Nobody has scientifically proven the existence of god.

 

We can't go against it: Audioz is my best free store

 

True but no one has scientifically disproved the existence of god either!

 

I just realised my answer to the thread question is the perfect paradox.
I implied that the word "No", in reply to something, cannot be opposed. "Do you want a cup of coffee?" - "No".
So uh, 'Yes' to the thread title, right?
Whereas of course in relation to the question in the thread title: 'No', generally there is no statement that someone will not choose to at least try and oppose.
Right?
Head hurts.

 

R2R are Godfathers.

 

I am a virgin.

 

I keep cutting my hair and it keeps growing back.
Food and water pass right through me.
Good music sounds good.
I want to be re-elected but know the majority don't so I will remove mailboxes and their ability to vote.

If we organize our ideas for progress with each other in mind and not just ourself, we all eventually progress. But we would all have to do it.

 

I am a transvestite.

 

I have a plan. It involves aliens though...

 

Ssh! Not yet!
I'm with you though.
You had me at "spit in my mouth".

 

This is a philosophical question.
Philosophy, done properly can destroy ANY claim, and therefore can make no claim.
Philosophy can call everything into question, and therefore can provide no answer to any question.

Philosophy is a good tool but it's scope is limited.

The FIRST and FOREMOST question that must be asked before engaging any other philosophical question is:
What questions MATTER?
And the philosophical answer to that may be: "NONE"
But the REAL answer (in line and compatible with reality) is "Everything, graded in proportion and relation to everything else."

 

It does until it doesn't.

 

Bad dress-sense I think, therefore Will.I.Am.

 

My nutsack is all wrinkley.

 

That would require proof, but... let's just leave it at that, I'll take your word for it.

 

The real answer to
Can you say something that no one could oppose it?"
is NO because it does not matter if something is a statement of fact and 100% correct if someone is feeling crappy and antagonistic, they'll oppose it knowing that there is no counter-argument just for the sake of being argumentative.

 

Don't worry, it will buff out

 

The examples you give are correct, but:

I mean sentences that express changes. Changes throughout history, history of everything.

We know that everything in the world is changing. The speed of some phenomena is fast and the speed of some is slow. People theorize to make these changes understandable.

The main problem is accepting or rejecting ideas. When a theory is accepted after the necessary processes, subsequent efforts to improve and change that theory stop for a long time, and next generations become accustomed to living with that theory and base their next theories on it.

How can you be sure that previous theory is always 100% correct? Some people consider the previous theory to be correct and never doubt its correctness or incorrectness in their time. They consider that theory to be correct and justify subsequent theories using that previous theory if it is not 100% possible to validate the previous theory.

 

childishly easy....... i propose that you can not describe or explain gravity.....

 

i tkinter therefore i am.. #reapernoobs x)