4 Step Perfect Proof for God $10,000 Offer

[quicksand]

I know a quick way to test if that is Troy....

 

Jesus is a liar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's see if he takes the bait.

[Asimov]

What a pathetic human being. He doesn't even allow discussion about it, yet expects everyone to fully understand what is being said.

 

"You don't understand what I'm saying, ergo you are not interested in logical discourse"

 

What a fuck-nut.

 

Troy, get your head out of your ass you self-righteous cocksucker.

[Ssel]

That "perfect proof" has so many holes in it that my brain got overloaded before I even got past step 2.

 

But how can you debate a logical point with the illogical mind?

[white_raven23]

Hi Troy.

Happy Holidays Troy.

Not interested in your BS money offer Troy.

Your game is more rigged than a Vegas Casino Troy.

G'nite Troy.

[Ssel]

Ha ha ha

 

I hate to simply acuse when it is so easy to find out.

 

The first clue of course was that the viewer can only see Troy's rebutable, then the challenger is banned after a ridiculus string of personal acusations.

 

When I saw that they were not asking for any truly personal information, the money issue was obviously void. But I still had nothing really to lose and curious. ((what did they say about that cat again? )) Oh Yes...

 

Therefore, you are a banned. This is for your benefit to not let your flesh excite itself further on a rampage.

 

AHhhh... never give the microphone to kids ..

 

Actually I'm torn between whether this is an evil plot by the anti-Christ to shame Christians or an evil plot by the New World Order to raise incentive to ban free speech. Hmm..

 

Btw, none of you are allowed to read this because you "don't exist".

 

I was surprise that he/she did actually requoted my entire opening (and only) argument. Which was...

 

 

First, I would like to say that I am a proponent of the existence of God and also a very serious logician. As a logician I see a variety of problems with this “perfect proof”. I am not here to shoot anyone down, boast, or simply try to win some money.

 

I deal with ex-Christians and anti-Christians regularly concerning the proof of God. To any truly logical person, I have my own un-doubtable proof. Unfortunately the more serious problem is that most people are not very logic oriented. Trying to make logical arguments to illogically minded people is usually futile.

 

When discussing the issue of the existence of God, I find that very often (more than you might think) the problem is based in not having a clear definition of “God” (the word itself). When I ask, “What is a god, any ole god?” I seldom get a reasonable answer from anti-Christians nor from Christians. Thus I have discovered that to define both what “a god” is and more important what “The God” is, is imperative. This leads to my first contention with the proposed “perfect proof”.

 

I have to ask “Proof to whom?” A proof is supposed to be a logical, and thus irrefutable, line of reasoning. It is important to ask this because I can assume that the definition of “God” is axiomatical to the adherents. But what good is it to prove to those who already believe? Thus any “perfect proof” must be referring to a proof to a non-believer.

 

The first conflict that most non-believers run into is the definition problem. I can see from the proposed 4 steps that the adherents are defining “God” as who or what ever started the universe along with perhaps other controlling aspects. I personally prefer definitions to be more specific, but what is important is what the non-believer thinks.

 

Any time science discovers the mechanism that caused something, they say “We see the cause, we see no God.” As science progresses they see more and more causes but still see no God. If science were, by whatever future means, to discover a mechanism that could have started the universe, they would again proclaim, “We see the cause of all things now, and we still have seen no God.” The alternative is that they might say, “We can now see this mechanism and have found God.” But is God a mechanism? Is God a thinking intelligence? Does God have a body and/or brain? These questions are not clearly answered to the non-believer nor the scientist.

 

The Christian scientist defines The God one way. The Pantheist defines The God a different way. The layman Baptist defines The God yet another way. They are each talking about the Bible God, but each have a different understanding.

 

This might sound like a trivial issue to you, but please understand that I have a great deal of experience with non-believers and it is anything but a trivial issue.

 

Contention 1 – A Perfect Proof

 

If a line of reasoning can be made “more perfect” then it wasn’t really perfect the first time. I understand that the modifications made during the past years have been merely complimentary and not logically required. Thus these changes do not reflect on the lack of perfect logic. But there is something that every serious logician would agree on.

 

Any words, not defined before the line of reasoning begins, must be taken as axiomatical in their meaning (definition). Since this “perfect proof” is intended for the non-believers, the word “God” is potentially ambiguous and thus a definition is absolutely required (even for many believers). Without this definition the line of reasoning is rendered meaningless to anyone who is unclear as to exactly who or what God is. Saying “the Bible God” or “The Creator of the universe” does not distinguish “God” from ambiguous alternative ideas.

