Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
... The Absolute Lie is what can not ever be proven.
Ergo: your god, cannot ever be proven.
By your own words: An Absolute Lie.
GOOD! YOU IS FINALLY GETTING IT!
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
... The Absolute Lie is what can not ever be proven.
Where is the evidence that the universe created itself, or that life popped forth from a random mix of chemicals ?
Science is defined as Truth-seeking. God is True God. So, He is in area of Science.
You are attempting to make a logical proof of God and not a scientific argument for God. A scientific argument would involve observation, hypothesis formulation and testing. In the case of God or anything supernatural, a scientific hypothesis cannot be formed and tested, since there is no physical evidence to observe.God knows all. Thus, He knows, that He exists.
Thesis: X knows everything.
Corollary: X knows about the existence of himself.
Conclusion: The existence of X is proven.
Do you know why it is impossible for humankind to come to a common opinion about the existence of God? Because there are two Gods and the second one does not exist.
We mostly get un-natural un-compassionate feeling, when somebody tells us, that God exists and he knows it for sure. Such human makes us at least try hard to debunk him or to make him sound ridiculous by twisting and corrupting original wording his proof. But it is because there are two basic options among all religions (including Atheism): Existing God and Non-existing god (idol). We are stuck with lust to the second one, thus, we intuitively know, that our “god” is non-existing one. But keep in mind, that a thesis in Scientific Community is not premise and not assumption.
This may be true. Who can know? There is no way to discern from the evidence of everything what there is about it that tells us, God.All of existences is evidence for God. This a fundamental problem of science. All "good" objectivity is determined by a "bad" subjective judgment. Most scientific people make the "bad" subjective judgment all of existence is not credible evidence for the existence of God.
Where is the evidence that it is a claim that the universe created itself. I am unfamiliar with this outside of the repetition of it by creationists. It makes no logical sense that something could create itself. It would have to exist in order to create and if it has to create itself, it cannot exist. It is a logical impossibility. Something originating from nothing is not the same thing as something creating itself. I do not know that something can originate from nothing either, but they are two different statements. It appears that this may be the source of the creationist straw man about something creating itself.Where is the evidence that the universe created itself, or that life popped forth from a random mix of chemicals ?
I almost thought 'differtensile' was a real word I was unfamiliar with until I got to 'hyperboullion'. Over-excited broth.Harumph!
My disproof is every bit as cromulent as the proof in the OP.
You cannot prove otherwise!
Ask @Polymath257....he knows advanced partial differtensile hyperboullion laser transmogrificational calculus, which allows dividing by zero.
Science is an objective inquiry, observation and study of the physical world using logical methods appropriate to the context of observation. It is a body of knowledge acquired by that methodology, including the set of theories that describe and explain the natural, physical world.Science is defined as Truth-seeking. God is True God. So, He is in area of Science.
Nope.
I almost thought 'differtensile' was a real word I was unfamiliar with until I got to 'hyperboullion'. Over-excited broth.
Maybe they are real words now, though. How do I know?
I'm a big fan of neologisms....& nonlogisms.I almost thought 'differtensile' was a real word I was unfamiliar with until I got to 'hyperboullion'. Over-excited broth.
Maybe they are real words now, though. How do I know?
I rather like them myself. You are very good at creating them and in some cases they are good enough to get by on first blush.I'm a big fan of neologisms....& nonlogisms.
I should have said that I grok that.I'm a big fan of neologisms....& nonlogisms.
Oprah Proof of God
Oprah, "watch this video"
after video, "how can you watch that video and say God does not exist?"
Therefore God exists.
IOW sneaky.I rather like them myself. You are very good at creating them and in some cases they are good enough to get by on first blush.
You just did.I should have said that I grok that.
God knows all. Thus, He knows, that He exists.
Thesis: X knows everything.
Corollary: X knows about the existence of himself.
Conclusion: The existence of X is proven.
Do you know why it is impossible for humankind to come to a common opinion about the existence of God? Because there are two Gods and the second one does not exist.
We mostly get un-natural un-compassionate feeling, when somebody tells us, that God exists and he knows it for sure. Such human makes us at least try hard to debunk him or to make him sound ridiculous by twisting and corrupting original wording his proof. But it is because there are two basic options among all religions (including Atheism): Existing God and Non-existing god (idol). We are stuck with lust to the second one, thus, we intuitively know, that our “god” is non-existing one. But keep in mind, that a thesis in Scientific Community is not premise and not assumption.
You are right, but I mean instead of the answer I initially provided. It would have been better in response to a post regarding neologisms than the one that I did initially provide.You just did.