Philosophy

[henry quirk]

Is there absolutely nothing in what you wrote, which my clarifying question directly followed, which was obviously not even a possibility to be true, let alone and actuality to be or becoming true that you can see?

Best I can tell: eveything I wrote in that post is true...I wouldn't have written it if it weren't.

Can you point out what strikes you as false?

[Harbal]

What part of; "why do you have or hold views .... which let alone could never be actually true .... they could not even be possibly true?" is not understood here?

I wrote it again without any capitalized letters, as they seem to be too much work for the majority of you here. So, did that help at all?

I wouldn't presume to speak for henry, but I must say that I wouldn't answer that question, on the grounds that it is begging the question.

To answer it would imply acknowledgement that the views in question could not possibly be true, but if he actually thought that, he couldn't possibly hold the views, could he? I really think you should rethink the question.

[Dontaskme]

I pose to you all three "simple" questions:


1. What is the Meaning of Life?

There isn’t any.

2. Does God Exist (and How)?

NO, except as concept.

3. What is the Nature of Reality?

Illusory.

[Age]

Is there absolutely nothing in what you wrote, which my clarifying question directly followed, which was obviously not even a possibility to be true, let alone and actuality to be or becoming true that you can see?

Best I can tell: eveything I wrote in that post is true...I wouldn't have written it if it weren't.

Can you point out what strikes you as false?

Yes.

[Age]

What part of; "why do you have or hold views .... which let alone could never be actually true .... they could not even be possibly true?" is not understood here?

I wrote it again without any capitalized letters, as they seem to be too much work for the majority of you here. So, did that help at all?

I wouldn't presume to speak for henry, but I must say that I wouldn't answer that question, on the grounds that it is begging the question.

Which one? I asked two here?

To answer it would imply acknowledgement that the views in question could not possibly be true, but if he actually thought that, he couldn't possibly hold the views, could he? I really think you should rethink the question.

You seem to have completely misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misconstrued the actual simple and open questioning being asked here, by me.

[Harbal]

You seem to have completely misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misconstrued the actual simple and open questioning being asked here, by me.

No, you asked a stupid question, that's what happened.

[henry quirk]

Is there absolutely nothing in what you wrote, which my clarifying question directly followed, which was obviously not even a possibility to be true, let alone and actuality to be or becoming true that you can see?

Best I can tell: eveything I wrote in that post is true...I wouldn't have written it if it weren't.

Can you point out what strikes you as false?

Yes.

Will you do so soon?

[Age]

You seem to have completely misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misconstrued the actual simple and open questioning being asked here, by me.

No, you asked a stupid question, that's what happened.

Is the question I asked:
WHY do 'you' have or hold views, which let alone could NEVER be ACTUALLY true, they could NOT even be POSSIBLY true?

The so-called "stupid" question, which you are referring to here?

If yes, then WHY, to you, is that a so-called "stupid" question?

OBVIOUSLY, "henry quirk" wrote some 'thing', which my CLARIFYING QUESTION was DIRECTED AT, which could NEVER be ACTUALLY true AT ALL, let alone EVER even be POSSIBLY true, and I was, and STILL AM, just CURIOUS as to WHY "henry quirk" would HAVE or HOLD such as those types of views.

What is, supposedly, so "stupid" about this?

[Age]

Best I can tell: eveything I wrote in that post is true...I wouldn't have written it if it weren't.

Can you point out what strikes you as false?

Yes.

Will you do so soon?

IF you ask me to, then I will do 'it' (whatever 'it' ACTUALLY IS) AS SOON as I SEE what your ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION is asking for, EXACTLY.

But I SEE and NOTICE you are CHANGING your words, and so getting MUCH CLOSER.

[Harbal]

You seem to have completely misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misconstrued the actual simple and open questioning being asked here, by me.

No, you asked a stupid question, that's what happened.

Is the question I asked:
WHY do 'you' have or hold views, which let alone could NEVER be ACTUALLY true, they could NOT even be POSSIBLY true?

The so-called "stupid" question, which you are referring to here?

