Proof of God

P: God
G: Reality

Assume there is no God. If there is no God, there can be no proof. If there is no proof, there can be no reality.
If there is no God, there can be no proof because you can’t prove anything without making claims. You can’t claim anything without making assumptions. Assumptions are not consistent with the nature of proof. Therefore, there can be no proof.
If there is no proof, there can be no reality. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics both show that reality is defined by perception. Since perception is defined by belief and belief is defined by proof, there can’t be adequate reality. Also, there can be no inadequate reality because reality is an absolute concept.
Since there is reality, God must exist. If there is a God, then you can make claims without making assumptions, which means there can be proof, and therefore reality. (The definition of God is Inherent Truth. This is a good definition of God because if you prove something using an inherent Truth, all of reality is derived from that Truth, which means that the Truth is omnipotent.)

Why Wikipedia rocks

Wikipedia rocks because it is easy to edit. This is not a bad thing, as some people would claim. This is a good thing because it is very up to date, and it reflects the view points of the common people, not just the "experts." Some naysayers claim that it is anonymous, but every page has a history page tracking all the changes and what computer they were made at. Some of the more frequent participants even have virtual identities. Some of the naysayers claim that it is easy to vandalize Wikipedia, but this is not always true. Some of the more frequently vandalized pages will not allow changes from anonymous or new users. If that isn't enough, several reputable news providers, including CNN, have used Wikipedia for research because it is so up to date. That is why Wikipedia rocks.

A posteriori stinks

Click on the title of the article to see a funny argument. A posteriori stinks because you can't make (a posteriori) claims without making assumptions, so therefore you can't prove anything using those claims. Thus, there is no such thing as a posteriori knowledge. Thus, a priori is the closest one can come to proof. If a priori claims can't prove something, nothing can. Perhaps there is some a priori verity from which the whole of existence is derived.

There Is No Reality

There is no reality because:
1. There is no Proof.
a. Any claim that you could use in a proof is based on assumptions.
b. You cannot prove anything without using claims.
c. Assumptions are not adequate for proof.
2. Reality is defined by Perception.
a. See Einstein's theory of Relativity.
3. There is no adequate Perception.
a. Perception is defined by belief.
b. There is no adequate belief.
i. Belief is defined by Proof.
ii. Proof is required for adequate belief.
4. Thus, because there can be no adequate Perception, there can be no adequate Reality.
a. There is no such thing as inadequate Reality.
i. Reality is an absolute concept.
Thus, there is no reality!
QED

A priori vs. A posteriori

A priori and a posteriori are terms used in epistemology to describe how parts of knowledge are derived. A priori refers to that which is reached before experience. An example of that would be "1+1=2" You do not have to have experienced the material world to be able to say that. Another classic example would be Descartes' saying "I think therefore I am." A posteriori refers to that which comes after experience. Examples of that would be "The sky is blue," or, "I have hands, feet, and a head. Therefore I am human." You can combine these two schools of thought, and you get empiricism. An example of that would be deducing p->q using a priori evidence, then using a posteriori evidence to deduce p, thus proving q. To sum up the two concepts, for those who are confused, a priori means just using logic, a posteriori means using your senses.

Teleportation

Hey, cool. Scientists apparently have teleported something. They teleported a "a macroscopic atomic object containing thousands of billions of atoms over a distance of half a meter."
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation
whadaya know? ya learn something new every day.

Victory Disease

There is an interesting idea being floated around called Victory Disease. In essence, Victory Disease means that what goes up must come down. Whenever an individual or group makes a major military victory, they can be so overcome by hubris that they consider all their adversaries to be inconsequential, which leads to some disastrous consequences. Some famous examples of this include Napoleon at Waterloo, or more recently the U.S. at 9/11. The U.S. was so full of itself after the “fall” of Communism, that it did not consider Islamic militants in the Middle East to be much of a threat.
What I will be talking about next is a concept of my own devising, and any and all comments are welcome. The U.S. used to be what one could consider “up.” However, now we are going “down.” The signs are unmistakable. China and Japan have both been making considerable leaps in the international market in recent decades, U.S. currency has less and less value when compared to other currencies, and our political structure is being weakened from within. I could expound on these topics for several more pages, but you get the idea.
So, how do we, as patriotic Americans, avoid this? Well, the only way to stop from going “down,” is to get rid of our enemies completely. The only way to do idea morally is to make them our friends. The only way to make such alliances permanent is to absorb the other nations into a single, conglomerate, world-wide nation. This step would involve many benefits to all of mankind. However, what I would like comments on is how we can do that. What can the president do to do this? What can the U.N. do to do this? etc. tell me your ideas