Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2013, 02:03 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Just as a reminder for those who haven't been following this thread from the start:

Over ten members have provided proof of their existence over 45 pages ago (page 22 and the following three pages). PleaseJesus has yet to define what he means by "proof" even though he has been asked to do so more than half a dozen times; he has used this as an exploit so that he can continuously move the goal posts whenever someone posted said proof. He has furthermore claimed that he possesses visual and auditory evidence for the existence of the deity he believes in but has yet to show any of it for the simple reason that it doesn't exist. PleaseJesus is afraid of admitting this because it would expose him as the liar that he is.

You're all utterly wasting your time with an uneducated and intellectually dishonest troll.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Vosur's post
22-03-2013, 02:04 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2013 02:07 PM by PleaseJesus.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote: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?
"The Internet is a part of our reality" means what, exactly? Where does the Internet exist? If you showed it to people in an earlier time, would they find it to be a natural reality or supra-reality or even witchcraft (especially with all the God-mockers on it, [A. Lincoln.])?

What do you mean by a reasonable standard? Do you mean empiricist evidence only? Buddhists would say what you call reality is an utter illusion, and that your present suffering touches that delusion.

Then you proceed gamely to "Instead you have a high standard when it comes to our claims, and a low standard when it comes to yours." HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT MY STANDARD IS WHEN I'VE OFFERED ONLY EVIDENCE that God exists but no proof since you've all failed to meet the challenge, and failed to agree as a body, and failed to define terms, and resorted to, "We've posted a few videos, now hurry up and present God and eternal life to us or STFU"? BELIEVE ME, my standard is much higher than yours, and neither involves non-empirical Matrices nor Internet videos of people who can't even prove their birth certificate is valid, let alone their existence in "reality".
Soon this will be like Saw, "Game over!" Sad.

Finally, how do you get that if God exists, He has no discernible effect on reality? If you had proof an omnipotent God existed, I'd have to hold you back from becoming KC and shouting, "He has an effect on EVERYTHING in reality! He IS reality!" And what exactly is your discernible effect on reality? What 500 years from now will your legacy be, and what trace memories of your Id will remain among your descendants? What have you built, what have you made besides ill-reasoned rantings on a thread that can be paraphrased as "God is everywhere and in everything, therefore He is both too big and too small for me to see."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 02:05 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
I have fulfilled your condition Wink You merely requested proof, but failed to specify the form. Produce thou the proof now. If your proof is as vacuous as the one I put forward, then I'm done Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
22-03-2013, 02:19 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(22-03-2013 09:06 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Are you ever going to prove God's existence, or are you just going to ask unreasonable questions about our existence. We have provided you evidence. It's not the evidence that's the problem, you are simply making a standard that is impossible to meet. How can we prove we exist in Reality? Well, first you have to prove a reality exists, and that is impossible.

I have a nasty feeling that this whole thread is just going to be you not presenting your "proof" for the sole reason that we haven't proved we exist. Which any reasonable person would have agreed long ago that we have proved it.
To quote Mister Spock, "Fascinating. [One eyebrow raised high.]" You could replace your statements about "exist" with God and get, "Hey, 3-percenters. We've provided evidence long ago that reasonable people would agree on for the existence of God!" However, I digress. NO, you haven't met any standard as a class or group. Over half the freethinkers on this thread have said that not only do they struggle with proving existence but that it doesn't matter because "there might be a Matrix somewhere". Of course, they have no empirical evidence for this alternate reality, but accuse Christians of lacking empirical evidence for Jesus's divinity via a typical and hypocritical double standard. And as for having a "nasty feeling," fix it by offering proof of evidence. But if you DARE to say you CANNOT offer PROOF of existence, then stop telling Christians they can't offer PROOF of God's existence, PLEASE. At least redact to "I cannot prove I exist, but I can offer reasonable evidence that I probably exist. Can you show evidence that God likely exists or exists?" Then be quiet and listen and learn. "Live long and prosper. Peace and long life."

Dear PJ,

You know that evidence you claim we "Three percenters" either ignore/or are ignorant of has probably been refuted. Maybe you know this, maybe not. Either way, it is not my responsibility to get your head out of your ass and at least do what you promised in your first post.

