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: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
05 Oct 2006 12:50:15 PM |
|
|
gatekeeper wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Gatekeeper made an unsupported assertion.
Only unsupported in your assertion, more than adequate evidence in the
estimation of those who are able to dissect the evidence.
So then, if a Hindu claimed that men were evidence that Krishna was one
of many true Hindu gods, that would also be "more than adequate
evidence" that Hinduism was true, right? And if an ancient Viking
claimed that men were evidence of Odin and Thor and the rest of the
Valhalla crowd, that would also be "more than adequate evidence" that
Norse mythology was true, right? It's the same "evidence" in each
case, so why wouldn't it prove that your God is *not* the one true God?
That you are
mentally lazy, does not mean the evidence is inadequate, only that you
lack the true integrity of the scientist that explores all the
evidence!
Right, so let's see you explain why the evidence is not adequate to
prove Krishna and Odin and all the rest.
You're inability to understand what "evidence" really is does not mean
that what you've offered is really evidence. Nor are you defending your
case by trying to insult everyone who points this out to you. You're
trying to sell the Emperor's New Clothes, and you're having trouble
because people have enough self-esteem not to stampede into credulity
just because you sneer at the "handicap" that prevents them from
"seeing" the fine quality of your "fabrics."
So what test have you even yet run? None, then don't blame me if your
test results are null!
Maybe I'm just stupid. Why don't you go ahead and run whatever "tests"
you need to run to evaluate the evidence for Krishna and Odin, so I can
see how it's done.
Or is this just another case of you trying to blame someone else for
your own problems?
m
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
07 Oct 2006 11:59:53 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2006 00:39:29 -0700, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1159947569.348601.321140@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
:
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
That is just unsupported assertion.
I knew that you were lying through your tetth when you claimed to have
evidence.
Ask your nurse to put you back in your bed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
04 Oct 2006 07:09:41 AM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2006 00:39:29 -0700, in talk.origins
"gatekeeper" <gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1159947569.348601.321140@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
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!
No, that is not correct at all.
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!
Testimony to what? You haven't seen any gods. You haven't interacted
with any gods.
It's also silly to try to threaten me with something that you cannot
show me might happen.
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
So, you have demonstrated so far that you have no evidence that would be
considered scientific or would be accepted in court for gods in general
or your god in particular. Thank you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
04 Oct 2006 04:08:06 PM |
|
|
gatekeeper wrote:
<snip>
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!
So...the evidence that there is a god, and it is the God of the
Judeo-Christian tradition, is a morbidly obese, depressed, handicapped
part-time minimum wage earner in rural western Wisconsin?
You bring the faith into scorn and disrepute. By your grandiosity and
suspense-building, leading to...nothing whatsoever other than your own
personal belief, you help make it possible for non-Christians to
poo-poo what is so vital and important to us, and push intelligent,
thinking people further away from the kingdom.
If you have a rational religious advisor, please do not post any more
until you have counselled and prayed with him/her for long enough to
understand just how much your behavior has injured our cause.
I will be praying for you to gain wisdom and discretion. You badly need
both.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatekeeper" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
04 Oct 2006 07:25:26 PM |
|
|
Tom McDonald wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
<snip>
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!
So...the evidence that there is a god, and it is the God of the
Judeo-Christian tradition, is a morbidly obese, depressed, handicapped
part-time minimum wage earner in rural western Wisconsin?
You bring the faith into scorn and disrepute. By your grandiosity and
suspense-building, leading to...nothing whatsoever other than your own
personal belief, you help make it possible for non-Christians to
poo-poo what is so vital and important to us, and push intelligent,
thinking people further away from the kingdom.
If you have a rational religious advisor, please do not post any more
until you have counselled and prayed with him/her for long enough to
understand just how much your behavior has injured our cause.
I will be praying for you to gain wisdom and discretion. You badly need
both.
<snip>
Your post would indicate that you have some spiritual basis, in that
you are praying for me to gain wisdom and discretion. You say I bring
the faith into scorn and disrepute. Am I to assume from this that you
are a man of faith, and that you Love God with your whole heart! You
refer to non-Christians, and "to us" which sounds on track, but then
you fuss about the amount of noise that has been generated by my post,
as if the noise would not be there otherwise. I would suggest that you
need to pay more attention to what is going on!
Or are you, as you wrote in other places "You are a hollow cymbal,
Jist; a clanging bell"
Now it would seem that you know some scriptures, but I have not really
heard anything that would tell me that you Love Jesus Christ! Do you
love Him? Who do you say that He is?
Answer me this, and I will respond to the rest of your post? I have
read some of your post on other groups, and would be glad to hear more
from you on any subject you are interested in!
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
04 Oct 2006 09:27:30 PM |
|
|
gatekeeper wrote:
<snip>
Your post would indicate that you have some spiritual basis, in that
you are praying for me to gain wisdom and discretion. You say I bring
the faith into scorn and disrepute. Am I to assume from this that you
are a man of faith, and that you Love God with your whole heart! You
refer to non-Christians, and "to us" which sounds on track, but then
you fuss about the amount of noise that has been generated by my post,
as if the noise would not be there otherwise. I would suggest that you
need to pay more attention to what is going on!
