'God' is Impossible

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by SciWriter, May 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    If you'd care to read your own request:
    Which was complied with.

    When you make a coherent statement I'll reply.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    You are on topic since 'God is Impossible' fails totally if God is shown to be.

    It's inconsistent to have a 'reason' by faith. (Think about the definition of 'faith')

    I more than doubt God, but he can't smite me. Just watch. He can't because He ain't so. See, I have not been smitten. Ha-ha.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. jamesbrentonk Banned Banned

    Messages:
    80
    You're posting like your posts are the ones making sense.

    My own request was that you stick to the topic. I see that you obviously cannot make a single post in compliance with whatever you are presuming that I am demanding from you.

    I am no sense of the word being uncoath, but when you respond to someones post then put countless bots on someones face, dont' expect them to threaten to kill you.

    *edit
    you have no stuck to the topic.

    *
    The topic is why your'e presuming that he isn't an open- given- origional variable in respect to complying with my first post which isn't drivel. It's actually really well worded, and I won't admit any fallacys in respect to God or an Islamic facism with respect to gods non existence- God is a well rounded democratic belief, some presume it's Capatilostic or even Republic orientation, or other. But whatever the case may be, my origional assersion stands. It was really quite simple: I stated quite clearly:

    God is an origional openness, a fullness, an absolusion, indwelling and pulling in, inspiring and awe convincing. I can see that you fully agree with that. Well, that is as I stated an opinion, hoeever it is in no sens eof the word itself irrational. If god is a given it supports further facts exist for his existence, which also supposes further conversation to be had.

    If he's an origional openness, name calling is out of the question and you rgod damn demands cease.

    But what you can do, is keep with the topic. You can keep with opinion too. And you could try to scratch your head apprently when it comes to theory.

    I'm on this forum momentary and leaving as soon as stalk suggestive behavior from you cease immediately. If ya can't stop, I have litterally nothing further to say.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. jamesbrentonk Banned Banned

    Messages:
    80
    Wrong. Illogical assersion 101. You can't proclaim to take outside what I'm stating, unless using any logical variables. HOWEVER there are no logical variables in this post.

    BTW: I made the suggestion that by my standard defination he's also rational- or even fully rational. But discussion on god is side talk commentary in respect to actually discussing his origin- nature- and yes- even his fullness.
     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    They are.

    Please indicate where you made that request of me.

    That would be incorrect.

    Whatever that means. I'm sure it has some relevance to you...

    That would be incorrect. By the way, that sentence of yours was also drivel.

    Wrong.

    Whether you admit to fallacies or not they're still there.

    On the contrary, I do NOT agree with that. You're making unfounded assumptions.

    Of course it's irrational - you have no evidence.

    Huh? In English please.

    You said you were leaving in one of your first posts. Please do so.
     
  9. jamesbrentonk Banned Banned

    Messages:
    80
    If your posts are the ones making any kind of sense- I don't suspect to see any proof of that quite clearly........ ANY time soon.


    Immediately after you refused to stick to whatever topic or post - that I had made [my own] (I'll keep that as a future refrence to a "foot note." btw)

    Checking.

    Refusal to leave somebody alone is one hell of a clown upon offenses. Especially name calling. Don't expect to be voicing up physical bot footage.

    You mean the 17 page thread topic? And yes my origional post was entirely drivil. Do you read?

    You don't care to respond to the post. It was about proof of God, and also an opinion that you care not to actually give voiced disagreement. Still waiting for said disagreement.

    Gods openness is not a lie. Do never twist words if you expect to ever speak. :bawl: (am I talking to a little child?)


    blah blah blah. These unfounded assersions of yours are currently being interpreted vastly different.
    Theory is a different thing than anything rational.

    Not debating.


    You dont enjoy demands?
    Is God an origional openess?
    And further countless conversation exists here still.

    If you'ore capable of stopping stalk suggestive behavior- Great! I'll leave at once.:bugeye:
     
  10. jamesbrentonk Banned Banned

    Messages:
    80
    dwyr. I admit I suppose I inserted after my origional post and your continual drivel followed some valuable assersions about Gods existence. However, without correct refrence to whatever our assersions are, those refrences will stick to dependance upon the post above (mine btw).
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    In other words you can't show where you made that request (since you didn't actually make it).

    If you'd care to check I haven't done any "name calling".

    No. Your first ever post.
    I do read. And all of your posts are entirely drivel.

    The disagreement is that your post was nonsensical drivel. Having said that three times now I expect you to realise my point.

