Proof of God

From now on I won't reply to people who make vague assertions and who don't provide clear examples and quote exactly what they are referring to after the make the assertions.
 
Get your paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and get back to me about your OP. I got as far as your silly Descarte proved that the individual exists, and maybe a god-demon and realized that the rest of the post is probably just as silly. When you come up with real evidence that your god exists, feel free to show it.
 
Get your paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and get back to me about your OP. I got as far as your silly Descarte proved that the individual exists, and maybe a god-demon and realized that the rest of the post is probably just as silly. When you come up with real evidence that your god exists, feel free to show it.


I already have. If you're not intelligent enough to understand Cartesian philosophy then I doubt you're intelligent enough to understand some of the more complex aspects of my post. It's probably best you stopped reading, you wouldn't have understood it anyway.
 
We've read the OP, sesquipedalian monstrosity that it is.

We've pointed out innumerable... well, not innumerable... heaps of logical fallacies.

You have yet to acknowledge any of those.

None of us here think you have proved anything whatsoever. If you want to change our minds, you will never do it with a great splodge of text like that.

You need to take one step at a time, considering all objections, defining your terms and refining your logic with exquisite care.

We'll help by telling you where you're wrong.
 
There's nothing wrong with that. I assumed God existed to see if his non-existence was more or less consistent. Then I showed that he couldn't possibly not exist therefore he must exist.

Do you honestly think that you have done this? I really can't tell if the whole OP is a complex wind-up, or if you genuinely believe in this statement.
 
If anyone has anything specific to say regarding my post, quotes included, then I'd be more than happy to respond.
Every part of it, from beginning to end, is nonsense of the first order.

It would be rude for me to quote the entire thing, so please reference all of my (and everyone else's) objections upthread, not one of which have you adequately addressed.
 
Unfair to Sir Humphrey, you mean? An Oxford man would eschew such prolixity.

Given I seem to be in a political drama mood all I'll say is:

You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

:D
 
Get your paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and get back to me about your OP. I got as far as your silly Descarte proved that the individual exists, and maybe a god-demon and realized that the rest of the post is probably just as silly. When you come up with real evidence that your god exists, feel free to show it.

I already have. If you're not intelligent enough to understand Cartesian philosophy then I doubt you're intelligent enough to understand some of the more complex aspects of my post. It's probably best you stopped reading, you wouldn't have understood it anyway.

What peer-reviewed scientific journal did you get your OP published in Dustin? Please share that with us....
 
No. I base my beliefs on established facts and evidence.
What established facts and evidence?

See my OP. I've shown that God exists.
Well.... No. No, sorry to say, Dustin, that you have not done this after all. Your premises are unsupported and your logic is invalid, as has been explained to you by everyone here.

Your OP is of no value. Give it up. Start instead with a single statement, an axiom, an observation, a postulate, whatever. Get people to agree with that. Then build on it. We'll help. It won't work, of course, but we're happy to help.
 

Back
Top Bottom