Words have meanings, and different meanings in different contexts. You
promised evidence of God in a place where 'evidence' has a specific
meaning, and you did not bother to learn what that meaning was before
you generated your generic evangelistic patter.
In other words, you did not know what your promise would be taken to
mean in this context, and your failure merely reinforced the view of
many here that Christians haven't got the goods--that we promise what
we cannot deliver, and blame our failures on our hearers. As you have
done.
Or are you, as you wrote in other places "You are a hollow cymbal,
Jist; a clanging bell"
I do my share of that. That's not what I am.
Now it would seem that you know some scriptures, but I have not really
heard anything that would tell me that you Love Jesus Christ! Do you
love Him? Who do you say that He is?
Answer me this, and I will respond to the rest of your post?
I am not here for you to test. Respond or not, as you choose.
I have
read some of your post on other groups, and would be glad to hear more
from you on any subject you are interested in!
I think this is unlikely. But by all means, continue telling people
about Jesus. Just don't do it in inappropriate places--like this
newsgroup. There are rules, and they are there for very good reason.
If you are interested in origins (read the FAQ's the moderator posts
monthly or so for what that entails), and either have something to
share or honestly wish to learn, fire away. If all you want to do is
announce the Good News, then this is not the place to do so. Of course,
when it is relevant, it can be fine to talk about beliefs here. But
read the newsgroup for at least two weeks to get an idea how that can
be done before you decide to evangelize in the way that was meaningful
to you. It won't be useful here.
There are a number of Christian, observant Jews, Muslims and other
religious folks who are useful posters here. Notice how they behave,
and how they witness.
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
You might want to explain what this means to you, and why you keep
using it after you were corrected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatekeeper" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
04 Oct 2006 09:42:58 PM |
|
|
Tom McDonald wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
<snip>
Your post would indicate that you have some spiritual basis, in that
you are praying for me to gain wisdom and discretion. You say I bring
the faith into scorn and disrepute. Am I to assume from this that you
are a man of faith, and that you Love God with your whole heart! You
refer to non-Christians, and "to us" which sounds on track, but then
you fuss about the amount of noise that has been generated by my post,
as if the noise would not be there otherwise. I would suggest that you
need to pay more attention to what is going on!
Words have meanings, and different meanings in different contexts. You
promised evidence of God in a place where 'evidence' has a specific
meaning, and you did not bother to learn what that meaning was before
you generated your generic evangelistic patter.
In other words, you did not know what your promise would be taken to
mean in this context, and your failure merely reinforced the view of
many here that Christians haven't got the goods--that we promise what
we cannot deliver, and blame our failures on our hearers. As you have
done.
Or are you, as you wrote in other places "You are a hollow cymbal,
Jist; a clanging bell"
I do my share of that. That's not what I am.
Now it would seem that you know some scriptures, but I have not really
heard anything that would tell me that you Love Jesus Christ! Do you
love Him? Who do you say that He is?
Answer me this, and I will respond to the rest of your post?
I am not here for you to test. Respond or not, as you choose.
I have
read some of your post on other groups, and would be glad to hear more
from you on any subject you are interested in!
I think this is unlikely. But by all means, continue telling people
about Jesus. Just don't do it in inappropriate places--like this
newsgroup. There are rules, and they are there for very good reason.
If you are interested in origins (read the FAQ's the moderator posts
monthly or so for what that entails), and either have something to
share or honestly wish to learn, fire away. If all you want to do is
announce the Good News, then this is not the place to do so. Of course,
when it is relevant, it can be fine to talk about beliefs here. But
read the newsgroup for at least two weeks to get an idea how that can
be done before you decide to evangelize in the way that was meaningful
to you. It won't be useful here.
There are a number of Christian, observant Jews, Muslims and other
religious folks who are useful posters here. Notice how they behave,
and how they witness.
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
You might want to explain what this means to you, and why you keep
using it after you were corrected.
I am not sure where you refer to me being corrected, so I will defer
till later to answer you regarding any correction if you would please
clarify.
Otherwise most of your response seems to be regarding this thread being
posted to a specific group, which I will assume is talk.origins. This
thread was started by someone else who had already established the
cross-posting, and I did not desire to leave anyone out of the
discussion. I am aware of the issue of cross-posting, and would
personally be glad to see it curtailed, however it seems that the
practice is very common on certain groups, so I expect that we will not
see it curtailed! In the meantime I would encourage you to feel free to
plonk this thread, and this poster, if it causes you undue distress.
I post primarily in alt.bible, where there is a large number of
cross-posts, from various groups! We as Christians would like to be
able to discuss biblical issues without all the cross chatter from
those who do not even believe the Bible. This all seems very bizarre
when you consider that most of these folks do not even believe in God,
but insist on argueing about His existance. And they call us kooks!
LOL
Any way, I will try to watch my crossposting if all others will try to
do the same! At least after this post!
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tedd Jacobs" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
04 Oct 2006 11:12:14 PM |
|
|
"gatekeeper" wrote...
