Religions > Atheism > Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"gatekeeper" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2006 02:39:29 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
gatekeeper wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 26 Sep 2006 18:39:12 -0700, in talk.origins
"gatekeeper" <gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1159321152.634855.5970@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 25 Sep 2006 22:19:06 -0700, in talk.origins
"gatekeeper" <gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1159247946.535119.12830@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:27:22 -0400, in talk.origins
"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in
<2JYRg.13014$vi3.6750@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:oqgbh21v4ime03ug6hc62loq32vspgdvls@4ax.com...
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:09:56 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4515A889.6010901@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Dan Wood wrote:
[SNIPALOT]
No problem. I am a Christian, but I'm not a creationist. I believe
God
could
have created the universe, planets and life any way he chose. If he
chose
to create through evolution, who am I to dispute the evidence?
Dan Wood, DDS
===>That is a "goddidit" just the same,
though a move in the right direction.
You show that evolution and theism are not
totally incompatible, but do not show any value
to the pseudo-hypothesis of "God". -- L.
You have the right to believe anything that seems
reasonable and logical to you and I wish the best
for you. I hope for the same right for myself.
Until someone demonstrates that there is no God
I have no choice, but to accept God's existence
as a reality. Even so I have no imperative to
convince anyone of the validity of my position.
Dan
That is a slightly mad standpoint to take. Until there is some shread
of evidence for the existance of god(s) then the logical standpoint
woudl be to reject the concept of god(s).
There is evidence which I personally find satisfying.
But I have found that most skeptics demand proof
of God's existence before they are willing to consider
any evidence as potentially evidence for God.
IOW if there is any evidence which proves God
this evidence is inadmissible until God is shown
to exist.
And this, in my opinion, constitutes a hopeless catch - 22
situation.
It would be, if it were true. Offer the evidence. Let us be rational in
accepting it or rejecting it.
Part of the evidence is your inability to be rational, your rational
powers have been corrupted.
Please provide evidence to support your claim.
If the lense on the Hubble was out of
focus, the batteries all dead, would it affect your ability to observe
Andromeda? And yet Andromeda would still be there to be marveled at by
a child on a dark night using simple binoculars. How much more tragic,
that you a supposedly intelligent mature individual would not even lift
your eyes, less you see the stars for the first time, as if they could
not possibly exist.
So, you are back to unthinking assertions and unsupportable claims.
Lift up your eyes all you nations, the King of Kings has entered the
City of God!
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
So you say, but when asked for help with the evidence, you insult those
who ask you.
I did not hear you asking for help with the evidence. What evidence
are you asking about?
I have asked for evidence to support the claim that "But I have found
that most skeptics demand proof of God's existence before they are
willing to consider any evidence as potentially evidence for God." You
responded with the utterly meaningless "Part of the evidence is your
inability to be rational, your rational powers have been corrupted."
What help are you desiring? If I missed your
question, I apologize, but as you know this is a very busy, noisy
street! Please restate your question, and I will try to listen better!
I am asking for evidence to support the claim that one or more gods
exist and furthermore what evidence can you point to that the particular
god that you believe in exists.
The Eastgate is open, The King is in residence! Whomsoever will may
come in!
Gatekeeper
I am very interested, and willing to answer your questions, but a few
things first!
First, you already have ask more than one question, so I need you to
further explain what is your question, or if you are asking more than
one, that is ok also. However I want you to be clear to yourself, me,
and others, what your questions are!
Second, what sincere response can I expect from you, to my answer. In
other words, is your question sincere, or just conversational. I will
be willing to answer your question either way, but that way there is no
unexpected response from you, that would surprise us both.
Third, I believe the more the merrier, so I would like to suggest that
I not actually answer this question until others who are also
interested, have opportunity to check in, and indicate their interest
as well. That way we can have a real party!
Fourth, in order to accomplish this I would like to move this
discussion to a new thread, that way the discussion is not just between
you and I, lost in this rather large thread!
In fact, I am going to copy your question to a new thread as soon as I
get done here, and then if others want to check in, they could post as
well, possibly indicating the nature of evidence that they would like
to see. That way we could most efficiently answer all of your
questions, and have a single thread to work with. I will have it set up
to cross post to all of the current threads that this thread goes to so
that no one is left out of this grand experiment.
If you have any other suggestions, I would be more than glad to
entertain them on this new thread. I would be prepared to give you an
answer in a week, today being 9/27, so that on 10/04, we could have
everyone happily gathered. If this is suitable to you, please let me
know, on the new thread. I will be looking for your response!
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
Free Lunch wrote,
"I am asking for evidence to support the claim that one or more gods
exist and furthermore what evidence can you point to that the
particular
god that you believe in exists"
This thread was started to answer Free Lunch's questions as restated
above, and my answer simply follows -
You are the evidence that there is one God, only one God, and that this
God is the one God that I believe exists, and is revealed by Jesus, and
the Holy Spirit! This applies to you all as well, that ask this
question, and have so patiently waited for an answer, and even more so
to you all, for the evidence is even that much more multiplied by each
one of you!
As a witness, I have testified of the evidence that I have, it is up to
you to weigh the evidence, as to whether what I say is true or not!
Weigh carefully, for it is your own souls that are in the balance!
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
.
|
|
| User: "gatekeeper" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
07 Oct 2006 05:16:48 AM |
|
|
Ye Old One wrote:
On 7 Oct 2006 01:50:16 -0700, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
Actually, it's called superstition. Johnny's Little League team wins
against a tough opponent. Johnny says they won because he was wearing
his "lucky" underpants. Johnny can't give any rational reason why that
particular effect (winning) should be traced back to that particular
cause (lucky underpants). Likewise, Gatekeeper cites an effect (the
existence of human beings) and attributes it to a particular cause (the
Trinity) without being able to give any rational reason why that
particular effect should be traced back to that particular cause, and
not some other. The only evidence GK is giving is evidence that his
beliefs are superstitious.
I do not recall, that I was in any way limiting the evidence which I
presented, to the existence of human beings, when I said you are the
evidence! You err in thinking that I limited the evidence to a
discussion about creation/evolution, dating of fossils, etc.
And you err in thinking you presented any genuine evidence. All you
said was "You are the evidence" (i.e. for the Trinity). Now you
yourself are admitting that this was a purely ambiguous statement. You
had more than ample opportunity to present clear evidence, had you been
able to do so. Fuzzy wording is only evidence of fuzzy thinking.
The statement I made, was an all inclusive statement of what, and who,
"You" are, and especially those who were enrolled in the initial
thread.
No, you statement indicated what you "thought" we were, but it
contained no scientific basis or evidence and was just a rehash of
already (long) rejected ideas.
It is not for me to determine the basis, scientific or otherwise of the
evidence! That is your responsibility to examine the evidence.
Whether this is a rehash, I do not know what each of you have
previously considered. I could only present the evidence that I had,
if there is any rehash, that is on your part, not mine! If you choose
to not reexamine the evidence, that is your decision, and the
conclusion is your responsibility!
This is not the same thing as to be ambiguous, but instead, is
a very specific, granted very large set of test subjects. This set was
arrived at, so that all who desired, would have total and free access
to run whatever test you desired, on yourselves as a group or as
individuals. Again this was not done inorder to be ambiguous or
disengenuous,
However, you were, like most creationists, being dishonest. You
claimed you were going to post evidence - you didn't. Further
dishonesty showed when you were challanged on this lack of evidence
and you tried to claim you HAD posted evidence. This dishonesty now
continues to a degree where you are begining to smell like a troll.
There is no dishonesty, just awareness of the games you like to play,
when you ask for evidence but have no interest in actually making any
investment of your time and effort to examine the evidence, even as you
personally have demonstrated! That is intellecually dishonest and
lazy! Prove me wrong, show me your original hash of the evidence, or
any subsequent hash that is relevant, and then we can see how honest
you are!
but so that I would not be accused of using a limited
set, that very few or anyone would have access to other than myself, or
that would be limited to specific test which I chose because they fit
my criteria, which would then allow me to provide tainted data slanted
to the conclusion that I wanted to arrive at!
