I wrote that, in the thread I did, because the one who started that thread BELIEVES that 'hell' does NOT exist, and because they were actually SEEKING OUT people to argue with/against. I was just showing them that 'I' am here, that is; IF they Truly did want to discuss this.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:45 amBut why wait patiently or even bring up the idea of ... '' ''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.'' ... at all-if you do NOT have to? ... sounds like a lot of desperation to me.
If that sounds like a "lot of desperation" to you, then that is PERFECTLY FINE with me. We ALL KNOW that what 'sounds LIKE ...' does NOT necessarily mean that it actual is like that.
HOW MANY TIMES do you need to be informed of some thing BEFORE you comprehend and understand it?
I do NOT believe ANY thing at all.
Also, what has already been, claimed, to be proven to 'one' does NOT necessarily mean that it has been proven to "another".
I do NOT think this. Your questioning is so FAR OFF THE MARK.
Has, for example, the existence of 'hell' been proven to 'you'?
Firstly, I am NOT assuming that there would be anyone interested in what has been proven to me, HERE. Please, do NOT forget that I wrote those comments in a thread, which was started by "another" who BELIEVES 'hell' does NOT exist, and wanted to PROVE this BELIEF.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:45 amThat's correct, and of course if you already claimed to have the proof, then you don't have to prove your proof to anyone, not even yourself.
But then why assume that there would be anyone interested in what has been proven by you there, surely if 'hell' is proven to exist for you there, then that proof could also exist for everyone else as well, else one would be left wondering why they don't have the proof but you do, it would be like where did you get the proof from that they haven't got.
Secondly, the proof I have does exist for EVERY one.
Thirdly, if ANY one is left wondering why the do not YET have the proof but I do, then I have suggest enough times ALREADY on what is the BEST thing to do, that is; IF one is Truly interested in becoming wiser.
Fourthly, if it would be like 'that', then so be it.
Please do NOT forget WHERE I posted my comments.
Again, if you are wondering the views of "others", then I suggest you clarify with THEM.
I "would NOT" have to assume any such thing.
Please do NOT forget that some one started a thread about the issue of 'hell', based on their own BELIEF that 'hell' does NOT even exist.
WHEN have I stated that there is no need to prove it.
WHAT I did state was that I have NO need to prove it.
Obviously, if some one needs proof before they accept some thing, then there is a need to prove it.
NO, NOT AT ALL.
1. If I can, as I say, prove some thing, then it can NOT be disproved.
2. My views are just views, and as such are NOT fixed, forever more. So, if I can NOT prove some thing, and are thus SHOWN otherwise, then I will SEE things differently, obviously.
3. I find ANY argument, which is sound and valid VERY MEANINGFUL, and NOT pointless at all.
Do you 'need to do' EVERY thing you announce?
I, obviously, do NOT need to do it, BECAUSE, as I keep REMINDING you, of what the actual THREAD, which I posted that in, was actually about WHETHER 'hell' exists or NOT.
I was just providing the poster who opened the thread with the 'type', which they were seeking and looking for. I announced what I did BECAUSE of what they BELIEVE IS TRUE.
But there is NO 'need' here.
There was a 'want'. This is because I 'wanted' to have a discussion with some one in regards to what they BELIEVE is True.
Why do the words under the label "dontaskme" make the CLAIM; "here we have another ASSUMPTION that there is a 'you', but then the end of that sentence the words CLAIM that a 'YOU' made that ASSUMPTION.
Is the contradiction, and irony, here, being SEEN in this?
The contradiction and irony is even FURTHER HIGHLIGHTED by stating; "And yes, 'you' really did make it"?
So, if according to 'you', and 'your' logic, that it is an ASSUMPTION that there is a 'you' but to argue this out 'you' go on to say that A 'YOU' made this ASSUMPTION, and that A 'you' really did make the ASSUMPTION that there is A 'you'.
If 'you' want to CLAIM and ARGUE that A 'you' made an ASSUMPTION, that there is a 'you', then there is NO assumption here. It would just be absolutely ludicrous and absurd to CLAIM that a 'you' is an ASSUMPTION, which was made by a 'you'.
Also, besides 'I' NEVER assumed that there is a 'you', I also NEVER assumed that there is a 'you' that "would WANT" proof.
I just said; 'If 'you' (ANY one) WANT ..., then ....'.
I NEVER even thought NOR suggested ANY one "would WANT ...". I said that from the context of 'ONLY IF any one WANTS ..., then ...'.
Your "open and honest" reply was to keep insisting and arguing that I did 'need' to announce/say 'that'.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:45 amSteady on there is no need to keep repeating what you have already said above, to which I have ALREADY given a very open and honest reply.
I was providing thee EVIDENCE that I did NOT AT ALL 'need' to do any such thing.
I was NOT asking 'that' question, which you answered to. I did NOT ask; "What is A "dead certain" view?" Nor did I ask; "What does A "dead certain" view mean?"
What I was asking was; "What is THIS "dead certain" view", (which you are talking about here?).
In fact, what actually took place was this:
You wrote; why would you even want to consider starting an argument over a view that is already a dead certain.
And what I actually wrote was; And what are you proposing here is the, so called, "dead certain" view?
What can be CLEARLY SEEN is I NEVER asked any thing, like what you responded to and answered.
What are you talking about now?Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:45 amOn your request.Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:13 amAlso, why did you NOT propose this question to the one who started that thread, and who obviously holds a position, which they BELIEVE is absolutely True? Have you forgotten that it was 'them' who first claimed that they KNOW what thee actual Truth IS, and that it was 'them' who was seeking out someone/anyone with the opposite BELIEF to argue with, and prove things to?
Here, I will insert a KNOWER by the name of AGE
I did NOT start that thread. Some one "else" DID.
NO. Any one only has to OPEN the thread, and LOOK AT it, to SEE what thee actual Truth IS.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:45 amIs the one known as AGE the one who started the thread, and who obviously holds a position, which they BELIEVE is absolutely True?
The one known as "age" did NOT start that thread. So, the rest is a moot point.
Also, just for your information; NONE of the positions I have, I BELIEVE are absolutely True.
The word 'yet' is unnecessary because the first two claims were WRONG, to begin with.
I also, for your information, "claim to know" that 'I do NOT have belief either way'. This is just A FACT.
I do NOT know what your question, and your own response to it, "Very CLEAR that is not it? NOT!" is actually saying NOR meaning.
I also have NO interest in even 'trying to' CLARIFY this with you. So, I will just leave your own words, to thy own 'self'.
ONCE AGAIN, you completely and utterly MISCONSTRUED my words, and MISINTERPRETED what is meant.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:45 amAnd yet clearly this is not the case when one reads the following statement .... ''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''
That sounds like a request, or a demand made to an assumed other to respond.
Is this a 'definite', without doubt, KNOWN, for sure, absolute, and irrefutable, actual Truth here?
Okay, if you say so.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:45 am that the character that goes by the believed label 'AGE' is able to give a clear logical explanation of how the existence of 'hell' is known proven to exist....and that request..aka question is being made, because it's clearly there for the reader in said/written bolded statement.
BECAUSE, contrary to 'your' BELIEF, there are actual things, known as 'human beings' do NOT believe that 'hell' exists, and would LOVE to 'try to' formulate counter arguments. Also, what is already proven by 'I' has OBVIOUSLY NOT already been proven to those of 'you', who OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE otherwise.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:45 amBut why would an 'I' that already KNOWS and HAS the proven that ''hell'' exists - then want to seek out that proven knowing again by assuming there would be a counter argument for what is already proven by I ?
Why do 'you' claim there is a "yourself"? If there is a 'your' and a 'self', then this immediately implies there is two. Unless, of course, 'you' can SHOW otherwise.
The fact that there are two separate labeled 'identities', declaring that they KNOW what is true, in CLEARLY MARKED different wording, is the VERY EVIDENCE and PROOF that there exists "another" entity.
If there are NOT two separate and differently labeled entities writing words, through the hands on human bodies, or through speech from the mouths of human bodies, which "other" entities can CLEARLY SEE HERE, in words, then what IS actually going on here?
This is Right. As I have been saying; There is NO 'need' for me to make a request for a ANY thing. But, if I would 'like' or 'want' some thing to happen, and for that to happen requires "another" entity, then 'I' make a request out to "other" entities.
Now, if one of those entities, known as a human being, 'wants' to take up the request/challenge, then so be it. But, if NONE of those human being entities 'want' to take up the request/challenge, then so be it, also. I have ALL the 'time' there IS, and ALL the 'patience', AS WELL.
WHY 'must' I 'surely' believe this?
For all I KNOW ALL-OF-THIS could just be a figment of MY 'imagination'.
Was I 'meant' to understand what 'you' CLAIM here, and BELIEVE, is the absolute Truth?
Is there any REAL 'need' to understand this?
Please, do NOT forget I said; 'IF 'you/they' want'.
This means that I am NOT seeking outside of thy Self for anything I want NOR 'need'. I am just suggesting what 'you', human beings, 'need' to do, that is; IF 'you/they' Truly 'want' some thing. IF 'you/they' do NOT Truly 'want', what I said, then just IGNORE it and/or FORGET it. Very simple, and very easy, REALLY.
But I can ask 'you' without necessarily 'believing' that there is an entity that wants/wanted to recognized by the label "dontaskme".
I can just ALREADY KNOW this to be an actual FACT, without at all having to necessarily 'believe' it.
Because 'you', the one known as "dontaskme", cannot stand it and HATE IT when I CLAIM I can do things and prove things, which you BELIEVE can NOT be done or can NOT be proven.
Or, are 'you' going to tell us that this is NOT true at all?
Yes it does, because you are just playing silly mind games with yourself...[/quote]
If 'you' want to and are going to make a CLAIM like this, THEN you are going to 'have to' PROVE what this 'mind' thing IS, and then SHOW how this PROOF logically fits in with the CLAIM, itself, about these 'your/self' things. That is; if you WANT to be heard, listened to, AND understood.
Now, who or what is this 'thing', which, supposedly, has its "own mind"?
Yes it does, because you are now making the assumption that there are others who hold BELIEFS...while denying that you have beliefs. [/quote]
Are you 'trying to' suggest that there is NOT a human being, AND, that there is NOT a human being who holds a BELIEF?
If so, then I am pretty sure that you might find some opposition, to this position.
As I have continually told 'you', there is NO 'need', which therefore also means there is NO 'requirement' ALSO.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:45 amThen if I can do what I claim I can do then what is the point in requesting a counter-challenge...surely no such counter-challenge would be required would it?
But obviously, there ARE some human beings with counter-claims, who propose that they would love to, so call, "counter-challenge" me. And, as I say, I just wait, patiently, for them to come along, and play.
Obviously, A 'proof', itself, can NOT be challenged, by ANY one. But, just as obvious is there IS "others" who have NOT YET seen, or who have even been exposed to 'proof', JUST YET.
I can SEE and KNOW lots of things, without any necessity to BELIEVE they are true.
Also, and by the way, I have NOT YET SEEN, NOR EVEN EXPERIENCED ANY REAL, so called, "challenges", so far YET.