Sentences with phrase «proof is in existence»

For me, the proof is in existence, in creation.

Not exact matches

Ian Miers, Zcash founding scientist and Cornell Tech postdoc: Explaining zero knowledge proofs to people is an exercise in demonstrating their existence.

Yet the proof that it can happen is embedded in Bloomberg's very existence: It, too, was once the upstart that toppled a seemingly invincible titan.

Some projects I participated in are Proof of Existence, bitcore, and Streamium.

So they can't really understand how people can believe in something that refuses to provide concrete proof of it's existence.

We do not believe in the existence of any gods, because there is no proof.

But to my point that Atheism is a religion by definition Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith Faith: belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without proof Atheism: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

you sir are practicing a religion one that means so much to you that you use it as your online name also please show me where I call you a fool or is telling someone not to make a fool of themself the same as calling them a fool which would mean you are very religious as far as Colin he said nothing that related to the debate I was in with you... we are talking about Atheism as a religious view not debating the existence of God now look over the definitions I have shown you and please explain how Atheism does not fit into the said definitions And you claim that evolution is true so the burden of proof falls in your lap as it is the base of your religion.

I don't need to «see» Christ or proof of God's existence (although, the earth and all that is in it is evidence enough).

Now, hypothetically, if you personally maintained belief in a supreme being (one in which you had no verifiable proof of its existence, but yet what you considered ample evidence to place your faith in) and that being had communicated morality in absolute terms, would you define that morality as subjective or objective?

historical Jesus, lmfao... show me any historical evidence of jesus... let's start with his remains... they don't exist - your explanation, he rose to the heavens... historical evidence - no remains, no proof of existence (not a disproof either, just not a proof)... then let's start with other historians writing about the life of Jesus around his time or shortly after, as outside neutral observers... that doesn't exist either (not a disproof again, just not a proof)... we can go on and on... the fact is, there is not a single proving evidence of Jesus's life in an historical context... there is no existence of Jesus in a scientific context either (virgin birth... riiiiiight)... it is just written in a book, and stuck in your head... you have a right to believe in what you must... just don't base it on history or science... you believe because you do... it is your right... but try not to put reason into your faith; that's when you start sounding unreasonable, borderline crazy...

That is your first mistake because you can not provide me with a reasonable explanation for a divine creators existence) and the fact that we exist is not anymore a reason for the proof of the existence of an anthropomorphic god than it proves the existence of, in Richard Dawkins terms, the flying spaghetti monste.

Your «proof» of the existence of matter would, ultimately, be nothing more than faith in what is perceived.

It never ceases to amaze me that believers will continue to believe in the sky fairy with no facts or proof to confirm it's existence.

The proof of the Arab leaders» true attitudes is in their behavior, and their behavior to date gives us no reason to believe that they do not mean what they say when they routinely insist that the existence of «the Zionist entity» is an intolerable affront to Arab honor.

All the main ideas are covered in 18 chapters: Univocity of Being, The Trinity, The Primacy of Christ, The Uniqueness of Creation, his beautiful proof for the existence of God and two chapters giving a detailed explanation of the Immaculate Conception.

A few proofs of Gods existence that would be accepted in evidence in any court anywhere.

The proof for the existence of God is found in the Qur» an through meditation on the beauty and order of nature.

If there is truly a proof of the existence of God, why should it not be offered once for all in an irrefutable form?

When so many syntheses of thought have been shown to be too small a garment to fit a growing world of knowledge, when so many preconceptions have had to be revised in every field of knowledge, the modern man is in no sympathetic mood to listen to proofs for the existence of a personal God unless the very knowledge he has so recently acquired can be geared to the demonstration of such an Absolute.

He will not require not merely that the new knowledge be used as the foundation of the proof, but that the very spirit and atmosphere of the new knowledge enter in such a way into thedemonstration of God's existence, that the complexities and confusions of human thought engendered by the new knowledge shall be resolved in harmonious unity in the postulate of God's existence, nature, and relation to created being.

The conclusive proof of the existence and more importantly the effects of the widespread breakdown of parental responsibility (even where there were two parents) and also of the catastrophic consequences of the encouragement of lone parenting, was described in detail on the front page of The Times newspaper of Saturday August 13.

This may be partly because the moderns had some success in undermining confidence in the classic proofs by their criticism without winning any lasting confidence in their own, but the main cause is not any defect in the proofs for the existence of God, at least in the classic proofs, but the general discredit which has fallen upon all systems of thought which ante-date the last century.

