Introduction

1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Introduction

I would like to say hello, to everyone at the RR Squad. This is my very first post although I've read a few other peoples introductions. I originally heard about this website when a number of representatives went on youtube to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. I must admit that I thought it was very bold and provocative but simultaneously misguided. I grew up going to a Catholic Church and although no religion has me now, I am quite sure that neither the Bible nor the Holy Spirit are what you mean to be condeming. I have studied quite a few Sacred Texts and the Bible is the most truthful of them all. If you are as rational as you all claim or believe, then perhaps you just haven't read it correctly. I don't particularly blame anyone for condeming members of Christian religions as they often haven't been very prudent about the placement of their faith, but the Bible is beyond reasonable doubt as truthful as it gets.  So, that is my introduction message and I hope I can get to understand exactly where you hearts are in relation to the Bible and also Religion and perhaps I'd also like to know whether or not you all believe that Atheism and Rational thinking are synonymous? It seems like they go hand and hand on this website.

 

Til next post..

1-24


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
1-24 wrote:Again, Will for

1-24 wrote:

Again, Will for the sake of the illusion of cooperation, please humble yourself and admit to the foolishness of your claim. Before I go forth you need to humble yourself.

Hahaha! I love it! Why on earth would I have to "humble myself"? You get less and less coherent with every post!

I've made no claim. I'm actually trying to understand what you're on about, and instead of clarifying, you ask me to "humble myself." I don't even know what that would entail, but I'm guessing that nothing will get you to answer my questions. Let's try again:

Are you saying that the non-believer is like the deaf girl, and you're like the hearing person who can hear the rain? Is that where you were going with the deaf girl bit? After that, it's just a matter of the explaining the massive logical leap from "some power" to "all powerful", and then from "all power" to "child of God".

Are you going to try to elucidate your position, or just make me ask you the same questions over and over? 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Raki
Superfan
Raki's picture
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
1-24 wrote:SHOW ME MY

1-24 wrote:

SHOW ME MY OPPONENT!!!!

You have already been defeated. Go on about your business.....


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
1-24 wrote:SHOW ME MY

1-24 wrote:

SHOW ME MY OPPONENT!!!!

Right here, Captain Crazypants. Try answering a question.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
1-24 wrote:I am the one who

1-24 wrote:
I am the one who hears and laughs at the deaf!!!

That's just mean. Also, you're entering Crazytown or something. Try answering my question.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Very Good HisWillness

You have shown some sharpness! And it truly is exciting Smiling ...you are right, you have made no claim. It was a foolish question not a foolish claim!! I will accept this brilliance over humility any day. We are now on the path to somewhere. Now, as to your question....


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
As regards the deaf girl. I

As regards the deaf girl. I think I stated this pretty explicitly in the proof but I will explain it again.

 

All I was saying regarding the deaf girl was this:

If a person had a faculty that we did not have -

and he made assertions through that faculty that we did not have-

there is a chance that we will not believe those assertions he made to have any merit.

 

What do you think about this? Sound plausible?


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What is to be

Quote:


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

                The Truth and The Infallible are at odds


Okay! Lets do it!

Quote:


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.


Please describe "uncovering" versus "discovering".

Are you essentially trying to seperate "truth" from "infallible truth"? What is the fundamental difference between the two?


Quote:

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


The first part goes without saying.  The second is not true.  To be made 'evident' it requires "evidence" not neccessarily "proof".  There is a very large distinction between what is evident and what is proven so proof is not required to be evident, but only evidence is required to be evident.

Quote:

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.


"Proof" would make it something "evident" but that would defeat the purpose of "proof" since "proof" would make something "true".  Though there is potential for "proof" to be unsuccessful making something evident, we should be past the point of evidence and if "proof" is unsuccessful it should make it "not true" rather than just "not evident".  Proof, by defintion, is strong enough evidence to establish something as "true".

Quote:

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.


The first sentance I read: "If something does not exist, there is no evidence for it."  Then...yes, obviously.  Something that does not exist does not produce any evidence for its existance.

"Forbidden" is the wrong choice of words here.  It is not forbidden, it is just non-existant.

Quote:

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?”


So you are admitting that when attempting to gain "evidence" for something that does not exist, one will fail. Any pursuit at "evidence" is a pursuit to not avail.  This is correct.

I don't understand the room for doubt here.  You're suggesting that if something has no evidence to the contrary there should be room to doubt due to something it brought upon itself? I don't see how this is evidence for a "forbidden" "proof". So no, lack of evidence is not evidence.

We can't neccessarily be sure that "truth" is discoverable", but we see no reason to confide in "truth" without justification.  "Truth" that we do not know due to ignorance is not evidence for "truth" by any means though but just "ignorance" and it ends there.  We do not and cannot know that something is "true" with out "proof", but there is no doubt "truth" that we don't know, but that is just "ignorance" rather than "evidence of truth".


 
1-24 wrote:
In case what I have just said is in anyway unclear, I see it proper to introduce qualifications [instances] so that I leave as little ambiguity as possible.


Quite unclear thank you.

Quote:

In a very particular understanding of it, the situation that the aforementioned has brought upon itself is this scenario:

I am in a basement with a person born deaf. I hear the rain outside and I sign to her, “it is raining outside”. As there is no internet, no windows, no television forecast in the basement, she signs back, “how can you tell?”

Now, before I get to the particular understanding by which this scenario explains the aforementioned, it must be expressed that there is some ambiguity as to the sense of the question the deaf girl signs. In one sense, she can be asking for empirical evidence - the evidence based on the data currently available. However, in another sense, she can be asking about the epistemic basis for the evidence - the faculty that begot the evidence.

While the sense is not yet clear in this scenario, a certain scenario can compel one to respond in a certain sense. If, for example, someone asserts that a certain book is red and her friend asks, ‘how can you tell’, one may be compelled to reply, ‘by looking at it’. This response is only evidence proper insofar as its sense is the same as the response “through the faculty of  z/sight”. That is what the asker would most likely presume the responder means. If one meant, instead, that “looking at it” was somehow adequate datum for evidence, I would claim that the quality ‘red’ of the book has not been adequately made evident empirically.  The asker would agree with this claim if she were color blind. If she looked at it, she would not yield that same conclusion. That datum would not have been available for her.


Is this a long way of saying that evidence is only evidence to someone who can perceive the evidence?

Quote:


Now, with that out of the way, in regards to the aforementioned question , ‘Who can be sure Truth is discoverable’ – this question is necessarily epistemic in sense. The question was formed to contend the merit of the manner/faculty with which I made things evident. It was formed under the belief that I spoke as if I _in terms of my own definition_ discovered that which I made evident. The contender, unfortunately, could not perceive any datum that warranted my speaking in this manner. The contention, therefore, was ‘how can one know if all you have made evident is actually that which can be made evident by discovery, id est actually Truth?’

 The answer to this question is, regrettably, that one cannot know. But I never stated that what I spoke was Truth. The contender was led to believe this by way of no evidence I supplied. But given the nature of the content of my assertions, in light of this skepticism, any assertion that I have already made and will henceforth make is bound to demonstrating that that which is made evident through communication can be evidence of either the Infallible or of the Truth; that is, if anything that I have said or will continue to say is to have any merit as actual evidence. Thus, it is not the existence of any particular thing I am here proving. I am setting out to remove any possibility of doubt that any contender may be able to raise concerning anything here written.


If a person can not perceive sound, you can still demonstrate evidence that you are able to perceive sound by performing simple tests of them performing actions without you using sight to identify those actions.  By demonstrating evidence in this manner you are able to establish that one person lacks a sense that you have.  Though this is not evidence of rain, but it is a demonstration why the deaf persons perception of no rain is not neccessarily valid due to their inability to perceive that which I have proven to perceive.

