The Left Loses Ground...

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Which, of course, isn't supported by any of the 'logic' he's offering here.

How does your quote not supported by the reasoning I've advanced here?

And please be specific...

 

[Skylar]

Nature IS God, Gilligan. No Nature, No God... No God, No Nature....

What God is that?

Nature, Gilligan. There's only one.

LOL! Or would you like to offer evidence of some other nature, that you're 'aware' of?

(Reader... LOL! I know, right ?)

So you're rejecting the notion of a soul. A supernatural being. A Creator.

In this thread perhaps. But Keys has already spilled the beans on his actual conception of god.

But God came to earth in the form of a human being whose name was Jesus. He lived a sinless life, saved many lives curing physical maladies and contested the power in his region, and he did so knowing that they would torture him, over several days and nail him to the cross to die a slow and agonizing death and he did so to spare you the eternal damnation you otherwise so richly deserve.

You need only ask him to save you from that, turn from your life of ignorance and pursuit of self fulfillment and praise him as your lord and savior and you will be spared.

The Existence of God Almighty Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Which, of course, isn't supported by any of the 'logic' he's offering here.

How does your quote not supported by the reasoning I've advanced here?

And please be specific...

You've presented no logic nor evidence here that affirms any of that. You've simply offered us your subjective opinion, labeled it, and then declared your subjective opinion 'objective'.

Um, no. That's not how objective works.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature IS God, Gilligan. No Nature, No God... No God, No Nature....

What God is that?

Nature, Gilligan. There's only one.

LOL! Or would you like to offer evidence of some other nature, that you're 'aware' of?

(Reader... LOL! I know, right ?)

So you're rejecting the notion of a soul. A supernatural being. A Creator.

In this thread perhaps. But Keys has already spilled the beans on his actual conception of god.

But God came to earth in the form of a human being whose name was Jesus. He lived a sinless life, saved many lives curing physical maladies and contested the power in his region, and he did so knowing that they would torture him, over several days and nail him to the cross to die a slow and agonizing death and he did so to spare you the eternal damnation you otherwise so richly deserve.

You need only ask him to save you from that, turn from your life of ignorance and pursuit of self fulfillment and praise him as your lord and savior and you will be spared.

The Existence of God Almighty Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Which, of course, isn't supported by any of the 'logic' he's offering here.

lol, he got caught trying to deny that supernatural being such as the Christian God cannot be shown to exist.

ROFLMNAO.

Tell me Gilligan what makes Jesus or God the Father "Super-Natural"?

God is nature... Therefore What God is... Is the definition of Natural.

My guess is that you're conflating you starkly limited understanding of nature, as a finite being existing for an infinitesimal instant within an infinitesimal layer of gas surrounding an infinitesimal rock within slightly less infinitesimal cluster of rocks clumped around minor traces of energy among an incomprehensibly vast sea of such clumps... within a single dimension of infinite dimensions... with Gods.

And for that pitiful perspective YOU demand that you've some understanding of what is 'natural'.

Let me clue ha in scamp... Nature is no super-natural... You're simply sub-natural.

(Reader, best give GILLIGAN some time to let what stands for a brain in his case a chance to cool down... after that one. It has no means to understand any of it, but it's curiosity will force it to try for a few minutes and that could overheat that mess.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I need 'discredit' nothing.

Oh... Then the self-evident truth remains standing due to nothing having been presented in opposition. And with that: your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.(See how easy this is Reader?)

All you're doing is labeling your personal opinion again. This time calling it 'Self Evident truth'. But its still just your subjective opinion.

(Reader, skylark has absolutely no understanding of what subjective actually means... You're not confused... It is.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

What God is that?

Nature, Gilligan. There's only one.

LOL! Or would you like to offer evidence of some other nature, that you're 'aware' of?

(Reader... LOL! I know, right ?)

So you're rejecting the notion of a soul. A supernatural being. A Creator.

In this thread perhaps. But Keys has already spilled the beans on his actual conception of god.

