40 Days of Indefatigable Copying and Pasting
 

For the next 40 days I will be presenting some reasons why I believe in Jesus. Each day I will make one additional post. Enjoy :)

Today I’d like to start at the beginning with the basics: There is a God.

The law of physics that states “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” depicts the operational manner of our universe. Therefore, it is impossible that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, or that it should be able to move itself. Everything, consequently, is moved by something else. Therefore, it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this, I submit to you, is God.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

actually, that statement disproves your conclusion.

alternatively, it could be possible that our universe is some type of supercircle, with the one thing moving the next the next all the way around, simply looping.

not that i think that is the case, but it fulfills the criteria you lay out, where your hypothesis fails.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Travler, since you're a believer I thought about asking you that if god created the mankind then why the **** there's a G-point in men's anus and bibble protests against gays. Just to make pooing feel better? :(

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Travlr, here's your problem:

Very few people here care to hear what you have to say. You've already demonstrated an inability to respond to arguments. You do not talk with anyone, you simply talk at people, and listen to nothing we have to say. I think we've all accepted that you just don't understand anything anyone else is saying.

Nobody wants to talk with people who do not listen to them.

Here's another problem:

You already know you are right. This is probably related to the first problem. You're not open to the possibility that you may be wrong.

Another one:

Your motive. It's really despicable. Nobody here is looking to be converted, nobody here gives you any credibility (at least that I know of). Thank you for trying to save us, I'm sure you've scored some bonus points with the Jesus. It's duly noted somewhere in his big naughty and nice list.

Finally:
You're as shallow and pointless as any human I have ever met. You string words together in a sentence the way a 5 year old places shiny plastic beads on a makeshift neclace during a kindergarden art session. You post quotes you yourself don't understand. You are dogmatic. You are an attention whore, a troll, and an evangalist. A trifecta responsible for the worst of posters online. You relish in the negative attention, you're a martyr for your own twisted cause, and you pride yourself on all the abuse we heap on you.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Whew. Travler, this could be interesting.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

There isn't a God.

The law of physics that states “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” depicts the operational manner of our universe. Therefore, it is possible that anything could be both mover and the thing moved, or that it could be able to move itself. Everything, consequently, is moved by something. Therefore, it is not necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by something---and this, I submit to you, is because of physics.



DAY 1 BABY AND YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN OWNED!

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

My great fear is that, as promised, this travesty will continue for 40 days...

I swear that even Jesus would denounce God at the mere sight of this thread by then.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

I'm sure we're all going to believe in Jesus when Travler has made his 40 very informative and interesting posts.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

It's Philosophy 101 all over again.

And this, I submit to you, is the Big Bang. And this, I submit to you, is Purple Space Elephants. And this, I submit to you, is anything you want to believe.

"God" obviously does not follow from "First Cause". Even Aquinas realised this.


Secondly the argument does not show that there is precisely one first cause, it only shows that there is at least one first cause. More gods? Are you prepared to accept Polytheism might be true?

1) Every event in the natural world traces back to an event that occurs outside nature.

2) There is a single event outside of the natural world to which each event traces back.

The argument only 'proves' (1), it does not prove (2).


You really ought to give up this pointless excercise. You won't convert anyone on this forum. Take your nonsense ministry elsewhere.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

who moved god?

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

He was moved to tears by Bambi, if that counts.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" -Acts 1:3

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

We should ban Travler under the advertising clause

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Ban.
User.
Please.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

God killed Bambi's mother :mad:

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Travler, if you're not going to respond to other posts in this thread I'm going to delete this as it's the sort of shit we banned Texan over (actually he might not have been banned, he might just have been on a final warning or something). This is a discussion forum, not a well-placed pulpit.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

I would support deleting this thread; I'd rather hear 5 good arguments than 40 bad ones, and if Travler isnt going to bother engaging in debate then the whole enterprise is pointless. If I wanted to read an endless list of arguments for God's existence then I could just google for philosophy of religion 101.

However you should bear in mind I'm part of the IRC anti-christian conspiracy which is actively victimising Travler for his religious beliefs rather than for his terrible posts.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

It had to be done to teach the world about the evil that resides within all Deer, lest we be taken in by their doe-eyed stares and empty promises!

Yay, rejoice in the fact the deer was punished by our lord, for she hath not been to confession her whole life, even though a church hath resideth downeth only yon street from her house. Eth.

Lazy bitch!

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Newton's Third Law, which is (ignoring Newton's claim that he argued them from first principles, because they only an approximation in many cases) an empirical approximation.

That's an incorrect interpretation of Newton III. It just states that if something starts moving, something else starts moving, because momentum is conserved.

There's quite a few missing steps here, and, has been pointed out, this has been rejected as an argument for god by christian scholars for nearly a thousand years.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

I don't see why people can't just let him submit his 40 reasons.