First and foremost, if we can't prove that reality exists, and thus can't consequently prove WE exist, then we also can't prove, or at least use the evidence for gods existence, because that evidence is in this reality that is being questioned. If you say that we can't prove that we exist, then we can also say that YOU can't PROVE the EVIDENCE FOR GOD exists. This means that if we can't prove our existence, you can't prove God Exists. If you can't prove God exists, then the natural, skeptical position is that of the atheist.

We aren't saying there is a Matrix. We are saying that there is no possible way to prove that this reality exists. You are asking us to prove( without a doubt) our existence, but in order to do that, we must prove this reality exists, an impossibility.

However, you have to prove this reality exists, that there is a God, that that God is the Christian version, and that We exist.

Have fun.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
22-03-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(22-03-2013 02:04 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  "The Internet is a part of our reality" means what, exactly? Where does the Internet exist? If you showed it to people in an earlier time, would they find it to be a natural reality or supra-reality or even witchcraft (especially with all the God-mockers on it, [A. Lincoln.])?

What do you mean by a reasonable standard? Do you mean empiricist evidence only? Buddhists would say what you call reality is an utter illusion, and that your present suffering touches that delusion.

Then you proceed gamely to "Instead you have a high standard when it comes to our claims, and a low standard when it comes to yours." HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT MY STANDARD IS WHEN I'VE OFFERED ONLY EVIDENCE that God exists but no proof since you've all failed to meet the challenge, and failed to agree as a body, and failed to define terms, and resorted to, "We've posted a few videos, now hurry up and present God and eternal life to us or STFU"? BELIEVE ME, my standard is much higher than yours, and neither involves non-empirical Matrices nor Internet videos of people who can't even prove their birth certificate is valid, let alone their existence in "reality".
Soon this will be like Saw, "Game over!" Sad.

Finally, how do you get that if God exists, He has no discernible effect on reality? If you had proof an omnipotent God existed, I'd have to hold you back from becoming KC and shouting, "He has an effect on EVERYTHING in reality! He IS reality!" And what exactly is your discernible effect on reality? What 500 years from now will your legacy be, and what trace memories of your Id will remain among your descendants? What have you built, what have you made besides ill-reasoned rantings on a thread that can be paraphrased as "God is everywhere and in everything, therefore He is both too big and too small for me to see."

Reality is the set of things that exist. We know things exist when we can confirm their existence through repeated detection. The internet is a global system that interconnects billions of computers which allows data transfer. I can search the internet just like searching my house.

Who cares what someone 500 years ago would think of the internet, or what my effect on the world 500 years from now will be? Stop deflecting. Right now, in the time I am alive, my existence is verifiable, and has been proven with voice calls with members of this forum on Skype, pictures, and hundreds of posts. I have a birth certificate, a sin card, pay stubs from work I have done, and several other documents that support my existence. Last but not least, I have a physical body. When someone doubts all the prior evidence they can simply show up at my door for proof of my existence. This is already given with the pictures, but your standard is exceedingly high for such simple claims.

You haven't offered evidence or proof that god exists. There is nothing that implies a god exists, there is no detectable effect we can measure, therefore there is no rational reason to believe it exists beyond the mind. Just like unicorns.

"Finally, how do you get that if God exists, He has no discernible effect on reality?"


Because no one has ever been able to present evidence of anything that requires something other than a natural explanation, or that implies the existence of anything beyond the natural world. Including you. I don't care what you think god is, there is no point in attributing an imagined entity to something we already know exists. You can call reality god, but that's doing nothing more than playing with words, if god is simply reality then fine. I accept that. I won't use the word god, because reality works just fine.

But if your claiming this god is beyond space and time, that he created the universe, that he cares about humans, that he listens to prayers and thoughts sometimes even answering them, then we have a different problem. Renaming reality to god is not what this debate is about, stop deflecting.

----

God either exists and has some effect on the universe, exists and doesn't have an effect on the universe, or doesn't exist. The god that exists but has no effect on reality is indistinguishable from the god that does not exist.

