Okay. The Bible SUCKS!

[Guest]

So your saying Man invented god?

 

[Guest]

Black is the absence of color, and white is the combonation of all colors. The way it works its this: When we see color, we're actually seeing the light that is reflected off of it. If something is blue, it will absorbe all colors except blue. The blue is reflected, and so that's what we see. If you combine all colors, everything is reflected, and we see white, which is what you get when you have an equal mix of all colors. If you have no colors, everything is absorbed, nothing is reflected, and so we see black.

 

[Roscoe]

In subtractive color theory, you use color to make black. In the printing world, when you create something that is black, you use "rich black", which is a mixture of CMYK, not just K.

Actually - you can use just K to create a black it will just look terrible. I have some pieces in my portfolio from about 13 years ago to prove it! lol

 

[Budner]

"So your saying Man invented god?"

There's no question about that.

Grag and Uluk are sitting 'round the campfire. Suddenly lightening strikes, thunder rolls. Grag and Uluk are scared and do not yet understand what makes weather. So they ascribe these terrors to a superpowerful being. This theory develops, evolves, and is perverted over time and eventually man begins to write. Religious folks compile a bunch of made-up stories, call it the "Bible" (not knowing it would become a best-seller) or the "Koran" or the "Baghvad-gita" or the "Teachings of Buddha" or the (insert name of your religion's fictional holy book here "_______"). Then those books and their related teachings are used to do all sorts of good and evil things:

1) heal wrongs
2) teach morals
3) start wars
4) justify genocide
5) steal from the ignorant
6) create community
7) build and destroy governments

Religion can be a great thing but you're kidding yourself if you think god exists anywhere except in your mind.

 

[Guest]

Man also invented Science and Mathematics, does that make them any less true?

 

[Guest]

Well Said.

 

[Guest]

Wrong. Man did not invent science and math, he discovered them. There's a difference.

 

[Guest]

Man also creates movies.. not everyone of those are true.

 

[Budner]

"Man also invented Science and Mathematics, does that make them any less true?"

Those things were discovered, like fire. They exist in the universe as objective truths. Math anyway. Science is less objective and some science is real, some B.S.

Math, real. God, not real. Simple.

 

[Guest]

While I (mostly) agree with what you said, I don't think buddhism belongs on that list. Buddhism is vastly different from christianity and it's ilk in that it has no supreme being, and much less dogmatic BS. Buddhism isn't overly complicated, it's simply about achieving enlightenment through meditation and leading a good, simple life. Of all the religions I've looked at, I like buddhism the best, in that I think it makes the most sense.

 

[Guest]

No, all science is real. If it's BS, then it's not actually science.

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Wrong. Man did not invent science and math, he discovered them. There's a difference. </font color=blue>

You're correct there is... But then wouldn't the Religions of the world say god always existed? And man 'discovered' him/her when man was ready to accept his/her presence?

Edited to be politically correct in wording

 

[Guest]

Good point, although it wouldn't work. Math and science can be proven (math at least, science is more failible), whereas you can find mistakes and loopholes in any religion.

 

[Guest]

Unfortunately mathematics and science have laws and principles that can be proven, whereas there is not one single shred of proof that any "supreme being" exists.

 

[Guest]

I have to go shortly so I won't be able to continue this further until tonight, but there is one truth in Science or Math.

Something cannot come from nothing. So, where did we come from? I'll keep asking that until someone says it 'just is'.

Then I'll say 'so is god'

Blind faith works in both directions. Science, and Religion.

 

[Guest]

Ah ha, but I can answer that question! But not now, as I don't have time. So tune in to the 9:00 show for the answer!

 

[Guest]

Of course you can, I'll be back in about 6 hours.

 

[Guest]

If I have nothing in my bank account, and I go cash a check for $15 at the local market, I get $15 from nothing!

Anyway, it's not a valid argument. If nothing comes from nothing, then where did God come from?

 

[Roscoe]

You're now placing God in context of a space-time continuum when he is beyond that.