On the otherhand, you all have full and free access to yourselves, and
you can run whatever test you desire. You can restrict others to your
particular data as you desire! This restriction of access, would though
make you suspect of being less than scientific in your collection and
analysis of personal data, and then the unbiased dissemination of the
info to others in the group. I understand that this would make you
personally involved, and responsible, in this endeavor, which I find
that most skeptics, reject and resent more than anything, preferring to
set on the sidelines on their ivory towers, throwing bricks at every
passerby, but in no way willing to get their own hands dirty in any
real investigation themselves, even as has been demonstated by numerous
ones in this discussion already.
I would hardly call this whole process ambiguous, as it was the intent
of the design in the first place, to appear ambiguous, but in fact is
very specifically aimed, and hit the target bulls-eye! There was no
fuzzy thinking or planning here, sorry, I had very clear intentions and
design!
Now as to the clarity of the evidence,
What evidence?
Ask and answered!
again that is totally dependent
upon yourselves to truthfuly examine your self, unless of course you
are willing to admit that you are not willing or able to truthfull
examine your self! This small discovery though, would be considered
part of the test of the examined evidence,
What evidence???
Ask and answered!
and this would have a
definite bearing on the resulting conclusion!
You could also say you are not smart enough, as in intellect, or
insightful, or too smart or gifted, honest, not honest, to spend your
time, not enough time, to much time, long lived enough, short lived
enough! Basically you will be telling us about who and how you are, and
this would be the basis for understanding of who and how God is, and is
not!
Gad(s) are the invention of man. Used by primitive man to explain
things he didn't understand.
I assume you mean God, and just exactly how did you arrive at this
mental illumination? It does not appear to me that you have advanced
far beyond the primitive man, so you may find that you still need God!
Or can you answer me how far you must advance beyond primitive man to
no longer need God?
Basically, I have not seen any of you initiate any sort of test, which
speaks volumes, and the accompaning whinning about lack of evidence,
You promised evidence. We now know you lied.
No lie, though, I will admit that I obviscated, in order to hide my
real intention in presenting evidence, was to draw you all out from
your hiding places, and "make you put your money where your mouth is!"
That you were not more specific as to the request for evidence is not
my problem! I gave you every opportunity, over the course of a week,
egging you on with my boldness to even encourage you a number of times
to ask specific questions, and even during that week, engaging in some
rather intense discussions with a number of individuals, in such a way
that you should have known from where I was coming. I did not do a
very good job of hiding myself, or my willingness to meet you on any
subject! That I have now in fact provided a mountain of evidence is
also evident, and that if you were being honest yourself, you would
have to admit, that you could study this evidence for a very long time
without being able to draw an honest insightful and complete
conclusion! Studying any one of you after all could keep all of you
very busy, for a very long time!
goes to show how trully blind you are, and certainly not in any
position to make any sort of judgement about the character and nature
of God, that would amount to anything more than the scratching of a
blind man on a canvas trying to duplicate a Rembrandt. The blind man
would actually do better, than you!
Again this is hardly an ambiguous, dubious, or unconsidered
presentation of evidence on my part.
Again, a dishonest (lying, untruthful) claim that you offered
evidence. You didn't. We are still waiting.
Ask and answered!
You are the evidence,
Of about 4 billion years of evolution.
So you claim to have 4 billion years of insight, and you are still
blind! I would be careful of bragging about that to much!
and even if
you are nothing more than an ancient basalt, you could consider how you
came into existence, and I personally believe that none of you see
yourself as nothing more than a lifeless stone, unless you identify
yourself as a living stone! Though that would be accepted as evidence
of the Living God, which evidence you desparately do not want to bring
to light. So I can understand your reticience to embark on any of the
above voyages of discovery, and hence the best policy is to deny the
evidence itself!
When are you going to offer any evidence.
You have the evidence that I have already provided, have you even taken
a look at it?
However, even this denial of the evidence,
What evidence moron? You haven't posted any yet.
Ask and answered!
is evidence of the God with
whom you want nothing to do with, but with whom you have infact
everything to do with, for He is God, in whom you live, move, and have
your being! And that is something you can not get away from, despite
all of your cute protest to the contrary!
Post some evidence that a god exists.
What more could you want or handle, you have your hands full now!
I also do not recall saying anything about the Trinity!
Which is easier, to say "Trinity" or to say "there is one God, only one
God, and that this God is the one God who exists, and is revealed by
Jesus, and the Holy Spirit"? Perhaps you do not believe that there is a
Trinity, but that doesn't really matter. Either way, the only support
you have for your beliefs are the superstitious traditions of men and
the feelings and imaginations of the heart.
I avoided the use of the word Trinity, in deference to your
sensitivities about religious terms and traditions, which you again
demonstate even here by jumping to some conclusion about what I do or
do not believe about traditions of men and the feelings and
imaginations of the heart! I assume, you mean my feelings, and my
imaginations! You do also err in your equally ignorant statement about
my beliefs, for which you have no basis for making any such conclusions
of what I believe, except your biased opinion! Certainly not objective
science, which you claim is your strong suite!
On the other hand, neither did I say anything about superstious
beliefs, or any other conclusion, than the fact that I believe you are
evidence of God!
You're correct, that was indeed the only superstitious belief you
mentioned in that particular sentence.
Which after all, was the point of presenting the evidence in the first
place, so there is no fault on my part, or in my logic!
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
One God, and yes this is the God of Christianity.
Though I certainly made no claims beyond that, that would get into any
superstious relationship with this God, that is another discussion!
Sure you did. You claimed that "you" (whatever you may have meant by
that) is/are evidence for your God. There is no rational reason for
linking that observation (the "you") back to the source you attribute
it to, as opposed to tracing it back to some other source. You yourself
could not even attempt to do so, all you managed was to complain that
the rest of us were not working hard enough to prove ourselves wrong
and make your point for you. So your argument is still just an
expression of good old-fashioned superstition, and gives evidence of
the superstitious kind of thinking that leads you to believe as you do.
If this is your conclusion after reviewing the evidence, that is your
right to draw a conclusion, no matter how unfounded it is, especially
if you did not even examine the evidence, but instead rejected it out
of hand! However even this is your right to do, and to still draw
whatever conclusion you choose! Understand that even this, I see as
evidence that there is a God, revealed as I understand God to be. So if
your attempt to examine the evidence, and draw your conclusions, was in
any way intended to convince me that there is no God, then you have
failed miserably!
On the other hand, my purpose in presenting the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
was not to
convince you of anything, but to allow you to draw your own conclusions
using the evidence that I find in your case to be significant. What
conclusions you draw are totally your business! My responsibility is
just to be a witness, and present the evidence!
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
If you choose to not
examine the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
that is not my concern either, and any other
whinning regarding the evidence
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
ie it being superstitious, no rational
link, etc., is disregarded!
So stick to the evidence, do not go beyond the evidence, either
projecting what you suspect my beliefs to be, or projecting your
beliefs into the analysis of the evidence.
If you would provide us with some genuine evidence, instead of playing
coy with vague, superstitious platitudes, I'll be happy to take a look
at it, fairly and objectively.
No you won't, for you have your biases, which color everything that you
take a look at. As to being happy, I doubt that as well, for happiness
is based on current happenings, and those are contrary to your stated
philosophy, that you do not have a personal relationship with the God
of Scripture as I have demonstated Him to you!
Evidence which again is not
limited to some discussion about our existence as men!.
If you would like to suggest something specific for us to consider,
feel free to do so. If your case depends on us going to a lot of hard
work just to prove ourselves wrong and to manufacture some genuine
evidence for you, you're going to be disappointed. Not that I object to
the work, of course, but the flimsy excuses you offer are just too
transparently futile to be worth the wasted effort. There isn't any
evidence there for anyone to find. You know that yourself, that's why
even you do not try to explain why anyone ought to regard your
quasi-koan as genuine evidence.
I realize as I stated above that you resent getting your hands dirty
with any hard work, preferring to let others run in circles trying to
keep up with your reasoning. Much as a dog chasing its tail!
You are the ones that ask for evidence,
And you are the one that claimed he was going to give some - you
failed.
