Regarding Franko...

[Tricky]

New language?

There are many uses of "to be" :

TO BE OR NOT TO BE: E-Prime as a Tool for Critical Thinking

But the two biggies to avoid are :

(1) Noun Phrase-1 + TO BE + Noun Phrase-2 (Identity)

(2) Noun Phrase-1 + TO BE + Adjective Phrase-1 (Predication)

You said "Nobeliefs.com is a site..."

That is (1) (identiity).

Why is this a problem....



So when I said "Nobeliefs.com dedicates itself to freethought", I deliberately avoided this 'identity' use of 'to be'.

It is hard work writing in E-Prime. Even harder thinking in it. But several people have managed to write entire books in it, and I have even read one of them - after a while you don't notice.

The discussion of E-prime popped to mind when I read this News Of The Weird article.

In November 2001, News of the Weird reported on a language its practitioners called The Truth (but which is basically indistinguishable from gibberish), which at that time a few Canadian defendants were using in tax-evasion trials (with a huge lack of success). In December 2002, Janet Kay Logan, 46, and Jason Zellmer, 22, were convicted in Madison, Wis., of creating phony lawsuit documents, despite their using The Truth in their trial and attempting to call as a witness the language's creator, David Wynn Miller, also known as the "king of Hawaii," who informed the judge that the genesis of The Truth was when Miller "turned Hawaii into a verb" and showed "how a preposition is needed to certify a noun." Logan insisted until the very end that the lawsuits were legitimate because she is a judge in the "DI-STRICT court of the Unity State of the World."
Capital Times (Madison, Wis.), 12-5-02

 

[Franko]

PixyChixy:

That physical laws are God's will is not an explanation, it is a defintion. It does not reduce the problem in any way.

How does saying that “Physical Laws are the will of a non-conscious mystery force” make it more of an explanation Pixie?

It just sounds like you being a pessimist? Where is your objectivity? Where is your evidence for YOUR beliefs?

Materialism assumes the material world exists, independent of consciousness. The material world follows physical laws. It doesn't matter to materialism what those laws are, just that there are laws. All else follows from this.

I thought you told me that there were no fixed laws (its all magical indeterminism)?

I thought you claimed to have “free will”? If you are governed by the laws of physics, then how can you have “free will”?

Or are you claiming that YOUR mind controls the Laws of Physics, Pixie?

I bet Randi would pay you a million if you could prove it …

Idealism [or Logical Deism] assumes that consciousness exists. The observations that this consciousness makes follow a set of rules. It doesn't matter what these rules are, just that there are rules. All else follows from this.

(Both state that things follow a set of laws, because otherwise they'd be inconsistent with our observations and would be dead meat.)

I agree so far …

Now, each position assumes one of the two hard problems, and leaves the other open:

Materialism has to explain how consciousness arises from matter.

Idealism has to explain why there is an observable universe.

That’s easy!

Imagine that you and I are the only things which exist. Two disembodied consciousnesses – that is all there is to the entire Universe.

Now, explain to me how your consciousness and mine could communicate without creating and exchanging energy between us?

Energy is simply the byproduct that you get when two or more consciousnesses communicate.

But you are correct about Materialism. Matter has no similar necessity to create life, but consciousness creates “matter” out of necessity whenever it communicates.

Now, some questions from a materialist standpoint:

We always associate consciousness with a particular material body - the brain. Brains are observed without consciousness, but not vice-versa. Why? Why does material damage to the brain materially affect consciousness? Why do we observe multiple consciousnesses?

If you play Dungeons and Dragons, and your character gets killed, does that mean YOU (the player) have also ceased to exist? Your Soul exist in the Omniverse, this universe is simply a single manifestation of the larger reality. Your physical body only exist in this universe. When your physical body dies then your soul has no tether to this place. It either goes to a different (higher energy) universe, or it returns to whence it came.

Consciousness (as a phenomenon) is a recent thing as far as we can tell. Evidence gathered by following our consistent rule set indicates that the universe is perhaps 15 billion years old, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that multi-cellular life first appeared about 600 million years ago. There was nothing we can recognise as conscious during this time. What was this (universal) consciousness doing all this time?

Actually you are dead wrong!

Read Fred Hoyle. He claims that life has always existed, and he makes quite a good case. Have you ever heard of Transspermia?

On why I should believe that A-Theists will be just as moral as Theists …

Franko:
... That's why we should abolish all the prisons, and make baby-killing cheap and legal!