But God came to earth in the form of a human being whose name was Jesus. He lived a sinless life, saved many lives curing physical maladies and contested the power in his region, and he did so knowing that they would torture him, over several days and nail him to the cross to die a slow and agonizing death and he did so to spare you the eternal damnation you otherwise so richly deserve.

You need only ask him to save you from that, turn from your life of ignorance and pursuit of self fulfillment and praise him as your lord and savior and you will be spared.

The Existence of God Almighty Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Which, of course, isn't supported by any of the 'logic' he's offering here.

lol, he got caught trying to deny that supernatural being such as the Christian God cannot be shown to exist.

ROFLMNAO.

Tell me Gilligan what makes Jesus or God the Father "Super-Natural"?

God is nature... Therefore What God is... Is the definition of Natural.

My guess is that you're conflating you starkly limited understanding of nature, as a finite being existing for an infinitesimal instant within an infinitesimal layer of gas surrounding an infinitesimal rock within slightly less infinitesimal cluster of rocks clumped around minor traces of energy among an incomprehensibly vast sea of such clumps... within a single dimension of infinite dimensions... with Gods.

And for that pitiful perspective YOU demand that you've some understanding of what is 'natural'.

Let me clue ha in scamp... Nature is no super-natural... You're simply sub-natural.

(Reader, best give GILLIGAN some time to let what stands for a brain in his case a chance to cool down... after that one. It has no means to understand any of it, but it's curiosity will force it to try for a few minutes and that could overheat that mess.)

If you believe in the divinity of Jesus you believe that supernatural unseen unknown creatures exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apparently your purpose is to type the phrase 'sub-human' as often as possible.

Based upon what?

Your frequent, often pointless use of the phrase 'sub-human'. You go to extravagantly awkward lengths to call people that, often basing entire posts on the premise.

I have never 'called' anyone sub-human. Although I have noted the characteristics that separate humanity from the sub-species... Pointing to the similar absence of those traits in certain individuals therein noting the sub-human nature of those individuals

Do you then saying this?

"It's a very serious thing, despite the habit of very foolish sub-humans called Leftists, or 'humanists' who like to make light of that very simple principle, much as they made light of the sound actuarial lending principles which they recently disregarded, managing to crash the international financial markets."

Go ahead. Deny it. Then I'll post all the times you've called people sub-human...

That was me noting the absence of the traits that define humanity and noting that adherents to Left-think lack those traits.

(Reader note how eager they are to change the subject...)

No that was you calling people sub-human, something you lied about in this thread.

Is there a commandment about lying in your religion?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If you believe in the divinity of Jesus you believe that supernatural unseen unknown creatures exist.

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't that ADORABLE ?

Instead of having to actually engage the standing point, the disordered mind simply pretends the point was not stood up... ( But I did warn ya that he had no means to understand it... didn't I? LOL! Oh my... I say it here and it comes out THERE!)

Let's review, Gilligan:

Once again: What makes Jesus or God the Father "Super-Natural", Gilligan?

God is nature... Therefore what God is... IS the definition of Natural, now isn't it?

My guess is that you're conflating you starkly limited understanding of nature, wherein you are a particularly finite being, existing for an infinitesimal instant within an infinitesimal layer of gas surrounding an infinitesimal rock within slightly less infinitesimal cluster of rocks clumped around minor traces of energy among an incomprehensibly vast sea of such clumps spinning around within what we like to think of as a vacuum... and THAT within a single dimension of infinite dimensions, with God's understanding.

And for that pitiful perspective YOU demand that you've some understanding of what is 'natural'.

Let me clue ha in scamp... Nature is no super-natural... You're simply sub-natural.

(Again Reader, you best give GILLIGAN some time to let what stands for a brain in his case, a chance to cool down after that one. It has no means to understand any of it, but its base curiosity will force it to try for a few minutes and that could easily overheat that mess.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No that was you calling people sub-human...

No Gilligan, it's not and, this being so, despite your feckless protestations to the contrary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No that was you calling people sub-human...

