Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

rsl12 · 12-10-2003, 01:33 PM

au contraire--who is to say that the null hypothesis has to be that I am not god? why isn't it equally reasonable to make the null hypothesis that I am god?

sixate: i am all-knowing, i am all-powerful, i just choose not to be a show-off. that's called modesty and it's a very godly trait.

anyways, my point is: the way that God is defined these days (omnipotente, omniscient, subtle, beyond grasp), it is very very difficult to come up with any method to prove/disprove existence, and that anyone can claim to be god using the current conventional definition of god.

The question of WHY the definition of God has evolved in such a way as to make such a proof continually elusive, I leave to cynics and skeptics.

also: i think the penis argument is quite valid. i will get my digital camera out to prove it next time. god is male.

12-10-2003, 01:33 PM	#5 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	au contraire--who is to say that the null hypothesis has to be that I am not god? why isn't it equally reasonable to make the null hypothesis that I am god? sixate: i am all-knowing, i am all-powerful, i just choose not to be a show-off. that's called modesty and it's a very godly trait. anyways, my point is: the way that God is defined these days (omnipotente, omniscient, subtle, beyond grasp), it is very very difficult to come up with any method to prove/disprove existence, and that anyone can claim to be god using the current conventional definition of god. The question of WHY the definition of God has evolved in such a way as to make such a proof continually elusive, I leave to cynics and skeptics. also: i think the penis argument is quite valid. i will get my digital camera out to prove it next time. god is male. __________________ oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.