page was not found
don't forget leonhard euler's famous proof:
"(a+b^n)/n=x, hence god exists!"
reference: fermat's last theorem. for a web link see:
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/EulerLeonhard.html
"(a+b^n)/n=x, hence god exists!"
reference: fermat's last theorem. for a web link see:
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/EulerLeonhard.html
replace proof with conjecture.
I don't understand how you could possibly prove some kind of god's existence with math. Last time I checked, a god's existence could not be proved. Period.
*slow jerk*
i am god
We will create him. He will look like darth vader, but dance way better.
I think god should look like the T101 from T2
Give us some time at NYCR, we'll see what we can do.
haha, challenge accepted ;)
I really don't get it. Why the fuck do people even talk about god in hopes of "converting" people to their opinion about it/him/whatever. No one can ever win this stupid fucking argument.
*exhale*
*exhale*
Actually thanks to the advent of nuclear weapons, they can win!
> I really don't get it. Why the fuck do people even talk about god in hopes of "converting" people to
> their opinion about it/him/whatever. No one can ever win this stupid fucking argument.
That's not quite true, believers make the claim something exists (God), so it's their duty to provide evidence that it exists. So far, they have provided no serious evidence.
It's impossible for we "non-believers" to prove that God doesn't exist, because it's impossible to prove that *anything* doesn't exist. Saying this argument is "can never be won" is the same as saying that "no argument at all can ever be won".
> their opinion about it/him/whatever. No one can ever win this stupid fucking argument.
That's not quite true, believers make the claim something exists (God), so it's their duty to provide evidence that it exists. So far, they have provided no serious evidence.
It's impossible for we "non-believers" to prove that God doesn't exist, because it's impossible to prove that *anything* doesn't exist. Saying this argument is "can never be won" is the same as saying that "no argument at all can ever be won".
Purple Monkey Elevator.
I am beginning to think nny just does a "strings /dev/random | head -n 1" for his posts.
I find your hypothesis intriguing, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Dude believers can't prove god exists, either. And they shouldn't, if they are true believers. That's the whole damn point of faith arg.
i just hate how the burden of proof is on non believers to prove god doesn't exist when believers should be the ones with all the responsibility to prove anything.
> Dude believers can't prove god exists, either. And they shouldn't, if they are true believers. That's
> the whole damn point of faith arg.
That's just a easy way out, close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and shout LALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
That's the "whole damn point to faith".
> i just hate how the burden of proof is on non believers to prove god doesn't exist when believers
> should be the ones with all the responsibility to prove anything.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
> the whole damn point of faith arg.
That's just a easy way out, close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and shout LALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
That's the "whole damn point to faith".
> i just hate how the burden of proof is on non believers to prove god doesn't exist when believers
> should be the ones with all the responsibility to prove anything.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
... what?
... what?
yeah wow.
Yeah well, according to anecdotal evidence from "the ladies" god does in fact exist, and I am one whenever I am placed in a bed.
Epic Five! *hand in the air*
Epic Five! *hand in the air*
what is the confusion with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?"
obviously proof is not something that someone with faith is primarily (or at all necessarily) interested in. religion is about faith, belief, etc., not hard proof. personally I don't have faith, but I'm not going to press someone with faith to "prove" their beliefs to me, so long as those beliefs aren't dictating what I can and can not do. i.e., I don't think that religious doctrine should inform law. religious values, maybe they should, and I don't know that anything can be done to prevent them from doing so. point is, I think religion should be strictly a personal matter.
obviously proof is not something that someone with faith is primarily (or at all necessarily) interested in. religion is about faith, belief, etc., not hard proof. personally I don't have faith, but I'm not going to press someone with faith to "prove" their beliefs to me, so long as those beliefs aren't dictating what I can and can not do. i.e., I don't think that religious doctrine should inform law. religious values, maybe they should, and I don't know that anything can be done to prevent them from doing so. point is, I think religion should be strictly a personal matter.
Well at a certain point our definitions of law are upheld based on a faith in a system. Whether it's religious in origin or not is somewhat irrelevant. Morality isn't a commonly held concept. We all have different views of it. Weather it's the threat of hell or the threat of incarceration the methodology by which we institute regulation really doesn't matter much beyond the end result... DOES IT WORK?
That would be my statement.
That would be my statement.
> what is the confusion with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?"
it's not confusing, it's just wrong
it's not confusing, it's just wrong
@nny that's kind of a whole other discussion, but ok. the existing difference between religion and law, at least in the US, is that law applies to everyone. which is the context in which I was making my post.
@bsdlite ok, then why is it wrong? it seems pretty common sense to me. if you claim something extraordinary, you need extraordinary evidence to back it up, if your interest is in proving your claim. if your "claim" is simply a matter of your religious belief, like I said, proof may not even enter the equation, which is fine.
@bsdlite ok, then why is it wrong? it seems pretty common sense to me. if you claim something extraordinary, you need extraordinary evidence to back it up, if your interest is in proving your claim. if your "claim" is simply a matter of your religious belief, like I said, proof may not even enter the equation, which is fine.
asemi, it would be my immediate response that a proof returns a boolean value. true or false.
so it can't really be "extraordinary". You don't drop EXXXTREME 0s when you call a return(); unless of course your compiler is macho man randy savage.
so it can't really be "extraordinary". You don't drop EXXXTREME 0s when you call a return(); unless of course your compiler is macho man randy savage.
if you take away extraordinary then their proof always fails
#include <politics.h>
void proof(char *gods[]) {
double long extraordinary;
zealots = 0;
while ( religions != Nihilism ) {
if ( gods[zealots] ) {
extraordinary = 0;
return(extraordinary);
}
zealots++;
}
int main() {
char gods[];
proof(gods);
extraordinary = 1;
return(extraordinary);
}
void proof(char *gods[]) {
double long extraordinary;
zealots = 0;
while ( religions != Nihilism ) {
if ( gods[zealots] ) {
extraordinary = 0;
return(extraordinary);
}
zealots++;
}
int main() {
char gods[];
proof(gods);
extraordinary = 1;
return(extraordinary);
}
chicken -o proof_of_god ..
obviously proof is not something that someone with faith is primarily (or at all necessarily) interested in. religion is about faith, belief, etc., not hard proof. personally I don't have faith, but I'm not going to press someone with faith to "prove" their beliefs to me, so long as those beliefs aren't dictating what I can and can not do. i.e., I don't think that religious doctrine should inform law. religious values, maybe they should, and I don't know that anything can be done to prevent them from doing so. point is, I think religion should be strictly a personal matter.
Yes.
then replace "proof" with "evidence," because I'm pretty sure that's essentially what it means in that context. I've never read it as proof like a formal mathematical proof or something, but maybe that's because I've always hated those.