If you can prove God exists...

I will personally send you $50.00 of my own cash on Paypal.

Post your arguments below.

 

I exist....Come visit me

 

You should first establish that you exist. Once you have done that, you must prove that you are God. Then you qualify for the $50.00.

 

Can you define existence first please, or at least whatever aspect of it it is that you are looking for someone to prove?

 

I am God, I have no use for money...Except when I am at Parramatta Westfields.

 

If you can prove God doesn't exist ditto.

 

When speaking of existence, we both understand its pragmatic meaning. Philosophically, the concept of existence mainly regards the notion of something being mind-independent. Mind-independence and existence, therefore, are synonymous. I am requesting that an individual proves that God has existence both in re and in intellectu rather than merely the latter.

You will send me $50.00 if I prove God doesn't exist?

 

lolgod

 

god exist cause of jesus love. 50$ plz

 

Inb4chargeback

 

http://sythe.org/member.php?u=127763

 

You got mod within 3 days of coming back, ergo you are god.
Nuff said?
Pls don't send paypal, I heard god scams.

 

Darren's offer was more enticing
http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=532298

 

I swear he destroyed a belief in Christianity for so many members...

 

Shredderbeam.

 

Well how about this. If you can define "God", then I will prove his existence

 

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. (Separately it was shown that large spherically symmetrical masses attract and are attracted as if all their mass were concentrated at their centers.) This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Newton called induction. It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687. (When Newton's book was presented in 1686 to the Royal Society, Robert Hooke made a claim that Newton had obtained the inverse square law from him – see History section below.) In modern language, the law states the following:
Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them Robert Hooke published his ideas about the "System of the World" in the 1660s, when he read to the Royal Society on 21 March 1666 a paper "On gravity", "concerning the inflection of a direct motion into a curve by a supervening attractive principle", and he published them again in somewhat developed form in 1674, as an addition to "An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth from Observations".[8] Hooke announced in 1674 that he planned to "explain a System of the World differing in many particulars from any yet known", based on three "Suppositions": that "all Coelestial Bodies whatsoever, have an attraction or gravitating power towards their own Centers" [and] "they do also attract all the other Coelestial Bodies that are within the sphere of their activity";[9] that "all bodies whatsoever that are put into a direct and simple motion, will so continue to move forward in a straight line, till they are by some other effectual powers deflected and bent..."; and that "these attractive powers are so much the more powerful in operating, by how much the nearer the body wrought upon is to their own Centers". Thus Hooke clearly postulated mutual attractions between the Sun and planets, in a way that increased with nearness to the attracting body, together with a principle of linear inertia.
Hooke's statements up to 1674 made no mention, however, that an inverse square law applies or might apply to these attractions. Hooke's gravitation was also not yet universal, though it approached universality more closely than previous hypotheses.[10] He also did not provide accompanying evidence or mathematical demonstration. On the latter two aspects, Hooke himself stated in 1674: "Now what these several degrees [of attraction] are I have not yet experimentally verified"; and as to his whole proposal: "This I only hint at present", "having my self many other things in hand which I would first compleat, and therefore cannot so well attend it" (i.e. "prosecuting this Inquiry").[8] It was later on, in writing on 6 January 1679|80 to Newton, that Hooke communicated his "supposition ... that the Attraction always is in a duplicate proportion to the Distance from the Center Reciprocall, and Consequently that the Velocity will be in a subduplicate proportion to the Attraction and Consequently as Kepler Supposes Reciprocall to the Distance."[11] (The inference about the velocity was incorrect.[12])
Hooke's correspondence of 1679-1680 with Newton mentioned not only this inverse square supposition for the decline of attraction with increasing distance, but also, in Hooke's opening letter to Newton, of 24 November 1679, an approach of "compounding the celestiall motions of the planetts of a direct motion by the tangent & an attractive motion towards the central body

 

The whole religion bullshit is just to make money. simple.

Fuck you god! suck ma farkeeeenn dick.

 

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/Proof_Google_Is_God.html

Could you gimme the equivalent in RSGP? Thanks, you're about to triple my bank.

 

i think therefore i am

or whatever it is.

now ide like 50$ in rsgp please..lol jk