I would like someone here to prove the idea that I am not a piece of paper.

[Darth_Nader]

Whoops, forgot to add the sarcasm smile…

[Joan_of_Argghh]

*Originally posted by ExecutiveJesus *
**I’ve abandoned you because your petty insults were getting tedious. I’m not here to cut the fat and then respond to the substance.

I’m here to have a fun debate. Not get shit on. You are clearly way too emotionally into this to objectively respond.

I mean, feel free to insult me, it’s of no consequence.

I’m just here to debate logic.

Have fun! **

Oh, but I am having just as much fun as you! Actually, more! I knew what you wanted, and how you wanted to control it, as part of the exercise. You see God, you can’t even define “fun.”

I was making a similar point about control. I wonder if you can find it, grasshopper, and continue having fun instead of assuming that someone is emotionally involved in the discussion. Now, that’s all the help I’m going to give you.

Plus, can one really debate logic? Oh… I won’t put you through that grinder. I’ll be nice.

[Typo_Negative]

Welcome, Joan.

Cool username!

[Dead_Badger]

*Originally posted by Joan of Argghh! *
Plus, can one really debate logic? Oh… I won’t put you through that grinder. I’ll be nice.

Oh, certainly one can, although it’s considered traditional, if not essential, to define one’s terms before inviting discussion. However, logic is not what our friend here is about. What he’s doing is the philosophical equivalent of saying “I’m thinking of a number between 1 and a billion. Can you guess it?”, then acting surprised when people fail to find this fun.

[Joan_of_Argghh]

Thanks, spooje! I was just thinking the same thing, the this place has some of the BEST user names! I even like Executive Jesus, but he doesn’t think I do. It’s a great name and gets some folks’ panties in a wad. I like that in a screen name! Hugh Jass is another favorite. You have to be brave to post with that name!

[Joan_of_Argghh]

*Originally posted by Dead Badger *
**Oh, certainly one can, although it’s considered traditional, if not essential, to define one’s terms before inviting discussion. However, logic is not what our friend here is about. What he’s doing is the philosophical equivalent of saying “I’m thinking of a number between 1 and a billion. Can you guess it?”, then acting surprised when people fail to find this fun. **

Oh, a wonderful example! Thanks! And then, it was such fun to see him abandon his thread, and his first definition of “God” when he found out he couldn’t even control his thread, much less other factors in his existence.

Logic is all well and good, but nothing beats a good object lesson.

[AndLuna]

If the gods are of equal spiritual power, then so be it. The class of “God” is still the highest spiritual power - though many share it in that culture.

Well, I’m not completely sure about that… I mean, for instance, in Roman mythology - if I’m remembering this right - the gods weren’t of equal spiritual power. Like, for instance, Jupiter, god of thunder, was definitely higher up on the spiritual-power scale than Cardea, a minor goddess of doorways. But Cardea was still a goddess, even though she wasn’t the highest spiritual power. So I’m not sure that definition completely works. Uh, I’m just saying.

AndLuna
who has never posted in the Pit before and is a bit nervous

[moriah]

*Originally posted by ExecutiveJesus *
That does not invalidate the concept that I am God. From where I stand, that’s exactly what I am. I am the highest spiritual power.

Dear God, prove the idea that my anus isn’t the best tasting anus in the world.

All evidence must be empirical. And don’t get into a debate over the definition of ‘anus.’

[danceswithcats]

Sorry, moriah but I’d bet the best award goes to that guy who makes the chocolate chip cookies, you know, Famous Anus.

[astro]

*Originally posted by Jonmarzie *
**Anyone? :dubious:

Wait, let me get my response ready.

“How do you know pieces of paper can’t ______? What do you base that on?”

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=226039 :rolleyes: **

I’ll concede your point. No matter how hard I’ve tried, despite your squealing protests, to stuff you in the paper tray of my trusty Laserjet 4, you wouldn’t fit even though I’ve moved the sizing tabs out to accommodate legal sized paper.

Getting you into a # 10 envelope was no piece of cake either.

[astro]

*Originally posted by ExecutiveJesus *
**If the gods are of equal spiritual power, then so be it. The class of “God” is still the highest spiritual power - though many share it in that culture.

That does not invalidate the concept that I am God. From where I stand, that’s exactly what I am. I am the highest spiritual power.

