Philosophy Now Forum

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: This is one basic problem I have with you and other theists.

You had better be very careful of what you keep accusing Me of, again, based on wrong assumptions.

If you can not point out any indication where and why you would start to think that I am a theist, then all you are doing is showing through evidence from your own words, which is actually providing the scientific evidence needed for what I have been saying all along. You are providing the proof I need.

sthitapragya wrote: You have come up with a theory. It has no proof so it is a hypothesis.

Again, point out any indication of any theory that I have supposedly come up with, if not, then more evidence of a brain working on a belief system, based on wrong assumptions, and not working on truth through open Mindedness.

sthitapragya wrote:Then you ask us to disprove it. You just don't seem to understand that since it is your theory, you need to prove it. We don't need to disprove it. We can simply reject it. this takes care of people who make ridiculous claims like, "I am God". You don't have to prove him wrong. He has to prove he is right.

Proving is what I am doing, right HERE and right NOW. But it is just the case you are unable to see this yet, which I have already explained I WILL show and prove with evidence and proof when I am ready to; not when you say so.

Do you have any clue as to how many assumptions were made in your statement, let alone how many of them were actually totally WRONG?

By the way, why do you suggest that claiming 'I am God' is ridiculous? Are you even able to answer that question properly?

sthitapragya wrote:So God or a mind separate from the brain are hypotheses that need proof. Hopefully you understand this. If you don't please don't even bother to reply. I will not answer.

Of course they need proof and of course I understand this. In fact all along I AM THEE ONE, who has been saying it is totally ridiculous to believe anything to be true and/or assume anything to be true, and so just remain open so that Truth can be found and seen easily and quickly.

YOU, on the other hand, ARE THE one, who says we must and have to believe in things that we assume to be true, even without proof and/or evidence.

Can you see the absurdity of what has been taking place so far?

You are the one, by your very own words and actions, is proving WITH evidence what I have been saying all along. This evidence that YOU ARE SUPPLYING is what I am going to and will use when I get around to explaining what IT is that I want to express and explain.

The more you have been trying to refute everything I say the more evidence you are providing to support My claims, which I have not even truly began yet.

If you can not see and understand this, then great. The more you reply and try to refute the more support you are giving and providing ME. Your own words alone is more and enough evidence for future generations to be able to look back on upon and see as proof of what I am expressing and WILL write.

I have always said, I can prove that I am God before you could prove I am not. But the trouble I have is with people like you who believe that every person MUST believe things assumed to be true, so when claims or hypothesis are expressed, before we can even begin to look into them, people just like you are not open to seeing the Truth. You already believe you KNOW the truth already because of what you assume is true.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: This is one basic problem I have with you and other theists.

You had better be very careful of what you keep accusing Me of, again, based on wrong assumptions.

If you can not point out any indication where and why you would start to think that I am a theist, then all you are doing is showing through evidence from your own words, which is actually providing the scientific evidence needed for what I have been saying all along. You are providing the proof I need.

sthitapragya wrote: You have come up with a theory. It has no proof so it is a hypothesis.

Again, point out any indication of any theory that I have supposedly come up with, if not, then more evidence of a brain working on a belief system, based on wrong assumptions, and not working on truth through open Mindedness.

sthitapragya wrote:Then you ask us to disprove it. You just don't seem to understand that since it is your theory, you need to prove it. We don't need to disprove it. We can simply reject it. this takes care of people who make ridiculous claims like, "I am God". You don't have to prove him wrong. He has to prove he is right.

Proving is what I am doing, right HERE and right NOW. But it is just the case you are unable to see this yet, which I have already explained I WILL show and prove with evidence and proof when I am ready to; not when you say so.

Do you have any clue as to how many assumptions were made in your statement, let alone how many of them were actually totally WRONG?

By the way, why do you suggest that claiming 'I am God' is ridiculous? Are you even able to answer that question properly?

sthitapragya wrote:So God or a mind separate from the brain are hypotheses that need proof. Hopefully you understand this. If you don't please don't even bother to reply. I will not answer.

Of course they need proof and of course I understand this. In fact all along I AM THEE ONE, who has been saying it is totally ridiculous to believe anything to be true and/or assume anything to be true, and so just remain open so that Truth can be found and seen easily and quickly.

YOU, on the other hand, ARE THE one, who says we must and have to believe in things that we assume to be true, even without proof and/or evidence.

Can you see the absurdity of what has been taking place so far?

You are the one, by your very own words and actions, is proving WITH evidence what I have been saying all along. This evidence that YOU ARE SUPPLYING is what I am going to and will use when I get around to explaining what IT is that I want to express and explain.

The more you have been trying to refute everything I say the more evidence you are providing to support My claims, which I have not even truly began yet.

If you can not see and understand this, then great. The more you reply and try to refute the more support you are giving and providing ME. Your own words alone is more and enough evidence for future generations to be able to look back on upon and see as proof of what I am expressing and WILL write.

I have always said, I can prove that I am God before you could prove I am not. But the trouble I have is with people like you who believe that every person MUST believe things assumed to be true, so when claims or hypothesis are expressed, before we can even begin to look into them, people just like you are not open to seeing the Truth. You already believe you KNOW the truth already because of what you assume is true.

Dude, just let it go. You and I are not meant to argue. We simply do not understand each other. Just don't react to my posts and I won't react to yours.

Lacewing wrote:

ken wrote:That last sentence is great, just as long as you know that what appears, to Me, especially when you point out things like that what you find fascinating and repulsive in, what is suggested as others, but is really in all people, and which you ask questions in relation to IS what I SEE in your own writings. The very things you are fascinated, repulsed and are inquisitive is the very you, in YOU.

I am only suggesting that if, and when, people are truly honest about their own wrong doings, and seriously want to change those ways in a truly open and honest manner, then they will discover what it is that they are actually looking for. For example the answers to those questions you ask are of "others" but really of yourself are what you are looking for.

I understand. That is what I often see in the questions that you ask: that it is more about you, even though it is not framed so.

Lacewing wrote:I'm not sure the framing is the most useful thing to argue over, however -- as the boundaries may become a bit blurry when we're all one. Rather, is there truth in what is being seen from a certain viewpoint... and does it apply to any of those it is being shared with?

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:
You had better be very careful of what you keep accusing Me of, again, based on wrong assumptions.

If you can not point out any indication where and why you would start to think that I am a theist, then all you are doing is showing through evidence from your own words, which is actually providing the scientific evidence needed for what I have been saying all along. You are providing the proof I need.






Again, point out any indication of any theory that I have supposedly come up with, if not, then more evidence of a brain working on a belief system, based on wrong assumptions, and not working on truth through open Mindedness.



Proving is what I am doing, right HERE and right NOW. But it is just the case you are unable to see this yet, which I have already explained I WILL show and prove with evidence and proof when I am ready to; not when you say so.

Do you have any clue as to how many assumptions were made in your statement, let alone how many of them were actually totally WRONG?

By the way, why do you suggest that claiming 'I am God' is ridiculous? Are you even able to answer that question properly?



Of course they need proof and of course I understand this. In fact all along I AM THEE ONE, who has been saying it is totally ridiculous to believe anything to be true and/or assume anything to be true, and so just remain open so that Truth can be found and seen easily and quickly.

YOU, on the other hand, ARE THE one, who says we must and have to believe in things that we assume to be true, even without proof and/or evidence.

Can you see the absurdity of what has been taking place so far?

You are the one, by your very own words and actions, is proving WITH evidence what I have been saying all along. This evidence that YOU ARE SUPPLYING is what I am going to and will use when I get around to explaining what IT is that I want to express and explain.

The more you have been trying to refute everything I say the more evidence you are providing to support My claims, which I have not even truly began yet.

If you can not see and understand this, then great. The more you reply and try to refute the more support you are giving and providing ME. Your own words alone is more and enough evidence for future generations to be able to look back on upon and see as proof of what I am expressing and WILL write.

I have always said, I can prove that I am God before you could prove I am not. But the trouble I have is with people like you who believe that every person MUST believe things assumed to be true, so when claims or hypothesis are expressed, before we can even begin to look into them, people just like you are not open to seeing the Truth. You already believe you KNOW the truth already because of what you assume is true.

Dude, just let it go. You and I are not meant to argue. We simply do not understand each other. Just don't react to my posts and I won't react to yours.

But everyone on a philosophy forum is meant to argue, the easiest and best to way to fulfill the love of becoming wiser, which every person has had, is to learn from each other through 'arguing', logical reasoning.

Also, I do understand you, and what you do. Because of those past experiences that have effected you, you now try to see the same in what others do, and that what happened to you, you try to see will also happen to others.

I react to your posts when you invite others people's views, and then when you try to transfer your own personal experiences on to others, especially on to Me, I will then react more. I also react to your posts especially when you say you once knew God existed but now appear so strong in your conviction that God could not possibly exist. I totally understand why you have the view you have now, but I am still very curious as to how and why you previously came to having a view that God existed. I am always very curious as to how any person could even believe that God exists, let alone know God existed. I do and will react to this view. That is why I only asked you if you could explain how you knew this. You did not want to do this again, which is totally understandable, because you have posted twice already, so then I just asked if you could point Me to where you have explained this previously, but for some unknown reason you do not want to do this.

By the way there is no win or lose here, for Me anyway, like you implied in your last reply. This forum, for Me anyway, IS ALL about becoming wiser.