What proof do you have of God?

[1robin]

It is as if he has to constantly remind himself...

More color commentary. You have more in common with a disgruntled and rabidly biased moderator than a debater. Where are your arguments and meaningfull input? It is always sarcastic thought fragments.

 

[1robin]

OK. It's a fine opinion. But as I've told you repeatedly, I don't accept you as a prophet of God who can inform me of the actual nature of things. It's nothing personal. It's just that I consider myself to be the best judge of truth.

For the 398th time I never claimed to be a prophet. I have claimed the opposite consistently. It is not necessary to be a prophet to present the overwhelming evidence for God. He is so easy to defend that even I can do it. You may believe whatever you wish you just can't honestly say what you use as justification is even remotely as sufficient as what the Biblical God has as a foundation for the faith he demands.

It's a fine opinion. I'm happy that you've found a way to assure yourself of God's existence

Not just me, but over 2 billion currently and the greatest experts on testimony, evidence, and the historical method in human history. Many of the founding fathers of prominent fields of science. The man who cracked the human genome and possibly the greatest scientist in human history (Newton), etc..... I also posted a tiny fragment of the almost infinite store house of information and evidence containing a vastly superior case for the Biblical God than any other in every category. No other "God" can provide even a meaningfull fraction of what the Biblical God has provided. I am getting the idea that you just hand waved it away and leaves me wondering if true why you are debating an issue that you have already made your conclusion concerning even if when it is necessary to reject an infinitely more evidenced God by far than which ever one you concluded exists instead. What is the point of asking, if when given the most substantial answer that can be given for any God in any category it is simply ignored? What is the point?

As I've said and as everyone must realize by now, I cannot successfully convince 1robin that his evidence isn't compelling. I can't prove to 1robin that his evidence is poor.

That is because no body has nor can. There is not even a reasonable justification for making the attempt. There exists no God more attested to than the Biblical God. What ever weak point you desperately attempt to isolate has far worse problems for every single other competitor. No honest unbiased Jury could possibly fail to rule that while short of an objective fact the Bible in every meaningfull category used to determine these things is far and away more reliable than any other religion religious text known. If they or you still prefer to reject the more substantiated God, I have no complaint and can respect that. However attempting to assert that the evidence for the Biblical God is anything less than extraordinary and at the top in every category is just false hood.

So I don't understand why you keep insisting that I can't prove anything to you.

I have simply pointed out that you your self said that nothing can be proven and then insist you have done what you said impossible a breath previously. I did not say you couldn't; I said you said you couldn't. By the way the statement I made that this was in response to was no universal declaration that it is impossible for you to prove anything. It only concerned your inability to disprove those specific claims. I have watched many of the world's best attempt it and utterly fail. An example would be Voltaire's arrogant claim that in 50 years Christianity would be dead. Instead within 50 years he was dead and his house used to print Bibles. God has a sense of irony.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It only concerned your inability to disprove those specific claims. I have watched many of the world's best attempt it and utterly fail. An example would be Voltaire's arrogant claim that in 50 years Christianity would be dead.

Of course I am unable to convince 1robin that the evidence for Christianity is inadequate.

I have utterly failed to prove (convince 1robin of) anything at all.

But in my defense, I have also failed to prove anything to the brick wall who lives nearby -- despite years of debate with him.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

For the 398th time I never claimed to be a prophet. I have claimed the opposite consistently. It is not necessary to be a prophet to present the overwhelming evidence for God. He is so easy to defend that even I can do it. You may believe whatever you wish you just can't honestly say what you use as justification is even remotely as sufficient as what the Biblical God has as a foundation for the faith he demands.

Those are the words of someone who considers himself to be informing others of the absolute truth of things... a prophet.

But I don't know why I should listen to you. You won't give me any credentials for that. Are you smarter than me? Holier? Why should I accept your assertions about ultimate truth?

In another place, there's a guy speaking to me just as you speak to me except that he substitutes the words 'Islam/Quran' for your words 'Christianity/Bible'. All the evidence and all the world's greatest authorities are on his side. All logic and argumentation are on his side. No honest and sane person can deny the obvious fact of Islam and the Quran.

I see him as just another prophet pushing his god. I'm already tired of listening.

 

[dantech]

If you were to examine the corpse of a man who died seconds ago of natural causes while being healthy, and then the body of a man who is the same age but who has failing organs, broken limbs, but is alive... What would you realize? You would realize that life is not something physical and has nothing to do with the physical world. It cannot be understood by you, me, scientists or the brightest man on earth.

This is proof to me that someone out there, is giving life, and is also taking it away with a timing and with reasoning that I can't understand.

Anything that cannot be seen, touched, or examined might appear as not existent. Just because you can't understand it, doesn't make it fake.

 

[1robin]

Those are the words of someone who considers himself to be informing others of the absolute truth of things... a prophet.

No it isn't, that is the role of a teacher or a theologian. Here is the definition of a prophet:
In religion, a prophet is an individual who is claimed to have been contacted by the supernatural or the divine, and to speak for them, serving as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people.[1][2] The message that the prophet conveys is called a prophecy.
Prophet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I don't know why I should listen to you. You won't give me any credentials for that. Are you smarter than me? Holier? Why should I accept your assertions about ultimate truth?

