The Proof of the non-existence of God

The Death of fundamentalism: I am afraid it is becoming that time to put the nails in the coffin for this Debate. A proof is a proof and it stands alone from agreement or believe, that is what makes it a Proof. It takes along to adjust to something we all thought wasn’t possible. My point was made very clear. That is Salvation threw reason. Faith is would we should do when we got nothing else less. But I still have a lot left and when that time comes maybe I will pray as well. For now let the evolution of ideas continue. You see part of the demonstration of the evolution of ideas was to show that is through rational inquiry we find our answers. You see that is The True scientific method is that 99.% of scientist don’t know either. It can be applied in anyway not just the physical world. What me and my opponent engaged in what the True scientific method in the sense. That I put my ideas to be tested, we could call it a theory and my opponent pointing out flaws in attempt to foil them but inadvertently pointing out were I needed to adjust it, until it reached perfection. The proof I was looking for. That is by admitting to myself where I was wrong I was able to evolve my idea. So not only did I prove the nonexistence of god but my partner also helped me PROVE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. This must take the wind out of his Fundamentalism, for he helped me prove his own fundamentalism wrong. That is what I mean by The Art of Foolery. ;) Secondary, I am a transcendental idealist, which means I work to explain the world within a mental framework without having to appeal to a physical world at all.(warning, not to be confuse with the imagination.) What people consider physical world I translate it into a frame work of mind, because the mind is the necessary condition of seeing the external world, for to claim otherwise is to claim that you are out of your mind. ;) Let’s this be known as legendary. Let it be salvation for this Sophist, if he chooses it, by the admission of being fooled. A Fools coffin: Argument 1: Was that knowledge that faith based is ignorance. Argument 2: That something based on faith alone is its own negation. Argument 3 is the demonstration of the non-existence of a faith based god. A Fools nails: A 2: Nail 1 In the second Proof was I missed a few words but it works regardless. To say I am asserting quantity of existence is to not understand my demonstration we use the number one in a mathematical category but that one is the same mental idea which labeled in the different context we use it. That was explained efficiency; we could even make it even clearer if necessary. Secondly that one is inherent in any entity. More proof: to say there is not 1. Is to say there is none. This means it doesn’t exist. There for 1 is synonymous with existence. Nail 2 Yeah it is absolute but it doesn’t follow by saying so it is false. To say there is no real truth is the same as to be ignorant of it. And so we fall into the fallacy of adhering to ignorance…. Again. This reeks of an attempt to appeal to relativism as a turtling position of defend. Nail 3 Another proof anyway for good measure: you could not speak the word if you didn’t grasp some aspect of what it means, for your ability to speak means that you have an idea which you speak of. Unless my opponent wants to admit that he doesn’t even know what he is talking about when he says things. ;) Nail 4 To quote from the bible is to not recognize the argument which completely discredits any faith based truth which includes that the bible really speaks the word of god. The Fools Hammer: The arguments are complete and sound. The Proof has been logically demonstrated and credit should be given where credit is due. Remember ALL THREE HAVE TO BE SHOWN WRONG. And number three is undeniable A FATAL BLOW/ If my opponent which is to reformulate his ideas and challenge me again. Or wants to argue about relativism you challenge will always be accepted. If the fool is mistaken he wants know about it. So he can adjust and continue with the evolution of ideas. It is not about winning, this was a challenge to see If my ideas could pass the test and with the help of my partner/opponent we made it happen. It was a pleasure !!!