Friday, 12 February 2016
Thursday, 12 November 2015
When will mr rat get it?
+88rat88
*Oh dear Spanky, are you confusing delusion with illusion?*
Oh Mr Rat... It seems like I am the only one bringing evidences to the table. Here are dictionary evidences for you
_delusion_
_2. the state of being deluded._ (1)
Let me add the definition of "delude" because I am starting to doubt that english language is your first language
_delude_
_1. to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive:_ (3)
do you see the word "deceive" there? good.
_Illusion_
_2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension._ (2)
Do you see the word deceive there too again? Good. It seems like you do not know what a "synonymn" is. Both of them mean the same thing. Mr Evidenceless.
*Are you resorting to baseless accusations now? I have never deleted anybody's posts.*
Again ... Mr Rat does not know how to follow an argument. - facepalm - Let me help you since you are so poor and helpless. That was a guilt by association fallacy. Happy Now? Even if I defeated myself. But it was meant as an insult since the only language you understand is insultive languages Mr Rat. In the congtext of talking to +Rolo Beorn , I included you because you support him and his actions. If not, tell me that you do not support him and his actions in deleting my replies.
Secondly is that the only arguement in that context you are going to respond to?
How about show your delusion on how you said:
_"Nobody is deleting your posts Sport."_
Oh please defend that one. You know what they say. "Silence is be best answer for the defeated".
*Even if I wanted to, I couldn't. I am neither an administrator nor the creator of this video so how could I? The most I could do is flag a comment as spam, but even then it takes multiple flags to get a comment removed. And I can assure you I never flagged any of your comments.*
Good then you agree with me that you have no authoritative right to say:
_"Nobody is deleting your posts Sport."_
Wow... you CAN be wise from time to time by admitting correction.
*Nope. I stopped talking to imaginary friends when I was still a child. It's high time you did too ;)*
oK ... Good. But you are making the assumption that God is imaginary. Please lay your syllogism and let us see. If not, that is a baseless/ blanket assertion and argumentum ad lapidem.
The reason I pray to God is NOT because HE is imaginary ... thanks for demontrating your ignorance over the christian position. The christian argues that if God, a necessarily maximally great being, exists, we did not imagine HIM, *HE IMAGINED US* ... Oh God, how long do I have to deal with this ignorant rat?
*And you know this how?*
Please ... notice the first word in that sentence ... *seems*
Here is a dictionary definition to educate yourself on some english language:
_Seem_ (4)
_to appear to be true, probable, or evident:_
_It seems likely to rain._
Let me simply answer it: I don't "know" if this is true. It "appears" to be true due to the contextual data I am receiving from the probability of our discussion and I am laying it down as good evidence to theorise/ believe/ suspect.
*Not vile Spanky. I said virile. Can you not see the extra two letters there? Virile is defined as having strength or energy. In other words, the exact opposite of your arguments. The point of the analogy was to illustrate that your arguments are impotent.*
Oh ... ok... now I see. Let me step back and re-iterate myself. Sorry for that, my eyes were so filled with hate and maddness that I could not see your arguements properly.
*Your so called "arguments" are about as virile (and arrogant) as a flea who, after sexually attacking an elephant says, "Did I hurt you baby?"*
That argument makes no sense now... please... explain this if not this a Fallacy of False Analogy.
*Funny how you admit you don't know me, and yet you presume to know that I "can never accomplish anything good in my life". Contradictory much?*
Not contradictory much .... it is "no-english much" I said it "seems". ayaya ...
*At least my conclusions about you are based on things that you yourself have stated. For example, your demonstrable lack of understanding of what science is. I'm perfectly justified in making those conclusions when, by your own words, you hand me the rope with which to hang you.*
Really? You mean the ones where you show how you jumped the gun? You mean the one where you didn't wait to hear the arguments before making conclusions? Yeah ... less than _things I stated_ and more like _things you IMAGINED I stated. Here's a piece of advise for you... next time when you see
_BE PATIENT I'M STILL EDITING THIS AND THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE_
in an argument ... maybe you would shut up, keep quiet, be actually patient and wait to see what I have ACTUALLY have to say. That example, MR RAT was actually concrete and the best analogy you've given in the whole of this discussion to back up your very strong arguments - NOT! - Sarcarsm.
*Sure, in exactly the same way that your god is pointless to me.*
So why were you guys (your association) actually aggitated and angry and insulting me over something so pointless. It seems to me that "God is not so pointless actually"... HE makes you react in this objective real world hahahaha.
*See how that works Sport? When you understand why you dismiss the 30,000+ other gods that people worship, you'lll understand why atheists go that one tiny step farther by also dismissing yours. You'll also understand the absurdity of believing that you somehow won the lottery by being born into a culture that just happened to indoctrinate you with the one "true" god out of many, many thousands.*
please read here http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html
This stupid statement you have made has been answered OVER AND OVER AGAIN ... to show you why Intelligent Adults still believe in the God of the Bible - a maximally, necessary great being.
Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of the Christian Position. I could re-explain this to you but you are too ignorant to understand how ignorant you are mr Rat.
Have a Blessed day
God bless you
REFERENCES
(1) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion?s=t
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illusion
(3) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delude
(4) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seem?s=t
Mr Rat Won't Give Up - ayaya
Oh dear Spanky, are you confusing delusion with illusion?
Oh Mr Rat... It seems like I am the only one bringing evidences to the table. Here are dictionary evidences for you
delusion
2. the state of being deluded. (1)
Let me add the definition of "delude" because I am starting to doubt that english language is your first language
delude
1. to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive: (3)
do you see the word "deceive" there? good.
Illusion
2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension. (2)
Do you see the word deceive there too again? Good. It seems like you do not know what a "synonymn" is. Both of them mean the same thing. Mr Evidenceless.
Are you resorting to baseless accusations now? I have never deleted anybody's posts.
Again ... Mr Rat does not know how to follow an argument. - facepalm - Let me help you since you are so poor and helpless. That was a guilt by association fallacy. Happy Now? Even if I defeated myself. But it was meant as an insult since the only language you understand is insultive languages Mr Rat. In the congtext of talking to +Rolo Beorn , I included you because you support him and his actions. If not, tell me that you do not support him and his actions in deleting my replies.
Secondly is that the only arguement in that context you are going to respond to?
How about show your delusion on how you said:
"Nobody is deleting your posts Sport."
Oh please defend that one. You know what they say. "Silence is be best answer for the defeated".
Even if I wanted to, I couldn't. I am neither an administrator nor the creator of this video so how could I? The most I could do is flag a comment as spam, but even then it takes multiple flags to get a comment removed. And I can assure you I never flagged any of your comments.
Good then you agree with me that you have no authoritative right to say:
"Nobody is deleting your posts Sport."
Wow... you CAN be wise from time to time by admitting correction.
Nope. I stopped talking to imaginary friends when I was still a child. It's high time you did too ;)
oK ... Good. But you are making the assumption that God is imaginary. Please lay your syllogism and let us see. If not, that is a baseless/ blanket assertion and argumentum ad lapidem.
The reason I pray to God is NOT because HE is imaginary ... thanks for demontrating your ignorance over the christian position. The christian argues that if God, a necessarily maximally great being, exists, we did not imagine HIM, HE IMAGINED US ... Oh God, how long do I have to deal with this ignorant rat?
And you know this how?
Please ... notice the first word in that sentence ... seems
Here is a dictionary definition to educate yourself on some english language:
Seem (4)
to appear to be true, probable, or evident:
It seems likely to rain.
Let me simply answer it: I don't "know" if this is true. It "appears" to be true due to the contextual data I am receiving from the probability of our discussion and I am laying it down as good evidence to theorise/ believe/ suspect.
Not vile Spanky. I said virile. Can you not see the extra two letters there? Virile is defined as having strength or energy. In other words, the exact opposite of your arguments. The point of the analogy was to illustrate that your arguments are impotent.
Oh ... ok... now I see. Let me step back and re-iterate myself. Sorry for that, my eyes were so filled with hate and maddness that I could not see your arguements properly.
Your so called "arguments" are about as virile (and arrogant) as a flea who, after sexually attacking an elephant says, "Did I hurt you baby?"
That argument makes no sense now... please... explain this if not this a Fallacy of False Analogy.
Funny how you admit you don't know me, and yet you presume to know that I "can never accomplish anything good in my life". Contradictory much?
Not contradictory much .... it is "no-english much" I said it "seems". ayaya ...
At least my conclusions about you are based on things that you yourself have stated. For example, your demonstrable lack of understanding of what science is. I'm perfectly justified in making those conclusions when, by your own words, you hand me the rope with which to hang you.
Really? You mean the ones where you show how you jumped the gun? You mean the one where you didn't wait to hear the arguments before making conclusions? Yeah ... less than things I stated and more like _things you IMAGINED I stated. Here's a piece of advise for you... next time when you see
BE PATIENT I'M STILL EDITING THIS AND THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
in an argument ... maybe you would shut up, keep quiet, be actually patient and wait to see what I have ACTUALLY have to say. That example, MR RAT was actually concrete and the best analogy you've given in the whole of this discussion to back up your very strong arguments - NOT! - Sarcarsm.
Sure, in exactly the same way that your god is pointless to me.
So why were you guys (your association) actually aggitated and angry and insulting me over something so pointless. It seems to me that "God is not so pointless actually"... HE makes you react in this objective real world hahahaha.
See how that works Sport? When you understand why you dismiss the 30,000+ other gods that people worship, you'lll understand why atheists go that one tiny step farther by also dismissing yours. You'll also understand the absurdity of believing that you somehow won the lottery by being born into a culture that just happened to indoctrinate you with the one "true" god out of many, many thousands.
please read here http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html
This stupid statement you have made has been answered OVER AND OVER AGAIN ... to show you why Intelligent Adults still believe in the God of the Bible - a maximally, necessary great being.
Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of the Christian Position. I could re-explain this to you but you are too ignorant to understand how ignorant you are mr Rat.
Have a Blessed day
God bless you
REFERENCES
(1) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion?s=t
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illusion
(3) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delude
(4) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seem?s=t
Oh Mr Rat... It seems like I am the only one bringing evidences to the table. Here are dictionary evidences for you
delusion
2. the state of being deluded. (1)
Let me add the definition of "delude" because I am starting to doubt that english language is your first language
delude
1. to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive: (3)
do you see the word "deceive" there? good.
Illusion
2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension. (2)
Do you see the word deceive there too again? Good. It seems like you do not know what a "synonymn" is. Both of them mean the same thing. Mr Evidenceless.
Are you resorting to baseless accusations now? I have never deleted anybody's posts.
Again ... Mr Rat does not know how to follow an argument. - facepalm - Let me help you since you are so poor and helpless. That was a guilt by association fallacy. Happy Now? Even if I defeated myself. But it was meant as an insult since the only language you understand is insultive languages Mr Rat. In the congtext of talking to +Rolo Beorn , I included you because you support him and his actions. If not, tell me that you do not support him and his actions in deleting my replies.
Secondly is that the only arguement in that context you are going to respond to?
How about show your delusion on how you said:
"Nobody is deleting your posts Sport."
Oh please defend that one. You know what they say. "Silence is be best answer for the defeated".
Even if I wanted to, I couldn't. I am neither an administrator nor the creator of this video so how could I? The most I could do is flag a comment as spam, but even then it takes multiple flags to get a comment removed. And I can assure you I never flagged any of your comments.
Good then you agree with me that you have no authoritative right to say:
"Nobody is deleting your posts Sport."
Wow... you CAN be wise from time to time by admitting correction.
Nope. I stopped talking to imaginary friends when I was still a child. It's high time you did too ;)
oK ... Good. But you are making the assumption that God is imaginary. Please lay your syllogism and let us see. If not, that is a baseless/ blanket assertion and argumentum ad lapidem.
The reason I pray to God is NOT because HE is imaginary ... thanks for demontrating your ignorance over the christian position. The christian argues that if God, a necessarily maximally great being, exists, we did not imagine HIM, HE IMAGINED US ... Oh God, how long do I have to deal with this ignorant rat?
And you know this how?
Please ... notice the first word in that sentence ... seems
Here is a dictionary definition to educate yourself on some english language:
Seem (4)
to appear to be true, probable, or evident:
It seems likely to rain.
Let me simply answer it: I don't "know" if this is true. It "appears" to be true due to the contextual data I am receiving from the probability of our discussion and I am laying it down as good evidence to theorise/ believe/ suspect.
Not vile Spanky. I said virile. Can you not see the extra two letters there? Virile is defined as having strength or energy. In other words, the exact opposite of your arguments. The point of the analogy was to illustrate that your arguments are impotent.
Oh ... ok... now I see. Let me step back and re-iterate myself. Sorry for that, my eyes were so filled with hate and maddness that I could not see your arguements properly.
Your so called "arguments" are about as virile (and arrogant) as a flea who, after sexually attacking an elephant says, "Did I hurt you baby?"
That argument makes no sense now... please... explain this if not this a Fallacy of False Analogy.
Funny how you admit you don't know me, and yet you presume to know that I "can never accomplish anything good in my life". Contradictory much?
Not contradictory much .... it is "no-english much" I said it "seems". ayaya ...
At least my conclusions about you are based on things that you yourself have stated. For example, your demonstrable lack of understanding of what science is. I'm perfectly justified in making those conclusions when, by your own words, you hand me the rope with which to hang you.
Really? You mean the ones where you show how you jumped the gun? You mean the one where you didn't wait to hear the arguments before making conclusions? Yeah ... less than things I stated and more like _things you IMAGINED I stated. Here's a piece of advise for you... next time when you see
BE PATIENT I'M STILL EDITING THIS AND THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
in an argument ... maybe you would shut up, keep quiet, be actually patient and wait to see what I have ACTUALLY have to say. That example, MR RAT was actually concrete and the best analogy you've given in the whole of this discussion to back up your very strong arguments - NOT! - Sarcarsm.
Sure, in exactly the same way that your god is pointless to me.
So why were you guys (your association) actually aggitated and angry and insulting me over something so pointless. It seems to me that "God is not so pointless actually"... HE makes you react in this objective real world hahahaha.
See how that works Sport? When you understand why you dismiss the 30,000+ other gods that people worship, you'lll understand why atheists go that one tiny step farther by also dismissing yours. You'll also understand the absurdity of believing that you somehow won the lottery by being born into a culture that just happened to indoctrinate you with the one "true" god out of many, many thousands.
please read here http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html
This stupid statement you have made has been answered OVER AND OVER AGAIN ... to show you why Intelligent Adults still believe in the God of the Bible - a maximally, necessary great being.
Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of the Christian Position. I could re-explain this to you but you are too ignorant to understand how ignorant you are mr Rat.
Have a Blessed day
God bless you
REFERENCES
(1) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion?s=t
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illusion
(3) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delude
(4) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seem?s=t
Someone Can't find his way around an argument
oh Jesus have mercy! I'm going to have to be harsh with you.
*Your 'arguments' are without a foundation, as you have already admitted that you can't provide proof for the existence of your god.
You can't build an argument on mere thin air.*
*1 QUESTION*: Can you *prove* that you are not a brain in a vat, and that this reality (digested food in your stomach, people around you, your age) is not all fake and programmed into your brain like in the matrix?
I am not asking for *evidence*, I want *proof*. Read your dictionary and know the difference between proof and evidence. Please prove it to me to 100% degree of certainty. If not, your reference called "reality" is just on thin air too.
*I do this for a good reason.*
*You have NOT provided ANY evidence for the existence of your particular god, among the many thousands of other MAN MADE gods.*
Oh so now you want evidence and not proof? Ok... here are some philosophical evidences:
- The Cosmological Argument
- The Moral Arguement
- The ontological Argument
- The teleological argument
Which one of them due don you think is false on grounds of objective logic? WHY?
*It seems to YOU that your god exists, but you DON'T have ANY proof for it whatsoever.*
Now you want proof? MAKE UP YOUR MIND? DO YOU WANT PROOF OR EVIDENCE. If you want proof, go away, I have not proof as I have told you. If you want evidence ... tell me which philosophical evidence in the above arguments you do not believe in.
If you don't answer anything else, answer the part where I said *"1 QUESTION"* ... Thank you
God bless you
oh Jesus have mercy! I'm going to have to be harsh with you.
*Your 'arguments' are without a foundation, as you have already admitted that you can't provide proof for the existence of your god.
You can't build an argument on mere thin air.*
*1 QUESTION*: Can you *prove* that you are not a brain in a vat, and that this reality (digested food in your stomach, people around you, your age) is not all fake and programmed into your brain like in the matrix?
I am not asking for *evidence*, I want *proof*. Read your dictionary and know the difference between proof and evidence. Please prove it to me to 100% degree of certainty. If not, your reference called "reality" is just on thin air too.
*I do this for a good reason.*
*You have NOT provided ANY evidence for the existence of your particular god, among the many thousands of other MAN MADE gods.*
Oh so now you want evidence and not proof? Ok... here are some philosophical evidences:
- The Cosmological Argument
- The Moral Arguement
- The ontological Argument
- The teleological argument
Which one of them due don you think is false on grounds of objective logic? WHY?
*It seems to YOU that your god exists, but you DON'T have ANY proof for it whatsoever.*
Now you want proof? MAKE UP YOUR MIND? DO YOU WANT PROOF OR EVIDENCE. If you want proof, go away, I have not proof as I have told you. If you want evidence ... tell me which philosophical evidence in the above arguments you do not believe in.
If you don't answer anything else, answer the part where I said *"1 QUESTION"* ... Thank you
God bless you
Mr Rat is on fire
+88rat88
Hey Mr RAT. Seem... I do not get in what context the delusion runs deep with me, if not, shouldn't you be worrying that you are talking to a delusion right now and go see your psychologists? So, in what way does the delusion run deep? In my person or in this discussion context? If not... that bland, generalising statement holds no justifiable grounds.
*Nobody is deleting your posts Sport.*
Oh you want to tell me that one more time wheb +Rolo Beorn actually said and I quote:
_"I might have deleted a comment that was too ludicrous and pointless."_
_"Dog bless you"_
Please look at it one more time and tell me that nobody is deleting my comments. If I do not trust you guys anymore, don't blame me... you started it by insulting me by deleting my arguments so... say it one more time and show eveyone who really has the delusions.
Secondly, you are not a proper authority to appeal to, to make that assertion. If +Rolo Beorn or the video creator or YouTube Administration said so... I would believe. So... Mr Rat is assuming authoritative roles that he isn't even supposed to be positioned in. I wonder where the delusions really run deep.
*This is a known problem with YouTube ever since they made changes. I cannot see my own posts in the comment section either. But if you look in the notification side pane (under the little bell), the entire conversation thread is there, unaltered.*
Oh is that so? Why didnt you just say that? Oh I forgot that you are MR RAT and MR TROLL and you don't know what thety call "The Art of Civilised Discussion". Even when you wanna do good things to people you must always add a piece of badness to it. Have you prayed to God to remove this curse from you? Seems like you can never accomplish anything good in your life!
*Your so called "arguments" are about as virile (and arrogant) as a flea who, after sexually attacking an elephant says, "Did I hurt you baby?"*
Wow! You are calling my arguments vile by resorting to vile innuendos. Your hypocricrisy and disingenuity is noted. This is the best example you could come up with? Thanks for showing us how vile your own arguments too really is.
Secondly, you are coming to this conclusion based on imaginary arguments that are not even here - I wonder where the delusion actually runs deep. Please... show us this argments that are so vile and arrogant. Oh? No where?... ayaya ...
*Keep stroking your ego by thinking you have pearls of wisdom to cast.*
Category Mistake between
1. Ego and
2. Pearls of Wisdom
Study the definition of Category mistake. Ego or no-ego ... it does not necessitate the objective logic of "pearls of wisdom." Please... put away your appeal to emotions... we are trying to have a logical discussion here.
*The rest of us will continue to regard you for what you are: the court jester (a.k.a. fool).*
You do not know me and I do not know you. I wonder who the delusional one is. Tell me more about myself that I don't know ... come on... since you like enjoying your delusion fantasy as to who your wishful thinking wants me to be. Tell me more and show us all who the delusional one is Mr RAT.
*Odin bless you (glad as hell I'm not you)*
Odin is pointless to me. And ok... ok? ...ok ... you are free to be glad you are not me... I dont see the point there. You are you and I am me... so? - still looking for the logic in that statement - .
God bless you (glad as "heaven" that I am not you)
Reply to 3 Wonderful Guys
+AgeOfSuperboredom & +Brad White
& +Raul Alvarado
I am replying to you three in one go because you are all asking for the same thing. I appreciate you +Brad White that you are willing to be convinced either way. I cannot say for the remaining other two guys especially for the one who displayed "trollage" by calling me a moron. God bless you - you know who you are. You insult me and you don't even know me. You curse and I bless - we shall see who the more evidential moral one is becaue Atheism has no objective morals. God will judge between us - you will see.
1. THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY?
I appreciate you guys for providing testing-methodologies, observation analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that would prove that your Atheism to be Falsifiable - which is a requirement in terms of "logic" so as to avoid committing an Unfalsifiable Fallacy. Well done.
One fundamental rule in the Philosophy of Sciene is that:
The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject) test
Please read more on the philosophy of science (1) and notice that there are many aspects to science such as
- The Philosophy of Biology
- The Philosophy of Chemistry
- The Philosophy of Mathematics
Hence, to buttress my point that the testing methodology for different things are likewise different depending on the query you are trying to solve. This reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke:
Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke
Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson went on a camping trip. After a good meal and a bottle of red wine, they lay down for the night and went to sleep.
Some hours later Holmes woke up, nudged his faithful friend and said, "Watson, I want you to look up at the sky and tell me what you see." Watson said, "I see millions and millions of stars." Sherlock said, "And what does that tell you?"
After a minute or so of pondering Watson said, "*Astronomically*, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three in the morning. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful and that we are small and insignificant. Metereologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day today. What does it tell you?"
Holmes was silent for about 30 seconds and said, "Watson, you idiot! Someone has stolen our tent!"
IN THE SAME WAY ...
...Just like there are many mutually-inclusive ways to explain a certain thing in terms of science, there are likewise many ways to explain that same exact certain thing in terms of non-science just as you have seen in the example of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke. This is why I will repeat:
The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject or) test
2. PHILOSOPHY OF THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY
I am sure that you have heard about Occam's Razor? Which is a rule in the philosophy of science regarding the proper testing methodology which says that you should not multiply causes beyond necessity. (Please if you do not know the difference and similiarities between "necessity" and "sufficiency" please study about it (2). This is to reduce my verbiage because I want to give you the estimated credit that you are briliant/ intelligent guys and you understand what I am talking about.) That is to say:
for an explanation to be the best explanation to a certain query, YOU DON'T NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE EXPLANATION
Hence, this is why in science academic examinations, if you over explain your answers to the questions in the exams as if to show that you're a know-it-all, your tendency of failing that exam increases. So these are logical steps that we are applying even in our educational and academic systems and I believe that it is reasonable.
3. WHY HAVE I SAID ALL THIS? - Sequitur Contextual Relevance and Logical Applicability
I have said all this because I appreciate the fact you have done something not many Atheists like the silly Matt Dillihaunti would do. You have actually provide Falsifiable Testing Methodoogies, Observational Analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that can be applied to prove that:
Atheism can be proven false
Unlike the silly, die-hard tribe, fallacious and ignorant Matt Dillihanuti who says:
_"...Atheism... cannot be proven to be true..."
Such nonsense. Ok... these are the testing methodology you have provided and I going to scrutinise if they are PROPER TESTING METHODOLOGIES
1. All that is needed is for God to show Himself. get off his ass, come down from the clouds and show himself to us. It's that simple.
2. Or, lacking that, some compelling evidence. Forget proof ... All I want is some evidence.
3. I reject something that you have no proof for.
4. you god believers can't even make a simple argument.
1
This testing methodology fails on the grounds of necessity and sufficiency. That's like criminologists or archeologists using forensic science saying that: "_All that is needed is for the perpetrator to come out and show himself_"
No, investigators do not necessarily need the "subject" (eg Designer) as a sufficient conditon to infer the "object" (eg Design). So... until to ask for a proper testing methodology, I find this testinf methodology silly and absurd for people of intelligence.
2
There are two parts to this I want to address
1. Compelling Evidence
2. Evidence
2.1. Sorry, I am not here to "compel" your subjectivity as though I were some sort of magician here to impress you. That would be a subjectivist fallacy. Rather, I am here to lay down some good OBJECTIVE logic to posit the resonableness of blieving or theorising God.
2.2. The Christian has many arguement and they are done their own side of the burden of proof. It would be up to you to take the syllogisms of the Christian and tell us why it fails on objective logic while scrutinising our arguments with a large applicable list of fallacies. There are over 50+ Arguments for the existence of God. I will give you a blank cheque ... which one of them do you find fallacious? Such as
- The Cosmological Argument
- The Moral Argument
- The Teleological Argument
- The Argument from Intentionality
- Lots more etc
Pick one and tell me which one you find fallacious and we can scrutinise it together in a mutually-respected, civilised and intellectual manner.
3
I am assuming that you are intelligent enough to know the difference between "proof" and "evidence". I am sorry, I do not have any "proof" like a mathematical proof such as saying 1 + 1 = God ... no... rather, I have Philosophical Arguments with Supporting Scientific Evidences. If you want proof, I'm sorry you are barking up the wrong tree and you need to look for someone omniscient enough to "proof" God to you to a degree of absolute certainty. There are many things that are reasonable to believe even though there are no proof for them (check your dictionary semantic for proof)
- There is no proof that makes a poem beautiful.
- There is no proof that you are not a brain in a vat.
- There is no proof that my wife loves me nor that I love her.
HOWEVER, it is reasonable to accept the evidences just as they are ie, by faith (not to be confused with blindfaith).
4
Let's play the sherlock holmes game:
- Intellectually, that is ignorant of the christian position. We have made arguments
- Socially, that is insulting
- Metaphysically, that is your subjective opinion - keep it to yourself.
- Morally, you have just told a lie.
- Experientially you are just naive.
- Empirically, NO.
Lastly, I have a feeling that someone is deleting my replies... so I will back it up on my blog (3) and if I do not see this argument here the next time I come here... then I will know for sure that someone is toying with me because my arguments are so true, they cannot swallow the bitter-truth due to their emotional appeal/ crutches.
God bless you all and I look forward to your replies.
REFERENCES
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
(3) http://rdlogo.blogspot.com
& +Raul Alvarado
I am replying to you three in one go because you are all asking for the same thing. I appreciate you +Brad White that you are willing to be convinced either way. I cannot say for the remaining other two guys especially for the one who displayed "trollage" by calling me a moron. God bless you - you know who you are. You insult me and you don't even know me. You curse and I bless - we shall see who the more evidential moral one is becaue Atheism has no objective morals. God will judge between us - you will see.
1. THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY?
I appreciate you guys for providing testing-methodologies, observation analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that would prove that your Atheism to be Falsifiable - which is a requirement in terms of "logic" so as to avoid committing an Unfalsifiable Fallacy. Well done.
One fundamental rule in the Philosophy of Sciene is that:
The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject) test
Please read more on the philosophy of science (1) and notice that there are many aspects to science such as
- The Philosophy of Biology
- The Philosophy of Chemistry
- The Philosophy of Mathematics
Hence, to buttress my point that the testing methodology for different things are likewise different depending on the query you are trying to solve. This reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke:
Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke
Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson went on a camping trip. After a good meal and a bottle of red wine, they lay down for the night and went to sleep.
Some hours later Holmes woke up, nudged his faithful friend and said, "Watson, I want you to look up at the sky and tell me what you see." Watson said, "I see millions and millions of stars." Sherlock said, "And what does that tell you?"
After a minute or so of pondering Watson said, "*Astronomically*, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three in the morning. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful and that we are small and insignificant. Metereologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day today. What does it tell you?"
Holmes was silent for about 30 seconds and said, "Watson, you idiot! Someone has stolen our tent!"
IN THE SAME WAY ...
...Just like there are many mutually-inclusive ways to explain a certain thing in terms of science, there are likewise many ways to explain that same exact certain thing in terms of non-science just as you have seen in the example of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke. This is why I will repeat:
The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject or) test
2. PHILOSOPHY OF THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY
I am sure that you have heard about Occam's Razor? Which is a rule in the philosophy of science regarding the proper testing methodology which says that you should not multiply causes beyond necessity. (Please if you do not know the difference and similiarities between "necessity" and "sufficiency" please study about it (2). This is to reduce my verbiage because I want to give you the estimated credit that you are briliant/ intelligent guys and you understand what I am talking about.) That is to say:
for an explanation to be the best explanation to a certain query, YOU DON'T NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE EXPLANATION
Hence, this is why in science academic examinations, if you over explain your answers to the questions in the exams as if to show that you're a know-it-all, your tendency of failing that exam increases. So these are logical steps that we are applying even in our educational and academic systems and I believe that it is reasonable.
3. WHY HAVE I SAID ALL THIS? - Sequitur Contextual Relevance and Logical Applicability
I have said all this because I appreciate the fact you have done something not many Atheists like the silly Matt Dillihaunti would do. You have actually provide Falsifiable Testing Methodoogies, Observational Analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that can be applied to prove that:
Atheism can be proven false
Unlike the silly, die-hard tribe, fallacious and ignorant Matt Dillihanuti who says:
_"...Atheism... cannot be proven to be true..."
Such nonsense. Ok... these are the testing methodology you have provided and I going to scrutinise if they are PROPER TESTING METHODOLOGIES
1. All that is needed is for God to show Himself. get off his ass, come down from the clouds and show himself to us. It's that simple.
2. Or, lacking that, some compelling evidence. Forget proof ... All I want is some evidence.
3. I reject something that you have no proof for.
4. you god believers can't even make a simple argument.
1
This testing methodology fails on the grounds of necessity and sufficiency. That's like criminologists or archeologists using forensic science saying that: "_All that is needed is for the perpetrator to come out and show himself_"
No, investigators do not necessarily need the "subject" (eg Designer) as a sufficient conditon to infer the "object" (eg Design). So... until to ask for a proper testing methodology, I find this testinf methodology silly and absurd for people of intelligence.
2
There are two parts to this I want to address
1. Compelling Evidence
2. Evidence
2.1. Sorry, I am not here to "compel" your subjectivity as though I were some sort of magician here to impress you. That would be a subjectivist fallacy. Rather, I am here to lay down some good OBJECTIVE logic to posit the resonableness of blieving or theorising God.
2.2. The Christian has many arguement and they are done their own side of the burden of proof. It would be up to you to take the syllogisms of the Christian and tell us why it fails on objective logic while scrutinising our arguments with a large applicable list of fallacies. There are over 50+ Arguments for the existence of God. I will give you a blank cheque ... which one of them do you find fallacious? Such as
- The Cosmological Argument
- The Moral Argument
- The Teleological Argument
- The Argument from Intentionality
- Lots more etc
Pick one and tell me which one you find fallacious and we can scrutinise it together in a mutually-respected, civilised and intellectual manner.
3
I am assuming that you are intelligent enough to know the difference between "proof" and "evidence". I am sorry, I do not have any "proof" like a mathematical proof such as saying 1 + 1 = God ... no... rather, I have Philosophical Arguments with Supporting Scientific Evidences. If you want proof, I'm sorry you are barking up the wrong tree and you need to look for someone omniscient enough to "proof" God to you to a degree of absolute certainty. There are many things that are reasonable to believe even though there are no proof for them (check your dictionary semantic for proof)
- There is no proof that makes a poem beautiful.
- There is no proof that you are not a brain in a vat.
- There is no proof that my wife loves me nor that I love her.
HOWEVER, it is reasonable to accept the evidences just as they are ie, by faith (not to be confused with blindfaith).
4
Let's play the sherlock holmes game:
- Intellectually, that is ignorant of the christian position. We have made arguments
- Socially, that is insulting
- Metaphysically, that is your subjective opinion - keep it to yourself.
- Morally, you have just told a lie.
- Experientially you are just naive.
- Empirically, NO.
Lastly, I have a feeling that someone is deleting my replies... so I will back it up on my blog (3) and if I do not see this argument here the next time I come here... then I will know for sure that someone is toying with me because my arguments are so true, they cannot swallow the bitter-truth due to their emotional appeal/ crutches.
God bless you all and I look forward to your replies.
REFERENCES
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
(3) http://rdlogo.blogspot.com
Wednesday, 11 November 2015
Why can't he see that I have replied him?
PLEASE REPLY
I
have to thank you once again for re-reminding me on the question and
showing me this great grace - what do you know? Atheists can show their
emotional-cructches called acts of kindness too even though they have no
non-fallacious way of ontologically justifying/ grounding it in
OBJECTIVE terminologies hahahaha (just teasing you).
Secondly ...
I do not believe that anybody has 100% conviction power over the
subjectivity over another person. But this is an analogy and it does not
apply to this objective real life - so I will play with you
Is this objectively moral or Inmoral?
This is objectivly
immoral of this analogical you. And I want to lay MORE emphasis on the
fact that you used the word "objective" to as an adjective for moral.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Here how I come to that conclusion by reshaping this argument (1):
THE MORAL ARGUEMENT
1. It is more reasonable to believe that moral obligations come from moral laws givers.
2. To be Objective means to be true IRRESPECTIVE of if everybody thinks subjectively that it is wrong.
3. To be true means that you have to endure constantly and neccessaily without neccesarily being contingent on physical reality.
4. God is Constant and Necessry Being.
5. "Persons" intrinsically imbible morality into their nature.
6. God is Person.
7. God is a constant and necessary being because HE deped on no one and nothing else to exist.
8.
God is the best inference (OR reference point) to grounding true
objective values because HE is a constant and necessary being.
9. Objective values and duties DO exists.
10.
Therefore, deductively, it necessarily follows that it is more
reasonable to believe that God exists as the best ontological grounding
for objective moral values and duties.
more justification
Your
analogical self in the example is objectively immoral because your
actions go anti- to the actions that God would generally take in that
condition - ie, given that there are no other sufficient moral reasons
God will do the opposite. However, I do not see any other sufficient
moreal reasons why you moral-goodness would come out from being like
"satan" [name meaning "accuser"] - who convinces people not to take
morally good actions but later on the day of judgement, would accuse
them/ sue them in God's court for being convinced by him in the first
place. If you have any additionaly moral sufficiency of why what the
analogical-you did to Jame is good, just and fair to James (seeing that
you have 100% conviction power over him) then please ... give the
reasons. Maybe James is in on this too and he is willingly allowing
you to 100% convince him into evil knowing that you would sue him later
on. No different than you know that the devil will sue you for not
believing in God but you still choose not to believe in God by allowing
the devil to 100% convince you to believe that God is not real - just
an example, I do not want to add anything into the mouth of your analogy
- i'm just expanding IF sufficient moral reasons justify you from doing
this evil deed.
This is to say that God is not like the deceiving-god of Islam. God does not lie nor deceive:
Numbers 23:19
God
is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should
change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not
fulfill?
And since your analogical moral actions are nothing
like God's Objective, unchanging and morally good actions - you are
therefore immoral.
Here is a link on how Atheism FAILS on grounds of morality (2).
So... why don't you tell me... are your analogical actions OBJECTIVELY moral or immoral on an atheistic platform without fallacious appealing to:
- Population: and saying "that's how everyone thinks"
-
Emotions/ Pain: and saying "if it does not hurt/ harm anyone" as if
people who hurt/ harm themselves in the gym are objectively evil
- subjectivism/ relativism: because this destroys the original question as to the "objectiveness" of morality.
I look forward to your reply.
God bless you
REFERENCES
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)