No Gilligan, it's not and, this being so, despite your feckless protestations to the contrary.

Proving you lied is the cake. Getting you to deny it is the frosting.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No that was you calling people sub-human...

No Gilligan, it's not and, this being so, despite your feckless protestations to the contrary.

Proving you lied is the cake. Getting you to deny it is the frosting.

OH~ Poor little thing, it's got neither cake, NOR frosting... and to make matters worse, its down to pretending that it does.

(Breaks the heart, doesn't it Reader?)

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you believe in the divinity of Jesus you believe that supernatural unseen unknown creatures exist.

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't that ADORABLE ?

Instead of having to actually engage the standing point, the disordered mind simply pretends the point was not stood up... ( But I did warn ya that he had no means to understand it... didn't I? LOL! Oh my... I say it here and it comes out THERE!)

Let's review, Gilligan:

Once again: What makes Jesus or God the Father "Super-Natural", Gilligan?

God is nature... Therefore what God is... IS the definition of Natural, now isn't it?

My guess is that you're conflating you starkly limited understanding of nature, wherein you are a particularly finite being, existing for an infinitesimal instant within an infinitesimal layer of gas surrounding an infinitesimal rock within slightly less infinitesimal cluster of rocks clumped around minor traces of energy among an incomprehensibly vast sea of such clumps spinning around within what we like to think of as a vacuum... and THAT within a single dimension of infinite dimensions, with God's understanding.

And for that pitiful perspective YOU demand that you've some understanding of what is 'natural'.

Let me clue ha in scamp... Nature is no super-natural... You're simply sub-natural.

(Again Reader, you best give GILLIGAN some time to let what stands for a brain in his case, a chance to cool down after that one. It has no means to understand any of it, but its base curiosity will force it to try for a few minutes and that could easily overheat that mess.)

Let me help you.

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: supernatural

1. 1.
   (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

noun
noun: supernatural; plural noun: supernaturals

1. 1.
   manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No that was you calling people sub-human...

No Gilligan, it's not and, this being so, despite your feckless protestations to the contrary.

Proving you lied is the cake. Getting you to deny it is the frosting.

OH... Poor little thing, it's got no cake AND no frosting... and it's down to pretending that it does.

(Breaks the heart, doesn't it Reader?)

Ridicule is a classic fallacious argument. I'm not surprised you don't know that.

 

[Skylar]

I need 'discredit' nothing.

Oh... Then the self-evident truth remains standing due to nothing having been presented in opposition. And with that: your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.(See how easy this is Reader?)

All you're doing is labeling your personal opinion again. This time calling it 'Self Evident truth'. But its still just your subjective opinion.

(Reader, skylark has absolutely no understanding of what subjective actually means... You're not confused... It is.)

Of course I do. And you labeling your personal opinions as 'laws of nature' is just your subjective personal opinion with a label.

And oddly, its all you have. You can't logically support your claims. There's no reason behind them. You simply present whatever you choose to imagine as an infallible authority. And.....then nothing. There's literally nothing else to your claims but slight variants on the same silly Appeal to Authority fallacy.

The only differences between retellings is the authority you claim to speak for. Sometimes its 'reality', sometimes 'God', sometimes 'objective truth' sometimes its 'self evident truth' sometimes 'nature'. But its always just your subjective opinion.

Subjective isn't objective. You can't get around that.

 

[Skylar]

God is nature... Therefore what God is... IS the definition of Natural, now isn't it?

Says you. But you can't logically support your claim. You certainly have no evidence to back it. All you do is state your opinion, label your opinion, then declare your newly labeled opinion is now 'objective'.

Nope. Its still just your opinion. And you pretending to speak for Jesus doesn't change the fact that its just you citing yourself

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nature says that puberty marks that age that humans can reproduce. Why do we have laws that criminalize sex with 13 year olds?

 

[Skylar]

Nature says that puberty marks that age that humans can reproduce. Why do we have laws that criminalize sex with 13 year olds?

