I was jumping the gun a little about the troll tag, and I apologize. On the other hand, your post really does look entirely off topic if you follow the line of the conversation. 

So you do not execute the heathen non-believers? well you are obviously not a true Christian then.

Someone please help me out regarding BobSpence1's stance on tautology and the tautology of 1+1=2. Perhaps Entomophila will have some insight, as he seems particularly interested. Or maybe Mr. Atheist if he's around. What is the Atheist's stance on this.

BobSpence's Stance...

 

This statement of 1+1=2 follows directly, deductively, logically, according to the DEFINITION of the symbols '1', '+', '=', and '2'. Can someone please define these for me. I've literally looked up the definition of them.

1 seems to mean a single item

+, I typed in plus, and it seems to mean in addition

so far, this statement of 1+1=2 could easily mean that when a single item is added to a single item, the item is no longer a single item.

=, I typed in equal, and it seems to mean the same as/ or as great as

2 seems to mean a set of this many persons or things

 

so, then, a single item in addition to a single item is the same as a set of this many single items?

 

What I really don't understand is how this is supposed to translate in other said tautologies. I don't know if you all believe this or not but some people say A=A is a tautology. But what is it that makes A=A a tautology, and A=B not? Or are they both tautologies?

 

 

Sure. You'd like to show evidence to support your preferred religious text. That's actually interesting - I'd like to see it. Please note that "evidence" does not include hurting people. I only say that because of the slightly scary "some of you are bad weeds" quote, combined with a countdown. It really does sound like a threat, so you might want to state unequivocally that you are not threatening anyone in this forum. Please.

Oh man. I think I see where you're going with this, and ... okay, fine: in the context of what mathematical school, platonists, formalists, or intuitionalists? Ultimately, "1 + 1 = 2" remains a valid statement, but there are differing perspectives as to why. So when you ask "what logically proves ...", then we get into describing the language of mathematics in terms of its necessary origins. I love math, so this can get as heavy as you like.

Mr. Atheist, Mr. Atheist... how I wish I could respond to everyone's post. But as your post *seems to suggest* that you are in dire need of a response, I will grant that to you.

 

First off, let me say that I sense a bit of obstinacy in your tone. I am going to assume that this is because I haven't met you with the opposition that you feel you deserve. In regards to your rebuttal against the atheist stance. This is precisely why people always think atheists are angry. I can't quite recall who the person with the picture of a cat shooting off some automatic gun is, but s/he posted a thread about the relationship of atheism and anger.

 

Have you ever seen the movie 'Thank you for Smoking'? Well in the movie, a Lobbyist for cigarettes accuses an activist of wanting people to die of cigarettes because they are the only ones who benefit from the death of a smoker. Well, that's the problem with Atheism. Atheism exists ONLY in contradistinction to Theism. Therefore Atheism is always, and necessarily, in opposition. The only thing atheism stands up for is a fight. As soon as Theism is gone, atheism is also gone. Thus there is no 'win' for an Atheist; there are only wars to be fought- only decadence to take place. Sure, religions are often too quick to posit. But, should the response to this be nihilism. To be an atheist is necessarily to be an instigator. But you know what, I'll allow you to oppose me. Opposition is what makes you exist Mr. Atheist. I'll be happy to afford you an existence.

 

Now I know what I'm saying right now sounds like your typical theist using propaganda to put down the atheist, but to tell you quite candidly, I feel, Mr. Atheist, that your own comments have provoked this. I didn't feel that, well, any of your claims had too much merit. I will admit, your claims required more subtle refutations as they were well put, but at the same time I don't think you had established any useful point.

 

Mr. Atheist, your opinion is accepted. My stance was barely made known to anyone before I met such resistance. The idea that there was merely a disagreement with my stance did not warrant the type of comments that were made. But this is your opinion and that is fine with me.

