Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:48 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 4:46 pm

'This' is not necessarily an 'empirical fact' at all. And, the obviousness of this some can see, but which you obviously can not, yet.



Considering that it is you who claims that the only thing that can be known is 'awareness' what you say and write, here, appears contradictory

Lack of experience , intelligence , money, or education is lack of equality .

Only to 'those' who believe 'equality' equates to those four things. Which, if any one did, then they have quite a bit more learning, and understanding, to do, here, still.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:00 pm Some people are luckier than others.
God’s mercy transcends human calculations of fairness. See the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

The huge example of unfairness ,according to human measurement ,is the horrific death of Jesus .

Again, you talk about things that, really, have absolutely nothing at all to do with what I actually, said, wrote, and meant.

Theology is not an easy topic. You would be happier simply trying to be nice and being less verbose.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 7:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:37 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:40 pm
The God of Abraham is a person (a personal god) because that particular deity experiences feelings and intentions as a person does . In other words God/Allah/Jahweh is not simply an abstract idea.

What is some so-called 'God of Abraham' attributed with, exactly?

Age had replied to Immanuel Can:-

LOL 'your God' has gonads and a penis. The plausibility of 'this' is at absolute zero.

No ,Age , it is not implausible.

Yes, "belinda" it is implausible, both theoretically and empirically.

And, as always, if any one would like the irrefutable proof for this Fact, then let 'us' have 'a discussion'.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:40 pm The invisible God the Father incarnated as a human man called Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God in human form.
The above applies to Christianity, Islam holds that the invisible Allah was revealed via the Koran. Allah, unlike the Christian God, did not become incarnate .

So, to you, the One who is said to have created the Universe, Itself, was in male form, with a penis and with gonads, right?

And, with the second come of "jesus christ" you will see and understand how Truly absurd and ridiculous your claim really is, here.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:40 pm Judaism holds that God is present in the world in the Shekinah. That is, God dwelling in the world. Shekinah is often understood as feminine.

So now God has a vagina, as well, right?

Such questions demonstrate that you do not understand symbols . [/quote]

If you say so. So, now, what does the symbol, 'feminine', mean or refer to, exactly, which 'you' believe and claim that it is 'I' who does not understand, here?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 7:07 pm Your rudeness gratuitously insults others' feelings.

So, you people allow your own misinterpretations of 'my words' to have control over the emotions with in.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 7:10 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:41 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:09 pm I experience Age's contributions more like oxygenating the thread. When Age questions I feel curiosity about why I believe as I do, and that does me good.

Ah, then perhaps the MWI is actually true after all.

For you seem to be experiencing a parallel universe in which Age doesn't ridicule and LOL, LOL, LOL at everyone else's ideas.

You're a rare bird, Belinda.
_______

No longer, Seeds.My tolerance of his indomitable hostility has come to an end.

How quick 'they' can change, especially when their beliefs and/or claims are shown and proved to be Wrong and/or False.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 7:14 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:48 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:00 pm

Lack of experience , intelligence , money, or education is lack of equality .

Only to 'those' who believe 'equality' equates to those four things. Which, if any one did, then they have quite a bit more learning, and understanding, to do, here, still.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:00 pm Some people are luckier than others.
God’s mercy transcends human calculations of fairness. See the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

The huge example of unfairness ,according to human measurement ,is the horrific death of Jesus .

Again, you talk about things that, really, have absolutely nothing at all to do with what I actually, said, wrote, and meant.

Theology is not an easy topic. You would be happier simply trying to be nice and being less verbose.

But it is a very simple and very easy topic to understand. That is when you, also, understand and know the Mind and the brain work, exactly.

I have not been not nice once ever in this forum.

It is like some of these people, here, forget that they can and do make misinterpretations, and/or believe that they do not misinterpret things, here.

What you might consider is not needed, here, others might consider the exact opposite. So, which 'one' is Right.

Also, if you will provide an example.of where and when I could have been less verbose, then 'we' will be able to see if you actually understood what I was saying, and meaning, or not. But, if you do not, then how many words are actually necessary 'we' will never know.

Also, what makes you think or believe that some one would be more happier if they used less words?

Which brings 'us' to the question, 'Why do you not be less verbose, so that you could be more happier?'

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 6:23 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:37 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:27 pm

Because no one, forever more, could refute it.

Is it provable that the "universe" did not begin and is not expanding?

Once more, 'Yes'.

OK. Show me the proof.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 8:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 6:23 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:37 pm

Is it provable that the "universe" did not begin and is not expanding?

Once more, 'Yes'.

OK. Show me the proof.

Gary foolishly ignores the warnings and enters the shape-shifting maze of doom where brain cells are extracted from your cranium faster than a chicken can snatch a June bug.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 9:00 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 8:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 6:23 pm

Once more, 'Yes'.

OK. Show me the proof.

Gary foolishly ignores the warnings and enters the shape-shifting maze of doom where brain cells are extracted from your cranium faster than a chicken can snatch a June bug.
_______

He either has "proof" or he doesn't. His "proof" is either such that it is beyond all possible doubt or it isn't. Let him give his "proof".

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 10:44 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 9:00 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 8:33 pm

OK. Show me the proof.

Gary foolishly ignores the warnings and enters the shape-shifting maze of doom where brain cells are extracted from your cranium faster than a chicken can snatch a June bug.
_______

He either has "proof" or he doesn't. His "proof" is either such that it is beyond all possible doubt or it isn't. Let him give his "proof".

That's the point of my quip, Gary.

If history is an indicator, then he's not going to give you anything but an empty and exasperating "run-around" through his patented mental maze.

But please, by all means, do what you like.
_______

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 8:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 6:23 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:37 pm

Is it provable that the "universe" did not begin and is not expanding?

Once more, 'Yes'.

OK. Show me the proof.

Once more what 'we' have, here, is another prime example of the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, expecting and demanding things from others.

Would have it been any harder for you to just ask for some thing, instead?

Anyway, the proof is in the definition of the word, 'Universe'.

Now, so I do not get accused of skewing things, here, what is 'the definition' that you use for the 'Universe' word.

When you present 'that', then 'we' can move along, here.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 9:00 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 8:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 6:23 pm

Once more, 'Yes'.

OK. Show me the proof.

Gary foolishly ignores the warnings and enters the shape-shifting maze of doom where brain cells are extracted from your cranium faster than a chicken can snatch a June bug.
_______

And, once more, what 'we' have, here, is another prime example of one presuming, and believing, absolutely, that it knows, exactly, what will play out.

Which, by the way, was a very common trait among the adult human beings population, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written. Which explains why 'they' took so, so long to 'catch up'.

To prove, and in 'a way' that no one could refute, and so once and for all, that the Universe's, Itself, is eternal and infinite, can be done in just a few short sentences.

But, it is people like 'you' "seeds", with your very distorted views, presumptions, and beliefs, why learning, understanding, and knowing takes so long for 'you'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 10:44 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 9:00 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 8:33 pm

OK. Show me the proof.

Gary foolishly ignores the warnings and enters the shape-shifting maze of doom where brain cells are extracted from your cranium faster than a chicken can snatch a June bug.
_______

He either has "proof" or he doesn't. His "proof" is either such that it is beyond all possible doubt or it isn't. Let him give his "proof".

If there was any doubt, then 'it' would not be 'proof', but instead would just be 'evidence', only.

Once more, I do not do 'evidence', like I do not do 'debate', 'theories', nor 'beliefs'. As all of them are reputable. Instead I work with 'facts' and 'proofs', so that what I present is the actual Truth of things, which no one could refute forever more.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 19, 2025 12:08 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 10:44 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 9:00 pm
Gary foolishly ignores the warnings and enters the shape-shifting maze of doom where brain cells are extracted from your cranium faster than a chicken can snatch a June bug.
_______

He either has "proof" or he doesn't. His "proof" is either such that it is beyond all possible doubt or it isn't. Let him give his "proof".

That's the point of my quip, Gary.

If history is an indicator,

LOL Here, 'we' have the purest example if APE-thinking, which, when used, is how and why 'these people', back then, when this was being written, took so, so long to 'catch up', learn, and understand.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 19, 2025 12:08 am then he's not going to give you anything but an empty and exasperating "run-around" through his patented mental maze.

you keep making claims, here, "seeds", in an attempt to distract and to deceive, but would you also like to provide some examples of where I have, supposedly and allegedly given absolutely nothing bust some so-called claimed, 'empty and exasperating run-around', through what you consider and call 'my patented mental maze'.

If you do not, then why not?

Are you that much of a useless and worthless human being that you, once again, can not back up and support yet 'another claim' of 'yours'?

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 19, 2025 12:08 am But please, by all means, do what you like.
_______

you say 'this', yet at the same time you are 'trying to' deter one from just questioning and/or challenging 'me' over 'my claims'.

Unlike 'you' "seeds" 'I' enjoy and desire to be critiqued, questioned, and challenged over 'my claims' because 'I' know what the actual Truth is, here, and 'I' know 'I' can prove them irrefutably so. Which is completely and utterly opposite from 'you' are able to do, here.

you come, here, with some claim about 'what might be the case', only, and then get all upset and uptight when one just points out the obvious faults and failings, well to them anyway, in your views, theories, beliefs, and/or claims. So, once more, 'I' will again suggest that until 'you' have already obtained the irrefutable facts and proofs for 'your claims', then it will be much better, for 'you', that 'you' do not share 'your claims' publicly, and especially so in a philosophy forum of all places. And, considering the irrefutable Fact of just how Truly stupid some of your beliefs really are 'this advice' might just be some really good advice, for 'you'.

The prevenient valid evidence is the complete lack of evidence or need.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 19, 2025 2:10 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 8:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 6:23 pm

Once more, 'Yes'.

OK. Show me the proof.

Once more what 'we' have, here, is another prime example of the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, expecting and demanding things from others.

Would have it been any harder for you to just ask for some thing, instead?

Anyway, the proof is in the definition of the word, 'Universe'.

Now, so I do not get accused of skewing things, here, what is 'the definition' that you use for the 'Universe' word.

When you present 'that', then 'we' can move along, here.

The universe is all that is. Where is your "proof" that all that is has been forever and will forever be? Is it not possible that it had a beginning? Is it possible that it will have an end? Do we know enough about cosmology and reality to assume that there was no beginning and will be no end to all that is? How is the definition of the word universe "proof" of eternity without a beginning?

We suffer a sense prejudice that doesn't allow us to be able to conceive of space as a universe that came into being... because we have to picture a place where this happened. This place has to already be there for the beginning to happen in. See, you're doing it right now. You're imagining that big bang poster on your 12th grade science class wall to the left of the microscope shelf. You're looking at the left most stage... the singularity... from which the cone of space material explodes out to the right across the poster. Doesn't make any psychologistical sense (we can't 'picture' a beginning... and we need to to have the idea). That singularity had to exist somewhere... it wasn't the beginning I don't think.