 

The addition of a definition of “God”, and perhaps other important words are the “premise” stage to logical reasoning, must come before any logical use of the word, and thus must be “Step 1”. If this needed premise step is included, then the line of reasoning would certainly be improved. But if the “perfect proof” can be improved, then it wasn’t really perfect, was it?

 

 

 

Contention 2 – Eternal Perfecting

 

If I understand what is being explained in step 1 correctly, the argument is that because Man is approaching perfection at such a fast pace in such a short time, he would not need an eternal history to have already reached perfection.

 

But there is a theory becoming common which involves the idea that the universe of material things is not merely the result of a single “Big Bang” but that these big bangs are cyclical. The idea states that the entire material existence expands for many billions years and then retracts back into the center. Once reaching the center, it bangs again. I believe they are referring to this as the “Bang-Bang” theory.

 

If this theory were correct, then it would be saying that even after Man had become perfect, He would still eventually collapse into the center of the universe. There is nothing to logically refute that the perfecting of Man would in any way prevent this. We can not even humbly speculate that God would not intend this. We can not guess what might make perfect sense to God or us, once we are perfected.

 

If during each of these recreations of our universe of stars and such, Man too is recreated, then he will find himself in the position of being only part way to perfection over and over. He would not be aware that Man had already made the entire journey to perfection many times before. And we can not know that we haven’t.

 

This constitutes an “eternal evolving from the past” which is not merely exponential but non-continuous and cyclical with each occurrence being individually exponential just in the way we have witnessed it this go around. For all we can know, there could be a new Adam with each cycle, endlessly. Perhaps with each cycle God collects the souls before the return to center. “Ours is not to reason why…”

 

I can see that this isn’t the “eternal evolving” that was intended in Step 1. But regardless, it allows for the non-existence of a start of all things even though there is a start and a perfection point for Man because the perfection point is taken away and then started again, eternally.

 

This argument voids the “perfect proof” entirely even if it had been otherwise perfect.

Excuse me for a moment, after re-reading this, my flesh has gotten SO rampantly excited... BRB..

[Jose]

Maybe someone should simply go on his site and say,

 

"Only the God of the Bible is perfect. Your Proofs are not the God of the Bible. Therefore, they are not perfect. Send my check to: National Accounts, Attn: Jose Valdes, 7666 Blanding Blvd., Jacksonville, FL 32244."

 

Has anyone tried that? I'd look on the site myself, but I'm on a work computer and if I beat it with a crowbar due to frustration at his idiocy, I'll probably get fired.

[Ssel]

AHhhh.. now where was I?...

 

Ah yes, the "rebuttle"...

 

First, I would like to say that I am a proponent of the existence of God and also a very serious logician. As a logician I see a variety of problems with this “perfect proof”. I am not here to shoot anyone down, boast, or simply try to win some money.I deal with ex-Christians and anti-Christians regularly concerning the proof of God. To any truly logical person, I have my own un-doubtable proof. Unfortunately the more serious problem is that most people are not very logic oriented. Trying to make logical arguments to illogically minded people is usually futile.

Your first logical error is the use of the term "ex-Christians". There is no such thing, since the Bible is clear that once one is born-again, as a Christian, they have eternal life, and eternal life is eternal. It can never be taken away. Your logic is flawed. Unfortunately, you probably won't appreciate this because making a logical statement to someone who is illogical is won't register in their minds. Their mind is unrenewed, and though it may think it is logical, it is far from. If your un-doubtable proof is founded on this lack of logic, it would be not be very un-doubtable.

When discussing the issue of the existence of God, I find that very often (more than you might think) the problem is based in not having a clear definition of “God” (the word itself). When I ask, “What is a god, any ole god?” I seldom get a reasonable answer from anti-Christians nor from Christians. Thus I have discovered that to define both what “a god” is and more important what “The God” is, is imperative. This leads to my first contention with the proposed “perfect proof”.

Christians do not have a god, for gods are idols, but we worship God of the Bible who is the creator. Also, He is not "the God" as if to say He is merely one of many gods. No! He is God. And Christians have no problem expressing who God is for He is God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit, the Trinity of 3 Persons that comprise the Godhead. Jesus Christ is the Godhead bodily. The problem appears to be your flesh is unwilling to accept the truth because the God is not revealed in your unrenewed mind, but intuitivley by the spirit. And we could go through a couple dozen of His characterists such as immutable, omnipotent, loving, omniscient, immense, omnipotent, uncreated, and so forth.

I have to ask “Proof to whom?” A proof is supposed to be a logical, and thus irrefutable, line of reasoning. It is important to ask this because I can assume that the definition of “God” is axiomatical to the adherents. But what good is it to prove to those who already believe? Thus any “perfect proof” must be referring to a proof to a non-believer.

 

The first conflict that most non-believers run into is the definition problem. I can see from the proposed 4 steps that the adherents are defining “God” as who or what ever started the universe along with perhaps other controlling aspects. I personally prefer definitions to be more specific, but what is important is what the non-believer thinks.

 

Any time science discovers the mechanism that caused something, they say “We see the cause, we see no God.” As science progresses they see more and more causes but still see no God. If science were, by whatever future means, to discover a mechanism that could have started the universe, they would again proclaim, “We see the cause of all things now, and we still have seen no God.” The alternative is that they might say, “We can now see this mechanism and have found God.” But is God a mechanism? Is God a thinking intelligence? Does God have a body and/or brain? These questions are not clearly answered to the non-believer nor the scientist.

 

The Christian scientist defines The God one way. The Pantheist defines The God a different way. The layman Baptist defines The God yet another way. They are each talking about the Bible God, but each have a different understanding.

 

This might sound like a trivial issue to you, but please understand that I have a great deal of experience with non-believers and it is anything but a trivial issue.

 

Contention 1 – A Perfect Proof

 

If a line of reasoning can be made “more perfect” then it wasn’t really perfect the first time. I understand that the modifications made during the past years have been merely complimentary and not logically required. Thus these changes do not reflect on the lack of perfect logic. But there is something that every serious logician would agree on.

 

Any words, not defined before the line of reasoning begins, must be taken as axiomatical in their meaning (definition). Since this “perfect proof” is intended for the non-believers, the word “God” is potentially ambiguous and thus a definition is absolutely required (even for many believers). Without this definition the line of reasoning is rendered meaningless to anyone who is unclear as to exactly who or what God is. Saying “the Bible God” or “The Creator of the universe” does not distinguish “God” from ambiguous alternative ideas.

The proof is for believers also for it increases faith as truth is prone to do. A definition is not required beyond what was originally given, that we are speaking of God of the Bible in which the whole Word of God is the understanding of God as God has ordained. The God of the Bible alone distinguishes God from all other ideas because of the harmony of agreement of the distinctions. You'll need to come up to speed on what Christians believe. This you will need to do for yourself. Only Jesus Christ was sinless and gave His life on the cross for the atonement of sins and the giver of eternal life. No other religion, faith or belief possesses this quality.

 

There are no axiomatic statements.

The addition of a definition of “God”, and perhaps other important words are the “premise” stage to logical reasoning, must come before any logical use of the word, and thus must be “Step 1”. If this needed premise step is included, then the line of reasoning would certainly be improved. But if the “perfect proof” can be improved, then it wasn’t really perfect, was it?

Step #1 already defines its terms adequately. If it was not so, you could show otherwise. Therefore, there is nothing to improve upon. The perfect proof could not have been improved upon. Though this may upset you, it is true.

Contention 2 – Eternal Perfecting

 

If I understand what is being explained in step 1 correctly, the argument is that because Man is approaching perfection at such a fast pace in such a short time, he would not need an eternal history to have already reached perfection.

Wrong! The proof is very clear. How could you misread it so easily? The proof states that IF there was an eternity of the past of cause and effect, then man would have had an eternity to be perfected, not "he would not need an eternity history". I never said anything of the kind. Now since man still sins, we know there has not been an eternity of the past of cause and effect; thus, God created.

But there is a theory becoming common which involves the idea that the universe of material things is not merely the result of a single “Big Bang” but that these big bangs are cyclical. The idea states that the entire material existence expands for many billions years and then retracts back into the center. Once reaching the center, it bangs again. I believe they are referring to this as the “Bang-Bang” theory.

