[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by techdawg667

You are just proving my point more...and this post is real.

If by point you mean you have no point then you'd be correct. As of right now your statements, besides lacking in any real analytical substance, amount to mental masturbation.

[Sarge]

On a more serious note...Do any of you Canadians know what this is?

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by Sarge

On a more serious note...Do any of you Canadians know what this is?

Yeah, it is a trophy donated by Lord Stanley to be awarded to the top Canadian amateur hockey champion and long ago hijacked to be awarded to the top American professional hockey business interest.

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Hi pyritechips,

Uh, your counter-claim constitutes an example of a type of "claim", and therefore violates the tenants in your signature!

Aside from the fact that "saying so" does not make it so, i.e. proven!

My suggestion to you both, is to meet at a local pub, shake hands, forget the paradox (which cannot be proven either way), and down a few brews once you realize the futility of trying to settle something where unprovable beliefs based on faith cannot be substituted for hard evidence required for a proof!

-- Tom

P.S. And, not to mention, your rather hubristic use of QED after posting no proof at all. You would make a miserable mathematician, indeed!

P.P.S. For anyone interested in doing some research on the topic of whether of not it is even possible to prove or disprove that God exists, one might research my early postings in the forerunner to the current thread of Val's Evolution vs. Creation series (#4) if I recall correctly without looking it up. I posted some history on known historical attempts to do so, including {St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas} For, {Hume} Against.

Actually my math skills suck as badly as your logic. Ask any scientist or lawyer about the burden of proof. Apparently you must have been asleep or absent during that high school course.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Gibble

1. Lack of evidence does not denote lack of existence.

good point.

Originally Posted by Gibble

2. You can only prove something doesn't exist in which ways you have searched for it.

Well, yes and no. You can only search for things in the way you know how; however, you may either be overlooking a search, or someone else may have a better way of searching. You know this; you are a programmer, last I checked. Boolean searches can be manipulated in zillions of ways, and yet by simply adding or retracting one factor your results can change drastically. Found that out the hard way trying to manipulate a SQL database I knew squat about.

Granted, boolean searches are generally limited to the computer field, but the analogy can and does carry over outside the computer/mathematics industry. Stating that one can only prove something doesn't exist by which ways you have searched for it is assuming that you have a limited set of tools at your disposal.

Originally Posted by Gibble

3. Making claims without proof is foolish.

agreed.

Originally Posted by Gibble

So, if 1 and 2 are true, which, logically, they are, a logical person wouldn't try to prove God does not exist...though, with no evidence, a logical person wouldn't claim he does (point 3).

Again, the crux lies in point 2 (or fallacy, however you wish to put it). Regardless, logic and faith do not make good bedmates, I've discovered.

Originally Posted by Gibble

A religious person states that everything had to be created by something, God is the exception as he created everything and has always existed. I ask, what if we are the exception, have always existed, and created God?

like that.....may have to steal it from you.

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by techdawg667

I'm under 21

Well, that explains the stupidity of the premise of this thread. It is very simple, if you believe in God, he exists, if you don't believe in God, he doesn't exist for you.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by TooBad

Well, that explains the stupidity of the premise of this thread. It is very simple, if you believe in God, he exists, if you don't believe in God, he doesn't exist for you.

OK! Who are you??? ................and what have you done with the real TooBad???

[DotHQ]

The proof is all around you. Look at the beauty of the mountains, oceans, deserts, rivers, valleys, sky's, etc... The magic is everywhere. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but it is there if you take the time to look.

I find it hard to fathom anyone truly believing this is all an accident.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by DotHQ

The proof is all around you. Look at the beauty of the mountains, oceans, deserts, rivers, valleys, sky's, etc... The magic is everywhere. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but it is there if you take the time to look.

I find it hard to fathom anyone truly believing this is all an accident.

I find it equally hard to fathom that one doesn't believe it is just a wonderful quirk of fate / accident. That makes it all the more awesome to me.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

Yeah, it is a trophy donated by Lord Stanley to be awarded to the top Canadian amateur hockey champion and long ago hijacked to be awarded to the top American professional hockey business interest.

quit whining

at least one of the original six won it. say when was the last time your vaunted Canadiens won it??

[poochee]

Originally Posted by DotHQ

The proof is all around you. Look at the beauty of the mountains, oceans, deserts, rivers, valleys, sky's, etc... The magic is everywhere. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but it is there if you take the time to look.

I find it hard to fathom anyone truly believing this is all an accident.

Amen!

[valis]

congrats, btw, wacor.....lost a bet on that one.....detroit now leads US with 11 Cups, Les Habs still have a few dozen or so, last check....

Pens are high on my list for next year. They played well after the first 2 games (understandable blowouts given their age), and I think they are rather reminiscent of another team a quarter century ago, led by some kid Gretzky, Messier, and Kurri. They lost their first trip, then began a rather productive career together.

Crosby and Malkov have got mad skills; Hossa is the third man there. Solid line, and I'll put a bet out now that they win it next year.

On an off note, wacor, think chelios will play when he's 48; i.e., next year?

[valis]

Originally Posted by DotHQ

The proof is all around you. Look at the beauty of the mountains, oceans, deserts, rivers, valleys, sky's, etc... The magic is everywhere. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but it is there if you take the time to look.

I find it hard to fathom anyone truly believing this is all an accident.

those are quite easily explained by science. As is the earth's being here. Ditto for the solar system, galaxy, and universe. The real beauty lies in wondering what occurred just prior to the big bang.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by valis

congrats, btw, wacor.....lost a bet on that one.....detroit now leads US with 11 Cups, Les Habs still have a few dozen or so, last check....

Pens are high on my list for next year. They played well after the first 2 games (understandable blowouts given their age), and I think they are rather reminiscent of another team a quarter century ago, led by some kid Gretzky, Messier, and Kurri. They lost their first trip, then began a rather productive career together.

Crosby and Malkov have got mad skills; Hossa is the third man there. Solid line, and I'll put a bet out now that they win it next year.

On an off note, wacor, think chelios will play when he's 48; i.e., next year?

Thanks ....... The best part was the parade. I did not go as it was too hot for my taste but the highlight was the mayor lasting 30 seconds on stage. They booed him loud as can be imagined and forced him off.

The Pens have a good team and put up a good fight. Rumor around here though is Hossa is not a lock to come back. In fact Wings have cap space and might have a shot at him.

Chelios has indicated he wants to come back and would accept a limited role. He built a home in the area (we did work there) and has roots established so he would not play anywhere else. I think he will be back. He looked weak in the playoffs but did pretty well during the regular season. I think he will be back and will contribute.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by valis

Granted, boolean searches are generally limited to the computer field, but the analogy can and does carry over outside the computer/mathematics industry. Stating that one can only prove something doesn't exist by which ways you have searched for it is assuming that you have a limited set of tools at your disposal.

But we always have a limited set of tools at our disposal.

You look in a database and the record isn't there...who's to say it wasn't deleted, renamed, or your query was wrong, or you made a false assumption (joining on a key that doesn't exist in the lookup cause rows to go missing). Maybe you were looking in the wrong place? Maybe that data wasn't supposed to be in the database in the first place! Maybe it's been removed and archived elsewhere.