Goliath

Douglas (Yes, I *am* calling you Douglas, since I am attempting one last time to be civil to you),

Here are your biblical equations:

In
<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000220" target="_blank">this thread</a>, I put forth the following challenge:

You were either unable or unwilling to provide said proof.

So, it comes down to this, Douglas: Are you going to prove that your equations acutally prove that your god exists (assuming, for the moment, that your unit analysis on your functions are correct), or are you going to concede the fact that your equations prove nothing whatsoever other than condition 1?

Take note, Douglas, that gathering evidence, or showing that certain unproven assumptions are "reasonable" simply will not do. You have stepped into the realm of mathematical rigor. Wishy-washy evidence gathering has no place here.

Again: evidence is irrelevant. "Reasonableness" of claims is irrelevant.

Good luck!

Sincerely,

Goliath


A note to others reading this thread: I know that many of you have brought up problems with Douglas' mathematical analysis of his equations before. I am not starting this thread to belittle your efforts. I am starting this thread to either show that Douglas' argument for the existence of his god crumbles even *if* his analysis is correct, or to find something that is closer to the proof of the existence of a god than anything else that I have ever seen.

Edited to add three very important points:

1. I've made this thread to critique Douglas' proof of the existence of his god. To keep Douglas from getting overwhelmed with responses, I'd appreciate it if you guys ("you guys" meaning the infidels reading this board) would keep your replies in this thread to a minimum. Of course, you may by all means open up new threads to discuss this one.

2. To those of you who do post in this thread: Please try to keep insults to a bare minimum. This is my final attempt to treat Douglas like a human being (which is not at all how he's treated any atheist on this board). It would seem that his chances of responding in a civil manner would be maximized if people in this thread were not to insult and heckle him.

3. I've put this thread in the EoG forum because it has to do with a supposed proof for the existence of a god. I request that it please not be moved to RRP unless the level of conversation decomposes to that commonly found in RRP.

(edited a second time for clarity)

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

Goliath,


We appear to be somewhat on the same wavelength, in that over in the thread where you "challenged" me, before I had even looked at this thread, I made some conditions similar to the requests you made here of others who might post in this thread. I would like to comment on some things you said, in order to "set the record straight" (and perhaps you can refrain from making little "jabs" at me in the future, and stick to the issues, which will help the discussion from getting sidetracked):
Hear, Hear!! And note that in this case "bare minimum" is ZERO. Anything more, and the discussion is over (I've got better things to do with my time than subject myself to constant, or any, mockery or insults).

Correction: "...which is not at all how HE'S been treated by practically all atheists on this board". There...now the record has been set straight, and we're even on this score - shall we go on to other things? Alrighty, then.

Amen.

In Christ,

Douglas

Goliath

Douglas,

I believe we've had this discussion before. For now, I'm willing to drop it if you are, in an attempt to move onto your proof.

Speaking of which...............where is your proof that conditions 1 and 2 imply conditions 3 through 7?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Douglas,

I'm going to bed. I'll be keeping my eye on this thread tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Douglas J. Bender

Goliath,


Nighty-nite. I'll be thinking up a response tomorrow, which might not be posted until late tomorrow, or maybe even the day after (or, if it happens to be short and I'm not busy, maybe early late tomorrow evening).


In Christ,

Douglas

Pomp

I am also very interested in how Douglas intends to show that his equations mean anything other than that he can find interestign number games to play, so I would appreciate it if everyone would honor Goliath's request to keep this thread civil and on track.

Jobar

I am not averse to allowing this to take place here, but if you two prefer it to be one on one, I suggest you move it to Formal Debates & Discussions. If others decide to chime in, I wouldn't shush them- EoG is an *open* forum.

If you want to speak to rbochnermd, I am certain he will set you right up. This thread could serve as the 'peanut gallery.'

Goliath

Jobar,

I thought about setting such a thing up, but here is the problem: In this thread, I am only going to critique Douglas' proof, not debate him. Since I am merely pointing out any holes that I find in Douglas' proof, I have no side of a debate to defend.

However, I suppose that this thread is something of a "formal discussion," so perhaps it wouldn't be out of place in Formal Debates & Discussions.

I guess if Douglas wouldn't be averse to moving the discussion there, then neither would I.

Sincerely,

Goliath

(editud 'cuz of typo)

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Principia

Given DJB's past record, I would caution Goliath here in having a debate in FDD which he may not be able to finish alone. It is perhaps better to keep this thread here, where people who have previously contributed to the refutation of DJB's equations could continue to contribute to this thread ... in whatever tone/format that is required of this forum.

Goliath

Douglas, it's Thursday night, and I haven't seen your proof, yet.

Although, since I am going to bed somewhat early (just before 9:00pm CST), it is possible that you haven't gotten around to posting it, yet.

Anyways, I need to get up early tomorrow morning (hell, what makes tomorrow any different? I have to get up early 5 days a week. ).

I hope to see your proof soon.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Who thinks that the Senate and House should stop bickering about the Pledge of Alliegance and start working on a Constitutional amendment to outlaw mornings!