Tom McDonald wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
Or are you, as you wrote in other places "You are a hollow cymbal,
Jist; a clanging bell"
I do my share of that. That's not what I am.
but you should see him when he snares a couple of toms and kicks them over a
high-hat just for cymbal.
<more snippage>
--
I believe everything exists. Unicorns do not exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
05 Oct 2006 10:33:21 AM |
|
|
Tedd Jacobs wrote:
"gatekeeper" wrote...
Tom McDonald wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
Or are you, as you wrote in other places "You are a hollow cymbal,
Jist; a clanging bell"
I do my share of that. That's not what I am.
but you should see him when he snares a couple of toms and kicks them over a
high-hat just for cymbal.
But every piece of music needs more cow bell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatekeeper" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
05 Oct 2006 10:50:09 AM |
|
|
Tom McDonald wrote:
Tedd Jacobs wrote:
"gatekeeper" wrote...
Tom McDonald wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
Or are you, as you wrote in other places "You are a hollow cymbal,
Jist; a clanging bell"
I do my share of that. That's not what I am.
but you should see him when he snares a couple of toms and kicks them over a
high-hat just for cymbal.
But every piece of music needs more cow bell.
Greetings back here in cross-posting hello cow bells! I have checked
around a little, and most do not seem inclined to stop the
cross-posting, so I must encourage you to killfile the threads and
posters you do not want to deal with. Otherwise, I agree, cowbells
make fine music, though I will point out singing was never my strong
suite!
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
07 Oct 2006 09:39:45 PM |
|
|
Tom McDonald wrote:
Tedd Jacobs wrote:
"gatekeeper" wrote...
Tom McDonald wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
Or are you, as you wrote in other places "You are a hollow cymbal,
Jist; a clanging bell"
I do my share of that. That's not what I am.
but you should see him when he snares a couple of toms and kicks them over a
high-hat just for cymbal.
But every piece of music needs more cow bell.
Whew! At least you didn't mention spoons or jew's harps.
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
08 Oct 2006 12:06:09 AM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2006 19:42:58 -0700, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1160016178.589098.324780@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Tom McDonald wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
<snip>
Your post would indicate that you have some spiritual basis, in that
you are praying for me to gain wisdom and discretion. You say I bring
the faith into scorn and disrepute. Am I to assume from this that you
are a man of faith, and that you Love God with your whole heart! You
refer to non-Christians, and "to us" which sounds on track, but then
you fuss about the amount of noise that has been generated by my post,
as if the noise would not be there otherwise. I would suggest that you
need to pay more attention to what is going on!
Words have meanings, and different meanings in different contexts. You
promised evidence of God in a place where 'evidence' has a specific
meaning, and you did not bother to learn what that meaning was before
you generated your generic evangelistic patter.
In other words, you did not know what your promise would be taken to
mean in this context, and your failure merely reinforced the view of
many here that Christians haven't got the goods--that we promise what
we cannot deliver, and blame our failures on our hearers. As you have
done.
Or are you, as you wrote in other places "You are a hollow cymbal,
Jist; a clanging bell"
I do my share of that. That's not what I am.
Now it would seem that you know some scriptures, but I have not really
heard anything that would tell me that you Love Jesus Christ! Do you
love Him? Who do you say that He is?
Answer me this, and I will respond to the rest of your post?
I am not here for you to test. Respond or not, as you choose.
I have
read some of your post on other groups, and would be glad to hear more
from you on any subject you are interested in!
I think this is unlikely. But by all means, continue telling people
about Jesus. Just don't do it in inappropriate places--like this
newsgroup. There are rules, and they are there for very good reason.
If you are interested in origins (read the FAQ's the moderator posts
monthly or so for what that entails), and either have something to
share or honestly wish to learn, fire away. If all you want to do is
announce the Good News, then this is not the place to do so. Of course,
when it is relevant, it can be fine to talk about beliefs here. But
read the newsgroup for at least two weeks to get an idea how that can
be done before you decide to evangelize in the way that was meaningful
to you. It won't be useful here.
There are a number of Christian, observant Jews, Muslims and other
religious folks who are useful posters here. Notice how they behave,
and how they witness.
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
You might want to explain what this means to you, and why you keep
using it after you were corrected.
I am not sure where you refer to me being corrected, so I will defer
till later to answer you regarding any correction if you would please
clarify.
Otherwise most of your response seems to be regarding this thread being
posted to a specific group, which I will assume is talk.origins. This
thread was started by someone else who had already established the
cross-posting, and I did not desire to leave anyone out of the
discussion. I am aware of the issue of cross-posting, and would
personally be glad to see it curtailed, however it seems that the
practice is very common on certain groups, so I expect that we will not
see it curtailed! In the meantime I would encourage you to feel free to
plonk this thread, and this poster, if it causes you undue distress.
I post primarily in alt.bible, where there is a large number of
cross-posts, from various groups! We as Christians would like to be
able to discuss biblical issues without all the cross chatter from
those who do not even believe the Bible. This all seems very bizarre
when you consider that most of these folks do not even believe in God,
but insist on argueing about His existance. And they call us kooks!
LOL
Any way, I will try to watch my crossposting if all others will try to
do the same! At least after this post!
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
I love a good kook-fight between two proud delusionals as how to best
infect others with their mental illness!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
08 Oct 2006 07:58:07 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 19:42:58 -0700, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1160016178.589098.324780@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Tom McDonald wrote:
I am not here for you to test. Respond or not, as you choose.
<snip>
I post primarily in alt.bible, where there is a large number of
cross-posts, from various groups! We as Christians would like to be
able to discuss biblical issues without all the cross chatter from
those who do not even believe the Bible. This all seems very bizarre
when you consider that most of these folks do not even believe in God,
but insist on argueing about His existance. And they call us kooks!
LOL
<snip>
I love a good kook-fight between two proud delusionals as how to best
infect others with their mental illness!
Please enjoy responsibly--with beer and popcorn. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
04 Oct 2006 05:51:11 PM |
|
|
gatekeeper wrote:
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 -
Let's review the prophecy I made on Oct. 3rd, shall we? I said:
Let's see if I can prophesy. You're going to offer something that isn't
really verifiable evidence of God, something that any fallible mortal
could claim about any god or gods, and then you're going to pull an
"Emperor's New Clothes" schtick, claiming that anybody who doesn't
believe your evidence is "spiritually blind" or otherwise lacking some
virtue that (you claim) would cause them to accept your evidence as
valid.
Ok, now let's take a look at Gatekeeper's answer, which I predicted
would be "evidence" that didn't really verify His God and that could be
claimed as evidence of any god, with the same (lack of) validity:
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!
Hey, did I call it, or did I call it? People exist. (Well, duh, of
course people exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about God.)
So that's supposed to be evidence of the Trinity, even though it could
just as easily be evidence of Ahura Mazda, or Zeus, or Thor, or The
Amazing Vegetable Mother, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Gaia or
.... (etc, etc.).
Admit it, GK: my prophecy came true *exactly*. You even knew about it
beforehand, and you still couldn't stop yourself from fulfilling it.
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!
According to the traditions of men, at least. Will you repent now that
you have seen the sign of my prophecy coming true?
m
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatekeeper" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
04 Oct 2006 06:43:59 PM |
|
|
Mark Nutter wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
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 -
Let's review the prophecy I made on Oct. 3rd, shall we? I said:
Let's see if I can prophesy. You're going to offer something that isn't
really verifiable evidence of God, something that any fallible mortal
could claim about any god or gods, and then you're going to pull an
"Emperor's New Clothes" schtick, claiming that anybody who doesn't
believe your evidence is "spiritually blind" or otherwise lacking some
virtue that (you claim) would cause them to accept your evidence as
valid.
Ok, now let's take a look at Gatekeeper's answer, which I predicted
would be "evidence" that didn't really verify His God and that could be
claimed as evidence of any god, with the same (lack of) validity:
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!
Hey, did I call it, or did I call it? People exist. (Well, duh, of
course people exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about God.)
So that's supposed to be evidence of the Trinity, even though it could
just as easily be evidence of Ahura Mazda, or Zeus, or Thor, or The
Amazing Vegetable Mother, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Gaia or
... (etc, etc.).
Admit it, GK: my prophecy came true *exactly*. You even knew about it
beforehand, and you still couldn't stop yourself from fulfilling it.
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!
According to the traditions of men, at least. Will you repent now that
you have seen the sign of my prophecy coming true?
m
Your lack of philosophical response, only shows the depth of your
philosophy. The question that FL ask me was to give evidence of a
god,or gods, and that evidence would also be evidence that the God I
believe in exists. He said nothing about proving or supporting the
evidence. By your own testimony, the evidence does support my claim,
So that's supposed to be evidence of the Trinity, even though it could
just as easily be evidence of Ahura Mazda, or Zeus, or Thor, or The
Amazing Vegetable Mother, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Gaia or
... (etc, etc.).
FL and all the rest of you had plenty of opportunity to be very
specific with what you were asking, so if there is a failure, it is on
your part, not mine.
Your self-fulfilling prophesy lacks any prophetic credentials, sorry,
it means absolutely nothing!
Now if you all want to huddle, and have another go at it, I will be
glad to entertain your questions, and hopefully you can come up with
something more enlightening!
In the meantime,
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 |
05 Oct 2006 09:59:57 AM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2006 16:43:59 -0700, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
The question that FL ask me was to give evidence of a
god,or gods,
And we are still waiting for some evidence.
Will we get it this week? This month? When?
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
04 Oct 2006 07:33:44 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2006 16:43:59 -0700, in talk.origins
"gatekeeper" <gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1160005439.537503.138040@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Mark Nutter wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
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 -
Let's review the prophecy I made on Oct. 3rd, shall we? I said:
Let's see if I can prophesy. You're going to offer something that isn't
really verifiable evidence of God, something that any fallible mortal
could claim about any god or gods, and then you're going to pull an
"Emperor's New Clothes" schtick, claiming that anybody who doesn't
believe your evidence is "spiritually blind" or otherwise lacking some
virtue that (you claim) would cause them to accept your evidence as
valid.
