My views that 'hell' exists are based on sound, logical reasoning.

[Dontaskme]

Says: I

EVERY thing I say can and will be backed up and supported with empirical EVIDENCE and PROOF, or with sound, valid arguments.

Says: I



Can the sayer known as I .. go for it, argue away. Please show the forum readers these views that 'hell' exists based on sound, logical reasoning, and that this view 'hell exists'' can and will be backed up and supported with empirical EVIDENCE and PROOF, or with sound, valid arguments.

[Dontaskme]

''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''

Ok I will.

How can what is proven soundly and logically to exist, namely ''hell'' ..how can what is a ''sound logical proven'' ever be challenged or questioned?

[Age]

Says: I

EVERY thing I say can and will be backed up and supported with empirical EVIDENCE and PROOF, or with sound, valid arguments.

Says: I



Can the sayer known as I .. go for it, argue away. Please show the forum readers these views that 'hell' exists based on sound, logical reasoning, and that this view 'hell exists'' can and will be backed up and supported with empirical EVIDENCE and PROOF, or with sound, valid arguments.

Okay. But obviously 'you', forum readers, will have to come to an agreement of what the definition of 'hell' is, before 'I' can actually provide and give any empirical evidence and proof, or any sound, valid arguments. So, once 'you', forum readers, provide me with the agreed upon and accepted definition of 'hell', then I can and will do what I claimed above.

[Age]

''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''

Ok I will.

How can what is proven soundly and logically to exist, namely ''hell'' ..how can what is a ''sound logical proven'' ever be challenged or questioned?

Have I ALREADY provided sound, logical PROOF that 'hell' exists YET?

If no, then I have informed you of how I can and will provide that PROOF.

Obviously, if you can SEE and UNDERSTAND that PROOF, THEN you will NOT have anything MORE to challenge NOR question me regarding this issue.

But, until I have provided sound, logical PROOF, and/or you have obtained and grasped that PROOF, then obviously you will have things to question AND challenge, that is; only, obviously, if you are NOT assuming NOR believing things here.

In short, if I provide sound, logical PROOF, then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to challenge or question me about regarding 'that', previous, "issue".

[Dontaskme]

Have I ALREADY provided sound, logical PROOF that 'hell' exists YET?

If no, then I have informed you of how I can and will provide that PROOF.

But if like you say, you can and are willing to provide proof that 'hell' exists according to your view that it does.. then the confusing bit is why would you have to prove to anyone else what is already proven in your own view? why would you need to do that, why would you even want to consider starting an argument over a view that is already a dead certain.

By stating the existence of 'hell' is proven to exist in your view is fine, but then why would that proven then request to be challenged or questioned at all...because you are literally informing that the existence of 'hell' is already proven in your view...so it just makes no sense whatsoever to inform others of what has obviously already been proven in your view.

The point is, you really do yourself so much injustice when you use the word PROOF..and that is what you are failing to understand.






.

[Dontaskme]

''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''

But if there exists a view that 'hell' exists and that proof is already based on sound logical reasoning. Why would that proven view WANT to be challenged or questioned? and how would that work out if the view is already KNOWN to be proven, how can some view that is proven ever be unproven..can a proof which is known to be an absolute certain ever be undone? if it can be undone then it was never a proof in the first place was it, obviously not.

.

[Dontaskme]

''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''

''My views that 'hell' exists are based on sound, logical reasoning.''

This is like saying...'If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'DEATH' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''


''My views that 'DEATH' exists are based on sound, logical reasoning.''


SO, how does that work?

[Age]

Have I ALREADY provided sound, logical PROOF that 'hell' exists YET?

If no, then I have informed you of how I can and will provide that PROOF.

But if like you say, you can and are willing to provide proof that 'hell' exists according to your view that it does.. then the confusing bit is why would you have to prove to anyone else what is already proven in your own view?

But I do NOT 'have to'. IF I felt that I 'had to', then I would be desperately 'trying to'. Obviously I am NOT desperately 'trying to'. As can be CLEARLY EVIDENCED I just wait, patiently.

