How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God can never be detected as a cause of anything. Only your imaginary god could ever be detected by humans.

Anything that exists is detectable by the right detector in the right time and place. That is true for every other thing that you believe exists. Do you believe the sun exists? If so, eyes sensitive to light and skin sensitive to warmth can detect it. Do you believe supermassive black holes exist? If so, they can be detected (and have been). That is what it means to be real or to exist - to be a player in the kaleidoscope of nature, where objects impact one another and undergo transformations in space and time. It's really simple. Anything that can be called real or actual or existing is part of that dance somewhere and is thus detectable. To say that something is undetectable everywhere in time and space by any method is to say that it is indistinguishable from the nonexistent and can be treated as such - the basis of agnostic atheism.

From my viewpoint as a believer, it is absurd to judge God.

That's what minds do best - make judgments. From my viewpoint as a critical thinker, my job is to make judgments. I've seen what can happen when one surrenders that right because somebody tells you to. That filter is one of my most valuable possessions.

You only hurt yourself by scrutinizing God.

No. You hurt yourself submitting to that kind of thinking. I have helped myself immensely by being willing to scrutinize god claims and rejecting them. If you recall, I entered Christianity at about 19 years old, and already had some college under my belt, and so, some critical thinking skill. I agreed to suspend disbelief to test drive this ism and its claims, but eventually, it was the ability to evaluate evidence that revealed that what I was experiencing as a god was actually my own mind.

I know that anything I quote from Baha'u'llah will sound mundane to you

Me, too. I wanted to see what you called your evidence for a god.

The good news is that God is not 'doing' anything so God does not have conduct or morality

I know. That's why I doubt its existence. This god perfectly imitates its own nonexistence. But most believers believe otherwise. They call their god good and active in their lives.

The only thing we can know that God did is send Messengers; know not as a fact but as a belief.

I don't call that knowledge.

 

[Audie]

To be a charlatan, there'd need to be a shekel in it for him somewhere, or similar desirable advantage.

I think of him more as a particular kind of psych case, perhaps suffering visions as he says, and reacting to earlier guilt, though apparently ─ but it's hard to be sure, because his letters couldn't have had more than local and parochial impact until they came to public notice around the middle of the 2nd cent, CE ─ not too bad at selling the Christian case. For instance, his apparent role in the successful abolishing of circumcision as a Christian prerequisite shows perhaps there were some things he saw clearly.

A couple of decades back there was a school of thought ─ Dutch, I seem to recall ─ that argued Paul's letters were cooked up by Marcion and friends and that's how he was able to produce them in Christianity's 2nd century debates, so there was no real Paul; but I don't think any fiction writer could have cooked up a character like Paul ─ or except for the gnostic touches that suited Marcion, would have wanted to.

The definition is as it is.

No mention of profit.

Nor of sincerity.

One who falsely claims knowle he does not
possess he is a charlatan.

Whoever invented the snake story was lying.

And from a atheist pov, it's kind of obvious that
God- information is bogus.

 

[F1fan]

When we cannot know that God did something it is irrelevant, but when we can know God did something it is relevant.

No, it's irrelevant to ponder whther a God does anything because we can't known one way of the other, and if any gods exist as you define it. How you dfine God is also a guess since you can't detect anything to describe.

The only thing we can know that God did is send Messengers; know not as a fact but as a belief.

No, it is an assumption. Belief isn't knowledge.

The rational reason to believe is because there is evidence that God exists.

There is no such science.

It is unnecessary to know what God is causing. If we needed to know that God would have enabled us to know it.

No gods are known to exist, so irelevant.

Sorry, but I don't want to go down that road again because it leads nowhere. You are free to believe there is no evidence if you want to just as I am free to believe there is evidence.

Bringing it up gods at all is a dead end, even with your own definition. You say we can't detect God, so how can you present any definition? It must be a total guess. You might refer to your Baha'i dogma, but that can't be confirmed either, so is yet another claim that has no basis in fact, so we throw it out.

We can know God exists and some of God's attributes because God's reflection can be detected in His Primary Mirrors who I refer to as Messengers.

So now we are back to knowing God exists all of a sudden? What changed as I slept? You offer no evidence of how you know Messengers are genuine.

The reason to believe is evidence, not comfort. What do you think is so comforting, all the teachings and laws we must follow?

Belief in the many gods is comforting for those who believe. There is no factual basis for belief. You offer no other explanation.