Ask and answered!
it is your responsibility to
process the evidence provided,
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
no matter how long, or how hard the work
is! A scientist will take a small bone fragment, and labor over it for
years to attempt to identify from where It came! I have thrown you
more than a bone fragment, I have presented you, yourself in all your
glory and shame as the evidence
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
that there is a God, etc. And are you
saying that you are not worth the effort to spend any time studying
the evidence.
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
You indeed may have such a small opinion of your own
worth!
As far as something specific, about yourself, study your eyes, or ears,
or even your nose, and remember that God does have a sense of humor,
especially when you look at someone elses nose or ears! There are
scientist, who spend their whole life, studying anyone of these organs
of sense, and marvel at the design!
No, they marvel at the evolution. There is no evidence for design.
And you base this conclusion on ????
By whatever means, there most certainly is design!
Do any of you play music, or paint, or garden (hi bob)! Lift weights,
marvel at the musculature, or ride bikes or ski! How about fly
fishing, and the sense of being out in nature, and attuned to the
falling water, the sky, the clouds, the trees, and all that God has
made!
God(s) are the invention of man, god(s) were made by man - not the
other way round.
And you base this on????
No I think I have thrown a pile of evidence
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
at you that should keep you
content studying this evidence
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
if you have a shred of intellectual
honesty!
And if you do not have a shred of intellectual honesty, even that would
speak of God who acknowledges our short comings, but Loves us still as
His Creation!!!
God is the creation of primitive man.
And you, are not primitive man, tell me where is the dividiing line?
Though I know
some of you like to keep playing that music, like some bizarr form of
elevator music, by which with all of your playing, you think you can
get to the top floor of reasoning and science.
There you go again, blaming others for what is lacking on your own
part. You keep pretending there's something elaborate going on here,
and there isn't. You've been asked for simple evidence, you've been
given examples of the most fundamental and obvious forms such evidence
would reasonably be expected to take, and you've responded by blowing
smoke and huffing and puffing and crying that it's our own fault we
can't see the Emperor's New Evidence. Nothing fancy or complicated here
at all. You claimed you had evidence, and you don't, and it's obvious.
m
I realize that you would love to have some bit of evidence that you
could point at and mock, and say see he has nothing, because we can
discount anything he presents us with! The only problem with that, is
that by presenting you as the evidence, you are not willing to mock
yourselves, or discount yourself as nothing. If you really believed
what you say about God, then you would have no problem saying that
about yourself, that you are nothing, no purpose, no cause!
We are all nothing, none of us have a prupose in the sense you want to
apply and our only cause is 4 billion years of evolution.
So are you getting up in the morning, eating breakfast, have other
plans? You should do nothing, except evolve, and even that is not
nothing! So you still have the watermark of God in your print! It is an
indelible mark of God, and you are not nothing, even if after 4 billion
years, or in another 4 billion years!
But you can
not say that about yourself, because you do not believe that, and
despite your protest, you do not believe there is no God, in whom we
live, and move, and have our being!
God Loves you, and I Love you in Christ, and the evidence stands,
because
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
--
Bob.
Yes I have, and as always, the greatest evidence, is
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
07 Oct 2006 05:39:50 AM |
|
|
On 7 Oct 2006 03:16:48 -0700, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On 7 Oct 2006 01:50:16 -0700, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
Actually, it's called superstition. Johnny's Little League team wins
against a tough opponent. Johnny says they won because he was wearing
his "lucky" underpants. Johnny can't give any rational reason why that
particular effect (winning) should be traced back to that particular
cause (lucky underpants). Likewise, Gatekeeper cites an effect (the
existence of human beings) and attributes it to a particular cause (the
Trinity) without being able to give any rational reason why that
particular effect should be traced back to that particular cause, and
not some other. The only evidence GK is giving is evidence that his
beliefs are superstitious.
I do not recall, that I was in any way limiting the evidence which I
presented, to the existence of human beings, when I said you are the
evidence! You err in thinking that I limited the evidence to a
discussion about creation/evolution, dating of fossils, etc.
And you err in thinking you presented any genuine evidence. All you
said was "You are the evidence" (i.e. for the Trinity). Now you
yourself are admitting that this was a purely ambiguous statement. You
had more than ample opportunity to present clear evidence, had you been
able to do so. Fuzzy wording is only evidence of fuzzy thinking.
The statement I made, was an all inclusive statement of what, and who,
"You" are, and especially those who were enrolled in the initial
thread.
No, you statement indicated what you "thought" we were, but it
contained no scientific basis or evidence and was just a rehash of
already (long) rejected ideas.
It is not for me to determine the basis, scientific or otherwise of the
evidence!
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet. Why is that, are you trying
to hide something or are you just trolling?
That is your responsibility to examine the evidence.
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet. Post some and it will be
looked at.
Whether this is a rehash, I do not know what each of you have
previously considered. I could only present the evidence that I had,
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet.
if there is any rehash, that is on your part, not mine! If you choose
to not reexamine the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet.
that is your decision, and the
conclusion is your responsibility!
This is not the same thing as to be ambiguous, but instead, is
a very specific, granted very large set of test subjects. This set was
arrived at, so that all who desired, would have total and free access
to run whatever test you desired, on yourselves as a group or as
individuals. Again this was not done inorder to be ambiguous or
disengenuous,
However, you were, like most creationists, being dishonest. You
claimed you were going to post evidence - you didn't. Further
dishonesty showed when you were challanged on this lack of evidence
and you tried to claim you HAD posted evidence. This dishonesty now
continues to a degree where you are begining to smell like a troll.
There is no dishonesty,
Then please state your evidence so it can be examined.
just awareness of the games you like to play,
when you ask for evidence but have no interest in actually making any
investment of your time and effort to examine the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet.
even as you
personally have demonstrated! That is intellecually dishonest and
lazy! Prove me wrong, show me your original hash of the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet. Are you going to?
or
any subsequent hash that is relevant, and then we can see how honest
you are!
but so that I would not be accused of using a limited
set, that very few or anyone would have access to other than myself, or
that would be limited to specific test which I chose because they fit
my criteria, which would then allow me to provide tainted data slanted
to the conclusion that I wanted to arrive at!
On the otherhand, you all have full and free access to yourselves, and
you can run whatever test you desire. You can restrict others to your
particular data as you desire! This restriction of access, would though
make you suspect of being less than scientific in your collection and
analysis of personal data, and then the unbiased dissemination of the
info to others in the group. I understand that this would make you
personally involved, and responsible, in this endeavor, which I find
that most skeptics, reject and resent more than anything, preferring to
set on the sidelines on their ivory towers, throwing bricks at every
passerby, but in no way willing to get their own hands dirty in any
real investigation themselves, even as has been demonstated by numerous
ones in this discussion already.
I would hardly call this whole process ambiguous, as it was the intent
of the design in the first place, to appear ambiguous, but in fact is
very specifically aimed, and hit the target bulls-eye! There was no
fuzzy thinking or planning here, sorry, I had very clear intentions and
design!
Now as to the clarity of the evidence,
What evidence?
Ask and answered!
Asked, many times by several people. Never answered. Do you intend to
ever provide evidence or are you just trolling?
again that is totally dependent
upon yourselves to truthfuly examine your self, unless of course you
are willing to admit that you are not willing or able to truthfull
examine your self! This small discovery though, would be considered
part of the test of the examined evidence,
What evidence???
Ask and answered!
Asked, many times by several people. Never answered.
and this would have a
definite bearing on the resulting conclusion!
You could also say you are not smart enough, as in intellect, or
insightful, or too smart or gifted, honest, not honest, to spend your
time, not enough time, to much time, long lived enough, short lived
enough! Basically you will be telling us about who and how you are, and
this would be the basis for understanding of who and how God is, and is
not!
Gad(s) are the invention of man. Used by primitive man to explain
things he didn't understand.
I assume you mean God, and just exactly how did you arrive at this
mental illumination?
The facts.
It does not appear to me that you have advanced
far beyond the primitive man, so you may find that you still need God!
I have no need for gods - I grew out of that need about the same time
I stopped believing in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy.
Or can you answer me how far you must advance beyond primitive man to
no longer need God?