Quote:

 
As regards the very particular understanding of the original scenario; I raise this scenario in a position of a person speaking about a faculty that a deaf person does not have. Before you get indignant about what this suggests, ‘hear’ me out. I am not at all insinuating that I am superior to you and that I have some faculty that you don’t have. Please do not misunderstand what I mean to indicate by this scenario. I am only bringing up a very delicate contention. That contention is this; if someone was communicating to you regarding something he or she claimed to be true and you hadn’t the epistemic faculty to discern that claim to have merit, you would more than likely dismiss that someone as confused or confusing. Hence, what I ask that you grant me is the most impossible of grants. I ask that before you dismiss me a confused person, you hear me out.


To the contrary, if one could demonstrate and provide evidence through testing that they had the faculty to discern something that I was incapable of then I would quite willing acknowledge my lack and that persons ability.  We are able to demonstrate proofs of all of our senses to someone that does not have those senses through testing.

Quote:

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.


Please elaborate on "Secret Science" and "Book of Truth".

Quote:

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

As I use the word truthful in quotations, I mean by this the definition by which the initial skepticism was raised. Truthful, according to the original skepticism, meant as ‘if’ made evident by discovery. From here on I use the word truthful without skepticism; with perfect knowledge of that which is actually truthful. Thus when I use it, the word will mean as ‘though’ made evident by discovery. The ‘truthfully’ just above can be interpreted as either ‘if’ or ‘though’. In other words, I could have used truthfully or ‘truthfully’ and the meaning of the subsequent evidence will not have changed.

So you're redefining "truthfully" to mean "if"? I don't get it, why not just use englis that is appropriate for your intent rather than clouding the discussion with manipulation of words that already have clear meaning?
Quote:

Moreover, I hope it is clear by now that the words truthfully and truth have little comparison to each other. At least, not in the way I employ them. Truth is what is made evident by discovery. Truthfully is a manner of speaking. It is speaking as though what has been asserted has been made evident by discovery. The great misfortune is that all assertions appear truthful.

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.


...

Quote:


The Infallible

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


Please define "revelation" and "uncovering".

Quote:

It is, infallibly, that evidence that endures changelessly.

I think you mean that Infallible implies "true"...yes? Meaning that the evidence will not contradict it because you have defined "truth" as "believed to be true" and "infallible" as "true"?
Quote:

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.

To know that one doesn't know something they must know categorically of it but not neccessarily know it.  And evidence of knowledge is not that one cannot know what they don't know.
Quote:

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”.

She may have found out categorically about it, or about a title or name but that does in no way indicate knowlege of the thing. I don't see how you came about your conclusion.
Quote:

First off, when I speak of evident in the form of a noun, I am just talking about an affirmation that is made.

What? Evident is something that is "plain" or "clear".  An affirmation is merely an assertion but that in no way means that it is evident.
Quote:

 Now, in terms of the evidents regarding the sky and the moon, I do not assert them as evidents as a result of their being validly evident. I merely use them as evidents because I believe commonly held conceptions can better understand how Truth may be understood infallibly [as though made evident by uncovering].

I have to admit at this point it is hard to keep up with all the word altering and changing of meanings that you have done.  Using proper words for what they are intended would make this a lot easier to read.

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here. Please clarify.
Quote:

In terms of the infallible conclusion that I refer to as that which the manifestation of knowledge deduces- this is a normative claim. The plausibility of it can be fleeting, but that there is no more knowledge to be acquired is essentially, the evidence of Omniscience. Omniscience is possessing all knowledge in the sense that one cannot accurately point to that which he does not know. In other words, ‘How can I know what I don’t know if I don’t know what it is I don’t know?’ To possess the capacity to point out that which he does not know would be to know that thing.

I disagreed with your conclusion that there is no more knowledge to be acquired, and this is also not the definition of Omniscience.  Omniscience is not just knowing all within the confines of what you do, because there are many things that one can identify that they do not know such as the past, and the future, and what is happening on the other side of the planet.  Unless you are suggesting that the only things happening are those that can be witnessed by you but obviously that is not true.

There are many things that you can identfy that you know categorically of but do not know the contents or details of.

Do you know the exact rate in which your skin cells die? You know categorically that they do, but do you know of the specifics? No.

Quote:

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

Please define "revelation", "Sacred Science".  Also I have not yet seen any "evidence" just comments about word manipulation but no actual "evidence".
Quote:

Concerning Omnipotence

To understand how I intend to go about revealing the authority of the evidence I assert, we should turn back to the example that you may have insinuated about what I was implying concerning the deaf girl…

…omnipotence is the manner in which this other ‘epistemic faculty’ will be revealed. Though nothing is said concerning omnipotence in the Bible, you will still be able to understand how it is applicable. Moreover, even if you do not find it applicable to the Bible, as I said before, the Bible is a witness and this is the evidence. Therefore, the applicability does not help or hinder the validity of the argument.

I reject the "Bible" as a source of evidence or witness of anything as I believe it to be a fictional tale.  Your "evidence" must come in a better source than the Bible.  If you can prove the Bible to be an accurate source of infallibility and historical accuracy then you may be able to submit it as evidence but not before then.
Quote:

Now, the epistemic faculty for the deaf girl brings up an interesting dilemma. How is she supposed to accept that the faculty to hear exists without ‘blind’ faith?

Evidence and demonstrations of senses that she does not have are quite possible.
Quote:

She cannot possibly conceive of it as an epistemic faculty, so if it does exist she cannot have any evidence of it.

Just because she cannot hear does not mean she can not see evidence that it exists.  We cannot hear whales talking to each other with our own ears but we can demonstrate its existence using tools that put that print the sound visibly.  Sound is just vibrations and she is able to "feel" those vibrations which is further evidence of sound.
Quote:

She may have received empirical hints – like people mouthing to each other or people jogging with an mp3 player, but this data cannot conclude successfully that there exists such a faculty. Hence, it is necessarily the case that if there is another faculty that one can have epistemic evidence for, then that faculty must already exist within her. That she doesn’t have evidence for it would then only mean that the faculty is quelled: it must be a vestige of sorts. Thus for it to be evident to her, it only need be evoked or harnessed. But how can this evocation be executed? Well, what better way to evoke a faculty then to suspend all the other ones? Thus, what I set out to do henceforth is evoke this evidence by suspending the merit of all the other faculties.

There are many things that I cannot perceive with one sense that I know exist due to tools and use of my other senses.
Quote:

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything.

Yes, to do anything.  All powerful.
Quote:

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?”

Correct.
Quote:

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.

OK.
Quote:

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.

Something that is "omnipotent" would have already realized that power or they are in fact not omnipotent.  I do agree that to not use power does not devoid the ability to possess it.

Quote:


an example of latent ability is a carpet having the potential to fly

Er?
Quote:

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.

Does it though? To say that something ominpotent can create a rock that it just has not used its power to lift is not that the omnipotent being cannot lift it, it is just that it would not.  To suggest that it has not realized its own power is to suggest that it just has not yet achieved the ability to lift it but that it will.  Either way this is not a rock that it cannot lift, it is just a rock that it cannot lift in the moment or until it invokes the ability to lift it at which point it now did not create a rock that it could not lift.  If it was incapableof realizing that power on demand, it would not be omnipotent.  If it chose not to realize that power, it would not be sufficient to suggest that it cannot.
Quote:

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.

I disagreed with your debunking of the paradox. Omnipotence is negligible only because it isn't plausible, and not everything can be said to possess the ability.
Quote:

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.

Was this a lot of words to simply say that "it doesn't matteR"?
Quote:

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.

I keep reading and I don't see any points being made that either haven't been refuted yet or have any distinctive purpose...I keep reading...
Quote:

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.

...
Quote:

 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.

So even though we don't have any reason to believe something exists, it still can? Okay...
Quote:

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.

Omnipotence restricted by development is not omnipotence until it is realized.

This was not made evident infallibly.

I don't believe omnipotence exists, and none of the things you describe would be evidence of omnipotence just those individual abilities.