I do not assume God has an essence, that is a Baha'i teaching. There are no facts about God since nothing about God can ever be proven.
I do not need proof since I have evidence and certitude in the evidence.

OK, you assume the Baha'i teachings are factual, and that is not fact-based. Who cares what they claim when they offer no facts?

I believe in Baha'u'llah and the other Messengers of God. That's why I think what I do about God, what I base my beliefs on.
If you don't believe that Messengers are genuine you'd have no basis for belief in God. Case closed.

We don't care what you believe, we care about facts. You are moving towards a heavy reliance on this dogma in your responses to me. Baha'i dogma is not evidence.

I believe that God has a nature because Baha'u'llah wrote that. If you do not believe that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God then it is not relevant to you.

But you don't know any of it is true, you just assume it is. That means nothing to me or others.

I believe Him because of the evidence that 'demonstrates to me' that He was a Messenger of God.
He did write it himself but His texts 'demonstrate to me' that He was speaking as the Voice of God.

It doesn't convince critical thinkers. Your mileage may vary. You are motivated to believe it, thus biased.

The way I verified it for myself was by reading what Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi wrote, and by reading other information about the Baha'i Faith, all of which is what led me to believe that the religion was true.

Thus far none of it convinces thinkers, only a few folks who are willing to assume these claims are true without adequate evidence.

Why do you think it would be credible to everyone? It is not credible to you, but it is credible to me and other Baha'is.

Every religious group thinks it's dogma is true. None offer evidence to show theirs is true over others, or true independently. It's all tribalism. You found your tribe, you are happy with your tribe's dogma, you will not examine the ideas like critical thinkers.

We can believe it is true even though it cannot be proven as a fact. That is the nature of religious belief.

Religious belief is notoriously reliant on assumptions, not evidence. This is why believers, like you, are willing to suspend reason to adopt a religious framework that lacks evidence.

That is a false premise, that people only believe because they want to believe. I could just as easily say that the reason atheists don't believe is because they don't want to believe. Belief has nothing to do with wants, it is related to what we interpret as evidence for God.

Believers don't believe due to evidence, so the only other option is non-rational motives. Atheists are able to examine religious concepts more objectively because for whatever reason they don't feel pressured or motivated to to adopt religious ideas.

It is not true that the evidence only appeals to those 'seeking to believe.' I was not seeking to believe at all but I was convinced by the evidence. The very last thing I wanted was a religion when I discovered it.

I think this is what you tell yourself, as do other theists, to help jusify belief in ideas that not only l;ack evidence, but are also inconsistent with what we observe and understand about reality. Religions tend to require some level of illusion by the believer. They certainly can't rationally explain their thinking and experience in ways that suggest they aren't imagining their version of truth. These "truths" certainly are not fact-based.

 

[dybmh]

Why would you think I want to discuss that? And I doubt that we can have a sustained discussion, because I will end it when you become angry, begin insulting, or stop cooperating in discussion as you just did recently. When you do that, there's nothing in the discussion for me.

Because, if you notice, one of the factors which produces value for you is what you are calling "cooperating". What I observed was a requirement for "submission" to you so that you could help me. The desire to help in the extreme becomes domination. This is taught in water rescue. The question is, when is that dominance warranted. If it is not, and the "helper" is not aware that they are being dominant, then they will miscomprehend any natural and justifable push-back as "uncooperative" because what they really want is to dominate for the purpose of "helping".

If the demand for submission is properly identified, then you may get more value from your interactions, because less people are perceived as "uncooperative".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I pointed it out previously. I quoted it. I think I raised the font size and bolded it. I'm not going back to get it. I don't care if you object.

And you misinterpreted it. That is not my fault.

Calling it "nonsense" is not a logical argument. All I can say is that the refutation to your claim is so simple that you cannot believe it. Emphasis on *cannot*.

Wow, Once again you demonstrate that you do not know how to use logic. Not all statements need to be logical. It was a conclusion drawn from the poor argument that you presented. If you did not understand why it was nonsense the time to ask was when you were corrected. Not pages later.

Not true. God is like an author writing multiple stories simultaneously. The characters in the stories are duplicated across multiple ( infinite ) storylines. In this model, there would be multiple versions of me. Each and every free-will choice is represented in each of these multiple storylines. When I make a choice, I am choosing which of those storylines is "real" for me.