    Twist words? I didn't say "lie".

    The unfounded assertions are yours. Do try to keep up.

    I think you'll find that's incorrect.

    No.

    That hasn't been shown to be the case so far.

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean with the first sentence, but the second gives me great pleasure.
     
  12. jamesbrentonk Banned Banned

    Messages:
    80
    You got style




    I bet the girl above thinks you're just some really hunka dunkabee aintchya? Let's see just how well you do when confronted with lesser opposition.


    Oh so another off topic. My first post to this forum. Posting about you who have countless sns. I can't appericate that my friend, a total fraud. Why you would ever run me around samantha (dont lie in public) is a total outrage. I'll never forgive you for trying to molest me!:bawl:


    Nonsencial side assersion. I can't and don't follow.

    I see my point and twice yours. But still can't http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/231250.1020.A.jpgsee it from You.


    Nah you're being watchy with your wordings. I like that in a horrible religious expert.


    Let's see where I'm at:

    Unfounded assersions about god theory and how it is in theory with respect to a thought on the opening post and a potential hit for the run by you with respect to the topic.... trying....


    If it is, you're blackmail on the google site you've done Sam recently was haywire. I'm sure God has something to comment about it!

    Let's see what you're trying to say please.


    Still refraining from converstaion and basing groundless assersion as some form of fanciful imagionation of your self percieved fantasy of "fact" (false fact btw). Want to get tight, stay on topic, you've already entirely lost it.

    It gives me far more pleasure. I don't have to sift through bugs anymore!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Wow, Dwy. You caught a big one this time...

    May I suggest broiling, or perhaps a nice stir fry with a little ginger and garlic?

    I'll check back later to see how things are progressing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. jamesbrentonk Banned Banned

    Messages:
    80
    Dwry is probably going to look like mister bot tronics himself- FANF(shh)ASTIC!
     
  15. jamesbrentonk Banned Banned

    Messages:
    80
    That was a compliment. Now, as I were saying, He didn't just catch a big one, he caught an equal sized one. A FISH btw. Probably something a lot like a beetle. Beetlejuice. Or better yet, super surendiplious werewolf. Generally werewolfs are lesser than bears, but so are Zebras lesser than Hairs.
     
  16. jamesbrentonk Banned Banned

    Messages:
    80
    And no he has to let me go so I am waiting on him to return to the forum. In reply, I would state that Fish are directly cookable. Meaning "interpretable" (absolutely and ideally).
     
  17. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    The believers posting here lately don't seem to be providing very much beyond the outright pronouncements about God.
     
  18. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Exciting, isn't it?
     
  19. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    My goodness. You don't pass the Turing test.

    Hmmm...

    /Wanders off recalling an ancient Star Trek episode involving perfection, error and the creator...
     
  20. jamesbrentonk Banned Banned

    Messages:
    80
    Yes. It is far more exciting however to wait upon proof that he exists. I suspect said proof isn't far from wait. As an absolute fullness by my own estimation, I would range the time of his proof at approximately .000000000000000000000000000000000000th a billionth of a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th of light.

    After said understanding is met, perhaps he will finally achieve said proof. In the meantime, whilist that is a fully logical undertaking in terms of opinions and asking for return commentary, the theory aspect and where he generally sits in terms of actual belief is more to me important for theoritiacl purposes. Most things are ontology, interpretation, consideration of ontological assersion, and other replys that depend on those basic theories for the correct theoritical intrepreation - at least if you look at it right- no I'm not making any kind of a demand to know that the theory is right when I state that theory has some say in respect to gods existence- because of course it does- however what I AM saying is that theory does have a lot of things to consider at least in respect to the correct placement

    or categorization,

    Of the proper understanding of him. He isn't never given a negetive placement most semantics consider god also similarly at least slightly arranged to the theoritical understanding that gives him the reason to be considered. And also being usually a pre conception of before established understanding he could very well ALSO be an understanding that could be given (a little more light) [link]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y274/sulphi/Jan262006031.jpg[/link].
     
  21. jamesbrentonk Banned Banned

    Messages:
    80
    At least all of those things are evident.

    I need proof of the contrary. Teasing. Like a gigantic blue fish. Please.
     
  22. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I imagine those are books without pages? Or with empty pages?
     
  23. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    What on earth are you talking about?

    What makes you think that I took your posts to be examples of sound reasoning?

    Do you really believe that declaring victory and departing the field somehow means that you have won?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page