What, so you don't believe in God? So what - he evidently does. He isn't trying to force you to believe in God either, he's just giving reasons for his belief.

I'm curious to see what these 40 reasons for believing in God are, actually.

Stop being stubborn jerks and let him post. I'd like to see him respond to a few of the above posts though (mainly s|k's).

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

he is a proselytizing idiot and/or a troll. If he believes the nonsense he is posting, I frankly don't give a shit: he isn't defending it against legitimate criticism and as such this is to all intents and purposes spam.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Because it's not a lecture hall, it's a discussion forum. It might be slightly different if he posted them all at once. It'd be very different if he posted them all at once and then responded to replies. However he appears to be doing neither.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Perhaps if people played devils advocate (hoho) on some of his points we could have an interesting discussion in any case.

I've never been to a lecture where the lecturer has been shouted down by most of the students :(

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Clearly you've never been to a sociology lecture in ireland where the lecturer advocated outlawing alcohol to lower crime rates.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Well it seems a good meeting to try your roller skates.

With noone being there etc.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

He can do that elsewhere if he doesn't want to discuss it. As has been pointed out, this is a discussion forum, not a lecturn that grants immunity to criticism.

Furthermore, if he doesn't want people to pick apart his arguments, he shouldn't label them as infallible. That's just asking for trouble.

It isn't a believing in god/not believing in god dichotomy; one of the longest and most heated (although not from my side) arguments I've had recently was on the scientific method and how it relates to String "Theory".

Eh?

"Stop posting, I want to see him respond to posts"?

If he actually replied to people, there wouldn't be a problem. But he doesn't.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

In all honesty, I think we should delete any thread about the validity of religion or whether there is a god etc, as quite frankly they near always end up descending into absolutely terrible, terrible threads, with or without travler. What people believe or don't believe in this regard is up to them and in all honesty leads to an almost pointless discussion. As JBG says it leads to something akin to lecturing rather than discussion and thus it shouldn't be present here.

travler obviously has his own reasons for being a christian, they're his own and I don't actually care what they are or why and i don't want to read them. I don't want to persuade him otherwise or like to see him ridiculed nor do I want to do it with other users regarding atheism as in all honesty, the thread will almost certainly be shit.

There's a strong qualitative argument for following my proposal and I hope the mods on here take note.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Most threads descend, at some point or level, into direness or bile; the fact that religion ones tend to more is merely an expression that people tend to care more about this debate, at least on the religious side of things.

Are we only meant to debate things we don't care about?

I disagree. I like finding out other viewpoints; I'm not so arrogant as to presume that I have thought of every argument upon every topic (although I will admit that, on the topic at hand, I have encountered a great amount of argument and discussion), and threads where there are frank exchanges of views give me an opportunity to evaluate my own beliefs and knowledge, and, if appropriate, adjust them accordingly.

That's a question of presentation, not of topic. I could make a lecturing thread about the scientific method, about making pizza, about Rise of Legends. It doesn't make them invalid areas for discussion, and indeed this wouldn't be a lecturing thread if Travler actually replied to people, which was part of J's post which you have chosen to ignore.

You don't. Are you so arrogant as to claim that you speak for everyone?

When people get uppity about the number, or mere presence, of football threads, do you argue with them because, obviously from their point of view, removing the football threads will improve the forum?

The entire point of the forum is to discuss things, if we have to have discussions only where everyone enjoys or understands them we'd never get very far.

If you're using "qualitative" in its conventional meaning, then it's redundent in this sentence. Furthermore, your argument is based on opinion where it has any logical merit at all, and thus, ironically, is rather appropriate for this thread.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

OK, i'll put it in simple terms for you as you want to pedant your way to some kind of success.

These kinds of threads are shit from pretty much reply 1 downwards, I don't enjoy reading them and I doubt there are many others who do either. These threads have always been crap, are crap and always will be crap. Trolling is more or less guaranteed and I think you can't get worse than threads like these.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

If you're complaining about pedantry, then your argument is one of:

• Stated badly
• Worded incorrectly
• Logically wrong

Which one are you complaining about, because from my point of view it seems to be (3).

Good for you. Don't read them.

Good for you. Don't read them.

Good for you. Don't read them.

Once again, you're being wonderfully appropriate for the thread, as you have chosen to ignore all the points I have made; are you obliquely commenting upon the problems that Travler has when constructing such a thread? Well done sir!

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

No, I'm just fed up of seeing shit threads like this. So bad we should just get rid and quit the fannying about that inevitably results.

It's not hard to understand.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

I'm glad you're a moderator on AD and not on here, as you don't appear to have gathered that the moderator's job is not to decide what kind of discussion lives or dies.

Having said that, on GD the moderator's job certainly appears to be to not post for months.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

I have to agree with MrL here, for probably the first time. If these kind of threads really do annoy people then the best way to kill them is to ignore them.

