With no evidence of his existence.

Then I agree with you, god may only be existing in a such way that no evidence of this existence can be seen in any (going simply as symmetry requires) physical processes.

By the way, coincidence is just rare but statistically (mathematically) allowed process, no need to insert God's will here either.

• You forgot about his active role - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 21:27 UTC
  • The reason why it takes years - our brain is too weak. - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 22:02 UTC
    • Not a suitable answer - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 23:07 UTC
      • Pauli principle is a CONSEQUENCE too. - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 23:37 UTC
      • Define God here... - stormcrow - January 11, 2002 - 04:16 UTC
        • I actually did post definitions of God & you "commenteth'd not - quiet - January 11, 2002 - 19:33 UTC
          • I must have missed it - stormcrow - January 11, 2002 - 23:24 UTC
            • could take ten minutes ! -- Mike - carefuluniverse - January 12, 2002 - 03:13 UTC
              • Give me a little time to churn through this - stormcrow - January 12, 2002 - 05:09 UTC
                • Thank you. When will my pizza arrive? - carefuluniverse - January 13, 2002 - 17:38 UTC
                  • Here you go - stormcrow - January 14, 2002 - 04:40 UTC
                    • whoa - stormcrow - January 14, 2002 - 04:41 UTC
                    • So, it's an IQ problem - quiet - January 14, 2002 - 07:07 UTC
                      • Yes, probably - stormcrow - January 14, 2002 - 16:10 UTC
                        • I know no reason to try harder to win your approval - occupant - January 14, 2002 - 19:20 UTC
                          • I'm not demeaning you in any way - stormcrow - January 15, 2002 - 03:55 UTC
                            • Why not...don't I deserve to be demeaned as much as anyone? - carefuluniverse - January 15, 2002 - 06:45 UTC
                              • Probably more so - stormcrow - January 15, 2002 - 17:13 UTC
                                • why more so? - occupant - January 15, 2002 - 18:17 UTC
                                • Mario, here is the definition (Anyway Mike does not have it). - alexander - January 15, 2002 - 20:01 UTC
                                  • Isaac, Albert, Enrico, here is the definition (Alex is a ... : ) - occupant - January 15, 2002 - 21:56 UTC
                                    • I did. It says "A supreme, or ultimate reality". Math, then. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 22:46 UTC
        • Reposting that - quiet - January 11, 2002 - 19:34 UTC
      • More on the subject - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 06:16 UTC
        • Three ways ways to explain. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 20:02 UTC
          • Thank you - stormcrow - January 11, 2002 - 23:25 UTC
        • Mario, I'm afraid your missing the point - harvey1 - January 12, 2002 - 02:43 UTC
          • No doubt I am - stormcrow - January 12, 2002 - 04:50 UTC
            • Wow - carefuluniverse - January 12, 2002 - 06:22 UTC
        • re: No doubt I am - harvey1 - January 12, 2002 - 16:09 UTC
          • I'll specify - stormcrow - January 12, 2002 - 17:20 UTC
    • You don't see the bigger picture - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 02:35 UTC
      • Harvey, math governs it all, that is why. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 20:29 UTC
    • Doesn't work - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 20:52 UTC
      • All forces and laws are related. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 21:09 UTC
  • Still won't work - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 21:54 UTC
    • Harvey, try to understand simple things. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 22:26 UTC
  • Very simply - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 23:11 UTC
• No - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 22:55 UTC
  • Oops! - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 22:56 UTC