EVIDENCE OF GOD

February 6, 2008

On 5 Feb., 14:20, "rjbjr" <rjburn...@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

>

> news:tKNpj.66207$Mu4.41907@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

>

> > God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of the

> > world is proof of God.

>

> > There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO OJECTIVE

> > VERIFIABLE

February 6, 2008

On 6 Feb., 00:07, "Semper Lib

February 6, 2008

On 6 Feb., 05:03, "Semper Lib

February 6, 2008

On 6 Feb., 05:27, "Semper Lib

February 6, 2008

"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> said :

>> Pardon me butting in - but solipsism is an interesting question,

>> especially asked in one of Bill's threads.

>

> Solipsism is a dead end.

But that alone doesn't rule it out.

>> Given that my consciousness is the only one I can know for certain

>> actually exists, solipsism would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.

>

> Then who are you talking to?

Read again. You'll see that I said:

"I don't adhere to the strict standards demanded by some here, and so,

without any 'verifiable, objective evidence', and based solely on my gut

feeling, I accept that others experience consciousness in their own way,

just as I do in mine."

The point remains that that is an assumption based on reasoning alone -

it cannot be verified with objective evidence.

> Well, if you don't have a grip on reality then, yes, there

> is no evidence that works for you.

What you call 'reality' is simply your own assumption, as my reality is

mine. They may be the same. But unless you can provide objective,

verifiable evidence for it as a universal reality, then, essentially,

you cling to a belief and call it undeniable fact.

> Gut feeling? You mean it is not repeated consistent

> observations?

It is indeed. But as I said, if I assume that my perceptions might be

flawed in some fundamental way, what forces the observations I make to be

accurate?

> What is your gut feeling about fire? Is it hot?

It certainly appears to be, yes - and I certainly feel pain when I burn

myself. But again, that is merely my perception. I think I feel pain.

It may be that I do - but there is no objective way for me to test it,

since everything I experience is based on the perceptions that may be

flawed, and the consciousness that may or may not be real. Every

scientific or logical tool I might use to assess the world around me is

part of the world around me. I can use those tools to establish how the

world I see around me might work - but ultimately I cannot use them to

establish that that world as a whole is truly real.

Your points here are all perfectly reasonable, as far as they go - but

they all depend on a pre-established assumption that what you see is

what's actually there.

>> This is one of the big problems that faces those who live their lives

>> crowing about 'verifiable, objective evidence'. They don't grasp

>> that even supposedly objective evidence can only serve as such within

>> a certain frame of reference.

>

> How would you know? You don't know what

> reality is. You only have your unreliable perceptions.

True enough.

> I hope you don't have a driver's license. I'd hate to think

> what would happen when you don't trust your perception

> of a red light.

Very clever, that.

I have a full, clean driving licence, and quite a number of years spent

driving in accordance with traffic regulations. I cannot say whether

those traffic regulations are truly 'real', because I do not know whether

the world around me is real, or whether I myself am real. However, I

cannot do otherwise than act in accordance with my perceptions, flawed

though they may be.

We have already discussed the fact that I perceive fire to be hot.

>> the fundamental questions of reality - like solipsism - cannot be

>> supported or denied through science.

>

> What is real that can't be supported by science?

What is real?

February 6, 2008

"Semper Lib

February 6, 2008

"Midwinter" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:h4adnWmYRLTqLDTaRVnyhgA@bt.com...

> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> said :

>

>>> Pardon me butting in - but solipsism is an interesting question,

>>> especially asked in one of Bill's threads.

>>

>> Solipsism is a dead end.

>

> But that alone doesn't rule it out.

>

>>> Given that my consciousness is the only one I can know for certain

>>> actually exists, solipsism would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.

>>

>> Then who are you talking to?

>

> Read again. You'll see that I said:

>

> "I don't adhere to the strict standards demanded by some here, and so,

> without any 'verifiable, objective evidence', and based solely on my gut

> feeling, I accept that others experience consciousness in their own way,

> just as I do in mine."

Dealing with the 'real world' requires the the use of real world facts - not

your wild emagination. Get your head out of your imaginary Gods ass and

deal with the real world.

> The point remains that that is an assumption based on reasoning alone -

> it cannot be verified with objective evidence.

>

>> Well, if you don't have a grip on reality then, yes, there

>> is no evidence that works for you.

>

> What you call 'reality' is simply your own assumption, as my reality is

> mine. They may be the same. But unless you can provide objective,

> verifiable evidence for it as a universal reality, then, essentially,

> you cling to a belief and call it undeniable fact.

