No.
Wow James, how can you say that?
God totally eists.
No he doesn’t. Otherwise there wouldn’t be enough eisticity to go around.
No man, where do you think all the eisticity comes from? It is the inevitable result of concordant forces working in prolonged dissolution of the inexhaustible eist of a non-temporal, trans-existential God in a matrix of continuing dimensional formation and destruction.
I can say with 100% certainty for once; God does not eist!
a better question to ask may be:
Assuming the eistance of dog… did it create spelling for good, or evil…?
And if inded it wuz teh later rather tham thi fromer - dos this not cats doubt on de hole busyness of absolut write and wronginess…?
I love İLP. 
I eist you guys right to death.
This just proves that you eistists have waaaaaay too much time on your hands.
JT
G-d does exist in one’s mind. God is not a physical being but is a spiritual
conception. We are not created in God’s image physically but God is created in our image spiritually. All beings are free to believe in and practice worship of God as we see fit. All religous groups are banded together to do go or “Do unto others as we would have others do unto us”.
Pat Robertson is quoted as saying about all non -Evangelical Cjurches “I can love them but I don’t have to like them”. This statement, in and of itself, is contrary to God’s teachings wheter that God be a spiritual God or a physical God or whether one is agnostic or an atheist. The attitude of the Religioud Right is “do as I say” or I will take my bat and ball and go home". EVERYONE IS FREE TO WORSHIP AS THEY PLEASE BUT NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS. THAT IS WHY SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE H AS TO BE THE LAW OF THE LAND. THE UNITED STATES IS NOT NOW NOR EVER WAS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY BUT ALWAYS WAS A RELIOUS COUNTRY. A RELIIOUS COUNTRY IS ALL INCLUSUVE. A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY IS EXCLUSICE.
RELIGIOM AND WORSHIP IS FOR THE HOME, THE PROROCHIAL SCHOOLS, AND THE CHURCH TO TEACH. THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS WERE NEVER MEANT TO TEACH RELIGION PER SE BUT WERE MEANT TO TEACH RESPECT FOR ALL RELIGIONS.[/b]
God eists all the time, how can you even deny it? “He” eists here, and eists there. I once saw god eisting. “He” was all like ‘yo douche, I’m trying to eist here, go away before I smite your bitch ass’
What a greedy eister. “He” could at least shared some of the eist wealth.
RELIIOUS… RELIGIOM… RELIOUS… Religioud…
Yay… RELIGION !!!
And so, once more, did good spelling finally triumph over evil…
- Please Leonard - tell us this is some kind of socio-psychological experimental post to test ilp responses to bizzarenessnessness…
Which God?
Can you see my difficulties?
Homo Mysticus
But if spelling has triumphed over evil, what good is diction? 
[Crosses himself hurriedy - rolls eyes in a cow like expression of terror]
Hush child, the Lord hath decreed diction to be the Devil’s work.
Pax Vobiscum…
I have no response to that except remind you that crossing yourself won’t protect you from the English teacher (who is, of course, an agent of the DEVIL 
)
I can’t be sure… but i suspect that my teacher WAS the devil!!! 
“please allow me to introduce myself, I’m a man of wealth and taste…”
-Imp
I like how C.S. Lewis put it:
In order for one to prove there IS no God, that would mean one would have to know EVERYTHING about the universe. And if one WAS omniscient, then that would make him God.
You are obligated to prove that god exists. I am not obligated to prove that he/it/she does not. Lewis is using the classical circular argument. Silly! God exist because the bible says so and the bible is the word of god. Same dumb approach.
Can you see my difficulties?
Homo Mysticus