Also, I’m probably not your God. My control over you is quite minimal. However, I do not know what you percieve - I’m not you.

From the sound of it, I think I’d be making a safe bet in stating I am not your God.

I didn’t think this concept was going to be so difficult for Dopers to grasp. **

The “grasping” issue is a two way street. You are making comically juvenile attempts at constructing a lame, set logic God-Not God proof, in order to show the unwashed that they can’t prove God exists. This is tedious, boring and ultimately, largely beside the point for those of faith.

What you need to “grasp” is that most everyone understands what you’re getting at, it’s your annoying conviction that this tinkertoy set proof of yours, is really something that needs to be seriously engaged intellectually, that they are mocking.

[Jonmarzie]

*Originally posted by ExecutiveJesus *
**I’m sorry, maybe I didn’t make my point clear.

By “God”, I am referring to a classification. Being that I see not other gods but, myself, I become “God”. Not plural.

**

What is the difference between that and “the highest spiritual power”? Existence is really only defined through ourselves - Unless you’d like to suggest something else. **

Please don’t tell me that you’re suggesting that just because you don’t know about something doesn’t mean it’s there. Suppose you didn’t know that CD’s existed, and you asked me to prove that a 3x5 floppy disc wasn’t a CD. Your saying that a 3x5 floppy is the most CD-like thing you know of does not make it a CD at all. Just as there is one thing that can possibly be a CD, there is only one thing that can pass for “God.” “God” isn’t a word like “tall” or “happy” that is relative. It’s an absolute.

[Jonmarzie]

I guess you can’t just push the quote button to quote a quote, eh? I knew I should’ve used the preview…

[AncientHumanoid]

God would’ve known that.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

I keep thinking of that South Park parody of Rob Schneider movies:

Rob Schneider is…a stapler!

Rob Schneider is…a piece of paper!

Rob Schneider is…an annoying, tedious internet message board poster who writes inane questions in an effort to disprove God’s existence!

[moriah]

*Originally posted by astro *
**The “grasping” issue is a two way street. You are making comically juvenile attempts at constructing a lame, set logic God-Not God proof, in order to show the unwashed that they can’t prove God exists. This is tedious, boring and ultimately, largely beside the point for those of faith.

What you need to “grasp” is that most everyone understands what you’re getting at, it’s your annoying conviction that this tinkertoy set proof of yours, is really something that needs to be seriously engaged intellectually, that they are mocking. **

Dear ExecutiveJesus, what astro is trying to say, but is using too many hard words for you to understand is that we all know that you are not God because we all know that you are a moron.

Try to prove to me that I’m not wrong.

Hope that helps.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Let’s see.

1. I perceive “Highest Spiritual Power” as one of many alleged properties of God, within a monotheistic context.

2. But I am willing to accept this narrower definition for the purposes of argument (though I would think that it would belong in the 1st post of the original thread).

3. I am unclear about the definition of “spiritual power”.

4. If you believe that God (conventionally defined) exists, then you probably believe that God is the “highest spiritual power”. If you don’t believe that God (conventionally defined) exists, then some other character is presumably the “highest spiritual power” (or tied for highest), assuming that “spiritual power” is defined with sufficient precision.

5. So I can’t see how this has anything to do with the whether God exists or not. (Nonetheless, I understand that there is a related alleged proof for God which follows a similar format. But this is hardly the only alleged proof).

6. I can conceive of certain definitions of “spiritual power” whereby an atheist might submit that many humans are tied in 1st place in the category of, “Highest spiritual power.”

7. Ok, I have a list of 7 (no, 8!) items, and I’m still bored. Like others, I don’t think this argument is going anywhere.

8. I suppose one could argue that the, “Highest spiritual power” proof for God’s existance is irritating bunk. But that argument has not yet been made.

[Sinungaling]

God is dead – Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead – God

I think that settles the whole argument.

PS
Rene Descartes enters a bar and sits down.

The bartender goes up to him and asks, “So, would you like a drink?”

Descartes replies, “I think not,” and disappears.

[Soup_du_jour]

From NoClueBoy
God would’ve known that.

Who do you think Jonmarzieis? ExecutiveJesus?

[Dizzy_Fingers]

*Originally posted by Sinungaling *
**God is dead – Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead – God

I think that settles the whole argument.
**

But let’s see how Nietzche-Lad stacks up against GOD-MAN, the superhero with omnipotent powers!