There is no YOU to die or be born.

[Immanuel Can]

But the same greek word in the original text was NOT in question. The 'faith' word in the provide 'john 3:16' text is what was in question. This can be very easily verified True by the actual question, the question being; Was the 'faith' word even used in 'john 3:16'?

And the answer is "Yes."

I guess you don't understand translation. It wouldn't matter whether the English word were there or not, because the originals were in Greek. So only the Greek word decides this.

And 'what concept' is that exactly?

The concept "God."

So you BELIEVE that the one word "concept" God, makes sense to a lot of human beings, correct?[/quote]
They think it does. You seem to think it doesn't. I guess you disagree with the 96% of people who are not Atheists.

...which makes 'you' BELIEVE 'God' is some real thing?

This is where you're getting confused. To say the concept of something is coherent is one thing. To say the thing itself is real is another.

You began with saying the concept's not coherent, then ended by talking about how (you think) an objective God isn't real. That's what's called a "fallacy of amphiboly."

It does NOT matter. It is the question being asked now. So WHY do you NOT just answer it?

Because your question contains an amphiboly error, so I can't understand it. If I could read your mind, maybe I could understand it; but since I cannot, you have to make the question clear. So far, you haven't, and it's not fair of me to jump to conclusions.

When we ask, "Does the concept make sense?" We are not asking, "Does the thing the concept refers to exist?" The concept "Zeus" is totally possible to understand, though obviously Zeus does not at all exist.

Well there is NO obviousness that God, from your perspective, does exist. In fact the concept God, from your perspective, appears to be an impossibility to exist.

????? How can you know what is "my perspective," or what is "obvious" to me? You can't, anymore than I can read your mind.

Is it possible you've mixed those two questions up?

It is OBVIOUS that 'you' are just 'trying to' deflect, [/quote]
I see. You don't get it.

Well, I can't make it any clearer. I guess I have to give up.

You say; The concept "Zeus" is totally possible to understand, though obviously Zeus does not at all exist. So, what is the concept 'God' that 'you' understand?

I've told you about three times, and as simply as I can possibly tell you. Supreme Being. First Cause. Creator.

And, if obviously 'zeus' does not at all exist, then what proof is there that 'God' does exist or does not at all exist?

That's a big question, but a legit one. It's far too long for me to do a fair job of here, but I can recommend some resources that will get you started, if you care to find the answer to that. Are you interested?

HOW could there be a First Cause, referred to as 'God', what created what caused the First Cause?

I can give you a slam-dunk argument for this.

But I do NOT want a "slam-dunk" argument. I just want a sound AND valid argument.

That's what "slam-dunk" means. (It's a basketball metaphor.)

It's the absolute and mathematically certain impossibility of an infinite regress of causes.

But an infinite regress of causes IS NOT an absolute and mathematically certain impossibility at all.

Actually, it is. And I can give you resources to help you see why it is, too. Are you interested?

One thing both secularists and Theists agree upon entirely, if they believe in linear time, is that there had to be a first cause

But WHY would any one BELIEVE or AGREE upon entirely on some thing that has NOT been proven to be true yet?

Because it HAS been proven true.

Here's a starting point for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0

To me, 'you' appear to be thousands of years in the past, with that thinking.

Then you don't understand, apparently. But I've done my best, so that's that.

Can some people also already be so insistent to the idea of God, "for reasons of their own", that they will not accept any thing else either, including even thee Truth?

Of course. People can choose to resist any truth.

This claim, I do not understand. You'll have to explain how both it and the previous comment you made just above it can possibly be true together. They appear totally contradictory.

Yes they appear totally contradictory. This is because of the way I purposely write, to promote curiosity.

Well, be careful that you don't just end up creating confusion where none is helpful. You're likely to only end up being misunderstood, if you do that.

The reason WHY I say that the word 'God' does make sense is because 'God' does exist is because of the way God was SHOWN to me, and thus PROVEN to be True and Real.

Well, that's fine to say. You probably have no knowledge of Eritrea either. It doesn't imply Eritrea doesn't exist. And you may one day go there, and know it for yourself.

Does that clear up the apparent contradiction?

Not really.

Because "squabbling" doesn't mean both sides are right.

It also does NOT mean either "side" is right?

True. But means that definitely one side at least is wrong. And where there are only two possible alternatives, like "God does exist" versus "God doesn't exist," it's 100% certain one is right and the other is wrong.

By the way there is NO "sides" in THIS.

Heh. I'm afraid there are...