God(s) were needed by primitive man to explain what he did not
understand. Today we have science to provide the explination. It may
not have all the answers yet, but we do see a logical progression
towards answering all our questions.
Basically, I have not seen any of you initiate any sort of test, which
speaks volumes, and the accompaning whinning about lack of evidence,
You promised evidence. We now know you lied.
No lie,
Liar!
though, I will admit that I obviscated, in order to hide my
real intention in presenting evidence,
What evidence? You are lying if you said you provided any.
was to draw you all out from
your hiding places, and "make you put your money where your mouth is!"
That you were not more specific as to the request for evidence is not
my problem! I gave you every opportunity, over the course of a week,
egging you on with my boldness to even encourage you a number of times
to ask specific questions, and even during that week, engaging in some
rather intense discussions with a number of individuals, in such a way
that you should have known from where I was coming.
Your promise was to post evidence for the existance of god(s). You
have failed to do so.
I did not do a
very good job of hiding myself, or my willingness to meet you on any
subject! That I have now in fact provided a mountain of evidence is
What evidence? As yet you have not posted any.
also evident, and that if you were being honest yourself, you would
have to admit, that you could study this evidence
What evidence?
for a very long time
without being able to draw an honest insightful and complete
conclusion! Studying any one of you after all could keep all of you
very busy, for a very long time!
goes to show how trully blind you are, and certainly not in any
position to make any sort of judgement about the character and nature
of God, that would amount to anything more than the scratching of a
blind man on a canvas trying to duplicate a Rembrandt. The blind man
would actually do better, than you!
Again this is hardly an ambiguous, dubious, or unconsidered
presentation of evidence on my part.
Again, a dishonest (lying, untruthful) claim that you offered
evidence. You didn't. We are still waiting.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
You are the evidence,
Of about 4 billion years of evolution.
So you claim to have 4 billion years of insight, and you are still
blind! I would be careful of bragging about that to much!
and even if
you are nothing more than an ancient basalt, you could consider how you
came into existence, and I personally believe that none of you see
yourself as nothing more than a lifeless stone, unless you identify
yourself as a living stone! Though that would be accepted as evidence
of the Living God, which evidence you desparately do not want to bring
to light. So I can understand your reticience to embark on any of the
above voyages of discovery, and hence the best policy is to deny the
evidence itself!
When are you going to offer any evidence.
You have the evidence that I have already provided,
Liar! You have not supplied any evidence.
have you even taken
a look at it?
However, even this denial of the evidence,
What evidence moron? You haven't posted any yet.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
is evidence of the God with
whom you want nothing to do with, but with whom you have infact
everything to do with, for He is God, in whom you live, move, and have
your being! And that is something you can not get away from, despite
all of your cute protest to the contrary!
Post some evidence that a god exists.
What more could you want or handle, you have your hands full now!
Post some evidence for the existance of god(s). You promised to do so,
you haven't done so.
No, are you a liar, troll, stupid or all three?
I also do not recall saying anything about the Trinity!
Which is easier, to say "Trinity" or to say "there is one God, only one
God, and that this God is the one God who exists, and is revealed by
Jesus, and the Holy Spirit"? Perhaps you do not believe that there is a
Trinity, but that doesn't really matter. Either way, the only support
you have for your beliefs are the superstitious traditions of men and
the feelings and imaginations of the heart.
I avoided the use of the word Trinity, in deference to your
sensitivities about religious terms and traditions, which you again
demonstate even here by jumping to some conclusion about what I do or
do not believe about traditions of men and the feelings and
imaginations of the heart! I assume, you mean my feelings, and my
imaginations! You do also err in your equally ignorant statement about
my beliefs, for which you have no basis for making any such conclusions
of what I believe, except your biased opinion! Certainly not objective
science, which you claim is your strong suite!
On the other hand, neither did I say anything about superstious
beliefs, or any other conclusion, than the fact that I believe you are
evidence of God!
You're correct, that was indeed the only superstitious belief you
mentioned in that particular sentence.
Which after all, was the point of presenting the evidence in the first
place, so there is no fault on my part, or in my logic!
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
One God, and yes this is the God of Christianity.
Though I certainly made no claims beyond that, that would get into any
superstious relationship with this God, that is another discussion!
Sure you did. You claimed that "you" (whatever you may have meant by
that) is/are evidence for your God. There is no rational reason for
linking that observation (the "you") back to the source you attribute
it to, as opposed to tracing it back to some other source. You yourself
could not even attempt to do so, all you managed was to complain that
the rest of us were not working hard enough to prove ourselves wrong
and make your point for you. So your argument is still just an
expression of good old-fashioned superstition, and gives evidence of
the superstitious kind of thinking that leads you to believe as you do.
If this is your conclusion after reviewing the evidence, that is your
right to draw a conclusion, no matter how unfounded it is, especially
if you did not even examine the evidence, but instead rejected it out
of hand! However even this is your right to do, and to still draw
whatever conclusion you choose! Understand that even this, I see as
evidence that there is a God, revealed as I understand God to be. So if
your attempt to examine the evidence, and draw your conclusions, was in
any way intended to convince me that there is no God, then you have
failed miserably!
On the other hand, my purpose in presenting the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
was not to
convince you of anything, but to allow you to draw your own conclusions
using the evidence that I find in your case to be significant. What
conclusions you draw are totally your business! My responsibility is
just to be a witness, and present the evidence!
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
If you choose to not
examine the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
that is not my concern either, and any other
whinning regarding the evidence
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
ie it being superstitious, no rational
link, etc., is disregarded!
So stick to the evidence, do not go beyond the evidence, either
projecting what you suspect my beliefs to be, or projecting your
beliefs into the analysis of the evidence.
If you would provide us with some genuine evidence, instead of playing
coy with vague, superstitious platitudes, I'll be happy to take a look
at it, fairly and objectively.
No you won't, for you have your biases, which color everything that you
take a look at. As to being happy, I doubt that as well, for happiness
is based on current happenings, and those are contrary to your stated
philosophy, that you do not have a personal relationship with the God
of Scripture as I have demonstated Him to you!
Evidence which again is not
limited to some discussion about our existence as men!.
If you would like to suggest something specific for us to consider,
feel free to do so. If your case depends on us going to a lot of hard
work just to prove ourselves wrong and to manufacture some genuine
evidence for you, you're going to be disappointed. Not that I object to
the work, of course, but the flimsy excuses you offer are just too
transparently futile to be worth the wasted effort. There isn't any
evidence there for anyone to find. You know that yourself, that's why
even you do not try to explain why anyone ought to regard your
quasi-koan as genuine evidence.
I realize as I stated above that you resent getting your hands dirty
with any hard work, preferring to let others run in circles trying to
keep up with your reasoning. Much as a dog chasing its tail!
You are the ones that ask for evidence,
And you are the one that claimed he was going to give some - you
failed.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
it is your responsibility to
process the evidence provided,
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
no matter how long, or how hard the work
is! A scientist will take a small bone fragment, and labor over it for
years to attempt to identify from where It came! I have thrown you
more than a bone fragment, I have presented you, yourself in all your
glory and shame as the evidence
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
that there is a God, etc. And are you
saying that you are not worth the effort to spend any time studying
the evidence.
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
You indeed may have such a small opinion of your own
worth!
As far as something specific, about yourself, study your eyes, or ears,
or even your nose, and remember that God does have a sense of humor,
especially when you look at someone elses nose or ears! There are
scientist, who spend their whole life, studying anyone of these organs
of sense, and marvel at the design!
No, they marvel at the evolution. There is no evidence for design.
And you base this conclusion on ????
The fact that there is no evidence for design.
By whatever means, there most certainly is design!
None is evident.
Do any of you play music, or paint, or garden (hi bob)! Lift weights,
marvel at the musculature, or ride bikes or ski! How about fly
fishing, and the sense of being out in nature, and attuned to the
falling water, the sky, the clouds, the trees, and all that God has
made!
God(s) are the invention of man, god(s) were made by man - not the
other way round.
And you base this on????
Facts
No I think I have thrown a pile of evidence
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
at you that should keep you
content studying this evidence
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
if you have a shred of intellectual
honesty!
