The Arborist Plays Charades

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
[That to be guessed is the Rolling Stones song Brown Sugar]

Up to give clues to the Arborist is the Arborist's partner, whom we'll call Fred:

FRED: Makes "song" signal

ARBORIST: "SONG!

FRED: nods head. Then makes "2 words" signal

ARBORIST: "TWO WORDS!"

FRED: Nods head and holds up one finger

ARBORIST: "FIRST WORD!"

FRED: Pulls on ear

ARBORIST: "SOUNDS LIKE!"

FRED: nods head and then frowns

ARBORIST: "SOUNDS LIKE FROWN .........uh..........DROWN .....................DROWNING BABIES!"

FRED: Shakes head and puts up two fingers

ARBORIST: "SECOND WORD!"

FRED: Pulls on ear again

ARBORIST: "SOUNDS LIKE!"

FRED: Nods head, simulates picking his nose, and then draws attention to the tip of his finger.

ARBORIST: "SCABIES! SOUNDS LIKE SCABIES .................uh...............BABIES:

DROWNING BABIES!"
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
You're used to females kicking you around, eh?
Lol.
Is that what you think you've been doing?
I'm playing you bub. You're predictable and easily played.
The fact that you post without thinking and go out of your way to not think just makes it all the more entertaining.
The Stevie Wonder thing is particularly entertaining.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
I'm playing you bub.

What kind of game is "you bub?"
They don't teach big thinkers how to punctuate? See if Vanna will sell you a comma.

The Stevie Wonder thing is particularly entertaining.

I agree. Let's see it again:

Fire engines are red.
Stevie Wonder cannot have that DEMONSTRATED to him.
Nevertheless, fire engines are red.

Stevie is not so dumb as to claim:

"Since you cannot DEMONSTRATE to me that fire engines are red, THEREFORE red fire engines are IMAGINARY."
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
What kind of game is "you bub?"
They don't teach big thinkers how to punctuate? See if Vanna will sell you a comma.
Yeah, your childish attempts at insults betrays your insecurities.
Which is why you struggle with these conversations.
I agree. Let's see it again:

Fire engines are red.
Stevie Wonder cannot have that DEMONSTRATED to him.
Nevertheless, fire engines are red.

Stevie is not so dumb as to claim:

"Since you cannot DEMONSTRATE to me that fire engines are red, THEREFORE red fire engines are IMAGINARY."
See! your wreak little attempts just don't get old. Just as entertaining (AND predictable!)
You literally have nothing but that doesn't stop you!
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
It IS a struggle. Conversing theology with you is like trying to converse astrophysics with Forest Gump.
I know what you mean.
It would probably be easier for you if you had something more substantial than childish insults or failed attempts to goad me into some kind of response to your thoughtless quips about my user name.
It definitely tells me where your head is; focused on the wrong things and unable to keep up.
You have nothing to offer but continue to engage. it's interesting.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
It definitely tells me where your head is;

As opposed to where yours is. Hidden, but I admire the limberness.

Face it. You're a Johnny One Note:

"You can't DEMONSTRATE God, therefore He doesn't exist."

And you convinced yourself that that was a Big Thought.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
As opposed to where yours is. Hidden, but I admire the limberness.

Face it. You're a Johnny One Note:

"You can't DEMONSTRATE God, therefore He doesn't exist."

And you convinced yourself that that was a Big Thought.
To claim that God doesn't exist doesn't necessarily follow from an inability to demonstrate God. However, one doesn't have to entertain the idea until one can demonstrate God. The same would go for the alleged Covid 19, delta variants, etc. Some people think they've got a bright idea with the former, and yet how many of those same people will gladly and eagerly accept the existence of viruses that no one has been able to demonstrate yet?

Instead they accept the pronouncements from their high priests of Science as infallible with unquestioning blind faith.

But, I digress. Getting back to God. The term, at least from a biblical perspective, doesn't appear to have a referent. it is described as "incomparable". So what can this term be compared to? Nothing. By definition, nothing doesn't exist.

I think where things get extremely interesting is in 1 Corinthians 8:6 where Paul points out that this term is associated with the origin of everything that exists while Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence. For all intents and purposes, Christ is existence itself. He is the means, the mediator, the medium, the image, the icon, the copula, the metaphor, the symbol, etc.

However, existence cannot have a beginning or end without leading to contradiction, e.g. existence doesn't exist; nothing exists, etc. Furthermore, the origin of existence cannot exist without creating an infinite regression. Logically, the origin of existence cannot exist.

For some reason, atheists don't seem to like these arguments. Why wouldn't an atheist find these acceptable?
 

5wize

Well-known member
To claim that God doesn't exist doesn't necessarily follow from an inability to demonstrate God. However, one doesn't have to entertain the idea until one can demonstrate God. The same would go for the alleged Covid 19, delta variants, etc. Some people think they've got a bright idea with the former, and yet how many of those same people will gladly and eagerly accept the existence of viruses that no one has been able to demonstrate yet?

Instead they accept the pronouncements from their high priests of Science as infallible with unquestioning blind faith.

But, I digress. Getting back to God. The term, at least from a biblical perspective, doesn't appear to have a referent. it is described as "incomparable". So what can this term be compared to? Nothing. By definition, nothing doesn't exist.

I think where things get extremely interesting is in 1 Corinthians 8:6 where Paul points out that this term is associated with the origin of everything that exists while Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence. For all intents and purposes, Christ is existence itself. He is the means, the mediator, the medium, the image, the icon, the copula, the metaphor, the symbol, etc.

However, existence cannot have a beginning or end without leading to contradiction, e.g. existence doesn't exist; nothing exists, etc. Furthermore, the origin of existence cannot exist without creating an infinite regression. Logically, the origin of existence cannot exist.

For some reason, atheists don't seem to like these arguments. Why wouldn't an atheist find these acceptable?
Because it's a false dichotomy. It's not about something exists/nothing exists. Its about this exists/something else exists.
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
Lol. Use that big thinking machine in your cranium to show where it has ever worked.
lol.
Failure of you and all believers to demonstrate that God isn't imaginary is sufficient support for my position.
It "works" -my position aligns with and is supported by reality.
lol.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
lol.
Failure of you and all believers to demonstrate that God isn't imaginary is sufficient support for my position.

Fire engines are red.
Stevie Wonder cannot have that DEMONSTRATED to him.
Nevertheless, fire engines are red.

Stevie is not so dumb as to claim:

"Since you cannot DEMONSTRATE to me that fire engines are red, THEREFORE red fire engines are IMAGINARY."
 
Top