Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2013, 02:45 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2013 03:08 PM by Jakel.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(19-02-2013 03:31 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Of course, this was ignored elsewhere, so why not a new thread?

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.

Thumbsup Thumbsup Thank you in advance.
[Image: tumblr_inline_mge9pjTpAK1ryddyu.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Jakel's post
21-02-2013, 02:57 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(21-02-2013 01:57 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Dawkins? Dawkins? Yeah, he shows no intellectual or perceptual bias in general having to do with any issues that might touch on Evolution. Yeah.
I DID read a real book on EB… Dr. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, and I met Behe in person when I helped host him for a gala dinner, and he’s right. So, so right. His bias was he wasn’t a born again Christian when he wrote, but he got to see how Christians celebrated on him while his “colleagues” defecated on his reputation.
Of course, you’ll mock him and me both in the next post, but neither of us exist. So there! Or… not there! You prove me wrong! …or right! Wink
So you actually haven't read a book on evolution written by an evolutionary biologist after all, thanks for clearing that up.

And yet you continue to spew your ignorance on the topic. Michael Behe and his book "Darwin's Black Box" have been entirely discredited in front of a US federal court. Have you never heard of the Kitzmiller v.Dover trial?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Vosur's post
21-02-2013, 02:59 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(21-02-2013 02:57 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(21-02-2013 01:57 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Dawkins? Dawkins? Yeah, he shows no intellectual or perceptual bias in general having to do with any issues that might touch on Evolution. Yeah.
I DID read a real book on EB… Dr. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, and I met Behe in person when I helped host him for a gala dinner, and he’s right. So, so right. His bias was he wasn’t a born again Christian when he wrote, but he got to see how Christians celebrated on him while his “colleagues” defecated on his reputation.
Of course, you’ll mock him and me both in the next post, but neither of us exist. So there! Or… not there! You prove me wrong! …or right! Wink
So you haven't actually read a book on evolution written by an evolutionary biologist after all, thanks for clearing that up.

And yet you continue to spew your ignorance on the topic. Michael Behe and his book "Darwin's Black Box" have been entirely discredited in front of a US federal court. Have you never heard of the Kitzmiller v Dover trial?
Wait. So you mean to say that someone published something dishonestly? I don't believe that. Not for one second. I refuse to believe anyone would ever let their agenda take precedent over facts.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 03:08 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Michael Behe. Hahahahaha. What an idiot.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 03:17 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(19-02-2013 03:31 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Of course, this was ignored elsewhere, so why not a new thread?

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.

Thumbsup Thumbsup Thank you in advance.
Why don't you start by proving you exist. For all I know I created that post on a fake account when I was drunk. And I know how much shit I say and write when I'm drunk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 03:23 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Go home Jakel, you're drunk. Dodgy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 03:32 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(21-02-2013 08:43 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Do you realize that your intellectually dishonest tactic is obvious to everyone here? If you don't define what you consider proof of someone's existence beforehand, you can simply deny that whatever we show you is actually proof. That's why I'm asking you to tell me what you think constitutes proof of my existence before I provide you with proof.

This entire thread is completely pointless. We all know he has no evidence for god, and we all know with good reason, that there is some entity posting as the people they claim to be. If that were not so, there would be no posts.

PleaseJesus, your not giving a answer to what proof you would accept, and your acting like your on the intellectual high ground. I hope you come to your senses some day, then re-read this entire thread, to see how utterly retarded and intellectually dishonest you are coming off as. You fail to say what you will accept as proof so you can deny whatever we show you, like Vosur said. The most twisted part of this is, that we have given proofs for our existences that go far beyond any proof you have for your god. So congradulations, you just proved that we can prove our own existence with quite high standards, standards beyond the level of the claim. Now where is your proof for the existence of god? Oh right, there is none, hence the little game you decided to play as a deflection. All we need is evidence of interacting with the physical world. So what's step two in your 'genius' plan? Conversion?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Adenosis's post
21-02-2013, 03:45 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
PJ stop bathing in your own snake oil.
You dodge every question, every rational thought to preserve your fantasy

Dealing with the real world seems to be too much for you. You'd rather enjoy this little game of yours.
This game of pretend that my imaginary friend exists and you can't prove he doesn't.

This is what a childish mentality does. It desires to play games and doesn't want to take any responsibility for their actions. A childish mentality wants to have an all seeing, all powerful father that it can boast about.
It wants to have this special relationship that others can envy. It wants to be forgiven because a child doesn't have the maturity to deal with guilt, so it invents something that will always forgive us for things we do wrong, then we never have to deal with guilt. We don't have to feel guilty about our actions if our actions have been forgiven.