If yes, then WHY, to you, is that a so-called "stupid" question?

OBVIOUSLY, "henry quirk" wrote some 'thing', which my CLARIFYING QUESTION was DIRECTED AT, which could NEVER be ACTUALLY true AT ALL, let alone EVER even be POSSIBLY true, and I was, and STILL AM, just CURIOUS as to WHY "henry quirk" would HAVE or HOLD such as those types of views.

What is, supposedly, so "stupid" about this?

I alredy explained what I thought was wrong with your question a few posts back. This is what I said:

"To answer it would imply acknowledgement that the views in question could not possibly be true, but if he actually thought that, he couldn't possibly hold the views, could he?"

[Age]

No, you asked a stupid question, that's what happened.

Is the question I asked:
WHY do 'you' have or hold views, which let alone could NEVER be ACTUALLY true, they could NOT even be POSSIBLY true?

The so-called "stupid" question, which you are referring to here?

If yes, then WHY, to you, is that a so-called "stupid" question?

OBVIOUSLY, "henry quirk" wrote some 'thing', which my CLARIFYING QUESTION was DIRECTED AT, which could NEVER be ACTUALLY true AT ALL, let alone EVER even be POSSIBLY true, and I was, and STILL AM, just CURIOUS as to WHY "henry quirk" would HAVE or HOLD such as those types of views.

What is, supposedly, so "stupid" about this?

I alredy explained what I thought was wrong with your question a few posts back. This is what I said:

"To answer it would imply acknowledgement that the views in question could not possibly be true,

But there is absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to be 'implied' there.

It is BLANTANTLY OBVIOUS that the views in question could NOT POSSIBLY be true.

How much more SIMPLER and STRAIGHTFORWARD could this REALLY GET?

Is there REALLY NOT a human being among you that can NOT SEE the view in what "henry quirk" wrote, which could in NO WAY be POSSIBLY TRUE?

but if he actually thought that, he couldn't possibly hold the views, could he?"

Absolutely ANY one can HOLD ANY view they like.

And, in Fact, ALL of 'you', adult human beings, HOLD VIEWS that could NOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE.

Do 'you', adult human beings,, individually, ACTUALLY BELIEVE that you are NOT HOLDING views, which could NOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE?

Is this WHY you say my clarifying question is "stupid"?

Are you REALLY and Truly SUGGESTING that "henry quirk" ACTUALLY BELIEVES without a shadow of a doubt that there exists some PERSON, who is male gendered, and who has "his" own agendas, who lived BEFORE this Universe BEGAN, and one of those agendas was building a determined universe then, perhaps perversely, plunkin' little, limited versions of Himself (free wills/agents) down into that universe?

Surely there was NOT a human being among you who could NOT SEE that 'that' besides could NEVER be ACTUALLY True, could NEVER even be a POSSIBILITY of being True?

Or, do 'you' ALL REALLY BELIEVE that that could be ACTUALLY what happened, or be an actual POSSIBILITY of what happened?

[Harbal]

Is the question I asked:
WHY do 'you' have or hold views, which let alone could NEVER be ACTUALLY true, they could NOT even be POSSIBLY true?

The so-called "stupid" question, which you are referring to here?

If yes, then WHY, to you, is that a so-called "stupid" question?

OBVIOUSLY, "henry quirk" wrote some 'thing', which my CLARIFYING QUESTION was DIRECTED AT, which could NEVER be ACTUALLY true AT ALL, let alone EVER even be POSSIBLY true, and I was, and STILL AM, just CURIOUS as to WHY "henry quirk" would HAVE or HOLD such as those types of views.

What is, supposedly, so "stupid" about this?

I alredy explained what I thought was wrong with your question a few posts back. This is what I said:

"To answer it would imply acknowledgement that the views in question could not possibly be true,

But there is absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to be 'implied' there.

It is BLANTANTLY OBVIOUS that the views in question could NOT POSSIBLY be true.

How much more SIMPLER and STRAIGHTFORWARD could this REALLY GET?

