^^

traditional knowledge requires disproving, not approval in itself.

heres proof that the universe is finite btw

cosmic background radiation

one big oval-y boi

Mhm

definite proof

The "`prove God does/doesn't exist then`" argument is pointless since neither side can really prove nor disprove his existence.

IF we cant get a fucking spacecraft to jupiter

In the OBSERVABAL UNIVERSE LOL

how the fuck did you get a picture of the entire universe

precisely mine

We can only see a small part of the Universe

the difference is that he took on the challenge to prove he's not real

We do this in physics.

For fuck sake.

yet cannot do that

because it is impossible to say a definite pro or con

so you cant prove he exists? So why assume he does? Its more illogical to say this all powerful being with a specific moral is real than to say he isnt

you can't quite prove he doesn't exist either, speaker

Actually it's more illogical to say that he doesn't exist.

:/

Because the difference is,

our theory has proof,

proof being God,

your scientific theory,

actually leaves holes

which can be filled by God.

:/

the proof of god is god?

wait

slow down lmfao

still yet to prove that god isn't real

It is slightly more reasonable to assume that at least *something* created the Universe, rather than the Universe just spawning out of nowhere.

^

holes which can be filled with random assumptions

"i dont know, therefor god"

implying you aren't making random assumptions

Better to think something, than nothing.

Lol

"nothing created anti-matter and matter"