| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"rogue" |
| Date: |
09 Oct 2007 08:58:38 AM |
| Object: |
The concept of an "invisible friend argument" |
Just trying to clarify something.
I like to use the phrase "invisible friend argument" when people are
arguing something that is not provable, that is simply two or more
people trying to claim their unprovable interpretation is better than
the other person's.
An example is:
Who would win a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse?
People who argue for either side cannot prove their case, they can
only make what they hope are logical arguments to try to sway the
other person. It can't be proven either way, since there is no Mighty
Mouse, there is no Superman.
Is there anyone reading this who has a problem with this concept?
That people argue certain issues in the bible that aren't provable but
they offer their opinions in hopes of swaying someone without
evidence, because evidence doesn't exist?
Who does not understand the concept and how can I explain it so that
you might understand it better?
Thanks,
.
|
|
| User: "Jack Baun" |
|
| Title: Re: The concept of an "invisible friend argument" |
10 Oct 2007 09:19:23 AM |
|
|
"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191938318.232900.311620@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Just trying to clarify something.
I like to use the phrase "invisible friend argument" when people are
arguing something that is not provable, that is simply two or more
people trying to claim their unprovable interpretation is better than
the other person's.
An example is:
Who would win a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse?
People who argue for either side cannot prove their case, they can
only make what they hope are logical arguments to try to sway the
other person. It can't be proven either way, since there is no Mighty
Mouse, there is no Superman.
Is there anyone reading this who has a problem with this concept?
That people argue certain issues in the bible that aren't provable but
they offer their opinions in hopes of swaying someone without
evidence, because evidence doesn't exist?
Who does not understand the concept and how can I explain it so that
you might understand it better?
Thanks,
Yes I heard he died most hollywood people wouldnt argue the bible I guess
but the mouse lives on.an winter is comming
Finding new things in the bible is great to show people so they at least
notice it even if you cant prove it, Love, Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: The concept of an "invisible friend argument" |
10 Oct 2007 03:07:40 PM |
|
|
Jack Baun wrote:
"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191938318.232900.311620@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Just trying to clarify something.
I like to use the phrase "invisible friend argument" when people are
arguing something that is not provable, that is simply two or more
people trying to claim their unprovable interpretation is better than
the other person's.
An example is:
Who would win a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse?
People who argue for either side cannot prove their case, they can
only make what they hope are logical arguments to try to sway the
other person. It can't be proven either way, since there is no Mighty
Mouse, there is no Superman.
Is there anyone reading this who has a problem with this concept?
That people argue certain issues in the bible that aren't provable but
they offer their opinions in hopes of swaying someone without
evidence, because evidence doesn't exist?
Who does not understand the concept and how can I explain it so that
you might understand it better?
Thanks,
Yes I heard he died most hollywood people wouldnt argue the bible I guess
but the mouse lives on.an winter is comming
Finding new things in the bible is great to show people so they at least
notice it even if you cant prove it, Love, Jack
You seem to have exceeded the maximum I.Q. requirement for Christians in
free.christians. Please report yourself to local law enforcement
immediately.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Baun" |
|
| Title: Re: The concept of an "invisible friend argument" |
12 Oct 2007 01:56:53 AM |
|
|
"Grinder" <grinder@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message
news:giaPi.126999$Xa3.75298@attbi_s22...
Jack Baun wrote:
"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191938318.232900.311620@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Just trying to clarify something.
I like to use the phrase "invisible friend argument" when people are
arguing something that is not provable, that is simply two or more
people trying to claim their unprovable interpretation is better than
the other person's.
An example is:
Who would win a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse?
People who argue for either side cannot prove their case, they can
only make what they hope are logical arguments to try to sway the
other person. It can't be proven either way, since there is no Mighty
Mouse, there is no Superman.
Is there anyone reading this who has a problem with this concept?
That people argue certain issues in the bible that aren't provable but
they offer their opinions in hopes of swaying someone without
evidence, because evidence doesn't exist?
Who does not understand the concept and how can I explain it so that
you might understand it better?
Thanks,
Yes I heard he died most hollywood people wouldnt argue the bible I
guess but the mouse lives on.an winter is comming
Finding new things in the bible is great to show people so they at least
notice it even if you cant prove it, Love, Jack
You seem to have exceeded the maximum I.Q. requirement for Christians in
free.christians. Please report yourself to local law enforcement
immediately.
The Law is too bizzy chasing 38 mile speeders and checking seat belts here
to worry bout us High q thumpers....jb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The concept of an "invisible friend argument" |
10 Oct 2007 10:38:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:07:40 GMT, Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.com>
wrote:
Jack Baun wrote:
"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191938318.232900.311620@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Just trying to clarify something.