Pixychix:
Sorry, Franko, I don't agree with you. Some people should be locked up, for the good of society. I'm sorry that you can't see this.

You are sorry I can’t see it???

I am sorry that you can’t see you are claiming EXACTLY that, when you tell me that A-Theists will be JUST as moral as NON-A-Theists. That is simply untrue. For you to claim that is as absurd as claiming that if we abolished all prisons people would STILL be just a moral (the crime rate would remain unchanged). A-Theists don’t believe their will be ANY consequences for their actions – and they behave JUST like they believe it!

A-Theist make far LESS moral people! People who don’t fear consequences ALWAYS make less moral people.

I am sorry that you are sooo incredibly brainwashed and self-deluded that you can’t see this yourself. But you do make an excellent demonstration of the fanaticism of A-Theism.

Gravitons clearly cannot have charge, or the gravitational force would be subject to the electromagnetic force. While this would have some interesting applications (anti-gravity, for a start), if it were true, all major bodies in the Universe (planets, stars, galaxies) would disintegrate instantly. This would be bad.

If Gravitons can’t have a charge, then how do you account for the existence of both “matter”, and “anti-matter”? What is different about Anti-matter from regular matter Darling?

 

[Franko]

Franko:
If there were no consciousnesses to perceive “Prime Numbers” in what way would Prime numbers exist?

Elephant:
In the way that they would be inevitable. The set of relationships we term Prime Numbers are eternally the same. Numbers exist regardless of time or space, and must be the way they are.

Why must they be that way? By what logic? How do you know that anything would exist if there were nothing here to perceive it? What makes you think that pattern pre-exist an ability to perceive a pattern?

You never seem to want to explain yourself Elephant. Just like that Lucy Rochalforge, or that little Fool – they never want to explain what they believe either. What are you “all” hiding?

Franko:
So you are actually claiming that a “non-physical” mental-world exist apart from Minds? In other words you are actually claiming that some non-physical mental sphere exist independent of consciousness?

And how exactly did you come to this conclusion? Where is your train of thought?


Elephant: (UCE’s “train of thought”)

No....

I am claiming that numbers exist independent of consciousness. Apart from that I don't really understand why you think I implied what you have written. I might be...I can't grasp exactly what you mean. How can you have a mental sphere independent of consciousness?

You tell me – you are the one claiming that numbers “self-exist”. If I have misunderstood your statement then you will have to be the one to clarify it. That is what I mean.

 

[Guest]

Frankenstein:

Why must they be that way? By what logic? How do you know that anything would exist if there were nothing here to perceive it? What makes you think that pattern pre-exist an ability to perceive a pattern?

These particular patterns have to be the way they are, that is all. They cannot be any other way. Even if there was nothing to perceive a mandelbrot set, it would be there waiting to be perceived. It exists potentially. When I say numbers self-exist I really mean they do not have to be created.

You never seem to want to explain yourself Elephant.

And you do?

Just like that Lucy Rochalforge, or that little Fool – they never want to explain what they believe either. What are you “all” hiding?

Now you really are starting to sound like Gollum.

That nasty Lucy Rochalforge. Don't trusts him. Don't trusts any of 'em. Nasty little A-theistsssssss. No. Not like us logical deistssssss. What's they all hiding? Why don't they tells us?

 

[Franko]

Elephant,

These particular patterns have to be the way they are, that is all. They cannot be any other way. Even if there was nothing to perceive a mandelbrot set, it would be there waiting to be perceived. It exists potentially. When I say numbers self-exist I really mean they do not have to be created.

Claiming that numbers self-exist does not make it so. I can see how the prime numbers (or Pi for that matter) have to have the values they do, but what makes you believe that this isn’t simply the result of some other process?

I had asked you long ago (more than once), how can Math exist without the existence of Logic? Doesn’t logic have to exist prior to the existence of Numbers?

Can you have numbers (or math) without having logic first?

Does that mean that Logic self exist, and then consciousness invents numbers afterwards?

If not, why not? Explain how numbers can exist without Logic?

Couldn’t someone make the same claim you make about numbers about ANYTHING?

The Moon self-exist, because our Moon could not exist any other way?

Franko:
You never seem to want to explain yourself Elephant.

Elephant:
And you do?

Not only do I explain myself, but I present my exact train of thought for my arguments, and I define any special terms I am using.

I can explain why I don’t believe in “free will” while you cannot explain why you do believe in it.

I can explain why I believe “God” exist, while you cannot explain why She doesn’t.

Now you really are starting to sound like Gollum.

