|
Post by transfuged on Jan 21, 2024 12:14:41 GMT
Dear 🎥 flaneur I just did in the post above. Have a Nice Day.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 21, 2024 12:16:50 GMT
Film flaneur You quoted yourself. Focus.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 21, 2024 12:17:18 GMT
I will answer as best I can but your English is so mangled I am not entirely sure of your 🙄 You do feel bad so you attack ? Hard Day, was it ? It is true though.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 21, 2024 12:21:58 GMT
First, it is hard to make out which doubt you refer to, the necessary lack of any for a wholly omniscient being or the natural doubt of a human who has yet to be persuaded for they are not the same. No one is going to believe you. That’s too hard. I copied and pasted what I’m referring to upabove. It’s your answear to the op. Focus. First off, it is custom here to clearly indicate a quote from another to save confusion - which is why I thought the first paragraph was you, parroting things back. I have since deleted my response to that, to save confusion. Secondly, I am still not sure why you did not clarify to which doubt you were referring when queried.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 21, 2024 12:23:19 GMT
Dear 🎥 flaneur I just did in the post above. Have a Nice Day. Nope, still can't see any mangled English my end. In any case you are in a glass house with this, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 21, 2024 12:28:58 GMT
Dear 🎥 flaneur I just did in the post above. Have a Nice Day.^ Nope, still can't see any mangled English my end. In any case you are in a glass house with this, my friend. 👓 Focus Ps edited not fond of humiliating peple. You are free to correct it.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 21, 2024 13:09:03 GMT
Oh good you have moved on a bit. "The problem is that you have forgotten how you went on about free choice in the situation where none can be made." You just proved my point with your response to it because that is neither what I said nor what I meant. Perhaps you could quote what you misunderstood. It was you who said that there is no freedom of choice when there is effectively no choice was it not? So one is "forced" into believing? Have you forgotten? Yes; and you ignored my observation, hence my comparison was an attempt at irony, by extending your ideas outwards - an exercise which clearly passed you by. This all maybe the case but, as I have already told you I was only talking about something a god could do which ought to bring many more to belief in him, through persuasion via an informed choice. I seem to remember too your point about things being made impossible to doubt equals no choice. Here you seem to be talking of a course of action from the Almighty which you have already condemned ! (It is also quite hard to see how one could be brought to know of another existence as well as one's own, exactly. What would be the test? 'He thinks therefore I am'? It could all easily be taken as form of madness.) Good try though; I liked this one. This maybe is the case but the particular message of yours to which I was replying specifically said " .. if there's nothing God can't do " which is matter of omnipotence, and not omniscience. See how it works? Yes, the obdurate are always with us, unfortunately. That's a QED. The one true Bean never reveals itself directly, don't you know that? It cannot be summoned to order. It works in mysterious ways. No true Beanite would suggest otherwise. Never the less, there is a choice : to choose the real Bean over a presumed false one. Or to deny that the bean was really there in the first place, despite evidence you may provide, allowing many more to be convinced. Also your bean is an image, not the real Bean in presence and so on. Please don't go on with this it has Bean obvious for quite a while. The one to which I replied to and rebutted you just after? lol Where you effectively argued for the presence of the obdurate by claiming that, in the event, I would still refuse to believe? But one still wonders why arms and legs don't ever grow back, since curing people at Lourdes is something your supposed deity already does, albeit patchily. Curing amputees there for the first time (ie curing absolutely all types of supplicants) would certainly allow many more to believe. In my own case it would be a red line event, proving persuasive enough for me to believe. My point really, all along. I know I exist since I know I think. But there is currently no such certainty of a deity, no matter which one opts for, which is why, *sigh* I ask why I cannot make a more informed choice. All you have done is suggesting what your god could do to persuade me, I ask why He does nothing even close to that more than His present efforts. I think we have been here before. Would God ever appear with such clarity as that bean of yours you would be right. In fact that is what I am asking for, yes? Well I might think I was dreaming or hallucinating, but apart from that I can only repeat : you are offering examples which invite a sureness of proof that your chosen deity simply does not provide. Hence my original question of it. Since you do not know for sure what I believe it is best practice (especially in matters of religion) to take people at their word.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 21, 2024 13:10:20 GMT
Nope, still can't see any mangled English my end. In any case you are in a glass house with this, my friend. 👓 Focus Ps edited not fond of humiliating peple. You are free to correct it. I still have no idea of what you are going on about, and still have not had examples of my mangled English.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 21, 2024 14:09:36 GMT
Yes, orthoptists are hard to find. I’m only blind on one eye, for that reason. But please take your time.