I like to use the phrase "invisible friend argument" when people are
arguing something that is not provable, that is simply two or more
people trying to claim their unprovable interpretation is better than
the other person's.
An example is:
Who would win a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse?
People who argue for either side cannot prove their case, they can
only make what they hope are logical arguments to try to sway the
other person. It can't be proven either way, since there is no Mighty
Mouse, there is no Superman.
Is there anyone reading this who has a problem with this concept?
That people argue certain issues in the bible that aren't provable but
they offer their opinions in hopes of swaying someone without
evidence, because evidence doesn't exist?
Who does not understand the concept and how can I explain it so that
you might understand it better?
Thanks,
Yes I heard he died most hollywood people wouldnt argue the bible I guess
but the mouse lives on.an winter is comming
Finding new things in the bible is great to show people so they at least
notice it even if you cant prove it, Love, Jack
You seem to have exceeded the maximum I.Q. requirement for Christians in
free.christians. Please report yourself to local law enforcement
immediately.
A funny from Grinder! I've not seen that before. Glenn may be right.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The concept of an "invisible friend argument" |
10 Oct 2007 09:12:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:58:38 -0700, rogue <rogue719@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Just trying to clarify something.
I like to use the phrase "invisible friend argument" when people are
arguing something that is not provable, that is simply two or more
people trying to claim their unprovable interpretation is better than
the other person's.
An example is:
Who would win a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse?
People who argue for either side cannot prove their case, they can
only make what they hope are logical arguments to try to sway the
other person. It can't be proven either way, since there is no Mighty
Mouse, there is no Superman.
Is there anyone reading this who has a problem with this concept?
That people argue certain issues in the bible that aren't provable but
they offer their opinions in hopes of swaying someone without
evidence, because evidence doesn't exist?
Who does not understand the concept and how can I explain it so that
you might understand it better?
Thanks,
Jerry,
This skeptic crap of yours is getting out of hand. I have seen Mighty
Mouse and Superman on TV. They are not invisible because I saw them.
Millions of other people have seen them, too.
You've been smoking too much afgan carpet fibers. Hey, can you fly on
those like the ones in India? Or, isn't just a mental high?
Mighty Mouse would win because he could get a piece of kryptonite and
stab Superman when there was no one around to pull it out of him. Boy,
was that easy. You are not usually so easy to beat.
God is not an invisible friend like Mighty Mouse or Superman that are
not invisible.
God is invisible spirit which cannot be known directly via the five
senses; only through that which exists which He caused to be that can
be registered via the senses.
A man will point to a stop sign on a farm road and say; the county
sign crew was here and put up that sign. The skeptic will argue that
a state sign crew or a city sign crew put up the sign. Arrogance and
divisiveness are the symptoms of the disease.
A man will point to a tree and say God caused trees to exist. The
skeptic will say no man has seen God plant a tree therefore God did
not cause the tree to be. The skeptics only proofs that God did not
cause the tree to be are the words of others who said God did not
cause the tree to be and the fact that the skeptic did not see God
cause the tree to be. Yet that same skeptic will call men liars
because he knows that men lie and knows that he also lies. The
skeptic cannot believe because he trusts no man including himself.
The skeptic has a to have facts which are not truth but which are
facts. Facts are based on circumstances and as circumstances change
facts change while truth does not change. Because truth does not
change; the skeptic loses balance and security when presented with
truth. The skeptic cannot prove that God exists and he cannot prove
that God does not exist using his version of facts. Therefore, he
chooses not to believe because he has been programmed not to believe.
It is a verifiable fact that the Sun was in the sky yesterday and
today. Tomorrow it might be in the sky. The true skeptic would not
believe that the sun will be in the sky tomorrow because that is how
he has been trained to think.
I trained my dogs to come to me by yelling "Here, Kitty Kitty" and
giving them a treat. Both are named Kitty but they don't come because
they recognize their name but because "Here, Kitty Kitty" means a
treat.
That's how you get over the the mental illness called skepticism which
is nothing more than a mind that has become defective via bad
programming. It took years for the programmers to install the trojans
and virus's that corrupted the skeptics mind and made his operating
system defective. There is no need to wipe the mind. Basic
programming can be used to replace the bad data with good data using a
basic program called truth. IF Sun was in sky yesterday, and IF sun
was in sky today THEN sun will be in sky tommorrow OR you can kiss
your butt goodby. This form of motivation often helps people with
mental illnesses gain mental stability. IF you don't attend group,
THEN you don't get access to TV.
