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"

there have been more holes in the past we thought to be god, that are now solved with science

*but how do you prove that?*

Mate, disproving specific traditional beliefs, does not eliminate God.

Lol

i think you misunderstand me

I think the majority of us are, because you make no sense.

And you cannot form sentences correctly.

"hurr durr u can't see God he doesn't exist, u can't compare to my big-brained self, simpleton, read that one book which was made by a satanist, checkmate!!!"

*Nothing formed anti-matter and matter.*

can you prove that

@SpeakerOfAmerican Hey, what parties have you been thinking of joining?

@Mavvy oh hi

i think it impossible to prove that nothing created nothing