That nasty Lucy Rochalforge. Don't trusts him. Don't trusts any of 'em. Nasty little A-theistsssssss. No. Not like us logical deistssssss. What's they all hiding? Why don't they tells us?

You, Luciforge, and Fool, all parrot the same nonsense, and none of you can (or will) explain any of it. Plus all three of you have harped on some rather strange non-issues with me. Some odd lines of thought that NO ONE else ever mentions. Yet you 3 all seem fixated. I guess it is just a coincidence though … ???

 

[Q-Source]

Geoff,

What is the purpose of you coming to this forum if you don´t want to share your thoughts ?

Q-S

 

[Guest]

Q-Source....

I thought I had been sharing my thoughts.



The only things I do not want to discuss in public are unlikely to be of any real interest to people who do not believe in a spiritual/metaphysical realm. I also suspect that in metaphysics, as in physics, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And certain actions I might take (like revealing certain pieces of information publicly) might have opposite reactions I do not want to experience. Does that make sense?

 

[Guest]

Franchesca :

I had asked you long ago (more than once), how can Math exist without the existence of Logic? Doesn’t logic have to exist prior to the existence of Numbers?

Logic logically precedes numbers.

Does that mean that Logic self exist, and then consciousness invents numbers afterwards?

Both are ex-temporal.

Couldn’t someone make the same claim you make about numbers about ANYTHING?

No. Everything else exists relative to something else in the manifested Universe. In the abscence of a Universe numbers are the only thing which can have meaning because they refer only to themselves and to Zero.

The Moon self-exist, because our Moon could not exist any other way?

The moon does not mean anything unless it is relative to the rest of the Universe.

I can explain why I don’t believe in “free will” while you cannot explain why you do believe in it.

I explained exactly what Free Will is and why I believe in it. You even replied "Very good Elephant." You are losing your memory.

I can explain why I believe “God” exist, while you cannot explain why She doesn’t.

I have offered no position on the existence of 'God'. I have stated several times that I believe in the objective existence of Infinity.

Can you explain why you think my position is that 'she doesn't exist'?

I will clarify my position a little further : If I look at history I conclude that it is the three religions that claim the existence of an authoritarian God figure have brought enormous conflict and misery to humanity. This does not neccesarily imply that I actively disbelieve in the existence of God, just that I do not want to be involved in perpetuating belief systems I perceive to be damaging. Neither does it imply that I actively believe in the existence of such a God-figure. I do not believe it is helpful for me to offer an opinion. I believe the Buddha also refused to be drawn on this. If this position was good enough for the Buddha then it is good enough for me.

You, Luciforge, and Fool, all parrot the same nonsense, and none of you can (or will) explain any of it. Plus all three of you have harped on some rather strange non-issues with me. Some odd lines of thought that NO ONE else ever mentions. Yet you 3 all seem fixated. I guess it is just a coincidence though … ???

I don't think Lucifuge likes my position any more than he likes yours. My interaction with Fool has been so minimal as to be practically non-existent. And I have NO SOCK PUPPETS.

 

[Q-Source]

UndercoverElephant

The only things I do not want to discuss in public are unlikely to be of any real interest to people who do not believe in a spiritual/metaphysical realm.

Hello ??

You should know by now that this forum is full of atheists, materialists and many people who don´t believe in the spiritual world. H o w e v e r, many people may find this interesting to discuss or read.

I feel a little bit intimidated by you , so don´t expect me to engage in any metaphysical discussion. I was just following the exchange with others. This is the way how we all learn new things.

UndercoverElephant

I also suspect that in metaphysics, as in physics, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn´t make sense. What is the meaning of having information if you do not share it?. But, the choice is yours... so just do whatever you feel is good for you.

Maybe, this is part of your continuous metamorphosis.

 

[scribble]

No. Everything else exists relative to something else in the manifested Universe. In the abscence of a Universe numbers are the only thing which can have meaning because they refer only to themselves and to Zero.

You still do not understand mathematics.

I have offered no position on the existence of 'God'. I have stated several times that I believe in the objective existence of Infinity.

And you claimed your beliefs have changed a lot. Guess not.

And I have NO SOCK PUPPETS. [/B]

Juggler, Jedi Knight, Undercover Elephant.

Which two of the three aren't you? Oh, they are all you? Goodness, that sounds like a sock puppet to me.

-Chris

 

[Guest]

Q-S

No, it doesn´t make sense.

Physics is dominated by action and reaction. Things start of in a state of equilibrium, you push, and something pushes back. Pull a pendulum one way and it swings back the other. Throw a pebble in a stream and water splashes back up in the air. This pattern is endemic all over physics.

Why shouldn't the system which underlies physics work in a similar way? Look at the Yin/Yang symbol. As far as a pictorial representation goes it is hard to better as a description of the way physics works. Everything is about positive and negative cancelling out and trying to find equilibrium. Metaphysics is exactly the same, its just the way action and reaction are connected together is not so obvious. The links are hidden from us. But your actions, and even your thoughts, all have unseen effects. Part of the subjective changes I speak of involve a steadily growing awareness of this metaphysical system of action and reaction i.e. why things happen the way they do. The skeptical community does not even believe such effects are possible, and science does not look for them. But they exist, and once you start looking for them, and becoming more and more aware of them, then you have no choice but to start taking them into account. This is where Franko and I are in the same boat. We are both acutely aware of many of these metaphysical mechanisms, and treat them with a great deal of respect - it would be very foolish to ignore them.

 

[scribble]

The only things I do not want to discuss in public are unlikely to be of any real interest to people who do not believe in a spiritual/metaphysical realm.

Unlikely? And you still deem them unlikely when we are sitting here telling you how interesting those things are and begging you to provide answers? Trust me, it's not unlikely to be interesting, at least to THIS non-believer. It's fascinating, and you are wrong.

I also suspect that in metaphysics, as in physics, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And certain actions I might take (like revealing certain pieces of information publicly) might have opposite reactions I do not want to experience. Does that make sense? [/B]

No.

-Chris

 

[Franko]

Elephant/Luciforge:
The only things I do not want to discuss in public are unlikely to be of any real interest to people who do not believe in a spiritual/metaphysical realm. I also suspect that in metaphysics, as in physics, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And certain actions I might take (like revealing certain pieces of information publicly) might have opposite reactions I do not want to experience. Does that make sense?

Considering your various sockpuppets and other forms of deceit, I can see where you might have concern for the consequences of your actions; however, YOU specifically told me the other day that there would be NO consequences for our actions?

Are you changing your tune about this already?

 

[scribble]

And certain actions I might take (like revealing certain pieces of information publicly) might have opposite reactions I do not want to experience. Does that make sense? [/B]

Hey, this reminds me, UcE --

Remember last year when that document that answered all the questions you had about life, the universe, and everything magically appeared on your computer overnight, and then you wouldn't show it to us because you were worried about copyright infringement (copyright infringement! On a document that magically appeared on his PC overnight! That would be copyright of who, God?)? And then you said you deleted it (he deleted a document that was given to him by a higher power?! Blasphemer!)?

What repercussions came of that?

-Chris

 

[Q-Source]

Part of the subjective changes I speak of involve a steadily growing awareness of this metaphysical system of action and reaction i.e. why things happen the way they do. The skeptical community does not even believe such effects are possible, and science does not look for them. But they exist, and once you start looking for them, and becoming more and more aware of them, then you have no choice but to start taking them into account.

It is a pity that you assume that every positive action will bring a negative reaction.

...and Franko says that atheists are the only pessimists

 

[Franko]

Logic logically precedes numbers.

Ohhh, now was that so hard to admit?

Franko:
Does that mean that Logic self exist, and then consciousness invents numbers afterwards?

Elephant:
Both are ex-temporal.

You mean both exist beyond the confines of Time? Hehehe …

You’ll have to explain what that means Elephant? How exactly does one determine what exists beyond the realm of Time – praytell?

Can a Universe exist without Time?

Franko:
Couldn’t someone make the same claim you make about numbers about ANYTHING?

Juggler:
No. Everything else exists relative to something else in the manifested Universe. In the abscence of a Universe numbers are the only thing which can have meaning because they refer only to themselves and to Zero.

But you just said that Number can only exist relative to something else existing first – LOGIC.

Can Logic exist without consciousness? How so? In what form?

Franko:
The Moon self-exist, because our Moon could not exist any other way?

Elephant:
The moon does not mean anything unless it is relative to the rest of the Universe.

What do you mean by the Moon doesn’t “mean” anything?

Do numbers “mean” anything without the rest of the universe?

Do numbers mean anything is there is no consciousness around to perceive the Numbers?

Maybe the Universe does not mean anything unless it is relative to the Moon?

I don’t see how your statement is any more meaningful.

Franko:
I can explain why I don’t believe in “free will” while you cannot explain why you do believe in it.

