Proof of God

[athon]

You criticize me for calling him a "prick" yet defend him for calling me a "coward" a "Liar" and "Pathetic"? You're wasting my time. I'm done with you. So far you've done nothing but waste my time with pointless nonsensical posts that evade the points and insult me.

See, here's the difference between you and me, Dustin (you probably have me on ignore, but I'll say it anyway). I don't care if you call me a prick. Seriously, it doesn't bother me one bit. You feel upset that I've called you to task on your behaviour, which is to play word games through applying denotative definitions to contextual situations, ignoring subtext and squirming out of insinuated meaning by claiming innocence. If you really are innocent of such things, you have no idea the impact of a statement such as 'weasel' has on your audience, which makes you naive.

So, choose one; acting cowardly or naively.

As for my being a 'prick', well, I don't see a direct relationship between my actions and the term, but I'll accept it. The thing is, both your and my posts stand for themselves for others to read. I am confident that those reading my posts will see merit in their calling your statements arrogant, cowardly, pathetic and naive, and not see merit in your calling me a prick. Hence you may call me whatever you like and it won't bother me in the slightest.

The ironic thing is that you feel violence against me would be justified, while I don't have the slightest thought of physically harming you for your views. Just who is more Christian in that respect?

Athon

 

[Complexity]

You obviously never read the OP. It's a process. You must prove you exist and that reality exits before you can ever prove a "God".

Now, that's funny! Reality has to exit before you can ever prove a god!

Dustin, you couldn't prove your way out of a paper bag ( <= figure of speech, please don't try this at home ).

Do you understand that the number of bytes that will ever be generated by people is finite?

Quit wasting them.

 

[nescafe]

You obviously never read the OP. It's a process. You must prove you exist and that reality exits before you can ever prove a "God".

OK. Prove that reality exists.

 

[CapelDodger]

As for my being a 'prick', well, I don't see a direct relationship between my actions and the term, but I'll accept it. The thing is, both your and my posts stand for themselves for others to read. I am confident that those reading my posts will see merit in their calling your statements arrogant, cowardly, pathetic and naive, and not see merit in your calling me a prick. Hence you may call me whatever you like and it won't bother me in the slightest.

Your confidence is justified in at least my case.

An obvious difference between you and Dustin is that you have some concern for how others regard you, whereas Dustin is so far up himself he cares only about his own opinion - which is that he is utterly marvellous. From that position, the human-focused evangelical god is axiomatic.

I've met his type before, and they're nothing special. Infantile, yes, but not special.

 

[PixyMisa]

No. I'm using the words as they are defined in the dictionary.

You're cherry-picking definitions; worse, you post definitions that contradict your claims and then blindly insist that they support you.

A fundamental axiom for "sanity"? The so called "Cartesian other" is clearly elaborated in my OP. I think it's time you read it and stop dancing around it.

Your OP is a week-dead fish at this point.

 

[Loss Leader]

All of a sudden I'm "socially awkward" because I have converted to Christianity and accepted Jesus?

No, you're socially awkward because it's more important to you to be disliked than liked.

You will disagree with, demean and insult your new christian friends as easily as you did everyone else. You are driven to do so by your pathological need to protect yourself from rejection.

(That is, of course, if your conversion is genuine. It may be nothing more than a ploy to seem even more unbearable than you were before.)

Also, it's "all of the sudden," not "all of a sudden." What has happened to the way people write these days?

 

[kmortis]

No, you're socially awkward because it's more important to you to be disliked than liked.

You will disagree with, demean and insult your new christian friends as easily as you did everyone else. You are driven to do so by your pathological need to protect yourself from rejection.

(That is, of course, if your conversion is genuine. It may be nothing more than a ploy to seem even more unbearable than you were before.)

Also, it's "all of the sudden," not "all of a sudden." What has happened to the way people write these days?

Really? I've always heard it as "all of a sudden"...hrm

 

[my_wan]

By definition you're absolutely and unequivocally wrong.

If "Prick "is just a plain old insult then "Coward" is just a plain old insult. "Liar" is just a plain old insult. "Pathetic" is just a plain old insult.

Coward - A personality trait.
Liar - i.e. lying, an act committed by a person.
Pathetic - An adjective. Modifies a noun or a pronoun by describing.
___________
Prick - A body part.

You see guys it is a lost cause. As his feelings were hurt the "intent" in his mind was to insult. Since "intent" is what his comprehension of the world hinges on the word list above are equivalent. I have yet to see any post in his history on this board were he demonstrated the ability to distinguish the implied message and the factual message. In fact his very proof in the OP was the use of implied meaning to form a proof. It's the same disability that has allowed his recent reading to so engross him in his new ultimate truth.