I have provided little that can be termed my personal opinion. I unlike you realize that my mere assertions have little persuasive power. That is why I provide expert testimony, accepted philosophic principles, and simple Biblical principles. It is not my view I am trying to get across, it is God's. I simply point out and comment on what God said about himself not what I say about him. My status or credentials matter little and complete confidence in me is irrelevant when discussing the Bible.

In another place, there's a guy speaking to me just as you speak to me except that he substitutes the words 'Islam/Quran' for your words 'Christianity/Bible'.

You are drawing a false conclusion here. You are suggesting that if two people make contradictory claims then resolution is impossible. Thank God the justice system and academics do not share you view point. In this case the two claims must compete. It is only necessary to see which claim is false.

All the evidence and all the world's greatest authorities are on his side. All logic and argumentation are on his side. No honest and sane person can deny the obvious fact of Islam and the Quran.

Well there are experts and there are experts. There is no more persuasive and relevant expert opinion that that of experts on evidence. The two names I used (Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) have credentials that are impeccable. There exists no one in human history that has more significant credentials. They do not get any higher.

I see him as just another prophet pushing his god. I'm already tired of listening.

I sympathise with the frustration produced by listening to two people saying two opposite things are true. I however disagree thats that renders the issue unresolvable. If you wish you can tell me where he is saying this and we can debate and you can conclude who makes the more persuassive case.

 

[1robin]

Of course I am unable to convince 1robin that the evidence for Christianity is inadequate.

I have utterly failed to prove (convince 1robin of) anything at all.

But in my defense, I have also failed to prove anything to the brick wall who lives nearby -- despite years of debate with him.

Well if your trying to tell the brick wall that it has inadequate evidence for its existence then your failure is easy to understand.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What proof do you have of God?

Existence of existence!

God is a concept that means different things to different people, but to my understanding, the concept of God represents the same reality as the concept of Existence does,...Being.

Does anyone doubt the existence of existence?

If so, what proof do have that existence doesn't exist?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No it isn't, that is the role of a teacher or a theologian. Here is the definition of a prophet:

There is no such thing as 'the definition.' I've been trying to show you that forever, but you ignore me and continue to believe that you can post 'the definition' and thereby prove your case somehow. If you don't mind me saying so, it is the same behavior as my old friend, the stonewall.

Before you and I can possibly communicate in a productive way, we'll have to discuss language and how it works. Who knows. Maybe you are a language genius and will convince me that I misunderstand language. How wonderful that would be. But there is also a chance that through a sincere grappling over the matter, you may come to understand that words don't really carry set and reliable meanings. That's an illusion, a deception, a trick which language pulls on us.

Not only can 'prophet' mean a million different things (a million defintions could be written for the word), but 'prophet' can mean different thing each time we use it. Most people just don't understand that. They think of words as reliable meaning units. But it ain't so. Words carry different meanings depending on their surrounding words, on the speaker and listener and their relationship and the purpose of their current exchange, on the mood and skill of the speaker, on the day of the week, etc.

Anyway, in my vocabulary, you do often behave as a prophet of God here. You insist that you are the one to describe ultimate truth to me. That's a prophet.

I have provided little that can be termed my personal opinion.

Of course not. You just inform me of God's actual truth. It would be so refreshing to hear you admit that your opinions are simply your opinions.

It is not my view I am trying to get across, it is God's.

Right. And that is all I'm doing. I am telling you God's Actual and True and Real view, but you keep going back to telling me your flawed personal opinion of God's view.

It's a little frustrating for me, to tell the truth.

I simply point out and comment on what God said about himself not what I say about him.

But you are confused about which things God actually said. I'm sorry. You've made a mistake there.

Plus, you are not pointing out God's words. Instead, you paraphrase God's words -- putting them into your own language -- and then you claim your paraphrase to be God's actual opinion. Usually when people do that, it's because they don't really understand how language works. They imagine that their personal paraphrase must mean precisely what God meant with His Words.

Me, I just channel God's Words directly to the world. It's easier.

You are drawing a false conclusion here. You are suggesting that if two people make contradictory claims then resolution is impossible. Thank God the justice system and academics do not share you view point. In this case the two claims must compete. It is only necessary to see which claim is false.

Nah. You're confused about me. If I witness two guys arguing over whether the moon is square or whether pyrimidal, I don't think of resolution as being impossible. I've even been known to wade into the middle of them and point up at the sky.

It never does any good, of course, but I find it somewhat entertaining.

Well there are experts and there are experts. There is no more persuasive and relevant expert opinion that that of experts on evidence. The two names I used (Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) have credentials that are impeccable. There exists no one in human history that has more significant credentials. They do not get any higher.

Actually my evidence experts are way superior to your evidence experts, and my experts say there's no good evidence for the legitimacy of Biblical claims. Sorry.

I sympathise with the frustration produced by listening to two people saying two opposite things are true. I however disagree thats that renders the issue unresolvable. If you wish you can tell me where he is saying this and we can debate and you can conclude who makes the more persuassive case.

Thanks, but I'm losing interest. Square moon, pyrimidal moon... after awhile the entertainment value wanes.

 

[1robin]

There is no such thing as 'the definition.' I've been trying to show you that forever, but you ignore me and continue to believe that you can post 'the definition' and thereby prove your case somehow. If you don't mind me saying so, it is the same behavior as my old friend, the stonewall.