Don't bother. Keys does with nature what he does with any source you claims to speak for: he cherry picks. Lauding the parts he likes as 'universal law', ignoring anything he doesn't like. Where by any rational measure if nature were his guide, any part of nature would be as authoritative as any other.

Leaving Keys as his own source........with any part of nature that doesn't match what he already believes discarded and ignored.

So much for 'objective law'.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

God is nature... Therefore what God is... IS the definition of Natural, now isn't it?

Says you. But you can't logically support

Dear God and Natural law are basic foundations of our govt. Natural law is intrinsic in nature and cant be superceded by liberal govt.


The Founders DID NOT establish the Constitution for the purpose of granting rights. Rather, they established this government of laws (not a government of men) in order to secure each person's Creator endowed rights to life, liberty, and property.

Only in America, did a nation's founders recognize that rights, though endowed by the Creator as unalienable prerogatives, would not be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with a higher law. They called it "natural law," or "Nature's law." Such law is the ultimate source and established limit for all of man's laws and is intended to protect each of these natural rights for all of mankind. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 established the premise that in America a people might assume the station "to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If you believe in the divinity of Jesus you believe that supernatural unseen unknown creatures exist.

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't that ADORABLE ?

Instead of having to actually engage the standing point, the disordered mind simply pretends the point was not stood up... ( But I did warn ya that he had no means to understand it... didn't I? LOL! Oh my... I say it here and it comes out THERE!)

Let's review, Gilligan:

Once again: What makes Jesus or God the Father "Super-Natural", Gilligan?

God is nature... Therefore what God is... IS the definition of Natural, now isn't it?

My guess is that you're conflating you starkly limited understanding of nature, wherein you are a particularly finite being, existing for an infinitesimal instant within an infinitesimal layer of gas surrounding an infinitesimal rock within slightly less infinitesimal cluster of rocks clumped around minor traces of energy among an incomprehensibly vast sea of such clumps spinning around within what we like to think of as a vacuum... and THAT within a single dimension of infinite dimensions, with God's understanding.

And for that pitiful perspective YOU demand that you've some understanding of what is 'natural'.

Let me clue ha in scamp... Nature is no super-natural... You're simply sub-natural.

(Again Reader, you best give GILLIGAN some time to let what stands for a brain in his case, a chance to cool down after that one. It has no means to understand any of it, but its base curiosity will force it to try for a few minutes and that could easily overheat that mess.)

Let me help you.

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: supernatural

1. 1.
   (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

noun
noun: supernatural; plural noun: supernaturals

1. 1.
   manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.

Oh my... A SOURCED REFERENCE! And from Gilligan no less... .

My goodness there's ice raining all across hell, even as we speak.

Oh now... Let's see...

You've come to lean on a referenced citation which defines "SUPERNATURAL" as something that exists beyond scientific understanding and you want to stand your profession that Jesus could NOT be God incarnate, because, such is beyond scientific understanding; meaning what Gilligan, that if science doesn't understand it, it cant exist?

ROFLMNAO! Seriously?

Huh... Well let's see, do I just giggle at the limited intellect common to sub-species or try to explain it to something that has already demonstrated no means to negotiate the subject?

.
.
.

Well... Reader, let's you and I discuss it and Gilligan can follow along or not, assuming nothing shiny comes along to distract it.

The problem Gilligan has, beyond the obvious... is that there's nothing particularly difficult to understand about the natural circumstances that God would need to exist within to do what Gilligan considers to be 'SUPER-natural', which it considers to be synonymous with 'impossible'.

First... we know that the best science on the subject predicts an infinite number of dimensions, of which our 'uni-verse' is but uno...

Now, within these respective verses would be infinite slivers of what we think of as 'time'.

Which I should explain; time is little more than the perception that is formed in our brain as it samples, its respective senses.

Let's not get bogged down in the specifics, but for the sake of argument, assume that our brain polls its senses 1000 times a second... (which it doesn't, it's much MUCH lower...) The individual cluster of data represents our present... what it sampled a minute ago is our past and what our brain estimates that it will sample a minute from now, is the future.

