Plus, while it's logically impossible to prove the existence of (a) supreme being(s)
it's also logically impossible to disprove its/their existence - making theism and atheism equally irrational standpoints.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:27, archived)

*follows existentialism*
*decides everything is irrational, so there is no normal*
*Hits a squirrel with an amoeba*
( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)

THANKYOU

(63956, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)

But the fact that there is no proof is proof enough.

( mike woz ere 7442200 & 7696970 getter, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)

There's no proof in favour of OR against the existence of a supreme being.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)

We have enough understanding of the universe to make its existence really really unlikely, though.
True, we can't prove it's not out there, remaining hidden. But then what's the difference, for practical purposes, between no god and a god that never does anything and which we never detect?
( Bob Todd whee, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:33, archived)

I'd argue that Les Dennis is proof that there is no God

( trev Is not interested in your fripperies, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:33, archived)

Pfffft, true.
And the re-appearance of the Caps Monster :(
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:34, archived)

But you've created an unnecessary problem surely?
If there's no proof either way, why even debate the concept?

I JUST DON'T KNOW ANYMORE!
( mike woz ere 7442200 & 7696970 getter, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:35, archived)

I'm sure last time I said that, most of the board had a go at me
although I don't think you were included in that
(0800221155 Coldseal windows, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)

Er, how is it impossible to prove its existence?
All they need to do is stump up some evidence. It's impossible with a priori logic, yes, but not with a posteriori. There currently isn't any evidence we've found to prove the existence of a supreme being, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be any.
( Bob Todd whee, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)

hehe, posterior

( Gilgamesh gazed in wonder as Frampton came alive, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:31, archived)

You're confusing logic with fact.

( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:31, archived)

If you can't reasonably prove a theory a priori, it's a very shaky theory.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:32, archived)

I must be confused.
Surely you need evidence to prove a theory, and evidence is necessarily a posteriori?
( Bob Todd whee, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:35, archived)

But god implies sin
Innocent until proven guilty, I say. He doesn't exist until proof is found.
(0800221155 Coldseal windows, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:34, archived)