Leaderboard

What are you observing? Are you observing an "i" that exist? Or are you observing the cumulative effect of your sense perceptions? What makes you sure that other animals with sense perceptions dont have a sense of embodiment that you do?

No, that doesn't cut it for me. (as in: you don't have to give a flying purple 'biscuit' about it... a subjective preference with some reasonable pointers towards 'making sense in a way so it does simultaneously to a larger than 'privi' minority... reasonable, right?) What language?... two words.... A'right, there's the capital + full stop too... still, terse as 'fffunky-dorey'. Objectively speaking, right? ps. - as always, thank you for the random references when they appear (avid, curious, insatiable mind here too) - - - 25.09.2018 - - - Hi 'doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit, substance), Arrow, non-substance... (presses 'F')...'Donesky'!, an equal.

 The guy's original question was about... Ah, I see. This could have been confusing to you. No problem. Maybe this will help. The same quote with some addition in bold and then an example with another post from later... " Thank you for sharing your opinion. It sounds like you have stopped with the abstractions. Would you agree with me on my first response to your first post (, the one with two words in it) ? " As in: ( in a later comment of mine with funny expressions, where I was trying to provide more arguments for you at the same time, expressing my preference for being 'non-cryptic' so that there's a higher chance that it'll make sense for more people than a just a small minority, without any obligation for anyone, including you of course. ) this one: Does it make more sense to you now? Also, when someone is being 'cryptic' or so much so 'reduced' (not to be confused with a statement in the shape of 'Period.') for a joke or a pun, that's different in my opinion. I don't think you meant those two words as a joke or a pun. Obviously now, having read your other contributions that's crystal clear. Still, it's/it was about a preference I have, with some reasonable arguments for it. I'm/will be ok with you not agreeing and thinking two word contributions are ok in similar setups, can't do anything else other than try to make you see my meaning and reasons for it. What you do with it is entirely up to you. Please note that my strong dislike was with the content and not with the person. Same is true for a few individuals doing the same repeatedly in other threads. (it's few) - - - 26.09.2018 - - - Howdy 'doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit, visibly coward) Don't be afraid to make an argument, I don't bite... generally

Scriptural claims to omniscience are heavily context dependent, and even then it is unclear what the term there means. I tend to go with a hermeneutical approach that interprets words in a way that don't make the text necessarily absurd. In what comes to Against the Gods, this thread isn't really about it. I wonder, though, how many errors in a philosophical book should there be until it is viewed as fundamentally flawed? Every argument? One in ten? I don't know what heuristic to use.

Hi @LastKnight1881 Interesting. What do you think... Can I belong to a group which is composed of (?) individuals, 'individualists', where each person is free to choose whatever 'aspects' they choose (reasonable limitations tho, can't choose outside of what's available in the objective reality) ? Is that a discrete group? (the word is about: separate, distinct, non-continuous) As in: A couple months ago I read about Russell's paradox. That's why I'm asking. - - - 26.09.2018 - - - Howdy 'doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit, no substance), Here, let me put forth an equally strong counter-argument... (presses 'F')...' Donesky ' !