 

 

Mr. Atheist: 'Well, you are claiming that the 'magic man' created it'. This assertion is unwarranted.  It relies on a conception of God that you use, not me. To assert that  I am claiming the 'God of the Gaps' to have created something is unwarranted. Mr. Atheist, you have made an invalid statement. You say it is a fairly accurate thing to suggest with all theist. If you would have actually read what I said earlier, you might have seen that I said 'maybe I am the anomaly'. But you skipped over that part. Because of this, you made an invalid statement.

 

Mr. Atheist: 'As for propaganda, sort of...answers'. The other is not me. What is true about the geese is not always true about the gander. As I said perhaps I am the anomaly compared to most theists. Though you did not particularly state that I was the other, I say this to distinguish myself from any warrant of this argument.

 

Mr. Atheist: 'I also don't think that the truth is being manipulated...dogma and theistic beliefs'. Very well, the truth is not being manipulated. But concede to the fact that you have agendas other than Truth since you are trying to change future perceptions behaviors etc. And I also think you should concede the point that it is impossible to tell whether or not you all are defending Truth or if you are simply making posts out of your agenda to influence perceptions behaviors etc. But you don't have to if your agenda is to change perceptions behaviors etc. I'm not saying you do have to otherwise, I'm just saying if this is the case, you don't have to.

 

 

Mr. Atheist: you are sounding like I AM GOD AS YOU on this response. I will answer you anyway. You claim that the statement in itself SUGGESTS that if --then it gets funky--. Well, maybe it does suggest that, if I knew that the person I was talking to had read the bible. But look at what I said again,

I had no indication that ReneeObsidianwords had read the Bible. She gave me no explicit information that she read the Bible. If you had read the history of posts, you would have known this. And, unlike what is all too commonly done on this website, I try not to suggest anything from what other people say. Mr. Atheist, your criticism was based on a hypothetical situation that never was actually the case. Mr. Atheist, this criticism is also invalid. It is as phantasmic as ReneeObsidianwords responses were.

 

 

Mr. Atheist: If you read the question again you see he asks me, 'If you answered YES to any of these questions, then you must admit that the Bible has made some pretty serious mistakes'. It was an honest mistake by Entomophila. I say that it serves to show that those who are not free of sin should not cast the first stone. Mr. Atheist, there was nothing invalid with your response here.

 

Mr. Atheist: I have affirmed he is cool. I have not affirmed he is rational. Just honest.

 

prop·a·gan·da      /ˌprɒpəˈgændə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prop-uh-gan-duh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1.	information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

Mr. Atheist: this is the definition of propaganda from Dictionary.com. Now, you've already told me about the other agenda of this website. I am not going to actually answer your question on this one. I didn't write flat out 'this is propaganda', but my one word answer was meant to be a statement, a factual statement. But you decide whether or not it is propaganda.

 

 

Mr. Atheist: You say you haven't seen much content from me yet. You are right, that will come tomorrow. But I am sure from this reply, you'll not equate me to some geek off the street as I have exposed the flaws in your counterarguments. When it comes to truth, I do not relent. If the people who are participating in this thread do not like that, I strongly suggest they not read what I post on Friday. When peoples foundations are shaken, it is difficult for them to recover. I absolve myself of any and all responsibility for peoples conceptions of there world being shattered. Read at your own risk in short. This is not a threat, but a warning. To deny a witness of God is easy to do. But, to deny evidence of Him; this will be the most difficult thing for your conscience to bare. This is why a sin against the Holy Spirit is an eternal sin. It haunts you for eternity. Consider yourselves warned. We are not just talking the game of Atheists are right and Theists are wrong, or Theists are right and Atheists are wrong. We are talking about the highest form of truth. You shouldn't even consider me or yourselves as theists or atheists anymore. This is all about truth. This is not about hurting anyones feelings, not about any alterior motive. It is about one thing. That is truth.

 

Until next post...

Thanks for your post..

Yeah, when I say logic I don't mean this stuff. I just began using math because of BobSpence1 and Entomophila. I think your right in saying that this logic will not lead you to any immaterial nor material deity. And also, when I say set, I don't mean set theory. Don't even know what it is to be honest.