 

[Lady from Hell]

<blockquote><hr>

I'm a Christian. Born and raised. I have a healthy mistrust of anything we humans do. This is why I'll use the Bible as a guideline, but that's about it.

Children's minds are being poisoned right and left by the so called "teachings" of this book.

For centuries it has been the source of death and destruction.

Today, people use the Bible to oppress people.

If the Bible were tossed out today, society would begin to grow in ways it has never imagined.

Without the restraints that bind us to our illegitimate beliefs, we could be an awesome species.

Maybe the Bible is just a test. Maybe God's true test is to see that we learn to rise above these types of restrictions, and become who we need to be.


<hr></blockquote>

Bet Lucifer used something similar to this with his fellow angels.

 

[Wisty]

<blockquote><hr>

LC, you're talking two different types of color theory though.

In addative color theory, like your monitor or TV, you're sort of correct. Black isn't really the absence of color, it's, in this case, the abesense of light.

In subtractive color theory, you use color to make black. In the printing world, when you create something that is black, you use "rich black", which is a mixture of CMYK, not just K.

<hr></blockquote>

Isn't that what I said, minus the technical names, but which L.C. and Dev said I was wrong?? Though Dev did explain about the various waves of different colors, reflection and whatnot. One day I need to get a book or a good url and study from scratch -- then I can unstick myself, and finally learn everything is not black and white, nor grey, or purple, green, blue...morning, noon, night... umm... hmmm... *sigh* It sucks being stupid. Heh

 

[Guest]

This thread reminded me of something dave barry wrote called "God needs the money". Here's part of it:

Here are three types of people you should not trust:
People who tell you God told them to tell you to send them money. You know the guys I mean. They get on television and say: "God told me He want's you to send me some money, say $100, or even just $10, if that's all you can afford, but in all honesty I must point out that God is less likely to give you some horrible disease if your gift is in the $100 range."
The theory here seems to be that God talks only to the guys on television. I always thought that if God needed money all that badly, He would get in touch with us directly.
My wife gets a lot of letters from people who say God told them to tell her to send them money. She got a great one recently from Brother Leroy Jenkins, who is evidently one of the people God geos to when He needs a lot of money. Leroy is very straitforward:
The Lord spoke to me to have you send a one-time large gift. Will you send me $1,000, $500, or $100, or even $5,000 . . . If you are not able to send all of the $1,000, $500, $100, or $5,000 now, send as much as you can, and make a vow to the Lord that you will send an offering of $20 (or at lease $10) each month.
Notice you make the vow to the Lord, but you send the money to Leroy. Leroy doesn't specify what he plans to do with it, but he does tell you to send it to him at the Walden Correctional Institution in South Carolina, where he is serving a twelve-year term for cirminal conspiracy. I imagine God advised him to get a good lawyer.

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;If I have nothing in my bank account, and I go cash a check for $15 at the local market, I get $15 from nothing! </font color=blue>

Your signature and writing made that piece of paper called a check worth $15. You are still paying that $15, just in another form. Where I'm from that $15 check would end up being $30 because of stupidity.

But you're right, I should have taken that further for people who don't get the general idea of what the statement was supposed to mean.

Tangible objects cannot come from nothing. No, we'll take that even further for you to make sure you get the point.

Anything that has mass cannot come from nothing.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Anyway, it's not a valid argument. If nothing comes from nothing, then where did God come from? </font color=blue>

If you do not believe in god you would have to explain where we began, you might say with the big bang... I would ask, "What went 'bang'?" According the the laws of science, something went 'bang'... Where did that come from?
Blind faith that it was always there? Science cannot explain it.

God, is supernatural.

su·per·nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.


That means God is outside science, I couldn't explain it to you if I wanted to. Blind faith that he has always been there.

