Proof of God's existence! 1 million dollar challenge at the end! Randi better pay-up!

[muscleman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: THE TOPIC IS CLOSING IN, AND AHEISTS ARE ABOUT TO LOOSE THE ARGUMENT

Please read what I wrote in context, sir.
The responsibility lies elsewhere besides God if God is out of the picture. The responsibilty for our individual actions lies with us individually if God is out of the picture.

That is what I said. That is what I have always said.

And since when did I ever denied what you said you piece of sheep. I already agreed with your statement, if the cause of our existence isnt God, then it must be elsewhere..

BUT YOU SAID "ELSEWHERE" THEREFORE YOUR ADMITTING THAT THERE IS A CAUSE.. YES, THERE IS A CAUSE OF YOUR EXISTENCE.. EVEN SCIENCE TEACHES THAT FACT, THOUGH THEY DONT KNOW WHAT THE CAUSE IS, BUT THERE IS A CAUSE.. YOU CANT DENY THAT. ARE U DISAGREEING WITH SCIENCE NOW?

There you go again, equating actions with existence.

You MORON... Your existence bear actions stupid. If you dont exist, how can your actions exist? If you dont exist, how can you produce evil if you dont exist to begin with?

What a dummy...

My actions != my existence.

No retard. Its your existence= then your actions. freaken brainwashed cult...

The being responsible for my actions is not necessarily the being responsible for my existence. This is especially true if we take God out of the picture.

YOU PIECE OF CRAP. DO YO THINK YOU CAN ACT IF YOU DONT EXIST TO BEGIN WITH? YOU ARE THE STUPIDEST CULT MEMBER THAT I HAVE EVER MET... WHAT A MORON....

If your version of God is correct:
- God is responsible for my existence
- God is responsible for my actions

OH WAIT, SO NOW YOU SAY ITS EXISTENCE FIRST, THEN ACTIONS? YOU JUST CONTRADICT YOURSELF ABOVE... ARE YOU RETARDED?

If God is taken out of the picture:
- My parents are responsible for my existence
- I am responsible for my actions

Parents?

Say this instead.

-Quantum Ghostly physics is responsible for my existence.
-Quantum Ghostly physics is responsible for my ACTIONS.

HEY RETARD. Your parents isnt responsible for life to exist.. GO GET YOURSELF SOME SCIENTIFIC OR EVEN ATHEISTIC BOOK. EVEN SOME CULTS WILL TELL YOU THAT WE EVOLVE FROM A SINGLED CELL LIFE FORM, WITH AN "UNKNOWN PHYSICS" THEY CALL "QUANTUM THE UNDETECTABLE, THE INVISIBLE, THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE, THE IMPOSSIBLE, THE SUPERNATURAL PHYSICS"....

Your right, you cant be an atheists. Even an atheist KNOWS THAT WE EVOLVE and exist by "CHANCE".. Your like an alien of some sort.....

But I do know "elsewhere," so the rest of your paragraph means nothing.

Blamed for my existence? Hardly! They should be congratulated for my existence!

Blamed for my actions? Only if your version of God is in the picture. If God is not in the picture, then I, and I alone, can be blamed or congratulated for my actions.

Only if your version of God is in the picture. If your God makes us all puppets, then He, and only He, is to blame. With God out of the picture, the murderer, and only the murderer, is to blame.

What do u mean by puppets? BEING CONTROLLED? YOU EXIST BECAUSE YOU ARE CONTROLLED BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. YOU EXIST BECAUSE SOME INVISIBLE UNKNOWN PHYSICS (QUANTUM PHYSICS) MADE YOU EXIST..

YOU ARE CONTROLLED YOU MORON, YOU JUST DENY IT..

WHEN YOUR CONTROLLED BY GOD, YOU HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE.

BUT WHEN YOUR CONTROLLED BY SOME "UNKNOWN PHYSICS", THEN YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY, JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT KNOW WHO CONTROLL YOU, IT DOESNT MEAN NOTHING CONTRLL YOU.... STUPID....

AS I WAS SAYING, YOU ARE LIKE A RETARDED COP, THAT IF YOU SEE A DEAD BODY WITH 50 GUN SHOTS IN THE HEAD AND NECK, BECAUSE YOU "DONT KNOW" THE ONE RESPONSIBLE, (ALTHOUGH THERE IS A CAUSE, AND SOMEONE IS RESPONSIBLE), THEN YOU RULED IT OUT AS "SUICIDE" THAT HIS 50 GUNSHOTS ON THE HEAD ISNT CAUSED BY SOMEONE (ALTHOUGH IT IS SO OBVIOUS THERE IS, EVEN SCIENCE BACKS IT UP) THEN SAY IT WAS "SUICIDE" THAT HE MAGICALLY MANAGED TO DO IT HIMSELF...

YOU DID NOT MAGICALLY EXIST. THERE IS A CAUSE, AND YOU ARE CONTROLLED BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS..

IF YOU SAID "I AM NOT CONTROLLED BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS", THEN YOU SARE SAYING "I AM OUTSIDE OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS" THEREFORE MAKING YOU SUPERNATURAL...

ARE YOU SUPERNATURAL?

You have gotten the with-God and without-God cases so badly muddled in your own mind that you don't realize that you have disproved your own case. Fortunately, there are clearer-headed individuals reading this that are trying to set you straight.

Clearer headed individuals? who? Scotth who got annihilated earlier? I can even post where he got so stupid that HE DENIED HIS OWN TYPING...

Oh yeah, and you didn't answer my "Do you think this is fair?" question either.

Not only a dummy, but a blind dummy... I did answer that, and I did say thats how the system works here, therefore it is fair...YOU ARE AN ALIEN, disaggreing with how nature works...

 

[Tricky]

I thought you liked me for my mind!

(Since I'm married, it's irrelevant. Actually, it's irrelevant whether I'm married or not.)

Actually it's important for Franko to know your gender in order to determine whether to treat you nice or not. Franko is always quite solicitous towards females. But don't mistake his good manners towards women as true respect. He also calls men by female names because he apparently thinks it is some sort of insult to be called female. He beleives that women are more prone to cry and throw temper tantrums. Yes, he's definitely a sensitive new-age guy.

 

[Franko]

Beleth:
Given a few more days of this, Franko, I will be able to tell you, within the span of about ten minutes, exactly when your meds wear off.

Call me crazy Beleth, but the guy who keeps burning his hand on the hot stove is the real lunatic.

The present is based on the past.

... and there's no need for a "Rulemaker" if there are no "rules".

 

[Franko]

oops, missed this (thanx's Trix)

(Since I'm married, it's irrelevant. Actually, it's irrelevant whether I'm married or not.)

Well in that case don't be offended if I continue to refer to you as "he", "him", "Dude", "Bud", or "Pal" ... Man.

 

[Bjorn]

How adult!

Meatbrain

you piece of sheep

What a dummy...

existence bear actions stupid

freaken brainwashed cult...

YOU ARE THE STUPIDEST CULT MEMBER THAT I HAVE EVER MET

ARE YOU RETARDED?

Not only a dummy, but a blind dummy...

Well, this little collection from one single post should prove my point: It's the language of a loser.

Franko, (this is none of my business, but ... ) as much as we disagree and as much as I don't understand you once in a while, I hold you to be an intelligent guy and I'm extremely surprised and disappointed by seeing that you make MB an ally.

IMHO his IQ approximately equals your shoe-size.

 

[scotth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THE TOPIC IS CLOSING IN, AND AHEISTS ARE ABOUT TO LOOSE THE ARGUMENT

Clearer headed individuals? who? Scotth who got annihilated earlier? I can even post where he got so stupid that HE DENIED HIS OWN TYPING...
.

Please do.... I'm waiting.

 

[Yahzi]

I have a confession to make: I am Tricky's sock puppet. He didn't want me to reveal this, but I couldn't live the lie any longer.

I don't fear your dirty clothes hamper anymore, Tricky! Do you hear me? NO FEAR!

(quick somebody call the cops before the spin cycle starts!)

 

[Tricky]

I have a confession to make: I am Tricky's sock puppet. He didn't want me to reveal this, but I couldn't live the lie any longer.

I don't fear your dirty clothes hamper anymore, Tricky! Do you hear me? NO FEAR!

