then you skip completely past contradiction and straight to irrelevancy (because you wouldn't be making a claim one way or the other about absolute truth).  Again, I would listen if I were you.

The existence of absolute truth is simply demonstrated, for any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence.  Saying "there is no absolute truth" is equivalent to saying "it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth."  Similarly, saying "truth is only relative" is equivalent to saying "the absolute truth is that truth is only relative."  Furthermore, saying "there is more than one absolute truth" is equivalent to saying "it is the absolute truth that there is more than one absolute truth."

This is what you need to understand:  Absolute truth is absolute, relative to conditional phenomena, and conditional phenomena is relative to both other conditional phenomena and to absolute truth.

I hoped you realized by now that I've stressed the point, that nothing is 100% on this world. Therefore, Absolute Truth may be unknowable or not exist(Read the word "may" again please..)

Using the bible to show the irony presented in their is perfectly logical, your arguments are not however. If according to the bible Jesus Christ is God, and promotes Love which strictly contracts with the rules and commands by the God of the Old Testament, then I can say something is wrong there, for how can someone who is apparently one and whole with the other, be so different.

I can also infer, based on that, that the "God" of the bible is either not 100% Good(Based upon his atrocious commands in the Old Testament) or he does not exist.

Again, you cannot be sure of something 100%, so you Cannot say "You either exist or you don't". You Must use probability. I don' think you understand that nothing we know can ever be assured 100% as fact, or truth, therefore probability must come in to play with everything we do. If anything, the only Absolute Truth may be that "Nothing is ever 100% assured of", as that reflects that we as humans cannot make a claim of anything as being a 100% (Which is what you're trying to do).

Your arguments are incoherent...

Let's get a record of what you've argued so far,

1) You've argued that there must "and" "or", which is not true since nothing is 100%, and we must use probability in every decision we make.
2) You've argued that I cannot use morality of God for whether he exists or doesn't, again, which isn't true as if God is praised and looked upon as being a being capable of doing only good, and the exact opposite is shown throughout the holy text meant to represent his "goodness", I can safely say that there is some hypocrisy there, and that God is not all good(In the bible) which would a test to his very existence.

Who are you talking to?  It shouldn't be me, because if it is then I'd advise you to go back, reread, and understand the argument before countering it.  Fortunately, I made it easy for you in that I provided you with complete, grammatically correct sentences that flow in a logical order.  I can't even read half your post without guessing what the hell you might be trying to say.

You can yell and scream and shout that you're right, but unfortunately, that doesn't make it so.  The stupid person thinks he's smarter than the smart person, and therein lies his stupidity.

I came to the conclusion that you're either:

1) High all the time, which would explain the tremendous amount of bullshit you type and fit beautifully with your username, "the_joint"
2) Insane, which would explain why you stick to your false ideology
3) Dumb

I'm not going to waste my time responding to you any further.

[the joint]

Ok I'm gonna get straight to the point. Math is infallible and one of the few things we as humans are mostly sure of.

The chance of any deity existing is 50%, and the chance of any there being no deities at all is also 50%. Now, here's the fun part. Since the chance of "God" existing is 50%, and there are literally thousands upon thousands of gods and goddesses recorded in religions all around the world, from both the past and present(Egyptian Mythology has over 1,000 Gods/Goddesses for example), and each god/goddess must be given the equal right to exist, that means that the chance of any god or goddess existing is far lower than 1% when divided among the 50% chance that any of them could exist.

Basically, this means that the chance of any god from any religion on this planet throughout history existing, is far less than 1% and far, far less than the chance of them not existing. This also leads to the logical answer that all religions and their beliefs are wrong(Majority>Minority) and that while the chance of some omnipotent/present/scient being existing is equal to that of it not existing, the chance of any known religion's belief system being right is negligible.

Hope this helps change people's ignorant and biased belief systems, besides the math, you can also just take your time and really study theology. If you took apart the bible and actually read the various laws made by "god", you'd see that almost all of them(especially in the old testament) promote murder and violence, not love.

Responding sequentially:

1)  Yes, math is infallible, but it's not without limitations (e.g. the problem of undecidability, etc.).  The scope of a purely mathematical approach is insufficient for commenting upon the matter as it leaves us without a means of synthesizing mathematics with the rest of reality.

2)  The chance that God exists is not 50/50.  Either a Creator exists or it doesn't.  Accordingly, the rest of what you say in this paragraph is irrelevant.  Oh, and "chance" is simply another word for "unknown causation" since the probability function(s) guiding so-called 'chance' events is concrete.

3)  This paragraph is also completely irrelevant because it follows your line of reasoning about 'chance.'

4)  You have no idea what you're talking about.  Why are you bringing morality into this when it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether God exists?

Now, I'll ask you something:  If it were demonstrated that reality is a mental construct (i,e, made of/from mind), would you be inclined to believe in intelligent design?  Because, well...I can.

You're not making any sense. " Either a Creator exists or it doesn't", that's called probability and the chance has to be equal. This is basic math you learn from elementary/primary school...

Morality plays a huge role in God's(Using the Abrahamic God as an ex) intended role, in the bible he is characterized by his followers as being a loving god, when in actuality, his actions (particularly in the Old Testament) show otherwise. That in itself puts doubt on the probability of God's existence or nature. Look, if you haven't at least studied Theology, then don't bother trying to argue, you look foolish, and frankly like a child with no schooling trying to appear intelligent.