And are 'you' ever going to reveal to 'us' readers here what this actual 'concept' IS, which you frequently mention?

I've done it four times now. "God." Now that's five.

Can I be frank? Or will you feel offended?

I am NEVER offended.

I'll try.

I think that maybe you have trouble detecting ambiguity. I'm not being insulting -- I'm suggesting it based on your writing style, as I've seen it. It looks to me as though what seems a straightforward question to you, because you feel it to be clear in your own mind,

I do NOT have a "mind".

Oh? You're a bot?

So, how do I now communicate with words and phrases that can be understood in just one way?

Choose your words very carefully. Use only those that are precisely what you mean. Explain fully when asked, without becoming irritable about it. And people will understand what you want to say.

So, will you explain to me what words and phrases in my two questions that could be understood by you in more than one way?

I give you the example of the two claims above that I pointed out were contradictory. But you excused this on grounds that you meant to "promote curiosity."

My first question here actually relates to WHY are 'you', human beings, still using words and phrases that can be ambiguous, which is what is leading 'you' to still be "squabbling" over things, which 'you', human beings, have been for thousands upon thousands of years now?

Oh, I see. You're playing a game in which you're "not human." Lovely.

Well, I'm far too old for games. Please excuse me.

[Age]

But the same greek word in the original text was NOT in question. The 'faith' word in the provide 'john 3:16' text is what was in question. This can be very easily verified True by the actual question, the question being; Was the 'faith' word even used in 'john 3:16'?

And the answer is "Yes."

I guess you don't understand translation. It wouldn't matter whether the English word were there or not, because the originals were in Greek. So only the Greek word decides this.

You OBVIOUSLY do NOT understand the question. I was NOT asking about the original version. I was asking about the english worded 'john' version, which OBVIOUSLY is NOT in greek. Any one can very easily SEE from the english words that you provided here, the word 'faith' was NOT one of those words. So, the answer can ONLY be 'No'.

Your explanation/justification of HOW the two english words of 'faith' and 'believeth' are synonyms with the one greek word that was used in an earlier version and being translated was well explained AND understood by me. BUT, I still like to stick to the actual Truth of things, as well.

And 'what concept' is that exactly?

The concept "God."

So you BELIEVE that the one word "concept" God, makes sense to a lot of human beings, correct?

They think it does. You seem to think it doesn't. I guess you disagree with the 96% of people who are not Atheists.[/quote]

What seems, to you, here is WRONG. What did I write that made it seem to you that I do not? Was it just because I asked you a clarifying question?

'you', human beings, regularly do make the mistake of ASSUMING that when a question is being asked, then a point is being made instead. Let me inform 'you' directly, this is NOT the case with me. To make it even clearer, when I ask a clarifying question I ask it in a Truly OPEN way, seeking a Truly OPEN and Honest direct answer.

It is noted that 'you' think the concept God makes sense to a lot of human beings. By the way, WHERE did you get this figure of 96% from exactly?

...which makes 'you' BELIEVE 'God' is some real thing?

This is where you're getting confused. To say the concept of something is coherent is one thing. To say the thing itself is real is another.

But I am NOT saying some thing here. I am asking a Truly OPEN clarifying question, which it is noted you continually keep deflecting away from answering.

Are you saying the concept of God is coherent, to 'you', "immanuel can"?

If yes, then what does the concept of 'God' actually entail, to you? (simple question).

If no, then what are you saying?

Now, hopefully these clarifying questions have been answered, and we can move onto the next part;

Do you say God is real?

If yes, then explain what God IS, and how It is real, with examples, proof, and/or evidence.

If no, then okay.

SEE, if I was to ask you; Is the concept of 'Unicorn' coherent, to you, and you answered with a 'Yes', then if I was to ask then ask you; What does that concept of 'Unicorn' actually entail, to you, then you would probably give me a description, which if I then asked you to clarify further, you probably would. But when you use words like; First Cause, Creator, and/or Supreme Being, and I have asked you to further elaborate on and/or clarify, you FAIL to do so in any reasonable and logical way. Although you BELIEVE otherwise.

Also, If I was to ask you; Do you say Unicorn is real, then you would probably provide an answer. Now obviously if you answer 'No', then it is the end of discussion, but if you were to answer 'Yes', then I would ask you to further explain and elaborate on this. I would more than likely keep doing this until either you PROVE that 'it' is real, or some thing else happens.

You began with saying the concept's not coherent, then ended by talking about how (you think) an objective God isn't real. That's what's called a "fallacy of amphiboly."

