Reply #2081 demonstrated your definition being completely inadequate and is self sabotaging to your own position.No! It only proves that I gave no definitions at all.
Did you not provide a definition of the criteria Reply #2073
Do you believe Jehovah is designed?
No! I do believe that Jehovah is the Great Designer.
Believe what what you want, it makes not difference to reality.
Jehovah's shares properties on your list of things that are designed.
That is not possible because He is a Spirit.
So Jehovah has none of these properties?
12. Having a designated objective.
13. Having a designated purpose.
14. Having functions capable of imitation.
15. Worthy of imitation, etc, etc.
Wow, you are even more un-Christlike than I expected. That seem heretical even for the false prophets of the JW's.
I showed you that to allow you to amend your definition prior to continuing.
That is not necessary because I gave no definitions at all!
LOL, have faith in that, Reply #2073
refutes your denial.
I don't want a drawn out conversation with you.
Then you should refrain from commenting on my posts. This one's got you on the run.
More false accusations, more demonstration of un-Christlike behaviour. By the fruits you will know them and by your sour grapes it is easy to distinguish between those who try to be like Christ and you.
Short, sharp and to the point is preferred.
Take your own advice.
Only sniping left?
When faced with a demonstration of your poor reasoning, you attack the person and not the argument.My reasonableness is well documented; but who's attacking you?
Read comprehension fail. I asked you to "please try to remain
civilized, reasonable and honest." because you have a history of conducting yourself differently and wanted to encourage you to be better than your normal self.
You demonstrate your continued failure to understand reciprocity.Seems more like you're attacking me!
Reading comprehension fail or do you always try and play the victim?
You answered someone else's question how is it my "turn" to answer yours?Because you endorsed the question.
So? I endorsed your earlier efforts too? It was a good question that in your attempts to answer shot yourself in the foot. Then you provided a definition of the criteria for what is designed that Jehovah fits into. Sinking your own position. In your vain efforts to recover, you continue to sink further.
I am happy to answer your question wilson but please try to remain civilized, reasonable and honest. I see that remark as another personal attack.
You see a lot of things that are not there, hallmarks of design, personal attacks. What does "remain" mean? Unfortunately once again you did not follow basic instruction and pursue personally attack others in lieu of answering basic questions. Again, I am not surprised due to your posting history.
I dare say that you do not know what it means to be honest.In lieu of a demonstration of an understanding of reciprocity, you sling childish insults. Are you pleased with your behaviour? You are once again demonstrating very un-Christlike behaviour, I for one am not surprised.
That can easily be determined. Answer this question:
If a person admits to being a thief, a womaniser and a liar, is he honest?
Back tracking wilson? "I only have what the Jehovah's Witnesses have not stolen from me". Is that a true statement?
In lieu of a demonstration of an understanding of reciprocity, you sling childish insults. Are you pleased with your behaviour? Reprimand yourself! That is exactly what you're doing.
A lack of self reflection and correction on your part. No surprises there. Your history speaks volumes.
You are once again demonstrating very un-Christlike behaviour, I for one am not surprised.
Were you personally attacking Eyes when you said he was a "fake Christian"? Do you object to the very things you do? Please advise if you see any hypocrisy in your actions, I am not sure?
]ThingDid you say: "Short, sharp and to the point is preferred.?"
1. a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.
2. some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described:
The stick had a brass thing on it.
3. anything that is or may become an object of thought:
things of the spirit.
4. things, matters; affairs:
Things are going well now.
5. a fact, circumstance, or state of affairs:
It is a curious thing.
6. an action, deed, event, or performance:
to do great things; His death was a horrible thing.
7. a particular, respect, or detail:
perfect in all things.
Yes, preferred. Do you not know what that means either?
As the word "thing" has one of the broadest definition of all words in the English language, please enlighten me as to how "natural" is not a thing. By saying "natural" is not a thing, you are saying it is nothing.
"Natural" and "spontaneous" are adjectives. That says enough.
Giggle. Are you incapable of reading a dictionary? Nature
1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization:
In nature, wild dogs hunt in packs.
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers:
The abandoned power plant was reclaimed by nature, covered in overgrowth and home to feral animals.
4. natural scenery:
Tourists at the resort are surrounded by nature.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena:
Conservation of energy is a universal law of nature.
6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
7. reality, as distinguished from any effect of art:
a portrait true to nature.[/quote]http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nature
Tell me wilson, was you claim truthful or was it untruthful?
INope! Not with your twist on it.
s that really your position you are willing to defend?
What twist? Did I misrepresent your position is some way?
Same as above - an adjective.
Same as above.
2. SpontaneousNot a person nor thing. Irrelevant.
Now all adjectives are nothing? Is there no such thing as attributes? Better drop the JW propaganda, it is doing you no good.
Your dismissal is all you can muster, inspite of your claims of being reasonable, you demonstrate repeatedly you do not understand reason nor how to be reasonable.Personal attack.
Are you incapable of distinguishing between a personal attack and an observation? You claim you have the properties of X. X is demonstrably lacking from your properties. You claim all of those who observe the false statement is attacking you. Once again proving your statement is false.
Look at the question again. You cannot show me "natural" nor "spontaneous."Let me remind you of the question you asked:
What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?
Where did you ask me to "show you" things?
There's your problem. I didn't ask. I said you cannot show me "natural" or "spontaneous." Can you?
No question, no answer. That was an easy one to deal with.
Maybe you should look at the question again and stop trying to twist words.I wrote it and I see no twist.
Were they supposed to be 2 separate paragraphs? "Look at the question again. You cannot show me "natural" nor "spontaneous.""
I could put your name where you put "Jehovah" in your post and leave you to figure that out.Whatever! I will not engage in an exchange of insults with you, which is clearly what you want to do and which is also the sign of the loser.
You answers here are dishonest - an obvious attempt to mislead. None of your verbal tricks will work here.
Your answers here are wrong because natural and spontaneous are not things.
Maybe because you think you've done enough here? No - that is not what I want to do.
Why should anyone care what you want to do?
You mean that? If you do, don't come back, or you'll get scratched again.
Wilson thinks he is capable of scratching people over the internet, how cute.
I am on holidays for 2 weeks. I may read any responses on my return if I feel like it.