|
|
|
Post by enigma72 on Jan 21, 2024 15:10:31 GMT
Yes, orthoptists are hard to find. I’m only blind on one eye, for that reason. But please take your time. How did that happen? I'm sorry I can barely hear on oneside and it is isolating
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 21, 2024 17:08:42 GMT
I meant I can see through film flaneur pigheadenness. There is actually a shortage of ortoptists. My eyesight is particular and does not get treatment. My left eye cant work save for what’s 10 cm away from my nose and it’s almost sure that the retina is damaged. So be it. I take the bus. I can’t imagine how terrible it is not to hear.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 22, 2024 1:31:53 GMT
Oh good you have moved on a bit. Actually no, I haven't. I've been repeating and rephrasing the same thing over and over while humoring your penchant for convoluted fatuity. Correct: There is no choice when there is no choice. By golly, I think you've finally gotten it! And it only took 9 pages. Will I now be needing to explain (again) how there must be at least two options before a choice is even possible? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that isn't irony; it's hypocrisy. It is the case. No buts about it. If it were made impossible to doubt, it would be impossible to doubt. Whether or not you're informed of this makes no difference. No, things made impossible to doubt would be impossible to doubt. Yes, I know, it's that pesky simplicity again. Sorry. Not sure what you're talking about here. What course of action from the Almighty have I condemned? Yes, it is indeed difficult to see something when you refuse to look at it. Some might even say it's impossible. But if you believe you exist and that you didn't bring yourself into existence, then it stands to reason that something else did. You may not call the First Cause "God," but you call it existent. So unless you're the First Cause, it shouldn't be hard to see at all. It's definitely a form of madness to believe there's no jelly bean on page 6 after acknowledging it. After all, Alzheimer's is a form of madness, no? Right, that's "can't" as opposed to "won't." Omniscience and omnipotence go hand-in-hand. That said, is it your contention that if an omniscient entity doesn't do something, it's because it doesn't know how? See, now that's irony! I don't know about all that, but what was revealed was your inability to choose another one. Here's an oldie but goodie: What's the difference between a duck? One is both the same.
Madness, indeed. There was no other bean in that image, false or otherwise. You weren't asked to believe it exists, you were asked to choose only one, which of course, is a fool's errand. Hello again. To deny something of which you are convinced is to be dishonest. Which is why I said "choose one jelly bean from the image." If you read my posts as diligently as you read your own, you would have known that. Good one! I love puns. Just acknowledge the inability to choose another bean from that image, and I'll be happy to move on. I had no idea that this first little baby step would be such a difficult chore for you, but it makes sense that if you don't like what you see on the second step, you'll do all you can to stagnate on the first. So there you sit, desperately spinning your wheels but going nowhere, all the while blaming me. That response is convincing evidence that you didn't even read it, which would explain why you didn't respond to it. I'll just quote it here to save you some clicking: Not sure why you think agreement with me is necessarily unfortunate, but that might explain a few things. At any rate, I'd bet my bottom dollar that an arm growing back at Lourdes would not compel your immediate acceptance of God's power and existence. You would first look for a physical cause (maybe it was a magic trick, an illusion). Failing that, you would assume a psychological cause (perhaps you were hypnotized). The last resort would not be an acceptance of God's existence; it would simply be classified as an unexplained natural phenomenon. Or in other words, "nature works in mysterious ways." Even in the unlikely scenario that the arm does indeed compel you to accept God's power and existence, it would not be immediate. Removing doubt was your suggestion. Remember "ought" and "should?" I do. You ask why he doesn't remove all doubt, but you ask it rhetorically because you think you already know the answer. Now before you tell me not to tell you what you think, let me remind you that you asked a question, then told me I was missing the point. That makes it a rhetorical question. And when you say you suspect you know the answer, is it not "because God doesn't exist"? Yes, I know. See blockquoted paragraph above, then tell me again how that arm would "compel your immediate acceptance of his power and existence." Beats me. I thought you were asking why God lets you doubt his existence, but I really don't know anymore. Congratulations, I am now lost in your weeds. Well done! Good, you're catching up. See blockquoted paragraph above. No, I've been offering examples of the complete inability to choose when there is only one option, and you've been pathetically attempting to prove me wrong. Which word? The one that acknowledged that bean or the one that denied it?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 22, 2024 2:46:26 GMT