So, you see Jerry, getting over skepticism is not really that big of
deal. I am working on a ten step program to help recovering skeptics.
I've been testing it on you and it is working so far. A while back
you were a Chistian. A year ago you were an atheist, a few months ago
you were an agnostic and now you are a skeptic. It won't be long
until you are healed of that and become a full time disciple of the
Lord Jesus Christ introducing men and women to the invisble God. The
circle will not be broken. What goes around comes around.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
.
|
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: The concept of an "invisible friend argument" |
10 Oct 2007 09:55:52 PM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 6:12 am, Bible Bob <bible...@saintly.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:58:38 -0700, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Just trying to clarify something.
I like to use the phrase "invisible friend argument" when people are
arguing something that is not provable, that is simply two or more
people trying to claim their unprovable interpretation is better than
the other person's.
An example is:
Who would win a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse?
People who argue for either side cannot prove their case, they can
only make what they hope are logical arguments to try to sway the
other person. It can't be proven either way, since there is no Mighty
Mouse, there is no Superman.
Is there anyone reading this who has a problem with this concept?
That people argue certain issues in the bible that aren't provable but
they offer their opinions in hopes of swaying someone without
evidence, because evidence doesn't exist?
Who does not understand the concept and how can I explain it so that
you might understand it better?
Thanks,
Jerry,
This skeptic crap of yours is getting out of hand. I have seen Mighty
Mouse and Superman on TV. They are not invisible because I saw them.
Millions of other people have seen them, too.
You've been smoking too much afgan carpet fibers. Hey, can you fly on
those like the ones in India? Or, isn't just a mental high?
Mighty Mouse would win because he could get a piece of kryptonite and
stab Superman when there was no one around to pull it out of him. Boy,
was that easy. You are not usually so easy to beat.
God is not an invisible friend like Mighty Mouse or Superman that are
not invisible.
God is invisible spirit which cannot be known directly via the five
senses; only through that which exists which He caused to be that can
be registered via the senses.
A man will point to a stop sign on a farm road and say; the county
sign crew was here and put up that sign. The skeptic will argue that
a state sign crew or a city sign crew put up the sign. Arrogance and
divisiveness are the symptoms of the disease.
A man will point to a tree and say God caused trees to exist. The
skeptic will say no man has seen God plant a tree therefore God did
not cause the tree to be. The skeptics only proofs that God did not
cause the tree to be are the words of others who said God did not
cause the tree to be and the fact that the skeptic did not see God
cause the tree to be. Yet that same skeptic will call men liars
because he knows that men lie and knows that he also lies. The
skeptic cannot believe because he trusts no man including himself.
The skeptic has a to have facts which are not truth but which are
facts. Facts are based on circumstances and as circumstances change
facts change while truth does not change. Because truth does not
change; the skeptic loses balance and security when presented with
truth. The skeptic cannot prove that God exists and he cannot prove
that God does not exist using his version of facts. Therefore, he
chooses not to believe because he has been programmed not to believe.
It is a verifiable fact that the Sun was in the sky yesterday and
today. Tomorrow it might be in the sky. The true skeptic would not
believe that the sun will be in the sky tomorrow because that is how
he has been trained to think.
I trained my dogs to come to me by yelling "Here, Kitty Kitty" and
giving them a treat. Both are named Kitty but they don't come because
they recognize their name but because "Here, Kitty Kitty" means a
treat.
That's how you get over the the mental illness called skepticism which
is nothing more than a mind that has become defective via bad
programming. It took years for the programmers to install the trojans
and virus's that corrupted the skeptics mind and made his operating
system defective. There is no need to wipe the mind. Basic
programming can be used to replace the bad data with good data using a
basic program called truth. IF Sun was in sky yesterday, and IF sun
was in sky today THEN sun will be in sky tommorrow OR you can kiss
your butt goodby. This form of motivation often helps people with
mental illnesses gain mental stability. IF you don't attend group,
THEN you don't get access to TV.
So, you see Jerry, getting over skepticism is not really that big of
deal. I am working on a ten step program to help recovering skeptics.
I've been testing it on you and it is working so far. A while back
you were a Chistian. A year ago you were an atheist, a few months ago
you were an agnostic and now you are a skeptic. It won't be long
until you are healed of that and become a full time disciple of the
Lord Jesus Christ introducing men and women to the invisble God. The
circle will not be broken. What goes around comes around.