 

[Guest]

Ok. Let's get into this. *cracks knuckles*


Here's where everything came from (I assume you're talking about the universe and whatnot): This deals mostly with quantum physics and theory. There are quantum quirks called vacuum fluctuations, in which, in a pure vacuum, things can randomly pop into existence, and then usually disappear very quickly. Usually 1 x 10^-21 seconds later. Most likely, the things that pop into existence are pairs of subatomic particles, a positive and a negitive, so conservation laws aren't violated. However, theory holds that literally anything can pop into existence, such as a dog, or house, or whatever. However, the more complex the item, the less likely it is to happen. Anyway, the predominant theory is that before the universe was around, one of these vacuum fluctuations was a false vacuum, which is a strange form of matter predicted to exist by several partical theorists. A false vacuum is charactorized by a repulsive gravatational field, which is so strong it can explode into a universe. Another property of a false vacuum is that it does not "thin out" during expansion as, say, a gas does. The density of the energy within it remains constant even as it grows. So the false vacuum's expansion, which was accelerating exponentially as its repulsive force compounded, actually created extreme quantities of ever-doubling energy, which decayed into a seething plasma of particles such as electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. The electrons, positrons, and neutrinos neutralized to form simple atoms, which were ripped apart and crushed together to form complex, heavier atoms inside atoms, and the rest, as they say, is history. And what about the law of conservation of energy that you metioned? Well, according to Einstien, the energy of a gravatational field is negative, and the energy of matter is positive. Therefore, all the matter of in the universe, the negative gravitational energy and the positive matter energy could add up to 0. This is more than theory, too. Observations are consistent with the idea, and calculations totaling up all the matter and all the gravity in the observable universe indicate that the two values seem to be precisely counterbalanced. All matter plus all gravity equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, essentially, nothing. You can check me here. Oh, and it's the april '02 issue, cover story. "Guth's Grand Guess"

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Anything that has mass cannot come from nothing.

<hr></blockquote>This isn't right. You need to bone up on your quantum physics/theory. They're called vacuum fluctuations, which I just explained.

 

[Guest]

ROFL, key words quantum physics and theory

They are theories, unproven. You can't use unproven science to prove science. Its a oxymoron.

And its quark, not quirk or whatever you said. They are also looking into sub-quarks, the things that make up quarks, they are of course unproven. But something has to make them up./php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

No, I meant quirk. I wasn't talking about quarks, I meant quirk, as in an odd little thing that happens. You should read the full article. Yes, it's just theory. But you would be surprised how much of "science" is theory. This is the most powerful theory there is right now, it has vanquished every other theory out there, and makes the most sense. Also, all avalible data that we have right now agrees with and supports this theory.

 

[Guest]

Oh, and btw, using unproven science to prove science isn't an oxymoron.

 

[Guest]

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. So don't make it sound like this is some crazy nonsese I just made up off the top of my head.

 

[Baker|NV]

/php-bin/shared/images/icons/biglaugh.gif

I'm sorry, but all this from the person who's asked for proofs of pool ball collisions and basic trigonometry for your mom? /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

Actually Worm is mostly right here, with the exception of a few details which won't make a difference to the average reader anyway.

Things can pop in and out of exhistence from vacuum. Basically it has to do with the uncertainty principle. Energy conservation can be violated over a period of time inversely proportional to the amount of energy violation. So say two particles can pop into existence for a short period of time, however they annihilate one another once that time has expired under most circumstances.

 

[Guest]

HEY! That was my dad! And they're two different fields. Anyway, It's not the fact that they're destroyed that allows them to "violate" conservation of energy laws, it's the fact that it's one positive, one negative. I suggest you read the article, it goes much more in depth.

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

HEY! That was my dad! And they're two different fields. Anyway, It's not the fact that they're destroyed that allows them to "violate" conservation of energy laws, it's the fact that it's one positive, one negative. I suggest you read the article, it goes much more in depth.

<hr></blockquote>
No... First "one's positive and one's negative" is a misleading statement. The two particles don't have to necessarily have a quantity associated with them that would need to be conserved. If say, an electron, however were to be created a positron would also have to be created. This would be due to the conservation of charge, however, not energy. Basically you have to have a particle and an antiparticle, but "positive" and "negative" imply charge which isn't necessarily the case.

