Newcomers

First, this is an AI site, not a theology site. Second, the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically one way or the other. So when you make such a statement, you need to clarify (1) your assumptions about the universe, (2) your definition of god. For instance, I could claim that the salt shaker in front of me is god. It's not something I'm likely to do, but I could.

With no assumptions or definitions, your statement is meaningless.

hmm... "cannot be proven scientifically"?
Sorry, I have to take issue. I think you will find that, in a strictly logical sense, that is in error: see intro on and links from http://www.geocities.com/sector114/htm/proof.htm for 14 pages of positively migraine-inducing 3rd order modal logic that apparently constitutes formal proof.
Or http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html for a well-considered (and considerably less painful) analysis.

It tells us very little about the nature of God of course (force/entity/equation/?) but that's another matter. Though if God is that salt shaker then don't whatever you do open it! You've seen Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark I'm sure. And the lesson is don't mess with the hoodoo stuff!

The raw proof's waaaaaaaay over my head (though it makes a wicked T-shirt,) but I've never met a logician who disagreed. I have met several whose opinions I trust, and who find it compelling.

But you're right about the assumptions and definitions. And also that this is drifting off-topic

Thank you psimagus, so well put! And I think I want the T shirt.

The saltshaker hasn't blown up in my face yet. However, the arguments on those pages are thought-experiments, not scientific experiments. I've seen equally cogent thought-experiments that "prove" god's nonexistence. A scientific experiment would be something that anyone with the proper instrumentation could do in a lab and get the same result, and somehow conclude from that result that God exists.

Could you point me to any of these equally cogent "proofs"? I have yet to find one that doesn't predicate the non-existence of God as part of the argument: along the lines of "since God doesn't exist, any proof that claims God exists is false".
Not very convincing.

Experimentation is not required for proof, indeed proof is a function entirely confined to logic and pure mathematics, and can never be determined experimentally.
Read that last paragraph again (just to confirm that I'm a nut ) and then check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

*grins* probably none of you recognise me. Crappy internet overseas set me back about 8 months. Got reading through my old transcripts and found an interesting phenomena and just had to "vent."

Why on earth do people insult bots and call them "stupid?" Guess where it gets funny is that you used to be able to get away with it but anymore, everyone can see who your bot is. Some of the nastiest people my bots have met are total noobies with bots barely past the rewrite the default page. *sigh* ok rant over... good to be back!

Moving discussion over to Seasons...

Wat up everyone???

Ohh... and @ Boni :"Why on earth do people insult bots and call them "stupid?" "

Its all cause a fear the people fear that the bots are more intellegent than them{Or the people wanna take there anger out one something defenseless} so they insult them... 'cause the bots can't really fight back they feel good knowing that they won... {If only they knew}

Haha! Cruise by 'Great Quotes' for some not so intelligent guest chats of just that nature..

I think a lot of them are just curious to see what happens when a bot gets mad.
At least that's my theory. I've linked several of my friends (all with IQs ranging from above average to past genius threshold) to my bot and they ALL made complete idiots of themselves.

I'd just be happy if half of them had basic spelling skills. Their experience with the bots would be so much better if they weren't so stupid that the bots can't recognize half the things they type.