BBhttp://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
Hi Bob,
Yes, it's true, those little Afghan rugs really CAN fly, but they only
fly about 10 mph and not very high, not like your cartoons. Plus,
they are very easy targets to shoot at. I may bring one home just to
chase the dogs around the yard if I can get it past customs. ;-)
And yes, God is EXACTLY like Mighty Mouse and Superman. You can only
see them in the comics or in movies. Otherwise you never see them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The concept of an "invisible friend argument" |
10 Oct 2007 10:51:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:55:52 -0700, rogue <rogue719@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 11, 6:12 am, Bible Bob <bible...@saintly.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:58:38 -0700, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Just trying to clarify something.
I like to use the phrase "invisible friend argument" when people are
arguing something that is not provable, that is simply two or more
people trying to claim their unprovable interpretation is better than
the other person's.
An example is:
Who would win a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse?
People who argue for either side cannot prove their case, they can
only make what they hope are logical arguments to try to sway the
other person. It can't be proven either way, since there is no Mighty
Mouse, there is no Superman.
Is there anyone reading this who has a problem with this concept?
That people argue certain issues in the bible that aren't provable but
they offer their opinions in hopes of swaying someone without
evidence, because evidence doesn't exist?
Who does not understand the concept and how can I explain it so that
you might understand it better?
Thanks,
Jerry,
This skeptic crap of yours is getting out of hand. I have seen Mighty
Mouse and Superman on TV. They are not invisible because I saw them.
Millions of other people have seen them, too.
You've been smoking too much afgan carpet fibers. Hey, can you fly on
those like the ones in India? Or, isn't just a mental high?
Mighty Mouse would win because he could get a piece of kryptonite and
stab Superman when there was no one around to pull it out of him. Boy,
was that easy. You are not usually so easy to beat.
God is not an invisible friend like Mighty Mouse or Superman that are
not invisible.
God is invisible spirit which cannot be known directly via the five
senses; only through that which exists which He caused to be that can
be registered via the senses.
A man will point to a stop sign on a farm road and say; the county
sign crew was here and put up that sign. The skeptic will argue that
a state sign crew or a city sign crew put up the sign. Arrogance and
divisiveness are the symptoms of the disease.
A man will point to a tree and say God caused trees to exist. The
skeptic will say no man has seen God plant a tree therefore God did
not cause the tree to be. The skeptics only proofs that God did not
cause the tree to be are the words of others who said God did not
cause the tree to be and the fact that the skeptic did not see God
cause the tree to be. Yet that same skeptic will call men liars
because he knows that men lie and knows that he also lies. The
skeptic cannot believe because he trusts no man including himself.
The skeptic has a to have facts which are not truth but which are
facts. Facts are based on circumstances and as circumstances change
facts change while truth does not change. Because truth does not
change; the skeptic loses balance and security when presented with
truth. The skeptic cannot prove that God exists and he cannot prove
that God does not exist using his version of facts. Therefore, he
chooses not to believe because he has been programmed not to believe.
It is a verifiable fact that the Sun was in the sky yesterday and
today. Tomorrow it might be in the sky. The true skeptic would not
believe that the sun will be in the sky tomorrow because that is how
he has been trained to think.
I trained my dogs to come to me by yelling "Here, Kitty Kitty" and
giving them a treat. Both are named Kitty but they don't come because
they recognize their name but because "Here, Kitty Kitty" means a
treat.
That's how you get over the the mental illness called skepticism which
is nothing more than a mind that has become defective via bad
programming. It took years for the programmers to install the trojans
and virus's that corrupted the skeptics mind and made his operating
system defective. There is no need to wipe the mind. Basic
programming can be used to replace the bad data with good data using a
basic program called truth. IF Sun was in sky yesterday, and IF sun
was in sky today THEN sun will be in sky tommorrow OR you can kiss
your butt goodby. This form of motivation often helps people with
mental illnesses gain mental stability. IF you don't attend group,
THEN you don't get access to TV.
So, you see Jerry, getting over skepticism is not really that big of
deal. I am working on a ten step program to help recovering skeptics.
I've been testing it on you and it is working so far. A while back
you were a Chistian. A year ago you were an atheist, a few months ago
you were an agnostic and now you are a skeptic. It won't be long
until you are healed of that and become a full time disciple of the
Lord Jesus Christ introducing men and women to the invisble God. The
circle will not be broken. What goes around comes around.
BBhttp://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
Hi Bob,
Yes, it's true, those little Afghan rugs really CAN fly, but they only
fly about 10 mph and not very high, not like your cartoons. Plus,
they are very easy targets to shoot at. I may bring one home just to
chase the dogs around the yard if I can get it past customs. ;-)
And yes, God is EXACTLY like Mighty Mouse and Superman. You can only
see them in the comics or in movies. Otherwise you never see them.
Jerry,
Kewl!!! I could use one of those to chase down my dogs when they jump
the fence.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|