To create two particles from vacuum does violate conservation of energy. Basically because any mass created has an associated potential energy because of Einstein's relativity. Like I said, however, energy conservation can be violated over short time periods (dependent on mass of particles produced) because of the uncertainty principles, namely:

^E^t &gt; h/2 (I've used ^ instead of the customary delta, which means change in the value and h instead of h-bar, which is a constant)

I could get into the uncertainty principles, but I dunno if that may be too involved for the God thread. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

If you say so, I'm just going by what the article said.

 

[Guest]

/php-bin/shared/images/icons/laugh.gif

It doesn't really matter, everything is made up of something. This is dancing around what I was originally saying. Science has yet to classify what it is that makes everything up, or how it is made. So things seem to pop in and out of existence, as we perceive it, but until we know how that happens its unproven theory. Until it does so god is just as a reliable a explanation as anything else.

Edit: And just to add some irony to this subject there is such thing as "Cristian Science"/php-bin/shared/images/icons/laugh.gif

 

[Guest]

Ah, no. You said that you wanted to know where everything came from. I just explained it. And just because it's unproven, doesn't make it something you can just disregard. It's a theory. Did you read the definition of theory? It's not just some random thing some guy thought up. It has a scientific basis.

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Ah, no. You said that you wanted to know where everything came from. I just explained it. </font color=blue>

Really? I missed it. Where did everything come from?

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt; And just because it's unproven, doesn't make it something you can just disregard. It's a theory.</font color=blue>

God is a theory, just because it can't prove it doesn't mean you can disregard it. Its a theory.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;It's not just some random thing some guy thought up. It has a scientific basis. </font color=blue>

It still has yet to explain the origins of life. Was it always so? Everything just was?/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

Ok. Let's get into this. *cracks knuckles*/php-bin/shared/images/icons/biggrin.gif

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;However, theory holds that literally anything can pop into existence, such as a dog, or house, or whatever. </font color=blue>

An seemingly omnipotent being with the ability to transcend space and time to effect the growth of a species? Otherwise known as God?

I love the irony/php-bin/shared/images/icons/biglaugh.gif

 

[Moonglum]

Im partial to the theory that:

In an infinite universe, extending forever in all directions, that everything, no matter how improbable, must exist somewhere in the universe.

 

[Guest]

It would have to going by worms theory. Everything would exist sooner or later going by the laws of probability.

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>...most common one being the King James version...</font color=blue>

<font color=blue>Im sure that the translations of one of the oldest texts on earth was not just translated in a halfa$$ fashion.</font color=blue>


If the following can be trusted, then indeed -- it was not.<blockquote><hr>

The language of light

King James I wanted a Bible that would unite his fractured realm. A new book recounts how this great work was made

NO BOOK has influenced English as profoundly as the King James Bible of 1611. Its phrases and rhythms have been as vital to the growth of the language as blood to the body. Even in the age of text-messaging and e-mail, its sonorities speak to mind and heart with a vigorous immediacy that takes the breath away.

As Adam Nicolson points out in his engaging and moving account, this was not ordinary English even when it was written. William Tyndale in the 1520s hoped that ploughboys would read his Bible, and Martin Luther in the 1530s wanted the gospels written in a language that butchers and cobblers could understand. But the King James was composed in an English that had never been spoken in the street. This was the language of deliberate godliness, yet grounded in easy words and simple things: able to swoop in one verse from the sublimity of the eternal to the clumsiness of a fisherman jumping from a boat.

There was a political purpose in this. James I, baptised a Catholic but brought up by Scottish Presbyterians, dreamed of bridging in this Bible his kingdom's religious divides. The translators were drawn both from the established Church of England, episcopal and ceremonious, and from among the Puritans, fiercely iconoclastic spirits who wanted no truck with crosses, candles or genuflections, to bishop or to king. The Puritan impulse, to let in light and to live by the Word alone, had to co-exist with the murkier sumptuousness of the Jacobean church-court elite. Clearly James himself leaned to the episcopal side; but his Bible was intended first of all as an irenicon, a thing of peace.