Juggler:
I explained exactly what Free Will is and why I believe in it. You even replied "Very good Elephant." You are losing your memory.

My memory works very differently then yours does, but that point aside, You NEVER explained why you believed in “free will”, nor did you provide any evidence for your belief.

You simply acknowledged that there was no way we could have “free will” if Stimpy’s version of Pseudo-Materialism were true. You also stated that the very concept of “free will” was meaningless unless one also posited the existence of a Soul (which no A-Theist ever think of).

To those comments (specifically) I believe I responded – Very impressive Elephant.

Franko:
I can explain why I believe “God” exist, while you cannot explain why She doesn’t.

Elephant:
I have offered no position on the existence of 'God'. I have stated several times that I believe in the objective existence of Infinity.

Can you explain why you think my position is that 'she doesn't exist'?

Because we have been speaking about RELIGION and PHILOSOPHY for over a year now Elephant, and I know that in the past, you have espoused a version of Panentheism, or Taoism which posits an “Omniconsciousness” or “Metamind”. A kind of collective consciousness (megaconsciousness) that we all “rejoin” after we die.

Although I have asked you specifically how you came to this conclusion you have never really explained it to me.

Do you still hold these beliefs, or have you altered your position?

Also I have asked you what you mean specifically by the term “Infinity”. Do you believe that reality is cyclical? DO you still believe that Zero and Infinity are the same value as you once claimed?

I will clarify my position a little further : If I look at history I conclude that it is the three religions that claim the existence of an authoritarian God figure have brought enormous conflict and misery to humanity.

I would say that is a rather subjective and arbitrary judgment on your part, but I could see where an A-Theist might draw that conclusion.

This does not neccesarily imply that I actively disbelieve in the existence of God, just that I do not want to be involved in perpetuating belief systems I perceive to be damaging. Neither does it imply that I actively believe in the existence of such a God-figure. I do not believe it is helpful for me to offer an opinion. I believe the Buddha also refused to be drawn on this. If this position was good enough for the Buddha then it is good enough for me.

Buddhism is very close to A-Theism Elephant. The reason so many A-Theists like Buddhism is because Buddhism doesn’t preach that there are consequences for one’s actions either (just like A-Theism).

But lets set the God question aside for a moment. Do you believe that there are consequences for our actions after we die? Do you really believe in Karma? If you sin here and now, will you be punished for those sins later?

If our Ego does not survive death as you claim, isn’t that exactly the same as saying there are no consequences for our actions? What is the difference between that belief, and regular A-Theism? How is anyone going to punish me for my sins, if I have already been annihilated?

 

[PixyMisa]

How does saying that “Physical Laws are the will of a non-conscious mystery force” make it more of an explanation Pixie?

It doesn't. That's not an explanation either.

It just sounds like you being a pessimist? Where is your objectivity? Where is your evidence for YOUR beliefs?

It sounds to me like you're having trouble with your reading skills again.

I thought you told me that there were no fixed laws (its all magical indeterminism)?

Nope. I told you that some of the laws are that some natural processes are indeterministic. Try reading what people write, Franko.

I thought you claimed to have “free will”? If you are governed by the laws of physics, then how can you have “free will”?

There is no contradiction Franko.

Or are you claiming that YOUR mind controls the Laws of Physics, Pixie?

Are you incapable of comprehension, Franko? Or of even remembering what I said?

I bet Randi would pay you a million if you could prove it …

Yes, I expect he would.

That’s easy!

Imagine that you and I are the only things which exist. Two disembodied consciousnesses – that is all there is to the entire Universe.

Now, explain to me how your consciousness and mine could communicate without creating and exchanging energy between us?

Energy is simply the byproduct that you get when two or more consciousnesses communicate.

Sorry, Franko, you lose, in so many ways.

Idealism doesn't assume the existence of multiple disembodied consciousnesses. It assumes one consciousness, and that all is explained from that. If you want two independent consciousnesses communicating, you first need to explain how they arise. If this communication requires or creates energy, you need to explain that too.

But you are correct about Materialism. Matter has no similar necessity to create life, but consciousness creates “matter” out of necessity whenever it communicates.

Evidence?

If you play Dungeons and Dragons, and your character gets killed, does that mean YOU (the player) have also ceased to exist?

Don't be stupid. Or at least, try to be less stupid.

Your Soul

Which is what?

exist in the Omniverse

Omniverse? There's more than the Universe? Evidence?

this universe is simply a single manifestation of the larger reality. Your physical body only exist in this universe.