The billions of people that claim a god exists haven't been able to present any evidence to support the claim. Still now, we have forums like this, shows like the atheist experience, just waiting for someone to present it. But no, it hasn't happened.

There is no good reason to believe a god exists. I'm not going to assume you have good reason after over 40 pages of dodging after reasonable evidence for our existence was given.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
22-03-2013, 07:33 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2013 11:36 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(22-03-2013 02:04 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: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?
"The Internet is a part of our reality" means what, exactly? Where does the Internet exist? If you showed it to people in an earlier time, would they find it to be a natural reality or supra-reality or even witchcraft (especially with all the God-mockers on it, [A. Lincoln.])?

What do you mean by a reasonable standard? Do you mean empiricist evidence only? Buddhists would say what you call reality is an utter illusion, and that your present suffering touches that delusion.

Then you proceed gamely to "Instead you have a high standard when it comes to our claims, and a low standard when it comes to yours." HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT MY STANDARD IS WHEN I'VE OFFERED ONLY EVIDENCE that God exists but no proof since you've all failed to meet the challenge, and failed to agree as a body, and failed to define terms, and resorted to, "We've posted a few videos, now hurry up and present God and eternal life to us or STFU"? BELIEVE ME, my standard is much higher than yours, and neither involves non-empirical Matrices nor Internet videos of people who can't even prove their birth certificate is valid, let alone their existence in "reality".
Soon this will be like Saw, "Game over!" Sad.

Finally, how do you get that if God exists, He has no discernible effect on reality? If you had proof an omnipotent God existed, I'd have to hold you back from becoming KC and shouting, "He has an effect on EVERYTHING in reality! He IS reality!" And what exactly is your discernible effect on reality? What 500 years from now will your legacy be, and what trace memories of your Id will remain among your descendants? What have you built, what have you made besides ill-reasoned rantings on a thread that can be paraphrased as "God is everywhere and in everything, therefore He is both too big and too small for me to see."
You are an idiot.

Now if god is really another name for reality then you are by definition an atheist.

If god is in everything and everywhere, then how is he outside of the universe, or beyond the universe? Is your ability to reason that perverse that you accept contradictions by patching them up with mysteries?

If god exists in the universe then he has properties of that universe. Yet he is timeless, space-less, and immaterial. If he possesses those qualities, then he can never exist anywhere ever.

I think at this point what you are trying to do is show that you cannot prove anything. There by opening people up to ideas that do not require proof. After which point you'll try an appeal to emotion to get people to convert to your side. Or you may simply adopt the presuppositional approach and say that you cannot prove anything with out the witness of the holy spirit. Then declaring that you win.

[Image: FocrvKG.jpg][Image: gfVYveG.jpg]

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
25-03-2013, 07:10 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Just as a reminder for those who haven't been following this thread from the start:

Over ten members have provided proof of their existence over 45 pages ago (page 22 and the following three pages). PleaseJesus has yet to define what he means by "proof" even though he has been asked to do so more than half a dozen times; he has used this as an exploit so that he can continuously move the goal posts whenever someone posted said proof. He has furthermore claimed that he possesses visual and auditory evidence for the existence of the deity he believes in but has yet to show any of it for the simple reason that it doesn't exist. PleaseJesus is afraid of admitting this because it would expose him as the liar that he is.

You're all utterly wasting your time with an uneducated and intellectually dishonest troll.
Um, I've offered several times to use the same tools that YOU provided Vosur for testing a claim:

Verifiable, testable, peer and skeptic reviewed empirical evidence.