"Cyclical" is an idol (which is not a new concept at all), for even within such a theory there must be cause and effect; with each effect it has its cause, so on and so forth. The cyclical requires a beginning since cyclical does not happen all by itself. And as step #2 points out, whether the big bang or other natural phenomena, since nothing in nature happens all by itself, we know God created, which agrees with step #1.

 

By the way the latest scientific belief is not a cyclical universe, but the firm belief and agreement by the smartest scientists in the world, that the dark energy is pushing out faster than the gravity of matter and dark matter. By their calculations the universe has been expanding since the big bang at an exponential rate which indicates it will never implode.

If this theory were correct, then it would be saying that even after Man had become perfect, He would still eventually collapse into the center of the universe. There is nothing to logically refute that the perfecting of Man would in any way prevent this. We can not even humbly speculate that God would not intend this. We can not guess what might make perfect sense to God or us, once we are perfected.

Since we have shown that this cyclical theory is wrong on two accounts, both scientifically as well as logically according to the laws of cause and effect, your false premise naturally leads you to all kinds of false arguments as we see you trying for mightily in your flesh. Remember: nothing happens all by itself.

 

Just think of this as your cyclical idol, and which does not take into account the matter of God-consciousness and our conscience (of the spirit), but merely obsesses over the physical fantasy disproven cyclical. It is like trying to study chemistry with only 1/3 of the period table of elements. The perfecting of man is a man with eternal life since such prefection is perfectly not able to be extinguished when given God's life. We do not speculate, but hold to this truth of eternal life given to the state of sinlessness, and at the center of the new city where is God and the Lamb. He wants to be with those who are perfected sinlessly to be the pillars of the new city. There shall not be any collapsing upon God in the new city in the new earth.

 

You have introduced no new thought, and by continuing along this line of reasoning with its false premise, you will continue to rationalize yourself into more error as sin begets sin. Therefore, you are a banned. This is for your benefit to not let your flesh excite itself further on a rampage.

If during each of these recreations of our universe of stars and such, Man too is recreated, then he will find himself in the position of being only part way to perfection over and over. He would not be aware that Man had already made the entire journey to perfection many times before. And we can not know that we haven’t.

"Man" should be addressed "man", otherwise you make an idol of him. To cease to exist is not perfection. And as we have seen, your conclusions are false since cyclical requires a cause. You can't have a puff the magic dragon now you have a cyclical. This may be ok for fantasy novels, but it is not true of spiritual reality. There needs be a cause as there has never not been one in observable nature.

 

Your thought is of no challenge, and I do not care to hear more of your what stems from your false premise proven wrong. So it is good that you are banned. Appreciate this and why it is helpful to you.

This constitutes an “eternal evolving from the past” which is not merely exponential but non-continuous and cyclical with each occurrence being individually exponential just in the way we have witnessed it this go around. For all we can know, there could be a new Adam with each cycle, endlessly. Perhaps with each cycle God collects the souls before the return to center. “Ours is not to reason why…”

Cyclical does not commence all by itself. That is goofy. Ours is not the reason why, God's reason is which I have imparted to you, that nothing in nature happens all by itself. If it were so, you could cite one example, but there is not even one example in the universe where something happens all by itself; so the odds are against more than a trillion to 1. Sounds like a losing proposition.

I can see that this isn’t the “eternal evolving” that was intended in Step 1. But regardless, it allows for the non-existence of a start of all things even though there is a start and a perfection point for Man because the perfection point is taken away and then started again, eternally.

Your theory is disprove in step #2. Read it again. Your theory is not allowed a "non-existence" of a start since as step #2 shows, nothing in nature happens all by itself. Let this truth burst your bubble. Also notice your contradiction which is not logical. You stated "started again, eternally". That which starts and is eternal thereafter, does not start again". I actually find you the least logical person here, though you had self-proclaimed yourself exceedingly logical. This is the power of the flesh to self-exalt itself though without basis in reality.

This argument voids the “perfect proof” entirely even if it had been otherwise perfect.Nothing you have said, as we have seen, is worth further consideration, as it has been totally destroyed as merely fantasy. I like to give it a nickname - "puff the magic dragon".

 

The 4 Step Perfect Proof for God remains intact and unchallenged, that is, without a challenger worthy of further discussion.

 

Let's see, who was it that said "When emotion is involved, the mind only sees a reflection of its own heart"?

 

OH yes, It was me

 

 

Oh, there goes my flesh again ...sigh

[Ouroboros]

Therefore, you are a banned. This is for your benefit to not let your flesh excite itself further on a rampage.

 

AHhhh... never give the microphone to kids ..

 

Actually I'm torn between whether this is an evil plot by the anti-Christ to shame Christians or an evil plot by the New World Order to raise incentive to ban free speech. Hmm..

 

Btw, none of you are allowed to read this because you "don't exist".

 

I was surprise that he/she did actually requoted my entire opening (and only) argument. Which was...

So he banned you Ssel? That's a hoot! The logician get thrown out of the "perfect proof bar", for being too logical.

 

That's like you're going to a "look-a-like" competition where they're trying to look like you, and you lose.

 

And btw, Troy is the real deal. He's been going on with his "perfect proof" for quite a while.

 

 

 

That "perfect proof" has so many holes in it that my brain got overloaded before I even got past step 2.

 

But how can you debate a logical point with the illogical mind?

Personally, I get stuck on the bad grammar, and I'm not sure if I understand what he means. The perfect proof fails from his complete incompetence of stating his argument. I'm really bad in English, and I think my grammar is better than his!

 

That reminds me of the first time I went to America, and my Englrish was really-really-really awful.

 

I needed some stuff at K-mart, and had to ask someone in the store, and she didn't speak English at all. That was funny. I felt so powerful and educated with my poor Englrish.

[Ssel]

That's like you're going to a "look-a-like" competition where they're trying to look like you, and you lose.

 

That reminds me of the first time I went to America, and my Englrish was really-really-really awful.

 

I needed some stuff at K-mart, and had to ask someone in the store, and she didn't speak English at all. That was funny. I felt so powerful and educated with my poor Englrish.

 

Oh, I'm just getting TOO much rampant excitement today.

 

 

Geeez... I'v been banned... what am I going to tell my WIFE???

 

 

((Oh yeah, I don't HAVE one.))) ....

 

((can't imagine why))

[Ouroboros]

Oh, I'm just getting TOO much rampant excitement today.

Better take it in small dosage.

 

Geeez... I'v been banned... what am I going to tell my WIFE???

What really strikes me, is that Troy can't even say "you've been banned" straight.

 

Seriously, what the heck does it mean when he says: "Therefore, you are a banned."

 

What is a banned? Is that some kind of animal or fruit? I just wonder...

 

((Oh yeah, I don't HAVE one.))) ....

 

((can't imagine why))

Maybe you have to find a banned wife...

 

Or maybe it's just because logic doesn't really fly with women...

 

swoosh... zooom... bang!

 

That's the sound of me cover my head and runs out the door, betting there's a bunch of members that really wants to throw things at me at the moment.

 

Just kidding Ladies! Please don't kill me!

[Ssel]

Maybe someone should simply go on his site and say,

 

"Only the God of the Bible is perfect. Your Proofs are not the God of the Bible. Therefore, they are not perfect. Send my check to: National Accounts, Attn: Jose Valdes, 7666 Blanding Blvd., Jacksonville, FL 32244."

..

Nahh...

His "perfect response" would be "The Holy Spirit gave me these words from God to report to the unrepentant." or some such.

 

There is an irrational response for every rational comment. (and THEN some)

 

It was fun anyway ...

[Ouroboros]

Maybe someone should simply go on his site and say,

 

"Only the God of the Bible is perfect. Your Proofs are not the God of the Bible. Therefore, they are not perfect. Send my check to: National Accounts, Attn: Jose Valdes, 7666 Blanding Blvd., Jacksonville, FL 32244."

..

Nahh...

His "perfect response" would be "The Holy Spirit gave me these words from God to report to the unrepentant." or some such.

 

There is an irrational response for every rational comment. (and THEN some)

 

It was fun anyway ...

But you have to do it with the Troyish twist:

 

"The Holy Spirit these words me gave in sense of words from God reporting unrepentantists."

[Ssel]

What is a banned? Is that some kind of animal or fruit? I just wonder...

Not certain, but I think it is a deorderant.

 

Hmmm..

 

 

 

 

((Damn.. there goes my rampant flesh again.. Guess I'm just a hopeless cause..)) ..snif..

 

But you have to do it with the Troyish twist:

 

"The Holy Spirit these words me gave in sense of words from God reporting unrepentantists."

WRONG!!

You sick rampent flesh eating selfish self.

