Proof of God

[D'rok]

Athon has called me a "Coward", a "Liar", and "Pathetic.

Wrong. He has called your behaviour cowardly, etc. You have called him a prick.

I called him a "Prick" which is defined as an obnoxious or contemptible person. Do you believe continuasly calling someone a "Coward", a "Liar", and "Pathetic is not obnoxious or contemptible?

I have called you dishonest on numerous occasions (and I am about to again) because your behaviour has been demonstrably dishonest. My first introduction to you on this forum was in your Seal Hunt thread when you inserted a picture of a baby seal into a series of pictures of adult seals being harvested. That was dishonest and I called you on it. Am I a prick too?

All fellow christians are my brothers and sisters in Jesus. I am a very likable person. However it's clear to me that your perception of what's "likable" is skewed since you say I'm not likable even though I try my best to have a mature discussion without insults or rudeness. Why am I not "Likable" Because I disagree with you about religion? Because I disagree with you about modal logic? Because I don't find your arguments convincing?

See? Dishonesty again. Reasonable people can disagree, even vehemently. They can even like and respect each other for this very reason. You know perfectly well that you are not attempting to have a mature discussion replete with reasonable disagreements. You have declared Absolute Truth that anyone can see if only they had any sense. Funny how only you can see it. Funny how only you have discovered it. Arrogance is not likeable.

Intellectual rigidity is the same as intellectual death. And veering from one pole of rigidity to another is not an example of intellectual rigour.

 

[Z]

How about addressing my responses to your O.P.? I am neither an atheist, nor being rude. I have posted what I perceive as being a logical problem twice; I feel that reposting it again would constitute spam, so I refer you instead to post number 402, being the second time I posted. Therein, you should find that I posted both a more appropriate avenue of discourse for an evangelical Christian, and a carefully thought-out response to the first of the problems I perceive in your O.P.

So far, you have utterly failed to acknowledge that post.

On the off chance Dustin has me on ignore, one of you others may feel free to repost it so he may address it, as I'm sure he'd want to work through any possible problems in his proof.

Thank you.

 

[Hawk one]

Can you give me distinct and clear examples including quotes showing me where I have been an "arrogant jackdonkey"? I'll show you numerous examples of me admitting I was wrong about something if you want.

Plenty of them in the latest few threads JF made.

For example, in his "question for old earth" thread, you started off with

Watch them invent some way to weasel out of it.

This was most definitely arrogant, especially considering that it takes about 5 seconds brain activity to realise why the premise of the OP is wrong (it assumes a completely linear graph), and then 5 minutes research to confirm that it was not in any way interesting, just another spouting of creationist lies. When called out that you obviously implied agreement to the OP, you just tried to proclaim that stupid "texts don't have tones" claim.

And when you find out that hey, other people read these threads, and they do notice things like how you yourself liberally likes to claim people are having a "condencending tone" when it suits you... Well you tried weaseling out once again by claiming it was supposed to be a joke. If I had any trust in your intellectual honesty, I might be ready to believe that. But with your history of lying, I find it far more probable that you're simply not capable of admitting it was a mistake to write that post.

Then in his "question for evolutionists" threads, you put up that "game, set, and match" post without any justification for doing so, only a complete misunderstanding (as evidenced by your later posts) of what evolution is actually all about. Without doing even so much as a molecule of research, you declare victory for an argument that's a classic creationist lie, put forth by a fundamentalist who's also been shown earlier to have no clue about biology. If such a declaration is not arrogant, I don't know what is.

Of course, you're going to claim "that's not what I meant" to these examples. In that case, I have a newsflash for you: Try to write what you mean, then. Because if that's really true, then your grasp of English is so poor, that you really need a class in communication.

 

[andyandy]

Then in his "question for evolutionists" threads, you put up that "game, set, and match" post without any justification for doing so, only a complete misunderstanding (as evidenced by your later posts) of what evolution is actually all about. Without doing even so much as a molecule of research, you declare victory for an argument that's a classic creationist lie, put forth by a fundamentalist who's also been shown earlier to have no clue about biology. If such a declaration is not arrogant, I don't know what is.

ah - but Dustin was using the following definitions;

3 Game; a competitive activity involving skill,

52 set. to decline

15. match to place in opposition or conflict:


so what you should have interpreted his sentence as is;

Jesus Freak, your skill at this competitive technique has declined, I am placed in conflict with your opinion.

You need to brush up on your English

 

[D'rok]

ah - but Dustin was using the following definitions;

3 Game; a competitive activity involving skill,

52 set. to decline

15. match to place in opposition or conflict:


so what you should have interpreted his sentence as is;

Jesus Freak, your skill at this competitive technique has declined, I am placed in conflict with your opinion.

You need to brush up on your English

How breviloquent of you. Your conclusion is irrefrangible.

 

[andyandy]

How breviloquent of you. Your conclusion is irrefrangible.

It was simply my aim to provide an efficacious and determinative composition to exegesis Dustin's benightedness.

 

[D'rok]

Wrong. He has called your behaviour cowardly, etc. You have called him a prick.