Admittedly, I knew from Post 1 you'd all make epic fails. Aseptic Skeptic admitted the impossibility of proving existence of a person over the Internet without revealing potentially compromising details. Why can't you? You're the one who is lying and mispresenting what I've written.
Quote:Produce thou the proof now. If your proof is as vacuous as the one I put forward, then I'm done.
Another "scholar" chimes in. "I was lazy and spouted the first vacuous idea I had... what do you have?"
Quote:We aren't saying there is a Matrix. We are saying that there is no possible way to prove that this reality exists.
If I say that is true, then you know when you ask for proof that God exists, who superintends "reality", that you have set an impossible mark. But you do this regardless with Christians. Isn't that intellectually dishonest?
Quote:Reality is the set of things that exist. We know things exist when we can confirm their existence through repeated detection.
Really? What is your empirical proof for that? Can you say with absolutely certainty that you will not wake up in the Matrix tomorrow? That the sun will shine or gravity will be in effect? And don't bother with your canard (repeated over a dozen times in this thread by others) that "reasonable people believe in existence/reality" because all you have is inductive reasoning and NO empirical evidence.
Quote:God either exists and has some effect on the universe, exists and doesn't have an effect on the universe, or doesn't exist. The god that exists but has no effect on reality is indistinguishable from the god that does not exist.
Yes, in an Atheist's paradigmatic worldview, sure. But not for Christians.
Quote:The billions of people that claim a god exists haven't been able to present any evidence to support the claim.
Evidence? We have. That doesn't mean you have to accept it. In a court of law, we'd have the kinds of evidence for God Atheists despise including eyewitness and personal testimony. Than the opposing side has no evidence God doesn't exist. Epic fail.
Quote:If god exists in the universe then he has properties of that universe. Yet he is timeless, space-less, and immaterial. If he possesses those qualities, then he can never exist anywhere ever.
Jesus had a material body in time and space. You post your "theory" but then a crucified Ronald underneath. Jesus is claimed to be God in time/space to interact with people in reality. Think, my friend, think!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 07:17 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(22-03-2013 02:19 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(22-03-2013 09:06 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  To quote Mister Spock, "Fascinating. [One eyebrow raised high.]" You could replace your statements about "exist" with God and get, "Hey, 3-percenters. We've provided evidence long ago that reasonable people would agree on for the existence of God!" However, I digress. NO, you haven't met any standard as a class or group. Over half the freethinkers on this thread have said that not only do they struggle with proving existence but that it doesn't matter because "there might be a Matrix somewhere". Of course, they have no empirical evidence for this alternate reality, but accuse Christians of lacking empirical evidence for Jesus's divinity via a typical and hypocritical double standard. And as for having a "nasty feeling," fix it by offering proof of evidence. But if you DARE to say you CANNOT offer PROOF of existence, then stop telling Christians they can't offer PROOF of God's existence, PLEASE. At least redact to "I cannot prove I exist, but I can offer reasonable evidence that I probably exist. Can you show evidence that God likely exists or exists?" Then be quiet and listen and learn. "Live long and prosper. Peace and long life."


Dear PJ,

You know that evidence you claim we "Three percenters" either ignore/or are ignorant of has probably been refuted. Maybe you know this, maybe not. Either way, it is not my responsibility to get your head out of your ass and at least do what you promised in your first post.

First and foremost, if we can't prove that reality exists, and thus can't consequently prove WE exist, then we also can't prove, or at least use the evidence for gods existence, because that evidence is in this reality that is being questioned. If you say that we can't prove that we exist, then we can also say that YOU can't PROVE the EVIDENCE FOR GOD exists. This means that if we can't prove our existence, you can't prove God Exists. If you can't prove God exists, then the natural, skeptical position is that of the atheist.

We aren't saying there is a Matrix. We are saying that there is no possible way to prove that this reality exists. You are asking us to prove( without a doubt) our existence, but in order to do that, we must prove this reality exists, an impossibility.

However, you have to prove this reality exists, that there is a God, that that God is the Christian version, and that We exist.

Have fun.






Yes, Atothetheist......preach on brother .....preach on
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 07:37 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
PJ I didn't claim to be a scholar. But your OP said "you prove you exist, and I'll prove God".

I have proved I exist. Not to your satisfaction, but who says you're the arbiter of who exists or not ?

Now come on and produce your proof.

Or evade again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 07:53 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(19-02-2013 03:31 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'll prove to anyone on this forum that God exists--and go one better, Jesus is the Messiah and God, if they can prove that they exist.

There's the quote.

So: if *I prove I exist* then *you prove God exists*

I have fulfilled my condition. Now you fulfill yours. Unless you want to argue that I have not fulfilled the condition. *Or* you could try to pretend that this is not worthy of an answer. Pro tip, you'll get called out Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: