Gary's Corner

[Age]

Fair enough, then I probably shouldn't reply, because I generally regret it when I do.

people 'only' regret doing some thing, which is Wrong or bad, or when they 'wished' they had done some thing differently.

[Gary Childress]

Replying is not necessarily answering.

As you have clearly shown, and proved.

Fair enough, then I probably shouldn't reply, because I generally regret it when I do.

Of course you would.

Obviously if what one says and claims is countered and/or refuted, then they, like you, would generally regret it.

And, obviously, if one was to answer, honestly, the actual question posed, and asked to them, and the answer would contradict 'them', then they, like you, would generally regret answering.

Which explains why you generally regret replying and/or answering.

Obviously, 'these people' do not like to be shown when, where, nor why their words are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, and thus why they, like "gary childress", here, generally regret replying to 'my words'.

If one can not back up and support their words, views, or claims with absolutely and irrefutable proof or facts, then, once more, I will suggest do not express your words, views, claims, or ideas in public, and especially so in a publicly accessible philosophy forum.

I don't think your posts have any other purpose than to stoke your vain ego at someone else's expense. Enjoy.

[Age]

Fair enough, then I probably shouldn't reply, because I generally regret it when I do.

Of course you would.

Obviously if what one says and claims is countered and/or refuted, then they, like you, would generally regret it.

And, obviously, if one was to answer, honestly, the actual question posed, and asked to them, and the answer would contradict 'them', then they, like you, would generally regret answering.

Which explains why you generally regret replying and/or answering.

Obviously, 'these people' do not like to be shown when, where, nor why their words are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, and thus why they, like "gary childress", here, generally regret replying to 'my words'.

If one can not back up and support their words, views, or claims with absolutely and irrefutable proof or facts, then, once more, I will suggest do not express your words, views, claims, or ideas in public, and especially so in a publicly accessible philosophy forum.

I don't think your posts have any other purpose than to stoke your vain ego at someone else's expense. Enjoy.

What do you think or believe 'it' is, exactly, that I could be, or would be, even 'stoking', here?

What is 'it' about my 'ego', exactly, that I could even 'stoke'?

[Gary Childress]

Of course you would.

Obviously if what one says and claims is countered and/or refuted, then they, like you, would generally regret it.

And, obviously, if one was to answer, honestly, the actual question posed, and asked to them, and the answer would contradict 'them', then they, like you, would generally regret answering.

Which explains why you generally regret replying and/or answering.

Obviously, 'these people' do not like to be shown when, where, nor why their words are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, and thus why they, like "gary childress", here, generally regret replying to 'my words'.

If one can not back up and support their words, views, or claims with absolutely and irrefutable proof or facts, then, once more, I will suggest do not express your words, views, claims, or ideas in public, and especially so in a publicly accessible philosophy forum.

I don't think your posts have any other purpose than to stoke your vain ego at someone else's expense. Enjoy.

What do you think or believe 'it' is, exactly, that I could be, or would be, even 'stoking', here?

What is 'it' about my 'ego', exactly, that I could even 'stoke'?

Just enjoy being better than the rest of us misguided sods.

[Age]

I don't think your posts have any other purpose than to stoke your vain ego at someone else's expense. Enjoy.

What do you think or believe 'it' is, exactly, that I could be, or would be, even 'stoking', here?

What is 'it' about my 'ego', exactly, that I could even 'stoke'?

Just enjoy being better than the rest of us misguided sods.

Why do you even assume or believe 'this', here?

[Gary Childress]

What do you think or believe 'it' is, exactly, that I could be, or would be, even 'stoking', here?

What is 'it' about my 'ego', exactly, that I could even 'stoke'?

Just enjoy being better than the rest of us misguided sods.

Why do you even assume or believe 'this', here?

I've been on the Internet a long time and I've seen most of the self-proclaimed "gurus" strut their stuff. Your situation appears little different. As if you alone have seen the truth and everyone else in the world is mistaken. No one else "gets it". Just you. How likely do you think it is that you have stumbled upon some great discovery that no one else is yet aware of? How likely is it that you alone have the right answers and the rest of us are all misguided. Gurus on the Internet are a dime a dozen, there are always a few on a forum.

[Age]

Just enjoy being better than the rest of us misguided sods.

Why do you even assume or believe 'this', here?

I've been on the Internet a long time and I've seen most of the self-proclaimed "gurus" strut their stuff.

Who cares?

your own personal past experiences have absolutely nothing at all to do with me, here, nor with what I know and/or do not know.

Also, what 'this one' has just shown, here, is a prime example of what I call 'APE thinking'.

Your situation appears little different. As if you alone have seen the truth and everyone else in the world is mistaken. No one else "gets it". Just you.

Can you be 'mistaken', by what 'seems', to you?

How likely do you think it is that you have stumbled upon some great discovery that no one else is yet aware of?

What certainly does not matter one iota is what i think. What matters, absolutely, is what I can show, and prove, irrefutably so.

And, if 'I' came to 'stumble upon' what you call 'some great discovery', or not, will come to be known soon enough, by 'you', human beings, as well.

Also, with every so-called new, and/or great, 'discovery' has it been the case that 'one' comes to learning, understanding, or knowing before others do?

If yes, then would it be an absolute impossibility for 'me' to have come to 'stumble across' one, or more, 'discoveries', here?

How likely is it that you alone have the right answers and the rest of us are all misguided.

I know 'the answer', here. Which you too might soon come to know, also.

That is if you do not let your presumptions and pre-existing beliefs get in the way.

Gurus on the Internet are a dime a dozen, there are always a few on a forum.

So, is 'my situation' a 'little different', or, 'the same' as 'those' who you call 'gurus', here?

Also, whingers, complainers, or presumes can also be called a 'dime a dozen', and/or there are 'always' a few on a forum, also.

[Gary Childress]

Gurus and "whingers", it's like two different people living in different dimensions of the same world. The advantage of being a Guru is that you are never "wrong" and the disadvantage of being a "whinger" is that you are never right. Such is life for a "whinger" I guess.

[Gary Childress]

If God is perfect, then God would never have created me.

I exist.

Therefore, either God did not create me or else God is not perfect.

[Gary Childress]

If God created everything and God never makes mistakes, then God must have created all the crap in this world intentionally.

[Immanuel Can]

If God created everything and God never makes mistakes, then God must have created all the crap in this world intentionally.

Or there's another explanation.

That is, that the present world is not the way God originally created it to be.

[Gary Childress]

If God created everything, then God created this post. If God did not create this post, then God did not create everything.

[Gary Childress]

If God created everything and God never makes mistakes, then God must have created all the crap in this world intentionally.

Or there's another explanation.

That is, that the present world is not the way God originally created it to be.

So God created a world that turned out differently than what he intended?

[Immanuel Can]

If God created everything and God never makes mistakes, then God must have created all the crap in this world intentionally.

Or there's another explanation.

That is, that the present world is not the way God originally created it to be.

So God created a world that turned out differently than what he intended?

Not quite. He intended to create a world with free agents in it. Human beings. Real persons. Persons with their own identities, choices, volitions, personalities, moral consciences, and options to love or not to love. In other words, people capable of independence...and relationship, should they choose to have it.

However, there's an inescapable logical corollary to any such world: a world with free agents in it is going to be one in which sometimes the right things happen, and sometimes the wrong things are done. For the freedom to do the right thing entails the option also to choose the wrong thing.

And I think, if you look around, you'll see that's exactly the sort of world we live in. It's full of people, and people with their own volitions...sometimes doing the right things, and sometimes doing the wrong things.

[promethean75]

"If God created everything, then God created this post. If God did not create this post, then God did not create everything."

This is almost an excellent question, Gary. When did Jefferson's god walk away. When did the moment of designed creation stop and the moment of free development start. At what hour did this deist god take his hands off the clock he put together and walk away.

Discuss.