Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Please tell me how courts define that, and what their various methods of proof, processes, and such and such are?proof....like when someone murders someone they have to have proof of it or not guiltyWhat do you mean by proof?that's not proof there is a god ....Science is "made up", the theories are invented or constructed from mathematics.so, like I said --god is just a made up fairy tale/etcI believe in God, not in gods.
you have proof otherwise?
That doesn't mean that the abstractions which science refers or alludes to are not valid, nor are they "nonexistent" simply because they exist in theory or abstraction, rather than as something physical, visible, or tangible to the naked eye.
As far as I'm aware of, all major world religions have their own version of a Supreme Being of the Cosmos, or some equivalent (e.x. the Dao in Taoism).
proof --no proof no god
hahhahahahahPlease tell me how courts define that, and what their various methods of proof, processes, and such and such are?proof....like when someone murders someone they have to have proof of it or not guiltyWhat do you mean by proof?that's not proof there is a god ....Science is "made up", the theories are invented or constructed from mathematics.so, like I said --god is just a made up fairy tale/etc
you have proof otherwise?
That doesn't mean that the abstractions which science refers or alludes to are not valid, nor are they "nonexistent" simply because they exist in theory or abstraction, rather than as something physical, visible, or tangible to the naked eye.
As far as I'm aware of, all major world religions have their own version of a Supreme Being of the Cosmos, or some equivalent (e.x. the Dao in Taoism).
proof --no proof no god
Have you even read about any legal system, current or present, or are you going off of something on television which is highly inaccurate in that regards?
I've heard that technically, "proof" exists only in mathematics; wheras in day to day life, we sadly have to rely on evidence, never being able to "prove" a single thing in the tangible universe the way something purely mathematical could.
By the same token, most people never themselves offer any "proof" of anything scientific, but merely rely on simple arguments from authority and other fallacies, alluding to ones who have, and in whom they have faith or trust, rather than having done so themselves, or ever gathered so much of a "grain" of empirical evidence, done any testing, or any of that sort of stuff, so their childish opinions are merely the product of indoctrination, what they've been "taught" faith in others have done so themselves, a simple belief or axiom they cling to out of ignorance simply because they find such childish oversimplifcations easy, convent, and something that helps the simple-minded "make sense" of things in a simple-minded way, not because they are true in any inherant or ultimately incontrovertible sense.
Much has how silly, outdated, anti-intellectual mass media false dichotomies such as "science vs" religion" aren't even needed to be brought up here, when even the Enlightenment era itself and its many branches and schools of thought (Bacon's scientific or inductive method, and its associated axioms such as empiricism only being one of several; though the average person whose only knowledge comes from archaic media misinformation or lack of anything resembling well-roundedness in thought, intelligence (standard, emotional or otherwise) beyond the bare minimum level of stupidity and mental and social maladjustment required to function in an archaic and ugly job industry sector with exaggerated job titles for stupid, and otherwise inept people, particularily in the aesthetic department, the most significant one of them all, sadly, and the primarily difference between simple, ugly, archaic "math" and actual "mathematics", as smarter and more adapt people know and understand, despite this falling on deaf ears to the archaic, outdated, primitive, and easily automated types of individuals, whose limited and archaic scope barely even allows them to know how to read, let alone grap complexities or language and reading such as context, comprehension, and so forth, as opposed to merely responding to simplistic atoms of information, otherwise devoid of context and taken as singular parts outside of their accompanying whole, much as how an organ of the body, such as a lung would cease to have the same function or meaning if removed from the body, or how while two different concepts, such as a childish type of love such as a school crush, and a profound type of love like that of Jesus Christs' sacrifice for humanity, might both, on a physical level be referred to as coming from one's physical body (e.x. oxytocin), the two things would not be the same, nor identical, simply by the virtue of having that one minute facet in common, but different in virtually every other way, much as the oxytocin molecule and the thing itself (e.x. "love") would not be the same, nor identical or conflatable; love being something which the molecule in question plays a part in the production of, much as a single pianist does in an orchestra, but of course, the molecule, in a vaccum or isolation would not be "love", much as a piano in isolation would not be conflatable with a whole orchestra, such an intellectual absurdity and stupidity as that is.