 

But I want to say something about my previous post. I would rather have not had to write it, but I saw it necessary. One part of the warning that I expressed has to do with the problem of authority. As anyone gets skilled at pointing out fallacies or seeing the truth, they have a sense of authority over people who are prone to folly. When it comes to having evidence of God, you simultaneously have all the authority in the world because you have the highest of evidences and you have no authority at all because you are part of a greater picture. It is the worst of binds because you have so much authority, yet so little. In a way its like taken the red pill in the Matrix - you want to know, and then when you finally find out, you can't escape it. This is not an easy thing, especially for people like us, who strive so aggressively for the truth. At the same time though, such truths are made only for people like us. So yeah just wanted to monologue on a less vindictive note.

 

Who knows if the evidence I have is true anyway. This could be all for not. But anyway, let me make sure I finish writing this proof..

 

1-24

I sorry for being so careless Ento. I'll make sure I get it right next time.

No anger, just thought it was odd that you wouldn't address my comments and then "call me out" for a response.


Wrong, it is just a different view on same issue.  There is no requirement for conflict or 'opposition' any more than there is a need for opposition between two theist sects that agree on most issues.


Atheism is not nihilism this is a common misconception and a rather grave error by my evaluation.



Are babies instigators?
Ignorance of religion is still atheism.  There is no requirement for instigation of anything but rather total avoidance is perfectly legit as well.


I have no need for opposition, but thanks for being a dick.  I made a post, you didn't respond, and then called me out asking me to answer a question I intentionally didn't answer before...who's the one instigating?



The key here is realizing how common your approach is for these forums.  You draw up a lot of attacks, which apparently are legit, because of the pattern you follow which is the same as many before you.  And since the comments were, for the most part, legit...it's hard to take issue with peoples responses.



I don't think you're an anomaly at all.  You attributed universe creation to a deity.  End of story.



I am confident in suggesting that the "truth" is that we don't know if there is a deity.  That is the truth.  There is no substantial reason to believe in a deity.  Until such time that there is evidence to support the existance of a deity than the only "truth" is that we don't have evidence for a deity.  That is the truth.



I disagree.  Your statement in itself was suggesting that any amount of bible reading that came to a different conclusion was not sufficient since the truths were there and even if we had read it extensively that our research was not sufficient since we did not find the truths that are there.

With me on this?  Perhaps the issue was just your wording.



I'll start laughing now, I'll end after reading your post.



*yawn* - show me the money.

Your comments are a dime a dozen on these forums and I can't imagine you're any smarter or have come up with any more interesting of a case than anyone else.  I'm all ears though.  Do you think your evidence is strong enough to get James Randi involved? You could score yourself a million bucks.

"1.information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc."

This is not an adeqate definition of 'propaganda':

I prefer this one:

" chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view : he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda."

which captures more of the negative connotations of the word in the way it is normally used.

"philosophical proof"?  That's what you are going to bring us tomorrow?  wtf?  Could you give us the definition of "philosophical proof"?

I am seriously excited to read about this tomorrow! 

Philosophical proof..

will it be the same as metaphysical validation?

 

Shhh, Nick, you're gonna scare him away!

phi·los·o·phy      /fɪˈlɒsəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fi-los-uh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -phies.

1.	the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

 

 

And how does a "philosophical proof" derive from that?  Can you name one single thing that has been proven with Philosophy?

I really appreciate where you're coming from. Intrinsically I disagree with some of the reasoning behind your statements (not going to mention them, I'm sure we'll have some interesting discussions on this forum).

At heart, "confrontational" and/or "militant" atheists are as vital in the long run as the moderates and the peacemakers among us. I myself divide my energies between these ends. I consider myself a militant, however. I've been called the Malcolm X of Atheism on my campus. At the same time, I'm VP of the Exec Board of my college's Secular Society, and I do not bring a sense of order and discipline to the organization, but I leave my militarism at the door when I represent the organization. On my own time, I expound on my own social theories, which I'm sure you'll encounter on this site, but my point, I guess, is that I tend to take people's online personalities with a grain of salt and I ask that they do the same of me.

