Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2013, 11:16 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-02-2013 11:11 AM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  [Image: tumblr_mcgy6iR1DG1rewo0ao1_500.jpg]
Not to the morons who walk among us, pretending to be human, when they're canids Drinking Beverage

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
28-02-2013, 11:17 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:I'm still waiting for your visual and auditory evidence, PJ. [Image: consider.gif]

You also seem to have missed this response.
Apparently your typcial duck is to repeat a question, what, the 9th time?
You provided no proof you exist. You provided no proof:
*your video exists
*this forum exists
*you exist
*I exist
Etc.
Here's one of my points. You find me obstinate as I insist that your video could have been hoaxed by me or by another Forum member or etc. ad infinitum. Your stance in response? It's "reasonable" and "credible" to say you "obviously" posted the video. No one verified your video independently, there's no location or timestamp on it, etc.
Then I say it's "reasonable and credible" that the Bible was written by honest eyewitnesses. Your issue isn't empirical evidence as a document may be used in evidence, especially one with dozens of contributors that is in actuality over two dozen documents, many of them lengthy and detailed. No, you are simply adding special pleading to a document that describes metaphysics--which means, since you are being unreasonable, that I cannot show you my visual and auditory evidence, because you'd claim special pleading ONLY because it touches metaphysics! In other words, you're thinking I can't see your loaded challenge, "Please show me physical evidence demonstrating a God," when you've already over and again defined terms that no evidence can be accepted where it touches spiritual or invisible things. Nice. You're taking advantage of the biblical adage not to cast pearls... Maybe if I thought you were open minded, we could move on, but you always have a comeback, never say anything laudatory or kind about any Theist or me... I think I'm going to put you on ignore. Well, Lord? Okay, God said He will send you the evidence tonight at 8 PM your local time... if you are open to receiving same. Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 11:28 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-02-2013 11:17 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:I'm still waiting for your visual and auditory evidence, PJ. [Image: consider.gif]

You also seem to have missed this response.
Apparently your typcial duck is to repeat a question, what, the 9th time?
You provided no proof you exist. You provided no proof:
*your video exists
*this forum exists
*you exist
*I exist
Etc.
Here's one of my points. You find me obstinate as I insist that your video could have been hoaxed by me or by another Forum member or etc. ad infinitum. Your stance in response? It's "reasonable" and "credible" to say you "obviously" posted the video. No one verified your video independently, there's no location or timestamp on it, etc.
Then I say it's "reasonable and credible" that the Bible was written by honest eyewitnesses. Your issue isn't empirical evidence as a document may be used in evidence, especially one with dozens of contributors that is in actuality over two dozen documents, many of them lengthy and detailed. No, you are simply adding special pleading to a document that describes metaphysics--which means, since you are being unreasonable, that I cannot show you my visual and auditory evidence, because you'd claim special pleading ONLY because it touches metaphysics! In other words, you're thinking I can't see your loaded challenge, "Please show me physical evidence demonstrating a God," when you've already over and again defined terms that no evidence can be accepted where it touches spiritual or invisible things. Nice. You're taking advantage of the biblical adage not to cast pearls... Maybe if I thought you were open minded, we could move on, but you always have a comeback, never say anything laudatory or kind about any Theist or me... I think I'm going to put you on ignore. Well, Lord? Okay, God said He will send you the evidence tonight at 8 PM your local time... if you are open to receiving same. Thanks!
Always a catch with you, PJ. Thumbsup You should go into sales. Big Grin

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 11:52 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
This whole thread is just a masturbatory fantasy by PJ. Methinks he's trying to teach us a lesson through obfuscation that goes as follows: If you can't prove you exist how can you disprove jeebus' existence 2000 years ago or zeus for that matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 12:17 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:This whole thread is just a masturbatory fantasy by PJ. Methinks he's trying to teach us a lesson through obfuscation that goes as follows: If you can't prove you exist how can you disprove jeebus' existence 2000 years ago or zeus for that matter.
Not my point actually, but not that you mention it... there is a quantifiable difference between not believing in an admitted fiction like the Spaghetti Monster or Peter Pan and believing in something most people believe in that is eminently possible, a superior being to man somewhere in this or all possible universes... and don't even repeat my "ad populum" please, since most of define what is "good" or "ethical" based on what most people hold to as same!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 12:19 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
By the by, I already included my proof, encoded, in posts on this thread, see if you can find it. Or prove you "exist" and I'll share it again... and of course, I encouraged you all to look at Aseptic Skeptic's posts on this thread. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 12:30 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-02-2013 11:17 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Apparently your typcial duck is to repeat a question, what, the 9th time?
You provided no proof you exist. You provided no proof:
*your video exists
*this forum exists
*you exist
*I exist
Etc.
Here's one of my points. You find me obstinate as I insist that your video could have been hoaxed by me or by another Forum member or etc. ad infinitum.
I don't find you obstinate, I find you intellectually dishonest for continuously moving the goalposts. You wouldn't be able to do that if you had done me the favor of defining what you consider "proof" on the first page of this thread.

