Ai ai ai que pendajo. That ain't no Spanish ese.
The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
Ai ai ai que pendajo. That ain't no Spanish ese.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
This is a complete lie, you shit.
I used to be interested in your Proof of God argument, but now I just think you're a sad old man, getting kicks by wasting people's time on the internet.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Yeah? Why on earth are you lying about this again Phil?
This is yet another thing that you can be proved wrong on just by reading your own thread. It's not exactly making you appear very credible is it now?
I'm sure you read the last page and are quite aware of this though. I think maybe you actually believe that if you write it it is true.
Can we assume this is also what you are basing your extremely flawed 'rational proof of gods existence' on as well, no?
Look: do you have any interest in this subject or not?
If so, discuss it. If not, leave the thread to those who want to discuss it.
Either way, we won't have a problem.
But if you come on here to take the piss, I'll take the piss back.
As you well know.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you've made the best part of 650 posts on this thread and we're no nearer your proof of god than we were at the beginning. you've also had three years you can't have expected to hone your so-called proof, but you refuse to post up anything except the most cack-handed wank it's been my misfortune to see. so: either post the fucking proof up so people can discuss it, or prove yourself a fraud. which is it to be?
Do you agree with what I've argued so far?
If so, and if no-one else objects, we will move on.
If not, state your objections clearly so that I can demolish them.
Which is it to be?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Why not?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
what happened before bartering? if i'm understanding you correctly, you're basing your so-called argument on the notion of value. now, according to the philosophy of religion god is eternal. and you can't have an eternal god if your plot rests on the notion of value which certainly isn't something innate in people.
At last.
Now we are getting somewhere.
As with all the serious objections, I will respond in full tomorrow.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
no, you'll fucking respond today. it should be easy enough if you've actually got a proof of god - which i doubt.
No, you will learn some manners or I won't respond at all.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
in which case we'll know you for the fraud you are
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Stop trying to bait me, you nutjob
Wasn't this just a little bit early in the morning to be this angry at someone?
Good grief, phil's like Eamonn fucking gimp boy Holmes in arousing people's ire first thing in the morning...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
And that's not all.
I may be mistaken, but I have a hunch that Stella really isn't all that angry.
Pickman's on the other hand, is hopping mad.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i'd rather be hopping mad than barking mad like you
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
newme
Giant in Pastyland now
Well, I cant be arsed with it anymore. Wouldnt take long to just come out with the complete argument and have it be viewed, but it seems this is going to be drawn out and out and out at every stage til its been another year and we're still stuck on the same first step.
You cant and wont get 100% agreement, and it isnt required to be able to state a theory.
You cant and wont get 100% agreement, and it isnt required to be able to state a theory.
Well it doesn't exactly help matters to make posts for the sole purpose of whinging and moaning about how slowly things are moving.
I have always been crystal clear about the way this thread will progress.
In future I suggest that people confine themselves to what is relevant to our purpose. Serial deviators from this rule will be asked to absent themselves.
Do I make myself clear?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
what i want to know is how many more years it will take before you reveal the truth, that you can no more prove the existence of god than you can shit a gutenberg bible
editor
hiraethified
He did not report any posts so I suggest you apologise to him.
However, I'm more than a little intrigued by someone accessing the boards yesterday from an identical and unique IP address to you. Anything to say before action is taken?
newme
Giant in Pastyland now
It doesnt exactly help matters when you make posts for the sole purpose of prolonging this thread. Its been years, thats plenty of waiting time, theres no reason not to respond to points raised as they are raised, you are simply stalling for no good reason. Tomorrow points are raised, they are argued with again, you then pointlessly wait another day and so on forever.
The only thing that is crystal clear is that this thread, isnt progressing in the slightest and you are quite unwilling to help the process along in any way shape or form and will continually ignore any relevant points or criticisms and ask people to leave.
From now on I suggest you actually post something of some use to the points you are trying to prove or you will be asked to absent yourself.
Do I make myself clear?
You've got a crystal ball in there aincha?
Cheers all, see you in a couple of weeks, when I will fully and completely deal with all points that have been raised in the interim.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Ok.
I posted a couple of serious responses, but they seem to have been lost in all this other stuff.
newme
Giant in Pastyland now
Any chance you could use this time to just write the whole thing up and post it in its entireity when ur ban runs out.
Ok.
I posted a couple of serious responses, but they seem to have been lost in all this other stuff.
I know JC2, I will get back to you, and everyone else too.
Fuck no. Think I'm loco?
OK officer, slap on the bracelets.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
It's very odd how you have quite quickly got your knickers in a twist over me. You launched yourself into writing vile things about my mother after I pointed out that you mentioned Kant in your first post after you said you had never mentioned him at all. A very small point I think.
I asked why, but all I ever got was abuse. Is that really what you call taking the piss Phil? It seems to me that you react rather strongly to anyone suggesting you are wrong. . . And admitting you are wrong or have lied? . . Well that just seems completely beyond you.
Can I assume this is also the reason you can't bring yourself to actually post up your reasoning that there is rational proof for gods existence?
The fact that you can't get anyone to agree to your very first point after three years would suggest that maybe you have got it all wrong again, no?
editor
hiraethified
He's on a two week ban as a result of the above.
- Status
Similar threads