Oh my! You are once again limited God's knowledge with that claim. You are saying that he is not omnipotent. If he does not know the outcome of all of those possibilities ahead of time that is something that he does not know. That is you stating that God does not know everything. Or in other words your solution to the problem was to make God not omniscient. That is a logical argument.

This is what produces what is described as freewill. God's omnipotence is not compromised in anyway. To the contrary, free-will is being produced as a result of God's omnipotence. It couldn't happen without it.

Freewill is a claim that is refuted by omnipotence and omniscient. I can break it down for you if necessary. I have doubts if you will let yourself understand.

I said all of this previously. I gave multiple examples. The example I gave was about my choice of what to eat. I admited that in this model ( note, it's a hypothetical model ) there is a version of me that is eating bacon for dinner, in spite of religious ideals.

And once again you are limiting God's knowledge with that model.

Thats what I said. Not nonsense. It doesn't make God no longer omnipotent. ( 158 words )

And you are not following the argument. Your model means that God is not omniscient. The claim was that he cannot be both and not have everything be his fault.

"You do not get to assume a creation."

Your claim that God is immoral requires an agent that is creating. I am not making the assumption, I am participating in the debate which you started that presumes it. Yes it is flip-flopping to assume that there was a creation, then object when a person assumes there is a creation.

I never claimed that God is immoral. Once again you are conflating your flawed personal version of God with a possible real God. Your version is demonstrably immoral. But you keep posting a version of God that is self refuting. Do not conflate the refutation of your God with a refutation of God in general.

Your HYPOTHETICAL claim that God is immoral requires a HYPOTHETICAL agent that is HYPOTHEICALLY creating. I am not making the assumption, I am participating in the debate which you started that HYPOTHETICALLY presumes it. Yes it is flip-flopping to assume that there was a HYPOTHETICAL creation, then object when a person assumes there is a HYPOTHETICAL creation.

No, again I did not claim that God was immoral. If anything you did. We are going by your model of God for this hypothetical. You keep repeating rather basic errors.

Even if you see the bait-ad-switch, I would never expect you to admit it.

If anyone is doing it it is you. You do not like how your God is refuted by logic. I never made the claim that refutes all versions of God. It only refutes flawed versions of God. You cannot own up to the obvious fact that your version of God is fatally flawed.

 

[dybmh]

And you misinterpreted it. That is not my fault.

not true

Wow, Once again you demonstrate that you do not know how to use logic. Not all statements need to be logical. It was a conclusion drawn from the poor argument that you presented. If you did not understand why it was nonsense the time to ask was when you were corrected. Not pages later.

calling something "nonsense" says that the reader is not able or not willing to make sense of it. It is not an argument.

Oh my! You are once again limited God's knowledge with that claim. You are saying that he is not omnipotent. If he does not know the outcome of all of those possibilities ahead of time that is something that he does not know.

not once did I say God does not know the choice that is going to made. You are assuming that falsely. The author of a book knows the entire book. The author of many books all "what-if" stories knows the content of all the "what-ifs"

That is you stating that God does not know everything.

not true, re-read it. God is the author, the author knows all the "what-if" scenarios and their consequences. The indivdual does not. Mutltple stories are being written simultneously. All of those stories are planned in the authors mind.

Or in other words your solution to the problem was to make God not omniscient.

not true, re-read it. God is the author, the author knows all the "what-if" scenarios and their consequences. The indivdual does not. Mutltple stories are being written simultneously. All of those stories are planned in the authors mind.

That is a logical argument.

that is not my argument. God knows the choice that will be made, but the individual does not. super simple. There are multiple timelines. God knows the outcomes of all of the different versions in advance. knows everything. the individual is choosing which of those to make real form themself. but all the duplicates of the indivdual still exist in each timeline.

God is the author, the author knows all the "what-if" scenarios and their consequences. The indivdual does not. Mutltple stories are being written simultneously. All of those stories are planned in the authors mind.

Freewill is a claim that is refuted by omnipotence and omniscient. I can break it down for you if necessary. I have doubts if you will let yourself understand.

I gaurantee that your argument is limited to one time-line with only one version of each individual. I will donate $50 to your favorite charity if I'm wrong. My money is on the table.

And once again you are limiting God's knowledge with that model.

not true. God is the author, the author knows all the "what-if" scenarios and their consequences. The indivdual does not. Mutltple stories are being written simultneously. All of those stories are planned in the authors mind.