(28-02-2013 11:17 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Your stance in response? It's "reasonable" and "credible" to say you "obviously" posted the video. No one verified your video independently, there's no location or timestamp on it, etc.
Then I say it's "reasonable and credible" that the Bible was written by honest eyewitnesses. Your issue isn't empirical evidence as a document may be used in evidence, especially one with dozens of contributors that is in actuality over two dozen documents, many of them lengthy and detailed. No, you are simply adding special pleading to a document that describes metaphysics--which means, since you are being unreasonable, that I cannot show you my visual and auditory evidence, because you'd claim special pleading ONLY because it touches metaphysics!
You're putting words in my mouth again since I didn't say any of this in my posts. Also, you can show me your evidence regardless of whether or not you are of the opinion that I'm being unreasonable.

(28-02-2013 11:17 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  In other words, you're thinking I can't see your loaded challenge, "Please show me physical evidence demonstrating a God," when you've already over and again defined terms that no evidence can be accepted where it touches spiritual or invisible things. Nice.
Visual and auditory evidence constitutes physical evidence, which is why meeting my challenge should be a non-issue for you.

Furthermore, could you please cite the post in which I "defined terms that no evidence can be accepted where it touches spiritual or invisible things."? I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

(28-02-2013 11:17 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You're taking advantage of the biblical adage not to cast pearls... Maybe if I thought you were open minded, we could move on, but you always have a comeback, never say anything laudatory or kind about any Theist or me... I think I'm going to put you on ignore. Well, Lord? Okay, God said He will send you the evidence tonight at 8 PM your local time... if you are open to receiving same. Thanks!
Do as you wish. Both my position concerning the existence of supernatural deities (agnostic atheism), as well as my approach to you clearly demonstrate that I have an open mind. If I was close-minded, I would neither be willing to look at the evidence that allegedly proves the existence of your deity, nor would I have specifically challenged you to present it. You have been given enough opportunities to show us your evidence and you have made the decision not to do it every single time. Tough luck!

I haven't said anything laudatory or kind about you for the simple reason that I don't think that you deserve any kind of praise. Other theists on this forum, such as kingschosen or Phil_GA, have been able to earn my respect.

With that said, I'll let you know whether or not I received evidence from your god at 8 p.m. in exactly thirty (30) minutes.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 12:44 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-02-2013 12:17 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:This whole thread is just a masturbatory fantasy by PJ. Methinks he's trying to teach us a lesson through obfuscation that goes as follows: If you can't prove you exist how can you disprove jeebus' existence 2000 years ago or zeus for that matter.
Not my point actually, but not that you mention it... there is a quantifiable difference between not believing in an admitted fiction like the Spaghetti Monster or Peter Pan and believing in something most people believe in that is eminently possible, a superior being to man somewhere in this or all possible universes... and don't even repeat my "ad populum" please, since most of define what is "good" or "ethical" based on what most people hold to as same!
I think most people here think not only is what you just said possible.. it's probably likely. A superior being to man in the universe, most likely. That's not the same as a deity.. which doesn't have to exist in anyway. The only evidence for one is that many different deities have sprung up across the world to explain the unexplainable in different cultures, And once writing was invented, the ideas of some of them from the time were written and still many different ones are believed today. They're very contradictory so I'm not sure why one would accept one over the other or how they would know one is supposedly true.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 12:44 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:I don't find you obstinate, I find you intellectually dishonest for continuously moving the goalposts. You wouldn't be able to do that if you had done me the favor of defining what you consider "proof" on the first page of this thread.
And I accept your terms as I'd planned throughout so that we can be on a bedrock foundation. And when I say, "You" I mean "in general, the Atheists on this forum". For example, we had a lovely definition set coming until Phaedros muddied the water. I responded to him and he refused to chime in.

But let's move on. Why is only physical evidence appropriate to prove the existence of God? Please explain.

PS. Feel free to demonstrate why you're open to evidence that is available to you less than 30 minutes from now...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 12:45 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:I think most people here think not only is what you just said possible.. it's probably likely. A superior being to man in the universe, most likely. That's not the same as a deity.. which doesn't have to exist in anyway. The only evidence for one is that many different deities have sprung up across the world to explain the unexplainable in different cultures, And once writing was invented, the ideas of some of them from the time were written and still many different ones are believed today. They're very contradictory so I'm not sure why one would accept one over the other or how they would know one is supposedly true.
Okay, if you think it's likely that superior beings are somewhere in this wide universe, what limits would you be willing to put on their technology? Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: