Are Americans really like this?

[Alc]

But won't the Americans just sell the debt to others, just keeping the equity for themselves of course?

Having a loan shark chasing an omnipotent being for payment on a debt they've acquired is a nice thought ("Lovely universe you've got there. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it.")

 

[scott-atkinson]

Having a loan shark chasing an omnipotent being for payment on a debt they've acquired is a nice thought ("Lovely universe you've got there. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it.")

How would you kneecap invisible knees

 

[Alc]

How would you kneecap invisible knees

If films and TV are to be believed, you just trick the invisible person into walking under a spilled paint pot, thereby reveealing his outline. Although, God is meant to be all-seeing and all-knowing, isn't he? If so, he would see the trick coming a mile off and know just how to turn the tables on the trickster.

 

[scott-atkinson]

If films and TV are to be believed, you just trick the invisible person into walking under a spilled paint pot, thereby reveealing his outline. Although, God is meant to be all-seeing and all-knowing, isn't he? If so, he would see the trick coming a mile off and know just how to turn the tables on the trickster.

God can't be that clever, after all he created Australians

 

[Alc]

God can't be that clever, after all he created Australians

Various of his plans appear to have gone wrong.
Burns said that the best laid plans of mice and men often go wrong (a loose translation).
God is not a mortal man.
Therefore, God is a mouse!!!

Can a mouse stand trial?

 

[scott-atkinson]

Various of his plans appear to have gone wrong.
Burns said that the best laid plans of mice and men often go wrong (a loose translation).
God is not a mortal man.
Therefore, God is a mouse!!!

Can a mouse stand trial?

Off to the mouse trap with you...

 

[scott-atkinson]

Various of his plans appear to have gone wrong.
Burns said that the best laid plans of mice and men often go wrong (a loose translation).
God is not a mortal man.
Therefore, God is a mouse!!!

Can a mouse stand trial?

All a bit too cheesy for my liking....Gedit, cheesy...mouse...Damn I'm wasted here.

I should be on the Telly, was once, hurt me back, I fell off

 

[voidcranium]

The point is that he's a voted in senior government official.

In fact he's a dick-head who wants to try and sue a non existant fairy story figure. It's like trying to sue Peter Pan.

Surely to win, he would have to prove god exists - which he obviously can't.

Col

Did you not read the story linked in the first post?
I really don't think he is doing this to sue GOD but to show that the legal system is out of order.

Chambers, who skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians, said he filed the lawsuit to show that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody.

That, he said, was recently illustrated by a federal lawsuit he said triggered his lawsuit against God.

Tory Bowen, 24, sued a state judge who barred the words "ra**" and "victim," among other terms, in the trial of Pamir Safi, who Bowen says sexually assaulted her. Bowen said Lancaster District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront violated her free speech rights.

 

[GaryPanic]

yeah.. thats how i read it - this person is trying to highlight the legal nightmare system stateside

and using a high profile example ...

 

[shadow9449]

This is primarily a reply to Colin - and also to Len.

Invariably, "proofs" of God's existence must fail. Didn't Jesus warn Satan (in the desert) that one could not test God? Didn't Jesus tell us that only through FAITH (not proof) would we come to him - and to God through him?

I use this argument on "Intelligent Design Creationists" - drives 'em nuts.

Using the documentable statements as indicated above, it is clear that we can never prove God's existence - for that would violate the "only through faith" statement. We will not find proof on Earth, either. Jesus told Pontius Pilate his kingdom was not of this world. There will be no proof here.

Therefore any god whose existence you COULD prove is a false god. So if you worship the god whose existence you just proved, you put that (little-g) god before (big-G) God - violating one of the commandments.

Hmmmm - whom can you name that has a vested interest in getting you to violate commandments? I've got it - the entire notion of "Proof of God's Existence" is a ploy by SATAN! The whole Intelligent Design concept is BLASPHEMY!

Your argument is circular. It proves something about God assuming that Jesus is God. If Jesus were a complete myth or fairly tale (as I believe) or even if he lived but was not an authority on God, then the argument does not stand.

SHADOW

 

[dan-cat]

Your argument is circular. It proves something about God assuming that Jesus is God. If Jesus were a complete myth or fairly tale (as I believe) or even if he lived but was not an authority on God, then the argument does not stand.

