3 easy ways to remember God exist.

[jerry mcmasters]

God is a proof himself but also a proof regarding who we are not to be an illusion, we exist in his vision and see him to be that vision and perfect judge defining us exactly as we are. You just have to see it, reminding of it is all I can do, I can't make you accept it nor can create that reality in your minds,  just remind of it.

When you wrote that, did you say it out loud a couple times to imagine how it would sound to someone not on acid?

[Gwaithmir]

God is a proof himself but also a proof regarding who we are not to be an illusion, we exist in his vision and see him to be that vision and perfect judge defining us exactly as we are. You just have to see it, reminding of it is all I can do, I can't make you accept it nor can create that reality in your minds,  just remind of it.

Yeah, and I'm King Isildur! 

[Reltzik]

God is a proof himself but also a proof regarding who we are not to be an illusion, we exist in his vision and see him to be that vision and perfect judge defining us exactly as we are. You just have to see it, reminding of it is all I can do, I can't make you accept it nor can create that reality in your minds,  just remind of it.

So, I'm going to go back to 6th grade English class and attempt to break down that first sentence's grammatical structure in an attempt to make heads or tails of it.

*diagrams*

Okay, I think the biggest part that's throwing me for a loop is that middle comma.  There should be a conjunction after that, probably "and", or maybe it should be a period followed by the beginning of a new sentence.  I'm going to proceed on that assumption, but YEESH that's a mess.

So let's start with the first half:  "God is a proof himself but also a proof regarding who we are not to be an illusion"

The subject and verb are pretty obvious:  "God" and "is".  God is something(s).  Specifically, 2(?) things:  A proof of himself, and more than that, a proof regarding who we are.  Or maybe who we are not?

The first idea is... circular, and presumptive, and vague, and.... okay, no, stop it, I need to work out what's actually being said before trying to apply critical thought to the underlying concepts.

.... I can't make sense of the "not to be an illusion" part.  Maybe it should be part of the second half, the part I'm interpreting as a following sentence?  Or maybe a proof of who we are is something that God has to be, in order to not be an illusion?  Or maybe God is a proof in regards to and as a prerequisite of us not being illusions?

Each of these things are kinda like apologies I've heard before, so I can't exactly go by which makes most sense in context.  EACH of those interpretations makes sense in context.  (Or at least they make sense in that they're something that I could imagine Link saying there.)

Okay, so moving on to the second half, which should (maybe?) be its own sentence:  "we exist in his vision and see him to be that vision and perfect judge defining us exactly as we are".  Except maybe the illusion clause should be at the start of that, making it "to be an illusion, we exist in his vision and see him to be that vision and perfect judge defining us exactly as we are".  Or perhaps it becomes "not to be an illusion, we exist in his vision and see him to be that vision and perfect judge defining us exactly as we are".

Ugh, that illusion clause is just messing up everything I try to pair it with, so I'll leave it aside.  It's probably supposed to do something, but there's no way of telling what.  So that leaves a conjuctive sentence of us existing in God's vision... which at least works grammatically.. and "[we] see him to be that vision and perfect judge defining us exactly as we are".

... so if we're IN the vision we are also seeing him to be the vision... which we're in?  .... this feels like a thoroughly mutilated metaphor that doesn't actually say anything.

Okay, moving on... we see god to be a perfect judge defining us exactly as we are.  That... well, at least it makes grammatical sense, though I can't work out how to apply the semantics into anything coherent.

So putting it all together... somehow... we have... um... have...

NOPE.  Can't be done.  It doesn't make a lick of sense.  I demand that sentence be taken outside and shot.  It is a traitor to the English language. 

Now I'm not usually one to mock someone's bad grammar, beyond maybe some light teasing.  I care more about the underlying ideas they want to convey, rather than how technically sound the words they try to convey it with happen to be.  But there comes a point where the grammar is so bad that there's just no getting at the underlying ideas, and that point came... let me check... exactly 13 words into Link's first sentence.

Seriously, Link, you're not competent to do this.  All you're doing is souring this audience to someone who eventually might do better, hypothetically.

But until that more competent person shows up, here is my rebuttal:  Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.  SO THERE.

[Deesse23]

Grammar is not the problem but the underlying Deepak Chopraism.

[Dānu]

"3 easy ways not to get logically ass-whipped"

1. Assume the burden of proof
2. Don't accept, assume, or assert shit that your audience wouldn't
3. Don't be a walking poster for the Dunning-Kruger effect

[SYZ]

Re Link's posts...

Rule #2   No spam...Repeatedly posting the same material may also be regarded as engaging in spamming the forum.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Re Link's posts...

Rule #2   No spam...Repeatedly posting the same material may also be regarded as engaging in spamming the forum.

He got away with this shit for damn near forever over at AF, in clear violation of the rules, because he framed the same bullshit in a different way each time. I really hope this version of MK isn't given the same latitude against the rules here.

[Chas]

Re Link's posts...

Rule #2   No spam...Repeatedly posting the same material may also be regarded as engaging in spamming the forum.

He got away with this shit for damn near forever over at AF, in clear violation of the rules, because he framed the same bullshit in a different way each time. I really hope this version of MK isn't given the same latitude against the rules here.

I would have banned him quite some time ago. 

[Link]

Re Link's posts...

Rule #2   No spam...Repeatedly posting the same material may also be regarded as engaging in spamming the forum.

Then you should all be banned, as you just rinse and repeat the same insults and repeat your atheistic mantras all the time.

[Bucky Ball]

Re Link's posts...

Rule #2   No spam...Repeatedly posting the same material may also be regarded as engaging in spamming the forum.

Then you should all be banned, as you just rinse and repeat the same insults and repeat your atheistic mantras all the time.

So then, given that, why are you here ?

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Re Link's posts...

Rule #2   No spam...Repeatedly posting the same material may also be regarded as engaging in spamming the forum.

Then you should all be banned, as you just rinse and repeat the same insults and repeat your atheistic mantras all the time.

Responding to your repeated bullshit spam with the same counter arguments is not spamming. It's refuting your lame assed spam arguments and is not against the rules. Your spamming is. Fuck off MK.

[SYZ]

Then you should all be banned, as you just rinse and repeat the same insults and repeat your atheistic mantras all the time.

Consider yourself reported.   Goodbye.

[Dom]

Link, if you re-post any post again, I will ban you. Consider yourself warned.

[Gwaithmir]

Link, if you re-post any post again, I will ban you. Consider yourself warned.

[SYZ]

Link, if you re-post any post again, I will ban you. Consider yourself warned.

http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/show...#pid221778

http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/show...#pid221511

[Minimalist]

[jerry mcmasters]

Link, if you re-post any post again, I will ban you. Consider yourself warned.

What post did he re-post?

[Mark]

Certainly have not read the OP and don't intend to but does it strike anyone else that the proliferation of these sort of provocatively titled threads by the same member amount to spam?

[leerob]

(1) By remembering you can't properly be defined in anywhere but God's vision.
(2) By remembering and seeing he is the Necessary being and hence has to exist and thus does.
(3) By seeing all greatness, beauty, and goodness is from his light and he is the source and that which unifies all beauty, greatness, and goodness.

I agree, friend