When did I EVER talk about an objective God is NOT real? I have actually said the opposite.

Are you saying that there is among ALL human being only ONE concept of God?

I have talked about how the different concepts of God, which you different human beings have and share, can NOT prove God is real. And it is these DIFFERENT concepts of God WHY 'you', human beings, still after thousands of years are disagreeing and fighting with each other over this VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASILY to be understood topic.

It does NOT matter. It is the question being asked now. So WHY do you NOT just answer it?

Because your question contains an amphiboly error, so I can't understand it.

The question is said to have an "amphiboly" error so then you can "justify" to yourself ONLY that you can not understand, what is essentially a very simple and straightforward question.

If I could read your mind, maybe I could understand it;

I do NOT have a mind to read.

but since I cannot, you have to make the question clear. So far, you haven't, and it's not fair of me to jump to conclusions.

Repeat what the question was word for word how I wrote it, then I will make it clear so that even a deceptively deflective person can understand it.

If you do NOT repeat the question, word for word, then your True intention of deflecting from answering the question and just wanting to dismiss it completely will be duly notied.

When we ask, "Does the concept make sense?" We are not asking, "Does the thing the concept refers to exist?" The concept "Zeus" is totally possible to understand, though obviously Zeus does not at all exist.

Well there is NO obviousness that God, from your perspective, does exist. In fact the concept God, from your perspective, appears to be an impossibility to exist.

????? How can you know what is "my perspective," or what is "obvious" to me?

Because you wrote down "your perspective" previously.

The concept of God, from your perspective, has NOT been able to be proven to exist for thousands of thousands of years now. So it appears that 'your concept' of God is an impossibility to exist.

I, on the other hand, however, KNOW a concept of God that can be very easily be PROVEN to exist, and this could very simple be VERIFIED through science.

You can't, anymore than I can read your mind.

But I have ALREADY DONE IT.

And I even PROVIDED the actual obvious EVIDENCE of HOW I did it.

By the way I do NOT have a 'mind'.

Is it possible you've mixed those two questions up?

It is OBVIOUS that 'you' are just 'trying to' deflect,

I see. You don't get it.

Well, I can't make it any clearer. I guess I have to give up.[/quote]

If you BELIEVE that you HAVE TO give up, then I suppose, to you, you HAVE TO give up.

That is one way of getting out of what you instinctively KNOW you could NOT do anyway.

You say; The concept "Zeus" is totally possible to understand, though obviously Zeus does not at all exist. So, what is the concept 'God' that 'you' understand?

I've told you about three times, and as simply as I can possibly tell you. Supreme Being. First Cause. Creator.

Great, now explain what the concept of these are. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, from the concept 'you' have of these they could NOT even be any thing that is real and could exist. So, WHY keep HOLDING ONTO and maintain these OBVIOUSLY incorrect concepts?

And, if obviously 'zeus' does not at all exist, then what proof is there that 'God' does exist or does not at all exist?

That's a big question, but a legit one. It's far too long for me to do a fair job of here, but I can recommend some resources that will get you started, if you care to find the answer to that. Are you interested?

But I ALREADY KNOW thee Answer. Did you FORGET I have ALREADY TOLD you thee Answer?

By the way, the Answer to my question here is VERY SHORT, and it is one that can NOT be refuted, and therefore PROVE the existence or not of God.

WHY do 'you', human beings, keep persisting with the notion that things are hard and complex?

Also, providing resources when asked for clarification about what one, themself, has said is just another way of deflecting away from obvious Truth that that one does NOT REALLY KNOW what they are talking about.

The question I asked was NOT "big" at all. In fact was very short and 'sweet'; What proof is there that God does exist or does not at all exist?

See just HOW small, simple, clear, and OPEN the question really IS?

So, What proof is there that God does or does not exist?

The proper, Right and True irrefutable and scientifically verified Answer could be summed up in about 50 words or less. This Answer will also STOP 'you', human beings, from the disagreeing and fighting, which you have been doing for thousands upon thousands of years over this issue. So please STOP deflecting and sending me on some wild chase through countless OTHER so called "resources", and just start answering OPENLY and Honestly.

What proof is there that God does or does not exist?

If you have any actual real proof, either way, then just say what it is. Otherwise just ADMIT that 'you' actually do NOT have any proof. ALL very SIMPLE really.

I can give you a slam-dunk argument for this.

But I do NOT want a "slam-dunk" argument. I just want a sound AND valid argument.