Just wanted you to know, though, I appreciate where you're coming from. Things can get ugly here sometimes. Of course that's half the fun. So welcome on board, and try to have a sense of humor.

---Fulltimedefendent

Ugh...a philly cheese steak proof of good eh...yay. *groan*

 

What is to be revealed in the coming pages relies on the comprehension of this phenomenon:

                The Truth and The Infallible are at odds

 

 

There are two ways of making things evident. One can do so either by discovering or by uncovering. What is made evident from discovery is Truth. What is made evident from an uncovering is that which cannot be false - the Infallible.

 

 

 

What is evident is evident. But that which is not yet evident requires proof to be made evident.

 

Proof is either a discovering or an uncovering. What is more, it makes evident what is not yet so. But it can be unsuccessful at this endeavor.

 

If there exists no thing to be made evident, proof cannot discover or uncover that thing. Thus it cannot succeed. So also, proof cannot succeed if it attempts to make evident that which is forbidden.

 

What has been forbidden?

 

Strictly speaking, no thing - as there shouldn‘t be: there does not exist a thing that ought not be exposed for what it is.

 

Essentially however, there is a type of proof that is unsuccessful when attempted.

 

Because proof is either a discovering or an uncovering, there may exist a proof such that in its attempt to make a thing evident, it is destined to fail. Such a proof would either :

attempt to discover that evidence which is only uncoverable or,

attempt to uncover that evidence which is only discoverable

 

Each proof is a pursuit to no avail.

 

That being said there is room for doubt that the aforementioned has brought upon itself. “Cannot this very message be evidence of the forbidden proof?  For all that has been asserted has been done so truthfully [as if made evident by discovery], but who can be sure Truth is discoverable?”

 

 

 

As the spokesperson of this evidence, it is only appropriate that I uncover this veil of ‘discoveries’ so that the authority by which they were written may be accepted. What has thus far been written is nothing new - it is an age old wisdom about which much testimony has already been provided. It is the Sacred Science revealed in the Book of Truth.

Before any revelation may be made concerning this evidence, there is one more matter that need be ‘truthfully’ brought into the open.

Truth is:

truthfully, that which is made evident by discovery.

infallibly, it is that evidence with the capacity to be otherwise.

 

That the sky is blue or the moon is round- such are the evidents [manifestations] concerning Truth. When the sky is magenta or the moon shatters into the ten thousand fragments, the evidents will tell the same different story.

 

The Infallible

Is, truthfully, that which is made evident by revelation - uncovering.

It is, infallibly, that evidence that endures changelessly.

An evident of knowledge is that one cannot know that she doesn’t know. The essence of knowledge is such that to know that one doesn’t know, one must know the very thing that she doesn’t know in order to know that she doesn’t know it. By then she would have found out what she didn’t know. Thus this manifestation of knowledge deduces the same changeless conclusion regarding it, “There is no more knowledge in the world to be acquired”.

This being said, what remains to be accomplished is the revelation of the Sacred Science by which this evidence gains its authority.

 

 

Concerning Omnipotence

 

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything.

There is a paradox that tests the evidence of Omnipotence: it asks, “Is God able to make a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it?”

 

If God is able to make the stone, then we are to conclude that God cannot lift that stone and is unable. If God is not able to make the stone, then we are to conclude that he is unable again. Either answer concludes a God who is unable to do something. Thus, this paradox is said to be sufficient grounds for claiming that omnipotence, the ability to do anything, has been made evident without merit.

 

But if we uncover the evidence [by which this claim is logically deduced] we see that this evidence is only circumstantial, and does not belong in the category of the infallibly evident.

The conclusion deduces, “God is unable to make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it, and also lift that stone”.

