Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:13 pm**

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:05 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:01 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 4:29 pm
You can't answer me; not even your father could do the impossible. Scientifically proving your God's law would require that we monitor the inside of people's brains/minds on an almost molecular level, so we can confirm that they are indeed incapable of choosing what they think isn't their most satisfying option. Monitoring big parts of their brains/minds all at once. Repeating the experiment with many people. That's WAY outside today's technology, and it was even WAY MORE outside the technology of the 50s.

This is all fucking obvious of course. I've known this from the start of course, hence the satire. If you go to a philosophy forum then don't be so surprised that you'll encounter some people who have some vague idea what they're talking about.

Your father lied to you. He hasn't proven the book's cornerstone claim because that was literally impossible. It's your fault for not knowing that. Chit-chat "demonstrations" aren't scientific proof, they are just a narrative.
You don't know shit. What is impossible is your belief that proof requires you have to know what is behind every person's brains at a molecular level.
I suppose it would help if you understood the difference between a narrative and an 'undeniable' scientific proof. Did you drop out of school too?

You haven't followed his proof at all. Each step of the way he PROVES his case. You and FD think you disproved him. You did nothing of the sort. You don't even understand why the conventional definition of determinism is flawed and why this debate will never be resolved the way it stands. The snobbery in here is a joke.

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:31 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:13 pm You and FD think you disproved him.

We dismissed various of his "arguments" as flawed. This is because they suck donkey.

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:36 pm**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:31 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:13 pm You and FD think you disproved him.
We dismissed various of his "arguments" as flawed. This is because they suck donkey.

Just because you dismissed "greater satisfaction" as flawed doesn't mean it is. Right now you get greater satisfaction coming back to this thread than leaving. And just because you don't understand that the past cannot CAUSE the present, doesn't mean his arguments are flawed.

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:53 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:36 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:31 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:13 pm You and FD think you disproved him.
We dismissed various of his "arguments" as flawed. This is because they suck donkey.
Just because you dismissed "greater satisfaction" as flawed doesn't mean it is.

It works the other way round, it being demonstrably flawed was the reason for dismissing it.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:36 pm And just because you don't understand that the past cannot CAUSE the present, doesn't mean his arguments are flawed.

That's only because it's the things that happen in the past that cause the things which happen in the present. You see these rods on a screen in the present because I typed them a short while ago. That's just how causation is.

Your nonsense makes no difference to that and you are incapable of presenting an argument that shows otherwise.

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:53 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:36 pm

As an impartial observer, I think that the real question is, what are you going to do about it, and why, and is what you do based on the teachings?

Posted: **Mon Sep 29, 2025 6:00 pm**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:53 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:36 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:31 pm
We dismissed various of his "arguments" as flawed. This is because they suck donkey.
Just because you dismissed "greater satisfaction" as flawed doesn't mean it is.
It works the other way round, it being demonstrably flawed was the reason for dismissing it.

PG: No way is it flawed. You can’t go in any other direction. You have no choice in the matter.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 5:36 pm And just because you don't understand that the past cannot CAUSE the present, doesn't mean his arguments are flawed.
That's only because it's the things that happen in the past that cause the things which happen in the present. You see these rods on a screen in the present because I typed them a short while ago. That's just how causation is.

PG: Yes, but you aren’t seeing them in the past. You are seeing them right now.

Your nonsense makes no difference to that and you are incapable of presenting an argument that shows otherwise.

PG: So far I’m ahead, and you cannot show otherwise.

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2025 12:28 pm**

I'm not here to argue with Flashdangerpants or Atla. They are not the end all be all. I spent a lot of time here and I don't want it to go into oblivion for those who may be interested. Here are the first three chapters again. It's interesting to see how prejudice works and how those who are respected in a forum cause everyone to be suspicious. But Flash even admitted he did and would not read the book. How the hell can anyone give a normal response to something he never read? Could this be any more telling? The false accusations that have been made makes it difficult to defend myself. What they have demanded are soundbites because they don't want to take the time to read. This is so sad because I thought this group would be different, but no, it seems the biggest wheels are all interested in making sure their status as the giver of truth is never questioned. This attitude will never ever help our world to the degree that will do anything positive. And I will continue to post without their interference if necessary. This thread may die but I won't let it die because of false accusations. I urge the reader of this thread to please do your own diligence. Don't be intimidated. My sincere hope is that you will not become sheeple that follow without the critical thinking necessary to come to your own conclusions.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 73505d3773

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:18 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 12:28 pm Flash even admitted he did and would not read the book.

Don't be a dirty fucking liar please.

I did read the available portions, multiple times. I will not be buying your book to get at the rest becasue the first three chapters are total crap and you are only here to try and turn a buck.

Your book is a wreck, nobody wants it.

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:20 pm**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:18 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 12:28 pm Flash even admitted he did and would not read the book.
Don't be a dirty fucking liar please.

I did read the available portions, multiple times. I will not be buying your book to get at the rest becasue the first three chapters are total crap and you are only here to try and turn a buck.

Your book is a wreck, nobody wants it.

No FlashDangerous, and you won't win. You are not even close to understanding this work. How dare you think you are an adequate critic?

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:21 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:20 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:18 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 12:28 pm Flash even admitted he did and would not read the book.
Don't be a dirty fucking liar please.

I did read the available portions, multiple times. I will not be buying your book to get at the rest becasue the first three chapters are total crap and you are only here to try and turn a buck.

Your book is a wreck, nobody wants it.
No FlashDangerous, and you won't win.

So you've decided to be a shameless liar. OK.

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:28 pm**

YOU ARE RUINING IT FOR OTHERS BECAUSE THEY TRUST YOUR JUDGMENT, BUT YOUR JUDGMENT IS FUCKED UP. FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND THIS KNOWLDDGE, THEY WILL HAVE TO STAND UP FOR THEIR OWN ABILITY TO SEE BEYOND YOUR NAME CALLING. I DON'T MEAN TO BE DISRESPECTFUL, BUT YOU HAVE LOST YOUR WAY. YOU HAVE A LOT OF BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE IN PHILOSOPHY, BUT YOU ARE WRONG IN THIS CASE AND ARE SPREADING VENOM.

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:41 pm**

Someone asked for a 50 words version:

First discovery: by divine law, everyone always does what they think is most satisfying to them. If we build an utopistic environment and completely stop blaming people, literally all crime will vanish (Golden Age).

Second discovery: we see everything in real-time, Einstein sucks.

Third discovery: there is something after death.

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:43 pm**

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:41 pm Someone asked for a 50 words version:

First discovery: by divine law, everyone always does what they think is most satisfying to them. If we build an utopistic environment and completely stop blaming people, literally all crime will vanish (Golden Age).

Second discovery: we see everything in real-time, Einstein sucks.

Third discovery: there is something after death.

Are you kidding me Atla? I would never share anything with you after the garbage you have spread. I don't know who is worse, you are Flash. You're both out in left field.

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:51 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:28 pm YOU ARE RUINING IT FOR OTHERS BECAUSE THEY TRUST YOUR JUDGMENT

No they don't. I am not at all influential.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:28 pm BUT YOUR JUDGMENT IS FUCKED UP.

No it isn't. Everybody is vastly smarter than you, myself included. In my case I have domain knowledge regarding philosophy that you lack. These are just two among the many reasons why my judgment is superior to yours, and they don't make me unusual in that regard. Anybody with a decent education (philosophy optional), a basic grasp of elementary reasoning, and the ability to read a paragraph without forgetting the beginning of it before reaching the end is out of your league.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:28 pm FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND THIS KNOWLDDGE, THEY WILL HAVE TO STAND UP FOR THEIR OWN ABILITY TO SEE BEYOND YOUR NAME CALLING.

Sure, but you have to persuade them to want to read your work for that to even begin to happen, and in case you haven't noticed, you aren't doing very well at your end of that task. You've had no more success with what you are doing here anywhere else either. You can't blame me for wherever those failures occurred. You haven't enough smarts to think about what you are getting wrong though.

But you are right. Anybody who wants to have an insight into the quality of your offering but who doesn't want to read insane gibberish about a dragon with an invisible key for a door of knowledge should really look beyond the fact that I consider you a window licking loon and attempt to discern why that is.

Assuming they don't want to read 160 pages of stultifying, pretentious and self-congratulatory prose via the link you have provided just now, they would do well to check out what I have written about why the tautological underpinnings of the first discovery renders it a non-discovery. Why that same tautology invalidates the backup argument that in a case of free will the tautology would stop applying. That should be enough. Philosophically there is nothing really to see here.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:28 pm I DON'T MEAN TO BE DISRESPECTFUL, BUT YOU HAVE LOST YOUR WAY.

I don't really care about your respect. I think your dad was a con artist and you are his substandard chiselling lackey. I might respect the hustle if there was some art to it, but in present form I don't even respect you that much.

Posted: **Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:52 pm**

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:43 pm I don't know who is worse, you are Flash.

It's you. You are the worst. You are absolutely totally shit.

Philosophy Now Forum

New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery

Re: New Discovery