That's what "slam-dunk" means. (It's a basketball metaphor.)

If that is what you MEANT, then why did you NOT just say what you MEANT?

we are in a philosophy forum talking about God. we are NOT on a basketball court playing basketball.

It's the absolute and mathematically certain impossibility of an infinite regress of causes.

But an infinite regress of causes IS NOT an absolute and mathematically certain impossibility at all.

Actually, it is. And I can give you resources to help you see why it is, too. Are you interested?

But I ALREADY KNOW that an infinite regress is POSSIBLE, and actually EXISTS because this is EXACTLY HOW thee one and only Universe, Itself, exists.

Are you interested in learning about this FACT?

Anyway, provide ALL the resources you have, which you say PROVES that what you are saying here is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. I am interested in LOOKING AT them.

One thing both secularists and Theists agree upon entirely, if they believe in linear time, is that there had to be a first cause

But WHY would any one BELIEVE or AGREE upon entirely on some thing that has NOT been proven to be true yet?

Because it HAS been proven true.

Here's a starting point for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0

So do you STILL want to INSIST that ALL human beings who BELIEVE in "linear time" AGREE that there HAD TO BE a "first cause"?

If no, then great.

If yes, then better.

Claiming that there was a FIRST Cause overrides, cancels out, and supersedes the cause and effect law of physics which states that 'For EVERY action there is a reaction'.

If EVERY reaction is just an action, itself, then what action could cause the 'first cause' or the 'first action'.

To be able to accept that there was a first cause, then I need to KNOW what COULD that ACTUALLY BE. From what I have observed there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to SHOW that there COULD have been a first cause for Everything. Obviously 'first causes' exist for things. But also OBVIOUS is nothing has been observed nor experienced as being the 'first cause' of Everything.

To me, 'you' appear to be thousands of years in the past, with that thinking.

Then you don't understand, apparently. But I've done my best, so that's that.

"best" does NOT necessarily make nor relate to 'correctness', unfortunately.

Can some people also already be so insistent to the idea of God, "for reasons of their own", that they will not accept any thing else either, including even thee Truth?

Of course. People can choose to resist any truth.

Could 'you', "immanuel can", also be resisting thee Truth, or is this NOT a possibility?

Your Honest answer here would be much appreciated.

This claim, I do not understand. You'll have to explain how both it and the previous comment you made just above it can possibly be true together. They appear totally contradictory.

Yes they appear totally contradictory. This is because of the way I purposely write, to promote curiosity.

Well, be careful that you don't just end up creating confusion where none is helpful. You're likely to only end up being misunderstood, if you do that.

But, in case you have NOT read what I have clearly explained in this forum previously, I am NOT here, in this forum, to be understood. In fact I some times write in ways to purpose confuse 'you', human beings. I do this to observe the reaction/responses I get, if any. This I find is very HELPFUL, for what I am wanting to achieve.

The reason WHY I say that the word 'God' does make sense is because 'God' does exist is because of the way God was SHOWN to me, and thus PROVEN to be True and Real.

Well, that's fine to say. You probably have no knowledge of Eritrea either. It doesn't imply Eritrea doesn't exist. And you may one day go there, and know it for yourself.

This seems like a rather very particularly strange response, especially considering what I just now claimed, to 'you'.

WHY did you respond with the words "You probably have no knowledge" and "either". Just to make it clear, what do 'you' THINK I was saying?

Your words, to me, SHOW that you appear to be seeing and thinking the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I was ACTUALLY saying.

Does that clear up the apparent contradiction?

Not really.

You are very slow at understanding things I say.

Because "squabbling" doesn't mean both sides are right.

It also does NOT mean either "side" is right?

True. But means that definitely one side at least is wrong. And where there are only two possible alternatives, like "God does exist" versus "God doesn't exist," it's 100% certain one is right and the other is wrong.

So, to you, which one is 100% certainly RIGHT?

By the way there is NO "sides" in THIS.

Heh. I'm afraid there are...

Why are 'you' afraid here now?

There is NO actual "sides". 'you', human beings, however, make up "sides", which REALLY do NOT exist.

There OBVIOUSLY is ONLY One Truth. Although 'you', human beings, make up and see many different so called "truths".

So, the FACT IS, there is NOT actual "sides" in THIS, contrary to 'your' well maintained BELIEF that there is.

And are 'you' ever going to reveal to 'us' readers here what this actual 'concept' IS, which you frequently mention?

I've done it four times now. "God." Now that's five.

So, the concept of 'God' is "God". Do you think that really says any thing at all?

