Since none has ever provided evidence of God we cannot say that the evidence would be rejected nor the scientist providing it considered crazy.
i have, and who here has agreed with me?
existence is real, so you say in science its a condition. but a condition is a real able to be studied environment by science definition. another poster once made the statement that scientists must take for granted what they are studying "exists"
if you look at existence within those terms, a "real" condition, then its able to be studied by science. the problem is everyone is looking for a "cause" of existence, when existence is the energy that the "cause" of the universes existence is based on.
you can say that it would "appear" that something can come from nothing, but its impossible to suggest that something can come from "literally" nothing.
which leads to defining existence as real, and real means a singular energy, which leads to my definition under scientific scrutiny.
to suggest anything other than that would mean that you do not take existing literal, and would have to conclude that its possible you don't exist at all. who would accept such a thing? are you not sitting there?
i didn't bring this here to call you stupid or stagnate science, i came here to bring you revelation that's so simple and obvious its been taken for granted and overlooked, and that by observance of it that science would be reborn and forced to "keep digging"
so in effect, i have offered "proof of God".
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
™ Version 4.2
