[QUOTE=chalsall;368673]I asked you.[/QUOTE]

And I answered you.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;368696]And I answered you.[/QUOTE]

You didn't, actually.

You told me to read and/or learn more, which seems to be your "modus operandi"...

And I've read Heinlein's [i]Stranger in a Strange Land[/i] (although, admittedly more that thirty years ago).

I asked you if you could, personally, prove, or disprove, that god(s) exist, or do not exist.

In my mind, you have not yet answered.

[QUOTE=chalsall;368708]You didn't, actually.

You told me to read and/or learn more, which seems to be your "modus operandi"...

And I've read Heinlein's [i]Stranger in a Strange Land[/i] (although, admittedly more that thirty years ago).

I asked you if you could, personally, prove, or disprove, that god(s) exist, or do not exist.

In my mind, you have not yet answered.[/QUOTE]

I gave you an answer. I gave a reference.

The answer to your vacuous question is obvious to anyone with
two working brain cells.

[QUOTE=davar55;368675]My definition of a "REAL" "God" includes, by necessity, the
phrase "imaginary being" somewhere within it.[/QUOTE]
Game over.

You appear to have defined the non-existence of GOD, not argued against it. In your logical model, ~GOD is an axiom. Your model is not a scientific theory / hypothesis as it has been set up specifically to be unfalsifiable by observation or experiment.

In making the above observation I have assumed that definitions such as "God is not an imaginary being but a concept which encapsulates awe". Please correct me my assumption is incorrect and that the definition given immediately above is compatible with yours.

There are a number of other widely held definitions, some of which are amenable to scientific inquiry.

[QUOTE=davar55;368675] Only a believer would object to my definition, [/quote]

We disagree, profoundly, unless by "believer" you mean someone who believes in the effectiveness of the scientific method. Your definition has already eliminated them from your challenge.

[QUOTE=davar55;368675]and in respect of
the believer (but not the belief) I wouldn't attempt my
proof with them, only with an agnostic who isn't sure or
another atheist who disbelieves but has no proof to
support his/her belief.[/QUOTE]I see no evidence for the existence of a number of concepts encapsulated by the term "God". I see plenty of evidence for the truth or likelihood of other concepts. Does that make me a believer, an agnostic or an atheist? (Rhetorical question --- you've already assigned the label "believer" to me because I believe in the scientific method.)

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;368709]The answer to your vacuous question is obvious to anyone with two working brain cells.[/QUOTE]

Assume I only have one working brain cell...

What are the answers?

Can't answer, can you....

[QUOTE=chalsall;368711]Assume I only have one working brain cell...

What are the answers?

Can't answer, can you....[/QUOTE]

I suggest that you stop trying to taunt me into a reply you like.
It is rude and obnoxious. Discussions regarding "proof" of the existence
or non-existence of "god" are pointless. And the answer [b]is[/b] obvious.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;368712]And the answer [b]is[/b] obvious.[/QUOTE]

If it is so obvious, why will you not share it?

[QUOTE]And I've read Heinlein's [i]Stranger in a Strange Land[/i] (although, admittedly more that thirty years ago).[/QUOTE]For those of you who have read it, do you prefer the 1961 cut version or the 1991 uncut version?

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;368725]For those of you who have read it, do you prefer the 1961 cut version or the 1991 uncut version?[/QUOTE]

I have both. I most recently read the "uncut" version. But without a corresponding read of the "cut" version, I can't really form an opinion. It has been too long since I read the latter.

Even now, I cut Heinlein some slack. This is in spite of the realization in adulthood that my pre- and pubescent obsession with his work was a bit misguided. He told good tales in spite of being a militaristic, sexist, homophobic, authoritarian a-hole.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;368725]For those of you who have read it, do you prefer the 1961 cut version or the 1991 uncut version?[/QUOTE]

I don't know which version I read, so can't render an opinion.

I will concur, however, with kladner that later in life I also realized that Heinlein should be taken with a "grain of salt". Good story teller, but biased (as we all are).

In my youth I was in awe of Asimov's works. I devoured his fiction and non-fiction.

I'm also a big fan of Dan Simmons, although I found his [i]Flashback[/i] to be a complete waste of time; racist and right-wing opinionated, with a "fairy-tale" ending. [i]Drood[/i] was also disappointing, and not worth the effort.

I have found that Neal Stephenson's work has gotten better over the years, although he writes so prolifically that sometimes you just want to press the "fast-forward-button". [i]reamde[/i] did not need to be 1,044 pages of small type.

[QUOTE=xilman;368710]Game over.
[/QUOTE]

Game not even begun.

I wasn't giving a proof of the fact of non-existence of "God".
I was excluding the necessity of even trying to prove that fact
to someone who believes in "God"'s existence. It is very
difficult, maybe impossible, to divorce someone from their
irrational belief or beliefs. I addressed my discussion in this
thread (all of it, not just that post) to the atheist who knows
there is no "God" but can't prove it, or to the agnostics who
think no such proof of non-existence of "God" can ever be made.

My definition of "God" begins as it does not to provide a purely
logical axiom-based proof, but to prescribe a "challenge" proof.
A believer (meaning, in "God") will not be the least bitt interested
in such a proof, and I would not address it to a believer.

Disproof of "God" can be accomplished, with either ease or
difficulty depending on the beliefs of your recipient. There's
no point in trying to convert or convince the unconvinceable.
And someone who denies the basic "God is an imaginary being"
part of its definition is either unconvinceable or being humorous.