And you are not following the argument. Your model means that God is not omniscient. The claim was that he cannot be both and not have everything be his fault.

not true. God is the author, the author knows all the "what-if" scenarios and their consequences. The indivdual does not. Mutltple stories are being written simultneously. All of those stories are planned in the authors mind.

I never claimed that God is immoral.

You did. See below:

one cannot have a moral God that is omnipotent and omniscient.

Once again you are conflating your flawed personal version of God with a possible real God.

Error: Error: flip-flop bait and switch.

A "possible real God" is NOT hypothetical.

An person who claims they do not believe in a possible real God, then objects if the debate is NOT about a possible real God is being dishonest about something.

Your version is demonstrably immoral.

Error: Error: flip-flop contradiction. Just a few lines up you said:

"I never claimed that God is immoral"

now you're saying:

"Your version is demonstrably immoral."

What version is that? What evidence do you have about this God? What are these immoral actions? What are the damages? What are the causes? Were there mitigating circumstances?

I already answered the question simply, here it is, please restate your rebuttal.

The whatever damages you are claiming to be caused by God are a result of a limitation on the material world, not on God. This limitation is a direct consequence of God being omnipotent. The material world is NOT God, it is NOT perfect. That is MY version of God. God is perfect and absoutley omnipotent. Nothing else is. because of this, everything that exists in the material world has an element of chaos built in.

Once this is accepted as MY version of God, your next step is to define morality. Since you made the claim you need to define what is moral and what isn't. Generally, the next step in the debate is why doesn't God remove chaos, or why are people permitted to do intentional harm that is not random if God is claimed to be omnipotent. Those are thougthful valid questions. But you are not making those thoughtful valid arguments. at least not yet.

everything i have read so far is, "It is because no one has ever been able to answer this before and I believe it cannot be resolved." A fair assumption, still fallacious. Especially considering you are not considering the implications of what it means that this a strictly montheistic God concept AND absolutely infintite. Both need to be considered. Both have complex implications.

But you keep posting a version of God that is self refuting. Do not conflate the refutation of your God with a refutation of God in general.

Nope. You are not considering my version of God. Please summarize the implications of a strictly monotheistic absolutley infinite god concept on the creation of a material world?

If you cannot do this, then you are not considering my version of God.

No, again I did not claim that God was immoral. If anything you did.

Error Error Here it is again:

one cannot have a moral God that is omnipotent and omniscient.

We are going by your model of God for this hypothetical. You keep repeating rather basic errors.

No you're not. You don't know my version.

Please summarize the implications of a strictly monotheistic absolutley infinite god concept on the creation of a material world?

If you cannot do this, then you are not considering my version of God.

If anyone is doing it it is you. You do not like how your God is refuted by logic.

You don't know my version.

Please summarize the implications of a strictly monotheistic absolutley infinite god concept on the creation of a material world?

If you cannot do this, then you are not considering my version of God.

I never made the claim that refutes all versions of God. It only refutes flawed versions of God. You cannot own up to the obvious fact that your version of God is fatally flawed.

You don't know my version.

Please summarize the implications of a strictly monotheistic absolutley infinite god concept on the creation of a material world?

If you cannot do this, then you are not considering my version of God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

one of the factors which produces value for you is what you are calling "cooperating". What I observed was a requirement for "submission" to you so that you could help me.

That explains why you refused to cooperate. You see cooperating as a power struggle. There was no effort to get you to submit to anything. I offered to do the leg work for you twice. No problem. Once you made it clear that you weren't interested in working together to resolve a point of disagreement in a mutually agreeable manner, I lost interest. Is that what you're calling a requirement for submission?

The desire to help in the extreme becomes domination. If the demand for submission is properly identified, then you may get more value from your interactions

Still giving me unsolicited life advice? When I have a problem that I think you can help me with, I'll ask you for it.

God knows the choice that will be made, but the individual does not. super simple. There are multiple timelines. God knows the outcomes of all of the different versions in advance. knows everything. the individual is choosing which of those to make real form themself. but all the duplicates of the indivdual still exist in each timeline. God is the author, the author knows all the "what-if" scenarios and their consequences. The indivdual does not. Mutltple stories are being written simultneously. All of those stories are planned in the authors mind.

This is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics with unfalsifiable gods claims gratuitously added. The hypothesis "asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wave function collapse. This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe."

 

[dybmh]

That explains why you refused to cooperate. You see cooperating as a power struggle. There was no effort to get you to submit to anything. I offered to do the leg work for you twice. No problem. Once you made it clear that you weren't interested in working together to resolve a point of disagreement in a mutually agreeable manner, I lost interest. Is that what you're calling a requirement for submission?

I didn't refuse to cooperate. That is only your perception. I very kindly offered to cooperate, if we could address one issue at a time, starting with resolving a false claim made about whether or not I was quoting you and linking to your posts properly.

If I quote your words and link them properly, then make a rebuttal. But you repeatedly deny that the quote exists, concluding that I did not offer a rebuttal. What is there left? That IS the most important issue that needs to be resolved. Nothing else matters if you ( knowingly or unknowingly ) literally cannot see a quote-and-link when it exists on the screen both in text and in a great big picture with big red boxes around your words, which include the entire context of what you said.

Let me repeat:

If for some unknown reason, you cannot see something that is right in front of your face, something objective like a picture on your monitor, there is nothing else to discuss.

There's several reason for why you would be unable to see something like this. There's several reasons why you would dishonestly claim that you never saw them. There's several reasons why you would deny-deny-deny repeatedly being dishonest.

None of that is ME not cooperating. Claiming I am being uncooperative are the words of a police officer beating the unarmed protester curled on the ground who is saying "stop resisting, stop resisting!"

I offered to go through each of your comments and reply if we could resolve the problem of the denial/dishonesty first. That is practical and proper and cooperating. But if you require dominance, but are somehow deluded about that... well, that's what produces a whole host of problems including the lack of capability to see the quote/link/pictures I repeatedly provided.

 

[dybmh]

This is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics with unfalsifiable gods claims gratuitously added

The claim made ( Free-will cannot exist if God is both omnipotent and omniscient ) is modal logic. It, itself, is not falsifiable. If the objection to my rebuttal is "it's unfalsifiable" that is shifting the goal-posts.

If the metric for success requires "falisfiability", then the original claim fails. "Free-will cannot exist if God is both omnipotent and omniscient" is unfalsifiable.

 

[Augustus]

Nah. More like what poofs yiur souffle.You set the example of reference with @, and that I got it wrong.

And it wasn't about common usage, it was whether I used the word correctly.
I said "paul" was a, yes, charlatan. Which he was.

Tnx for the opportunity to point that out again.

As I said, if you intended it polemically then that’s normal usage.

If you think it is a neutral term for a good faith error then try using it that way in real life and see where that gets you.

Either way, you can probably let it go now. Minor disagreements about trivialities on the internet shouldn’t stay in your mind that long. Bringing it up multiple times in unrelated threads for an entire week is slightly strange. A second week…

 

[Audie]

As I said, if you intended it polemically then that’s normal usage.

If you think it is a neutral term for a good faith error then try using it that way in real life and see where that gets you.

Either way, you can probably let it go now. Minor disagreements about trivialities on the internet shouldn’t stay in your mind that long. Bringing it up multiple times in unrelated threads for an entire week is slightly strange. A second week…

You changed the topic from a simple
straightforward application of the first thing
Google says into somethjng (s) different
so that you can be "right" and "win".

As if your chosen interpretation of my motives
somehow changes the dictionary

That's not strange. It's something else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

not true



calling something "nonsense" says that the reader is not able or not willing to make sense of it. It is not an argument.



not once did I say God does not know the choice that is going to made. You are assuming that falsely. The author of a book knows the entire book. The author of many books all "what-if" stories knows the content of all the "what-ifs"



not true, re-read it. God is the author, the author knows all the "what-if" scenarios and their consequences. The indivdual does not. Mutltple stories are being written simultneously. All of those stories are planned in the authors mind.



not true, re-read it. God is the author, the author knows all the "what-if" scenarios and their consequences. The indivdual does not. Mutltple stories are being written simultneously. All of those stories are planned in the authors mind.



that is not my argument. God knows the choice that will be made, but the individual does not. super simple. There are multiple timelines. God knows the outcomes of all of the different versions in advance. knows everything. the individual is choosing which of those to make real form themself. but all the duplicates of the indivdual still exist in each timeline.

God is the author, the author knows all the "what-if" scenarios and their consequences. The indivdual does not. Mutltple stories are being written simultneously. All of those stories are planned in the authors mind.