Censorship should be an undesirable last step in any discussion arena.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

I understand this, but any debate on the merits of religion always descend into the shitness of flaming, trolling and spouting bile at anyone who dare claim they are religious and thus rules always are broken within the first few replies.

It's a pretty much repetitive and near masturbatative activity of "lol i did a religious nut today lol" proportions, fundamentally shit and in fact is pretty much inviting travler to troll you all back in pretty stunning fashion. I see a point that if a topic just results in constant breaking of the rules, **** any kind of principles and put a stop to it because here I believe it's an issue where large numbers of GD users can't help but make threads like these really really poor.

While perhaps I can understand that a rule might be too drastic, the mods at least be more strict with a thread like this the very minute rule breaking starts as they descend into despair pretty pretty quickly, far faster than others.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

If he does, then he's gone (as J said above). If he isn't, then it's a worthwhile discussion.

I don't think many people have come into this thread expecting the latter, so it's not like you're revealing some mystical truth.

If people cause problems in a thread like this, then tell them to stop it, or moderate the thread in question. Simply banning a kind of discussion is not only morally wrong, it's also pretty laughable when this is supposed to be a discussion forum. Discussions sometime invite controversy, that's just part of the way things are.

Further to this, the same argument can be applied to many, many other threads on these forums.

If your intent is to drive people away, then your plan is a fine one.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Not at all - it's just that there seems to be a belief that only one person is to blame, when actually it appears to be from both sides as someone who isn't involved in this discussion. Rather than ban and punish a whole stack of users and run them out of town, we should stop the trouble before it starts.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

I fear we may not get either.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Give examples from this thread of both sides starting trouble, please.

Banning or punishment isn't necessary; many people can go with the swing of things and post more incendury things when they wouldn't usually, but if the thread itself is moderated, and the people concerned informed of the error of their ways, then if it becomes necessary to punish people in future it's because of their own stupid fault. If you think something needs moderation, try suggesting that it be moderated, rather than attempt to censor a valid area of discussion.

I think J considers that to be trolling.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

You know he's loving all of this attention. Just eating it up. Oh, and was it already established with certaintity that he's in fact not a gimmick?

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

If the next post is just proof #2 without any response to anything posted above, close the thread. It'd prevent us having to endure another 38 'proofs' and gives him a chance to prove he's not a one-track intellectual tape recording. Simple!

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

You always want to play the gimmick card. :(

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

He's anything but that.

Only because you never know. :/

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

This actually makes sense to me. Maybe he is waiting till today to respond at one time to all of the comments he received on "proof one." If that is his plan, it is not a bad one. If he plans no reply to his statements then it is crap and deserves being ignored.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

I do not expect he'll be responding to any sort of degree. I expect he will just go on with post #2. In his initial post he did not mention discussing it beyond the one post.

I think he was sent these 40 items in an email or something :|

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

I for one agree with Lokken and Jonny.

I would be appalled if Travler was allowed to carry out this campaign.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Is the campaign or God you disagree with?

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

I have spoken with him at great length and I must admit that I have not been able to work out which god he worships.

This is the effect of the illusion of monotheism, the fiction of religious unity.

To answer your question I object to the campaign. I would object if it were to be "40 reasons why shoes are good" or anything else. He doesn't engage in debate. He doesn't reply to posts. We have had lots of posters before who have done this and we have banned them all. I would hate to see Travler get away with it purely because he lies and claims that he is disliked because of his christianity.

The flaws are his own.

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

well, here is how i see it.

IF Travler is indeed strong in his conviction he will start posting here fighting for what he so deeply believes in. I dont think someone's faith could be chipped by some e-punks who think they know better. If he does indeed truly believes in what he posts, he should say somehting, imo.

IF he just started this as an attwhore, he will surely be scared to post as you , seeming how nice of a gang you are, will rip him a new e-hole with our posts.

So much agression over just a few lines of theological text... Besides prooving the point that religion sparks violence, so far nothing has been prooven and, tbh, i am making this useless post to shorten time untill Travler posts. And i hope he will. I hope this thread will turn from shit it is right now into a good well based debate (as much as it can possibly done, considering the topic of this conversation) I had some fun talks with people about theology, facts and fictions of faiths across the world and its far from boring conversation. But i guess some people are ready to jump the gun as soon as someone says word "god"... Lets see it through, to form our oppinion fully before bashing poor Travler into the ground.

Given huge possibility of simple trolling, its either going to be an interesting post, or just some other shit that you cannot stop frowning while reading.



=================================

P.S.: and i do want to know all 40 reasons to have my point of view formed. So... Travler... dont let those scumbags scare you with their cynicism. I am looking forward to argue your points. :salute:

Re: 40 Days of Infallible Proofs
 

Read some of his previous posts and threads. this isn't trolling nor is this an attempt to stimulate a decent debate. this is an attempt to spread the word of God to non-believers whilst ignoring any arguments against it.