SHADOW

yep, this is a classic case of "begging the question".

 

[statsman]

The argument about God's existance is like the chicken and the egg. Did God invent man or did man invent God.
A previous poster mentioned faith. God is a matter of faith. If you have faith and believe, no amount of scientific evidence is going to shake that belief.
If you don't believe, no amount of religious dogma is going to implant the belief.
One of the very essential freedoms we have is the right to worship God in our own way. I have always believed that this includes the right NOT to worship Him.

Now to my point.

Even though the United States has a constitutional guarentee separating Church and State, few will ever willingly vote for an athiest.
Successful candidates are photographed emerging from Church on Sunday and thanking God for their election.
It's an extraordinary situation.

 

[ColinEssex]

Even though the United States has a constitutional guarentee separating Church and State, few will ever willingly vote for an athiest.

If the USA stopped voting in religious freaks then maybe they will see the reality of life and not squirm out of things by hiding behind a book of fairy tales like GWB.
He said it was God that told him to invade Iraq and get tens of thousands of US soldiers killed - he also says he consults God on any major decision he makes. No wonder he's made a complete dogs dinner of things

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Some of youse guys missed the point of my argument. And NO, you are categorically wrong, it is not circular. It is a denial of the POSSIBILITY of proof of the "real" God's existence (assuming ad argumentum that He exists.) Then the yahoos who go on trying to prove that which cannot be proven (because they are all too DUMB to think that critically) suddenly come face to face with the backhanded possibility that they are dupes of the enemy that they have claimed as an enemy. It is NOT circular because it does not end up proving that God exists by assuming He exists. It is a conditional hypothesis that if He really DOES exist, trying to prove that existence - given the very evidence most religious whackos use - is itself blasphemous.

In other words, using their own rules to "hoist them on their own pitard" so to speak.

Trust me, most of the religious yahoos who get into the IDC controversy don't have the ability to think cricitically enough to detect circularity. Only a very few ever get there.

As to the "absence of evidence" is not "evidence of absence" - true. As to possibilities, we can go on about possibilities forever and not get anywhere constructive when dealing with supernatural possibilities. I leave the question of God's existence as a matter of faith - which, oddly enough, is where it is SUPPOSED to be if you read the Bible.

 

[shadow9449]

It is NOT circular because it does not end up proving that God exists by assuming He exists. It is a conditional hypothesis that if He really DOES exist, trying to prove that existence - given the very evidence most religious whackos use - is itself blasphemous.

Nope. Because you are still presupposing that the only model of God is a first century Jewish guy with sandals. There are many, many other models of God who are not quoted as saying that it's all about faith.

SHADOW

 

[statsman]

He said it was God that told him to invade Iraq and get tens of thousands of US soldiers killed Col

I don't think the US body count in Iraq has reached 10,000 yet.
Perhaps if it had the Democrats in the US Congress who tried to cut off funding for the war would have been successful.

 

[ColinEssex]

I don't think the US body count in Iraq has reached 10,000 yet.

True, a slight exaggeration on my part, but the point was that it was God that told George to do it so that clears him of any blame.

Col

 

[dan-cat]

It is a denial of the POSSIBILITY of proof of the "real" God's existence (assuming ad argumentum that He exists.)

You are making an assertion on the basis of an unstable premise.

Didn't Jesus warn Satan (in the desert) that one could not test God? Didn't Jesus tell us that only through FAITH (not proof) would we come to him - and to God through him?

I use this argument on "Intelligent Design Creationists" - drives 'em nuts.

Using the documentable statements as indicated above, it is clear that we can never prove God's existence

Where is your evidence that these "documentable statements" are true and therefore can be used to ground an argument? Sorry, your argument is circular

 

[dan-cat]

Where is your evidence that these "documentable statements" are true and therefore can be used to ground an argument? Sorry, your argument is circular

One more thing, you cannot use the assumption of a truth to disprove itself.

You assume God exists. You therefore cannot reach the conclusion that He may NOT exist from this. Otherwise you prove the invalidity of your own premise and thus the grounds of your argument.

 

[Rich]

True, a slight exaggeration on my part, but the point was that it was God that told George to do it so that clears him of any blame.

Col

And oddly enough it's one of the other gods that's telling Muslims to fight back, how odd