Can I be frank? Or will you feel offended?

I am NEVER offended.


I do NOT have a "mind".

Oh? You're a bot?

Are you asking a question or making a statement?

The question mark implied one thing but your word infers another.

So, how do I now communicate with words and phrases that can be understood in just one way?

Choose your words very carefully.

For just 'you', "immanuel can", or for EVERY one?

If it is the former, then 'you' will have to inform what the concept is that you have for the words you use, and for the ones which you want me to "choose very carefully".

if it is the latter, then how do you propose I could do that better?

Use only those that are precisely what you mean.

So, in other words, do unlike you do, correct?

Explain fully when asked, without becoming irritable about it.

So again, do unlike you do, correct?

And people will understand what you want to say.

The very point I am making is 'you', people, do NOT understand what each other is saying. This is because 'you', human beings, regularly do NOT say what you actually mean, as proven above, and do NOT even have PROOF for what you continually INSIST is the "truth", as proven over the last numerous amount of years.

Also, to make it clearer for you to understand what I want to say; I do NOT want to have what I want to say understood in this forum, in the days of when this is being written. I am just here, in this forum, to LEARN how to communicate better with 'you', human beings. By the way, "people" WILL UNDERSTAND what I 'want to say', when I am READY to explain to them what it is that I Truly want to say.

It will HELP you tremendously if you STOP ASSUMING that I want to be understood by the people I am responding to when this is being written.

I give you the example of the two claims above that I pointed out were contradictory. But you excused this on grounds that you meant to "promote curiosity."

ANOTHER attempt at deflection. You did NOT provide ANY specific example. You just used the generic term "ambiguity" for what I wrote.

WILL YOU explain, to me, what words and phrases in my two questions that could be understood, by you, in more than one way?

If you do NOT do this, then this is ANOTHER example of you 'trying' any thing to deflect away from answering my clarifying questions. Your continual choice to dismiss my questions SHOWS profoundly, and says a GREAT DEAL about 'you', and what 'you' do NOT know.

Oh, I see. You're playing a game in which you're "not human." Lovely.

Well, I'm far too old for games. Please excuse me.

Absolutely NO curiosity from you. Just a blatant disregard and deflection away. I have been using the term "'you, human beings," for ages now, and only now you want to use it, as an excuse for NOT being able to answer my clarifying questions. This is because you have NOTHING else.

The Truth IS 'you' have absolutely NO idea if what you BELIEVE is true or NOT. You are completely AND utterly INCAPACITATED to back up and support YOUR CLAIMS here.

Unlike 'you' I can back up and support ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing I say, write AND claim here.

[Immanuel Can]

I was NOT asking about the original version.

You should have been.

'you', human beings,

Okay, that's a game...I'm not playing.

Game over.

[Age]

I was NOT asking about the original version.

You should have been.

So now you are TELLING me what the questions SHOULD HAVE BEEN that I asked you, in order to "justify" the answers you have already provided.

'you', human beings,

Okay, that's a game...I'm not playing.

Game over.

This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of the "human beings" INABILITY to actually consider ANY thing OTHER than what they ALREADY BELIEVE is the truth of things. The thinking from a human brain, which is controlled by BELIEFS, is STUCK where it is. ALL curiosity and OPENNESS has gone. This is HOW the Truly OPEN Mind ALWAYS CAN and DOES override the very limited thinking brain, and belief-system, within the human body.

Now, if we would like to have a LOOK BACK in this thread and SEE what has transpired. From the very outset of my discussion with "immanuel can" here I noted the OBVIOUS deflective tactics used by "immanuel can". From then, to the end of this discussion, nothing much more came about.

[Immanuel Can]

This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of the "human beings" INABILITY...

And since you don't know when to quit, now it's permanently over.

[Age]

This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of the "human beings" INABILITY...

And since you don't know when to quit, now it's permanently over.

It was over when you could NOT back up nor support what you claim is true.

Also, WHY would I quit? I still have a LOT MORE to talk about, that is; with those human beings who are Truly OPEN and Honest.

Only those human beings who are INCAPABLE of carrying on, quit.

[Dontaskme]

Believe me, I get it. No problem.

It's in 1 Corinthians 1:18.

ok thanks.

So the bible message means to surrender to death is to the faithful believer like a dying to be saved...

No, I'm sorry...that's not even close. Here's the verse, and its context:

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Ok whatever IC...if I'd written it exactly as it was written in the scriptures, aka copy writ it, then obviously it would have been spot on.
I get that.