Very little is known about how it was made. The men were grouped into six teams, or “companies”, and were based at Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster. The translated text was written in the left-hand column only of a large ledger, the right-hand kept blank for comments and improvements. In this fashion, working more like a team of accountants than the devisers of a national treasure, the translators painstakingly put the new text together.

Their lives, too, are scarcely recorded, though Mr Nicolson reconstructs a few of them to marvellous effect. We now know that Laurence Chaderton, a Puritan who translated the “Song of Songs”, may have been moved by memories of the lovely boy he had wished to “embosom” as a student at Cambridge; and that among the translators of Genesis was a man who had been to the West Indies, colouring his descriptions of Eden with memories of the parrots and forests of Dominica.

One translator, Samuel Ward, left a diary. It was not of his labours on the Bible, but of his struggles with sin. As a Puritan fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge, he was bound to a regime of sermons and chapel-going. But his thoughts wandered rather to adultery and gluttony. “My longing after damsens”, he wrote in his diary on August 8th 1596. “...Oh that I could so long after Godes graces.” As he worked on God's word, his mind was tormented by sweet surfeits of plums and pears.

A mere 39 pages survive of one team's arguments over language. They wondered whether God should “upbraid” someone or “twit” them, and whether the beauty of a flower should be expressed as its “goodliness and sightliness” or, far better, its “grace and fashion”. For all of them, the tiniest touches made a difference. The Calvinist Geneva Bible of the 1550s had rendered the second verse of Genesis:

And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters.

King James's translators gave it thus:

And the earth was without form, and void, and the darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The comma after “form” and the colon after “deep” both heighten the drama of the empty stage on which creation is about to occur. But the masterstroke lies in “the face of the deep” and “the face of the waters”, phrases by which the almost human elements appear to be responding to the touch of God.

When the newly translated texts arrived, each team would sit and listen as the words were read to them. Their child-like attention was vitally important. This Bible was meant, above all, to be read out and heard; euphony, its governing principle, is also the secret of its abiding power. [my emphasis]

<hr></blockquote>

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Really? I missed it. Where did everything come from?

<hr></blockquote> A small piece of a false vacuum that came into existence through a vacuum fluctuation. <blockquote><hr>

God is a theory, just because it can't prove it doesn't mean you can disregard it. Its a theory.

<hr></blockquote> No, god is not a theory. God is simply something humans made up to explain the things that they couldn't. Please, go reread the definition of theory. I assure you god does not fit, if only becuase theory refers to science, which god is not. And as to where life came from? I don't know. But that doesn't mean God did it. You can't take everything science can't explain and say, "See? If science can't explain it, God must have done it!". Our science isn't perfect. But we continue to refine it. So far it's the system that works the best.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I work in an elementary school, and *your* tax dollars go directly to my imposing my liberal mindedness on your future leaders

<hr></blockquote>

one more reason public schools should be privatized and the teachers union should be dismantled...la

 

[Guest]

I agree about the teachers union, but not the privatization. And once again. . . I'M NOT A TEACHER!!!!

*sigh*

Y'all need to pay more attention.

 

[Guest]

First off, the little I know about current scientific theory says that a photon at rest has no mass. Once it begins moving, it attains mass, so it is possible to create something out of nothing.

What you're trying to do here is prove that God is an absolute by disproving the applicability of scientific theory.

The fact is, without proof, both God and scientific theory remain nothing more than. . .a theory.

With science, people use what they know as fact, and combine it with conjecture to form a reasonable understanding of how things work. Is it all true? Nope. Scientific theories have been disprooven time and time again.

With religion, people use information they have been told by others or the written word of strangers to form opinions. The rationale behind these opinions and beliefs is based on emotion, and their interpretation of events.

In the end, it all boils down to this:

Theories are not fact. As far as we know, anything is possible from the obvious to the surreal.

"If you eliminate everything that can be disproven, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth."

It can go either way.