But, there is another way of looking at ability that the previous conclusion neglects to reveal. Ability, in one sense of the word, can be understood as potential - the latent capacity that may or may not be developed. Applied in this sense, if God is able to make the stone, we do not have to necessarily deduce that he is unable to lift it. Because ability is being interpreted as latent, ability never has to be exercised in order for it to be possessed. Everything can be said to have ability so long as ability is latent. Moreover, latent implies that it is not yet evident in any manner. Thus it needs only our belief in it to be truthfully present.

Because of this interpretation, the deduction does not infallibly discredit omnipotence. We have just uncovered an interpretation of ability that makes the previous deduction correct only normatively; in terms of a particular interpretation of ability.

Thus, this deduction has reestablished the merit of the concept omnipotence. However, in a normative sense, it has brought us further away from establishing that merit. As this unique interpretation of ability uncovers the lack of merit in the previous deduction, it does so –in one sense – at the expense of its own obsolescence. Omnipotence becomes something negligible; it depends on a present that is necessarily hidden and a future that never has to be met. As everything can be said to possess ability, the evidence of it becomes meaningless.

Because of this, to concede to the existence of omnipotence may not yet be a plausible concession. One can still [and perhaps would much rather] believe the claim that omnipotence doesn’t exist and keep ability a meaningful concept than believing that omnipotence does exist coupled with the effect that ability is meaningless.

So the task of uncovering omnipotence in a meaningful sense still remains. But how can this meaning be derived? Well, since its lack of meaning is established by the normative counterpart of infallible evidence, its meaningfulness will be made known in contradistinction to that normative lack of meaning.  In short, the meaning must be understood from the normative claims that infallible evidence deduces.  This will be done by abstracting the infallible meaning from its normative counterpart in order to counteract the deductions of meaninglessness made about it.

Thus far, we have learned that omnipotence, ability, must be exercised in order to be meaningful. We came about this information by way of the two reasons that omnipotence was said to be negligible.

 1) because every thing could be said to possess it

2) because it depended on a present that was necessarily hidden and a future that never had to be met.

Therefore to move away from this obsolescent connotation, ability needs to be deduced in a manner that these claims of its meaninglessness can be opposed. This way, the infallible evidence that begot omnipotence has a chance of being accepted as warranted.

The first task that must be accomplished is that ability needs to be identifiable in its manifestation. In other words, there must be a way of describing how ability exists in its manifestation. We can use the two reasons why ability became negligible to help understand how to go about this.

 

As was previously noted omnipotence needs to be manifested and also needs to distinguish itself from a negligible existence. One reason why ability becomes negligible is that any and every thing may be said to possess it. So, one can imagine that a property of abilities meaningfulness is that any and every thing cannot be said to possess it. Thus, ability must be characterized under this property of meaningfulness, as well as the property that it must exist manifestly -or, what is the same- it must be present at every moment; concurrently.

If ability was identified in terms of the dialectical evidence that it was an acting toward an end, then it could be considered concurrently evident. But there is immediately a problem. How did this acting toward an end just start happening?

The idea that it needs to have a start is a misunderstanding of the necessary factors of infallible ability. It needs to be manifestly present which doesn’t need to have a start. It just needs to be evident.

But how can this quality of being evident be expressed. Well, it can be deduced dialectically. The nature of its evidentness can be revealed due to the deductions by way of dialectic reasoning. For example, as what we are here concerned with is identifying ability, it is necessarily the case that the ability has not the capacity to end: at least not in a temporal sense. Just as ability, in being infallible, cannot be understood to exist in light of a temporal start, it also cannot be understood to have an end insofar as an end is understood temporally. Thus, the occurrence of the acting toward an end could not be understood as a thing that pursues a finish. What is closer to the truth, what it pursues is its identity in light of that end. But even this is illusive speech. An identity does not pursue its identity. What is more accurate, the upspring of the existence of ability- of omnipotence- implies that the identity of the ability is manifest in light of a particular end.

This, however, cannot be understood as a distancing from the negligible. It was previously established that a condition of its meaningfulness would be showing that any and every thing cannot be said to possess it. But here, it has not [and cannot] be deduced that any or every thing possesses it at all. Ability, in this quality of being evident, is not manifest as something that is actively attempting to demonstrate that a thing can possess it. Thus it does not distance itself from the meaninglessness. Even though it is now dialectically identifiable [evident] as a particular expression of ability, it is not any more meaningful than it was before.