I'm also not sure where you come up with Absolute Truth for. Absolute Truth is wrong, if anything Relative Truth is more accurate. Nothing is 100%, so you cannot state either or, you must use probability, and that makes it impossible for us to know whether "reality" is a construct of our minds or not. Where are you going with this? Lol.

Responding sequentially:

1)    So then, what's the probability that you exist?  Still 50/50?  You either exist or you don't.  Arbitrarily ascribing probabilities as you did increases the absurdity of your argument by 67%.

Seriously, though, I have absolutely no idea why you think you can just randomly ascribe some probability to something you haven't even confirmed to exist in the first place.  That's just all kinds of weird.

Think of it this way: consider a probability function as a law governing so-called 'chance' events.  Because we can observe these events but not the probability function itself,  things can appear random or probabilistic.  But really, the probability function itself is the causal mechanism for these events.

2)  The point here is that whether you agree or disagree with the morality of any given religious text says absolutely nothing about whether God exists.  Liking or disliking something does not cause things to exist or not exist.

I'd hold off on the trite comments if I were you.  Your ramblings are almost as incoherent as they are contradictory, and I'd like to remind you of the irony in using the contents of the Bible to support your argument when your argument calls the contents of the Bible into question.  That's what tends to happen when people are ignorant yet take pride in their belief they are not.  I would hold off on your assumptions about me and redirect your focus back onto your horrid line of reasoning if I were you.  That's the issue you need to address, not me.

3)  When you say "absolute truth is wrong," are you saying that absolutely or relatively?  On one hand, if you claim to be making an absolute statement, then you contradict your own argument.  On the other hand, if you claim to be making a relative argument, then you skip completely past contradiction and straight to irrelevancy (because you wouldn't be making a claim one way or the other about absolute truth).  Again, I would listen if I were you.

The existence of absolute truth is simply demonstrated, for any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence.  Saying "there is no absolute truth" is equivalent to saying "it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth."  Similarly, saying "truth is only relative" is equivalent to saying "the absolute truth is that truth is only relative."  Furthermore, saying "there is more than one absolute truth" is equivalent to saying "it is the absolute truth that there is more than one absolute truth."

This is what you need to understand:  Absolute truth is absolute, relative to conditional phenomena, and conditional phenomena is relative to both other conditional phenomena and to absolute truth.

I hoped you realized by now that I've stressed the point, that nothing is 100% on this world. Therefore, Absolute Truth may be unknowable or not exist(Read the word "may" again please..)

Using the bible to show the irony presented in their is perfectly logical, your arguments are not however. If according to the bible Jesus Christ is God, and promotes Love which strictly contracts with the rules and commands by the God of the Old Testament, then I can say something is wrong there, for how can someone who is apparently one and whole with the other, be so different.

I can also infer, based on that, that the "God" of the bible is either not 100% Good(Based upon his atrocious commands in the Old Testament) or he does not exist.

Again, you cannot be sure of something 100%, so you Cannot say "You either exist or you don't". You Must use probability. I don' think you understand that nothing we know can ever be assured 100% as fact, or truth, therefore probability must come in to play with everything we do. If anything, the only Absolute Truth may be that "Nothing is ever 100% assured of", as that reflects that we as humans cannot make a claim of anything as being a 100% (Which is what you're trying to do).

Your arguments are incoherent...

Let's get a record of what you've argued so far,

1) You've argued that there must "and" "or", which is not true since nothing is 100%, and we must use probability in every decision we make.
2) You've argued that I cannot use morality of God for whether he exists or doesn't, again, which isn't true as if God is praised and looked upon as being a being capable of doing only good, and the exact opposite is shown throughout the holy text meant to represent his "goodness", I can safely say that there is some hypocrisy there, and that God is not all good(In the bible) which would a test to his very existence.

Who are you talking to?  It shouldn't be me, because if it is then I'd advise you to go back, reread, and understand the argument before countering it.  Fortunately, I made it easy for you in that I provided you with complete, grammatically correct sentences that flow in a logical order.  I can't even read half your post without guessing what the hell you might be trying to say.

You can yell and scream and shout that you're right, but unfortunately, that doesn't make it so.  The stupid person thinks he's smarter than the smart person, and therein lies his stupidity.

I came to the conclusion that you're either:

1) High all the time, which would explain the tremendous amount of bullshit you type and fit beautifully with your username, "the_joint"
2) Insane, which would explain why you stick to your false ideology
3) Dumb

I'm not going to waste my time responding to you any further.

Here's a synopsis of our interactions:

1) You make a claim, and I respond with a point-by-point counterclaim.

2) You provably misrepresent my argument by fraudulently misquoting me.

3) I make you aware that you're misrepresenting my argument after which you make no further attempt to understand it.  At this point, you have essentially made a decision to argue against yourself.

4) You conclude that I must be high, insane, or dumb because you concluded that the argument that you invented is a bad argument.  The funny thing is that I actually agree with you because the argument you invented for me is, well...bad.

Next time, I'd appreciate it if you refrain from hurling insults because you're upset that I'm not willing to let you tell me what my own argument is.

Would you do that for me?  Thanks.

[DLCseller]

Like all the kids say "I HATE MATH"
LoL

[sidhujag]

Watch inexplicable universe u might gain insight..