B is an attempt to decide upon the details of a type of theory whose admissibility as a type has not been shown, owing to the role of the fallacy mentioned (which is implicit both in traditional proofs for God's existence and in atheistic criticisms of these proofs).

I wish God (whichever one) would email me proof of his existence... Although it would probably be put in my spam folder

I am not speaking here of so - called «proofs» for God's existence, for as I have indicated earlier, I do not believe in natural theology.

All you christian regulars who have vehemently denied the big bang and called it a lie or a plot by atheists to persecute christians or an absolute impossibility... need to slap yourselves forcefully in the face if you are now trying to say that the big bang is a proof of your god's existence.

What a complete joke... I am still waiting for the proof please of the existence of your god... any god... from any religion... anywhere in the world.

Since God is transcendental, empirical proof does nothing in proving nor disproving the existence of God.

Please note that the scripture given was NOT offered to give proof of God's existence in even the tiniest way.

You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don't think that the existence of gods is knowable, but you don't choose to believe in one without further proof.

And the REASON they do so is because after considering the evidence, not proof but evidence, they have determined that this being revealed in scripture is by far the most plausible explanation for not only their own existence but also for that of the entire universe.

It is the problematic character of this step which makes the ontological argument unsatisfactory as a proof of God's existence although in the case of Hartshorne himself it was perhaps taken, implicitly if not explicitly, when, as he tells us, «about the age of seventeen, after reading Emerson's Essays, I made up my mind (doubtless with a somewhat hazy notion of what I was doing) to trust reason to the end» (LP viii).

And even if I am wrong in the end, and there is heaven and hell, I'd refuse to believe that a «God» (that has never shown me a proof of his / her / its existence) will simply put me in hell just because I didn't believe in him / her / it even though I lead a good life as opposed to someone that believed in God but judged others all their lives.

- «Based on what he knows at this point, Griffin [Robert Griffin, an ancient Egyptian history scholar at the University of Memphis] said he would hesitate to say the artifacts are definitive proof of the existence of Joseph in Egypt.»

How then can you believe in a God when there is absolutely ZERO proof of it's existence?

In that proof of the existence or non-existence of God in unattainable, at some point in time common sense must be factored into the equatioIn that proof of the existence or non-existence of God in unattainable, at some point in time common sense must be factored into the equatioin unattainable, at some point in time common sense must be factored into the equatioin time common sense must be factored into the equation.

The existence of an old local tradition and of families whose ancestry seems ancient and indigenous, rather than of foreign immigrant trading stock, are factors which suggest the possibility of an early evangelist in the country, but the dependence of all traditions on the Edessene Church prevents us considering those factors conclusive proof that this early evangelist was St. Thomas.

However the case for the existence of the conjectured «outline» really requires for its proof some such objective indication of its existence as would be provided by Mark following it in his narrative.

This proof the despairer thinks he himself is, and that is what he wills to be, therefore he wills to be himself, himself with his torment, in order with this torment to protest against the whole of existence.

Names in books are not proof of existence.

Descartes» certainty in his own existence was determined before he undertook the task of discovering a proof for the existence of God: «Since I am but a substance that thinks» (39).

Perhaps, though, the biblical character of Jesus, rather than being entirely mythical, was based on one of many Jewish messiah claimants who had followers who euhemerized his life to a greater extent than those of other such claimants, so that in time the stories were so embellished that he became a god in them, but the Tesimonium Flavianum is hardly proof of his existence.

In fact, NO WHERE in the bible is definitive proof of the existence of God EVER shown to obviate a person's faitIn fact, NO WHERE in the bible is definitive proof of the existence of God EVER shown to obviate a person's faitin the bible is definitive proof of the existence of God EVER shown to obviate a person's faith.

For metaphysics, God is not the first member of a causal series, almost arbitrarily the first, «behind» which there is nothing more, simply because it is impossible to go back ad infinitum (as is often represented in the proofs of God's existence as these are popularly expounded).

It's alright for you to be so cynical with proof, but a theory and discredit the proof of God's existence even in the things you can see with your eye.

I intuitively sense an Immanent, Benevolent Presence in my life; but, of course spiritual experience is a subjective matter dependent on many factors — temperamental tendencies that are genetically predisposed (not determined) and personal experiences, so I am not claiming my experience is any sort of empirical «proof» for the existence of God that should convince others.

The best proof of existence this god has is a compilation of old stories, some of them fantastic in nature, but no more so than in any mythology.

In contrast, I believe there is overwhelming proof of God's existence!

Still others try to use the regularities of nature as proof of the existence of God, and argue that the evidence of purpose and design in the universe has been increased by modern knowledge.