And if you do not have a shred of intellectual honesty, even that would
speak of God who acknowledges our short comings, but Loves us still as
His Creation!!!
God is the creation of primitive man.
And you, are not primitive man, tell me where is the dividiing line?
The point where you grow up and stop believing in fairy stories.
Though I know
some of you like to keep playing that music, like some bizarr form of
elevator music, by which with all of your playing, you think you can
get to the top floor of reasoning and science.
There you go again, blaming others for what is lacking on your own
part. You keep pretending there's something elaborate going on here,
and there isn't. You've been asked for simple evidence, you've been
given examples of the most fundamental and obvious forms such evidence
would reasonably be expected to take, and you've responded by blowing
smoke and huffing and puffing and crying that it's our own fault we
can't see the Emperor's New Evidence. Nothing fancy or complicated here
at all. You claimed you had evidence, and you don't, and it's obvious.
m
I realize that you would love to have some bit of evidence that you
could point at and mock, and say see he has nothing, because we can
discount anything he presents us with! The only problem with that, is
that by presenting you as the evidence, you are not willing to mock
yourselves, or discount yourself as nothing. If you really believed
what you say about God, then you would have no problem saying that
about yourself, that you are nothing, no purpose, no cause!
We are all nothing, none of us have a prupose in the sense you want to
apply and our only cause is 4 billion years of evolution.
So are you getting up in the morning, eating breakfast, have other
plans? You should do nothing, except evolve, and even that is not
nothing! So you still have the watermark of God in your print! It is an
indelible mark of God, and you are not nothing, even if after 4 billion
years, or in another 4 billion years!
You are sounding very stupid, even for a troll.
But you can
not say that about yourself, because you do not believe that, and
despite your protest, you do not believe there is no God, in whom we
live, and move, and have our being!
God Loves you, and I Love you in Christ, and the evidence stands,
because
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
--
Bob.
Yes I have, and as always, the greatest evidence, is
Liar!
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatekeeper" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
07 Oct 2006 02:11:48 PM |
|
|
Ye Old One wrote:
On 7 Oct 2006 03:16:48 -0700, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On 7 Oct 2006 01:50:16 -0700, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
Actually, it's called superstition. Johnny's Little League team wins
against a tough opponent. Johnny says they won because he was wearing
his "lucky" underpants. Johnny can't give any rational reason why that
particular effect (winning) should be traced back to that particular
cause (lucky underpants). Likewise, Gatekeeper cites an effect (the
existence of human beings) and attributes it to a particular cause (the
Trinity) without being able to give any rational reason why that
particular effect should be traced back to that particular cause, and
not some other. The only evidence GK is giving is evidence that his
beliefs are superstitious.
I do not recall, that I was in any way limiting the evidence which I
presented, to the existence of human beings, when I said you are the
evidence! You err in thinking that I limited the evidence to a
discussion about creation/evolution, dating of fossils, etc.
And you err in thinking you presented any genuine evidence. All you
said was "You are the evidence" (i.e. for the Trinity). Now you
yourself are admitting that this was a purely ambiguous statement. You
had more than ample opportunity to present clear evidence, had you been
able to do so. Fuzzy wording is only evidence of fuzzy thinking.
The statement I made, was an all inclusive statement of what, and who,
"You" are, and especially those who were enrolled in the initial
thread.
No, you statement indicated what you "thought" we were, but it
contained no scientific basis or evidence and was just a rehash of
already (long) rejected ideas.
It is not for me to determine the basis, scientific or otherwise of the
evidence!
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet. Why is that, are you trying
to hide something or are you just trolling?
Nothing is hidden, no trolling is in my intent, for I have done all I
promised to do, and have given you more than enough info to keep you
busy for a long time researching the truth! If you don't even give the
package of evidence a cursory consideration, that is not my problem,
unless you were trolling in the first place. That you were not, and are
still not really interested in any evidence, but instead, you are only
interested in stirring the pot, and not making any real contribution
your self! I have seen no intellectual effort on your part except the
claim that there is no evidence! I am not even convinced that your
keypad is not stuck typing those words. Show me your credentials, that
you are more than an intellectual trashman, that dumps where ever suits
him, with no intent on ever picking up after himself! I have taken the
time to offer you lengthy and thoughtful responses to your queries, to
only have you snip them when you have no thoughtful response yourself,
and then with your customary response, say, show us the evidence. I
say, show me that you would know what to do with it if I showed you
anything more!
That is your responsibility to examine the evidence.
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet. Post some and it will be
looked at.
Whether this is a rehash, I do not know what each of you have
previously considered. I could only present the evidence that I had,
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet.
if there is any rehash, that is on your part, not mine! If you choose
to not reexamine the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet.
that is your decision, and the
conclusion is your responsibility!
This is not the same thing as to be ambiguous, but instead, is
a very specific, granted very large set of test subjects. This set was
arrived at, so that all who desired, would have total and free access
to run whatever test you desired, on yourselves as a group or as
individuals. Again this was not done inorder to be ambiguous or
disengenuous,
However, you were, like most creationists, being dishonest. You
claimed you were going to post evidence - you didn't. Further
dishonesty showed when you were challanged on this lack of evidence
and you tried to claim you HAD posted evidence. This dishonesty now
continues to a degree where you are begining to smell like a troll.
There is no dishonesty,
Then please state your evidence so it can be examined.
just awareness of the games you like to play,
when you ask for evidence but have no interest in actually making any
investment of your time and effort to examine the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet.
even as you
personally have demonstrated! That is intellecually dishonest and
lazy! Prove me wrong, show me your original hash of the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet. Are you going to?
or
any subsequent hash that is relevant, and then we can see how honest
you are!
but so that I would not be accused of using a limited
set, that very few or anyone would have access to other than myself, or
that would be limited to specific test which I chose because they fit
my criteria, which would then allow me to provide tainted data slanted
to the conclusion that I wanted to arrive at!
On the otherhand, you all have full and free access to yourselves, and
you can run whatever test you desire. You can restrict others to your
particular data as you desire! This restriction of access, would though
make you suspect of being less than scientific in your collection and
analysis of personal data, and then the unbiased dissemination of the
info to others in the group. I understand that this would make you
personally involved, and responsible, in this endeavor, which I find
that most skeptics, reject and resent more than anything, preferring to
set on the sidelines on their ivory towers, throwing bricks at every
passerby, but in no way willing to get their own hands dirty in any
real investigation themselves, even as has been demonstated by numerous
ones in this discussion already.
I would hardly call this whole process ambiguous, as it was the intent
of the design in the first place, to appear ambiguous, but in fact is
very specifically aimed, and hit the target bulls-eye! There was no
fuzzy thinking or planning here, sorry, I had very clear intentions and
design!
Now as to the clarity of the evidence,
What evidence?
Ask and answered!
Asked, many times by several people. Never answered. Do you intend to
ever provide evidence or are you just trolling?
I post from alt.bible, where do you post from? We can cut to the
chase, and reduce any effect of trolling by just carrying on this
discussion between ourselves. In fact I would suggest that we could
even just restrict this to alt.bible since this is where the thread
initiated. That way those who are not interested, would not have to
put up with any trolling blather. I would be glad to meet you just in
alt.bible, if you are really interested, we could carry on a very
limited conversation which would illiminate any troll baiting! In
fact, I will post this last response to you on these current groups,
and give you opportunity to respond on alt.bible only. That way you
should not think that I am not interested, or afraid of carrying on
this conversation with you. Any future response will be posted to you
on alt.bible only, look forward to seeing you there!
again that is totally dependent
upon yourselves to truthfuly examine your self, unless of course you
are willing to admit that you are not willing or able to truthfull
examine your self! This small discovery though, would be considered
part of the test of the examined evidence,
What evidence???
Ask and answered!
Asked, many times by several people. Never answered.
and this would have a
definite bearing on the resulting conclusion!
You could also say you are not smart enough, as in intellect, or
insightful, or too smart or gifted, honest, not honest, to spend your
time, not enough time, to much time, long lived enough, short lived
enough! Basically you will be telling us about who and how you are, and
this would be the basis for understanding of who and how God is, and is
not!