Ok, now let's take a look at Gatekeeper's answer, which I predicted
would be "evidence" that didn't really verify His God and that could be
claimed as evidence of any god, with the same (lack of) validity:
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!
Hey, did I call it, or did I call it? People exist. (Well, duh, of
course people exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about God.)
So that's supposed to be evidence of the Trinity, even though it could
just as easily be evidence of Ahura Mazda, or Zeus, or Thor, or The
Amazing Vegetable Mother, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Gaia or
... (etc, etc.).
Admit it, GK: my prophecy came true *exactly*. You even knew about it
beforehand, and you still couldn't stop yourself from fulfilling it.
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!
According to the traditions of men, at least. Will you repent now that
you have seen the sign of my prophecy coming true?
m
Your lack of philosophical response, only shows the depth of your
philosophy. The question that FL ask me was to give evidence of a
god,or gods, and that evidence would also be evidence that the God I
believe in exists. He said nothing about proving or supporting the
evidence. By your own testimony, the evidence does support my claim,
You don't get to redefine the word _evidence_ to fit your failure to
provide evidence. You did not provide evidence. You made a meaningless
assertion.
So that's supposed to be evidence of the Trinity, even though it could
just as easily be evidence of Ahura Mazda, or Zeus, or Thor, or The
Amazing Vegetable Mother, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Gaia or
... (etc, etc.).
FL and all the rest of you had plenty of opportunity to be very
specific with what you were asking, so if there is a failure, it is on
your part, not mine.
I knew you wouldn't deliver, but you are the one who has chosen, now,
after the fact, to try to redefine evidence from the way it is used in
science or the law or even common parlance.
Your self-fulfilling prophesy lacks any prophetic credentials, sorry,
it means absolutely nothing!
Now if you all want to huddle, and have another go at it, I will be
glad to entertain your questions, and hopefully you can come up with
something more enlightening!
Why do you think you offered any evidence? All I saw was a meaningless
assertion.
In the meantime,
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
--
"... There's glory for you."
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till
I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's
all."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
04 Oct 2006 09:10:20 PM |
|
|
gatekeeper wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
Ok, now let's take a look at Gatekeeper's answer, which I predicted
would be "evidence" that didn't really verify His God and that could be
claimed as evidence of any god, with the same (lack of) validity:
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!
Hey, did I call it, or did I call it? People exist. (Well, duh, of
course people exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about God.)
So that's supposed to be evidence of the Trinity, even though it could
just as easily be evidence of Ahura Mazda, or Zeus, or Thor, or The
Amazing Vegetable Mother, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Gaia or
... (etc, etc.).
Admit it, GK: my prophecy came true *exactly*. You even knew about it
beforehand, and you still couldn't stop yourself from fulfilling it.
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!
According to the traditions of men, at least. Will you repent now that
you have seen the sign of my prophecy coming true?
m
Your lack of philosophical response, only shows the depth of your
philosophy.
Does that mean your lack of answers tells us you have no answers?
The question that FL ask me was to give evidence of a
god,or gods, and that evidence would also be evidence that the God I
believe in exists. He said nothing about proving or supporting the
evidence. By your own testimony, the evidence does support my claim,
Evidence *is* "that which proves or supports a claim." If it needs to
be proven or supported, it's not evidence. By your own testimony, you
have not supplied us with any evidence of any god or gods.
Besides, it doesn't matter what FL said. What *you* said was that you
were giving us "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!" You failed to deliver what you promised.
You gave us "evidence" that could apply just as easily to any other god
(or even to evolution), just as I predicted you would.
So that's supposed to be evidence of the Trinity, even though it could
just as easily be evidence of Ahura Mazda, or Zeus, or Thor, or The
Amazing Vegetable Mother, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Gaia or
... (etc, etc.).
FL and all the rest of you had plenty of opportunity to be very
specific with what you were asking, so if there is a failure, it is on
your part, not mine.
There you go again, blaming other people for your own failure to
provide genuine evidence in support of your claims.
Your self-fulfilling prophesy lacks any prophetic credentials, sorry,
it means absolutely nothing!
It wasn't a self-fulfilling prophecy. You fulfilled it, by offering
"evidence" that was no more evidence for your God than it was for any
other god, just as I predicted. I was not in control of your evidence,
you were, yet you fulfilled my prophecy just the same. I think it's
safe to say there was no collusion between us? ;)
Now if you all want to huddle, and have another go at it, I will be
glad to entertain your questions, and hopefully you can come up with
something more enlightening!
Already have. You just have this idea that enlightenment is something
that can only happen on our side of the "gate."
m
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatekeeper" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
04 Oct 2006 10:11:17 PM |
|
|
Mark Nutter wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
Ok, now let's take a look at Gatekeeper's answer, which I predicted
would be "evidence" that didn't really verify His God and that could be
claimed as evidence of any god, with the same (lack of) validity:
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!
Hey, did I call it, or did I call it? People exist. (Well, duh, of
course people exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about God.)
