alexakarpov

TWIMC: https://www.coursera.org/learn/ageofjefferson

Define "certain", I suppose.Epistemologically, faith in God has very little in common with certainty, or knowledge, of things like "the Earth is kind of round", or "when launched at angle A with initial velocity V, a ball of mass M will land L meters away from the starting point".It is somewhat closer - though also deeply different - to a statement like "this roulette will stop with the ball on 24 red". The difference, of course, is that you have the mathematics of probability, to quantify exactly what is the probability of you being correct; no such thing with God. But picking that number is a choice; an act of will. You don't hold your prediction as a certain truth, but you act as if it was (you bet money on it).Faith in God is similar. Normally, you have no way to establish whether you faith is true - though, of course, sometimes things happen in your life, which, to you personally, suggest that it is true. Therefore, in a normal case, there is no certainty about truth - but if you live as if it were true, then you are personally true to the faith; same as a gambler can not claim to be a winner, unless they did bet on 24 red, and lived through that commitment.Sorry for sidetracking. No, I didn't chose to believe because it can't be proven - but, most certainly, I found the lack of even a possibility of proving God logically to be appealing. This God, offered to me, was a mystery entirely beyond human intellect and human power. That idea seemed to me - still seems - very attractive and important. And, well, all the other nice things. Especially this meaning of life stuff - just wanted it so badly, and human achievement and human interactions, or drugs, didn't sound attractive enough.

I agree, there's no evidence of God. More than that - there cannot be; more than that - there shouldn't be. I don't want it; it would be stupid and pointless and wrong, to have a God which can be deduced, discovered, observed. That entity would have to be of the same... level with the observer, discoverer, deducer. Who'd want to worship or have faith in that joke? Not me. If there is God - as I freely chose to believe, at the age of 28, being a complete atheist - then He better be a mystery. Well I'm in luck - that's what real Christianity* had in store for me all along. --- * - most of people who call themselves Christians are kind of like those keynesians, who call themselves "economists".

Hi freedomaniacs, This video by Stef had completely blew my mind I want to translate it to Russian (God knows there's a huge drug problem), and I am sure that will help. Thank you

How is that? If the approach to the use of defensive force advocated by Chris Cantwell or Larken Rose is immoral, or counter-productive, or inconsistent with NAP, then defeating that in open would be good for the liberty movement; it would set those who are wrong on a right track. It's not for the sake of vanity or something like that; it's an important question in the quest for truth.

I agree with this part completely - but not sure about the rest of the comment. I see a lot of people using the public transit; I prefer using it myself, because it is more convenient for me than driving a car. That said, I do agree that the way cities are built, housing is sprawling - heck, even the very size of the population and it's occupations - is all completely distorted by state intervention. But given this reality - the cities that we have, the population that we have - I do think that public transit makes sense. Like, imagine tomorrow a hardcore libertarian president/prime minister is elected. I can see them cutting off funding for military, public education, welfare, but I don't think abolishing public transit, given the geography and types of occupation and housing areas, is feasible. I hope you see my point..

Thanks for the link sir, a great conversation. A strong point is made there: ============================ Mike Salvi: Let's talk about this for a bit. Where is the line?... Jim: I think first we need to acknowledge some of the history. I mean, look, we've got, in the past century, a conservative estimate, 250 million people didn't know where that line was - and were killed by their government, ok? So let's be realistic - we're not talking about hypotheticals here, we're talking about 250 million souls, gone. Just dead, 'cause they didn't know where that line was. They said - "well, I guess we'll just try to work it out", ok? So, you know, looking forward, we must remember that enormous pile of bodies, and say - look, I don't want to be one of those guys... it's insane that this is even a question! Yes, you're gonna have to, there's a very good chance you may end up defending yourself against somebody with a government job. It's just a fact of history, even in modern times. So, we can't even talk about it? You know, like, really? Larken: can I say the same thing Jim did, but a way more rude.. Mike Salvi: Your name is Larken Rose, please. It's your job... Larken: what humanity and justice most needed, in Red China, Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany, was a hell of a lot of cop killers. Chris: Yep. A fair statement. =======================================

Amen for lowering taxes )I get the argument about 49/52, but because of the nature of the allowance (as an employee, you're not forced to elect any), I don't see a problem. The business must offer the option to pay for transit with pre-tax dollars, but you're not forced to either take it, or to pay for someone else who does.The business, of course, has to integrate with a system that offers the allowance. That is a bad thing; offering them, too, a tax break for doing so would be much better that "you must do this, or be fined". I suppose, this was done to generate extra revenue and bureaucratic, government jobs.All that said, it looks like the whole thing may actually achieve the declared goal (rather than making it worse, as it normally happens with government programs)?

