Pros and Cons of Proving God Exists?

[Kidlicious]

It doesn't need to be proven. You just have to have read the thread. Simple facts are not proven.

[Elok]

It doesn't need to be proven. You just have to have read the thread. Simple facts are not proven.

Put yourself in my position: suppose I claim you said you enjoy sexual intercourse with giraffes, and continue to claim so despite numerous protests on your part. You know you didn't write such a thing, and nobody else can recall you ever saying anything of that sort. In such a context, it appears to be a plain libel. However, I insist that you said it somewhere in a thread with several hundred posts, and refuse to narrow it down or retract what I said. You can't even begin to guess what you could have said to give me that impression, so it's no good looking even if you felt like doing the irrational leg-work of proving my stupid assertion against yourself by digging through all of your posts for something that might possibly be misinterpreted to refer to sex and/or giraffes. The clear conclusion for you to come to in this hypothetical situation is that I am either deranged or a liar, or possibly both. No?

[Elok]

As soon as Kidicious can prove that he never made the statement in my signature then I'll gladly edit it out

I don't know that he'll mind, as you're on his ignore list.

[loinburger]

It's more a test to see if anybody is still willing to feign righteous indignation for Kidicious. I was frankly amazed at how many horrible posters protested Ben Kenobi's banning, and I'm curious to know if there are any posters horrible enough to champion Kidicious

[giblets]

Wow, Kidicious is disgusting. Why is anyone wasting their time talking to someone who wants to eat their ****?

[Kidlicious]

Put yourself in my position: suppose I claim you said you enjoy sexual intercourse with giraffes, and continue to claim so despite numerous protests on your part. You know you didn't write such a thing, and nobody else can recall you ever saying anything of that sort. In such a context, it appears to be a plain libel. However, I insist that you said it somewhere in a thread with several hundred posts, and refuse to narrow it down or retract what I said. You can't even begin to guess what you could have said to give me that impression, so it's no good looking even if you felt like doing the irrational leg-work of proving my stupid assertion against yourself by digging through all of your posts for something that might possibly be misinterpreted to refer to sex and/or giraffes. The clear conclusion for you to come to in this hypothetical situation is that I am either deranged or a liar, or possibly both. No?

You aren't in any such position. You have quite an imagination though.

[Elok]

Uh, YES, I AM. You're repeatedly posting a farfetched claim about me, refusing to back it up with evidence, but insisting the evidence is there to be found. Since, as Loin points out, it's impossible for me to prove I did NOT say something (short of quoting every single post from the time in question, which is several dozen posts in this case, and saying, "nope, nothing about deliberately saying nonsense here or here or here or here or here or here or..."), you "win" by default. Which is why, in arguments where one party makes an assertion which is contested by the other party, the first customarily backs up what it said or else retracts the claim.

Of course, there's really no reason for you to accept as sincere a claim I supposedly made about deliberately lying, but not the literally dozens of statements to the contrary I made after that. That's not a sensible position to take, and I submit that you are just acting irrationally out of mean-spirited perversity.

[Kidlicious]

:sigh: You already posted the evidence.

[Elok]

Then please link to my posting it. As I believe you once said, put up or shut up.

[Kidlicious]

Ah well I said that to someone who didn't accuse themselves of purposefully posting nonsense. Since that's your game the rules are different aren't they. Why should I post something just so that you can respond with nonsense?

[Elok]

Ah well I said that to someone who didn't accuse themselves of purposefully posting nonsense. Since that's your game the rules are different aren't they. Why should I post something just so that you can respond with nonsense?

I'm not sure if you're technically begging the question there, or if that's a new, entirely different fallacy of your own invention: "Why should I prove X about you? If I do, you'll just do X which I refuse to prove you do in the first place."

After posting an "argument" like that, are you in any position to lecture me about "posting nonsense?" (hint: NO)

[Kidlicious]

Anyway, I'm not going to 'put up' what is up already. The very fact that you insist that I do reveals your insidious motivation.

[Kidlicious]

How could you possibly think I'm trying to prove something? Do you think I should prove that the sun has risen this morning? There is no need to prove those things. The original post is sufficient.

[Kidlicious]

Also, if you want me to do something I wouldn't say "as loinburger says ..." I have him on ignore for very good reason. And if you are going to parot him you won't get far.

[Elok]

Oh, you caught the flaw in my argument: an excessive reliance on "logic" and "supporting assertions!" Was it all the giraffe-humping you do that makes you so incredibly clever?