So that's supposed to be evidence of the Trinity, even though it could
just as easily be evidence of Ahura Mazda, or Zeus, or Thor, or The
Amazing Vegetable Mother, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Gaia or
... (etc, etc.).
Admit it, GK: my prophecy came true *exactly*. You even knew about it
beforehand, and you still couldn't stop yourself from fulfilling it.
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!
According to the traditions of men, at least. Will you repent now that
you have seen the sign of my prophecy coming true?
m
Your lack of philosophical response, only shows the depth of your
philosophy.
Does that mean your lack of answers tells us you have no answers?
The question that FL ask me was to give evidence of a
god,or gods, and that evidence would also be evidence that the God I
believe in exists. He said nothing about proving or supporting the
evidence. By your own testimony, the evidence does support my claim,
Evidence *is* "that which proves or supports a claim." If it needs to
be proven or supported, it's not evidence. By your own testimony, you
have not supplied us with any evidence of any god or gods.
Besides, it doesn't matter what FL said. What *you* said was that you
were giving us "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!" You failed to deliver what you promised.
You gave us "evidence" that could apply just as easily to any other god
(or even to evolution), just as I predicted you would.
So that's supposed to be evidence of the Trinity, even though it could
just as easily be evidence of Ahura Mazda, or Zeus, or Thor, or The
Amazing Vegetable Mother, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Gaia or
... (etc, etc.).
And my evidence still stands, and supports my contention, You can
either prove or disprove the evidence, but all I had to do was provide
the evidence. I am not the prosecutor, or the defense counsel, I am
just a witness! Now if the evidence is not adequate, then you need to
seek more evidence, better evidence, specific evidence! That you are
not a very good prosecutor is not my problem!
FL and all the rest of you had plenty of opportunity to be very
specific with what you were asking, so if there is a failure, it is on
your part, not mine.
There you go again, blaming other people for your own failure to
provide genuine evidence in support of your claims.
No, I provided more than adequate evidence, if your CSI Lab is badly
run, and poorly equiped, that is your problem. If you make an improper
COD investigation, using the evidence you have been provided, that does
not mean the evidence is inadequate, but that your Lab skills are
lacking!
Your self-fulfilling prophesy lacks any prophetic credentials, sorry,
it means absolutely nothing!
It wasn't a self-fulfilling prophecy. You fulfilled it, by offering
"evidence" that was no more evidence for your God than it was for any
other god, just as I predicted. I was not in control of your evidence,
you were, yet you fulfilled my prophecy just the same. I think it's
safe to say there was no collusion between us? ;)
No collusion, but you prophesy is not second guessing the results of an
experiment where the results are forgone. Again, for being so bright,
you understand so little!
Now if you all want to huddle, and have another go at it, I will be
glad to entertain your questions, and hopefully you can come up with
something more enlightening!
Already have. You just have this idea that enlightenment is something
that can only happen on our side of the "gate."
m
Show me some enlightenment from your side of the Gate! Tell me about
your god, provide me some evidence of your god, to show me what it is
you are looking for!
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
05 Oct 2006 01:12:32 PM |
|
|
"gatekeeper" <gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> wrote in message
snip
And my evidence still stands, and supports my contention,
What evidence?
You can
either prove or disprove the evidence, but all I had to do was provide
the evidence.
Let us know when you do that.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
05 Oct 2006 10:05:14 AM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2006 20:11:17 -0700, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No, I provided more than adequate evidence
Where?
When?
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
04 Oct 2006 10:58:48 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2006 20:11:17 -0700, in talk.origins
"gatekeeper" <gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1160017877.460458.295780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Mark Nutter wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
Ok, now let's take a look at Gatekeeper's answer, which I predicted
would be "evidence" that didn't really verify His God and that could be
claimed as evidence of any god, with the same (lack of) validity:
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!
Hey, did I call it, or did I call it? People exist. (Well, duh, of
course people exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about God.)
So that's supposed to be evidence of the Trinity, even though it could
just as easily be evidence of Ahura Mazda, or Zeus, or Thor, or The
Amazing Vegetable Mother, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Gaia or
... (etc, etc.).
Admit it, GK: my prophecy came true *exactly*. You even knew about it
beforehand, and you still couldn't stop yourself from fulfilling it.
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!
According to the traditions of men, at least. Will you repent now that
you have seen the sign of my prophecy coming true?
m
Your lack of philosophical response, only shows the depth of your
philosophy.
Does that mean your lack of answers tells us you have no answers?
The question that FL ask me was to give evidence of a
god,or gods, and that evidence would also be evidence that the God I
believe in exists. He said nothing about proving or supporting the
evidence. By your own testimony, the evidence does support my claim,
Evidence *is* "that which proves or supports a claim." If it needs to
be proven or supported, it's not evidence. By your own testimony, you
have not supplied us with any evidence of any god or gods.
Besides, it doesn't matter what FL said. What *you* said was that you
were giving us "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!" You failed to deliver what you promised.
You gave us "evidence" that could apply just as easily to any other god
(or even to evolution), just as I predicted you would.
So that's supposed to be evidence of the Trinity, even though it could
just as easily be evidence of Ahura Mazda, or Zeus, or Thor, or The
Amazing Vegetable Mother, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Gaia or
... (etc, etc.).