So they've got this new law in the Bay Area, where this Canadian is working now... http://www.callaborlaw.com/entry/s.f.-bay-area-employers-must-provide-commuter-benefits-by-september-30 At first, seeing an ad on the bus, saying "Your employer has to provide you with 40% savings for commuting....", I got angry - any time a government is passing a new law, that's my natural reaction. However, after getting to the source and reading up on the law details, I'm not so angry anymore: - it allows you to pay the pre-tax dollars for you commuting needs - it does not apply to companies below 50 employees, so doesn't hurt the small businesses since government, unfortunately, owns the roads, this is their way of dealing with traffic and air pollution *caused* by their own road-building subsidies. But it doesn't seem to be such a bad-thought-of law. Any comments on it? Am I missing something, and should be angry, or is it one of a rare cases where the government is doing an ok job of cleaning up their own mess?

I do agree with everything you're saying. And you are correct about the poor choice of the word. Stefan has repeatedly made that important point in his videos - that a violent and suicidal rampage (especially carried out in the name of God, as is, unfortunately, a case here) is not heroism, but a form of escapism; it doesn't solve problems, doesn't help people. It's more properly an act of despair - and, as such, it is not far from what Elliot Rogers did. Though, I think, not nearly as sick and depraved.At this point in my life, I certainly don't think he was a hero. Two years ago, before I discovered Stefan's videos, I *did* consider Marvin a hero of resistance to injustice an state oppression; now, I consider him a victim of both, and, as I became more aware of parenting issues, of those too (most likely).However, what I am wondering now is still this: if, in a situation like this one, but assuming no motivation like "mission given by God" is present (as it is present here); assuming no mental instability and deep childhood issues (which are likely present here) - so, under these assumptions of purity, would you consider it just and moral to go on a suicidal mission like this one? Assuming it's predominantly a statist society, and a person is acting alone.

Oh, it's absolutely tragic. They guy was, obviously, disturbed, traumatized (likely, from childhood), and most likely mentally unhealthy. His use of force against the state, however misguided and short-sighted it might have been (I mean, he didn't leave any means of exit, sealing himself in the machine) - that's the interesting bit. Is he a heroic rebel against the tyranny, or is he an aggressor? Are acts of aggression against the state, such as this, to be admired/condoned/accepted, or are they an impermissible initiation of force? That's why I referenced the libertarian debate of brutalist vs humanitarian (which, as I understand it, is mostly around that point).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer Today marks 10 years since the day of Killdozer rampage. So, esteened freedomaniacs, what are your opinions on this man's crusade? On events that led to it? I would expect a somewhat different response from more 'brutalist' and more 'humanitarian' camps.

This song, and this video, are very inspiring, I think -- I'm sure there's a message of liberty, and the video is strongly suggesting it, though it's not easy to translate directly. But hey, that's normal with poetry ) Enjoy:

How is that? You seem to have pointed at Serpent's presence as a proof that God was immoral and evil - was He moral and good, he would've removed the Serpent. But that's baseless - Serpent didn't cause any violence against Adam and Eve - no doubt, because God would not, and did not, allow for it. You didn't use the word "demand", but you have underlined Serpent's presence in the Garden as a sign that God didn't "protect" His children and therefore was evil. That's the same thing as demanding that He removed the Serpent in order to qualify as "good". This is not "misrepresenting", this is exactly your argument. Sorry, I didn't realise this was a question for me, or I didn't notice it. Of course they were not given the dominion over the earth. If they were, humans would be obliterated at once. In the book of Job, Satan has to receive a permission from God to torment Job - he can't do it on his own. Demons are almost completely powerless against humans; incident of demons possessing humans are very rare in Christian tradition, and almost always happen because humans willingly invite them in, looking for power or other benefits. As I have previously explained, the point was to confirm human maturity and power of human will - before they could join God, they needed to trust Him; they trusted Serpent instead. OK, this is much better. "It is coercion" - I'm glad you've made the statement, which wasn't made here before. But I don't see coercion here, can you point at it? Was creating humans a coercion? Was giving them free will coercion? Was warning them of consequences coercion? Was not shielding them from the consequences - i.e. nullifying their freedom, by taking away responsibility - coercion?I ask that you defend your statement.

Thank you; let's keep it going ) Another one by Kipling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_of_the_Copybook_Headings (He does use the term "market" in there, but it's pretty obvious that it's not the same market as what we extoll.) The Gods of the Copybook Headings AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race, I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place. Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all. We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn: But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind, So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind. We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace, Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place, But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome. With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch, They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch; They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings; So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things. When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know." On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life (Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife) Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death." In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die." Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more. As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire; And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

One of my all-time favorites is a poem by Rudyard Kipling, "The Imperial Rescript". Touches on gender issues, welfare, taxation, morals... What do you think? http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/imperial_rescript.html Now this is the tale of the Council the German Kaiser decreed, To ease the strong of their burden, to help the weak in their need, He sent a word to the peoples, who struggle, and pant, and sweat, That the straw might be counted fairly and the tally of bricks be set. The Lords of Their Hands assembled; from the East and the West they drew -- Baltimore, Lille, and Essen, Brummagem, Clyde, and Crewe. And some were black from the furnace, and some were brown from the soil, And some were blue from the dye-vat; but all were wearied of toil. And the young King said: -- "I have found it, the road to the rest ye seek: The strong shall wait for the weary, the hale shall halt for the weak: With the even tramp of an army where no man breaks from the line, Ye shall march to peace and plenty in the bond of brotherhood -- sign!" The paper lay on the table, the strong heads bowed thereby, And a wail went up from the peoples: -- "Ay, sign -- give rest, for we die!" A hand was stretched to the goose-quill, a fist was cramped to scrawl, When -- the laugh of a blue-eyed maiden ran clear through the Council-hall. And each one heard Her laughing as each one saw Her plain -- Saidie, Mimi, or Olga, Gretchen, or Mary Jane. And the Spirit of Man that is in Him to the light of the vision woke; And the men drew back from the paper, as a Yankee delegate spoke: -- "There's a girl in Jersey City who works on the telephone; We're going to hitch our horses and dig for a house of our own, With gas and water connections, and steam-heat through to the top; And, W. Hohenzollern, I guess I shall work till I drop." And an English delegate thundered: -- "The weak an' the lame be blowed! I've a berth in the Sou'-West workshops, a home in the Wandsworth Road; And till the 'sociation has footed my buryin' bill, I work for the kids an' the missus. Pull up? I be damned if I will!" And over the German benches the bearded whisper ran: -- "Lager, der girls und der dollars, dey makes or dey breaks a man. If Schmitt haf collared der dollars, he collars der girl deremit; But if Schmitt bust in der pizness, we collars der girl from Schmitt." They passed one resolution: -- "Your sub-committee believe You can lighten the curse of Adam when you've lifted the curse of Eve. But till we are built like angels -- with hammer and chisel and pen, We will work for ourself and a woman, for ever and ever, amen." Now this is the tale of the Council the German Kaiser held -- The day that they razored the Grindstone, the day that the Cat was belled, The day of the Figs from Thistles, the day of the Twisted Sands, The day that the laugh of a maiden made light of the Lords of Their Hands.