(quick somebody call the cops before the spin cycle starts!)

Brave words, you pathetic little item of hosery. Let's see how tough you really are. Minion! Bring me The Bleach!

muahaha

 

[c4ts]

Brave words, you pathetic little item of hosery. Let's see how tough you really are. Minion! Bring me The Bleach!

At once, sire!

 

[AtheistArchon]

GO GET YOURSELF SOME SCIENTIFIC OR EVEN ATHEISTIC BOOK.

- Classic. As if science was theistic or something.

 

[Tricky]

At once, sire!

Very good, c4ts. Truly, you are top-drawer.

 

[muscleman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THE TOPIC IS CLOSING IN, AND AHEISTS ARE ABOUT TO LOOSE THE ARGUMENT

Please do.... I'm waiting.

Read below...

Clearly, one does not weigh the evidence of existed in the past the same as exists in the present.. "Proof of God's existence" implies present tense to me. Unless you are arguing that God did exist but doesn't today, I don't see why the evidence should be the same at all.

hahahaha... You just said "UNLESS U R ARGUING THAT GOD DID EXIST, BUT DOESNT TODAY"..

Meaning King Henry (because that is the subject in which u responded to) cannot be proven because he is in the past, but if he lives today THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON WHY KING HENRY CANNOT BE PROVEN, LIKE GOD..

So I asked by your admittance, King Henry (since he is now gone.) cannot be proven by admittance?

Then u responded..

No.

THATS "NO" with a period...

SO NOW YOU ARE IN DENIAL IN FRONT OF AUDIENCES (who by the way r your brainwashed cult buddies, who will always be on your side.. )

are u going to deny this again scott?

 

[Franko]

Bjorn:
Franko, (this is none of my business, but ... ) as much as we disagree and as much as I don't understand you once in a while, I hold you to be an intelligent guy and I'm extremely surprised and disappointed by seeing that you make MB an ally.

What’s not to like about the Muscleman Bjorn?

Well, this little collection from one single post should prove my point: It's the language of a loser.

… sounds more like the righteous anger of a minion of the Almighty to me …

Do you know what the definition of the word Fear is Bjorn? … Fear is the sudden realization, that you are fighting in the battle of Armageddon … for the wrong side!

 

[Bjorn]

What’s not to like about the Muscleman Bjorn?

Well, I wasn't thinking about liking him, more about agreeing with him. Do you, really?

He is pushing free will very strongly.

 

[scotth]

Lets look at all the relevent points of the exchange.

MM Said

If history is scientifically proven, then God is scientifically proven. If histopry is hearsay, then God is hearsay.....
SO AGAIN, LIKE HAN WAS SAYING, HE BASED HIS "PROOF" ON FAITH, NOT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE...SO IF KING HENRY CANNOT BE PROVEN, OR GEORGE WASHINGTON (AND I BASED THIS OBSERVATION BY YOUR ATHEISTIC WAY OF THINKING)...


WHO THEN IS PROVEN??? TELL ME...

HOW CAN I PROVE GOD, IF KING HENRY CANNOT BE PROVEN??

BUT WAIT THERES MORE, I DO HAVE PROOF OF GOD (THE TOPIC MAY NOW BE ABOUT "SUPERNATURAL"...)

I said this in response:

What a logical crock of crap.

Clearly, one does not weigh the evidence of existed in the past the same as exists in the present.. "Proof of God's existence" implies present tense to me. Unless you are arguing that God did exist but doesn't today, I don't see why the evidence should be the same at all.

MM said:

Hmmm..I can smell victory coming my way...

Another one bites the dust.....


SO NOW YOUR ADMITTING THAT KING HENRY IS NOT PROVEN....AM I RIGHT??

WELL???????................. IN DENIAL AGAIN??

Big smile on face, smelling ANOTHER victory heading this way...

I responded:

No.

I am pointing out that it is completely pointless to discuss.

There is one point to discuss. You say you have proof of existence of God. If you do, how can it be dependent upon your ravings about King Henry?

I am trying to point the discussion back to the task at hand.

"I smell a victory", indeed. I am sure you are smelling something, but I doubt it smells that nice.

