http://cynicpad.wordpress.com

http://cynicpad.wordpress.com/2006/10/28/the-possibility-of-a-god

Although I do certainly not agree, it is at least interesting to know that people may spend a little time and neuron’s flashes in order to try to proove … God is not. Going in the direction of Oxford student’s goals and aims (http://sonjakasten1.wordpress.com under anecdotes), he may perhaps take some inspiration in his personal attempt.

And thus, to help others not to get exhausted trying the impossible, here a hint: you can’t proove something is not, at the very name is, and thus it will always be meaning something and refering itself to something. The minimalist proof of God will thus always be: God may perhaps not be, his name remains.

For indirect proofs of the existence of God: “Altars are, thus Gods are.” (Ancient Greece)

Or inductive proofs based on Plato’s equivalence:beauty=the truth=the just=the good (if you proove that something is beautiful or good, it has necessarily the other characteristics, too): if you think that the universe was made by accident, by ordered physical forces or by some personal intelligence, what seems to be the more beautiful possibility? Up to you to live in an ugly world …

The somewhat incongruous proof of cynicpad looks something like: people say that students are lazy, don’t go to their lessons and get through exams by copying, as the essence of ’student’ is contrary to that, students are none. Is it a proof?