This thread is for proof that God exists (page 25)

OUTLAW

Outlaw paid you a compliment without even realizing it - if he is now obsessing to the extent that he is parsing forum posts to look for attack points with the help of a 'Teacher with a Masters in Linguistics' you know you're posting some pretty awesome stuff-and if the best this teacher can come up with is ad hominem comments well D- for him and A+ for your posts. I'd return Outlaw the favour by parsing his posts with experts in his field of cartoons but my kids are at school.....Qcmbr

If you read very carefully and have average reading comprehension skills..

The Teacher with a "Masters in Linguistics"..

Didn`t comment on coftys Views of Evolution or Whether God Exists or Not..

He commented on coftys " Abuse of the English Language"...And..

Being Pompous and Arrogant while he was Doing it..

If you think coftys "Short Comings" are Awesome.....I`m good with that..
.....................................

Considering your Reading Comprehension Skills..

I hope the Animation conveys My Appreciation for Your Post..

Scare quotes, shudder quotes,or sneer quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to signal that a term is being used in a non-standard, ironic, or otherwise special sense.They may be used to imply that a particular expression is not necessarily how the author would have worded a concept.Scare quotes may serve a function similar to verbally preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called",they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are mis-used, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes.

"Short Comings"

Suggest signing up for some tuition with a linguistics teacher..

cofty

Outlaw I have asked you more times than I can count to stop the personal attacks. You have no respect for other posters who have to suffer your tantrums and efforts to derail interesting conversations.

You have plumbed new depths by inventing an academic friend who has the time to find occasional errors in my grammar. It allows you to put insults in the third person and get away with it. Attacking my "abuse of the English language" is bizarre, childish and undeserved.

I have also asked you stop your ad hominem attacks by PM a number of times. It only seems to make matters worse.

Why would someone need to go to that thread and tell them they're stupid? - Dubstepped

I NEVER tell anybody they are stupid or unintelligent for holding religious beliefs. I never insult people.

it is more or less people that already have their mind up going at one another and not listening to the other.

I always listen to opposing evidence. Sometimes people contact me to say they have been helped by evidence presented in discussions. I think what you mean is that you have made your mind up and prefer not to listen.

Do you get off on belittling others and making trying to make them feel bad about their ignorance?

I NEVER belittle others. Sharing evidence is not intended to make people feel bad. The only time I even get sarcastic is when people not only boast about wilful ignorance but ridicule those who care about truth.

I've seen you personally post several times that you could prove the nonexistence of the Christian God. I asked you to do so and you never did.

Actually I did...

Four posts from the bottom here..

and here...

OUTLAW

Firstly I was aware of Cofty and Outlaws differences of opinion on past threads, so I gave Outlaw a thumbs up for what I presumed was his compliment to Coftys critical thinking skills.....The Rebel

It wasn`t so much a Compliment as an Observation,although I do admire Critical Thinking..

.

cofty wrote this to Talesin

Search my 17,000 posts I bet you will not find a single instance of me using the words "Socratic method".....cofty

It was obvious he didn`t understand the meaning of "Socratic Method"..

cofty does preach "Critical Thinking"..

He definitely took offense to me pointing out..

The Socratic Method "Critical Thinking" is exactly what he Preaches..LOL!!..

Qcmbr

I think it is quite easy to examine evidences for god candidates but its really hard to pin down believers willing to posit testable evidence. Every believer -that suggests a god - so far in all discussions I've seen or been part of - has either failed to provide testable evidence or has failed to define their candidate being.

To examine a god one need only look at an attributed phenomenon (Zeus claims to have sired children who go on to have superhuman powers - to this day no humans have been found exhibiting aforementioned powers , Jehovah claims to have caused a global flood and extinction event during human history - no evidence of this event can be found on the earth's surface so again this god is not as claimed and so on.)

I would be willing to have anyone suggest a God, define that God and show what phenomenon they are responsible for (and why) and see if there are valid plausible , objective rebuttals that disprove that being.

The Rebel

Thank you for quoting me Outlaw, but not to derail the Cofty, Outlaw despute, I did feel my question on my last post about " proof of Gods existence" warranted a reply....if I do get a reply to my question I feel it's more on topic.

Its a shame that sincere questions get lost in the shuffle of a thread, but then again I may have assumed my question was an important question, now what was my question again, as I've forgotten?

Oh Yes, I remember " Could I therefore assume that if we all define God as all persuasive and existing wisdom, that God is the indestructible nature of reality and life, then could we not agree there is scope for accepting God?

Ok my question may be stupid, in fact it probably is stupid, but nevertheless I feel it's a valid question, based on my early studies of trying to find an answer to the O.P " proof of Gods existence" from a Buddhist perspective.

The Rebel:- who would be the envy of all his friends if he could proove God either exists or doesn't exist :-)

OUTLAW

You have plumbed new depths by inventing an academic friend who has the time to find occasional errors in my grammar. It allows you to put insults in the third person and get away with it. Attacking my "abuse of the English language" is bizarre, childish and undeserved......cofty

I find your comment both entertaining and amusing..

You expect everyone to be as dishonest as you are..LOL!!..

I have also asked you stop your ad hominem attacks by PM a number of times. It only seems to make matters worse....cofty

I don`t Participate in PM`s with people I consider Dishonest..

If you have something to say to me,you`ll have to do it on the Public Forum..

cofty

Outlaw - What will it take to stop you chasing me around the forum disrupting threads?

Does it even cross your mind how disrespectful it is to other posters; especially the person who started the thread?

cofty

Could I therefore assume that if we all define God as all persuasive and existing wisdom, that God is the indestructible nature of reality and life, then could we not agree there is scope for accepting God? - The Rebel

We could but would it not be easier just to dispense with the word god?

And, you would have to say a lot more to define "all persuasive and existing wisdom" and "indestructible nature of reality and life".

Both these phrases seem to lack substance.

Qcmbr

could I therefore assume that if we all define God as all persuasive and existing wisdom, that God is the indestructible nature of reality and life, then could we not agree there is scope for accepting God?

Why redefine wisdom when it already exists? Wisdom only exists because of minds - rocks aren't wise. Nature is not indestructible (we are mortal) and so to define God as the internal wisdom of temporary beings doesn't feel logical. The idea of the Christian God in the West is that it is an external being not requiring any other identity but who condescends to enter the heart of humans and interact with them. Religion certainly evokes strong emotions however, as a non believer I'm still emotional and I don't feel that an external entity has forced its way into my brain and is altering its perception by triggering chemical reactions. I do accept that for a believer their perception of God is real, their brain is actually presenting their God to them. I think a personal conclusion I have is that gods are always a reflection of the mind that conceived them.

I'm not too well-read on eastern thought (I struggle to conceptualise the idea of the uncarved block for example as having any direct application to reality). The problem it has is with definitions in my mind (the more you define it the further you are from the truth sort of concept) so to equate God with wisdom or some part of thinking is to immediately start to move from Eastern thinking and you end up describing everything as God as there are no hard edges , merely interactions and intentions between everything.

This thread is for proof that God exists

Share this