[Helm]

Being a pretentious dork is a suitable position to do so, n'est-ce pas? If you'd like to actually contradict such a point, be my guest.

No I don't want to contradict that point. I will laugh at you again though.

"clear," "succint," and "believable" are all highly subjective terms and so do not rightly belong in a claim to common sense unless they are given a standard of comparison.

Those terms are not subjective in science. If you believe so, you know even less that I thought you did, and clearly quite more than you ever suspected.

Clear in that which is attempted, clear in the methods employed, and clear in the presentation of axioms and arguments. Succint as in not 4.500 words (many a time a weak argument has been shielded in sheer amount of academia and by deliberate bureocratic obscurity) and believable as in logical and if possible, verifiable by experimentation as well as fact. Your 'proof' of god's existence was not clear in what was attempted, since what you're trying to prove existent was not clearly defined. Your methods were, while possibly clear under question (where you base your assumptions on, mainly) but hey, at least the presentation was clear and to-the-point. Like paint-by-numbers books. Cudos on that. As for it being believable, seeing the lack of foundation, the questionable method and apparent bias, I think I would be wary of you and your explanation even if I was a theist.

How is that any different than Newton witnessing rainbows and consequentially striving to explain the defraction of light?

Third person perception. I've yet to meet two theists that agree on the the whole of their beliefs. Also, when Newton witnessed gravity, he did not say "ah! let's call this gravity (with everything that clings to to such a definition) Now let's prove it being so!" what he did was to work from the ground up with no assumptions, and by logic and experimentation arrived at a definable effect, which interfaced with it's physical context. Can you say you're doing the same? Haven't you already fleshed out your god well beyond wishful moderation or provable fact? I think so.

Bullshit, since time does not pass in eternity.

Wouldn't eternity classify as 'the whole of time?' Ah! Welcome to the zany land of logical fallacy! Stay a while. Stay forever...



If anything, I hope this delightful discussion we're having at least hints on the fact that you're well underequipped to prove the existence of the divine via scientific means. But don't feel bad about it. If you weren't, you'd be certifiably insane.