Proof of God

[PixyMisa]

Surely i♥π → ηβπ?

 

[D'rok]

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.

 

[Loss Leader]

a quixotic aspiration to valdidate the existence of hypothetical nebulous metaphysical entities

"Quixotic" is exactly the right word. Like Don Quixote, Dustin is compelled towards a subjectively noble and objectively nonsensical task that is, in any case, impossible.

 

[Tearout]

... I hope this following was as simple and clear as I hoped it would be, I did not spend as much time as I should have copy editing it as I typed it up in about 20 minutes...

As a first post, I just have to say that I am in awe of Mr. Kesselberg's typing prowess! He typed his original post, a document in excess of 7400 words, in 20 minutes. That works out to about 370 words per minute!

Say... Would such a feat, under controlled conditions, be worthy of the MDC?

If not... then perhaps the Guinness Book of World Records!

 

[Bob Klase]

As a first post, I just have to say that I am in awe of Mr. Kesselberg's typing prowess! He typed his original post, a document in excess of 7400 words, in 20 minutes. That works out to about 370 words per minute!

Say... Would such a feat, under controlled conditions, be worthy of the MDC?

If not... then perhaps the Guinness Book of World Records!

Not a world record- more than twice the speed of the current world record.

Perhaps Dustin should stop posting a constant stream of tripe and spend his time on something much more useful (relatively speaking) such as this:

http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/typing.html

Or maybe his watch just runs very, very slow.

(Dictionary explanation of "tripe": Informal Something of no value; rubbish.)

 

[D'rok]

As a first post, I just have to say that I am in awe of Mr. Kesselberg's typing prowess! He typed his original post, a document in excess of 7400 words, in 20 minutes. That works out to about 370 words per minute!

Say... Would such a feat, under controlled conditions, be worthy of the MDC?

If not... then perhaps the Guinness Book of World Records!

Nice first post Tearout. Well played indeed.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

As a first post, I just have to say that I am in awe of Mr. Kesselberg's typing prowess! He typed his original post, a document in excess of 7400 words, in 20 minutes. That works out to about 370 words per minute!

Say... Would such a feat, under controlled conditions, be worthy of the MDC?

If not... then perhaps the Guinness Book of World Records!

I type incredibly fast, probably around 120-140 words per minute on average. However you're right about that time estimate of mine, I was estimating how long it took me to type it up and it seemed like 20 minutes. It was probably more than twice that.

 

[wolfgirl]

I type incredibly fast, probably around 120-140 words per minute on average. However you're right about that time estimate of mine, I was estimating how long it took me to type it up and it seemed like 20 minutes. It was probably more than twice that.

So just like your biblical defenses, when your logic is called into question regarding real-life situations, you suddenly rationalize it away. Not that what you (or the bible) said was physically impossible, but rather that you (or the bible) were mis-quoted, misunderstood, mis-translated, whatever.

Stop playing games with us, Dustin. You've been found out. You're just making $#!t up. Get over it.

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

He appears to be missing some connectives somewhere, along with anything resembling a coherent thought.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So just like your biblical defenses, when your logic is called into question regarding real-life situations, you suddenly rationalize it away. Not that what you (or the bible) said was physically impossible, but rather that you (or the bible) were mis-quoted, misunderstood, mis-translated, whatever.

Stop playing games with us, Dustin. You've been found out. You're just making $#!t up. Get over it.

Rationalize? I just retracted what I initially said and corrected myself. What more do you want?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think the time that Dustin used to type up his OP is irrelevant. What matters is that he took more time typing than actually thinking logically when writing it. He doesn't make one intelligent argument to support the existence of his god his over-sized essay.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's pretty amusing watching people deny the fact that my initial post proves God yet jump through hoops to evade refuting a single one of my arguments sentence by sentence.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's pretty amusing watching people deny the fact that my initial post proves God yet jump through hoops to evade refuting a single one of my arguments sentence by sentence.

People have done that, Dustin - and then you turn around and complain that they are ignoring the rest of the argument.

Pick a particular sentence that you think makes some sort of sense, and we can address that. Your quote-proof-unquote is finished; it has been utterly demolished; there is no sign of any coherent reasoning or valid insights in any part of it.

 

[quixotecoyote]

-deleted-

 

[Z]

Helloooooo? Helloooooo? Still waiting for a response to my own methodical and well-thought out problems with your second argument?????

I think he's ignoring me. Probably doesn't want to deal with the fact that his 'logical' argument falls completely apart after proving a thinker exists.

 

[andyandy]

It's pretty amusing watching people deny the fact that my initial post proves God yet jump through hoops to evade refuting a single one of my arguments sentence by sentence.

dustin i've been waiting since page one of this train wreck to discuss your cut and paste hatchet job on Godel's ontological argument. It doesn't prove God, yet you claim it does - i've outlined my objections, you've steadfastly refused to address them, despite numerous posts like this one.

In answering this post

1) Don't lie. Little lies make baby jesus cry - you have not replied to my points, so don't do a dustin special replied - linking to one of your "try reading it with your monitor switched on" answers

2) Don't ignore it - unless you want to expose yourself as a liar or a deluded fool.

3) Don't run off crying about being persecuted for being a Christian - you've brought your personal beliefs here, you claim to have proved god exists, well deal with the responses.

I await your well thought out argument. Here are three posts to chose from.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683482#post2683482

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683535#post2683535

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2683855#post2683855

If you're too lazy to click on them, here's a summary of your proof

Assume God exists.
Assume "positive property" [ie omni-ness] is necessary and sufficient for God
Assume God has positive property
Therefore God does not have negative property
Therefore positive property is a property of God
Assume God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists somewhere
Therefore God exists everywhere
Therefore God possesses positive property
Therefore God exists.

happy that that proves god?

 

[andyandy]

I type incredibly fast, probably around 120-140 words per minute on average. However you're right about that time estimate of mine, I was estimating how long it took me to type it up and it seemed like 20 minutes. It was probably more than twice that.

Stop lying Dustin. This is the world record holder.

As of 2005, Barbara Blackburn is the fastest typist in the world, according to The Guinness Book of World Records. Using the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard, she has maintained 150 wpm for 50 minutes.

Your original post at 7400+ words, even at the world record pace, even on a Dvorak Simplified Keyboard, even copy typing a prepared document would have taken 50 minutes. Are you a world record holder? Do you have a Dvorak simplified keyboard? Were you copy typing? Here's what seems more likely - you spent a day sat at your screen carefully crafting your "proof" by cribbing from a variety of Evangelical "look I've proved God" books, you then went through with a thesaurus to try and make yourself look more intelligent, and you then lied about having just typed it up to make it look like you hadn't spent hours and hours preparing it. Sound about right?

 

[Loss Leader]

If you're too lazy to click on them, here's a summary of your proof

Assume God exists.
Assume "positive property" [ie omni-ness] is necessary and sufficient for God
Assume God has positive property
Therefore God does not have negative property
Therefore positive property is a property of God
Assume God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists somewhere
Therefore God exists everywhere
Therefore God possesses positive property
Therefore God exists.

That's just the first part of his argument. He then follows it with two non-sequitors and a faulty analogy.

 

[BillyJoe]

You're just making $#!t up.

That is incorrect.
That word is spelled $#!+

 

[BillyJoe]

It's pretty amusing watching people deny the fact that my initial post proves God yet jump through hoops to evade refuting a single one of my arguments sentence by sentence.

You can no more prove god than disprove him.