>

>> Gut feeling? You mean it is not repeated consistent

>> observations?

>

> It is indeed. But as I said, if I assume that my perceptions might be

> flawed in some fundamental way, what forces the observations I make to be

> accurate?

>

>> What is your gut feeling about fire? Is it hot?

>

> It certainly appears to be, yes - and I certainly feel pain when I burn

> myself. But again, that is merely my perception. I think I feel pain.

> It may be that I do - but there is no objective way for me to test it,

> since everything I experience is based on the perceptions that may be

> flawed, and the consciousness that may or may not be real. Every

> scientific or logical tool I might use to assess the world around me is

> part of the world around me. I can use those tools to establish how the

> world I see around me might work - but ultimately I cannot use them to

> establish that that world as a whole is truly real.

>

> Your points here are all perfectly reasonable, as far as they go - but

> they all depend on a pre-established assumption that what you see is

> what's actually there.

>

>>> This is one of the big problems that faces those who live their lives

>>> crowing about 'verifiable, objective evidence'. They don't grasp

>>> that even supposedly objective evidence can only serve as such within

>>> a certain frame of reference.

>>

>> How would you know? You don't know what

>> reality is. You only have your unreliable perceptions.

>

> True enough.

>

>> I hope you don't have a driver's license. I'd hate to think

>> what would happen when you don't trust your perception

>> of a red light.

>

> Very clever, that.

>

> I have a full, clean driving licence, and quite a number of years spent

> driving in accordance with traffic regulations. I cannot say whether

> those traffic regulations are truly 'real', because I do not know whether

> the world around me is real, or whether I myself am real. However, I

> cannot do otherwise than act in accordance with my perceptions, flawed

> though they may be.

>

> We have already discussed the fact that I perceive fire to be hot.

>

>>> the fundamental questions of reality - like solipsism - cannot be

>>> supported or denied through science.

>>

>> What is real that can't be supported by science?

>

> What is real?

February 6, 2008

"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message

news:e7613fa0-6f82-4ed8-870f-eaaa7cc0523e@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 5, 1:16 am, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:

> Michael wrote:

> > On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:25:26 -0500, Bill M wrote:

>

> > > I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence

> > > that

> > > their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.

>

> > > Who will accept the challenge???

>

> > I challenge you to give me a pure gold coin made of silver. I know that

> > you cannot do it, because the definition of pure gold coin excludes

> > making

> > it from silver.

>

> > Likewise, the definition of God, or any that I have encountered,

> > preclude

> > "objective, verifiable evidence".

>

> > In fact, you cannot even produce objective, verifiable evidence that G.

> > Bush is the President of the United States. Oh, you can produce

> > newspaper

> > reports, you might even produce the man himself should it happen that he

> > is at your beck and call. But how will I know this man is indeed the

> > president? I cannot. A two million man army at his command is

> > persuasive, but of course, he would have to present all two million of

> > them to me to REALLY convince me.

>

> > Suppose the FBI comes calling and show you their identification. How can

> > you prove it is genuine FBI identification? You cannot; at best you can

> > see that it resembles the first one you ever saw. If the FBI published

> > specifications so as to enable verification, it would also enable

> > counterfeit.

>

> > So, I do not accept your stupid challenge, and I hope you do not accept

> > my

> > equally stupid challenge to produce a gold coin made out of silver.

>

> > Perhaps you are thinking that someone WANTS to convince you of something

> > that you have set up to be impossible. If God wishes it, then it will

> > happen; it is not for anyone else to make happen. That is the way it is

> > with gods. They do what they want, and they do not do what they do not

> > want to do.

>

> What does it feel like to be an abject total failure?- Hide quoted text -

I don't know myself, but you are a good image.

Got your head lost up your imaginary Gods ass again Duke!

You do not seem to know anything but what your preacher tells you.

February 6, 2008

You appear to enjoy engaging in Sophistry and obfuscation. Why waste our

time with your nonsensical polemics???

"Midwinter" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:hOmdnRNZeYq9zTXaRVnyhgA@bt.com...

> Okay, Bill, let's see what I can do to address your challenges.

>

> "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said :

>

>> God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of

>> the world is proof of God.

>

> Your challenge is directed at concept of single god, as defined by

> monotheistic religions.

>

>> Why does this all powerful creator

>

> This implies a single being directly and consciously response for

> existence of world or cosmos.

>

>> all loving and caring

>

> Challenge is directed at god defined as universally benevolent.

>

>> intelligent designer

>

> Reiterates definition from 'all powerful creator'.

>

>> Why punish millions of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this

>> horrible way?