No, you are admitting that those individual abilities exist.

What? How did God get invoked suddenly here? You just jumped to "child of God" without any setup or reasoning.
Quote:

 

1-24 wrote:
Pardon the abruptness of this halt. The light comes at the end of the tunnel. So far, in understanding what I’ve tried to make evident, you are only halfway there. But the rest is up to you. If the rest is to be made known, it is up to you.

Before I wash my hands of this days exhausting task, there is one more qualification that I see fit to make regarding the two expressions of ability. For a mental image of clarification, the first expression of ability deduced is comparable to the existence of an Oxygen ion that seeks Hydrogen electrons. The second expression is comparable to the existence of cyanobacteria that break up the bonds of water.




So your "evidence" comes in the form of "go find it yourself"? That's brilliant.

You haven't proven anything here except that you manipulate words and come to conclusions without any paritcular reason to.

I hope that after my response here, some clarification from you, and further refuting of any clarifications I hope you are able to pony up and donate to this site and its resources as I have dedicated much time to reading and responding to this.

I appreciate your contributions to the site, but I hope you realize that nothing here is evidence of a deity but merely speculation on your part.


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Well, as there are no other

Well, as there are no other questions, I'll chalk it up for the Theists. "I want to say thanks to the Heavenly Father, nobody is good but you God. I want to thank the disgust of the atheist who make this victory so sweet. I want to thank I AM GOD AS YOU who taught me how to talk like this. You da man GOd! Shikko, ain't seen you in a while bud? Where you been? Stayin' alive I hope. Still my dog, still my dog".

In conclusion, if you are going to be against the existence of God, I just suggest that you don't dabble. If you are going to be bad and be against God, then be really bad. Don't just sort of go against him. If you rebel, rebel aggressively please, like Nick B. Except he got tired of rebelling so he took a timeout. I'm sure he is  contemplating fighting for the other side right now. Sorry about your loyer chic. Actually, not really sorry at all.

I know you were expecting some holier than thou guy to ascend from the clouds and tell you the good news, but, that person came along time ago, and you still don't believe. As a result, you should be especially disgusted that I am such a menace to you all and your 'beliefs'. God calls out to you in many ways. Sometimes angrily, sometimes nicely, sometimes not at all. All of these ways are effective in the end. If he doesn't reach you, just remember guys....

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!the jokes on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

HAHAHA!!


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
1-24 wrote:If a person had a

1-24 wrote:

If a person had a faculty that we did not have -

and he made assertions through that faculty that we did not have-

there is a chance that we will not believe those assertions he made to have any merit.

What do you think about this? Sound plausible?

Sure, sounds great. Sounds like that faculty would be a "special ability", since we don't have it. 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
1-24 wrote:Well, as there

1-24 wrote:

Well, as there are no other questions, I'll chalk it up for the Theists. "I want to say thanks to the Heavenly Father, nobody is good but you God. I want to thank the disgust of the atheist who make this victory so sweet. I want to thank I AM GOD AS YOU who taught me how to talk like this. You da man GOd! Shikko, ain't seen you in a while bud? Where you been? Stayin' alive I hope. Still my dog, still my dog".

In conclusion, if you are going to be against the existence of God, I just suggest that you don't dabble. If you are going to be bad and be against God, then be really bad. Don't just sort of go against him. If you rebel, rebel aggressively please, like Nick B. Except he got tired of rebelling so he took a timeout. I'm sure he is  contemplating fighting for the other side right now. Sorry about your loyer chic. Actually, not really sorry at all.

I know you were expecting some holier than thou guy to ascend from the clouds and tell you the good news, but, that person came along time ago, and you still don't believe. As a result, you should be especially disgusted that I am such a menace to you all and your 'beliefs'. God calls out to you in many ways. Sometimes angrily, sometimes nicely, sometimes not at all. All of these ways are effective in the end. If he doesn't reach you, just remember guys....

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!the jokes on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

HAHAHA!!

A bit quick to the gun there.  I just gave you a fairly exhaustive reply with many questions.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
1-24 wrote:Well, as there

1-24 wrote:
Well, as there are no other questions, I'll chalk it up for the Theists.

You're Strongbad, aren't you? I'm a really big fan of your show.

1-24 wrote:
In conclusion, if you are going to be against the existence of God, I just suggest that you don't dabble. If you are going to be bad and be against God, then be really bad.

Where did "bad" come from? "Against gods" would be more accurate, but since you're just familiar with the one (There were others before yours, like Mithras, on whose cult most of the Christian rituals are based) I suppose you only have the one to talk about.

1-24 wrote:
As a result, you should be especially disgusted that I am such a menace to you all and your 'beliefs'.

No. Still sad that you're so gullible, but not disgusted.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
aahh a new challenger

I guess I was a little quick to count you all out. I just read your post Mr. Atheist. It is very apparent that you all do not have any clue of what I'm trying to say. So, for you and for HisWillness, I will try and reach you a different way. I'm going to attempt to lead you into a contradiction okay. From there, I will make my point in case. But before I do that, you say that you are an atheist and not an anti-theist right?


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Will, I said nobody is good

Will, I said nobody is good but God, so if you reject God I say you reject the good, thus you are bad.


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
1-24 wrote:I guess I was a

1-24 wrote:

I guess I was a little quick to count you all out. I just read your post Mr. Atheist. It is very apparent that you all do not have any clue of what I'm trying to say. So, for you and for HisWillness, I will try and reach you a different way. I'm going to attempt to lead you into a contradiction okay. From there, I will make my point in case. But before I do that, you say that you are an atheist and not an anti-theist right?

I spent a rather long time on that response I hope that you can go through and answer all the questions I had and dispute all the statements I made appropriately rather than just this one line write off.  You clearly did not like it when people did it to you, so I would appreciate it if you did not do the same.

I don't think I will follow you down any other paths until you do that since these are clarifications and refutations that I require to better understand your intent and meaning.

Thanks.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
This is WAY more important

NickB wrote:
We have been trying to set-up a date for 2 fucking months. She is actually the one that explained all the burden of proof stuff to me so I could post it here. Instead of sleeping with the amazingly gorgeous and smart woman I spent 4 hours here arguing with you. She left extremely angry that I rather argue with some deluded idiot than fuck her. I cannot believe I spent 4 hours of my Saturday night here responding to your irrational bullshit.

Nick, you're killing me. Don't make a grown man cry.

Invite her back. Flowers, shoulder massage. Make a joke about what an ass you've been. Shit, let me talk to her.

"Listen, Lawyer Lady, Nick's so broken up right now that he can't even speak. He asked me to give you a call. Lawyer Lady, he's devastated. He really needs your help right now. I've taken the liberty of unplugging the computer and pouring some wine. This is a matter of life and death."

Seriously. Can you play the guitar? Maybe it's time to learn.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
No contest

1-24, you haven't even made a dent in the questions that were asked of YOU yet all your questions (the few that made sense) were answered. I think you like to hear yourself talk (in this case, it would be see your own words). The only "proof" you have provided is that you lack the ability to comprehend the written word. You have proven this beyond a reasonable doubt. You like to make stuff up...and then believe that you can have a debate based upon made up words and definitions. Not only have you "lost" (BIG TIME), you don't even "get" that you lost!  

It is precisely because of people like you that many of us think that theism is a mind disorder. You show all the signs of being delusional...and are completely ignorant regarding just about everything. Grow up. Come back when you can debate in an educated manner. Until then, everything you write will only be considered as virtual (and grammatical...) rubbish. Do you *get* that??

 

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
1-24 wrote:Blah blah God

1-24 wrote:

Blah blah God blah blah proof blah blah deaf girl

Haven't you done enough? Nick was incensed enough to fuck up a perfectly good date! (By the way, Nick, it's still salvageable, you just need some "I'm an idiot, how could I be so wrong?" to go with the flowers you send to her work.)

