|
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.
|