What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[chaz wyman]

It was made without our knowledge, as we didn't exist yet.

Who "made" it?
How was it made?
What does it look like?
How was it conceived?
In what form does it exist?

Answer each one of your questions in turn, dazzle us with you brilliance!

...I'm waiting...

You can wait until hell freezes over. Those questions are for you , you brain dead moron. The fact that they cannot be answered points to the stupidity of your theory of truth. And you failure to attempt them just makes you look like the fool you are.
Now go and and boil your head.

I am astounded at your stupidity.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It was made without our knowledge, as we didn't exist yet.

Who "made" it?
How was it made?
What does it look like?
How was it conceived?
In what form does it exist?

Answer each one of your questions in turn, dazzle us with you brilliance!

...I'm waiting...

You can wait until hell freezes over. Those questions are for you , you brain dead moron. The fact that they cannot be answered points to the stupidity of your theory of truth. And you failure to attempt them just makes you look like the fool you are.
Now go and and boil your head.

I am astounded at your stupidity.

Maybe, as usual you have made an ASS out of U not ME, as you'e again supplied me with your limited understanding of my meaning. How long have you had those blinders on?

FYI, You can answer any question either pro or con. The answer in not in your position, but in the explanation. answer each one with a brief explanation of why.

Your attitude is indicative of fear. Like I said, what aren't you afraid of? Oh, and by the way, you wouldn't call anyone derogatory names to their face's. I have 54 years at studying human nature and have yet to see it outside of bars involving drunkards.

Answer each one of your questions in turn, dazzle us with you brilliance! Or are you incapable. Are the answers to these questions not those that you have rehearsed ad-infinitum such that you find yourself at a loss? Do you fear handling that, which according to you is a mere turkey shoot?

[chaz wyman]

It was made without our knowledge, as we didn't exist yet.

Who "made" it?
How was it made?
What does it look like?
How was it conceived?
In what form does it exist?

Answer each one of your questions in turn, dazzle us with you brilliance!

...I'm waiting...

You can wait until hell freezes over. Those questions are for you , you brain dead moron. The fact that they cannot be answered points to the stupidity of your theory of truth. And you failure to attempt them just makes you look like the fool you are.
Now go and and boil your head.

I am astounded at your stupidity.

Maybe, as usual you have made an ASS out of U not ME, as you'e again supplied me with your limited understanding of my meaning. How long have you had those blinders on?

FYI, You can answer any question either pro or con. The answer in not in your position, but in the explanation. answer each one with a brief explanation of why.

Your attitude is indicative of fear. Like I said, what aren't you afraid of? Oh, and by the way, you wouldn't call anyone derogatory names to their face's. I have 54 years at studying human nature and have yet to see it outside of bars involving drunkards.

Answer each one of your questions in turn, dazzle us with you brilliance! Or are you incapable. Are the answers to these questions not those that you have rehearsed ad-infinitum such that you find yourself at a loss? Do you fear handling that, which according to you is a mere turkey shoot?

If you were not so stupid you would have realised that those questions are meaningless.
The fact that you have not realised that, and cannot answer them is simply because my theory of truth makes more sense.
Truth is a human concept the universe has no need of.

[Ron de Weijze]

Skepticism or radical uncertainty implies that one may be wrong. That includes yourself when you consider yourself to be a skeptic.

[chaz wyman]

Skepticism or radical uncertainty implies that one may be wrong. That includes yourself when you consider yourself to be a skeptic.

I'm not wrong about being a skeptic. And I'm not wrong about using this as a defence against being certain.
You really need to have been following the whole thread.

[Ron de Weijze]

Skepticism or radical uncertainty implies that one may be wrong. That includes yourself when you consider yourself to be a skeptic.

I'm not wrong about being a skeptic.

You may be wrong about anything else and why not about being a skeptic?

[chaz wyman]

Skepticism or radical uncertainty implies that one may be wrong. That includes yourself when you consider yourself to be a skeptic.