We're there for you, buddy.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
entomophila wrote:Not only

entomophila wrote:
Not only have you "lost" (BIG TIME), you don't even "get" that you lost!

Oh, Ento. It was confusing enough that there were female scientists. Don't hit 1-24 with all this information at once.

But seriously, this Nick's-ruined-date thing is some serious shit - you think flowers at work is over-the-top? Trying too hard, maybe?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
lost date

Perhaps he could just fax her his tax return?


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Fair enough Mr. Atheist you

Fair enough Mr. Atheist you did spend a long time making comments. And you're right its only fair that I grant you this much.

Mr.Atheist wrote:

 

Quote:

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.



The first sentance I read: "If something does not exist, there is no evidence for it."  Then...yes, obviously.  Something that does not exist does not produce any evidence for its existance.

"Forbidden" is the wrong choice of words here.  It is not forbidden, it is just non-existant.

 

The reason I start with this objection is because it should help to see how you've interpreted what I mean to say wrongly. Currently, you are thinking about everything in terms of nouns. You navigate in terms of nouns. Nouns dominate the way in which you think. This is why it is difficult for you to understand what I am telling you. I am speaking in terms of verbs. I am navigating with respect to action. When I say, 'proof cannot discover or uncover anything' I am talking about the act of trying to discover or the act of trying to uncover. I am saying that the act will be unsuccessful. Sometimes we set out to discover things that do not actually exist. We set out to find the lockness monster or we set out to find the gold pot at the end of the rainbow: in short we set out. The issue is not what is to be proved the issue is the acting to prove. The setting out to prove.

 

Here is also how you may be helped in understanding what I say.

 

I said that what is not yet evident requires proof. Proof is either a discovering or an uncovering. It makes evident what is not yet so.

 

If you think of this last sentence like this, 'it is a making evident of what is not yet evident' you will be able to understand what I mean by proof.

 

This is in fact the overall distinction that need be made regarding any contention that you may have with what I say.

The contention that you have with Omniscience for example. Because you think in nouns, the issue is the acquiring of the knowledge. It is to possess the knowledge. You do not have a conception of yourself  as the pursuer of knowledge. This is why you cannot come to terms with the assertion that you cannot know that you don't know. Such an assertion is a crime against your way of thinking.

 

Please let me know whether or not you are with me thus far.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
entomophila wrote:Perhaps he

entomophila wrote:

Perhaps he could just fax her his tax return?

Apparently you know something about Nick that I don't.

I think that was a "yes" to flowers, Nick.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Hello Ms

Entomophila wrote:

1-24, you haven't even made a dent in the questions that were asked of YOU yet all your questions (the few that made sense) were answered. I think you like to hear yourself talk (in this case, it would be see your own words). The only "proof" you have provided is that you lack the ability to comprehend the written word. You have proven this beyond a reasonable doubt. You like to make stuff up...and then believe that you can have a debate based upon made up words and definitions. Not only have you "lost" (BIG TIME), you don't even "get" that you lost!  

It is precisely because of people like you that many of us think that theism is a mind disorder. You show all the signs of being delusional...and are completely ignorant regarding just about everything. Grow up. Come back when you can debate in an educated manner. Until then, everything you write will only be considered as virtual (and grammatical...) rubbish. Do you *get* that??

 

Did you make sure there were no errors in this post like last time?

1-24


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
1-24 wrote:Fair enough Mr.

1-24 wrote:

Fair enough Mr. Atheist you did spend a long time making comments. And you're right its only fair that I grant you this much.

Mr.Atheist wrote:

 

Quote:

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.



The first sentance I read: "If something does not exist, there is no evidence for it."  Then...yes, obviously.  Something that does not exist does not produce any evidence for its existance.

"Forbidden" is the wrong choice of words here.  It is not forbidden, it is just non-existant.

 

The reason I start with this objection is because it should help to see how you've interpreted what I mean to say wrongly. Currently, you are thinking about everything in terms of nouns. You navigate in terms of nouns. Nouns dominate the way in which you think. This is why it is difficult for you to understand what I am telling you. I am speaking in terms of verbs. I am navigating with respect to action. When I say, 'proof cannot discover or uncover anything' I am talking about the act of trying to discover or the act of trying to uncover. I am saying that the act will be unsuccessful. Sometimes we set out to discover things that do not actually exist. We set out to find the lockness monster or we set out to find the gold pot at the end of the rainbow: in short we set out. The issue is not what is to be proved the issue is the acting to prove. The setting out to prove.

 

Here is also how you may be helped in understanding what I say.

 

I said that what is not yet evident requires proof. Proof is either a discovering or an uncovering. It makes evident what is not yet so.

 

If you think of this last sentence like this, 'it is a making evident of what is not yet evident' you will be able to understand what I mean by proof.

 

This is in fact the overall distinction that need be made regarding any contention that you may have with what I say.

The contention that you have with Omniscience for example. Because you think in nouns, the issue is the acquiring of the knowledge. It is to possess the knowledge. You do not have a conception of yourself  as the pursuer of knowledge. This is why you cannot come to terms with the assertion that you cannot know that you don't know. Such an assertion is a crime against your way of thinking.

 

Please let me know whether or not you are with me thus far.

Why are you using nouns if you want them to be interpreted as verbs? Perhaps you need to use the language in the way that it was intended rather than saying something and then calling foul when people misinterpret your misrepresented statements.

If you want to say "making something evident which is not yet evident" why don't you say that instead of using words that don't mean that.

Either way...I really don't want to go post by post through my own responses.  I don't have the time to sit here and wait for your responses and take 10 years to go back and forth one line at a time.  Please respond and get to the point and just use the language properly to make your points rather than redefining words that have distinctive purposes already.

I would appreciate one long response and you can elaborate and clarify all of my "misunderstandings".  If I am misunderstanding them, then it is your failure to communicate your own message properly.


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
error alert!

As usual, you didn't *get* the reason for the same question asked two times...although it was clearly explained. As usual, everyone else got it, but YOU.

 


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I've got

3 words for this 3,000 word crapfest -- Al Capone's Vault.

 

 

1-24 wrote:

 

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?”

 

 

1-24 wrote:
In case what I have just said is in anyway unclear, I see it proper to introduce qualifications [instances] so that I leave as little ambiguity as possible.

In a very particular understanding of it, the situation that the aforementioned has brought upon itself is this scenario:

I am in a basement with a person born deaf. I hear the rain outside and I sign to her, “it is raining outside”. As there is no internet, no windows, no television forecast in the basement, she signs back, “how can you tell?”

Now, before I get to the particular understanding by which this scenario explains the aforementioned, it must be expressed that there is some ambiguity as to the sense of the question the deaf girl signs. In one sense, she can be asking for empirical evidence - the evidence based on the data currently available. However, in another sense, she can be asking about the epistemic basis for the evidence - the faculty that begot the evidence.

While the sense is not yet clear in this scenario, a certain scenario can compel one to respond in a certain sense. If, for example, someone asserts that a certain book is red and her friend asks, ‘how can you tell’, one may be compelled to reply, ‘by looking at it’. This response is only evidence proper insofar as its sense is the same as the response “through the faculty of  z/sight”. That is what the asker would most likely presume the responder means. If one meant, instead, that “looking at it” was somehow adequate datum for evidence, I would claim that the quality ‘red’ of the book has not been adequately made evident empirically.  The asker would agree with this claim if she were color blind. If she looked at it, she would not yield that same conclusion. That datum would not have been available for her.

Now, with that out of the way, in regards to the aforementioned question , ‘Who can be sure Truth is discoverable’ – this question is necessarily epistemic in sense. The question was formed to contend the merit of the manner/faculty with which I made things evident. It was formed under the belief that I spoke as if I _in terms of my own definition_ discovered that which I made evident. The contender, unfortunately, could not perceive any datum that warranted my speaking in this manner. The contention, therefore, was ‘how can one know if all you have made evident is actually that which can be made evident by discovery, id est actually Truth?’

