Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2013, 11:31 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
I know, huh? The hell he thinks he's winning, here?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 11:40 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Then provide proof or else stop asking Theists to provide it. C'mon, surely it's easier to PROVE you or I exist than prove an invisible Deity exists? Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 11:46 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
How about no? Consider

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
22-03-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(22-03-2013 11:46 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  How about no? Consider

No, it's not easier for you to prove you exist than for me to prove God exists, or no, you are unable to handle the challenge posed by this thread to prove existence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(22-03-2013 12:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(22-03-2013 11:46 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  How about no? Consider

No, it's not easier for you to prove you exist than for me to prove God exists, or no, you are unable to handle the challenge posed by this thread to prove existence?
No, in that atheists in general are gonna continue to ask for proof of god's existence. Not this atheist, I instead have an argument for gnostic atheism. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 01:04 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
PJ we hexplained to hyou, that denying us your proof contingent upon us proving our existence to you is pretty morally horseshit, bein' as if you fail to supply the said proof we shalt apparently be roasting in hell at your putrid master's convenience.

I certainly don't feel any great desire to see it, but since you fail to shut up about it, naturally people wanna see it.

So, do you really really have this famous proof? And if so, produce it. I couldn't give a shit about your OP. Just produce the damn proof.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
22-03-2013, 01:18 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
I apologize for misunderstanding but what do you mean "fail to shut up about it"? People seem to read only a little of the thread before invariably whining to see the proof or proposing non-empirical fantasy realms of existence as philosophical proof of existence. Then I respond. I check this thread ever so often to see if anyone here has proof per my challenge. Hope is dwindling... if my proof is important, shouldn't you meet my simple challenge? And if you can't prove you exist (not just you but any of the forum members) why do I have to prove God exists? I don't understand. No, we cannot prove a negative you say but if you can't prove you exist, why does it matter whether God does? There would be no Hell as you wrote.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(22-03-2013 01:18 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I apologize for misunderstanding but what do you mean "fail to shut up about it"? People seem to read only a little of the thread before invariably whining to see the proof or proposing non-empirical fantasy realms of existence as philosophical proof of existence. Then I respond. I check this thread ever so often to see if anyone here has proof per my challenge. Hope is dwindling... if my proof is important, shouldn't you meet my simple challenge? And if you can't prove you exist (not just you but any of the forum members) why do I have to prove God exists? I don't understand. No, we cannot prove a negative you say but if you can't prove you exist, why does it matter whether God does? There would be no Hell as you wrote.

You claim you have a proof of the existence of God. When asked for it, you ask first that we shall prove something for which *you* set the rules. I exist. There. Proven. You don't accept that proof ? Fine. Doesn't change that I proved it. Is your proof of God of a similar shallowness ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
22-03-2013, 01:49 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2013 01:52 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(22-03-2013 01:31 PM)morondog Wrote:  You claim you have a proof of the existence of God. When asked for it, you ask first that we shall prove something for which *you* set the rules. I exist. There. Proven. You don't accept that proof ? Fine. Doesn't change that I proved it. Is your proof of God of a similar shallowness ?

The internet is a part of our reality, he had a effect on the internet, therefore he exists. We know he is human with extremely high levels of certainty because the only entities in the physical world we know of that have such effects are humans. Everyone posting has proven their existence to a reasonable standard. You can raise your standard of evidence for our claim that we exist, but then to be consistent you should also raise your standard of evidence for the existence of a god. Instead you have a high standard when it comes to our claims, and a low standard when it comes to yours.

If you can't believe we exist, when we have a detectable effect on reality, then how do you expect to rationalize believing in something which has no detectable effect on reality?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 01:59 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:You claim you have a proof of the existence of God. When asked for it, you ask first that we shall prove something for which *you* set the rules. I exist. There. Proven. You don't accept that proof ? Fine. Doesn't change that I proved it. Is your proof of God of a similar shallowness ?
Perhaps I've misunderstood you again. Rather than promote an imaginary Matrix or post a YouTube video, you wish to make a shallow-level proof that you exist and then ask if my proof is as hollow? Is that right? That doesn't sound like a good debate tactic. If we were debating, say, rights and gay marriage, and you took the liberal side, would you write, "I don't have very good reasons for supporting gay marriage. But my assumption is you have equally poor reasons for opposing it, right?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: