Mathematical proof of the existence of God

[8BitAtheist]

This has to be a joke, that everyone is just taking way too seriously. The pantheism title kind of gives it away.

[houseofcantor]

Atheists tend to take mathematics seriously.

[KichigaiNeko]

Unfortunately yes house. But after a while they ARE flexible in their thinking to understand a joke. Unlike the religious.

[Ryft]

---

The thing about debating atheism versus theism is this: there is only one atheism. If God does not exist, no other argument follows as to which God does not exist.

With theism, however, there is an argument that follows the simple premise that "God exists", which is "what is this God like"? The problem here is that there are no end of the possible conceptions of God.

When compared with the infinite possible conceptions of God, it can be seen that the concept of not-God is so small in comparison with the concepts of God that it can be said not to exist, and yet it does. This state of extant nothingness is called a singularity, and in the case of atheism verses theism this singularity (atheism) is swiming in the infinite (theism).

How can we get this singularity to change from not-God to yet another concept of God, and therefore unify the Infinite Set Of Concepts Of God?

We argue that there is only One True God, and that this One True God - if he really exists - could make himself known to everyone through whichever religion they chose to practice, even atheism itself. The problem here is how do you turn atheism into a religion? Simply by pointing at even someone like Richard Dawkins and saying: "Hey! To God you are a theist!"

By creating space in this way, the singularity known as atheism expands instantly to the infinite and becomes One with God.

Atheism is now officially a religion. You atheists may now preach and practice your religion with all the rights and benefits accorded to any other religion.

You atheists weren't wrong again, were you?

:roflol:

---

Read to end of post; still no mathematics.

Should have opted for tl;dr

[Cyberman]

Read to end of post; still no mathematics.

Also nothing to do with the existence of God. I hate false advertising.

[Edwardo Piet]

For atheism to be a religion you'd have to redefine it. And then we're not talking about the same thing remember?

[JohnDG]

Mathmatical proof that nothing exist.. 0

[houseofcantor]

Unfortunately yes house. But after a while they ARE flexible in their thinking to understand a joke. Unlike the religious.

What's unfortunate about it? With the definition of mathematics as the art of logical consistency and the logical conclusion that no god exists outside the identity, where's the joke?

Burn them witches.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

But when we say "vegetable" comparing it to a fruit, we usually mean a non-fruit vegetable

What? I don't.


The term 'fruit' has a specific definition. Calling a tomato a vegetable does not make it one.

From Oxford dictionaries on line:

The confusion about 'fruit' and 'vegetable' arises because of the differences in usage between scientists and cooks. Scientifically speaking, a tomato is definitely a fruit. True fruits are developed from the ovary in the base of the flower, and contain the seeds of the plant (though cultivated forms may be seedless). Blueberries, raspberries, and oranges are true fruits, and so are many kinds of nut. Some plants have a soft part which supports the seeds and is also called a 'fruit', though it is not developed from the ovary: the strawberry is an example.


The confusion about 'fruit' and 'vegetable' arises because of the differences in usage between scientists and cooks. Scientifically speaking, a tomato is definitely a fruit. True fruits are developed from the ovary in the base of the flower, and contain the seeds of the plant (though cultivated forms may be seedless). Blueberries, raspberries, and oranges are true fruits, and so are many kinds of nut. Some plants have a soft part which supports the seeds and is also called a 'fruit', though it is not developed from the ovary: the strawberry is an example.

As far as cooking is concerned, some things which are strictly fruits, such as tomatoes or bean pods, may be called 'vegetables' because they are used in savoury rather than sweet cooking. The term 'vegetable' is more generally used of other edible parts of plants, such as cabbage leaves, celery stalks, and potato tubers, which are not strictly the fruit of the plant from which they come. Occasionally the term 'fruit' may be used to refer to a part of a plant which is not a fruit, but which is used in sweet cooking: rhubarb, for example.

So, the answer to the question is that a tomato is technically the fruit of the tomato plant, but it's used as a vegetable in cooking.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/is-a...-vegetable

[Edwardo Piet]

When I was on a cookery course I was told that tomatoes are 'vegetable fruits'.