 The answer to this question is, regrettably, that one cannot know. But I never stated that what I spoke was Truth. The contender was led to believe this by way of no evidence I supplied. But given the nature of the content of my assertions, in light of this skepticism, any assertion that I have already made and will henceforth make is bound to demonstrating that that which is made evident through communication can be evidence of either the Infallible or of the Truth; that is, if anything that I have said or will continue to say is to have any merit as actual evidence. Thus, it is not the existence of any particular thing I am here proving. I am setting out to remove any possibility of doubt that any contender may be able to raise concerning anything here written.

 

As regards the very particular understanding of the original scenario; I raise this scenario in a position of a person speaking about a faculty that a deaf person does not have. Before you get indignant about what this suggests, ‘hear’ me out. I am not at all insinuating that I am superior to you and that I have some faculty that you don’t have. Please do not misunderstand what I mean to indicate by this scenario. I am only bringing up a very delicate contention. That contention is this; if someone was communicating to you regarding something he or she claimed to be true and you hadn’t the epistemic faculty to discern that claim to have merit, you would more than likely dismiss that someone as confused or confusing. Hence, what I ask that you grant me is the most impossible of grants. I ask that before you dismiss me a confused person, you hear me out.  

 

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.

1-24 wrote:

As I use the word truthful in quotations, I mean by this the definition by which the initial skepticism was raised. Truthful, according to the original skepticism, meant as ‘if’ made evident by discovery. From here on I use the word truthful without skepticism; with perfect knowledge of that which is actually truthful. Thus when I use it, the word will mean as ‘though’ made evident by discovery. The ‘truthfully’ just above can be interpreted as either ‘if’ or ‘though’. In other words, I could have used truthfully or ‘truthfully’ and the meaning of the subsequent evidence will not have changed.

Moreover, I hope it is clear by now that the words truthfully and truth have little comparison to each other. At least, not in the way I employ them. Truth is what is made evident by discovery. Truthfully is a manner of speaking. It is speaking as though what has been asserted has been made evident by discovery. The great misfortune is that all assertions appear truthful.

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”.

1-24 wrote:

First off, when I speak of evident in the form of a noun, I am just talking about an affirmation that is made.

 Now, in terms of the evidents regarding the sky and the moon, I do not assert them as evidents as a result of their being validly evident. I merely use them as evidents because I believe commonly held conceptions can better understand how Truth may be understood infallibly [as though made evident by uncovering].

In terms of the infallible conclusion that I refer to as that which the manifestation of knowledge deduces- this is a normative claim. The plausibility of it can be fleeting, but that there is no more knowledge to be acquired is essentially, the evidence of Omniscience. Omniscience is possessing all knowledge in the sense that one cannot accurately point to that which he does not know. In other words, ‘How can I know what I don’t know if I don’t know what it is I don’t know?’ To possess the capacity to point out that which he does not know would be to know that thing.

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

 

 

Concerning Omnipotence

1-24 wrote:

To understand how I intend to go about revealing the authority of the evidence I assert, we should turn back to the example that you may have insinuated about what I was implying concerning the deaf girl…

…omnipotence is the manner in which this other ‘epistemic faculty’ will be revealed. Though nothing is said concerning omnipotence in the Bible, you will still be able to understand how it is applicable. Moreover, even if you do not find it applicable to the Bible, as I said before, the Bible is a witness and this is the evidence. Therefore, the applicability does not help or hinder the validity of the argument.

Now, the epistemic faculty for the deaf girl brings up an interesting dilemma. How is she supposed to accept that the faculty to hear exists without ‘blind’ faith? She cannot possibly conceive of it as an epistemic faculty, so if it does exist she cannot have any evidence of it. She may have received empirical hints – like people mouthing to each other or people jogging with an mp3 player, but this data cannot conclude successfully that there exists such a faculty. Hence, it is necessarily the case that if there is another faculty that one can have epistemic evidence for, then that faculty must already exist within her. That she doesn’t have evidence for it would then only mean that the faculty is quelled: it must be a vestige of sorts. Thus for it to be evident to her, it only need be evoked or harnessed. But how can this evocation be executed? Well, what better way to evoke a faculty then to suspend all the other ones? Thus, what I set out to do henceforth is evoke this evidence by suspending the merit of all the other faculties.

 

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.

1-24 wrote:

an example of latent ability is a carpet having the potential to fly

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.

 

1-24 wrote:
Pardon the abruptness of this halt. The light comes at the end of the tunnel. So far, in understanding what I’ve tried to make evident, you are only halfway there. But the rest is up to you. If the rest is to be made known, it is up to you.

Before I wash my hands of this days exhausting task, there is one more qualification that I see fit to make regarding the two expressions of ability. For a mental image of clarification, the first expression of ability deduced is comparable to the existence of an Oxygen ion that seeks Hydrogen electrons. The second expression is comparable to the existence of cyanobacteria that break up the bonds of water.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Atheist

What do you mean, did I not say proof was a discovering or an uncovering?? I said it quite a few times

Anyway Mr. Atheist, this is precisely the problem. Proof is not a 'making evident of what is not yet so' which is why I can't say that. This is how difficult it is to tell someone about something that is an extreme diversion of how they already think. If I would have said that, then you would have called me out on the implausibility of this point and then you would have thought yourself high and mighty. As it is, you probably think I think I am high and mighty because of all of the things I am posting like this. But the reason I speak the way I do is because whatever you think you possess, whatever I think I possess, whatever anyone thinks they possess in evidence is meaningless to the other side of the coin. Which is why I attempt to take you off your throne of atheism. You call yourself an atheist to elevate yourself above the false evidence of the theists. Well I'm here to tell you that no evidence is more true than any other. But you have to know the other side of the coin in order to truly accept this.

I'm not saying the evidence of religion and theisms aren't a grave error. They are. I'm not saying standing as an atheist is not useful to combatting that error. It is. I am saying that in combatting that error, you are still getting no closer to solving the real problem: knowing that other side of you that you were born not to know. No matter how hard you strive toward more meaning, whether it be by science, philosophy, religion whatever else is left, you will not be successful, unless you figure out that meaning is meaningless.

Do you want to know what the manifestation of truth is to the infallible? Truth, infallibly is that which tells the same changless story.

2=1+1

2=3-1

2=4-2

2=1.5+.5

This is the same changeless story. It is nothing substantive

 

Mr. Atheist, you said that since atheism is a lack of theism then babies are atheists too.

So, from this, are you making any substantive claim when you call yourself an atheist? What has changed since the days of infancy? Absolutely nothing.

But you use the word to elevate yourself above theists. You try to make it meaningful. In the end, it has no meaning. Everybody's doing the exact same thing to picture themselves above each other, to esteem themselves higher than each other. But there is no higher. You all are using the same tricks but you don't realize it, nor can you stop it.

The existence of the infallible is the only escape for you who exists of truth. But to speak honestly, I really don't care whether or not you figure this out. As Jesus once said, you will die in your sins. I've done enough to help you and everyone else on this site. Continue in your ways, if you want the Christians to stop building their Tower of Babel, keep struggling against them. But just so you know, when you finally win, as I really hope you do, your tower will be babel as well, the meaningless truth you now hold. Already you all don't hold the same truth. You rally against the cause. But when the cause is defeated, you'll realize again how little you all have in common.

With this I wash my hands. The writings on the wall. What you do has always been up to you. I'm out of here. Good luck against the theists. Conquer the world.

 

Signing Out

1-24

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
I like PIE! Therefore, i

I like PIE!

 

Therefore, i win!

 

Pay up number boy >.>

 

if you dont, your conscience will haunt you till the end of days...

*i also find it funny that you cheated, lied, and stole from the godless in order to help us believe.... all in the name of your god >.> i wonder how he feels about that? *

What Would Kharn Do?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I came back because your

{DOUBLE POST}


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I came back because your

I came back because your hissy fit made me laugh a little.