>

> Appeal to emotion, along with implication that adult lives are not as

> important as those of children.

>

>> Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent

>> children" to die at birth?

>

> Repetition of previous appeal to emotion.

>

>> Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die

>

> Reptition of previous appeal to emotion.

>

> Deity being challenged defined as male.

>

>> God supposedly created the world like it is, to punish man for Adam

>> and Eve's 'original sin'.

>

> Adam and Eve feature in Abramic mythology only. God being challenged is

> therefore that of the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims.

>

>> Why does he also punish supposedly innocent children

>

> Repetition of appeal to emotion. Intended meaning of 'supposedly' not

> clear - term usually implies doubt about a claim.

>

>> Why did this all powerful and loving creator

>

> Repetition of definition; God as necessarily omnibenevolent.

>

>> Over 100,000 of these were totally INNOCENT children!

>

> Repetition of appeal to emotion.

>

>> The death toll was over 137 million men, women and totally innocent

>> children.

>

> Repetition of appeal to emotion. Men and women can also be 'totally

> innocent', but the same assumption is not made for them. This implies

> that at least some adults deserved to die from the Black Death. I would

> contest that.

>

>> The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and

>> innocent children indiscriminately.

>

> Repetition of appeal to emotion - see above re bubonic plague.

>

>> ALL god beliefs

>

> Indicates challenge towards all forms of religion.

>

> So, Bill, how do I defend my religious beliefs against your challenges?

>

> Well, given that your challenge is directed against a single omnipotent,

> omnibenevolent, male creator god, none of it applies to my religion.

> Which also doesn't include Adam and Eve.

>

> "Think of the children" - employed repeatedly throughout your lecture -

> is an empty argument and can be discarded as the weak rhetoric it is.

>

> Which leaves us with relatively little. In fact, the only thing I can

> really address in terms of my own belief system is the question you asked

> of how come mankind has managed to do all these wonderful things you've

> listed, find these marvellous cures and make stunning discoveries - all,

> so you presume, without the help of gods.

>

> Many Christians would argue that if God hadn't wanted us to fly, He

> wouldn't have led us to discover how to make airfoils.

>

> The truth is that we have achieved these things because it's in our

> nature - whether that nature was designed or not. In the same way that it

> appears to be our nature to exploit our world to make weapons out of

> natural diseases, and engineer them into new variants in order to cause

> even more agony and suffering. The way it appears to be our nature to

> discover the spectacular beauty of the quantum world, and turn it

> immediately towards wreaking massive death and destruction on our

> fellows. The way we discover these wonderful cures for terrible ills,

> and then withhold them until the sufferers stump up enough money. The

> way we burn and rip the land, fill the sea and the sky with toxic filth,

> and guzzle resources we cannot afford to support lifestyles we do not

> need.

>

> It's one thing to labour our merits as proof that we don't need gods -

> but it leaves us with a rather skewed impression of what mankind is. If

> we can take the credit for our achievements, then we must also take the

> blame for our failings. If some god or other is to be blamed for the

> evil that we do, then that god should also be credited with our good.

>

>> If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an

>> all-caring and benevolent god.

>

> You're probably right.

>

>> The objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern

>> about the welfare of the creatures on Earth.

>

> And it continually puzzles me why so many people imagine He should -

> given the time so many of them spend trying to express just how big He is

> in comparison to us.

>

>> I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence

>> that their god actually exists except in their over active

>> imaginations.

>>

>> Who will accept the challenge???

>

> To conclude: speaking for myself, I don't need to. Your challenge

> doesn't apply to my beliefs.

February 6, 2008

"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message

news:d1cecf67-42ab-49bd-bf2d-48a1d5a44a59@l16g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 5, 7:20 am, "rjbjr" <rjburn...@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

>

> news:tKNpj.66207$Mu4.41907@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

>

> > God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of the

> > world is proof of God.

>

> > There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO

> > OJECTIVE

> > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL

> > god beliefs are based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions and claims of

> > errant men.

>

> > I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence

> > that

> > their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.

> > Who will accept the challenge???

>

> Mr Bill,

> I have offered you objective, verifiable evidence in previous posts to

> your

> question.

> I posed an experiment YOU could perform for yourself to see for yourself

> that the Bible contains instructions on how to improve your mental

> capacity.

> YOU REFUSED TO ACCEPT MY PROOF.

Proof? He refuses to accept evidence.

Where is it??? I don't accept your imagination and opinions as evidence!

February 6, 2008

"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message

news:a8f3ec64-4896-496b-8c48-99e95eb00e3b@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 4, 5:25 pm, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of the

> world is proof of God.

Now willie, how can you so consistently get it so wrong, unless of

course you're not interested in getting it right.

You've been advised dozens of times that God can be proved. BUT, all

evidence to be found demands his existence. Now if you can offer some

evidence for God not existing, please offer it here now for discussion

- pardon the pun becasue discussion is one thing you definitely don't

want.

You make the silly claims without ever supply objective verifiable evidence.

Where is it???

> I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence that

> their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.

> Who will accept the challenge???

Me, me, me. And I offer the big bang as near proof. Something from

nothing, creation at it's finest. We call the creator God by name.

That is not evidence. Firstly, the 'Big Bang' is a theory and it does NOT

contend the Universe came from nothing. It theorizes

that it came from a 'singularity'. The point is we simply do not 'know' the

origin of the world and there is NO evidence of any God creators.

February 6, 2008

"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in message

news:47a8252e$0$26004$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...

> "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

> news:tKNpj.66207$Mu4.41907@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

> >

> > God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of the

> > world is proof of God.

> >

> Atheist fundamentalist fanatics always claim, that complex designs

like

> living cells need no designer, but just happen to appear out of nothing,

and

> from nothing like a miracle. Problem is that such a scenario requires more

> belief and faith, than religionists can come up with.

There was never (nothing), in eternity.

>

> --

> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

>

February 6, 2008

"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in message

news:47a861c1$0$25979$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...

> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> wrote in message

> news:47a7f3ce$0$6487$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> > "Michael" <newsuser3@orneveien.org> wrote in message

> > news:pan.2008.02.05.04.20.05.755914@orneveien.org...

> >> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:25:26 -0500, Bill M wrote:

> >>>

> >>> I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence

> >>> that

> >>> their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.

> >>> Who will accept the challenge???

> >>

> All you do is show everybody how sly you are when it comes to getting

> something for nothing. See below.

>

> Pastor Frank

>

> Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in

> Jesus Christ giving His life for us sinners on the cross of Calvary. We

> therefore know our God and have seen Him through Jesus Christ. (Jesus in

> John 14:6-10)

Of course Frank says that (only Christians have a copyright on the normal

human emotion called (love). What a dunce.

> Atheists don't know our God and therefore don't see any human

> manifestation of love. (Jesus in John 3:3) and no, we won't send you all

our

> money as "objective, verifiable evidence", to prove our love for you.

That's

> what you are after, aren't you?

And non-Christians won't allow you to have sex with our children, as

everyone knows you want to do, don't you?

> You will just have to believe us, that we answer your posts because we

> love you in the Lord and that this loving action evidences our God, whose

> essence is that very love and care we show others.

Of course, thinking that only Christians can love, is any evidence except

that Frank is a brain-dead moron, is supposed to be a believable truth?

>

> --

> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

>

February 6, 2008

"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> wrote in message

news:47a95919$0$16687$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>

> "Semper Lib

February 6, 2008

Bill M wrote:

> God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of the

> world is proof of God.

>

> This pretty negative proof and complexity is NOT evidence of some God. It is

> only evidence that the world and Universe is complex relative to human

> mental capacity, nothing more.

>

> Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent

> designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Floods,

> Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and

> serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect and

> punish mankind indiscriminately. Why does he permit millions of both young

> and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions

> of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way?

>

> Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children"

> to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed

> brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and

> others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others

> pauper poor? Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die of

> starvation every year? Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate

> into a miserable and devastating old age regardless of their religious

> affiliation?

>

> God supposedly created the world like it is, to punish man for Adam and Eve's

> 'original sin'. Why does he also punish supposedly innocent children and

> animals with thousands of diseases, birth defects, starvation and to be

> eaten by other animals?

>

> Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks,

> jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, wolves, poisonous snakes,

> stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this caring

> and benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully

> kill and eat other animals to survive?

>

> World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths.

>

> World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all

> ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more

> millions maimed for life.

>

> The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 200,000 men, women and

> children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally

> INNOCENT children!

>

> There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th.

> and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and

> totally innocent children.

>

> The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and

> innocent children indiscriminately.

>

> Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions

> indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and

> malnutrition.

>

> These indiscriminately afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of

> all religious persuasions.

>

> Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of

> serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling,

> purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and transportation

> systems including flying through the air.

>

> Man has created a wonderful medical and drug system and improved housing and

> food production. The result of MAN'S inventiveness has

>

> DOUBLED the average life span. None of this was created by any gods.