 

"The Holy Spirit.." implies that the Holy Spirit is just one of many and there is only ONE, therefore it should be "Holy Spirit these words me..."

 

Hans, if your not going to follow along and read it RIGHT, then you seriously should consider having youself banned for your own good. You'll be thankful in the long run. Consider it the outer consciousness of your outer soul blinding you from your inner consciousness and God-consciousness. After all, you ARE eternal whether you like it not.

 

Soo.. get your shit together, son.

[Ouroboros]

You sick rampent flesh eating selfish self.

 

"The Holy Spirit.." implies that the Holy Spirit is just one of many and there is only ONE, therefore is should be "the Holy Spirit".

 

Hans, if your not going to follow along and read it RIGHT, then you seriously should consider having youself banned for your own good. You'll be thankful in the long run. Consider it the outer consciousness of your outer soul blinding you from your inner consciousness and God-consciousness. After all, you ARE eternal whether you like it not.

 

Soo.. get your shit together, son.

Watch out, Ssel has been possessed by the demon of Troy.

 

This made me think of the question:

 

If you don't pay the exorcist for getting rid of the spirit that dwelled in you ... will you be repossessed?

[Ssel]

If you don't pay the exorcist for getting rid of the spirit that dwelled in you ... will you be repossessed?

WHAT?!!?

You didn't see the SEQUEL ??? "Repossessed"

 

 

Hans, your as hopeless as I am. Maybe we can be fire buddies together in the lake, huh.

 

 

It was fun anyway ...

Geeeezz... thinking..

 

How depressing is THAT.

 

 

 

You have been banned for the following reason:

boring cyclicalist against 4 step proof

 

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

 

Hmm.. wonder how many people can say that 5 times fast.

 

 

 

I think that is what they used to refer to as a "heretic"

 

..I'm in trouble NOW

 

"Forgive them fore they ... ahh to HELL with'm"

[crazy-tiger]

You have been banned for the following reason:

boring cyclicalist against 4 step proof

 

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

Hmm.. wonder how many people can say that 5 times fast.

Not me... I can't even say it once.

 

To be honest, maybe you should be glad... at least you didn't suffer this

You have been banned for the following reason:

petty self

 

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

[Ouroboros]

You have been banned for the following reason:

boring cyclicalist against 4 step proof

 

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

That is too funny!

 

What the heck is a cyclicalist? And why is "boring" grounds for banning?

 

Does he have some forum rules like "I will ban boring cyclicalists." ???

 

Would he allow "entertaining cyclicalists"? Or "boring reduntantists"? Maybe he will accept "mediocre pun-master"?

 

You have been banned for the following reason:

boring cyclicalist against 4 step proof

 

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

Hmm.. wonder how many people can say that 5 times fast.

Not me... I can't even say it once.

 

To be honest, maybe you should be glad... at least you didn't suffer this

You have been banned for the following reason:

petty self

 

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

You guys are making me jealous! I'm going to sign up on his site (later this week or after yule/saturnalia) just so I can get banned. I want my personal ban-message too!!!

[willybilly30]

he bans people who challenge him on his offer so he wont have to pay them.

i have thought about trying to challenge him but i will win then be banned

[Asimov]

$10,000 U.S. guaranteed is awaiting the first person who can find a mistake in the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God.

 

http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121

 

Mistake:

All your concepts come from the conclusion that God exists and that Christianity is true. Christianity presupposes God exists, thus, your proof concludes God exists before you have proven it.

[Lycorth]

Heh... what a load. That board also has, what, 36 members? How many of them are this Troy dude? I've read through his so-called "proofs" and they were refuted time and again. Such as his insistence that "sin" is real - no, "sin" is a concept particular to only a handful of religions, and not everything that is labelled a "sin" is genuinely harmful to society, like masturbation or taking the "Lord's" name in vain.

 

He's a hardhead, but the fires that burn hottest usually burn out the fastest. He'll spend so much time looking at the details that either he'll spend his life getting spiritual hard-ons by believing his own lies, or he'll eventually become exposed to the flaws in his arguments he'll have no choice but to renounce his fairy-tales.

[Nihil]

Troy: My perfect proof is irrefutable because I refuse to hear it refutted!

 

You have been banned for the following reason:

Having a cock bigger than mine.

 

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

 

And he loves to say "unregenerated" and "unrenewed", doesn't he.

 

"You're a non-xian, so I can ignore everything you say, no matter how logical it is!"

