Proof of God vs. Odin?

[Asmodean]

1-X=X   X<> Not(X)

Can some one explain this to me?

negative x is equal to x, implying that x is zero?

x is less than, greather than? what?

Not(x)? is Not a function? Is there some kind of notation I am missing here?

I tried to decypher it above:

X=X X<> Not(X) This is either mathematical nonsense, stating that if something equals itself then it is either less or greater than something else (x=apple(s), y=elefant dung, is then x<y?), or it can be something else in which case I doubt that expression makes any more sense.

[brekfustuvluzerz]

1-X=X   X<> Not(X)

Can some one explain this to me?

negative x is equal to x, implying that x is zero?

x is less than, greather than? what?

Not(x)? is Not a function? Is there some kind of notation I am missing here?

i dont think this is supposed to be algebra, but some sort of pathetic attempt at logic symbolism. but then "not x" wouldnt be -x, it would be tilde x (i dont know how to make a tilde), the equals sign should have three lines (which cant be made on a computer) and means "if and only if", and the > means "if, then", the < has no meaning and the () usually means "in the case of" so this statement would read: "the opposite of x is true if and only if x, if x then not in the case of x." or to put it plainly "an asshole only produces shit."

messenger, if you are going to put variables in your "equation" then you must tell us what they stand for. this is pathetic.

[SSY]

here is atilde, he lives next to your return key

~

If you still have any problems with it, come here and quote this one any time you need it

Also, thanks for your help with the crypto logic there, though i fear i still don't really get the argument.

[curiosityandthecat]

here is atilde, he lives next to your return key

~

If you still have any problems with it, come here and quote this one any time you need it

[Kevin]

Oh, me! Pick me! I can prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The thing is Messenger you can't prove any god. Nor can you technically disprove anything with complete certainty.

Proof of the FSM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg

And yes, I do agree that you can't prove any god, also... For me though, the thing is that not being able to prove any god is enough for me not to believe.

[SSY]

here is atilde, he lives next to your return key

~

If you still have any problems with it, come here and quote this one any time you need it

Im guessing an english keyboard will be the cause, do you have an @ above your 2, or is it some " ?

[curiosityandthecat]

Im guessing an english keyboard will be the cause, do you have an @ above your 2, or is it some " ?

Actually, when you hold Shift and press 2 it types out all the lyrics to "Common People" by Pulp. Weird, right?

[brekfustuvluzerz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GOT IT!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[SSY]

YAY! Praise JEBUS!

[Messenger]

Not(x)? is Not a function? Is there some kind of notation I am missing here?

i dont think this is supposed to be algebra, but some sort of pathetic attempt at logic symbolism. but then "not x" wouldnt be -x, it would be tilde x (i dont know how to make a tilde), the equals sign should have three lines (which cant be made on a computer) and means "if and only if", and the > means "if, then", the < has no meaning and the () usually means "in the case of" so this statement would read: "the opposite of x is true if and only if x, if x then not in the case of x." or to put it plainly "an asshole only produces shit."

messenger, if you are going to put variables in your "equation" then you must tell us what they stand for. this is pathetic.[/quote]
As it is kind of difficult to write all those symbols in correct mathmatical forms
X means any attribute of anything
X=X   means things are consistent or are as it is in real, for example a red ball is a red ball
X<>not X means X does not equal its opposite, a red ball is not blue

This is very trivial, but I need it here, because you are going to deny that to refute God  

[Kyuuketsuki]

This is very trivial, but I need it here, because you are going to deny that to refute God  

Even if you end up with a calculation that somehow (mysteriously) proves your god you still lack the one thing you need, validatable evidence! You have none and my money is on the fact that you never will have.

Kyu

[bowmore]

As it is kind of difficult to write all those symbols in correct mathmatical forms

Well you can just use words instead of the alternative symbols that apparently only you seem to understand.
Or at least define your symbols before using them.

[curiosityandthecat]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've got bunches. Take one of mine.

[NearBr0ken]

I posed this same scenario to a theist recently.  I asked him why he believed that Jesus was God rather than Odin.  He replied "because one is right and one is wrong."  His basis for his belief system turned out to be his own belief system.  He simply refused to understand the concept of circular logic.  It's like they're memetically immune to anything outside of their religion.

[Messenger]

I posed this same scenario to a theist recently.  I asked him why he believed that Jesus was God rather than Odin.  He replied "because one is right and one is wrong."  His basis for his belief system turned out to be his own belief system.  He simply refused to understand the concept of circular logic.  It's like they're memetically immune to anything outside of their religion.

Yes, this will be circular logic
But the only god can be proved!