Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:16 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:38 am
I'll state again, I only agree to what you agree with and I did NOT state I accepted that definition as true from my perspective.

...Finally - so you do agree that the "Ontological God" IS Possible to be real!!

There was an omission;

I'll state again, I only agree to what you agree with and I did NOT state I accepted that definition as true from my perspective.

So you have stated you are a woman when I am certain you are a man. I then pull your trousers down to see if you are a man. You have your penis tucked in between you legs. And insist you are a woman. So against my better judgement I now agree, yes you are a paedophile. Is that how this logic thing works?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:16 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:13 am

...Finally - so you do agree that the "Ontological God" IS Possible to be real!!

There was an omission;

I'll state again, I only agree to what you agree with and I did NOT state I accepted that definition as true from my perspective.

So you have stated you are a woman when I am certain you are a man. I then pull your trousers down to see if you are a man. You have your penis tucked in between you legs. And insist you are a woman. So against my better judgement I now agree, yes you are a paedophile. Is that how this logic thing works?

Errors and omissions are very common, what is critical is that they are to be corrected and not jumped upon. This is more so when I have to attend to the loads of responses.
I believe there is something wrong with your intellectual and philosophical competence.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:26 am Also, NOTE you keep MISSING IT.
By the way, the ontological God has also ALREADY been proven to be possible to be real.

Age, show you proof the ontological God is possible to be real?
Define what is real and the ontological-God before you proceed.

Others [for or against] can contribute to the above.

Even Age, the autistic-schizophrenic moron is one step ahead of you here. Though Age is hallucinating and can't bring any evidence for an ontological God, that does NOT mean that an ontological is impossible to be real.

What is actually impossible is proving the non-existence of something, you idiot.

Note the currency in this forum is arguments and you are bankrupt of them.
Bring your argument, don't just shout from the roof top without justifications.

It is obvious trying to prove a square-circle exists in a non-starter in term of reality.
The idea of an ontological God [as defined] is a non-starter in term of reality.
I have provided the explanation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:10 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:05 am

Age, show you proof the ontological God is possible to be real?
Define what is real and the ontological-God before you proceed.

Others [for or against] can contribute to the above.

Even Age, the autistic-schizophrenic moron is one step ahead of you here. Though Age is hallucinating and can't bring any evidence for an ontological God, that does NOT mean that an ontological is impossible to be real.

What is actually impossible is proving the non-existence of something, you idiot.

Note the currency in this forum is arguments and you are bankrupt of them.
Bring your argument, don't just shout from the roof top without justifications.

It is obvious trying to prove a square-circle exists in a non-starter in term of reality.
The idea of an ontological God [as defined] is a non-starter in term of reality.
I have provided the explanation.

You are an idiot who doesn't understand what arguments even are. Stop calling others bankrupt when you are the one bankrupt.
A square-circle is a contradiction of two abstract concepts, an oxymoron.

That has nothing to do with an ontological God which could exist, you idiot. Even today's fashion of believing that our universe is a computer simulation, would make the simulator such a natural God. Omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful, has 'created' our universe and can destroy it etc.

And that's just what's natural, there is nothing we can say about the supernatural (if there is one).

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:10 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:51 am
Even Age, the autistic-schizophrenic moron is one step ahead of you here. Though Age is hallucinating and can't bring any evidence for an ontological God, that does NOT mean that an ontological is impossible to be real.

What is actually impossible is proving the non-existence of something, you idiot.

Note the currency in this forum is arguments and you are bankrupt of them.
Bring your argument, don't just shout from the roof top without justifications.

It is obvious trying to prove a square-circle exists in a non-starter in term of reality.
The idea of an ontological God [as defined] is a non-starter in term of reality.
I have provided the explanation.

You are an idiot who doesn't understand what arguments even are. Stop calling others bankrupt when you are the one bankrupt.
A square-circle is a contradiction of two abstract concepts, an oxymoron.

That has nothing to do with an ontological God which could exist, you idiot. Even today's fashion of believing that our universe is a computer simulation, would make the simulator such a natural God. Omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful, has 'created' our universe and can destroy it etc.

And that's just what's natural, there is nothing we can say about the supernatural (if there is one).

You are not only bankrupt of arguments, you are also bankrupt in understand those points you mentioned above.

Note Wittgenstein's
'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent',

If there is nothing you can say about a thing, you should shut up,
until you can bring about at least a probable hypothesis of it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:22 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:10 am
Note the currency in this forum is arguments and you are bankrupt of them.
Bring your argument, don't just shout from the roof top without justifications.

It is obvious trying to prove a square-circle exists in a non-starter in term of reality.
The idea of an ontological God [as defined] is a non-starter in term of reality.
I have provided the explanation.

You are an idiot who doesn't understand what arguments even are. Stop calling others bankrupt when you are the one bankrupt.
A square-circle is a contradiction of two abstract concepts, an oxymoron.

That has nothing to do with an ontological God which could exist, you idiot. Even today's fashion of believing that our universe is a computer simulation, would make the simulator such a natural God. Omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful, has 'created' our universe and can destroy it etc.

And that's just what's natural, there is nothing we can say about the supernatural (if there is one).