I have called you dishonest on numerous occasions (and I am about to again) because your behaviour has been demonstrably dishonest. My first introduction to you on this forum was in your Seal Hunt thread when you inserted a picture of a baby seal into a series of pictures of adult seals being harvested. That was dishonest and I called you on it. Am I a prick too?



See? Dishonesty again. Reasonable people can disagree, even vehemently. They can even like and respect each other for this very reason. You know perfectly well that you are not attempting to have a mature discussion replete with reasonable disagreements. You have declared Absolute Truth that anyone can see if only they had any sense. Funny how only you can see it. Funny how only you have discovered it. Arrogance is not likeable.

Intellectual rigidity is the same as intellectual death. And veering from one pole of rigidity to another is not an example of intellectual rigour.

Here I am going on about pricks and rigid poles. What the hell is up with that?

 

[Morrigan]

This thread's getting sexy now.

Say... whatever happened to T'ai Chi?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Wrong. He has called your behaviour cowardly, etc. You have called him a prick.

See explanation. "Prick" is a term that specifies a specific behavior, I.E. obnoxious or contemptible. Which his posts clearly are.

See? Dishonesty again. Reasonable people can disagree, even vehemently. They can even like and respect each other for this very reason. You know perfectly well that you are not attempting to have a mature discussion replete with reasonable disagreements. You have declared Absolute Truth that anyone can see if only they had any sense. Funny how only you can see it. Funny how only you have discovered it. Arrogance is not likeable.

Intellectual rigidity is the same as intellectual death. And veering from one pole of rigidity to another is not an example of intellectual rigour.

You're not making sense. Of course I declare "Absolute truth" simply because I know. If I was arguing with someone who denied 2+2=4 then I would be absolutely right in claiming that it is absolute truth that 2+2=4. Am I arrogant for claiming I have absolute truth when I make such a statement? That's an argument Sylvia Browne supporters make yet you're making it right now right here. Denying lies and supporting facts is a world apart from arrogance.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Plenty of them in the latest few threads JF made.

For example, in his "question for old earth" thread, you started off with



This was most definitely arrogant, especially considering that it takes about 5 seconds brain activity to realise why the premise of the OP is wrong (it assumes a completely linear graph), and then 5 minutes research to confirm that it was not in any way interesting, just another spouting of creationist lies. When called out that you obviously implied agreement to the OP, you just tried to proclaim that stupid "texts don't have tones" claim.

Excuse me? This is some sort of a joke right? You call arrogant for simply saying people will weasel out of answering a question yet calling a fellow poster (Jesus_Freak) a "spouter of creationist lies"? That's not arrogant? How about "5 seconds brain activity to realize why the premise of the OP is wrong"? That's not condescending and arrogant?

And when you find out that hey, other people read these threads, and they do notice things like how you yourself liberally likes to claim people are having a "condencending tone" when it suits you... Well you tried weaseling out once again by claiming it was supposed to be a joke. If I had any trust in your intellectual honesty, I might be ready to believe that. But with your history of lying, I find it far more probable that you're simply not capable of admitting it was a mistake to write that post.

Saying people would weasel out of answering him and instead post websites and expect him to read them was NOT a joke.

Then in his "question for evolutionists" threads, you put up that "game, set, and match" post without any justification for doing so, only a complete misunderstanding (as evidenced by your later posts) of what evolution is actually all about.

Misunderstanding evolution makes me arrogant? Even if I'm misunderstanding it, I'm afraid it doesn't. Do you know how many people on this forum say "Game set match!"? Do you call THEM arrogant? They're usually atheists, Of course you don't call them arrogant, you agree with them. People are only arrogant when they disagree with you, Right?

Without doing even so much as a molecule of research, you declare victory for an argument that's a classic creationist lie, put forth by a fundamentalist who's also been shown earlier to have no clue about biology. If such a declaration is not arrogant, I don't know what is.

Arrogance means arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others. If declaring an argument is set and matched due to "confusion" then how is this assuming superiority towards others?

 

[D'rok]

See explanation. "Prick" is a term that specifies a specific behavior, I.E. obnoxious or contemptible. Which his posts clearly are.

Prick is just a plain old insult. It's what you call someone who pisses you off for pointing out your cowardly behaviour.

You're not making sense. Of course I declare "Absolute truth" simply because I know. If I was arguing with someone who denied 2+2=4 then I would be absolutely right in claiming that it is absolute truth that 2+2=4. Am I arrogant for claiming I have absolute truth when I make such a statement? That's an argument Sylvia Browne supporters make yet you're making it right now right here. Denying lies and supporting facts is a world apart from arrogance.

Where are the facts in your proof? Where is the Absolute Truth in your proof? It is quite a simple matter to devise a testable hypothesis than can provide observational evidence that 2+2 is indeed 4. When will you be subjecting your "philosophical" and "logical" assumptions to such testing?

Arguments are not evidence. Your proof, even if it was valid, is not truth.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Prick is just a plain old insult. It's what you call someone who pisses you off for pointing out your cowardly behaviour.

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.