And yes, I realize I just quoted a fictional person. Who knows! Maybe all of the religious people in the world are doing that too! /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

 

[GBob]

Only objects without mass can travel at the speed of light. Objects with mass must travel at slower speeds, and nothing can travel at speeds faster than the speed of light. Photons have no mass. However photons do have momentum - a little odd for something without mass. Of course we can turn light into matter but that is not exactly turning nothing into someting. It's converting energy to mass.

Added-
Oh this doesn't mean you can't create particles traveling faster than the speed of light though.

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;"If you eliminate everything that can be disproven, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth."

It can go either way.

And yes, I realize I just quoted a fictional person. Who knows! Maybe all of the religious people in the world are doing that too!</font color=blue>

Agreed/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Kalidor]

<blockquote><hr>


It would have to going by worms theory. Everything would exist sooner or later going by the laws of probability.

<hr></blockquote>
I think that this is only partially what he is trying to say.

Under the assumption that the universe is infinite and the basic axiom of physics is that everything has to follow the same rules, God has to exist. In fact everything anyone can imagine has to exist, since the inifite universe would only be finite if the human mind is excluded from being a part of the same nature phyisics is trying to describe by mathematical means. Thus the rules of logic dictate that God exists under the assumption that the universe is infinite.

Which, of course, no one can prove, as this cannot be possibly measured. After all, there is not even proof that you, or anyone else who responded here exists, since it is just a matter of how my brain interprets what the sensors of my body percieve.

That last part follows the argument that God does not exist because there is no proof. But under these assumptions Buddha, Allah, Zeus and all the others have to exist as well, just differently percepted by other cultures.

And "it" (I do not assert a gender here, since I certainly do not believe that this planet is the pinnacle of anyone's creation, considering what is going on here) indeed is above everything else, because the whole is more than the sum of its part. This principle is based on a solid foundation. I think no one here will dispute that a human (while "alive") is more than just the elements the body consists of. Any number of humans together are more than each individual, too... they are a society, which has its own dynamics. Which means, that alone by these two examples the universe has to be more than the sum of its parts.

Bottom line, to say something does not exist, simply because there is no proof (in that individual's limited perception and imagination) is as stupid as following someone else because you were told to do so and never asked why.

*edit*
Which all reminds of a quote from Werner Heisenberg (the founder of the Uncertainty Principle): "The first sip out of Nature's Cup leads to atheism, but on the bottom there is God."

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Bottom line, to say something does not exist, simply because there is no proof (in that individual's limited perception and imagination) is as stupid as following someone else because you were told to do so and never asked why. </font color=blue>

Agreed/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>Under the assumption that the universe is infinite and the basic axiom of physics is that everything has to follow the same rules, God has to exist.</font color=blue>

Hold it, hold it... Without specifying whether actual or potential infinity of the universe is assumed, are you asserting that the God had no role in *errm* causing it to exist? If so, what is God then (in relation to the universe)?

<font color=blue>In fact everything anyone can imagine has to exist, since the inifite universe would only be finite if the human mind is excluded from being a part of the same nature phyisics is trying to describe by mathematical means.</font color=blue>

Excluding mental capabilities of organism from the nature physics is trying to describe in no way affects the universe itself; or I'm simply don’t understand what you are saying; or the universe needs to be defined first...

<font color=blue>Thus the rules of logic dictate that God exists under the assumption that the universe is infinite.</font color=blue>

Forgive me for being dense, but I do not see how that follows from the assumption; in fact, exactly the opposite conclusion can be drawn, if God is a Creator. The "basic axiom of physics" seems to play no role at all...

 

[Budner]

I agree with that sentiment but only to a certain extent.

I can't PROVE that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but I'm pretty comfortable believing that he doesn't.

Whereas when I was a kid, adults swore up and down that Santa Claus existed, and I believed them, until I finally figured out that they were....well......lying. (now I do the same to my kids)

To me, God's existence is about as likely as Santa Claus' existence. Both "beings" were created by mankind, both are based on myth, both are the subject of fiction.

But Santa Claus has more TV specials. Go figure THAT out.