I gaurantee that your argument is limited to one time-line with only one version of each individual. I will donate $50 to your favorite charity if I'm wrong. My money is on the table.



not true. God is the author, the author knows all the "what-if" scenarios and their consequences. The indivdual does not. Mutltple stories are being written simultneously. All of those stories are planned in the authors mind.



not true. God is the author, the author knows all the "what-if" scenarios and their consequences. The indivdual does not. Mutltple stories are being written simultneously. All of those stories are planned in the authors mind.



You did. See below:






Error: Error: flip-flop bait and switch.

A "possible real God" is NOT hypothetical.

An person who claims they do not believe in a possible real God, then objects if the debate is NOT about a possible real God is being dishonest about something.



Error: Error: flip-flop contradiction. Just a few lines up you said:

"I never claimed that God is immoral"

now you're saying:

"Your version is demonstrably immoral."

What version is that? What evidence do you have about this God? What are these immoral actions? What are the damages? What are the causes? Were there mitigating circumstances?

I already answered the question simply, here it is, please restate your rebuttal.

The whatever damages you are claiming to be caused by God are a result of a limitation on the material world, not on God. This limitation is a direct consequence of God being omnipotent. The material world is NOT God, it is NOT perfect. That is MY version of God. God is perfect and absoutley omnipotent. Nothing else is. because of this, everything that exists in the material world has an element of chaos built in.

Once this is accepted as MY version of God, your next step is to define morality. Since you made the claim you need to define what is moral and what isn't. Generally, the next step in the debate is why doesn't God remove chaos, or why are people permitted to do intentional harm that is not random if God is claimed to be omnipotent. Those are thougthful valid questions. But you are not making those thoughtful valid arguments. at least not yet.

everything i have read so far is, "It is because no one has ever been able to answer this before and I believe it cannot be resolved." A fair assumption, still fallacious. Especially considering you are not considering the implications of what it means that this a strictly montheistic God concept AND absolutely infintite. Both need to be considered. Both have complex implications.



Nope. You are not considering my version of God. Please summarize the implications of a strictly monotheistic absolutley infinite god concept on the creation of a material world?

If you cannot do this, then you are not considering my version of God.



Error Error Here it is again:






No you're not. You don't know my version.

Please summarize the implications of a strictly monotheistic absolutley infinite god concept on the creation of a material world?

If you cannot do this, then you are not considering my version of God.




You don't know my version.

Please summarize the implications of a strictly monotheistic absolutley infinite god concept on the creation of a material world?

If you cannot do this, then you are not considering my version of God.



You don't know my version.

Please summarize the implications of a strictly monotheistic absolutley infinite god concept on the creation of a material world?

If you cannot do this, then you are not considering my version of God.

I tire of writing books for you. It is a pity that you do not understand basic logic or evidence. Until you agree to learn we are not getting anywhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim made ( Free-will cannot exist if God is both omnipotent and omniscient ) is modal logic. It, itself, is not falsifiable. If the objection to my rebuttal is "it's unfalsifiable" that is shifting the goal-posts.

If the metric for success requires "falisfiability", then the original claim fails. "Free-will cannot exist if God is both omnipotent and omniscient" is unfalsifiable.

And once again you demonstrate that you do not understand logic or evidence. An argument based on logic only does not involve evidence. Falsifiability applies to scientific theories and hypotheses. You need to learn when one uses evidence and how.

 

[dybmh]

I tire of writing books for you. It is a pity that you do not understand basic logic or evidence. Until you agree to learn we are not getting anywhere.

You have been defeated by a children's book. Prancing around proclaiming victory with your "pickle" in hand should be a humbling experience right now.

I put $50 on the table to your fav chaity and you turned it down. That says a lot about the strength of your argument. Who wouldn't want 5- bucks to go to their favorite charity. Oh. I guess someone who doesn't value charity. Or giving.

Was it too small? How about $100 to your favorite charity if your claimed/imagined rebuttal doesn't require a single timeline with a single individual version of each person?

$200?

 

[dybmh]

And once again you demonstrate that you do not understand logic or evidence. An argument based on logic only does not involve evidence. Falsifiability applies to scientific theories and hypotheses. You need to learn when one uses evidence and how.

No.... that's exactly what I said. See, I think there is something seriously... um... malfunctioning... I said exactly the same thing as you. But my reply was more detailed. I named the specific type of logic.