 

Hey Troy, I really hope you come back and read this. Because, I'd like you to renew my cock in your mouth. And if you bite, I'm gonna beat you like you're a retard stealing my bike. And just before I come, I'm gonna yank my wang out your bible-kissing mouth, and regenerate all over your momma's buttcheeks.

 

Damn that felt good. Maybe I shouldn't post it, but I'm about to hit add reply anydamnway.

[Jose]

That kind of brought a tear to my eye, Nihil...

 

That was beautiful man.

[Java]

I really wanna get either Something Awful or 4chan on his case.

[Reality Amplifier]

$10,000 U.S. guaranteed is awaiting the first person who can find a mistake in the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God.

 

http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121

 

As Socrates said, The beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms. Shockingly, none were provided (mistake 1). So let’s start with some likly general definitions, apply them, and it to see what we get.

 

Step: Gradation; A stage in a process; An action, proceeding, or measure often occurring as one in a series.

 

Proof: A formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it; Factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something;

 

Perfect: Without fault or defect; satisfying all requirements; Accurate.

 

God: being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship.

 

The assertion the author makes is that he has provided “4 Easy Steps That Prove God”. So, one should reasonably expect that each “step” of the “proof” should build progressively by establishing a series of positions, with each of the following steps building upon each other with all the steps. The culmination is claimed to be establishment of a proof of “God”.

 

Let’s see if this works:

 

Step 1: Step 1 is…what, exactly? Here we run into an immediate challenge. Step 1 is not at all clearly defined. In fact, I’m not even certain what the first step is supposed to even be. Step 1 is comprised of a series of incoherent and jumbled statements about eternity, evolution, and perfection of man - but Step One is not clearly articulated (mistake 2). There are some general musings the author makes, but they are not very well articulated. The gist of “step 1” seems to be geared towards a general and unsupported assertion that mankind is not “perfected”, however, the author fails to define what actually constitutes human perfection, or what metrics one could apply to gauge human perfection. (mistake 3) If something cannot be measured, or it cannot be tracked, and there are no metrics or standards to hold it to, then debating about such topics is an exercise in futility (mistake 4). Thus his “step one” immediately falls to the ground. The author also introduces and cites the bible to support meandering assertions about “god” without first establishing why its contents might be considered credible in supporting his statements

 

The proof dies here, since the subsequent steps must necessarily build upon Step one, which isn't a step at all. We’ll continue on anyways.

 

Step 2: Step 2 in a proof should progress and build upon the point established in Step 1 (which was lacking altogether) (mistake 5) Still, let’s take a look to see what points Step 2 makes.

1.There is always a cause to the effects in nature.

2.Nothing in nature happens all by itself.

3.God who is uncreated - the One Whom is, in fact, Causeless

 

The author asserts several contradictory points here as "proof": If there is indeed always a Cause, and God is Causeless, then either there isn’t always a cause, or something caused God. Both cannot be true. No valid (or logical) point is established here (mistake 6) that would support his proof.

 

Step 3: “By definition, God IS and is uncreated.” Oops, the author is still back at Step 2! (mistake 7) If God was uncreated, then the assertion in Step 2 that there is always a cause in nature is without merit. Also, the author rambles on about general attributes of “God” without providing support for his assertions. Evidently, the author is unaware of that which can be admitted without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence (mistake 8).

 

Step 4: There author failed to provide a logical series of “steps” to this point, but has somehow trudged on and absurdly started on a Step 4 (mistake 9). None of the previous Steps having been shown to have built upon the preceding steps, so the proof has been nothing of the kind.

 

“Ok, so a lesser god created, so why can't he have a creator, and a creator create that creator”

 

Who is the lesser God that he speaking of? There’s been no evidences provided in the previous three points (not Steps) of God(mistake 10).

 

What the author provided is not a bullet-proof, or perfect “4 Step Proof” of God.

 

What the author provided was a series of disjointed, rambling “points”. None of the points progressively built upon the other. This self-labeled “proof” fails to define terms, or to show progression from Point to Point. What we are left with is not a proof at all. What the author provided were unsuppported, subjective reasons why he believes in his God (mistake 11), which does not qualify as proof.

 

This is not a proof at all. All it amounted to was a colossal waste of time…

[Java]

HAHAHAHA

 

I sicced 4chan on his case. Thread will be posted shortly.