When, and if, anyone interested comes along, then they do. And, if they do not, then so be it. I CERTAINLY DO NOT have any feeling nor notion that I 'have to' do anything, especially prove anything.

why would you need to do that,

But I do NOT 'need' to do 'that'. You just made this ASSUMPTION here, and have JUMPED to this CONCLUSION. Obviously, from my own OBVIOUS resistance to prove anything and my own OBVIOUS patience to just WAIT for those, who are Truly inquisitive, interested, OPEN, and Honest, I have SHOWN that I have had NO 'need' to 'that'.

why would you even want to consider starting an argument over a view that is already a dead certain.

And what are you proposing here is the, so called, "dead certain" view?

Also, why did you NOT propose this question to the one who started that thread, which this one span off from, and who obviously holds a position, which they BELIEVE is absolutely True? Have you forgotten that it was 'them' who first claimed that they KNOW what thee actual Truth IS, and that it was 'them' who was seeking out someone/anyone with the opposite BELIEF to argue with, and prove things to?

I just took up their offer, on the provision that it was CLEAR that I do NOT have belief either way.

By stating the existence of 'hell' is proven to exist in your view is fine, but then why would that proven then request to be challenged or questioned at all...

But that proven is NOT requested to be challenged nor questioned at all.

'I' am the one who has been seeking to be challenged and questioned.

because you are literally informing that the existence of 'hell' is already proven in your view...so it just makes no sense whatsoever to inform others of what has obviously already been proven in your view.

Are 'you', by these very words under the label "dontaskme", informing 'us' here what has obviously already been proven in your view?

The point is, you really do yourself so much injustice when you use the word PROOF..and that is what you are failing to understand.






.

Just because you do NOT like it when I say I can PROVE some thing, which you do NOT believe with, then this does NOT mean I am doing thy Self "so much injustice" at all. Also, just because you BELIEVE that I can NOT prove what I say and claim, then this ALSO does NOT mean I am doing thy Self "an injustice. In fact, using the word 'PROOF' here is NOT doing Me any injustice at all. If I can PROVE what I say and claim, then that is actually what IS JUST, what I actually can do.

So, when I use the word PROOF 'I' am doing, for thee Self, actual JUSTICE, Itself.

[Age]

''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''

But if there exists a view that 'hell' exists and that proof is already based on sound logical reasoning. Why would that proven view WANT to be challenged or questioned?

But that 'proven' does NOT WANT this at all.

Are you, at all, able to explain just HOW 'a view', proven or not, could WANT any thing at all?

To me, 'views', themselves do NOT 'want' any thing. 'Views' are just what has been observed or what is being observed.

and how would that work out if the view is already KNOWN to be proven,

How would that work out for 'who' and/or 'what'?

how can some view that is proven ever be unproven..

Could it even happen?

can a proof which is known to be an absolute certain ever be undone?

I do NOT see how.

if it can be undone then it was never a proof in the first place was it, obviously not.

.

So, WHY did you bring this up then?

[Age]

''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''

''My views that 'hell' exists are based on sound, logical reasoning.''

This is like saying...'If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'DEATH' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''

But HOW is 'this' like saying 'that'

For example, how many people believe 'death' exists, and, how many people believe 'hell' exists?

In fact, do 'you' believe 'hell' exists?

If no, then how exactly are 'death' and 'hell' the same?

But if yes, then there is OBVIOUSLY NO NEED for you to challenge nor question me, NOR absolutely anyone else, about 'hell' existing, is there?

If you ALREADY believe, agree upon, or accept some 'thing', then there is obviously NO NEED for you to question nor challenge absolutely anything about that 'thing'.

''My views that 'DEATH' exists are based on sound, logical reasoning.''


SO, how does that work?

How does 'what' work?

The 'death', the 'reasoning', or the 'something else'?

[Dontaskme]

But I do NOT 'have to'. IF I felt that I 'had to', then I would be desperately 'trying to'. Obviously I am NOT desperately 'trying to'. As can be CLEARLY EVIDENCED I just wait, patiently.