And my evidence still stands, and supports my contention, You can
either prove or disprove the evidence, but all I had to do was provide
the evidence. I am not the prosecutor, or the defense counsel, I am
just a witness! Now if the evidence is not adequate, then you need to
seek more evidence, better evidence, specific evidence! That you are
not a very good prosecutor is not my problem!
You have offered no evidence at all. Your claims would not have been
allowed in a witness stand. So far, in court, you would have introduced
no evidence and the judge would be very unhappy that you are trying his
patience.
FL and all the rest of you had plenty of opportunity to be very
specific with what you were asking, so if there is a failure, it is on
your part, not mine.
There you go again, blaming other people for your own failure to
provide genuine evidence in support of your claims.
No, I provided more than adequate evidence, if your CSI Lab is badly
run, and poorly equiped, that is your problem. If you make an improper
COD investigation, using the evidence you have been provided, that does
not mean the evidence is inadequate, but that your Lab skills are
lacking!
You provided _no_ evidence. You made a couple of meaningless assertions
that were related to nothing. Evidence has to tie together, not jump
over inconveniently missing facts.
Your self-fulfilling prophesy lacks any prophetic credentials, sorry,
it means absolutely nothing!
It wasn't a self-fulfilling prophecy. You fulfilled it, by offering
"evidence" that was no more evidence for your God than it was for any
other god, just as I predicted. I was not in control of your evidence,
you were, yet you fulfilled my prophecy just the same. I think it's
safe to say there was no collusion between us? ;)
No collusion, but you prophesy is not second guessing the results of an
experiment where the results are forgone. Again, for being so bright,
you understand so little!
Now if you all want to huddle, and have another go at it, I will be
glad to entertain your questions, and hopefully you can come up with
something more enlightening!
Already have. You just have this idea that enlightenment is something
that can only happen on our side of the "gate."
m
Show me some enlightenment from your side of the Gate! Tell me about
your god, provide me some evidence of your god, to show me what it is
you are looking for!
There is no evidence for any gods.
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
05 Oct 2006 12:13:12 PM |
|
|
gatekeeper wrote:
And my evidence still stands, and supports my contention,
Only in the sense that it "supports" almost any contention. Though of
course it does not really support any of them. All you've given us is a
phenomenon that you attribute to the God of your traditions. That's not
evidence, that's just an unsupported assertion.
You can
either prove or disprove the evidence, but all I had to do was provide
the evidence.
And that is what you failed to do. All you did was make an unsupported
assertion.
I am not the prosecutor, or the defense counsel, I am
just a witness!
More precisely, you're a perjurer.
Now if the evidence is not adequate, then you need to
seek more evidence, better evidence, specific evidence! That you are
not a very good prosecutor is not my problem!
The problem with your evidence is not that it is inadequate. The
problem is that it's not evidence. You simply attributed the existence
of men to the God of your traditions. You could have attributed men to
Santa Claus with equal validity, especially considering that the
actual, verifiable evidence is much more consistent with men having
evolved from common ancestors with other species.
No, I provided more than adequate evidence,
How so? In what way is it adequate?
if your CSI Lab is badly
run, and poorly equiped, that is your problem. If you make an improper
COD investigation, using the evidence you have been provided, that does
not mean the evidence is inadequate, but that your Lab skills are
lacking!
There you go again, blaming others for your own lack of genuine
evidence. Why would we need to do so much work and call in a CSI lab to
try and manufacture some real evidence out of the unsupported assertion
you offered?
You're just giving us the Emperor's New Clothes again. "Oh, oh, it *is*
real evidence. There must be something wrong with you if you can't see
it." Why should we believe you when you only offer us fake evidence and
then insult us for commenting on the obvious?
It wasn't a self-fulfilling prophecy. You fulfilled it, by offering
"evidence" that was no more evidence for your God than it was for any
other god, just as I predicted. I was not in control of your evidence,
you were, yet you fulfilled my prophecy just the same. I think it's
safe to say there was no collusion between us? ;)
No collusion, but you prophesy is not second guessing the results of an
experiment where the results are forgone. Again, for being so bright,
you understand so little!
I'm not bright, I'm stupid. But I still made a prophecy, and it still
came true, no matter how bad you insult me.
Show me some enlightenment from your side of the Gate! Tell me about
your god, provide me some evidence of your god, to show me what it is
you are looking for!
I already have. If you want enlightenment, reflect on this: why does
your God not behave as though He believed in the traditions that
superstitious men preach about Him? If God rejects such traditions, who
are we to second-guess Him?
Let me know when you've been enlightened and then we can speak more
openly about my God.
m
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gatekeeper" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
05 Oct 2006 01:26:01 PM |
|
|
On 5 Oct 2006 10:13:12 -0700, Mark Nutter wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
And my evidence still stands, and supports my contention,
Only in the sense that it "supports" almost any contention. Though of
course it does not really support any of them. All you've given us is a
phenomenon that you attribute to the God of your traditions. That's not
evidence, that's just an unsupported assertion.