What I said and what youre saying is the reason, that @It Aint Necessarily So's comment is a fail. We both agree that claiming "unfalsifiablility" is completely worthless in this case. So there's two important questions:

1) Why did @It Aint Necessarily So bring a completely irrelevant objection? Was it because they were ignorant of the convo? Ignorant of the claim? Blinded by some sort of ... personal situation? Was it just a simple mistake?

2) Why are you unable to read and comprehend a post that is right in front of you? Why are you so quick to deny deny deny like an automoton even when we agree? Is there someting actually wrong with you?

3) What's ironic is, this is a pattern for both you and @It Aint Necessarily So . You both seem to be, literally unable to see things that are objectively in front of your faces. And yet both of you claim to be reasonable evidence based "critical-thinkers" How is it both of you seem to be so literally blind?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have been defeated by a children's book. Prancing around proclaiming victory with your "pickle" in hand should be a humbling experience right now.

I put $50 on the table to your fav chaity and you turned it down. That says a lot about the strength of your argument. Who wouldn't want 5- bucks to go to their favorite charity. Oh. I guess someone who doesn't value charity. Or giving.

Was it too small? How about $100 to your favorite charity if your claimed/imagined rebuttal doesn't require a single timeline with a single individual version of each person?

$200?

View attachment 79693

No, you lost. But that is because you cannot argue rationally and logically.

Would you like to try again? Your arguments were all refuted multiple times. As to your claimed charity offer, it was clearly not genuine. You did not place the money in escrow. You need to do that because your word does not appear to be at all reliable. You didn't give a neutral judge. You have shown again and again an inability to reason rationally and honestly. You cannot be a judge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.... that's exactly what I said. See, I think there is something seriously... um... malfunctioning... I said exactly the same thing as you. But my reply was more detailed. I named the specific type of logic.

What I said and what youre saying is the reason, that @It Aint Necessarily So's comment is a fail. We both agree that claiming "unfalsifiablility" is completely worthless in this case. So there's two important questions:

1) Why did @It Aint Necessarily So bring a completely irrelevant objection? Was it because they were ignorant of the convo? Ignorant of the claim? Blinded by some sort of ... personal situation? Was it just a simple mistake?

2) Why are you unable to read and comprehend a post that is right in front of you? Why are you so quick to deny deny deny like an automoton even when we agree? Is there someting actually wrong with you?

3) What's ironic is, this is a pattern for both you and @It Aint Necessarily So . You both seem to be, literally unable to see things that are objectively in front of your faces. And yet both of you claim to be reasonable evidence based "critical-thinkers" How is it both of you seem to be so literally blind?

Naming a type of logic doesn't help you if you can't follow it.

 

[dybmh]

No, you lost. But that is because you cannot argue rationally and logically.

Then why don't you type a reply that rebuts what I said?

Let me guess, the answer is "I already did, I'm not going to retype it for you."

Nope, you didn't.

Would you like to try again? Your arguments were all refuted multiple times. As to your claimed charity offer, it was clearly not genuine.

Of course it is. Name the charity. Most of them have online portals. They give you an immediate receipt for tax purposes which I will post here as proof. I give a lot of charity. I know how it works.

You did not place the money in escrow.

Hahahaha. What a stupid thing to say.

You need to do that because your word does not appear to be at all reliable. You didn't give a neutral judge. You have shown again and again an inability to reason rationally and honestly. You cannot be a judge.

Oh you poor thing, Your arguments are 1 or 2 sentences at most. That's pretty typical. You'll spend kinds of time cowardly saying "nuh-uh" instead of just typing your 1 or 2 sentence argument.

 

[dybmh]

Naming a type of logic doesn't help you if you can't follow it.

I said the same thing you did. With more detail. I did follow it. I produced a god concept which is both moral and omnipotent and omniscient, and BTW omnibenevolent, where freewill exists without a single contradiction. And I did it in approx. 200+ words.

Using a childrens book and a paper plate analogy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why don't you type a reply that rebuts what I said?

Let me guess, the answer is "I already did, I'm not going to retype it for you."

Nope, you didn't.



Of course it is. Name the charity. Most of them have online portals. They give you an immediate receipt for tax purposes which I will post here as proof. I give a lot of charity. I know how it works.



Hahahaha. What a stupid thing to say.



Oh you poor thing, Your arguments are 1 or 2 sentences at most. That's pretty typical. You'll spend kinds of time cowardly saying "nuh-uh" instead of just typing your 1 or 2 sentence argument.

I do not feel.like.spoon feeding you today. Tell me when you are willing to learn how to argue rationally and logically.