Is there REALLY NOT a human being among you that can NOT SEE the view in what "henry quirk" wrote, which could in NO WAY be POSSIBLY TRUE?

but if he actually thought that, he couldn't possibly hold the views, could he?"

Absolutely ANY one can HOLD ANY view they like.

And, in Fact, ALL of 'you', adult human beings, HOLD VIEWS that could NOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE.

Do 'you', adult human beings,, individually, ACTUALLY BELIEVE that you are NOT HOLDING views, which could NOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE?

Is this WHY you say my clarifying question is "stupid"?

Are you REALLY and Truly SUGGESTING that "henry quirk" ACTUALLY BELIEVES without a shadow of a doubt that there exists some PERSON, who is male gendered, and who has "his" own agendas, who lived BEFORE this Universe BEGAN, and one of those agendas was building a determined universe then, perhaps perversely, plunkin' little, limited versions of Himself (free wills/agents) down into that universe?

Surely there was NOT a human being among you who could NOT SEE that 'that' besides could NEVER be ACTUALLY True, could NEVER even be a POSSIBILITY of being True?

Or, do 'you' ALL REALLY BELIEVE that that could be ACTUALLY what happened, or be an actual POSSIBILITY of what happened?

I'm sorry, Age, but you make the Chinese water torture seem like a pleasant alternative to having to reply to this. Therefore, I am going to opt for the lesser torture.

[henry quirk]

Are you REALLY and Truly SUGGESTING that "henry quirk" ACTUALLY BELIEVES without a shadow of a doubt that there exists some PERSON, who is male gendered, and who has "his" own agendas, who lived BEFORE this Universe BEGAN, and one of those agendas was building a determined universe then, perhaps perversely, plunkin' little, limited versions of Himself (free wills/agents) down into that universe?

Yes, I ACTUALLY BELIEVE, without a shadow of doubt, a Person built the universe then plunked down little versions of Himself into that universe. Yes, siree, I do.

You, of course, can dismiss this as fantasy and believe whatever you like.

It does not seem to me God cares, and -- sure as hell -- I don't.

[Sculptor]

I pose to you all three "simple" questions:


1. What is the Meaning of Life?

2. Does God Exist (and How)?

3. What is the Nature of Reality?

1. Life = not dead.
2. In the minds of scared and deluded people.
3. Nature is as Nature does.

[Age]

I alredy explained what I thought was wrong with your question a few posts back. This is what I said:

"To answer it would imply acknowledgement that the views in question could not possibly be true,

But there is absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to be 'implied' there.

It is BLANTANTLY OBVIOUS that the views in question could NOT POSSIBLY be true.

How much more SIMPLER and STRAIGHTFORWARD could this REALLY GET?

Is there REALLY NOT a human being among you that can NOT SEE the view in what "henry quirk" wrote, which could in NO WAY be POSSIBLY TRUE?

but if he actually thought that, he couldn't possibly hold the views, could he?"

Absolutely ANY one can HOLD ANY view they like.

And, in Fact, ALL of 'you', adult human beings, HOLD VIEWS that could NOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE.

Do 'you', adult human beings,, individually, ACTUALLY BELIEVE that you are NOT HOLDING views, which could NOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE?

Is this WHY you say my clarifying question is "stupid"?

Are you REALLY and Truly SUGGESTING that "henry quirk" ACTUALLY BELIEVES without a shadow of a doubt that there exists some PERSON, who is male gendered, and who has "his" own agendas, who lived BEFORE this Universe BEGAN, and one of those agendas was building a determined universe then, perhaps perversely, plunkin' little, limited versions of Himself (free wills/agents) down into that universe?

Surely there was NOT a human being among you who could NOT SEE that 'that' besides could NEVER be ACTUALLY True, could NEVER even be a POSSIBILITY of being True?

Or, do 'you' ALL REALLY BELIEVE that that could be ACTUALLY what happened, or be an actual POSSIBILITY of what happened?

I'm sorry, Age, but you make the Chinese water torture seem like a pleasant alternative to having to reply to this. Therefore, I am going to opt for the lesser torture.

This is because when you finally notice and see the OBVIOUS, which I have been referring to, you have nothing left but to run away.