 

[Paulhoff]

Adv.
1.all of a sudden - without warning; "all at once, he started shouting" all at once
2.all of a sudden - happening unexpectedly; "suddenly she felt a sharp pain in her side" of a sudden, suddenly

Paul

 

[Hawk one]

Really? I've always heard it as "all of a sudden"...hrm

Me too.

I mean, I tried googling "all of the sudden", and most of the top search results are talking about how that is wrong. Whereas the top result for "all of a sudden" gives us this result and similar ones to it.

Apparently, "all of the sudden", according to the OED and researched by this blogger seems to have been out of style in formally written language since roughly the 17th century.

My own OED isn't the version with all that history and stuff. But it nevertheless mentions only "all of a sudden" (you find it in the "sudden" entry, by the way, instead of the "all" entry. In case any of you want to double-check this.).

My conclusion would therefore be that "all of a sudden" is perfectly correct to use. Not the least because it is a well-established idiom, and idioms don't always have to follow grammatical rules the same way normal sentences must.

 

[Loss Leader]

Apparently, "all of the sudden", according to the OED and researched by this blogger seems to have been out of style in formally written language since roughly the 17th century.

Well, this would be the problem, then, as I was transported here directly from 1598.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I want to stress that the following post was condensed into a breviloquent and concise framework who’s aim is sheer simplicity and practicality. Furthermore much of what I wrote in this post was removed due to conservation of space.

I think you just used thirty-nine words to tell us that you've been brief.

Firstly we must look at the definition of the “God” we are referring to. The definition is as follows: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. By this definition we can see that one inherent property of our would-be god is being “supernatural” which means ‘above or beyond what is natural’, one inherent property is omnipotence and omniscience which mean having all powers or abilities and having all knowledge or wisdom respectively. A common attribute ascribed to “God” is omnipresence (existing everywhere at once) however for the sake of this argument I won’t use such an attribute.

This means that ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the previous paragraph. Now I will make the first postulation which is ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context. I do not mean ’positive’ to be any sort of moral aesthetic definition. Now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails B necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative. Since N=God therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’. This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God. Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well. N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world. Such contingent propositions rely on plenitudes that which lead us to the logical conclusion that the property of being God is illustrated. This bears out in the following modal logical equation:

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

Where N is an entity, G is Godlike, and P are inherent properties. Excuse my logical syntax If it has some mistakes, the premise and conclusions themselves are adequately valid which show that it would be logically impossible if a God could not or did not exist and the only conclusion we are left with is that a God does exist and must exist.

Could you run that by us again?

You could start by translating that string of "modal logic" into English, since there's no point in stating things formally unless you're then going to carry out formal operations on the string.

 

[Dr Adequate]

No. Jesus appearing to me and revealing himself showed me the arguments and made them clear to me and then at that point I instantly understood them.

Jesus said "N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N"?

It's not his usual style, is it?

Did he by any chance say what he meant by it?

 

[PixyMisa]

Dustin did provide an explanation for this somewhere upthread. Sadly, the explanation was riddled with flaws, and even introduced an additional undefined term.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dustin did provide an explanation for this somewhere upthread.

I've read the thread, I can't find the translation.

 

[PixyMisa]

Found it - post 72.

Not much of an explanation, but there you go.

 

[Dr Adequate]

In formulating the following antithesis to the sonorous intricacies of Dustin's argumentum per bloviatem, I have made a superlative effort to eschew sesquipedalian circumlocutory badinage, and to scrupulously constrain the logorrheic exuberance of my magniloquence within a compass of no unfeasible magnitude.

Let us postulate the plenitude of a volant ludus naturae composed of filamentary farinaceous matter (denoted symbolically as FSM) and let us further posit that if the FSM exists, he is supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Then:

φ♥π → (FSM → i♥π - m³π)

Breviloquently, only the most indefatigable of contrarians would disdain to acknowledge that the production of vacuous pseudological formulae to appease a quixotic aspiration to valdidate the existence of hypothetical nebulous metaphysical entities is manifestly the psychological equivalent of gratifying one's own concupiscent inclinations by means of manual stimulation, and as such is irrefrangibly deserving of derisive floccinaucinihilipilification.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Found it - post 72.

Not much of an explanation, but there you go.

Yes, I did see that, but on that showing and the definitions supplied, his argument, in so far as I can translate it, appears to be:

"An entity necessity God if and only if O inference an entity necessity God if and only if inherent properties inference an inherent property of an entity - F an entity if and only if D necessity inference an entity true inherent properties inference an entity˜inherent properties equals false an entity."

I really want to see it in some language that I actually speak.

 

[quixotecoyote]

"Breviloquently" Dr A? I think you made that one up.

 

[Dr Adequate]

"Breviloquently" Dr A? I think you made that one up.

No, it's perfectly cromulent.