Quote:

It's not that I'm unhappy with your answer; its just that it's not an answer at all!!


It is an answer, but obviously you don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Quote:

(x)(y)(R(x) & R(y) --> x=y)



This is nonsense; worse, nonsense wrapped in logical symbols.


It makes perfectly sense if you understand logic. (x)(y) stands for "for all x and for all y".

Quote:

Assuming a syntax error, then it’s the same: how does a Boolean AND lead to x=y? You are doing the same thing you did in your first proof and offering no concrete evidence that x=y.


Of course I don't. As I have told you, this is my axiom. From my axiom together with yours, it is simple to prove that there is one and only one god. As I have already said, if you add other axioms, you may show that there are several gods or no god at all. You talk about proofs, but you don't like me to talk about logic which is the mother of proof theory. Why is that?

Quote:

Tell you what, how about we stick to my original post and rely on scientific proof based on that axiom from now on, shall we?


There is no such thing as a scientific proof. Science doesn't do proofs; logic and math do proofs, but in order to have something meaningful to prove you need more than your "god exists" axiom. You may like it or not, but this is the case anyway.