grand synthesis of the proofs of the nonexistence of some annoying entities

[birdman]

If x existed, x would be outside of space. But NOTHING can be outside of space.

If x existed, x would be outside of time. But NOTHING can be outside of time.

If x existed, x would be outside of the true-false duality. But NOTHING can be outside of the true-false duality.

If x existed, x would be immaterial. But NOTHING can be immaterial.

If x existed, x would be necessary. But NOTHING can be necessary.

If x existed, x would be eternal. But NOTHING can be eternal.

If x existed, x would be omnipresent. But NOTHING can be omnipresent.

If x existed, x would be changeless. But NOTHING can be changeless.

If x existed, x would be perfect. But NOTHING can be perfect.

If x existed, x would be y. But NOTHING can be y (y may stand for many things that I leave for your imagination).

x stands for: Jehovah. Raël. The great scientistic Christ. the LDS gods. Moon. Xenu. Krishna and any "holy" being related to cults.

[milady]

Envoyé par birdman If x existed, x would be outside of space. But NOTHING can be outside of space.

says who?

[birdman]

Says Jean Meslier (an atheist vicar of the Enlightenment).

[milady]

Envoyé par birdman Says Jean Meslier (an atheist vicar of the Enlightenment).

oh, then I thought you were quoting some "scientist" somewhere... So why should I beleive this man's reasonning? (that doesn't seem that logical to me )

[birdman]

Why? Because... it is obvious!

(command, this thread is not for real).

[GioEgyptio]

Envoyé par birdman If x existed, x would be outside of space. But NOTHING can be outside of space. If x existed, x would be outside of time. But NOTHING can be outside of time. If x existed, x would be outside of the true-false duality. But NOTHING can be outside of the true-false duality. If x existed, x would be immaterial. But NOTHING can be immaterial. If x existed, x would be necessary. But NOTHING can be necessary. If x existed, x would be eternal. But NOTHING can be eternal. If x existed, x would be omnipresent. But NOTHING can be omnipresent. If x existed, x would be changeless. But NOTHING can be changeless. If x existed, x would be perfect. But NOTHING can be perfect. If x existed, x would be y. But NOTHING can be y (y may stand for many things that I leave for your imagination). x stands for: Jehovah. Raël. The great scientistic Christ. the LDS gods. Moon. Xenu. Krishna and any "holy" being related to cults.

I have only one sentence to say mister..........


Allahou Allam

[WinterKiss]

Envoyé par milady says who?

sidi 3bd rhman lmjdoub ymken..

[milady]

Envoyé par birdman If x existed, x would be immaterial. But NOTHING can be immaterial.

photons are immaterials

[sidlhaj]

I still wonder when people will really start realising that the human mind is limited.
Our look at the world is subject to an ever evolving knowledge that is challenged every day by new discoveries.
but also our senses, the size, composition and architeture of our brain may be a serious limit to grasp exotic notions and logics.

So for one to confirm that something out of Time can not exists; he must have a thorough knowledge of Time; but Time is still an illusive notion.

I think that humans should stay humbled by their ignorance.

[birdman]

It seems to me that it has become fashionable, nowadays, to belittle human intelligence. Skepticism is a comfortable viewpoint: nothing to defend, everything to attack. The skeptic may view herself as a superior intelligence, that has got rid of superstition...

It may be possible that our brain makes us see things, not as they are, but as they appear to be. Nonetheless, sometimes we have the possibility to overcome the «cognitive pressures» of this organ and to reach a more realistic view of the world. Think about quantum physics: it is counterintuitive to the utmost, and yet scientists have been able to understand it to some extent.