🎥 flaneur Actually admin summed it using the right verb. And that is probably what you should aim as an atheist. Without any doubt you would know God, not belive /have faith. But religion is not science.Free will. When Christians had not been morally better to the roman rulers, who were not that alien to modern colonists/[insert current tyranny’s name here], things would have been different. Kindness won. There was many contenders, many cults. And if you want to know god you might take the path of gnosis. Beware. Sophia is supposedly the mother of the demiourgal architecht of a darkness universe (which I suspect is Ptah or another one, with à possible link to the jealous murdering greek.)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 22, 2024 6:42:37 GMT
🎥 flaneur Actually admin summed it using the right verb. And that is probably what you should aim as an atheist. Without any doubt you would know God, not belive /have faith. But religion is not science.Free will. When Christians had not been morally better to the roman rulers, who were not that alien to modern colonists/[insert current tyranny’s name here], things would have been different. Kindness won. There was many contenders, many cults. And if you want to know god you might take the path of gnosis. Beware. Sophia is supposedly the mother of the demiourgal architecht of a darkness universe (which I suspect is Ptah or another one, with à possible link to the jealous murdering greek.) If it isn't faith without doubt, and faith is what saves, it would make sense that God wouldn't prevent anyone from doubting.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 22, 2024 14:20:52 GMT
Yes, orthoptists are hard to find. I’m only blind on one eye, for that reason. But please take your time. No still no idea, sorry..
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 22, 2024 14:22:49 GMT
Nope, still can't see any mangled English my end. In any case you are in a glass house with this, my friend. 👓 Focus Ps edited not fond of humiliating peple. You are free to correct it. I still not sure what you are on about...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 22, 2024 14:28:24 GMT
🎥 flaneur Actually admin summed it using the right verb. And that is probably what you should aim as an atheist. Without any doubt you would know God, not belive /have faith. But religion is not science.Free will. When Christians had not been morally better to the roman rulers, who were not that alien to modern colonists/[insert current tyranny’s name here], things would have been different. Kindness won. There was many contenders, many cults. And if you want to know god you might take the path of gnosis. Beware. Sophia is supposedly the mother of the demiourgal architecht of a darkness universe (which I suspect is Ptah or another one, with à possible link to the jealous murdering greek.) Again, this just seems so much of a word salad. Except we agree that science is not religion. Well, duh.. This while my initial question was all about reducing doubt through an informed choice. But surely if one knows God for sure then one necessarily believes?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 22, 2024 14:30:50 GMT
I meant I can see through film flaneur pigheadenness. There is actually a shortage of ortoptists. My eyesight is particular and does not get treatment. My left eye cant work save for what’s 10 cm away from my nose and it’s almost sure that the retina is damaged. So be it. I take the bus. I can’t imagine how terrible it is not to hear. An ad hominem is still not an argument. Do you see that?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 22, 2024 14:32:18 GMT