The "No." meant that I was NOT admitting that King Henry is not proven... Like I said, I was pointing out that it was irrelevent to any proof you might offer concerning the existance of God.

MM said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by scotth

No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SO NOW YOU ARE IN DENIAL IN FRONT OF AUDIENCES (who by the way r your brainwashed cult buddies, who will always be on your side.. )


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by scotth

I am pointing out that it is completely pointless to discuss.

There is one point to discuss. You say you have proof of existence of God. If you do, how can it be dependent upon your ravings about King Henry?

I am trying to point the discussion back to the task at hand.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SO WHAT DO U KNOW ABOUT LOGIC? ALL YOUR GOOD AT IS DENIAL, EVEN WHEN ITS VERY VERY OBVIOUS ALREADY..

IN FACT, LETS GET IN THE CONVERSATION, THE PROOF OF GOD IS ON ITS WAY...

Lets talk about supernatural...

ARE U SO DUMB THAT U CANT HOLD A CONVERSATION? BUT ALWAYS HAVE TO REPEAT "WHERES THE PROOF OF GOD"? OVER AND OVER WITH YOUR EARS CLOSED?

TALK FIRST, THEN THE PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED, GUARANTEED..

WELL?

And I responded:

MM, all you can do is call people dumb and closed minded and say, "lets talk" and proof will be provided.

Isn't 9 pages of talk enough?

That is why all the call for the proof.

and back to MM

YOUR NOT ONLY N DENIAL, BUT ALSO A COWARD.. IF YOU WANT TO PROVE THAT YOUR NOT A COWARD (FOR BY YOUR OWN WORDS IT IS LONG PROVEN YOU ARE IN DENIAL BY THE PREVIOUS POST.) WHY DONT U GET IN THE CONVERSATION AND TALK TO ME?

ARE U SCARED?

U MUST NOW PROVE U ARE NOT A COWARD, BECAUSE TO ME YOU ARE PROVEN TO BE IN DENIAL.

and finally from me again

No, I am not scared.... I am pissed. Mostly at myself, because I have wasted so much time waiting for you to make good on the promise you made page 1, post 1.

MM, get this... It is important.

Your presentation of evidence is in no way dependent on a single person's views. Not mine, not Doctor X's, not Ossai's, not anyone's.

I guess you can take "No" to mean anything you damn well want it too.

 

[Franko]

Bjorn:
Well, I wasn't thinking about liking him, more about agreeing with him. Do you, really?

I don’t know if I like him, I haven’t really gotten him to open up. But I like what he has to say. He certainly seems to have a grip on the idea that Fatalism is True, and idea that I certainly agree with. Plus, it would seem we concur that “God” who makes this Universe isn’t necessarily responsible for creating your Soul.

Bjorn:
He is pushing free will very strongly.

Mmmm … yeah, I don’t know if you saw, but I have exchanged a couple of post with him here. Look … Bjorn, you know me, I don’t care what you call yourself, if I agree with you – I tell you that I agree with you, and if I disagree, I tell you that. It seems that the muscleman and myself agree on some very fundamental issues, and where I perceive disagreement between us, I’ve explained where and why I disagree. But honestly, from what I’ve read, I wonder if most of our disagreements might not be purely semantics?

Personally though, I find the Muscles and Beleth far more interesting to talk to than Trixy and the repetitious pack of sock-puppets.

 

[Ipecac]

Guys, I have a box of doorknobs in my basement. Perhaps you'd be willing to debate this with the doorknobs rather than Muscleman. You'd make more headway and the doorknobs would make more sense.

 

[Ossai]

muscleman

And you have mentioned that if you know the one responsible, then he or it should be accountable for your action (your existence.). But if you dont know "ELSEWHERE", then your saying I DENY THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MY CAUSE, AND IM DELUSIONAL THAT NOTHING IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MY EXISTENCE,

Your duplicity apparently knows no limits. If you would bother to actually read Beleth’s statement it would help you realize that existence and actions are two separate phenomena. You ascribe both existence and control to god. By slightly altering you belief of god it’s possible to halt the inconsistency. If god is omnipotent, all powerful and controlling, then god is ultimately responsible no matter what a person does because the person is being controlled by god. Now if god is reduced from omnipotence and just given the power of creation but not control then the problem of gods ultimate responsibility is removed. But that opens another can of worms. If evil exists (rape, murder, etc) and god knows and has the power to stop it but does nothing, then god is condoning evil. Now if you limit god even further (god created the universe by using up all or almost all of his power, god just started life on this planet and moved on, whatever reason you want) and then moved on and not only doesn’t know but isn’t in a position to interfere then god can also be labeled good.