You can
either prove or disprove the evidence, but all I had to do was provide
the evidence.
And that is what you failed to do. All you did was make an unsupported
assertion.
I am not the prosecutor, or the defense counsel, I am
just a witness!
More precisely, you're a perjurer.
No perjury was committed, you all ask for evidence, and I gave you
that and more! Your failure to ask specific and pointed questions, may
lead to you losing your case, but that is not my fault! You will have
to answer to Him, not to me!\
Now if the evidence is not adequate, then you need to
seek more evidence, better evidence, specific evidence! That you are
not a very good prosecutor is not my problem!
The problem with your evidence is not that it is inadequate. The
problem is that it's not evidence. You simply attributed the existence
of men to the God of your traditions. You could have attributed men to
Santa Claus with equal validity, especially considering that the
actual, verifiable evidence is much more consistent with men having
evolved from common ancestors with other species.
So, show me where the attribution is wrong, not make general whinning
noises about how it is not adequate!
No, I provided more than adequate evidence,
How so? In what way is it adequate?
That is not for me to prove, you must prove that it is not adequate!
if your CSI Lab is badly
run, and poorly equiped, that is your problem. If you make an improper
COD investigation, using the evidence you have been provided, that does
not mean the evidence is inadequate, but that your Lab skills are
lacking!
There you go again, blaming others for your own lack of genuine
evidence. Why would we need to do so much work and call in a CSI lab to
try and manufacture some real evidence out of the unsupported assertion
you offered?
You are the bright boy scientist, you prove to me that it is not
adequate! I am not blaming anyone, I only presented evidence, but
since then all I have heard is a bunch of whinning from you who claim
to have all the answers!
You're just giving us the Emperor's New Clothes again. "Oh, oh, it *is*
real evidence. There must be something wrong with you if you can't see
it." Why should we believe you when you only offer us fake evidence and
then insult us for commenting on the obvious?
The evidence is not about His clothes, but that He is, and that He is
a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him! That you have not
diligently sought Him is not my problem, that is your problem! I have
given you all the evidence you need to analyze, and I am telling you
that if you diligently analyze this evidence, that you will find Him!
But you have not even taken the evidence out of the packing box. I do
not call that due diligence, apparently He does not either!
It wasn't a self-fulfilling prophecy. You fulfilled it, by offering
"evidence" that was no more evidence for your God than it was for any
other god, just as I predicted. I was not in control of your evidence,
you were, yet you fulfilled my prophecy just the same. I think it's
safe to say there was no collusion between us? ;)
No collusion, but you prophesy is not second guessing the results of an
experiment where the results are forgone. Again, for being so bright,
you understand so little!
I'm not bright, I'm stupid. But I still made a prophecy, and it still
came true, no matter how bad you insult me.
Show me some enlightenment from your side of the Gate! Tell me about
your god, provide me some evidence of your god, to show me what it is
you are looking for!
I already have. If you want enlightenment, reflect on this: why does
your God not behave as though He believed in the traditions that
superstitious men preach about Him? If God rejects such traditions, who
are we to second-guess Him?
But second guessing Him is what you are about! That superstitious men
have developed traditions that have nothing to do with God, does not
mean that God is bound by those traditions. Certainly He is not
subject to believing in those traditions, just because it would be
nice of Him! Our God is a consuming Fire, we believe in Him! If He
rejects those traditions, then we still believe in Him, for our Faith,
which was once delivered to the Saints, is not based on any of these
traditions, but on the finished work of Christ on the Cross. That you
do not find any consolation in that finished work, is the basis of
your unbelief, not the traditions of man! Unless of course you are
willing to have those traditions come between you and God, in whom you
move and have your being! That is your choice, not something I can
choose for you, or even force you to choose one way or the other! My
only responsibility is to announce,
The Eastgate is open, the King is in residence! Whomsoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
Let me know when you've been enlightened and then we can speak more
openly about my God.
m
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Gatekeeper to offer evidence of God on 10/4 Bring your questions |
05 Oct 2006 02:13:15 PM |
|
|
Gatekeeper wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 10:13:12 -0700, Mark Nutter wrote:
Mark Nutter wrote:
gatekeeper wrote:
I am not the prosecutor, or the defense counsel, I am
just a witness!
More precisely, you're a perjurer.
No perjury was committed, you all ask for evidence, and I gave you
that and more!
You pretended that an unsupported assertion was evidence when it's not.
Your failure to ask specific and pointed questions, may
lead to you losing your case, but that is not my fault! You will have
to answer to Him, not to me!
You seem to be addicted to accusing other people of failure when you're
unable to hold up your end of the stick. Do you think this fools anyone
besides yourself?
The problem with your evidence is not that it is inadequate. The
problem is that it's not evidence. You simply attributed the existence
of men to the God of your traditions. You could have attributed men to
Santa Claus with equal validity, especially considering that the
actual, verifiable evidence is much more consistent with men having
evolved from common ancestors with other species.
So, show me where the attribution is wrong, not make general whinning
noises about how it is not adequate!
And how would I go about doing that, exactly? Can you give me an
example of how you would go about showing where the attribution is
| | | | | | | |