Gad(s) are the invention of man. Used by primitive man to explain
things he didn't understand.
I assume you mean God, and just exactly how did you arrive at this
mental illumination?
The facts.
What facts, you have shown me no facts! You make vacuous claims and
show no evidence yourself? LOL, demonstrate to me what you desire, by
what you do yourself, and maybe you can teach me something I do not
know!
It does not appear to me that you have advanced
far beyond the primitive man, so you may find that you still need God!
I have no need for gods - I grew out of that need about the same time
I stopped believing in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy.
That occurred when you were what 15 years old! Does that mean the
primitive man out grew the need for God when he was, say 15 years old?
Or can you answer me how far you must advance beyond primitive man to
no longer need God?
God(s) were needed by primitive man to explain what he did not
understand. Today we have science to provide the explination. It may
not have all the answers yet, but we do see a logical progression
towards answering all our questions.
That just shows your limited ability to ask insightful, difficult
questions! That you ask questions for which you think you have
answers, is rather self serving!
Basically, I have not seen any of you initiate any sort of test, which
speaks volumes, and the accompaning whinning about lack of evidence,
You promised evidence. We now know you lied.
No lie,
Liar!
though, I will admit that I obviscated, in order to hide my
real intention in presenting evidence,
What evidence? You are lying if you said you provided any.
was to draw you all out from
your hiding places, and "make you put your money where your mouth is!"
That you were not more specific as to the request for evidence is not
my problem! I gave you every opportunity, over the course of a week,
egging you on with my boldness to even encourage you a number of times
to ask specific questions, and even during that week, engaging in some
rather intense discussions with a number of individuals, in such a way
that you should have known from where I was coming.
Your promise was to post evidence for the existance of god(s). You
have failed to do so.
I did not do a
very good job of hiding myself, or my willingness to meet you on any
subject! That I have now in fact provided a mountain of evidence is
What evidence? As yet you have not posted any.
also evident, and that if you were being honest yourself, you would
have to admit, that you could study this evidence
What evidence?
for a very long time
without being able to draw an honest insightful and complete
conclusion! Studying any one of you after all could keep all of you
very busy, for a very long time!
goes to show how trully blind you are, and certainly not in any
position to make any sort of judgement about the character and nature
of God, that would amount to anything more than the scratching of a
blind man on a canvas trying to duplicate a Rembrandt. The blind man
would actually do better, than you!
Again this is hardly an ambiguous, dubious, or unconsidered
presentation of evidence on my part.
Again, a dishonest (lying, untruthful) claim that you offered
evidence. You didn't. We are still waiting.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
No, I am not a liar, you ask the wrong question! I have even offered
to allow you to restate your question, and you have not had the
courage, sometimes called intellectual fortitude to take me up on the
offer! That only shows me that your original interest was not in
receiveing evidence, but in hearing yourself pipe a tune to which you
think you can dance, even if it is the one-step! So I would again
encourage you and your buddies to huddle, come up with a new question,
if you can figure that out, and stop whinning about the evidence that
has already been presented to you!
You are the evidence,
Of about 4 billion years of evolution.
So you claim to have 4 billion years of insight, and you are still
blind! I would be careful of bragging about that to much!
and even if
you are nothing more than an ancient basalt, you could consider how you
came into existence, and I personally believe that none of you see
yourself as nothing more than a lifeless stone, unless you identify
yourself as a living stone! Though that would be accepted as evidence
of the Living God, which evidence you desparately do not want to bring
to light. So I can understand your reticience to embark on any of the
above voyages of discovery, and hence the best policy is to deny the
evidence itself!
When are you going to offer any evidence.
You have the evidence that I have already provided,
Liar! You have not supplied any evidence.
have you even taken
a look at it?
However, even this denial of the evidence,
What evidence moron? You haven't posted any yet.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
Ask and answered!
is evidence of the God with
whom you want nothing to do with, but with whom you have infact
everything to do with, for He is God, in whom you live, move, and have
your being! And that is something you can not get away from, despite
all of your cute protest to the contrary!
Post some evidence that a god exists.
What more could you want or handle, you have your hands full now!
Post some evidence for the existance of god(s). You promised to do so,
you haven't done so.
No, are you a liar, troll, stupid or all three?
Ask and answered! and yet you still have not figured out what your real
questions should have been, so who is of questionable intellectual
capability?
I also do not recall saying anything about the Trinity!
Which is easier, to say "Trinity" or to say "there is one God, only one
God, and that this God is the one God who exists, and is revealed by
Jesus, and the Holy Spirit"? Perhaps you do not believe that there is a
Trinity, but that doesn't really matter. Either way, the only support
you have for your beliefs are the superstitious traditions of men and
the feelings and imaginations of the heart.
I avoided the use of the word Trinity, in deference to your
sensitivities about religious terms and traditions, which you again
demonstate even here by jumping to some conclusion about what I do or
do not believe about traditions of men and the feelings and
imaginations of the heart! I assume, you mean my feelings, and my
imaginations! You do also err in your equally ignorant statement about
my beliefs, for which you have no basis for making any such conclusions
of what I believe, except your biased opinion! Certainly not objective
science, which you claim is your strong suite!
On the other hand, neither did I say anything about superstious
beliefs, or any other conclusion, than the fact that I believe you are
evidence of God!
You're correct, that was indeed the only superstitious belief you
mentioned in that particular sentence.
Which after all, was the point of presenting the evidence in the first
place, so there is no fault on my part, or in my logic!
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
Ask and answered!
One God, and yes this is the God of Christianity.
Though I certainly made no claims beyond that, that would get into any
superstious relationship with this God, that is another discussion!
Sure you did. You claimed that "you" (whatever you may have meant by
that) is/are evidence for your God. There is no rational reason for
linking that observation (the "you") back to the source you attribute
it to, as opposed to tracing it back to some other source. You yourself
could not even attempt to do so, all you managed was to complain that
the rest of us were not working hard enough to prove ourselves wrong
and make your point for you. So your argument is still just an
expression of good old-fashioned superstition, and gives evidence of
the superstitious kind of thinking that leads you to believe as you do.
If this is your conclusion after reviewing the evidence, that is your
right to draw a conclusion, no matter how unfounded it is, especially
if you did not even examine the evidence, but instead rejected it out
of hand! However even this is your right to do, and to still draw
whatever conclusion you choose! Understand that even this, I see as
evidence that there is a God, revealed as I understand God to be. So if
your attempt to examine the evidence, and draw your conclusions, was in
any way intended to convince me that there is no God, then you have
failed miserably!
On the other hand, my purpose in presenting the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
Ask and answered!
was not to
convince you of anything, but to allow you to draw your own conclusions
using the evidence that I find in your case to be significant. What
conclusions you draw are totally your business! My responsibility is
just to be a witness, and present the evidence!
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
Ask and answered!
If you choose to not
examine the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
Ask and answered!
that is not my concern either, and any other
whinning regarding the evidence
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
Ask and answered!
ie it being superstitious, no rational
link, etc., is disregarded!
So stick to the evidence, do not go beyond the evidence, either
projecting what you suspect my beliefs to be, or projecting your
beliefs into the analysis of the evidence.
If you would provide us with some genuine evidence, instead of playing
coy with vague, superstitious platitudes, I'll be happy to take a look
at it, fairly and objectively.
No you won't, for you have your biases, which color everything that you
take a look at. As to being happy, I doubt that as well, for happiness
is based on current happenings, and those are contrary to your stated
philosophy, that you do not have a personal relationship with the God
of Scripture as I have demonstated Him to you!
Evidence which again is not
limited to some discussion about our existence as men!.
If you would like to suggest something specific for us to consider,
feel free to do so. If your case depends on us going to a lot of hard
work just to prove ourselves wrong and to manufacture some genuine
evidence for you, you're going to be disappointed. Not that I object to
the work, of course, but the flimsy excuses you offer are just too
transparently futile to be worth the wasted effort. There isn't any
evidence there for anyone to find. You know that yourself, that's why
even you do not try to explain why anyone ought to regard your
quasi-koan as genuine evidence.