You are not only bankrupt of arguments, you are also bankrupt in understand those points you mentioned above.

Note Wittgenstein's
'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent',

If there is nothing you can say about a thing, you should shut up,
until you can bring about at least a probable hypothesis of it.

You idiot. You are the one breaking that rule by declaring that certain things are impossible there, even though you should remain silent.

You really made me mad this time which is rare. I despise such stupid malignance and will run you into the ground.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:26 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:22 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:17 am
You are an idiot who doesn't understand what arguments even are. Stop calling others bankrupt when you are the one bankrupt.
A square-circle is a contradiction of two abstract concepts, an oxymoron.

That has nothing to do with an ontological God which could exist, you idiot. Even today's fashion of believing that our universe is a computer simulation, would make the simulator such a natural God. Omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful, has 'created' our universe and can destroy it etc.

And that's just what's natural, there is nothing we can say about the supernatural (if there is one).

You are not only bankrupt of arguments, you are also bankrupt in understand those points you mentioned above.

Note Wittgenstein's
'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent',

If there is nothing you can say about a thing, you should shut up,
until you can bring about at least a probable hypothesis of it.

You idiot. You are the one breaking that rule by declaring that certain things are impossible there, even though you should remain silent.

You really made me mad this time which is rare. I despise such stupid malignance and will run you into the ground.

Who cares you are mad?
Madness is often the case when one run out of argument.
It is the same with the Muslim jihadists who insist their God is real and if we challenge them and when they don't have any argument, they will kill you.
If you have any substantial argument you will not torture yourself with madness.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:42 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:26 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:22 am
You are not only bankrupt of arguments, you are also bankrupt in understand those points you mentioned above.

Note Wittgenstein's
'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent',

If there is nothing you can say about a thing, you should shut up,
until you can bring about at least a probable hypothesis of it.

You idiot. You are the one breaking that rule by declaring that certain things are impossible there, even though you should remain silent.

You really made me mad this time which is rare. I despise such stupid malignance and will run you into the ground.

Who cares you are mad?
Madness is often the case when one run out of argument.
It is the same with the Muslim jihadists who insist their God is real and if we challenge them and when they don't have any argument, they will kill you.
If you have any substantial argument you will not torture yourself with madness.

More strawmen, you are the one who made no valid arguments in the first place. You think this is a kindergarten and everyone else is 5 years old and won't notice.

If anything, when it comes to madness and fanaticism, you are the one resembling the Muslim jihadist here. Don't think that people will always let you get away with this harmful behaviour.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:16 am
There was an omission;

I'll state again, I only agree to what you agree with and I did NOT state I accepted that definition as true from my perspective.

So you have stated you are a woman when I am certain you are a man. I then pull your trousers down to see if you are a man. You have your penis tucked in between you legs. And insist you are a woman. So against my better judgement I now agree, yes you are a paedophile. Is that how this logic thing works?

Errors and omissions are very common, what is critical is that they are to be corrected and not jumped upon. This is more so when I have to attend to the loads of responses.
I believe there is something wrong with your intellectual and philosophical competence.

Oh, woops, call me a nutjob, but usually when somebody states they agree to a definition, it usually means they agree to a definition.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:42 am Who cares you are mad?
Madness is often the case when one run out of argument.
It is the same with the Muslim jihadists who insist their God is real and if we challenge them and when they don't have any argument, they will kill you.
If you have any substantial argument you will not torture yourself with madness.

How does oneness have an argument with itself, and with whom would it argue with?
Do you not understand the nondual reality of nature?

Your only argument is in regard to some Muslim jihadists who insist their God is real... which you, in your own belief within you then claim is not real.

So basically all you are doing is arguing about your own held belief structure that there is such a thing as a ''Muslim jihad'' who is capable of believing in a false belief according to your belief, as you so obviously cling to your own personal held belief that this so called entity named a ''Muslim jihad'' actually exists to be real...otherwise if it wasn't real, then you would hardly be piping on and on about it would you?
So in your mind, a ''Muslim jihad'' is real...

If this is your belief then any so called argument whether things/ideas/ concepts are real or not.. is within your own mind that you are believing to be real according to your own belief structure...But then what you do with those beliefs is you then project them into the world out-there into a world where in your belief ''Muslim jihads'' actually exist to be real...as if your belief is the ONLY belief that actually matters to be real and true. But the belief in GOD to be real, well that's not allowed in your mind is it, and yet you permit the reality of a ''Muslim jihad'' to be real. You fall into that conceptual trap of your own making time after time after time.

And that's bascially all you are doing VA, and everyone on this forum can see straight through the nonsense mentality that only you are trapped in when you attempt to blame others for what is only your own mental trap that you are constructing and falling into ever more deeper and deeper in that there is no way back or out for you except to go back in and see the crystal clear clarity that lies beyond your mentally construed conceptual dream story. The clarity is as intimate as the nose on your face.

You really are as dumb as rocks and everyone can see that, all except you.

You keep coming up with these really high sounding words like you think and believe that your intellectual knowledge makes you look like you know something others do not. What a pompous arrogant idiot you really are.

.