Think about that for a moment. If you do something that you feel guilty about doing. Some harm comes to someone you love through your actions and you feel bad about that. You feel guilty because you are the one responsible.

A mature adult mentality will take the steps to help repair the harm that they did.
They take responsibility for their actions.
They admit their wrong doing and accept the consequences of their actions.


A childish mentality only wants to be forgiven. They want someone to say that they aren't responsible anymore.
That all is forgiven and you can go back to living your life without the guilt of what you've done.
It's all washed away.

A childish mentality doesn't want to repair the damage. They want to ignore it and they want everyone else to ignore it. Their imaginary friend has forgiven them so all is right in their world. No more guilt. They no longer have to think about that problem anymore.

This is where you are.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
21-02-2013, 03:49 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:So you actually haven't read a book on evolution written by an evolutionary biologist after all, thanks for clearing that up.
Well, of course I have.
The EB book PJ read most recently had contradictions in it, plus the source was biased and unreliable, so I had to reject it. It contained "evidence" that was both falsifiable and not verifiable, especially since it conjectured about events not just mere thousands but millions of years ago.
Quote:Michael Behe and his book "Darwin's Black Box" have been entirely discredited in front of a US federal court. Have you never heard of the Kitzmiller v.Dover trial?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ID being found to not be a science was the ruling. No one stated Dr. Behe who appeared as an expert witness for the ID side was being fraudulent, disingenuine or unscientific. Perhaps you have some court transcripts you'd like to present.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 03:50 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(21-02-2013 01:57 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Very good, R! You can run the gauntlet better than Vosur but not as good as Aseptic… or me… if I exist. Under the LACK of definition of existence in play (not that I hope for a defined term since I can’t even get you people to agree whether God does not exist or whether there’s merely no proof for His existence) I can say in response, “If you are imagining me imagining you completely, you still exist, even if you are only a figment of your imagination. If you are a figment of your own imagination, you are self-contradictory and therefore, must be the Holy Bible.”
Stop being the Holy Bible. Take up the sword, Aragorn, and prove that LOTR does not exist!
Okay. First of all. "You people" isn't a thing. The reason you can't get "you people" to agree on whether God doesn't exist or whether there's merely no proof of his existence, is because we are separate individuals with different viewpoints, opinions, and approaches. You're not talking to one monolithic wall of atheism, but a salad bowl of atheists, agnostics, and can't-be-classified-ists. (Also, some of "you people" consider the two statements "doesn't exist" and "can't be proven" to be synonymous for practical purposes.) The fact that we are aligned opposite you in a discussion does not oblige us to be a cohesive or coherent whole. We have here a discussion between, what, a dozen different parties? Not two. Some of us are closely allied and some not. Some of us are polite and some of us are not. Please don't lump me in with everyone else, and when addressing me please respond to what I have said, not what others have said. I hope that's not too much to ask.

Second, under the definition I provided, if I imagine you imagining a rock, for example, that alone the rock exists, even if it's as a concept being held by a simulacrum of an intelligence. Whether the rock might exist for other reasons (such as I perceive it directly, or it has been included in the absolute universe for some reason other than my perceiving it) is then a moot point to the question of whether it exists. It has met the qualifications for existence once, and need not meet them further. So if I imagine you imagining I exist, well, I'd exist that way... but I'd also exist because I was capable of doing some imagining in the first place. Take your pick. Both conclusions are that I exist. They aren't contradictory under the definition I've provided.

Third, you seem to be drawing a distinction between something that exists, and something that is just imagined. This distinction is meaningless under the definition I've provided, but is meaningful under some other definitions I can imagine. That you are applying this distinction suggests to me that you are using a different definition of existence. That's fine by me, so long as you recognize the different implications of the two definitions. That said, since you are the one who issued the challenge in this thread's OP to prove my existence, and you seem to have a definition of existence which differs significantly from the first one which I reached for, I'll again ask you to clarify what standard for "existence" you were using when you issued your challenge. I'm not asking you for an absolute definition, just "what did you mean when you used this word?" Imagine I'm a taxi driver who you told to take you to 193 Grover, and I am now asking whether you mean Grover Lane, Grover Street, or Grover Court. Please don't make me take you to each one in turn and only then be corrected for picking the wrong one each time. You issued the challenge, so you get to pick what you meant by existence when you issued it, but if you don't communicate that you haven't really expressed what you're challenging me to do. I'll wait for you to clarify what you mean by existence, rather than making further attempts to meet a challenge that has been insufficiently delineated.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: