(August 9, 2014 at 9:58 pm)Drich Wrote: Knocking did give the knocker proof of God did it not?

It's all knockers; I agree.

Noticing Drich ignoring my points. They must be landing close to home.

(August 10, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Noticing Drich ignoring my points. They must be landing close to home.

Along with mine. I'm sure we'll hear some BS about addressing the points in replys to others.

(August 10, 2014 at 10:21 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote:

(August 10, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Noticing Drich ignoring my points. They must be landing close to home.

Along with mine. I'm sure we'll hear some BS about addressing the points in replys to others.

... which hasn't actually happened, as you well see.

(August 9, 2014 at 9:25 pm)Drich Wrote: If I could produce God on demand then he ceases to be God.

Here's what I find interesting about this rationalisation. You're basically positing "God" as a quantum superposition of all possible (and usually impossible) attributes - or at least you would, if you understood the words - until we attempt to observe them, at which point they all collapse into their default state of nonexistence. Then you label that nonexistence "God" and blame us for not finding it. What a sad way to run a railroad.

(August 10, 2014 at 10:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 9, 2014 at 9:25 pm)Drich Wrote: If I could produce God on demand then he ceases to be God.

Here's what I find interesting about this rationalisation. You're basically positing "God" as a quantum superposition of all possible (and usually impossible) attributes - or at least you would, if you understood the words - until we observe them, at which point they all collapse into their default state of nonexistence. Then you label that nonexistence "God" and blame us for not finding it. What a sad way to run a railroad.

But at least there is a railroad.

The only railroad in evidence is the rigidly inflexible, circular one that his mind, the little engine that couldn't, is forced to run on.

This thread reminds me to this joke:

(August 10, 2014 at 8:01 pm)Drich Wrote: what you have is the belief that those who we identify as world leaders are indeed the decision makers we believe them to be. This 'faith' is based on what we have been told by our governments. For example the queen of England is little more than a figure head with no real executive power. So what keeps her in her current role? The faith of the people that wish to keep her in that role and the authority of the government that enacts the want and will of all who believe her to be the queen.

Ah, but now you're equivocating again. "Do these people possess the level of power they purport to?" is nowhere near the same question as "do they exist?"

To be clear, the reason you brought up world leaders was as a demonstration that you needed to approach god on the same kind of terms as you would them, to which I quite rightly pointed out that we don't need to confirm the existence of world leaders as there's plenty of evidence that they exist, whereas the whole point of A/S/K-ing is to confirm that god exists at all. To then come back with "well, you have faith that they have all that power!" is completely irrelevant, but more importantly, also doesn't serve the point you think you were making, because the same could be said about you and god.

The truth is that there's nothing in reality that's remotely similar to what you're asking us to do with this god crap, because your A/S/K nonsense is unfair and deliberately unfalsifiable, just another extension of your blatant special pleading regarding the god you already want to be real. Now stop making false comparisons to prop up this idiocy, and just admit that it's completely ineffective unless you already agree with it going in.

Quote:Again that is not my question to answer. God answers all of those who will simply meet Him on His terms. That is like asking a British subject to provide you with proof of the authority of the queen, when you had the ability and access to speak with her directly.

Yet another false comparison; objective existence doesn't require that I ask anyone. Simple observation is enough. Leaving aside the stupid presupposition in the idea that god answers questions as to his existence, you're still in the position where you've formulated a process through which there should be three conclusions to reach (success, failure, and inconclusive) but you're contriving to make it so the only states are success or inconclusive. How is that fair or even rational?

You say that god will answer if I approach him on his terms, and my response to that, in a normal conversation based on my experiences, would be that god's answer to me is that he doesn't exist. Your stock answer is that I must have done it wrong, which is part of the problem. You won't ever accept a failure state for your method, which means that you're only interested in confirming your presuppositions. Why should I care about this shit, if you don't?

Quote:Why seek a second hand account when you have the option to seek it directly from the source, unless your scared of what you might find out.

Again, the process failed for me. It failed for everyone else in this thread. Your unthinking response just reveals how dishonest the original request was to begin with; you just will not accept that this might have failed because god doesn't exist. Presuppositions.

You do realize in talking to drich you are talking to nothing but one single lonely dead and decomposing stem cell that never quite succeeded in differentiating into that one single lonely nerve cell which drich ever had any shot at possessing, right?