Thus we still have not yet arrived at deducing the meaningfulness of the infallibly evident concept of omnipotence. But we still can try to dialectically deduce more meaning from the other reason that ability was claimed to be negligible. A different expression of ability may be able to make it meaningful. In order to find this different expression, dialectical deductions must be made by way of the second reason.

From the second reason, ability became negligible because it depended on a present that was necessarily hidden and a future that never had to be met.

Dialectically, it can be deduced that for ability to be distinguished in a different expression, it must actively seek its identity. It must search for the identity of ability within the present [that necessarily hides it] and this identity must have the quality of never [necessarily] having to be found.

But again, there is a problem dialectically. That problem is this: any present that is hidden from ability cannot exist with ability. In other words, any present that is hidden is not a concurrent present. It is temporal. From this, one can deduce that anything made evident by way of this temporal present will not be manifestly present. Thus, anything that it actively pursued will not be ability.

The manifestation of infallible ability, in light of the second reason, is unique from the manifestation of infallible ability in light of the first reason. In light of the first reason, the identity of ability was manifest in light of an end. This though, was not enough to establish a thing that possessed this ability. In other words, there was no dog to wag the tail. Thus the existence of this ability is meaningless.

 In light of the second reason, the identity of ability is actively escaped. Ability eludes its ‘self’ by pursuing its ‘self’ in light of the temporal. The identity of ability is still manifest in light of the end. But, in its manifestation, it pursues its own capacity to obtain the end; consequently, to put itself to rest. This deduction is just as meaningless as the first. It pursues itself and yet it doesn’t. ‘It’ wags the dog.

Despite the meaninglessness of the infallible omnipotence that has been deduced, there is much more to be said concerning it. But what there is to be said relies on you the reader, because in spite of the meaninglessness of the infallible ability, there is still an assertion that depends on you. Even though these expressions of ability cannot lead one to believe that the infallible exists, something still can.

As was previously uncovered, omnipotence was the latent ability that may or may not be developed. This was made evident infallibly. Now, if you, the reader, believe in the slightest that you may have this latent ability in you– whether it be the potential to close your eyes, or raise your hand or read the next word you see – then, by your very own belief in this potential, you are admitting that omnipotence exists: and, that you are one of its expressions. You are admitting yourself to be a child of God.

 

So, no still no actual evidence, then, I see....

What an f**king waste of space (and effort)....

Sorry, 1-24, this just doesn't cut it.

Hey 1-24,

I made that mistake too.

 

However, Ento, it may have had more to do your previous avatar. Men tend to assume a poster is male unless the avatar is a picture of a female or something that men perceive as "feminine."

This is what you consider proof beyond a reasonable doubt? You have not met your burden..... not even close.

So are you going to be a decent human being (what Jesus would want of you) and stick to your word or are you going to disappear like a coward and break your word (what the devil wants)?

If you do not pay you love the devil!

I should add that the paradox for omnipotence is not a great one. I do not have the time now but it is easily refutable.

Not at all. The supernatural principles it calls on are dismissed in the position that's implied. If that verse can be interpreted, even ad hoc, as a basis for the Blasphemy Challenge, it is sufficient to the purpose of it. The provocation is the beginning and the end of it.

Of course they have you. You may have bastardized them, but the stupid ideas were passed through the tradition and authority of the church. You wouldn't have a book or a god's name to brandish if not for formal religions, so your distinction is shallow.

This is just a weird assertion.

Vague rhetoric.

Every religious sect being the arbiter of correctness. This is a no true scotsman fallacy.

There is no prudent variation on religious faith. It's always an unjustified belief, by definition.

Sure, repeat the stupid assertion. Why not.

Nobody owes you any answers, and there are other religions out there, you myopic tit.

What is this? Some kind of stupid straw-man? Lurk moar!!!