That is just about the most useless and pointless thing to say I can think of. I would explain why that can't possibly be true but the mere fact you believe this renders an explanation a waste of time.

Before you and I can possibly communicate in a productive way, we'll have to discuss language and how it works. Who knows. Maybe you are a language genius and will convince me that I misunderstand language. How wonderful that would be. But there is also a chance that through a sincere grappling over the matter, you may come to understand that words don't really carry set and reliable meanings. That's an illusion, a deception, a trick which language pulls on us.

I am not going to stumble around in the dark forest of Pseudo linguistics and grammar. The rest of the world operates as if actual definitions of words exist and if you can't do that or think you are above that then there is no point continuing.

Not only can 'prophet' mean a million different things (a million definitions could be written for the word), but 'prophet' can mean different thing each time we use it. Most people just don't understand that. They think of words as reliable meaning units. But it isn’t so. Words carry different meanings depending on their surrounding words, on the speaker and listener and their relationship and the purpose of their current exchange, on the mood and skill of the speaker, on the day of the week, etc.

You said you do not think a word has a definition and then a paragraph later proceed to give a definition. I think you are saying whatever it is that allows you to maintain the illusion.

Anyway, in my vocabulary, you do often behave as a prophet of God here. You insist that you are the one to describe ultimate truth to me. That's a prophet.

So now you have an personally invented vocabulary that you are suggesting I must allow for. I do not. If you did know anything about language you would know that it is based on commonly accepted definitions for words. It has to, if everyone ran around like you with a definition for each word that they invented there would be no way to communicate. You know this and operate as if it is true but for some reasons insist it isn't.

Of course not. You just inform me of God's actual truth. It would be so refreshing to hear you admit that your opinions are simply your opinions.

Saying that the Bible records God as saying X, Y, or Z is not an opinion it is an objective fact.

Right. And that is all I'm doing. I am telling you God's Actual and True and Real view, but you keep going back to telling me your flawed personal opinion of God's view.

When your view has 2 billion followers and the most cherished text in human history then it might matter what you say.

It's a little frustrating for me, to tell the truth.

Of course it is. People whose theory are based on their own personal desires are always offended when everyone rejects them. Because they were invented by that person and not discovered from another source they are far more personal to that person and they take the rejection of them as a rejection of themselves. I think you might want to get used to that.

But you are confused about which things God actually said. I'm sorry. You've made a mistake there.

That isn't helpful. If I said Ambiguous guy was wrong somewhere. I would not expect that that statement would mean very much.

Plus, you are not pointing out God's words. Instead, you paraphrase God's words -- putting them into your own language -- and then you claim your paraphrase to be God's actual opinion. Usually when people do that, it's because they don't really understand how language works. They imagine that their personal paraphrase must mean precisely what God meant with His Words.

That is inaccurate. Everything I have said is orthodox Protestantism and is consistent with mainstream theology and commentators. I guess the whole world is wrong and you are right. Of course that makes no sense since you claim all 800,000 words in the Bible have no definitions.

Me, I just channel God's Words directly to the world. It's easier.

Nope you just make up confusing and contradictory word games.

Nah. You're confused about me. If I witness two guys arguing over whether the moon is square or whether pyramidal, I don't think of resolution as being impossible. I've even been known to wade into the middle of them and point up at the sky.

I was going to include the possibility that both were wrong but since that was not the case under discussion I did not think it was necessary. Once again you have shown I was wrong and that you will introduce anything as long as it complicates things or is thought wrongly to do so.

It never does any good, of course, but I find it somewhat entertaining.

If you find falsely concluding that a person that has the truth does not when the soul is at stake then you have a perverted view of entertainment.

Actually my evidence experts are way superior to your evidence experts, and my experts say there's no good evidence for the legitimacy of Biblical claims. Sorry.

Post the name of a single expert you have that started Harvard Law, or who has occupied every single prestigious position a lawyer can in England. This type of nonsense is just tiring.

Thanks, but I'm losing interest. Square moon, pyrimidal moon... after awhile the entertainment value wanes.

That is just about what I thought you would say. By the way I copied and pasted this post into word so I could spell check it and your statements had over a dozen errors, and your the language expert.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That is just about the most useless and pointless thing to say I can think of.

Oh, come on. Don't undersell yourself. You could think of something way more useless and pointless. I've seen you in action. (Yeah, you gave me a straight line and I went for it. I'm bored.)

I would explain why that can't possibly be true but the mere fact you believe this renders an explanation a waste of time.

Like you and the Bible. I would explain why the Bible can't possibly be the word of God, but the mere fact that you believe it renders an explanation a waste of time.

The rest of the world operates as if actual definitions of words exist and if you can't do that or think you are above that then there is no point continuing.

Do give me a break. You are firmly under my spell. There's no way you can quit me now. Try and see.

You said you do not think a word has a definition and then a paragraph later proceed to give a definition. I think you are saying whatever it is that allows you to maintain the illusion.

Your statements about me seem vaguely false. I feel they would be stoutly false except that I can't untangle their incoherence in order to firm up my opinion. Whether you misrepresent me on purpose or just can't follow the things I say, I can't say.

So now you have an personally invented vocabulary that you are suggesting I must allow for.

I've said nothing about you following my vocabulary. That's up to you. If you don't want to use words in the most logical, reasonable, integrated manner ever known to humankind, then go your own way. Be jerked this way and that by each new word definition you encounter. (Oh, goodness. That actually made me shudder -- thinking how chaotic it must be for you each time a new dictionary is published! Those pesky lexicographers are always changing the definitions, pulling your entire wordworld from under you.)

If you did know anything about language you would know that it is based on commonly accepted definitions for words.

Says the guy who admits no interest in language or literature but assumes that he can glean God's Clear Meaning from an ancient book written in various extinct languages by miscellaneous unknown authors and translated again and again through the ages by a miscellany of ....

Well, you get my point. If you can be certain about that, you can surely be certain about your ability to instruct AmbigGuy in the ways of language.

Of course to rational minds, both notions seem way on the other side of absurd, but hey.

It has to, if everyone ran around like you with a definition for each word that they invented there would be no way to communicate. You know this and operate as if it is true but for some reasons insist it isn't.

Sure. And you know that God doesn't exist and that miracles and the Bible are false, but for some reason insist that they are true. We're weird guys. I wonder why we behave this way.

When your view has 2 billion followers and the most cherished text in human history then it might matter what you say.

You saw off the limb upon which you sit, my friend. You destroy Jesus.

Jesus must be happy that you did not live in his time, to run around advising everyone to ignore his singlular, unsupported truth. "Judaism has the followers! Judaism has the cherished text! It doesn't matter what this man says! Ignore him!"

When I imagine a happy Jesus, you are never in the room with him. I'm sorry if that hurts a little.

If Jesus was false back when he was alone, then the simple addition of two billion followers can't make him true, yes?

I guess the whole world is wrong and you are right.

Well, no. Those ones who agree with me are also right. Well, almost right. It depends on just how closely they come to paralleling my thought and words. Of course, the more distant a person is from my worldview, the more wrong. God rides on my shoulder, after all. Walk away from me, and you walk away from God.

(Did that sound a little arrogant? We prophets can have a hard time balancing that kind of stuff.)

Of course that makes no sense since you claim all 800,000 words in the Bible have no definitions.

Of course I've made no such claim. Why not try to argue against what I actually say?

If you find falsely concluding that a person that has the truth does not when the soul is at stake then you have a perverted view of entertainment.

But neither the square-moon guy nor the pyramidal-moon guy had the truth. And neither do you. And there are no souls at stake. Souls don't even exist, not in the way Christianity conceives them.

By the way I copied and pasted this post into word so I could spell check it and your statements had over a dozen errors, and your the language expert.

Oh how you brighten my day. An actual aerospace engineer, and you didn't notice that virtually all of those 'errors' were your own... contained in the backquotes within my message.

Goodness gracious. How I love you.

By the way, spelling errors are not serious language errors. It's why I don't point to your flawed spelling. There are even intelligent people who spell, well... untraditionally.

 

[1robin]

Oh, come on. Don't undersell yourself. You could think of something way more useless and pointless. I've seen you in action. (Yeah, you gave me a straight line and I went for it. I'm bored.)

Since according to you words have no definitions how did you choose the ones you used here?

Like you and the Bible. I would explain why the Bible can't possibly be the word of God, but the mere fact that you believe it renders an explanation a waste of time.

Countless numbers of your betters have attempted this very thing. They are buried and the Bible lives on. At least they bothered to actually saying something about the Bible they were arbitrarily asserting was flawed, unlike you. Claims like what you made just make me tired.

Do give me a break. You are firmly under my spell. There's no way you can quit me now. Try and see.

I would not say that to many times. I am getting very burned out on debate in general and am considering taking a break from all of it. By the way apparently you are greater than your God, he can't do magic and yet you can cast spells.

Your statements about me seem vaguely false. I feel they would be stoutly false except that I can't untangle their incoherence in order to firm up my opinion. Whether you misrepresent me on purpose or just can't follow the things I say, I can't say.

There is nothing incoherent in that statement to even a 5th grader. They do not get much simpler. I think this is your new "I don't have a reply and so I punt" response.

I've said nothing about you following my vocabulary. That's up to you. If you don't want to use words in the most logical, reasonable, integrated manner ever known to humankind, then go your own way. Be jerked this way and that by each new word definition you encounter. (Oh, goodness. That actually made me shudder -- thinking how chaotic it must be for you each time a new dictionary is published! Those pesky lexicographers are always changing the definitions, pulling your entire world from under you.)

If you shudder when a dictionary is published which is always 99% identical to the previous one then you must have epileptic fits trying to remember all the arbitrary rules and counter rules you invent. The fact that you can't do so is probably why there are so many statements that you contradict is the next statement.

Says the guy who admits no interest in language or literature but assumes that he can glean God's Clear Meaning from an ancient book written in various extinct languages by miscellaneous unknown authors and translated again and again through the ages by a miscellany of ....

Saying I can understand God is a claim in God's favor not mine. He built man and can therefore be understood by us unless a man chooses to not listen.

Well, you get my point. If you can be certain about that, you can surely be certain about your ability to instruct AmbigGuy in the ways of language.
Of course to rational minds, both notions seem way on the other side of absurd, but hey.

Well a rational mind would not contradict it's self every other sentence so we can rule that out in your case. And your claims that definitions are irrelevant seals the deal. Is there someone somewhere that finds that stuff profound?

Sure. And you know that God doesn't exist and that miracles and the Bible are false, but for some reason insist that they are true. We're weird guys. I wonder why we behave this way.

You are quite absurd. Normally I just ignore drivel like this but at least this once I will explain why your wrong. You as a human functioning in this world MUST acknowledge and act as if definitions exist and are universally in common in a culture. Every one exhibits a belief in that. There is no reason I must insist the Bible is true because many people walk around without think so. So you claimed something ridiculous that it is impossible to believe and still function effectively in the world. I did not. Your attempt at drawing a similar conclusion based on common parameters is a FAIL. I do not mind sarcasm, disagreement, or false claims. I do however mind all three when based on false logic and no evidence.

You saw off the limb upon which you sit, my friend. You destroy Jesus.

This isn't even a relevant, nonsensical response. It has no bearing on my statement. Maybe you do actually believe that words have no meaning. These sure don't.

Jesus must be happy that you did not live in his time, to run around advising everyone to ignore his singular, unsupported truth. "Judaism has the followers! Judaism has the cherished text! It doesn't matter what this man says! Ignore him!"

I did not say it was true because it has 2 billion followers. I said it is 2 billion times as substantiated as your non claims.

When I imagine a happy Jesus, you are never in the room with him. I'm sorry if that hurts a little.

You logic is what is excruciating not your conclusions.

If Jesus was false back when he was alone, then the simple addition of two billion followers can't make him true, yes?

That might be at least a little relevant if that is what I had claimed.

Well, no. Those ones who agree with me are also right. Well, almost right. It depends on just how closely they come to paralleling my thought and words. Of course, the more distant a person is from my worldview, the more wrong. God rides on my shoulder, after all. Walk away from me, and you walk away from God.

I can confidently say that no human that has ever lived agrees with everything you have said to me. I can also say with confidence virtually no human agrees with any one point you have made when the reasons behind it are included.

(Did that sound a little arrogant? We prophets can have a hard time balancing that kind of stuff.)

This is getting tiresome.

Of course I've made no such claim. Why not try to argue against what I actually say?

You said words have no definition. The Bible has 800,000 of them that do. Fail.

But neither the round-moon guy nor the pyramidal-moon guy had the truth. And neither do you. And there are no souls at stake. Souls don't even exist, not in the way Christianity conceives them.

Why can your list of things that exist that you claim do not include you? I would find that a worthwhile conclusion. There is more evidence the former exists than the latter.

Oh how you brighten my day. An actual aerospace engineer, and you didn't notice that virtually all of those 'errors' were your own... contained in the back quotes within my message.

First of all I never said I was an aerospace engineer. I did not even say I was an engineer. I said I went to engineering school and have a degree in math.
What's more you have no idea what errors I am discussing. Second there were no back quotes in that post that I spell checked. You were wrong 4 times in three sentences. Amazing.
[/quote]By the way, spelling errors are not serious language errors. It's why I don't point to your flawed spelling. There are even intelligent people who spell, well... untraditionally.[/quote]
They are for someone who claims to be language expert. If you can't answer a single language question that even I know the answer to so far nor spell words correctly you can't expect anyone to believe you know anything about the subject. By the way you have five errors in this one plus a sentence where a word was used twice in a row. From a man who complians about the spelling of someone who knows nothing about grammer and he himself claims to be a language expert that is quite horrendous.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Since according to you words have no definitions how did you choose the ones you used here?

Since I've never claimed that words have no definitions, I've got no idea how to answer your question. Do you ask such things when you get uncomfortable and are looking for a way to derail the dialogue? Or is there some other reason that you make false claims about me?

I would not say that to many times. I am getting very burned out on debate in general and am considering taking a break from all of it.

Sometimes it's a good idea to step away from battle and just sit in your garden. As you think back on your wars, those memories will have time to reform your mind.

By the way apparently you are greater than your God, he can't do magic and yet you can cast spells.

Spells aren't magic. That's just you choosing the wrong definition from your (archaic) dictionary. So tell me: exactly which edition of which dictionary do you consider the final authority on word meanings? And do you always insist upon the first entry for that word?

Look up the word 'set' at dictionary.com. It has 64 definitions. Do you always insist that your dialogue partner use the first entry from your favorite edition of your favorite dictionary?

Not me. I simply listen to the other's voice and try my best to understand their meaning, no matter which words they use.

If you shudder when a dictionary is published which is always 99% identical to the previous one then you must have epileptic fits trying to remember all the....

You really don't know what you are talking about. I could publish a new dictionary tomorrow, and I'd have no obligation to make it match other dictionaries at 99%.

You are quite absurd.

Thanks. I used to consider it a natural talent, but I keep getting better and better at it as I age, so I have to humbly accept some credit for it.

You as a human functioning in this world MUST acknowledge and act as if definitions exist and are universally in common in a culture.

Of course. That's why I acknowledge and act as if (vaguely-common) definitions exist. So what is your point?

So you claimed something ridiculous that it is impossible to believe and still function effectively in the world.

Well, except that I claimed no such thing. You just concocted a silly belief, insisted that I owned it, and then went on to ridicule it. I'm sorry, but I can't be responsible for your behavior. I have enough trouble policing my own.

I can confidently say that no human that has ever lived agrees with everything you have said to me.

Right. Many are still lost in darkness. Anyway, no human agrees with everything you've said to me. That would be plain impossible (and something of a relief to me, frankly). So what's your point?

This is getting tiresome.

Thanks, but don't worry for me. I have hammered away at many brick walls in my day. I'm doing fine.

You said words have no definition.

Nah. That's just something you've made up and are claiming that I claimed. I'm not sure why you do that, but whatever.

Why can your list of things that exist that you claim do not include you? I would find that a worthwhile conclusion. There is more evidence the former exists than the latter.

No idea what you are trying to say to me. Sorry. I might answer if I understood it.

Second there were no back quotes in that post that I spell checked.

In that case, you're simply wrong. I misspelled a couple of words, but there were no other errors in my language. Please don't tell me that you are using a grammar checker. If so, it really may be too late for me to help you.

Please. If you love me. Burn the thing. Now.

[Your grammar checker will likely mark three of those last four sentence as being in error. Your grammar checker will be mistaken about that. The poor dears never went to school and can't even read and write. If you don't believe me, ask it to see some of its writings. If those works are any good, they will be filled with such 'errors'.]

If you can't answer a single language question that even I know the answer to so far nor spell words correctly you can't expect anyone to believe you know anything about the subject.

I don't care if people believe me to know about language or not. Why would that matter. [Your grammar checker might flag that sentence as incorrectly punctuated. It has no clue how to distinguish a rhetorical question from a real one. Our machines can out-math and out-chess us, but they are still lightyears away from mastering our language.]

But I will make this claim: Some intelligent and literate people reading our exchange in search of team members to go out and do word battle with them -- they might pick me sooner than you.

Might.

 

[1robin]

Since I've never claimed that words have no definitions, I've got no idea how to answer your question. Do you ask such things when you get uncomfortable and are looking for a way to derail the dialogue? Or is there some other reason that you make false claims about me?

What have you said that could possibly make me uncomfortable? Here is what you did say concerning definitions. "There is no such thing as 'the definition.' I've been trying to show you that forever, but you ignore me and continue to believe that you can post 'the definition' and thereby prove your case somehow"
There is such a thing as the definition and I have posted it several times and it has no effect on you, yet you draw an illegitimate definition anyway or claim there is none, and use that.

Sometimes it's a good idea to step away from battle and just sit in your garden. As you think back on your wars, those memories will have time to reform your mind.

I think the memory of your posts will bring laughter more than anything. We have no debated anything much at all. I post verifiable and undeniable fact. To which you make a silly statement and dismiss it. Prove that the Bible does not have the most attested (by far) textual tradition of any major religion's text. Prove that the Gospels do not meet every single standard of modern law and the historical method. Prove that Jesus is not by far the most textually attested figure of ancient history.

Spells aren't magic. That's just you choosing the wrong definition from your (archaic) dictionary. So tell me: exactly which edition of which dictionary do you consider the final authority on word meanings? And do you always insist upon the first entry for that word?

You must consider 2012 archaic: Spell: A form of words used as a magical charm or incantation. Is anything you ever say consistent with reality?

Look up the word 'set' at dictionary.com. It has 64 definitions. Do you always insist that your dialogue partner use the first entry from your favorite edition of your favorite dictionary?

We were not discussing the def. of set.

Not me. I simply listen to the other's voice and try my best to understand their meaning, no matter which words they use.

And then ignore that and insert whatever it is you wish. You have gotten my words wrong at about an 80% rate.

You really don't know what you are talking about. I could publish a new dictionary tomorrow, and I'd have no obligation to make it match other dictionaries at 99%.

No you could not. That is an arrogant, false, boast.

Thanks. I used to consider it a natural talent, but I keep getting better and better at it as I age, so I have to humbly accept some credit for it.

So far your agreement that you value being absurd is the first accurate statement you have made.

Of course. That's why I acknowledge and act as if (vaguely-common) definitions exist. So what is your point?

Then your statement that I quoted above is contradicted by this one. That took you almost two days to contradict. You are slowing down.

Well, except that I claimed no such thing. You just concocted a silly belief, insisted that I owned it, and then went on to ridicule it. I'm sorry, but I can't be responsible for your behavior. I have enough trouble policing my own.

This: "There is no such thing as 'the definition." is indeed silly but not concocted. They are your words.

Right. Many are still lost in darkness. Anyway, no human agrees with everything you've said to me. That would be plain impossible (and something of a relief to me, frankly). So what's your point?

I guaranty that millions agree with every doctrinal claim I have made. They are orthodox protestant doctrines and have hundreds of millions of followers.

Thanks, but don't worry for me. I have hammered away at many brick walls in my day. I'm doing fine.

I meant what you said was getting tiresome for me. You just assert absolutely false things and do not even attempt and explanation.

Nah. That's just something you've made up and are claiming that I claimed. I'm not sure why you do that, but whatever.

As I showed above you do indeed say the things I attribute to you. Knowing you though I will bet a long rhetorical nightmare is coming concerning the word "the" in you statements I quoted. It is no defense but as it is the only avenue for maneuver you must chose it anyway. I would even bet you have already chosen that dead end above in an attempt to get out of the mess.

No idea what you are trying to say to me. Sorry. I might answer if I understood it.

It was humorous and not important.

In that case, you're simply wrong. I misspelled a couple of words, but there were no other errors in my language. Please don't tell me that you are using a grammar checker. If so, it really may be too late for me to help you.