Oh good you have moved on a bit. Actually no, I haven't. I've been repeating and rephrasing the same thing over and over while humoring your penchant for convoluted fatuity. Correct: There is no choice when there is no choice. By golly, I think you've finally gotten it! And it only took 9 pages. Will I now be needing to explain (again) how there must be at least two options before a choice is even possible? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that isn't irony; it's hypocrisy. It is the case. No buts about it. If it were made impossible to doubt, it would be impossible to doubt. Whether or not you're informed of this makes no difference. No, things made impossible to doubt would be impossible to doubt. Yes, I know, it's that pesky simplicity again. Sorry. Not sure what you're talking about here. What course of action from the Almighty have I condemned? Yes, it is indeed difficult to see something when you refuse to look at it. Some might even say it's impossible. But if you believe you exist and that you didn't bring yourself into existence, then it stands to reason that something else did. You may not call the First Cause "God," but you call it existent. So unless you're the First Cause, it shouldn't be hard to see at all. It's definitely a form of madness to believe there's no jelly bean on page 6 after acknowledging it. After all, Alzheimer's is a form of madness, no? Right, that's "can't" as opposed to "won't." Omniscience and omnipotence go hand-in-hand. That said, is it your contention that if an omniscient entity doesn't do something, it's because it doesn't know how? See, now that's irony! I don't know about all that, but what was revealed was your inability to choose another one. Here's an oldie but goodie: What's the difference between a duck? One is both the same.
Madness, indeed. There was no other bean in that image, false or otherwise. You weren't asked to believe it exists, you were asked to choose only one, which of course, is a fool's errand. Hello again. To deny something of which you are convinced is to be dishonest. Which is why I said "choose one jelly bean from the image." If you read my posts as diligently as you read your own, you would have known that. Good one! I love puns. Just acknowledge the inability to choose another bean from that image, and I'll be happy to move on. I had no idea that this first little baby step would be such a difficult chore for you, but it makes sense that if you don't like what you see on the second step, you'll do all you can to stagnate on the first. So there you sit, desperately spinning your wheels but going nowhere, all the while blaming me. That response is convincing evidence that you didn't even read it, which would explain why you didn't respond to it. I'll just quote it here to save you some clicking: Not sure why you think agreement with me is necessarily unfortunate, but that might explain a few things. At any rate, I'd bet my bottom dollar that an arm growing back at Lourdes would not compel your immediate acceptance of God's power and existence. You would first look for a physical cause (maybe it was a magic trick, an illusion). Failing that, you would assume a psychological cause (perhaps you were hypnotized). The last resort would not be an acceptance of God's existence; it would simply be classified as an unexplained natural phenomenon. Or in other words, "nature works in mysterious ways." Even in the unlikely scenario that the arm does indeed compel you to accept God's power and existence, it would not be immediate. Removing doubt was your suggestion. Remember "ought" and "should?" I do. You ask why he doesn't remove all doubt, but you ask it rhetorically because you think you already know the answer. Now before you tell me not to tell you what you think, let me remind you that you asked a question, then told me I was missing the point. That makes it a rhetorical question. And when you say you suspect you know the answer, is it not "because God doesn't exist"? Yes, I know. See blockquoted paragraph above, then tell me again how that arm would "compel your immediate acceptance of his power and existence." Beats me. I thought you were asking why God lets you doubt his existence, but I really don't know anymore. Congratulations, I am now lost in your weeds. Well done! Good, you're catching up. See blockquoted paragraph above. No, I've been offering examples of the complete inability to choose when there is only one option, and you've been pathetically attempting to prove me wrong. Which word? The one that acknowledged that bean or the one that denied it? "I've been repeating and rephrasing the same thing over and over" indeed, lol - and now at somewhat tedious and obsessive length. Please refer to all my previous answers, especially that useful paragraph of a day or so back. They may yet still help.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 22, 2024 20:39:53 GMT
"I've been repeating and rephrasing the same thing over and over" indeed, lol - and now at somewhat tedious and obsessive length. Please refer to all my previous answers, especially that useful paragraph of a day or so back. They may yet still help. Are we done quote chopping now? Thank God! So, the red jelly bean, you say? Good choice.
|
|