1-24 wrote:

[...] Anyway Mr. Atheist, this is precisely the problem. Proof is not a 'making evident of what is not yet so' which is why I can't say that. This is how difficult it is to tell someone about something that is an extreme diversion of how they already think. If I would have said that, then you would have called me out on the implausibility of this point and then you would have thought yourself high and mighty. As it is, you probably think I think I am high and mighty because of all of the things I am posting like this. But the reason I speak the way I do is because whatever you think you possess, whatever I think I possess, whatever anyone thinks they possess in evidence is meaningless to the other side of the coin.

The everyone has an opinion / whatever argument. How Postmodern. How does anything work? I don't know. Apparently, we only have opinions on the physical properties of our world, so we can only guess at things -- OMG we're useless. Yeah, please refer to Russell's idea of scientific truths in "Religion and Science" for an indirect spanking of this position. The underlying assumptions, or ambiguities, of theories of the physical world could be flawed, but they have a basis and can be tested repeatably and relied upon for consistency. Religious ideas don't offer any such thing. Nothing.

1-24 wrote:
Which is why I attempt to take you off your throne of atheism. You call yourself an atheist to elevate yourself above the false evidence of the theists. Well I'm here to tell you that no evidence is more true than any other. But you have to know the other side of the coin in order to truly accept this.

If all notions are hopelessly equal, you're committing a stolen concept by arguing for anything, and ought to be a nihilist to avoid hypocrisy.

1-24 wrote:

I'm not saying the evidence of religion and theisms aren't a grave error. They are. I'm not saying standing as an atheist is not useful to combatting that error. It is. I am saying that in combatting that error, you are still getting no closer to solving the real problem: knowing that other side of you that you were born not to know. No matter how hard you strive toward more meaning, whether it be by science, philosophy, religion whatever else is left, you will not be successful, unless you figure out that meaning is meaningless.

Christian nihilism.

1-24 wrote:
[...] Mr. Atheist, you said that since atheism is a lack of theism then babies are atheists too.

So, from this, are you making any substantive claim when you call yourself an atheist? What has changed since the days of infancy? Absolutely nothing.

This is just a weird ad hominem.

1-24 wrote:

[... third repetition]

The existence of the infallible is the only escape for you who exists of truth.

Presuppositionalist -- are you reading this yet? This is what I'm talking about when I say some Christians are nihilists.

1-24 wrote:
[... long descent into crying and weird threats]


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Which is why I attempt

Quote:

Which is why I attempt to take you off your throne of atheism. You call yourself an atheist to elevate yourself above the false evidence of the theists. Well I'm here to tell you that no evidence is more true than any other. But you have to know the other side of the coin in order to truly accept this.

I am an atheist not due to evidence in the contrary, I am an atheist due to a lack of reason to believe in anything of any supernatural reason.  There is no throne, just a recognition of my own ignorance.

Quote:

No matter how hard you strive toward more meaning, whether it be by science, philosophy, religion whatever else is left, you will not be successful, unless you figure out that meaning is meaningless.

You assume a strive towards meaning, but why do you assume I strive towards meaning? I quite comfortably and openly talk about meaning and purpose of life and I am quite happy suggesting that there is none.

Quote:

But you use the word to elevate yourself above theists. You try to make it meaningful. In the end, it has no meaning. Everybody's doing the exact same thing to picture themselves above each other, to esteem themselves higher than each other. But there is no higher. You all are using the same tricks but you don't realize it, nor can you stop it.

I am the first to suggest that atheism is a non-word.  Where have I used it to "elevate myself above theists" or are you just making an assumption? I would suggest you are just making this part up because you can not find evidence where I put myself higher than theists in general.

So your total lack of evidence, your lack of answering my questions, and your lack of payment suggest that in the end...you are just a worthless troll devoid of the ability to discuss your own topic on honest.

Thanks for coming out.

I tried my best to treat your post with respect and ask questions to which you refuse to elaborate on even in the slightest.  You, my friend, are simply a preaching troll.

I'm glad you're signed out as it is clear you have nothing valuable to add here seeing as you are not even able to explain your own fabricated random and simply meaningless claims written in such a bastardization of the language as to avoid anyone from ever fully understanding whatever it is you are trying to say.


Mazid the Raider
Rational VIP!Science Freak
Mazid the Raider's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
*sigh*

Why do they always start talking about simple addition? 1+1=2 does NOT mean that there is a god.


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliate
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Geesh! I go to work for 8

Geesh! I go to work for 8 hours and come back to a shit storm!  Smiling

1-24 left? AND he thinks he has "won"

You know what we should all agree on for the next cockhole that comes in and tries to prove something for money?

We should say : "Make a donation and we will hear your case" 

 

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Infallible truth" is one

"Infallible truth" is one expression which 1-24 used frequently, despite the reality that we can never identify any such thing. If we discount all the assertions using some variation of 'infallible' we have many gaping holes. At one point I sensed that 1-24 was using the term to refer to something like deductive, mathematical style truth, especially when simple arithmetic expressions were listed, and this would be a plausible use of the term, and his dismissal of these as not meaningful in some sense I could almost agree, but 'infallible' was thrown around much more widely than that in other parts of the 'argument', I thought.

To try to make some point about 'omnipotence' that somehow it was not a logical problem just because the alleged possessor chose not to exercise the particular self-contradictory nominal 'ability' is a complete fallacy. 'Omnipotence' is not a meaningful concept, period, and that 'dodge' is a pathetic attempt to somehow get around that fundamental point. To spend so much time arguing around 'can he create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it'  demonstrates to me the total emptiness of his argument - a simple acknowledge that such an question demonstrates the incoherence of the concept of 'omnipotence' would have been the honest response.

Evidence leads potentially to a level of 'proof', proof itself doesn't not lead to or 'uncover' the evidence for itself.

And so on.

Another curiosity: when asked to clarify something, he(?) seemed often capable of phrasing it in relatively normal terms, which begs the question of why in the 'formal' argument did 1-24 fall back into the incomprehensible word-mangling mode?

If someone claims to have some sense or faculty we do not share, there still should be some way to demonstrate that, typically to be able to demonstrate the ability to discover some information that we can understand but by means we are not able to. In claimed paranormal abilities, for example, the 'psychic' can tell us what is inside a sealed container or at a remote location that could not be found out by our own senses. If not only the faculty itself but all that it allegedly allows the possessor to sense is entirely outside our observable world and has no demonstrable influence on what we can perceive, then it is genuinely meaningless to us.

Considering the many ways in which individuals making analogous claims can be shown to 'sensing' something entirely originating within their own minds, we are justified in demanding something more concrete as evidence than their unsupported claim or testimony before taking it seriously.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 This isn't fun anymore 1

 This isn't fun anymore 1 -24, but thanks for noticing me "I AM GOD ..." Yup, it's hard to understand me, .... that "god of abe" Devil separatist is quite effective. That devil stole my "name?" and created religion ..... I'd fix that for ya but i am only god as you .... can concieve. Get some Buddha help ....

#148

1 -24 -" 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."

Will - "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." //////

Yeah Will , ... but maybe that is a bit of an improvement for our searching friend 1-24 and "can" make sense .... We are all gods kids , therefore we are gods, therefore there is no "separate" god, as described in the bibull .... I only worship reality (me), not some punnie joke god of abe separatist concept. I AM GOD. God of abe is the devil of wrong thinking and a "sin" ..... "one with the father" a non-superstitious wise story man tried to teach the dumb shits, so the controllers killed him and the simple message .... ( fix the still broken media )

God is only god, as amazing as reality ( god ) is ..... babel babel ! My pen name could also have been, I AM only god as you ..... ( my god parents named me 'Mark' )

 Hey 1 - 24 "I (Jesus) and the Father are One." /// "...  be one, even as we are one."