Or arguments so silly, childish, and anti-intellectual that a child could easily spot them and point it out; not anywhere on the same level as an actual argument or testimony from a Newton or an Einstein himself or herself, but then again, given that the average person has a 100 IQ, and a reading level on or about that of the 6th grade, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if very few if any would even be capable of that to begin with
I asked you to define it - you failed.hahhahahahahPlease tell me how courts define that, and what their various methods of proof, processes, and such and such are?proof....like when someone murders someone they have to have proof of it or not guiltyWhat do you mean by proof?that's not proof there is a god ....Science is "made up", the theories are invented or constructed from mathematics.
That doesn't mean that the abstractions which science refers or alludes to are not valid, nor are they "nonexistent" simply because they exist in theory or abstraction, rather than as something physical, visible, or tangible to the naked eye.
As far as I'm aware of, all major world religions have their own version of a Supreme Being of the Cosmos, or some equivalent (e.x. the Dao in Taoism).
proof --no proof no god
Have you even read about any legal system, current or present, or are you going off of something on television which is highly inaccurate in that regards?
I've heard that technically, "proof" exists only in mathematics; wheras in day to day life, we sadly have to rely on evidence, never being able to "prove" a single thing in the tangible universe the way something purely mathematical could.
By the same token, most people never themselves offer any "proof" of anything scientific, but merely rely on simple arguments from authority and other fallacies, alluding to ones who have, and in whom they have faith or trust, rather than having done so themselves, or ever gathered so much of a "grain" of empirical evidence, done any testing, or any of that sort of stuff, so their childish opinions are merely the product of indoctrination, what they've been "taught" faith in others have done so themselves, a simple belief or axiom they cling to out of ignorance simply because they find such childish oversimplifcations easy, convent, and something that helps the simple-minded "make sense" of things in a simple-minded way, not because they are true in any inherant or ultimately incontrovertible sense.
Much has how silly, outdated, anti-intellectual mass media false dichotomies such as "science vs" religion" aren't even needed to be brought up here, when even the Enlightenment era itself and its many branches and schools of thought (Bacon's scientific or inductive method, and its associated axioms such as empiricism only being one of several; though the average person whose only knowledge comes from archaic media misinformation or lack of anything resembling well-roundedness in thought, intelligence (standard, emotional or otherwise) beyond the bare minimum level of stupidity and mental and social maladjustment required to function in an archaic and ugly job industry sector with exaggerated job titles for stupid, and otherwise inept people, particularily in the aesthetic department, the most significant one of them all, sadly, and the primarily difference between simple, ugly, archaic "math" and actual "mathematics", as smarter and more adapt people know and understand, despite this falling on deaf ears to the archaic, outdated, primitive, and easily automated types of individuals, whose limited and archaic scope barely even allows them to know how to read, let alone grap complexities or language and reading such as context, comprehension, and so forth, as opposed to merely responding to simplistic atoms of information, otherwise devoid of context and taken as singular parts outside of their accompanying whole, much as how an organ of the body, such as a lung would cease to have the same function or meaning if removed from the body, or how while two different concepts, such as a childish type of love such as a school crush, and a profound type of love like that of Jesus Christs' sacrifice for humanity, might both, on a physical level be referred to as coming from one's physical body (e.x. oxytocin), the two things would not be the same, nor identical, simply by the virtue of having that one minute facet in common, but different in virtually every other way, much as the oxytocin molecule and the thing itself (e.x. "love") would not be the same, nor identical or conflatable; love being something which the molecule in question plays a part in the production of, much as a single pianist does in an orchestra, but of course, the molecule, in a vaccum or isolation would not be "love", much as a piano in isolation would not be conflatable with a whole orchestra, such an intellectual absurdity and stupidity as that is.