I realize as I stated above that you resent getting your hands dirty
with any hard work, preferring to let others run in circles trying to
keep up with your reasoning. Much as a dog chasing its tail!
You are the ones that ask for evidence,
And you are the one that claimed he was going to give some - you
failed.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
Ask and answered!
it is your responsibility to
process the evidence provided,
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
Ask and answered!
no matter how long, or how hard the work
is! A scientist will take a small bone fragment, and labor over it for
years to attempt to identify from where It came! I have thrown you
more than a bone fragment, I have presented you, yourself in all your
glory and shame as the evidence
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
Ask and answered!
that there is a God, etc. And are you
saying that you are not worth the effort to spend any time studying
the evidence.
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
Ask and answered!
You indeed may have such a small opinion of your own
worth!
As far as something specific, about yourself, study your eyes, or ears,
or even your nose, and remember that God does have a sense of humor,
especially when you look at someone elses nose or ears! There are
scientist, who spend their whole life, studying anyone of these organs
of sense, and marvel at the design!
No, they marvel at the evolution. There is no evidence for design.
And you base this conclusion on ????
The fact that there is no evidence for design.
By whatever means, there most certainly is design!
None is evident.
That only speaks to your ability to observe, not necessarily anything
about the issue of design!
Your limited ability to observe, shows that you are not in a position
to make any conclusive statements about God and His Creation, no matter
how smart you may think you are!
Do any of you play music, or paint, or garden (hi bob)! Lift weights,
marvel at the musculature, or ride bikes or ski! How about fly
fishing, and the sense of being out in nature, and attuned to the
falling water, the sky, the clouds, the trees, and all that God has
made!
God(s) are the invention of man, god(s) were made by man - not the
other way round.
And you base this on????
Facts
I have seen no facts, presented by you or anyone else, just vague
reference to hearsay statements that bear no sembleance to any fact or
detail!
No I think I have thrown a pile of evidence
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
Ask and answered!
at you that should keep you
content studying this evidence
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
Ask and answered!
if you have a shred of intellectual
honesty!
And if you do not have a shred of intellectual honesty, even that would
speak of God who acknowledges our short comings, but Loves us still as
His Creation!!!
God is the creation of primitive man.
And you, are not primitive man, tell me where is the dividiing line?
The point where you grow up and stop believing in fairy stories.
And you believed in fairy stories at one time, even my little children
could tell the difference, what was your problem?
Though I know
some of you like to keep playing that music, like some bizarr form of
elevator music, by which with all of your playing, you think you can
get to the top floor of reasoning and science.
There you go again, blaming others for what is lacking on your own
part. You keep pretending there's something elaborate going on here,
and there isn't. You've been asked for simple evidence, you've been
given examples of the most fundamental and obvious forms such evidence
would reasonably be expected to take, and you've responded by blowing
smoke and huffing and puffing and crying that it's our own fault we
can't see the Emperor's New Evidence. Nothing fancy or complicated here
at all. You claimed you had evidence, and you don't, and it's obvious.
m
I realize that you would love to have some bit of evidence that you
could point at and mock, and say see he has nothing, because we can
discount anything he presents us with! The only problem with that, is
that by presenting you as the evidence, you are not willing to mock
yourselves, or discount yourself as nothing. If you really believed
what you say about God, then you would have no problem saying that
about yourself, that you are nothing, no purpose, no cause!
We are all nothing, none of us have a prupose in the sense you want to
apply and our only cause is 4 billion years of evolution.
So are you getting up in the morning, eating breakfast, have other
plans? You should do nothing, except evolve, and even that is not
nothing! So you still have the watermark of God in your print! It is an
indelible mark of God, and you are not nothing, even if after 4 billion
years, or in another 4 billion years!
You are sounding very stupid, even for a troll.
Why because I do not roll over for your form of logic, and ask you to
do something that you are intellectually unwilling to do? Who is
acting stupid, or maybe you are the troll?
But you can
not say that about yourself, because you do not believe that, and
despite your protest, you do not believe there is no God, in whom we
live, and move, and have our being!
God Loves you, and I Love you in Christ, and the evidence stands,
because
What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence.
--
Bob.
Yes I have, and as always, the greatest evidence, is
Liar!
Ask and answered!
--
Bob.
And the greatest evidence is still,
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
07 Oct 2006 03:30:55 PM |
|
|
On 7 Oct 2006 12:11:48 -0700, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On 7 Oct 2006 03:16:48 -0700, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On 7 Oct 2006 01:50:16 -0700, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
Actually, it's called superstition. Johnny's Little League team wins
against a tough opponent. Johnny says they won because he was wearing
his "lucky" underpants. Johnny can't give any rational reason why that
particular effect (winning) should be traced back to that particular
cause (lucky underpants). Likewise, Gatekeeper cites an effect (the
existence of human beings) and attributes it to a particular cause (the
Trinity) without being able to give any rational reason why that
particular effect should be traced back to that particular cause, and
not some other. The only evidence GK is giving is evidence that his
beliefs are superstitious.
I do not recall, that I was in any way limiting the evidence which I
presented, to the existence of human beings, when I said you are the
evidence! You err in thinking that I limited the evidence to a
discussion about creation/evolution, dating of fossils, etc.
And you err in thinking you presented any genuine evidence. All you
said was "You are the evidence" (i.e. for the Trinity). Now you
yourself are admitting that this was a purely ambiguous statement. You
had more than ample opportunity to present clear evidence, had you been
able to do so. Fuzzy wording is only evidence of fuzzy thinking.
The statement I made, was an all inclusive statement of what, and who,
"You" are, and especially those who were enrolled in the initial
thread.
No, you statement indicated what you "thought" we were, but it
contained no scientific basis or evidence and was just a rehash of
already (long) rejected ideas.
It is not for me to determine the basis, scientific or otherwise of the
evidence!
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet. Why is that, are you trying
to hide something or are you just trolling?
Nothing is hidden,
Then why not provide the evidence you claimed you would?
no trolling is in my intent,
Then why not provide the evidence you claimed you would?
for I have done all I
promised to do,
Liar! You promised to provide evidence for the existence of god(s).
You haven't.
and have given you more than enough info to keep you
busy for a long time researching the truth! If you don't even give the
package of evidence
What evidence - you have yet to provide any. This is looking more and
more like a troll to me.
a cursory consideration, that is not my problem,
unless you were trolling in the first place. That you were not, and are
still not really interested in any evidence,
I would love to see some evidence - when are you going to provide it?
but instead, you are only
interested in stirring the pot, and not making any real contribution
your self!
I'm not the one that claimed he could provide evidence for the
existence of god(s). I have no evidence to give for that, you are the
one who came to the group with a lie.
I have seen no intellectual effort on your part except the
claim that there is no evidence!
That is not MY claim - that is the fact. I've pointed it out, everyone
else has pointed it out.
I am not even convinced that your
keypad is not stuck typing those words. Show me your credentials, that
you are more than an intellectual trashman, that dumps where ever suits
him, with no intent on ever picking up after himself! I have taken the
time to offer you lengthy and thoughtful responses to your queries,
But no sign of the promised evidence for the existence of god(s).
to
only have you snip them when you have no thoughtful response yourself,
I'm still waiting for the evidence you promised but failed to deliver.
Until that is forthcoming there is no onus on me to do anything except
remind you of your continued failure.
and then with your customary response, say, show us the evidence. I
say, show me that you would know what to do with it if I showed you
anything more!
See above.
That is your responsibility to examine the evidence.
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet. Post some and it will be
looked at.
Whether this is a rehash, I do not know what each of you have
previously considered. I could only present the evidence that I had,
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet.
if there is any rehash, that is on your part, not mine! If you choose
to not reexamine the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet.
that is your decision, and the
conclusion is your responsibility!
This is not the same thing as to be ambiguous, but instead, is
a very specific, granted very large set of test subjects. This set was
arrived at, so that all who desired, would have total and free access
to run whatever test you desired, on yourselves as a group or as
individuals. Again this was not done inorder to be ambiguous or
disengenuous,
However, you were, like most creationists, being dishonest. You
claimed you were going to post evidence - you didn't. Further
dishonesty showed when you were challanged on this lack of evidence
and you tried to claim you HAD posted evidence. This dishonesty now
continues to a degree where you are begining to smell like a troll.