So I must add spell checking software developed by actual grammar experts who could actually answer at least one test question I provided as another publically accepted group of scholars that you know more than. I will add that to the rest of reality that you must reject to maintain your illusion. In fact you made many spelling errors and used a word twice in a row. I did not check grammatical mistakes.

Please. If you love me. Burn the thing. Now.
[Your grammar checker will likely mark three of those last four sentence as being in error. Your grammar checker will be mistaken about that. The poor dears never went to school and can't even read and write. If you don't believe me, ask it to see some of its writings. If those works are any good, they will be filled with such 'errors'.]

Hubris is why 300 Greeks defeated 300,000 Persians and why your arguments do not work.

I don't care if people believe me to know about language or not. Why would that matter. [Your grammar checker might flag that sentence as incorrectly punctuated. It has no clue how to distinguish a rhetorical question from a real one. Our machines can out-math and out-chess us, but they are still light-years away from mastering our language.]

Is that why 95% of the CPU using population uses them and doesn't call you?

But I will make this claim: Some intelligent and literate people reading our exchange in search of team members to go out and do word battle with them -- they might pick me sooner than you.

This is a ridiculous statement but as I hate grammar I would not allow myself to be picked to hash out something so meaningless. You would have never gotten a single comment concerning grammer or spelling if you hadn't first made the complaints over and over. By the way I corrected two misspelling but bolded a few sentce fragments and other problems above. People in glass houses !!!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I post verifiable and undeniable fact.

Well that doesn't seem fair. Not at all. How come my stuff doesn't get to be the 'verifiable and undeniable fact'?

Prove that the Bible does not have the most attested (by far) textual tradition of any major religion's text. Prove that the Gospels do not meet every single standard of modern law and the historical method. Prove that Jesus is not by far the most
textually attested figure of ancient history.

Already proved that stuff so many times now. Tired of proving it.

It is an actual verifiable and undeniable fact that I have proven it, you know.

I meant what you said was getting tiresome for me.

Bye. I will miss you, and I will never forsake you. Come back when you feel ready.

 

[1robin]

Well that doesn't seem fair. Not at all. How come my stuff doesn't get to be the 'verifiable and undeniable fact'?

Probably because it is unverified and deniable.

Already proved that stuff so many times now. Tired of proving it.

You have not even attempted to. In fact I do not think you have addressed a single test of your philosophic, linguistic, and theological knowledge. You have just done what you did here; get out of it without saying anything relevant. That is why you can't handle fast balls, softballs, or even t-ball. You do not hold up you side of a debate, even badly. You just simply avoid the issue and post more contradictions and false and meaningless half paradoxes. That is why I have never even attempted to actually debate you. It takes more than me to have a debate and you are out to lunch.

It is an actual verifiable and undeniable fact that I have proven it, you know.

I have not seen a fact given by you that warrants the effort to verify or deny. You have not offered a single worthy sentence right or wrong on theology.

Bye. I will miss you, and I will never forsake you. Come back when you feel ready.

Tiresome does not imply I am leaving, at least in English. That is determined by my boredom level. For some reason (probably boredom) I actually like you, in spite of the fact that you have offered less meaningful debate than anyone I have discussed these issues with. I think that if contradiction and saying things that make no sense are included as negatives then you have a net minus on points made. I, of course am comically describing an actual fact.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

OK, man. And Insult, Insult, Insult right back at you.

(I'm too lazy and too mannered to fill in the specific details.)

 

[1robin]

OK, man. And Insult, Insult, Insult right back at you.
(I'm too lazy and too mannered to fill in the specific details.)

Actually I started to explain and lost interest. Yes I have been sarcastic with you, probably more so that with any other debater and if any of that is taken personally I apologies. The reason that is the case is that I do not have a problem with a bad position, a bad claim, a false counter claim, or an emotional based conclusion. What I can't stand is any of those based on terrible argumentation foundations. I don't care what crack pot theory a person has I just resent when it is pushed on the basis of nothing. I literally love to get something new or that I do not agree with if it is just based on sound reason. Your posts have been the opposite to that. You have trivialized the most profound issues in human history to the point you just make a joke and ignore things proven over thousands of years. I do not like your reasoning, however for some reason I like you in spite of it. So do not take anything I say as personal, if you allow them to upgrade your argumentation it can only help.

As an example: I have defended the prophecy concerning Tyre repeatedly because it is widely targeted. I have learned several things over the years. 95% of that prophecy has no known counter claim. There are only two that exist in the 5%. One that the prophecy might have been written later than thought. That is some what reasonable concerning Nebuchadnezzar, but not Alexander, however I accept it as logical and treat it with mild respect. The other concerns the statement that God said that that city would never be built again. It wasn't. Another group of people did build another Tyre and people who are emotionally committed to a denial of God seize this as a fault. I do not accept this and have no respect for its use. God was not mad at the geographical location but the people. He destroyed them and said he would, using the words "thee, you, and that" city would be destroyed and not rebuilt and any attempt to suggest a later city built by a different culture is a fault in the prophecy is roundly rejected and criticized by me. Not because of the person or the claim but because the claim is built on bogus cognitive dissonance not reason and ELIMINATES THE POSSABILITY OF RESOLUTION. That is what your entire position consists of and why I do not respect it. It allows for no possible resolution of anything, and is deserving of the derision I hold it in.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes I have been sarcastic with you, probably more so that with any other debater and if any of that is taken personally I apologies.