I won't be reading it.

 

I doubt he will pay up. This is a guy who takes 3 days to write something that would take a normal person 30 min. All that just so he can go through his thesaurus and find words like ‘thus’ and ‘dialectically’. Which I personally he uses out of context several times

I mean look at this crap:

‘Thus we still have not yet arrived at deducing the meaningfulness of the infallibly evident concept of omnipotence.’

So yeh, I have doubtfullnessnes in my heart that thus the monetary funds shal be processed through thine data packs on thine server through paypal through to thy paypal of thy RSS in. I very much would have the feelingnessnes of suicidal in me if thine reads one line more of thy incoherent crap from they 1-24.

 

 

"Philly cheesesteak" would have been a stronger argument, at least. C'mon, imagine if someone came on here doing the same "in two days I will give you proof!" and after two days, posted a philly cheesesteak sandwich. That would have been hilarious!

First of all, the phrase "philly cheesesteak" really would have been a better answer. At least you would have gotten some laughs. Actually, there's plenty of comedy to be found here. Let's take a look:

No kidding! That's kind of the positivist's problem with God (or Thor or Marduk or Amon Ra). The truth seems to be at odds with an infallible anything.

It's too bad this part didn't come with spooky lighting and some smoke machines. Maybe get James Earl Jones to say it.

You have such a career in crystal ball reading. Missed your calling, pal.

You mean like archeology?

Wait, what?

"Because I can hear and you can't, deaf girl. Now help me figure out a way to get out of this creepy-ass windowless basement."

Unless someone has already named this, I'd like to call it the "Third Eye" assertion. The gist is that only theists can see gods.

Hey, not so fast there. Have you heard of the scientific method? It's pretty good at discovering and uncovering.

Hahahaha! Oh man. You're funny.

There's a book of truth? And it has boxing in it? Oh ... that's "sweet science". Sorry.

Yeah, "as if". I'm getting a kind of "as if" feeling about all of this.

Welcome to somebody's acid trip. I think I just read two contradictions and a backflip, then a double lutz. The French judge gave you a 5.

Just level with me: being religious is like being high, isn't it? 

Sure does remain to be accomplished. Yup. Any time now.

'cept you just lied. "Almighty" and "omnipotent" are synonyms. How many times do you figure "almighty" shows up in the bible?

[... more about the third eye ... some "truthosophy" about god and stones ...]

I think we all know who's flying at this point. 

[... some more about omnipotence ... even weaker than Kant (quite a feat!) ...]

It really, really does. At some point. Still waiting.

This sentence is awesome. I stand by the evidentness of my statement.

[ ... more indecipherable stuff ...]

Yup. Any time now.

The supernatural argument again. We can't understand gods because they're not of this world. K, the comedy is winding down at this point. Hoping for a punchline.

 

I guess so. Even though we've deduced that it's meaningless?

Woah - hey, did I fall asleep for a part of this? You jumped right to God from meaninglessness! N.B. IAMGODASYOU will like this part, I think. Except His version is that he's admitting to being God.

But ... you haven't actually said anything. This is such a let-down! This is like when that other theist posted that there were messages in the stars, and it turned out that there were just messages about the stars in the Bible. Total let-down!

 

What have you said though? What you have wrote is incoherent and it unbelievably difficult to read. You throw all these big words you pulled out of thesaurus.com into a sentence in the attempt to look smart. All I see, actually all we see (I think I speak for everyone here) is two pages of incomprehensible drivel. If you stop trying to make us think you are more intelligent than you actually are and you write in a coherent manner people will refute your argument.

Guys please tell me, am I stupid or is this one of the poorest sentences you have ever seen?



Also a philosophical argument can rarely be refuted, a different opinion can be given but it cannot be disproven. You promised proof beyond all reasonable doubt. What you gave us by its very nature cannot be proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Add in the fact that by your own admission it requires ‘faith’. To a person of reason faith is not reasonable so you have not and cannot prove anything beyond all reasonable doubt.