Where are the facts in your proof? Where is the Absolute Truth in your proof? It is quite a simple matter to devise a testable hypothesis than can provide observational evidence that 2+2 is indeed 4. When will you be subjecting your "philosophical" and "logical" assumptions to such testing?

Arguments are not evidence. Your proof, even if it was valid, is not truth.

In order to prove that 2+2=4 you need a set of axioms and then you formulate a mathematical argument showing how 2+2=4. This is what I did with my argument except the premises weren't axiomatic but were established truths of reason and rationality. "I exist" is one of them. "I exist" is not an axiom but a provable fact, which I proved in the OP.

 

[andyandy]

In order to prove that 2+2=4 you need a set of axioms and then you formulate a mathematical argument showing how 2+2=4. This is what I did with my argument except the premises weren't axiomatic but were established truths of reason and rationality. "I exist" is one of them. "I exist" is not an axiom but a provable fact, which I proved in the OP.

hang on you were trying to prove God exists - not that you exist.....

or are you God?

 

[Paulhoff]

A little girl goes walking with her daddy by the shore.
Gee daddy, why is the sky blue.
Because god made it that way.
Gee daddy, why is the ocean a greenish blue.
Because god made it that way.
Gee daddy, why do we have a moon.
Because god made it that way.
Gee daddy, why do fish live in the ocean.
Because god made it that way, (do you see a pattern here?)
Gee daddy, I love asking you questions, I learn so much.
That is why I am here, because god made it that way.

Paul



Which god, pick one, they are free and can be anything you what it to be, no assembly required.

 

[D'rok]

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.

Well...you do like to operate under your own set of definitions. That has been made abundantly clear. See if you can tell the difference between these two statements:

"That was a cowardly thing you did".
"You are a prick".

In order to prove that 2+2=4 you need a set of axioms and then you formulate a mathematical argument showing how 2+2=4. This is what I did with my argument except the premises weren't axiomatic but were established truths of reason and rationality. "I exist" is one of them. "I exist" is not an axiom but a provable fact, which I proved in the OP.

Oops, you did it again.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2681222#post2681222

Hell, I believe you exist. No need to prove it to me or yourself. Assuming that our personal experience of being an "existent" is real is the fundamental axiom necessary for sanity. Building from there, you need something more tangible than that to make claims about the universe. Especially unverifiable claims such as the god hypothesis. 2+2=4 != god.

Read that Hegel. You'll love it. He was just as convinced as you that the "rational is real".

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

hang on you were trying to prove God exists - not that you exist.....

or are you God?

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".

Well...you do like to operate under your own set of definitions. That has been made abundantly clear.

No. I posted the dictionary definition. You do like to totally ignore posts that people make that disagree with you. That has been made abundantly clear.

Definition.

See if you can tell the difference between these two statements:

"That was a cowardly thing you did".
"You are a prick".

Athon didn't call my actions cowardly, he called me cowardly personally. As well as a "liar" and "pathetic".

Oops, you did it again.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2681222#post2681222

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

Hell, I believe you exist. No need to prove it to me or yourself. Assuming that our personal experience of being an "existent" is real is the fundamental axiom necessary for sanity. Building from there, you need something more tangible than that to make claims about the universe. Especially unverifiable claims such as the god hypothesis. 2+2=4 != god.

Read that Hegel. You'll love it. He was just as convinced as you that the "rational is real".

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.

 

[D'rok]

Athon didn't call my actions cowardly, he called me cowardly personally. As well as a "liar" and "pathetic".

Oh well. I'm sure he can defend himself from the likes of you quite adequately if he feels the need to.

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

When it suits you. Although you were honest enough to finally admit that the particular definition of proof in the context of the OP is the very specific "logical proof". Yet that hasn't stopped you from acting like you've provided us with compelling evidence of something or other.

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.

I did read it. Glaucon is still trying to clean off the stupid. It leaves a stain.

 

[andyandy]

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".

.

i certainly did read it - i'll give you that you exist, i'll even give you reality exists, nowhere did you achieve a proof that god exists.

I'm stil waiting to discuss the flaws in your cut and paste hatchet job from Godel's ontological argument. And no - you haven't replied to them, so don't lie. The best you've managed so far is "read it again with your monitor switched on." Surely you can do better?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Oh well. I'm sure he can defend himself from the likes of you quite adequately if he feels the need to.

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.

I did read it. Glaucon is still trying to clean off the stupid. It leaves a stain.

You obviously never read it.

 

[D'rok]

You criticize me for calling him a "prick" yet defend him for calling me a "coward" a "Liar" and "Pathetic"?

Nope. I'm sure you were being cowardly, dishonest and pathetic and he called you on it. But he (she? - sorry) doesn't need me to defend him; he is quite capable.

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.

Except for all those posts where I attempted to point out specific instances of flawed logic, and pointed you to some actual non-wikipedia philosophy. I've only begun pushing your buttons because I'm bored with pretending that you deserve to be treated like an adult.

And you are plainly quite capable of wasting your own time without any help from me.

You obviously never read it.

Right. Because if I had, I would realize that god exists. Got it.