Well, this last statement is correct.

When your physical body dies then your soul has no tether to this place.

What soul, Franko?

It either goes to a different (higher energy) universe, or it returns to whence it came.

Which is... where?

Actually you are dead wrong!

Read Fred Hoyle. He claims that life has always existed, and he makes quite a good case. Have you ever heard of Transspermia?

Indeed I have. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.

You are sorry I can’t see it???

I am sorry that you can’t see you are claiming EXACTLY that, when you tell me that A-Theists will be JUST as moral as NON-A-Theists.

I never said that.

I will now make a statement on the subject:

Some people are moral regardless of their beliefs or threat of punishment.
Some people are moral only because of threat of immediate physical punishment - and will commit crimes when they think they can get away with it.
Some people are moral only because of their beliefs - and will commit crimes when they think they can rationalise it with those beliefs.

That is simply untrue. For you to claim that is as absurd as claiming that if we abolished all prisons people would STILL be just a moral (the crime rate would remain unchanged). A-Theists don’t believe their will be ANY consequences for their actions – and they behave JUST like they believe it!

Finished beating up your strawman, Franko? Try reading what I said for a change.

A-Theist make far LESS moral people! People who don’t fear consequences ALWAYS make less moral people.

Evidence?

I am sorry that you are sooo incredibly brainwashed and self-deluded that you can’t see this yourself. But you do make an excellent demonstration of the fanaticism of A-Theism.

You STILL haven't told me what I'm supposed to believe in!

If Gravitons can’t have a charge, then how do you account for the existence of both “matter”, and “anti-matter”? What is different about Anti-matter from regular matter Darling?

Gravitons have no charge. Why should they? How could they, and remain consistent with the known laws of physics? What does this have to do with matter or anti-matter?

In an anti-matter particle, the physical properties are reversed when compared to the matter equivalent.

A positron has, for example, the same mass and spin as an electron but the opposite charge and magnetic moment.

Uncharged bosons do not have antiparticles. There is no anti-photon, for example. Nor is there an anti-graviton.

 

[PixyMisa]

And I have NO SOCK PUPPETS.

Clearly not. All Sock Puppets belong to Jesus, as I demonstrated earlier and in another thread.

 

[Guest]

It is a pity that you assume that every positive action will bring a negative reaction.

...and Franko says that atheists are the only pessimists

There is no absolute positive and negative. Just thing and not-thing. Just this-way and that-way.

 

[Pahansiri]

Buddhism is very close to A-Theism Elephant. The reason so many A-Theists like Buddhism is because Buddhism doesn’t preach that there are consequences for one’s actions either (just like A-Theism).

B

Framko Franko my friend again my friend you show little knowledge about the topics you seek to comment on.

Again I can point out that as I have in my last and other post you, your statements are in most cases self defeating, self contradictory both to the content and to your beliefs on a whole. I pointed out in my last post to you that for you to believe that the reality of karma/cause and effect or a god who hands out punishments for actions is contradictory to your belief that there is no form of free will. If one has no control over their actions as you say due to TLOP or your lack of understanding of TLOP as to how it would apply or not apply in most cases to thought shall I say, then how can one be punished for what is as you call fate?

How can your god or goddess punish a being for something they have no control over?

May I ask if a man puts in your drink something to render you unconscious, he then places a gun in your hand and pushes your finger until the gun fires and a child is hit and killed. You go to court there where 100 witnesses who clearly saw this man was in control of your finger and you had no control, should the judge still sentence you to jail for life? I must assume from your statements, yes. Is that the case, it would seem your goddess considers this fair should not our courts do the same?

Or, being your statements or positions change so, should you get a speeding ticket will you go to court and tell the judge you should not get a ticket as TLOF were in control and it was not you who decided to speed and run a stop sign?

Should the judge decide to not to fine you? No, wait he can not decide either way as that would indicate thought which would be needed to put in action a decision of guilty or not and a ticket and fine or not and it is your belief that TLOP is in full control so he can not have thought.

My friend again I must ask do you really what you believe? As with my last post to you I will say you will either choose to just ignore and not answer what you can not or only respond in a way with words of anger and hate of anyone who will not think as you choose to. That is up to you, it is your free will. I respect that and you and again hope you can become free from your anger and join in with real talks sharing what you may believe in a logical and respectful way free from anger or hate. I also hope all can be free from a need to make fun of the beliefs of others or lead with hate rather then compassion, logic and fact.

Be well and happy my friend.