Thanks. It never hurts to apologize. I also apologize for anything I've said that might have offended you.

The reason that is the case is that I do not have a problem with a bad position, a bad claim, a false counter claim, or an emotional based conclusion. What I can't stand is any of those based on terrible argumentation foundations.

You have me in a corner. If I were to explain to you, in detail, what I think of your ability to present logical argumentation here in this place, I would probably run afoul of the forum rules and I'd certainly offend their spirit.

I'll just say that I consider you entirely unready to engage in serious debate. It's why many of my responses to you may seem a little flighty or even offpoint.

If you want details of my opinion regarding your debate abilities, you'll have to not only ask but ask in a way which convinces me that you truly would like to hear those things.

I do not like your reasoning, however for some reason I like you in spite of it.

It's probably because I'm not mean. I'm not angry at you. You're not evil. You're just a fellow whom SuperLogicGuy sees as profoundly confused. It could happen to anyone. There, but by the grace of God, might even go I.

As an example: I have defended the prophecy concerning Tyre repeatedly because it is widely targeted. I have learned several things over the years. 95% of that prophecy has no known counter claim.

I watched you and (I think) Penguin discuss it. I'm sorry but to my mind, he tromped you. I came away convinced that Tyre is just another bogus prophecy.

Of course, I happen to already know that God doesn't do that sort of magic in the first place, so I could've been somewhat biased against your position.

....the claim is built on bogus cognitive dissonance not reason and ELIMINATES THE POSSABILITY OF RESOLUTION. That is what your entire position consists of and why I do not respect it. It allows for no possible resolution of anything, and is deserving of the derision I hold it in.

Have you noticed my forum name?

Don't you recognize me as a prophet who comes for the AmbiguityGod? The God who insists that we remain uncertain, separated from resolution?

Of course you hate my message. You are the very opposite of ambiguous. It's why I approached you in the first place -- to cast my God against yours.

But I don't hold you in derision for worshipping your god, for caving in to our natural lust for certainty, for insisting upon a solid and sure answer to every question. I just recognize your nature.

But we're all in this together even if some of us are a bit more, well... advanced in our godthought.

 

[1robin]

Thanks. It never hurts to apologize. I also apologize for anything I've said that might have offended you.

It does kind of hurt to apologize though it is impossible to say where. I always thought it was strange how we feel a literal resistance to apologizing.

You have me in a corner. If I were to explain to you, in detail, what I think of your ability to present logical argumentation here in this place, I would probably run afoul of the forum rules and I'd certainly offend their spirit.

That would be impossible because we haven't debated anything beyond me making a factual point and you dismissing it with a joke.

I'll just say that I consider you entirely unready to engage in serious debate. It's why many of my responses to you may seem a little flighty or even off point.

I have been doing this a long time many comments approving of my competence for debate. Even from moderators. I think this estimation by you is just another humorous avoid the issue and say whatever you feel like comment. We have not debated anything and you have refused every opportunity to do so.

If you want details of my opinion regarding your debate abilities, you'll have to not only ask but ask in a way which convinces me that you truly would like to hear those things.

I don't.

It's probably because I'm not mean. I'm not angry at you. You're not evil. You're just a fellow whom SuperLogicGuy sees as profoundly confused. It could happen to anyone. There, but by the grace of God, might even go I.

My competence in this area enables me to see your incompetence in it.

I watched you and (I think) Penguin discuss it. I'm sorry but to my mind, he tromped you. I came away convinced that Tyre is just another bogus prophecy.

The only thing I ever debated with him was politics at which I am out of my depth. I only go there when I am extremely bored and usually regret it because I do not have sufficient competence in that arena.

Of course, I happen to already know that God doesn't do that sort of magic in the first place, so I could've been somewhat biased against your position.

No you don't. It is just plain weird to claim to, and even if true you could not possibly know it.

Have you noticed my forum name?

Yes, but it could have been extrapolated from you claims. The definition and yes there is one perfectly describes you:
 (of language) Open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
 Unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.
Conclusion: doesn't know what he is talking about, and what's worse doesn't want to, and what’s even worse suggests no one else does. That is the most fitting description possible.

Don't you recognize me as a prophet who comes for the AmbiguityGod? The God who insists that we remain uncertain, separated from resolution?

That is a diabolical God not to mention a false one.

Of course you hate my message. You are the very opposite of ambiguous. It's why I approached you in the first place -- to cast my God against yours.

You have never shown any reason to believe your God possibly exists and he lost anyway. I do not hate your message I hate the absence of a sufficient foundation for it. I thought I made that clear.

But I don't hold you in derision for worshipping your god, for caving in to our natural lust for certainty, for insisting upon a solid and sure answer to every question. I just recognize your nature.

You mean like, science, mathematics, philosophy, reality, and anything else that does not cover. Ambiguity is not an answer it is usually a purposeful confusion of an answer and the tactics of the un serious.

But we're all in this together even if some of us are a bit more, well... advanced in our godthought.

There is only one thing worse than saying silly things concerning serious issues, that is saying silly things for absolutely no reason. I usually can put someone in a category after a few posts. I think you have created a whole new category of dysfunction. Usually the dysfunction is incidental to the category but I think in your case it is the goal of your category.