You are like Scotth, it is so so obvious u lost the argument....

The argument is far from over, apparently due more to your lack of reading comprehension and dishonesty than any other factors.

Its your existence= then your actions. freaken brainwashed cult

No, it’s a flow not an equation. Person A must exist for the actions of person A to take place. No where does it equate that person A’s creator is responsible for person A actions. Where you are continually missing the boat is where you say god created person A and controls person A which would then makes god responsible for person A’s actions because person A is relegated to a tool.

OH WAIT, SO NOW YOU SAY ITS EXISTENCE FIRST, THEN ACTIONS? YOU JUST CONTRADICT YOURSELF ABOVE... ARE YOU RETARDED?

You are confused with the meaning of = versus |= (!=). Equal (=) both sides of the equation as well as the produce of either side are interchangeable. Not equal (|=) the sides of the equation nor the products are not interchangeable.

Your parents isnt responsible for life to exist..

You first say leave god out of the equation. That also means anything that you are using to replace or equate god (ghost physics, magic, etc) That basically means the universe resulted from random chance (creator) and we (creations) are responsible for our own actions.

What do u mean by puppets? BEING CONTROLLED? YOU EXIST BECAUSE YOU ARE CONTROLLED BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. YOU EXIST BECAUSE SOME INVISIBLE UNKNOWN PHYSICS (QUANTUM PHYSICS) MADE YOU EXIST..

You are again equating god to unknown physics when you deliberately ask that god be left out of the equation, dishonest.

YOU ARE CONTROLLED YOU MORON, YOU JUST DENY IT..

WHEN YOUR CONTROLLED BY GOD, YOU HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE.

BUT WHEN YOUR CONTROLLED BY SOME "UNKNOWN PHYSICS", THEN YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY, JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT KNOW WHO CONTROLL YOU, IT DOESNT MEAN NOTHING CONTRLL YOU....

Again you are equating creation with control. If humanity is being controlled by god, or whatever you want to rename it, then humanity is not responsible. If humanity was created but isn’t being controlled then humanity is responsible. You are deliberately ignoring those basic points.


Franko

To Beleth: Just because something is responsible for your existence (i.e. for “creating” you) does mean EXACTLY that same thing is responsible for your Fate/Destiny (and really … this is where it gets interesting).

Is this another one of you person definitions to words that don’t agree with common usage?

what if YOU are the one who created YOU? Then you and Muscle would both be right. You’d be responsible for your actions, but they would be preordained to occur (by you in the past),

So how can person A create person A and plan their destiny before person A exists? Is there any logic at all hidden in what you have written?

It just so happens that the vast majority of us are in complete and total agreement about these very fundamental standards of acceptable behavior. It’s only the tiny minority of lunatics that are Truly Evil, and the system is designed to reduce their numbers over Time.

Have you even bothered to look at the crime statistics for just the past year? http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

Actions are the output of your algorithm (your conscious algorithm) but it is your algorithm itself that is flawed if your are Evil. Your algorithm is Evil, so you tend to generate “Evil-outputs” (Evil/Bad/Harmful/Negative Outputs).

So now god(ess) isn’t evil just a bad programmer?

Ossai

 

[Beleth]

Call me crazy Beleth, but the guy who keeps burning his hand on the hot stove is the real lunatic.

Indeed. Which is why I steadfastly refuse to engage you on your views about free will.

What I'm doing by engaging you on your views on omniscience vs. omnipotence, and MM on his views in general, is more akin to trying to turn the stove off. Which is not lunacy at all.

 

[Doctor X]

Guys, I have a box of doorknobs in my basement. Perhaps you'd be willing to debate this with the doorknobs rather than Muscleman. You'd make more headway and the doorknobs would make more sense.

Will any of the doorknobs provide the proof they promise?

--J.D.