If you assume that a=b=1=0, then you'll divide by 0^2-0(1), or 0. Dividing by 0 is impossible, so there is the fallacy of that proof.

What makes you think G-d would not create a giant universe?
Given all the reasons why I know G-d created the world, it makes more than perfect sense to me that Billions of Galaxies spread out over astronomical distances would exist in the same universe that is composed of tiny elements that are almost exactly the inverse size of those stars and distances.

There is also no reason to believe that G-d did not creat multiple universes with multiple possiblities. In fact, there is a Jewish story, that is atleast 1200 years old that claims that G-d did create many worlds before ours, although this Story is seen by most to be more of an alagory than fact.

Not to mention the use of those stars for various other activities that need to be done, and the general pricipal of Free will, concealment and enlightnment.

I'm not saying that God didn't create the universe, I'm saying that He probably wouldn't create an uncountable number of failed universes, and, if we gained the ability to measure other universes, we could see if failed universes exist.

Actually, I think it makes perfect sense for G-d to create failed universes. If only working universes existed there could be no Reward for the ones that work. For something to TRUELY Succeed, it must also have the possiblity to Fail, otherwise it just IS and there is only one thing that IS.

But it's not a possibility to fail, if he makes them like that, they just ARE failed.

What is this G-d you keep speaking of, anyway? You seem to be missing an O.

God. 'O'. Y'see?

Or have I just revealed that I am truly an ignorant fool? Drat!

It's the Jewish way of showing respect, I think, not saying the whole name. (I think. Yeah. Might be wrong.)

Something like that. I think it extends to Islam also.

your not wrong.

god means I'm talking about some higher power

God means I'm taking about a specific non existant Diety.

G-d means I'm talking about the Aiyn Sof, YHVH, The One who Is, Was, and Will-be, the Infinite one, the One that can not be described, the One that is Everything and is in Everything, my King, my Lord, my Father, my Savior, The Host of Legions, my Rock, the Powers, Our god, and a few other things I think I left out.

The very nonexistance of a failed universe would mean that it is not possible for a universe to fail, it would mean they can only suceed, and then Sucess would become meaningless.

The existance of a failed universe means that I can then compare a working universe to a failed one, see the differences, learn what is important and what is necessary, and thus further understand the Sucess of the universe that I do live in.

True perfection... something that is truely infinite and perfect, must also somehow include that which is imperfect. Existance must be met with nonExistance. The universe, is how the paradox is reconciled. However, to create you must also be able to not create. Needless to say its all very complicated and thus why I said it probabbly needs atleast 2 years of schooling. (of which I have only had 1.5)

I actually disagree fairly strongly with this whole thing that to have perfection there has to be imperfection. For one, it's quite a bad paradox. For another - who says that for something to be good it has to be recognised as being good? You can be happy without knowing why.

Its the old saying, Can G-d create a rock that He can not pick up?

How much does one truely appreciate being Alive? Have you ever been dead? Do you know what its like to be dead? How many people say they would rather be dead than be paralyzed, or they would rather be dead than suffering?

When I had braces, I wanted the doctors to just remove all my teeth and give me dentures, because surely fake teeth was better than having metal making my gums grow twice as fast. Having not known what its like to not have teeth give not give me the proper perspective on that issue.

Just look at babies and the fact that they are always sticking things in their mouths and trying to put objects on thin air, and you can better see what it means to not know of an opposite.

I feel that the paradox is only bad when you do not understand the sollution to it. Then, atleast to me, it becomes pure genious.

Okay, I followed the rest of your argument (I have to say, though, that your analogy is flawed, since for those people life is not a good thing), but what does this have to do with it? I've never heard that phrase used except as part of a logical argument to disprove the idea that a god can be omnipotent.

The power to limit yourself from being able to do something is much greater than the power to do something. Can you make yourself -unable- to pick up a bottle of soda without damaging yourself? Not that you choose not to pick it up, but that you are unable.

The reason why I brought that up, is because the question makes many assumptions about what Power means, what creation means, what rules mean, and most pertanant to this what an opposite means.

In this case the question assumes that the opposite of being all powerfull is not being able to do something. But the answer to the paradox is that not being able to do something can also be power, and its opposite would be Not not being able to do something.

Just because life may not be a good thing doesn't make death a better thing. If they truly understood what it ment to be dead, I doubt they would try to be dead instead of suffer. Just like I was very happy when someone who had dentures explained to me what it really means to not have any teeth, because then I just didn't want my braces instead of thinking it would be a good idea to knock out all my teeth.

The point being that not only do you need an opposite to perfectly have something, but you also have to first understand what its opposite is.

Another good example of this is light and sight. The opposite of light is darkness, the opposite of Sight is blindness. However, its more common than not that one becomes unable to see do to light and not do to the absence of light.

OOOO I have another point to make. Dont worry I wont spam..

There was this "extinct" fish that scientists carbondated fossils of, they claimed it belonged to the Dinosaur period. Anyway later on a Fisherman caught one in the Indian Ocean, later more were found and it was realised that they weren't extinct after all but were flourishing.

This shows that either Carbondating is seriously wrong or that evolution isnt true as why had they not evolved if they had been there since the dinosaur period?

Being a Christian I believe God put them back in the sea to disprove the scientists. Anyway say what you think.

Or it shows that the scientists made a mistake.

It has alerady been said thet carbon dating is not an effective method of dating less than old fossils.

I like that concept.

We have a method of tracking the exact date of something that is older than any human record that exists, yet it doesn't work for anything that is young enough to have a human record of it.

Is it just me, or does that sound exactly like the claims made by Kings and governemtns about thier Divine lineage?

I am not sure what this Lucy is and certainly not discrediting your information. However, the first "missing link" that I am aware of was the Piltdown man. In fact it was still in my history text books in elementary school before they finally updated them.

Piltdown Man

Lucy is the name of the oldest human skeleton found in Africa. Since then however there have been competions for which continents holds the oldest human skeleton.

I don't pretend to understand it all, but from what I know of carbon dating and half-lives of molecules, it makes sense.

Then again, belief in the Bible makes sense to some people too. So, meh, lets all believe what we want and stop the pissing contest.