Proof of God btw is very simple
Nobody has ever successfully accomplished it.
backing up my friend who was told that x=y x+y=y x does not = God... For example you see male spiders being killed by female spiders. Let me explain this process. The male is helpless. He's related to the male human, who was created by God not to have any other proof about his existence other than a Godly relation to God. But the spider is taken in, is killed, and done away with. He is "sexually unfit." He is a male. It's sad really but I've thought about it a lot recently. This whole "without any proof of bigfoot, without any proof of evolution, without any proof of the skeleton that defines the missing link"-- the missing link that will never be found.
That appears to be text written by somebody with psychiatric problems. It jumps from topic to topic without continuity, simply because the writer reminds himself of ideas as he's writing. There's meaningless mathematics, something about spiders' sex lives, a hint that the writer isn't having success in his own sex life, ending with something about evolution and "the missing link". That isn't coherent thought, it's free association.
My friend knows that on the T.V. a claim was made that equations prove Gods existence for the first time or something.
Or something... An unspecified friend says that a claim was made on an unspecified TV program that unspecified "equations" somehow "prove" God's existence in some unspecified way. Wonderful. But so what? The whole assertion doesn't have any content.
Provided by a very well standing mathematician.
Who isn't named.
Proof of God is proof of God.
That's not true. Most attempted "proofs" of God simplify the concept of 'God' in various ways, so that the word is reinterpreted to mean things like 'first cause' or 'that which greater cannot be conceived'. So different "proofs" of God end up trying to demonstrate different things.
That's why it's so important in understanding attempts at pseudo-mathematical theistic "proofs" to carefully define all the variables, so as to understand the many simplifying assumptions that are being baked in.
And even if you don't accept it. You accept that there is no proof of evolution if there is a proof of anything relating to a primordial like adam and eve structure. Which is what my friend was getting to. You accept that there is a God or you don't. We do not provide no proof for our existence and live that way for no reason never recieving a beating.
You are drifting again. (adam and eve structure? beatings?) You need to try to focus your mind if you hope to make sense to other people.
Are you trying to say that you just believe in God and that's that? If so, then why all the talk about 'proofs' and 'equations'?
A theist "knows" God exists. This is the defination of a theist.
A theist
believes God exists. No matter how intensely and passionately somebody believes in something false, it won't suddenly become true knowledge. If I just believe
hard enough that Beijing is the capital of France, I won't ever truly know that it's so. But I might convince myself that I know something that I really don't.
In order to qualify as knowledge, belief needs to have plausible rational and evidencial justification as to why it's true. So what justification do theists have for believing in the existence of God? That's where the arguments with atheists always take place.