Part 20 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

I rest my case...as you have again attempted to avoid and sideline the point of discussion.

 

Show PROOF of claim!

 

Hello pot. I see you are now guilty of avoiding the question and are using sideline distractions.

 

Buh Bye

 

"truth' hurts huh? your action above can also be construed as abandoning your claim.

 

They are the same.
When one's mind becomes free and open, then one is intellectually ready to understand.

 

That is not a proof, that is merely your own private opinion. Please show PROOF of claim.

 

Not all Christians are so generous, and then there are plenty of people who are generous and helpful without the religion ostensibly being behind it...

 

Again, keep in mind....there is NO proof that anybody can offer, that Incorporeal will accept if it runs contradictory to what he already believes....none.

He stated it quite clearly - Of course, that could mean that there is no PROOF of anything relating to either the physical realm or the spiritual realm, if in fact either of them exists."

 

Here's the problem Incorporeal. Your first post about Polaris is highly suggestive that you in fact believed Polaris to be the center of the Universe. I see it, other posters see it. Your tirade into the definition of what "seem" can mean gives off the impression that you figured out that your argument was absolutely horrendous and you wanted to back away from what you may or may not have been suggesting. So, why don't you just clear it up for us? Do you or do you not believe that Polaris is at the center of the Universe based solely on the fact that it doesn't seem to move from a fixed point?

Why don't you be honest and straightforward Incorporeal? You don't just want proof of a claim, you want proof, as defined by you to mean something that has to change your mind. We could satisfy every other definition of the word proof, but you won't accept it because you've erected an irrefutable child-like barrier where your seal of approval is what constitutes if something is a proof or not.

 

It is most certainly proof. Else you would have shown me where I am wrong. You didn't. Hence, I proved my point.

 

Bingo. Solipsism combined with massive egotism.

 

Notice the words highlighted in red letter. "could mean" is does not mean that it is a fact... just a possibility. So you are stuck with a possible presumption .... which you have made in your opening statement above.

 

But it "always means" that, with you, Incorporeal. If somebody says something, you demand PROOF!.....but accept nothing as proof unless it agrees with what you already believe.

If you like it...you accept as part of the "physical and spiritual realm"....if you don't like it, you say "That's just your opinion".

And you've already admitted you accept NOTHING as "true"...unless you already believe it to be true- "Because I, as an individual, am the determiner of 'truth' with regard to what I will accept as true."

 

Many of your statements and the statements of others are also 'highly suggestive'.... however something that is suggestive is not necessarily a tangible fact. "can mean" is also very highly suggestive... and represents a possibility... Now you complain about an 'irrefutable child-like barrier' which you seemingly are admitting cannot be breached. That doesn't say a great deal about your intellectual abilities if a 'child-like barrier' appears to you as being 'irrefutable'.

I never said that Polaris was at the center of the universe. Please go back and read that statement of mine again. Just because the statement (by your interpretation) is suggestive, means little and is not a proof of my intent behind the statement. Keep guessing.. as that is all you and others are doing in regard to that statement. No. Polaris is not the center of the universe.... and again, I never said that it was.

Wrong conclusion on your part. I want PROOF as defined by the dictionary wherein it states "evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept the assertion as true." I did not fabricate that definition and that definition is not mine. It is a socially acceptable definition and one which you and others must deal with.

So you cannot outsmart a child-like intelligence... amazing.

 

If it was a proof, then my mind would have been compelled to accept it as true. However, because my mind has not accepted it as true, is evidence that yours was not a proof.

 

And I covered that. Your mind is cluttered and closed. Not open and free. You haven't reached the intellectual capacity to see evidence properly.

 

As a father and grandfather, are you always able to defeat a child's temper tantrum using grown up argumentation? My guess would be that no, you are not. Children don't respond well to logic and reason.

I'm not guessing, I straight up asked you what you believed to get an answer. If you don't believe Polaris is at the center of the Universe, why in the world would you even bring it up? What was the purpose there?

I didn't say that you fabricated the definition, did I? And of course that definition is acceptable, the problem being that you don't accept any form of evidence or argumentation that is socially acceptable. The only thing that you seem to base your beliefs on is "The Holy Spirit told me". I wonder what would happen if you used that defense in court during a murder charge. Oh, right, you'd be in prison.

We have outsmarted you several times. This one being included. Just because you don't want to admit to it, meaning you're acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum, doesn't mean that it hasn't happened, Incorporeal.

- - - Updated - - -

No, that just means it isn't proof for you. To everybody else working within the confines of rationality it is proof.

 

Have you even considered that in presenting something to me or even someone else, the whole purpose of presenting that something is to convince the other person that what you assert is true? If your intent is NOT to convince someone that what you present is true, then why do you submit anything at all. That is why the definition of proof is so exacting... "proof; evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept the assertion as true." Why is that such a problem to you and others?

Another wrong assumption on your part. I have never accepted anything that is a "part of the physical and spiritual realm"... Though I will accept the fact that you have included only a partial quote which is meaningless without the remainder of the quote so as it can be kept in context to what was originally stated in its entirety. Try being a little more intellectually honest.

Now that is an exact quote. Though you interpretation is a little bit skewed. No where in that quote are the words found that you are using in your interpretation. So, that interpretation is rendered as nothing more than an opinion seemingly based on faulty comprehension or intentional false characterization.

 

And your PROOF of claim is where? Seemingly you have not reached the intellectual capacity to see definitions properly.

 

And basically you admit here that you've never given anybody on these forums proof for your claims since you haven't changed any of our minds either.

 

Inviolate, it is now a proven characteristic of your posting that...

you accept NOTHING as "proof" and believe NOTHING is "true".....unless it agrees with your already pre-set beliefs.

If it does...you give it a "Like" (ref: MittRyan, others). If it does not...as we have joked, somebody could say "The Sun is yellow"....if you disagreed, you would demand proof...and they could walk you outside, point your head at the Sun, and say "Look!"....

and you'd still say "PROVE that is the color yellow. That's just your opinion."

The only rationale I can think of for this is....you have a massive ego, and are terrified of being proven wrong and thus never admit you are. Just as you almosts never state any of your beliefs (just snark at others on others' posts), likely out of a fear that you couldn't defend them and the ensuing doubt it would raise in your own mind...which again would conflict with your egotism.

And of course you likely end every session here assured in the self-knowledge "I really showed those low level intellects my superior mind THAT time!" when you engage in your gamesmanship form of "debate."

Oh, but don't think I don't like you.

 

Another assumption on your part. You have no idea of how my grandchildren respond to my instructions. You are smart enough however to admit that you are leaning once again on 'guess' work.

Excuse me? You just admitted above that you are relying on guess work.

As a comparison to the absurd comment to which it was in response to.

On the contrary. I accept the validity of that definition which is socially acceptable and is evidence of what 'proof' is. So you are wrong again.

Well, the Holy Spirit did not tell me that the definition of 'proof' was valid, but I accept its validity anyway... so you are wrong again.

Been in prison before, and did not even consider using 'that defense'. Want to try another deflection?

If you had outsmarted me, then where is your definition for the terms 'objective reality' and 'truth' as outlined in those thread focused on those terms. You have not. outsmarted me.. where is your proof that the scientific method is not based on assumptions (assumptions = without proof)?

Appeal to popularity. How nice of you to make that admission.

 

Tell us what you know of Polaris.

 

Lol yes of course. It is only true if it helps their argument. Did you know at first cavemen werent real but when cavemen help their argument they all of a sudden popped up at the same timeline with adam and eve. Theyre back to being real again. Now where did we leave the "ate babies" real or not real?