In reality, there is no past, nor is there a future... there is only what is being sampled presently.

Now to demonstrate that... imagine that our brain only samples 1 time a minute... just that tiny shift in the perspective of time, would make what we perceive in terms of 'the speed of l i f e ', appear to be flying by... with all sensual input being equal some things would not even be scored; such as a passing plane... or a single care passing us on a rural highway...

Inversely, if our brain sampled the same senses 10,000 times a second with the same means to process that information... it would appear to us that life was moving V e r y . . . S L O W L Y , perhaps even frozen entirely.

So 'time' is in reality, something very different from what we 'perceive' it to be.

And without going too deeply into it, 'space' is very much the same... it's a word we use all the time with numerous senses... but in reality, space is not what we think of it as, at all... and it is inseparable from time.

Now, those of you who either went to school back before the 90s or were homeschooled, know that energy can neither be created, nor destroyed... that all matter contains the energy intrinsic to it's nuclear composition and that because of what we think of as electromagnetism, all matter is comprised of given elements, the composition of which is a function of the combination of electrons, neutrons and a bunch of new cool stuff that we've recently discovered with regard to the sub-components of such.

Ok... with energy being infinite (within our limited perspective) and present in every scintilla of what we call matter... then a 'being' or 'force' or an entity whose composition is such that it even understands the electromagnetic properties that bind sub-particles, could readily manipulate that force and convert the gas that comprises 'thin air' into say... Oh I dunno... Wine. Or if ya don't like that example, say... Bread then.

It could just as easily turn 'water' into a solid or cascade changing matter as it 'moves' from place to place, which would appear as motion, but without so much as a muscle twitch... and/or it could be present, absent matter at all... or as matter, but phased slightly out of time; simple changes to sub-atomic elements, would provide that it appear 'be' whatever it wanted it to 'be'... at anytime, at any place, in the 'future' or 'past'... and do it across infinite dimensions.

Just imagine what one could do is one could increase one's mental sampling to just ten times what it is... no one anywhere could ever match you mentally or physically.

And THAT would be perfectly natural... and we know this because the human brain is will capable of it and does it all the time. I doubt any of us have not heard people convey their own experiences where 'it was like everything was in slow-motion'... .

In reality, the stress caused the brain to sample at an increased rate and that allowed them to move faster, to avoid what the brain sensed as extreme danger, a simple but essential survival mechanism, of an otherwise very simple organism... .

Now... Gilligan can't understand ANY of this... it is so far beyond his intellectual means that if he dedicated his LIFE to nothing else and lived for another 1000 years, it would be no better understanding of it, than it does right now and that is because Gilligan lacks the means to reason, soundly. Thus lacking that essential element that separates humanity from the sub-species.

In truth, there is nothing complex about any of this... to understand it, one must simply possess the desire to reason objectively... to practice such, and enjoy the process as one's humanity expands into something worthy of the exercise.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No that was you calling people sub-human...

No Gilligan, it's not and, this being so, despite your feckless protestations to the contrary.

Proving you lied is the cake. Getting you to deny it is the frosting.

OH... Poor little thing, it's got no cake AND no frosting... and it's down to pretending that it does.

(Breaks the heart, doesn't it Reader?)

Ridicule is a classic fallacious argument. I'm not surprised you don't know that.

Ridicule, in and of itself, is not fallacious Gilligan.

LOL!

Ya dumbass.

(Now THAT was fallacious... specifically, the attack upon the dumbass [that's you])

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

(Reader, skylark has absolutely no understanding of what subjective actually means... You're not confused... It is.)

Of course I do.

ROFL! Well there ya go... and that she 'BELIEVES" that stating a point makes the point subjective... is otherwise meaningless.

And why is holding that which is false to be considered truth? Because she needs it to be true... she, being the subject, rejects the objective facts, OKA: The Truth... and merely substitutes that needs of the subject, which is her... as truth.

It's called Relativism... and it's the foundation upon which Evil rests.

(Reader, do you SEE how easy this is? )