Or arguments so silly, childish, and anti-intellectual that a child could easily spot them and point it out; not anywhere on the same level as an actual argument or testimony from a Newton or an Einstein himself or herself, but then again, given that the average person has a 100 IQ, and a reading level on or about that of the 6th grade, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if very few if any would even be capable of that to begin with
you have no proof of god--plain and simple
how could I fail when you are the one who can't prove it???!! hahahahhahahahahI asked you to define it - you failed.hahhahahahahPlease tell me how courts define that, and what their various methods of proof, processes, and such and such are?proof....like when someone murders someone they have to have proof of it or not guiltyWhat do you mean by proof?that's not proof there is a god ....
proof --no proof no god
Have you even read about any legal system, current or present, or are you going off of something on television which is highly inaccurate in that regards?
I've heard that technically, "proof" exists only in mathematics; wheras in day to day life, we sadly have to rely on evidence, never being able to "prove" a single thing in the tangible universe the way something purely mathematical could.
By the same token, most people never themselves offer any "proof" of anything scientific, but merely rely on simple arguments from authority and other fallacies, alluding to ones who have, and in whom they have faith or trust, rather than having done so themselves, or ever gathered so much of a "grain" of empirical evidence, done any testing, or any of that sort of stuff, so their childish opinions are merely the product of indoctrination, what they've been "taught" faith in others have done so themselves, a simple belief or axiom they cling to out of ignorance simply because they find such childish oversimplifcations easy, convent, and something that helps the simple-minded "make sense" of things in a simple-minded way, not because they are true in any inherant or ultimately incontrovertible sense.
Much has how silly, outdated, anti-intellectual mass media false dichotomies such as "science vs" religion" aren't even needed to be brought up here, when even the Enlightenment era itself and its many branches and schools of thought (Bacon's scientific or inductive method, and its associated axioms such as empiricism only being one of several; though the average person whose only knowledge comes from archaic media misinformation or lack of anything resembling well-roundedness in thought, intelligence (standard, emotional or otherwise) beyond the bare minimum level of stupidity and mental and social maladjustment required to function in an archaic and ugly job industry sector with exaggerated job titles for stupid, and otherwise inept people, particularily in the aesthetic department, the most significant one of them all, sadly, and the primarily difference between simple, ugly, archaic "math" and actual "mathematics", as smarter and more adapt people know and understand, despite this falling on deaf ears to the archaic, outdated, primitive, and easily automated types of individuals, whose limited and archaic scope barely even allows them to know how to read, let alone grap complexities or language and reading such as context, comprehension, and so forth, as opposed to merely responding to simplistic atoms of information, otherwise devoid of context and taken as singular parts outside of their accompanying whole, much as how an organ of the body, such as a lung would cease to have the same function or meaning if removed from the body, or how while two different concepts, such as a childish type of love such as a school crush, and a profound type of love like that of Jesus Christs' sacrifice for humanity, might both, on a physical level be referred to as coming from one's physical body (e.x. oxytocin), the two things would not be the same, nor identical, simply by the virtue of having that one minute facet in common, but different in virtually every other way, much as the oxytocin molecule and the thing itself (e.x. "love") would not be the same, nor identical or conflatable; love being something which the molecule in question plays a part in the production of, much as a single pianist does in an orchestra, but of course, the molecule, in a vaccum or isolation would not be "love", much as a piano in isolation would not be conflatable with a whole orchestra, such an intellectual absurdity and stupidity as that is.
Or arguments so silly, childish, and anti-intellectual that a child could easily spot them and point it out; not anywhere on the same level as an actual argument or testimony from a Newton or an Einstein himself or herself, but then again, given that the average person has a 100 IQ, and a reading level on or about that of the 6th grade, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if very few if any would even be capable of that to begin with
you have no proof of god--plain and simple
Get back to me when you know how a court of law works, and what the different types of proof, evidence, and so forth all. Ultimately if I offer proof, whatever type or amount thereof, you'll still, of course, be able to turn it down based on whatever arbitrary criteria of proof or evidence you're demanding from the get-go (while likely, at the same time accepting other things as proven by the same standard or standards of evidence, or perhaps not even "evidence" but simple logical fallacies, such as arguments from authority and whatnot, by which you dismissed a proof of God as "not enough").
I believe that God's existence is potentially provable via mathematics, but I would have to do more studying in that regard.