I'm not wrong about being a skeptic.

You may be wrong about anything else and why not about being a skeptic?

Are you saying I'm not a skeptic - Make up your mind!!

See edited response also.

[Ron de Weijze]

I'm not wrong about being a skeptic.

You may be wrong about anything else and why not about being a skeptic?

Are you saying I'm not a skeptic - Make up your mind!!
See edited response also.

When a skeptic cannot radically or systematically doubt himself or his own assumptions, he is hardly a skeptic. No, he isn't. My mind is made up.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm not wrong about being a skeptic.

You may be wrong about anything else and why not about being a skeptic?

Are you saying I'm not a skeptic - Make up your mind!!
See edited response also.

When a skeptic cannot radically or systematically doubt himself or his own assumptions, he is hardly a skeptic. No, he isn't. My mind is made up.

Not that I really want to pick on anyone although I'm sure it's been obvious to many that I've been the intended victim of Chaz's picking.

So far the most intelligent responses have been born of "Ron de Weijze." He's got the right idea. Actually his point, I had a glimpse of earlier, however I'm easily sidetracked because I understand how everything is related but my mind isn't capable of maintaining all those connections simultaneously. In addition in the brief time I became aware of the possible argument I was incapable of formulating a method to express it.

"The only thing we truly know is that we don't know!"

So Chaz without truth, what is it that you profess to know? What is it that your words indicate? In you own words of course. You're not afraid to answer this, are you?

[chaz wyman]

I'm not wrong about being a skeptic.

You may be wrong about anything else and why not about being a skeptic?

Are you saying I'm not a skeptic - Make up your mind!!
See edited response also.

When a skeptic cannot radically or systematically doubt himself or his own assumptions, he is hardly a skeptic. No, he isn't. My mind is made up.

Not that I really want to pick on anyone although I'm sure it's been obvious to many that I've been the intended victim of Chaz's picking.

So far the most intelligent responses have been born of "Ron de Weijze." He's got the right idea. Actually his point, I had a glimpse of earlier, however I'm easily sidetracked because I understand how everything is related but my mind isn't capable of maintaining all those connections simultaneously. In addition in the brief time I became aware of the possible argument I was incapable of formulating a method to express it.

"The only thing we truly know is that we don't know!"

So Chaz without truth, what is it that you profess to know? What is it that your words indicate? In you own words of course. You're not afraid to answer this, are you?

Gee whiz. Well thank you for making my argument for me.
Truth is relative.
What I profess to know is that which serves to correspond to my experience, my reason and evidence.
I do not have the arrogance to assume that the 'truth" exists outside of me in some sort of pure state.
It is plain enough that your view is different, and so your truth is not as mine. QED - my point is made.

[Arising_uk]

Indeed and your was not the spelling mistake - so why not reserve your barbs for when they are appropriate?

So commenting upon anothers spelling or grammar is to be considered a barb when replying to you?

Should it not be "yours" not "your"?

[Arising_uk]

Clear self-consciousness for me would be towards a disassociation from my intellectual function.

I'd think this a reduction in self-consciousness. If there is a state that needs not the 'intellectual' function then they should be integrated not diassociated is my thought.

To do and act rather than just think.

You have to think about what you want to do first then you can do and act.

[chaz wyman]

Indeed and your was not the spelling mistake - so why not reserve your barbs for when they are appropriate?

So commenting upon anothers spelling or grammar is to be considered a barb when replying to you?

Should it not be "yours" not "your"?

You must be really fucking bored

[Arising_uk]

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

What truth does this link show you Bill?

[Arising_uk]

You must be really fucking bored

Just a touch tired of looking at you pulling up others spellings when your own posts to me have been replete. And please don't say 'don't read them then!' as I enjoy reading most of your thought. So I was just checking that you'd be fine with me doing it when or if I reply to you. But maybe not.