>

> Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean and

> torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think

> he will let us enjoy peace and eternal happiness in his Heaven? And why does

> he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead parents,

> siblings and friends? (Or this god?)

>

> There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO OJECTIVE

> VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL god

> beliefs are based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions and claims of errant men.

>

> If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an

> all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The

> objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about the

> welfare of the creatures on Earth.

>

> The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;

> that man created gods!

>

> I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence that

> their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.

>

> Who will accept the challenge???

>

The universe was created with a hell fire explosion,fire and brimstone

expanding all across the universe The sun was born in hell fire as were

all the stars. Even the earth was born in hell fire and brimstone not

once but after the first billion years turn back to hell fire and

brimstone with the collision of a planetoid creating the moon which also

was a burning hell fire and brimstone creation. Even as we speak new

suns are being created in a hell fire and brimstone nurserys in giant

clouds of hell fire gas and dust. Even we were created from hell fire

and brimstone.

So our crater was really Satan and the fires of hell. We all come from

the hell fires and brimstone of the devil himself. The ignorant bible

writers thought the sun was god's little light bulb to light our way.

Not so. The sun is a hell fire that will burn you to death before you

can even get near it. So we know what is true and what is made up lies.

--

Blattus Slafaly ? 3 7/8

February 7, 2008

On Feb 7, 2:17

February 7, 2008

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said :

> Dealing with the 'real world' requires the the use of real world facts

> - not your wild emagination. Get your head out of your imaginary Gods

> ass and deal with the real world.

The point remains that the 'real world facts' that you speak of are

conveyed to our consciousness solely through our perceptions. As I said,

if those perceptions are fundamentally flawed, there is no objective means

to test what is real and what is not. You can insist, of course - but you

cannot prove.

February 7, 2008

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said :

> You appear to enjoy engaging in Sophistry and obfuscation. Why waste

> our time with your nonsensical polemics???

Why do you waste time with your repetitive demands for something you

neither expect nor want?

You are free to post here. I am also free to post here.

February 7, 2008

"Midwinter" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:CpOdnd9RVYq0zjfanZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@bt.com...

> "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said :

>

>> Dealing with the 'real world' requires the the use of real world facts

>> - not your wild emagination. Get your head out of your imaginary Gods

>> ass and deal with the real world.

>

> The point remains that the 'real world facts' that you speak of are

> conveyed to our consciousness solely through our perceptions. As I said,

> if those perceptions are fundamentally flawed, there is no objective means

> to test what is real and what is not. You can insist, of course - but you

> cannot prove.

Get an education. Science proves the facts of the world every day.

Religionists create illusions

of facts every day. Get an education. Your statement is pure nonsense.

February 7, 2008

"Semper Lib

February 7, 2008

"Semper Lib

February 7, 2008

"Richard Anacker" <116@taunus-biker.de> wrote in message

news:ehhootihk29i$.dlg@news.fahrschule-anacker.de...

> Ron Baker, Pluralitas! , 02.06.2008:

>

>>> That is overwhelming evidence of an intelligent creator.

>>

>> And the complex and purposeful intelligent creator is overwhelming

>> evidence of the intelligent creator creator.

>

> You shouldn't forget that the complex and purposeful intelligent

> creator creator is overwhelming evidence of the intelligent creator

> creator creator.

Golly Gee! Then there must be a creator creator creator creator!

And a creator creator creator creator creator.

And a creator creator creator creator creator creator.

And a creator creator creator creator creator creator creator....

Wow golly!

February 7, 2008

"Midwinter" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:h4adnWmYRLTqLDTaRVnyhgA@bt.com...

> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> said :

>

>>> Pardon me butting in - but solipsism is an interesting question,

>>> especially asked in one of Bill's threads.

>>

>> Solipsism is a dead end.

>

> But that alone doesn't rule it out.

Not to a fool, no.

>

>>> Given that my consciousness is the only one I can know for certain

>>> actually exists, solipsism would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.

>>

>> Then who are you talking to?

>

> Read again. You'll see that I said:

>

> "I don't adhere to the strict standards demanded by some here, and so,

So you are a hypocrite.

> without any 'verifiable, objective evidence', and based solely on my gut

> feeling, I accept that others experience consciousness in their own way,

> just as I do in mine."

>

> The point remains that that is an assumption based on reasoning alone -

> it cannot be verified with objective evidence.

>

>> Well, if you don't have a grip on reality then, yes, there

>> is no evidence that works for you.

>

> What you call 'reality' is simply your own assumption, as my reality is

But you forget. I'm not real according to you.

And since, as you have said, you can't know reality

then what you say is not real.