But why wait patiently or even bring up the idea of ... '' ''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.'' ... at all-if you do NOT have to? ... sounds like a lot of desperation to me.

When, and if, anyone interested comes along, then they do. And, if they do not, then so be it.

So here, you now believe there is an interest in challenging and question what has already been claimed to be proven.
So what makes you think that there would be an interest in something that has already been proven? surely if the proof has been announced then what would be the point of arguing or challenging what has already been proven?

I CERTAINLY DO NOT have any feeling nor notion that I 'have to' do anything, especially prove anything.

That's correct, and of course if you already claimed to have the proof, then you don't have to prove your proof to anyone, not even yourself.
But then why assume that there would be anyone interested in what has been proven by you there, surely if 'hell' is proven to exist for you there, then that proof could also exist for everyone else as well, else one would be left wondering why they don't have the proof but you do, it would be like where did you get the proof from that they haven't got.
You see, all you are doing here is assuming there are others who may WANT you to provide the proof that 'hell' exists.
So again, why would others even WANT to argue this 'hell' exists subject with you, when they can also already know their own proofs...you would have to assume that others would not have their own proof by requesting they challenge you...but why would others WANT to challenge your proof, surely that would be a VERY ONE-SIDED argument on your part ONLY, simply because you have already decleared the truth that 'hell' exists, and have also stated that there is no need to prove it.
So any assumed challenger on your part of the argument would be bascially wasting their time with you, wouldn't they, and so the whole argument would be totally and utterly pointless wouldn't it?

But I do NOT 'need' to do 'that'. You just made this ASSUMPTION here, and have JUMPED to this CONCLUSION.

But you obviously do need to do it, because why would you even announce it in the first place? the need to announce it is here in black and white...for the READER to see > > ''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''

So here we have another ASSUMPTION that there is a 'you' that would WANT proof that 'hell' exists from an external source, namely this announcement that YOU made. And yes, you really did make it.

Obviously, from my own OBVIOUS resistance to prove anything and my own OBVIOUS patience to just WAIT for those, who are Truly inquisitive, interested, OPEN, and Honest, I have SHOWN that I have had NO 'need' to 'that'.

Steady on there is no need to keep repeating what you have already said above, to which I have ALREADY given a very open and honest reply.

And what are you proposing here is the, so called, "dead certain" view?

Dead certain view is another terminology for ''proof'' ..most educated people know that.

Also, why did you NOT propose this question to the one who started that thread, and who obviously holds a position, which they BELIEVE is absolutely True? Have you forgotten that it was 'them' who first claimed that they KNOW what thee actual Truth IS, and that it was 'them' who was seeking out someone/anyone with the opposite BELIEF to argue with, and prove things to?

On your request.

Here, I will insert a KNOWER by the name of AGE

I just took up their offer, on the provision that it was CLEAR that I do NOT have belief either way.

Is the one known as AGE the one who started the thread, and who obviously holds a position, which they BELIEVE is absolutely True?

And yet also claims to know that '' I do NOT have belief either way.''

Very CLEAR that isn't it? NOT!

But that proven is NOT requested to be challenged nor questioned at all.

And yet clearly this is not the case when one reads the following statement .... ''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''
That sounds like a request, or a demand made to an assumed other to respond. There is definitely a request for proven KNOWN
that the character that goes by the believed label 'AGE' is able to give a clear logical explanation of how the existence of 'hell' is known proven to exist....and that request..aka question is being made, because it's clearly there for the reader in said/written bolded statement.

'I' am the one who has been seeking to be challenged and questioned.

But why would an 'I' that already KNOWS and HAS the proven that ''hell'' exists - then want to seek out that proven knowing again by assuming there would be a counter argument for what is already proven by I ?

Why would an assumption be made that there exists another entity who can question what you've already declared as proof to yourself?
Surely there would be no need for you to make a request for a questioner to then question what you already know to be true?
You surely must believe that other questioners exist if you are making the request?

Don't you seem to understand that ALL questions are NOTHING but answers unanswered?
Why seek outside yourself if you already have the proven truth there with you already?