Truth is, many authors appear with their own interpretations, doesn't mean the authour cannot read what it is writing.
We either get ourselves or we don't.

Truth is, although many authors appear, there is only ONE reader reading writing no one ever writ. No point indulging in semantics.

Have a good day. And be well, and good, and if you can't be good, be careful.

.

Point is, we're all partial to our own opinions, so all points are basically pointless to another. We just like being nosy rather than keep following our own same nose all our life.

.

[Immanuel Can]

..those human beings...

Still behaving childishly. I can't be bothered with this.

[Immanuel Can]

Point is, we're all partial to our own opinions, so all points are basically pointless to another.

People do say things like this, but it's not rational of them to do so. If what they say were true, it would stop or stultify all conversation of any kind.

It makes me wonder how they can take for granted something that is so obviously wrong.

[Age]

..those human beings...

Still behaving childishly. I can't be bothered with this.

Unlike children, 'you', adult human beings, have lost the beauty of WONDER, and instead just make up ASSUMPTIONS about what is being said, and then 'you', unfortunately for "yourselves", start BELIEVING your OWN assumptions.

See, a child would WONDER what was meant, and then QUESTION; What do you mean?

When this happens, then I would clarify what I ACTUALLY MEAN, to them.

Whereas, adults, like 'you', do the VERY OPPOSITE, and thus leave in your OWN BELIEFS, and absolutely NON the wiser.

'you', "immanuel can", are another PRIME EXAMPLE of what I will FULLY explain about how people are so easily STUCK in their OWN BELIEFS, and are completely UNABLE to learn any thing more or anew.

[Dontaskme]

Point is, we're all partial to our own opinions, so all points are basically pointless to another.

People do say things like this, but it's not rational of them to do so. If what they say were true, it would stop or stultify all conversation of any kind.

It makes me wonder how they can take for granted something that is so obviously wrong.

Depends what they are having an opinion on...there are multitudes to pick from.

In this particular case, I'm saying (There is no YOU to die or be born.)

And for this one here, nothing will change my mind about this revelation, I know this via first account direct experience.
I'm just putting it out-there for others to read, either it's useful, or they will reject it. Makes no difference to the actual witness, as the witness itself is the only real fact or proof of any claim.

.

[Dontaskme]

..those human beings...

Still behaving childishly. I can't be bothered with this.

It would be wise not to bother and keep your distance. Unless of course you really do enjoy smashing your head against a brick wall constantly and relentlessly.

.

[Dontaskme]

Point is, we're all partial to our own opinions, so all points are basically pointless to another.

People do say things like this, but it's not rational of them to do so. If what they say were true, it would stop or stultify all conversation of any kind.

It makes me wonder how they can take for granted something that is so obviously wrong.

The real point is there is no other.

Others exist within the game that you like to play with yourself, from self to self.

But for this one here, I like to talk only about the real truth which is the LIGHT of who you really are. The hollow graphic.

John 14:3
''And if I go and prepare a place for you,I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am''

That place is HERE NOW - NOWHERE

Jesus is hollow. We can exist within him just as he can exist within us. His Light Body fits us because we share the same Divine Image. This is why he came in human form, so we could undergo the same process, but without the torture and the end of suffering.

.

[Immanuel Can]

Point is, we're all partial to our own opinions, so all points are basically pointless to another.

People do say things like this, but it's not rational of them to do so. If what they say were true, it would stop or stultify all conversation of any kind.

It makes me wonder how they can take for granted something that is so obviously wrong.

Depends what they are having an opinion on...there are multitudes to pick from.

Not really.

Pick any two opposite opinions -- genuinely opposite opinions, that is, not ones that are superficially "different" but ultimately reconcilable -- and at least one of them is bound to be wrong, if only because it rules out the other one. If two such people are having a discussion, the only way they can both keep their opinions is if one or both is behaving totally irrationally.

And for this one here, nothing will change my mind about this revelation, I know this via first account direct experience.

Then all you can rationally say is, "There is no me." You cannot say, based on your own experience, there is no "you." That's irrational, because your proclaimed basis, your own experience, does not include the other person's experience, which you would have to admit, could be different from yours.

[Immanuel Can]

..those human beings...

Still behaving childishly. I can't be bothered with this.

It would be wise not to bother and keep your distance. Unless of course you really do enjoy smashing your head against a brick wall constantly and relentlessly.

Well, one day "Age" may grow up and adopt a stance that becomes worth a discussion. Perhaps that's not today, though.