 

 This Islam Allah fan is of course "half nuts" too, but makes some good points debunking xainty here,

Jesus saying "I and the Father are One."

http://www.answering-christianity.com/john10_30.htm

This is also pretty cool from another RRS post today, "Proof of God" - http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/09/proof-of-god.html

Good luck 1 -24 , you sinner, GOD forgets nothing, but I understand and truly "love" you my son .....

Thanks everyone ..... I love you too, my fellow gods.


NickB
High Level DonorSpecial Agent
NickB's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
 I do not believe this,

 

I do not believe this, since I last checked in there has been 32 posts!

Why is anybody bothering with this guy? Nothing you do or say will sway him, he obviously suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.

WikipediA wrote:
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1.       has a grandiose sense of self-importance

2.       is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brillance, beauty, or ideal love

3.       believes that he or she is "special" and unique

4.       requires excessive admiration

5.       has a sense of entitlement

6.       is interpersonally exploitative

7.       lacks empathy

8.       is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her

9.       shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes



Symptom 1: Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
He believes that his argument is so prophetic that it need not fit with any of the classical definitions of proof. He believes his argument is outside the realm of Human proof and it is somehow Godly proof.

Symptom 2: has a grandiose sense of self-importance
He asks people to humble themselves to him before he continues to debate them.

Symptom 3: believes that he or she is "special" and unique
He believes he is a child God and that he has the special ability of proving to us something that no human has been able to prove since we first evolved into a species.

Symptom 4: has a sense of entitlement
Again he believes that we need to humble ourselves before him and admit our foolishness. He believes he is entitled to our humility.

Symptom 5: requires excessive admiration
He spent 3 days with his head buried in a thesaurus digging up a bunch of big words that he could use to make himself seem more intelligent.

This guy is delusional. You cannot win an argument with a delusional person.

If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.


NickB
High Level DonorSpecial Agent
NickB's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
For some reason when I tried

For some reason when I tried to edit my first post it created a new post.....


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
NickB wrote: I do not

NickB wrote:

 

I do not believe this, since I last checked in there has been 32 posts!

Why is anybody bothering with this guy? Nothing you do or say will sway him, he obviously suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.


Symptom 1: Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
He believes that his argument is so prophetic that it need not fit with any of the classical definitions of proof. He believes his argument is outside the realm of Human proof and it is somehow Godly proof.

Symptom 2: has a grandiose sense of self-importance
He asks people to humble themselves to him before he continues to debate them.

Symptom 3: believes that he or she is "special" and unique
He believes he is a child God and that he has the special ability of proving to us something that no human has been able to prove since we first evolved into a species.

Symptom 4: has a sense of entitlement
Again he believes that we need to humble ourselves before him and admit our foolishness. He believes he is entitled to our humility.

Symptom 5: requires excessive admiration
He spent 3 days with his head buried in a thesaurus digging up a bunch of big words that he could use to make himself seem more intelligent.

 

Wait wait wait... just hold on now... i may have missed it in my skimming through of 80+ recent posts earlier today...

 

But, when did we start talking about me? ^_^

What Would Kharn Do?


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
I come back from a night out

I come back from a night out and find 42 new posts. I tried to follow it..So is he gone?Did we win?Are we rich? Are we christian?

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Stop with

HisWillness wrote:

Stop with the money - nobody expects it, and it's sad that you're bringing it up.

1-24 wrote:
As is, your judgments are of no substance. If something is unclear, then tell me. I will make it more clear.

Your ability to make things clear is about as non-existent as your evidence for the supernatural.

I'll sum up, for the people not interested in wading through your argument:

1. "Third Eye" assertion (believers can see something atheists can't)

2. Omnipotence is meaningless

3. Potential for any kind of power means omnipotence (?!?)

4. You're a child of God

That's basically it. The reason that doesn't prove anything is because in order to prove something, you'd have to be saying something first. The above is pseudo-philosophical nothingness.

 

I didn't get that out of it at all Will. I would sum it up as:

1. Third eye allusion - any person can sense what can not be made evident to another - separates truth from truthfulness.

2. The identity of potency must be made coherent for Omnipotence to be meaningful - consequent identities refuted (esp/w reference to terms in point (1)).

3. A coherent identity to potency is necessarily subsumed by a single omnipotence.

4. To claim any kind of potency is to claim inheritance from the extant in point (3).

Yes, 1-24?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Holy shit, guys.  It amazes

Holy shit, guys. 

It amazes me what ends people will go to in order to compel others to adopt their own ideologies. 


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

Yes, Eloise. That is all accurate.

 

1-24


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: HisWillness

Eloise wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Stop with the money - nobody expects it, and it's sad that you're bringing it up.

1-24 wrote:
As is, your judgments are of no substance. If something is unclear, then tell me. I will make it more clear.

Your ability to make things clear is about as non-existent as your evidence for the supernatural.

I'll sum up, for the people not interested in wading through your argument:

1. "Third Eye" assertion (believers can see something atheists can't)

2. Omnipotence is meaningless

3. Potential for any kind of power means omnipotence (?!?)

4. You're a child of God

That's basically it. The reason that doesn't prove anything is because in order to prove something, you'd have to be saying something first. The above is pseudo-philosophical nothingness.

 

I didn't get that out of it at all Will. I would sum it up as:

1. Third eye allusion - any person can sense what can not be made evident to another - separates truth from truthfulness.

Actually trivially true point, although I don't see the comment about truth/truthfulness apples, since inability of one person to grasp what another is trying to convey implies nothing about the objective 'truthfulness' or honesty of either party.

Begs the question why 1-24 spent so much time trying to make such simple points in such convoluted language.

Quote:

2. The identity of potency must be made coherent for Omnipotence to be meaningful - consequent identities refuted (esp/w reference to terms in point (1)).

Yes you need to define a quality or attribute before applying any qualifier to it, of course. Unfortunately that still doesn't address all the problems with the concept of omnipotence or make it a meaningful term in any further discussion. It is the use of this term along with 'infallible' where the argument goes off the rails, so any further points are moot.
Quote:

3. A coherent identity to potency is necessarily subsumed by a single omnipotence.

4. To claim any kind of potency is to claim inheritance from the extant in point (3).

Yes, 1-24?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Mr.Atheist wrote:Quote:Which

Mr.Atheist wrote:

Quote:

Which is why I attempt to take you off your throne of atheism. You call yourself an atheist to elevate yourself above the false evidence of the theists. Well I'm here to tell you that no evidence is more true than any other. But you have to know the other side of the coin in order to truly accept this.

I am an atheist not due to evidence in the contrary, I am an atheist due to a lack of reason to believe in anything of any supernatural reason.  There is no throne, just a recognition of my own ignorance.



Quote:

No matter how hard you strive toward more meaning, whether it be by science, philosophy, religion whatever else is left, you will not be successful, unless you figure out that meaning is meaningless.

You assume a strive towards meaning, but why do you assume I strive towards meaning? I quite comfortably and openly talk about meaning and purpose of life and I am quite happy suggesting that there is none.



Quote:

But you use the word to elevate yourself above theists. You try to make it meaningful. In the end, it has no meaning. Everybody's doing the exact same thing to picture themselves above each other, to esteem themselves higher than each other. But there is no higher. You all are using the same tricks but you don't realize it, nor can you stop it.


I am the first to suggest that atheism is a non-word.  Where have I used it to "elevate myself above theists" or are you just making an assumption? I would suggest you are just making this part up because you can not find evidence where I put myself higher than theists in general.

So your total lack of evidence, your lack of answering my questions, and your lack of payment suggest that in the end...you are just a worthless troll devoid of the ability to discuss your own topic on honest.

Thanks for coming out.

I tried my best to treat your post with respect and ask questions to which you refuse to elaborate on even in the slightest.  You, my friend, are simply a preaching troll.

I'm glad you're signed out as it is clear you have nothing valuable to add here seeing as you are not even able to explain your own fabricated random and simply meaningless claims written in such a bastardization of the language as to avoid anyone from ever fully understanding whatever it is you are trying to say.

