A Quote by Brandon Sanderson

My dear, did you just try to prove the existence of God with your cleavage? — © Brandon Sanderson
My dear, did you just try to prove the existence of God with your cleavage?
That's funny because if anyone actually did prove the existence of God we'd just tell him 'nice proof, Fraa Bly' and start believing in God.
My feeling, of course, is that it's ludicrous to try to prove God's existence by science. God has nothing to do with science. God has all to do with soul, and who can explain that?
There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the Homeric god. I cannot prove that either the Christian god or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious consideration.
When you're a young player, you try to prove yourself with your numbers and you try to prove your worth to the team. That can be an adverse situation because you can try to do too much.
They tell me: 'OK, this is where we're going to push up your cleavage,' and I'm like, 'What cleavage?'
I didn't want to go out there and prove to everyone or try to prove people wrong or what I can do. I just wanted to play my best, and, if I'm gassing at the end of the game, then that means I did a good job.
If the bible proves the existence of God, then Action Comics prove the existence of Superman.
God is Godless. God is an idea that we have, another construct, a prop, which doesn't suggest that God doesn't exist. God is existence. But your idea of God and existence are two different things at the moment.
Historical refutation as the definitive refutation.- In former times, one sought to prove that there is no God - today one indicates how the belief that there is a God arose and how this belief acquired its weight and importance: a counter-proof that there is no God thereby becomes superfluous.- When in former times one had refuted the 'proofs of the existence of God' put forward, there always remained the doubt whether better proofs might not be adduced than those just refuted: in those days atheists did not know how to make a clean sweep.
One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradict ory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of nonexistence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness .)
The only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything.
Reason can never prove the existence of God.
The very impossibility in which I find myself to prove that God is not, discloses to me His existence. [Fr., L'impossibilite ou je suis de prouver que Dieu n'est pas, me decouvre son existence.]
There is no scientific way to validate anything that I or you can say about the soul because science cannot validate the existence of the soul any more that it can prove the existence of God.
How could it occur to anyone to demonstrate that God exists unless one has already allowed Himself to ignore Him? A king's existence is demonstrated by way of subjection and submissiveness. Do you want to try and demonstrate that the king exists? Will you do so by offering a string of proofs, a series of arguments? No. If you are serious, you will demonstrate the king's existence by your submission, by the way you live. And so it is with demonstrating God's existence. It is accomplished not by proofs but by worship. Any other way is but a thinker's pious bungling.
A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!