Are 'you', by these very words under the label "dontaskme", informing 'us' here what has obviously already been proven in your view?

Why you asking me, unless you believe this dontaskme character exists?

Just because you do NOT like it when I say I can PROVE some thing,

But there was never any mention of NOT LIKING hearing that a proven exists. You have slipped that notion in yourself for what ever reason.

which you do NOT believe with, then this does NOT mean I am doing thy Self "so much injustice" at all.

Yes it does, because you are just playing silly mind games with yourself...unless you BELIEVE there are other characters that you are communicating with? which incidently are only ever inside your own mind there anyway.

Also, just because you BELIEVE that I can NOT prove what I say and claim, then this ALSO does NOT mean I am doing thy Self "an injustice.

Yes it does, because you are now making the assumption that there are others who hold BELIEFS...while denying that you have beliefs.

In fact, using the word 'PROOF' here is NOT doing Me any injustice at all. If I can PROVE what I say and claim, then that is actually what IS JUST, what I actually can do.

Then if I can do what I claim I can do then what is the point in requesting a counter-challenge...surely no such counter-challenge would be required would it?

So, when I use the word PROOF 'I' am doing, for thee Self, actual JUSTICE, Itself.

Except when you assume that proof can be challenged by an assumed OTHER...which is why you are very confused to deny you have no BELIEFS - then make the assumption that there are others who can challenge your JUSTICE....any such challengers would have to be BELIEVED
to exist.

[Impenitent]

psst... what if proving anything through sound logical reasoning is hell?

where's my boulder?

-Imp

[Dontaskme]

psst... what if proving anything through sound logical reasoning is hell?

where's my boulder?

-Imp

Age is someone who BELIEVES he can explain the ABSOLUTE from a relative perspective, which of course is a very absurd idea.

It's really so hilarious and a very entertaining game to play, which goes absolutely nowhere, but Age just loves to roll that ball, always believing there is another there to catch it.

[Dontaskme]

But if there exists a view that 'hell' exists and that proof is already based on sound logical reasoning. Why would that proven view WANT to be challenged or questioned?

But that 'proven' does NOT WANT this at all.

Are you, at all, able to explain just HOW 'a view', proven or not, could WANT any thing at all?

To me, 'views', themselves do NOT 'want' any thing. 'Views' are just what has been observed or what is being observed.

''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''

So WHO is this 'me' that is being refered to - that seeks to be challenged? when the 'you there' have already concluded the following > >
[ But that 'proven' does NOT WANT this at all. ] So why bring it up? unless the view really does WANT ?

Are you assuming there is another observer with a different opposing view to your view? and if there were a different observer, then obviously their view would be their own proof and truth that would also not require challenging or questioning either.

So any such counter requests would be futile anyway...so what exactly are you trying to achieve by making such futile counter requests?

The fact of the matter is AGE

ONENESS really does not have any arugment with itself now does it...so stop assuming it does by believing there are counter arguments to be had. And also why you are at it, stop saying you have no beliefs, because you cannot make assumptions unless they were believed to exist, and you clearly do make assumptions just like everyone else.

You cannot exclude yourself from these ridiculous mind games you are playing with yourself and then make up these other characters you believe to exit.

Because, every time you respond to me, I will call you out on the mind fuck that you love to play with yourself. And that is why I started this thread in the first place, to call you out on your own bullshit.

And always remember this Age, the female is smarter than the male. But don't take that personally, it's a metaphorical meaning for oneness.





.

[Dontaskme]

''My views that 'DEATH' exists are based on sound, logical reasoning.''



How does 'what' work?

The 'death', the 'reasoning', or the 'something else'?

Here, let me repeat it for you ...
My views that 'DEATH' exists are based on sound, logical reasoning. I'm asking about the word DEATH

Is there a view that death exists, based on sound, logical reasoning?

Forget the WORD ''hell''....for now, and think about another word .. lets think about the word DEATH.
Is there a view that death exists, based on sound, logical reasoning?

.