There is no dishonesty,
Then please state your evidence so it can be examined.
just awareness of the games you like to play,
when you ask for evidence but have no interest in actually making any
investment of your time and effort to examine the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet.
even as you
personally have demonstrated! That is intellecually dishonest and
lazy! Prove me wrong, show me your original hash of the evidence,
What evidence? You haven't posted any yet. Are you going to?
or
any subsequent hash that is relevant, and then we can see how honest
you are!
but so that I would not be accused of using a limited
set, that very few or anyone would have access to other than myself, or
that would be limited to specific test which I chose because they fit
my criteria, which would then allow me to provide tainted data slanted
to the conclusion that I wanted to arrive at!
On the otherhand, you all have full and free access to yourselves, and
you can run whatever test you desire. You can restrict others to your
particular data as you desire! This restriction of access, would though
make you suspect of being less than scientific in your collection and
analysis of personal data, and then the unbiased dissemination of the
info to others in the group. I understand that this would make you
personally involved, and responsible, in this endeavor, which I find
that most skeptics, reject and resent more than anything, preferring to
set on the sidelines on their ivory towers, throwing bricks at every
passerby, but in no way willing to get their own hands dirty in any
real investigation themselves, even as has been demonstated by numerous
ones in this discussion already.
I would hardly call this whole process ambiguous, as it was the intent
of the design in the first place, to appear ambiguous, but in fact is
very specifically aimed, and hit the target bulls-eye! There was no
fuzzy thinking or planning here, sorry, I had very clear intentions and
design!
Now as to the clarity of the evidence,
What evidence?
Ask and answered!
Asked, many times by several people. Never answered. Do you intend to
ever provide evidence or are you just trolling?
I post from alt.bible, where do you post from?
Oh dear - that clueless.
We can cut to the
chase, and reduce any effect of trolling by just carrying on this
discussion between ourselves.
You posted to an open newsgroup to make your claim. You currently
stand accused of either being a liar, a troll of just plain stupid.
The only way you can escape those labels is to provide the evidence
you claimed you would - here on usenet.
In fact I would suggest that we could
even just restrict this to alt.bible since this is where the thread
initiated. That way those who are not interested, would not have to
put up with any trolling blather.
You started the trolling, it is up to you to put up or shut up.
I would be glad to meet you just in
alt.bible, if you are really interested, we could carry on a very
limited conversation which would illiminate any troll baiting! In
fact, I will post this last response to you on these current groups,
and give you opportunity to respond on alt.bible only. That way you
should not think that I am not interested, or afraid of carrying on
this conversation with you. Any future response will be posted to you
on alt.bible only, look forward to seeing you there!
You posted your troll to four groups. I'm sure there are people in all
four group who are laughing at you now. You currently stand accused on
all four groups of either being a liar, a troll, stupid or any mix of
those three.
again that is totally dependent
upon yourselves to truthfuly examine your self, unless of course you
are willing to admit that you are not willing or able to truthfull
examine your self! This small discovery though, would be considered
part of the test of the examined evidence,
What evidence???
Ask and answered!
Asked, many times by several people. Never answered.
and this would have a
definite bearing on the resulting conclusion!
You could also say you are not smart enough, as in intellect, or
insightful, or too smart or gifted, honest, not honest, to spend your
time, not enough time, to much time, long lived enough, short lived
enough! Basically you will be telling us about who and how you are, and
this would be the basis for understanding of who and how God is, and is
not!
Gad(s) are the invention of man. Used by primitive man to explain
things he didn't understand.
I assume you mean God, and just exactly how did you arrive at this
mental illumination?
The facts.
What facts, you have shown me no facts!
I'm not the person who claimed he could provide evidence for the
existence of god(s).
You make vacuous claims and
show no evidence yourself? LOL, demonstrate to me what you desire, by
what you do yourself, and maybe you can teach me something I do not
know!
It does not appear to me that you have advanced
far beyond the primitive man, so you may find that you still need God!
I have no need for gods - I grew out of that need about the same time
I stopped believing in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy.
That occurred when you were what 15 years old! Does that mean the
primitive man out grew the need for God when he was, say 15 years old?
Quite a bit younger than that.
Or can you answer me how far you must advance beyond primitive man to
no longer need God?
God(s) were needed by primitive man to explain what he did not
understand. Today we have science to provide the explination. It may
not have all the answers yet, but we do see a logical progression
towards answering all our questions.
That just shows your limited ability to ask insightful, difficult
questions! That you ask questions for which you think you have
answers, is rather self serving!
There are still a number of us waiting for your evidence. Do you
intend to provide it?
Basically, I have not seen any of you initiate any sort of test, which
speaks volumes, and the accompaning whinning about lack of evidence,
You promised evidence. We now know you lied.
No lie,
Liar!
though, I will admit that I obviscated, in order to hide my
real intention in presenting evidence,
What evidence? You are lying if you said you provided any.
was to draw you all out from
your hiding places, and "make you put your money where your mouth is!"
That you were not more specific as to the request for evidence is not
my problem! I gave you every opportunity, over the course of a week,
egging you on with my boldness to even encourage you a number of times
to ask specific questions, and even during that week, engaging in some
rather intense discussions with a number of individuals, in such a way
that you should have known from where I was coming.
Your promise was to post evidence for the existance of god(s). You
have failed to do so.
I did not do a
very good job of hiding myself, or my willingness to meet you on any
subject! That I have now in fact provided a mountain of evidence is
What evidence? As yet you have not posted any.
also evident, and that if you were being honest yourself, you would
have to admit, that you could study this evidence
What evidence?
for a very long time
without being able to draw an honest insightful and complete
conclusion! Studying any one of you after all could keep all of you
very busy, for a very long time!
goes to show how trully blind you are, and certainly not in any
position to make any sort of judgement about the character and nature
of God, that would amount to anything more than the scratching of a
blind man on a canvas trying to duplicate a Rembrandt. The blind man
would actually do better, than you!
Again this is hardly an ambiguous, dubious, or unconsidered
presentation of evidence on my part.
Again, a dishonest (lying, untruthful) claim that you offered
evidence. You didn't. We are still waiting.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
No, I am not a liar,
Then provide the evidence.
you ask the wrong question! I have even offered
to allow you to restate your question, and you have not had the
courage, sometimes called intellectual fortitude to take me up on the
offer! That only shows me that your original interest was not in
receiveing evidence, but in hearing yourself pipe a tune to which you
think you can dance, even if it is the one-step! So I would again
encourage you and your buddies to huddle, come up with a new question,
if you can figure that out, and stop whinning about the evidence that
has already been presented to you!
You look more like a lying troll with every post you make.
Provide the evidence or admit you lied.
You are the evidence,
Of about 4 billion years of evolution.
So you claim to have 4 billion years of insight, and you are still
blind! I would be careful of bragging about that to much!
and even if
you are nothing more than an ancient basalt, you could consider how you
came into existence, and I personally believe that none of you see
yourself as nothing more than a lifeless stone, unless you identify
yourself as a living stone! Though that would be accepted as evidence
of the Living God, which evidence you desparately do not want to bring
to light. So I can understand your reticience to embark on any of the
above voyages of discovery, and hence the best policy is to deny the
evidence itself!
When are you going to offer any evidence.
You have the evidence that I have already provided,
Liar! You have not supplied any evidence.
have you even taken
a look at it?
However, even this denial of the evidence,
What evidence moron? You haven't posted any yet.
Ask and answered!
Liar!
Ask and answered!
Liar!
is evidence of the God with
whom you want nothing to do with, but with whom you have infact
everything to do with, for He is God, in whom you live, move, and have
your being! And that is something you can not get away from, despite
all of your cute protest to the contrary!
Post some evidence that a god exists.
What more could you want or handle, you have your hands full now!
Post some evidence for the existance of god(s). You promised to do so,
you haven't done so.
No, are you a liar, troll, stupid or all three?
Ask and answered!
Liar!
and yet you still have not figured out what your real
questions should have been, so who is of questionable intellec | | | | |
