The Problem with Hell

Re: i dont understand

myheartisyours wrote:

i understand people have different beliefs and viewpoints
i understand them very well

I seriously doubt that this is true.

0 Replies

Re: i dont understand

myheartisyours wrote:

i dont really understand what you are exactly trying to say
you dont believe in God or you dont beleive in hell? or both?
well if you dont beleive it.. thats just too bad for you
i believe..
and i beleive that what i beleive is true
but i am not against anyone believing otherwise
i understand people have different beliefs and viewpoints
i understand them very well

If you don't exactly understand what we're trying to say, then you don't understand our beliefs and viewpoints very well.

Where do all these weirdoes come from? Don't they at least check their posts for contradictions before posting them up?

0 Replies

I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use "believe" seven times in one short post.

0 Replies

And misspell it most of the time . . . impressive, no?

0 Replies

No.

0 Replies

hum...believable.

0 Replies

The Problem With Hell is that once you let the idea loose the world's greatest wordsmith scaremonger pranksters are bound,they can't help it,it's like a red rag etc,to allow their fancy free reign.(see James Joyce).

0 Replies

Or Hieronymous Bosch if you prefer it quicker.

0 Replies

Quote:

God will judge all according to how much scripture they have genuinely been shown and taught. In other words, if you are willfuly ignorant, I think you are in trouble. But if you are sincere (about wether God exists) you will be judged accordingly.

Basically, willful ignorance is what I was trying to get across....if you still don't get it, don't worry...you'll figure it out when you're dead.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

One cannot presuppose something without proving the existence of that entity.

Have you proven that you exist, or do you presuppose it?

I

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

Have you proven that you exist, or do you presuppose it?

Actually, I am a figment of A2Ks collective imagination! :wink:

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Have you proven that you exist, or do you presuppose it?

Actually, I am a figment of A2Ks collective imagination! :wink:

So you haven't proven it, then ...

Cool

I

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

So you haven't proven it, then ...

Nah. I just keep moving along, in blithe ignorance of my own existence. :wink:

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Implicator wrote:
So you haven't proven it, then ...

Nah. I just keep moving along, in blithe ignorance of my own existence. :wink:

Somehow I think you are implying that it is "obvious" that you exist. That's not proof of existence, though.

Just sayin' ...

I

0 Replies

For the sake of your argument, let's assume that everyone is sharing the same mass-illusion. To that end, yes, everyone writing in these forums 'exists'.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

For the sake of your argument, let's assume that everyone is sharing the same mass-illusion. To that end, yes, everyone writing in these forums 'exists'.

So perception of existence (the illusion) is sufficient to constitute reality of existence?

I

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

Questioner wrote:
For the sake of your argument, let's assume that everyone is sharing the same mass-illusion. To that end, yes, everyone writing in these forums 'exists'.

So perception of existence (the illusion) is sufficient to constitute reality of existence?

I

This kind of sophistry is beyond me. You're telling me that since I have not proven myself, I can't consider myself an existing entity. So instead of doing it that way, how about we approach this from the other side.

Since this argument goes against conventional wisdom, how about you prove to me that I don't exist while I poke you repeatedly with this pencil.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Questioner wrote:
For the sake of your argument, let's assume that everyone is sharing the same mass-illusion. To that end, yes, everyone writing in these forums 'exists'.

So perception of existence (the illusion) is sufficient to constitute reality of existence?

I

This kind of sophistry is beyond me. You're telling me that since I have not proven myself, I can't consider myself an existing entity. So instead of doing it that way, how about we approach this from the other side.

No, I did not say that since you haven't proven yourself that you can't consider yourself to be an existing entity. I asked whether perception was the same as reality, based on your comment about illusions. Actually, you would first have to assume (presuppose) that you exist before you could even begin to attempt to prove that you exist (you can only prove something if you already exist.)

Quote:

Since this argument goes against conventional wisdom, how about you prove to me that I don't exist while I poke you repeatedly with this pencil.

While it may be the case that most if not all people believe that they exist, it doesn't answer my question to you of whether perception is reality.

I believe you exist ... I believe I exist ... and I would also believe the pencil exists, but that's not the point at all. Phoenix specifically mentioned "proof" of existence, which elevates the discussion beyond the realm of simply believing in something.

I

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

I believe you exist ... I believe I exist ... and I would also believe the pencil exists, but that's not the point at all. Phoenix specifically mentioned "proof" of existence, which elevates the discussion beyond the realm of simply believing in something.
I

Well, we've already established apparent guidelines for 'proving' something exists. Apply those same guidelines to any concept you desire to 'prove' and see what you get.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

Implicator wrote:

I believe you exist ... I believe I exist ... and I would also believe the pencil exists, but that's not the point at all. Phoenix specifically mentioned "proof" of existence, which elevates the discussion beyond the realm of simply believing in something.
I

Well, we've already established apparent guidelines for 'proving' something exists. Apply those same guidelines to any concept you desire to 'prove' and see what you get.

I fear that the main purpose of my comments to Phoenix are getting lost in this, but that's ok ... I will continue Smile

There are a variety of ways to prove things, based on the type of thing you are attempting to prove. So, I guess I am not sure which approach you are talking about. I will assume (since it is the most widely held view) that a "seeing is believing" approach is what you speak of, considering that the "thing" in question is material in nature.

So my approach would be to determine whether I can "see" (i.e sense in any variety of different ways) myself. The problem I come across immediately is that if I try to sense myself, I have already begged the question at hand, by presupposing that I exist in the first place.

So what do I get? I get the conclusion that I presuppose my own existence.

What do you get?

I

0 Replies

The Problem with Hell

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know