Just admit we cant prove or disprove such thing,and move on.
We can disprove retarded ''proof'' though. If you can't prove such thing then there is no reason to believe in it.
But you haven't been able to prove God doesn't exist. Your rebuttals to the proof that He does are simply circular reference blabber.
https://www.quora.com/Does-G%C3%B6dels-Incompleteness-Theorem-prove-the-existence-of-God
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8475/g%C3%B6dels-ontological-proof-and-the-incompleteness-theorem
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/7013/g%C3%B6dels-theorem-and-god?rq=1
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg24030533#msg24030533
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684
The difference between me and you is that I actually take time to review your ''arguments'' and debunk them. The only thing you can do about my arguments is saying ''simply circular reference blabber.'' over and over again as if that would change anything. You are dishonest and a liar, god will not send you to heaven if you continue like this.
The difference between me and you is that you forgot to review your own arguments. If you had, you would have debunked them by default.
Meh, took you all this time to come up with the same excuse
You haven't taken enough time to review what you say objectively. Rather, you turn your ideas into religion for yourself, so that you can believe the things you want, rather than finding the truth objectively.
How many of these bullshit responses do you have lol, just admit I beat you, my arguments destroyed yours. No need to cry, be a man and admit it.
It's not a point of "beating" or "winning." The point is that of finding the truth.
Treating science theory as fact when it is not known to be fact is not truth. Everything you have pointed out scientifically against the existence of God, and against the science law that proves God, is science theory. It isn't known to be factual, even if it is factual.
Science law is what is known to be factual. Science law is what proves the existence of God.
You see, my argument is against the way you use the laws to prove god, the laws themselves do not talk about god or the creator of the universe, even if they are factual. You state a few laws and then deduce/assume god existence with them, my argument shows why your deduction/assumption is wrong. So it doesn't matter whether the laws you use are factual or not.
No. I show how the laws cannot exist together in a universe like ours without God. There is no assumption.
The thing you constantly do is assume that I am assuming. You do it because you don't take the time to calculate the proof for God out.
You try to show that but you are wrong as pointed out in my posts that you refute to answer to because, well, because you can't really, you know you can't, that's why you don't.
Your refutations are assumptions or assumption based.
You keep saying that but you never point them out, it makes you look like a fool.