 

POINT 1. You are an atheist due to a lack of reason to believe in anything of any supernatural reason. You are just recognizing your own ignorance.

 

A baby is an atheist due to a lack of reason to believe in anything of any supernatural reason. That baby makes no recognition of this and is no less an atheist than you. Why do you make the point to recognize yourself as an atheist then?

 

POINT 2. I assume a strive towards meaning, but why do I assume you strive towards meaning? You comfortably and openly talk about meaning and purpose of life and you are happy to suggest that there is none.

 

I didn't assume you strived toward meaning. I assumed you strived toward more meaning. What is the difference? To strive toward more meaning is to elevate yourself with meaning. It would be like trying to make yourself more of an atheist than a baby. You are not more of an atheist than a baby. Yet you walk around as if your title means something. Mr.Atheist, you call yourself. I ask you this - why did you just distinguish yourself from the atheism of a baby by qualifying it with 'I am recognizing my own ignorance'? You strive for more meaning. You strive in error.

 

POINT 3. You are the first to suggest that atheism is a non-word.  Where have you used it to "elevate yourself above theists"? Am I just making an assumption? You would suggest I am just making this part up because I can not find evidence where you put yourself higher than theists in general.

 

You have used it to elevate yourself above theists. There is no reason for you to distinguish your atheism from that of a baby. Yet you still do it. You affirm, 'I am an atheist' so someone will hear it and look at you. It fuels your meaningfulness. But what is this fuel useful for? It is useful to make those not like you look at you. It is to make the theists pay attention to you. When you lie you lie in your native tongue. Your father was a liar, never holding to the truth. You are no different.

 

Mr.Atheist wrote:
So your total lack of evidence, your lack of answering my questions, and your lack of payment suggest that in the end...you are just a worthless troll devoid of the ability to discuss your own topic on honest.

What have I not made evident about you here Mr.Atheist. Your tricks are all transparent. I make your tricks transparent so that you may stop using them and pay attention to what I am trying to tell you. I don't want you to oppose me with your tricks. I want you to oppose me with your real strength - the strength I already know you possess. The strength you do not know you have because you have been opposing your own people, people who use your same tricks. I do not use those tricks, because I am not your own people. Choose the right way to attack what it is I speak to you.


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Infallible truth" is one expression which 1-24 used frequently, despite the reality that we can never identify any such thing. If we discount all the assertions using some variation of 'infallible' we have many gaping holes. At one point I sensed that 1-24 was using the term to refer to something like deductive, mathematical style truth, especially when simple arithmetic expressions were listed, and this would be a plausible use of the term, and his dismissal of these as not meaningful in some sense I could almost agree, but 'infallible' was thrown around much more widely than that in other parts of the 'argument', I thought.

To try to make some point about 'omnipotence' that somehow it was not a logical problem just because the alleged possessor chose not to exercise the particular self-contradictory nominal 'ability' is a complete fallacy. 'Omnipotence' is not a meaningful concept, period, and that 'dodge' is a pathetic attempt to somehow get around that fundamental point. To spend so much time arguing around 'can he create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it'  demonstrates to me the total emptiness of his argument - a simple acknowledge that such an question demonstrates the incoherence of the concept of 'omnipotence' would have been the honest response.

Evidence leads potentially to a level of 'proof', proof itself doesn't not lead to or 'uncover' the evidence for itself.

And so on.

Another curiosity: when asked to clarify something, he(?) seemed often capable of phrasing it in relatively normal terms, which begs the question of why in the 'formal' argument did 1-24 fall back into the incomprehensible word-mangling mode?

If someone claims to have some sense or faculty we do not share, there still should be some way to demonstrate that, typically to be able to demonstrate the ability to discover some information that we can understand but by means we are not able to. In claimed paranormal abilities, for example, the 'psychic' can tell us what is inside a sealed container or at a remote location that could not be found out by our own senses. If not only the faculty itself but all that it allegedly allows the possessor to sense is entirely outside our observable world and has no demonstrable influence on what we can perceive, then it is genuinely meaningless to us.

Considering the many ways in which individuals making analogous claims can be shown to 'sensing' something entirely originating within their own minds, we are justified in demanding something more concrete as evidence than their unsupported claim or testimony before taking it seriously.

 

post #226

 

You are right BobSpence. You cannot identify infallible truth. You cannot point to it and say 'there it is' or 'It feels strange'. You do not have the faculty to identify it. The Infallible is not a noun but a verb. You cannot grasp a verb, you cannot see it with your own eyes. However, even as this is the case, you can know that this verb is manifest in you. And even this is wrong to say for it is not that it is manifest in you - it is that you are a manifestation of it.

 

Speaking of this, your other point - about how when it came to the formal proof my language was unclear. Well, I think it was unclear because my strife was for validity. In other words, if I did had some epistemic faculty that was not developed in you, I could demonstrate empirically that it existed. I could give you examples as evidence empirically. But to help you know that you use this faculty already, this I had to demonstrate epistemically. Therefore it required a more subtle evidence. And subtle is often harder to be seen.

 

As regards to what you said about Omnipotence being meaningful, I never said this. In fact, where I left off, it was still meaningless. But to accept it in its evidence, you must also accept your lowness in the face of it. After all, how long of your life have you denied its existence? This is the most simple of reparations to a lifetime of revolt: humility.

 

1-24

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
1-24 wrote:POINT 1. You are

1-24 wrote:
POINT 1. You are an atheist due to a lack of reason to believe in anything of any supernatural reason. You are just recognizing your own ignorance. A baby is an atheist due to a lack of reason to believe in anything of any supernatural reason. That baby makes no recognition of this and is no less an atheist than you. Why do you make the point to recognize yourself as an atheist then?

Demonstrate that there's knowledge in question.

In fields where knowledge of the world is precise and meaningful, there's a functional difference between a person who knows and does not; which can be demonstrated in the outcomes of certain tests. It's unlikely that I could calculate the trajectory of an object well enough to plan a course for a satellite to intercept it -- but there are people who can do this. The outcome of your supposed knowledge is pushed conveniently beyond the bounds of falsifiability -- either the physical ability to have knowledge, or to transmit it. We're meant to take someone's appeal to authority for granted that they know something about a post-death scenario, or that subjective experiences can be discerned as natural or supernatural from within the experience itself.


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
LOLRon wrote:Demonstrate

LOLRon wrote:

Demonstrate that there's knowledge in question.

In fields where knowledge of the world is precise and meaningful, there's a functional difference between a person who knows and does not; which can be demonstrated in the outcomes of certain tests. It's unlikely that I could calculate the trajectory of an object well enough to plan a course for a satellite to intercept it -- but there are people who can do this. The outcome of your supposed knowledge is pushed conveniently beyond the bounds of falsifiability -- either the physical ability to have knowledge, or to transmit it. We're meant to take someone's appeal to authority for granted that they know something about a post-death scenario, or that subjective experiences can be discerned as natural or supernatural from within the experience itself.

 

Yes there is a functional difference. That function is for combat. I'm not saying that you are supposed to take someone's appeal to authority for granted that they know something. I am not saying that there is not a time that this combat is necessary. I am saying that man is first born of the flesh. However, there is a time when things of the flesh need be stowed in order that the spirit may do its work.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What evidence do you have

What evidence do you have that any "spirit" exists at all?


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
I receive my evidence from

I receive my evidence from that Spirit. If you want that evidence, read and understand the proof.


1-24
Theist
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-03-02
User is offlineOffline
John 3:31-36

John 3:31-36


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
1-24 wrote:John 3:31-36I

1-24 wrote:

John 3:31-36

I read the entire passage, it proves nothing.  It is esoteric in nature but that in no way validates it as truth.  It does not even serve to distinguish it from other religions whom also make claims of special knowledge.

And finally the entire passage is concluded with a threat of wrath which again proves nothing.