I know a great deal about the history of Christianity (though mostly in the East - the West all went heretic in 10th century, as far as I'm concerned, but I know the history up to that point in great detail).What you claim to be "the main question" is not at all correct. There were many important questions -- first, donatism, then gnosticism, then arianism, then nestorianism, then iconoclasm, monothelitism, iconoclasm again. Then came the Great Schism. What you're talking about doesn't even have a name. Old testament was always the part of Christian scripture - it's relevance and importance is directly asserted in all the Gospels; it's the same religion, just version 2.0, perfected and completed by all the events between Incarnation and Resurrection. But none of that is relevant for the discussion here, I think? The discussion is about duress, coercion, initiation of force, or parental abandonment - all of the blames which people are trying to assign to this Christian God character, but so far not a single attempt that was made looks even remotely successful. It's all just emotions and false analogies. No one demonstrated a single act of violence,coercion, stress, duress - none whatsoever. Nor did anyone demonstrate any evidence that humans in Paradise were in some way, shape or form, mentally challenged or underdeveloped.Now this last bit really, really bothers me - why are libertarians and anarchists so averse to the idea of responsibility? When I was an atheist, I didn't believe in God, but the whole story of Genesis 3 made me inspired - that "God" treated as like equals, like free beings, capable and responsible... it is almost painful to see this rejection of responsibility, this strong desire to shift the blame to 'God' or 'Serpent', but away from humans. There were no arguments, just statements like "you are not free". Where am I inconsistent, then?Sir, you proceed to quote my example with a lot of "what the frack" inserted in there. But not a single one of those insertion proves or disproves anything. All you have done is demand that God remove Serpent from the Garden. Well, He didn't remove the Serpent. But what that has to do with free human choice? Did the Serpent force them to eat the Fruit? Did he destroy all other food, making it their only available sustenance? Did he hypnotize them? (now this last bit would be a deal-breaker -- God allowed an adversary, capable of overpowering and forcing His children, to be near them - criminal negligence, guilty as charged). No, no, and no. You didn't present any arguments, you appeal exclusively to emotions.

Thanks - I am. It's been a while since I last had a chance to debate these things with people. I'm just a tad bit worried about the fact that I'm getting "downvoted" on every second post =) I hope this doesn't result in me getting automated ban, or something =)I don't think the comparison with Hell's Angels is valid. Nothing in the Genesis 3 story suggests that humans were under any kind of duress or coercion or environmental stress. There was a kind of a philosophical dispute, pure and simple; perhaps, the first one in the world =)1) God: Don't eat that Fruit, you'll die.2) Satan: Is that right that you shouldn't eat anything?3) Eve: No, only the Fruit is off limits, 'cause we'll die.4) Satan: Oh no, you won't die, God lied. You'll be awesome.5) Eve: Hm, I see. And the fruit is attractive. *munch-munch*6) God: Adam, what's up? Did you eat the Fruit which I told you to not eat?7) Adam: Uh... it's this woman - that you gave me - she did it!8) God: Eve??9) Uh... that serpent lied to me, so I.. yeah.10) God: OK, plan B. Banishment for you two, lest you ruin the whole experiment. See you later.So, that's the conflict1) A warning is given, and, very important bit - no seat belts. They're warned about the consequences, and need to exercise their freedom. I love the purity of the situation.2) A first sales pitch - is it true that he said "For all X, do not eat X" (the universal quantifier)3) No, the condition is weaker - "There exist an x in X, such that we should not eat x, or face bad consequences"4) A second sales pitch - "God lied, there will be no bad consequences, there will be good ones".5)Majoritarian democracy in action!Notice how God got outnumbered 2 to 1 - God said 'nay', Satan said 'aye', and Eve said 'aye'. Then immediately after, Adam denied responsibility, shifting it to Eve; Eve, likewise, denied responsibility, shifting it on a Serpent. Freedom's tough, right? Easier to appoint someone else to bear the burden of responsibility, don't we see that around us today?Finally, in this conversation, other participants deny Adam's and Eve's responsibility, shifting it on God. The only way for God to prevent the Fall would be to limit human freedom in some way; either by lobotomizing humans, stripping them of free will, or constructing a barrier around the Tree. Neither is acceptable to Him, exactly because the very purpose of the experiment was for humans to exercise their free will.So now we're in "plan B" - fighting through the consequences.

Just to be precise, as I've pointed out above - there's no "hell", and it was never "created". There's God, and eternity (i.e. being outside of time). Since humans are created eternal, that's where they all end up - with God, in eternity. Those who "attuned" themselves to Him will be, as it's often said, "in paradise"; those who didn't, "in hell". But that's really one and the same place (except it's not a "place", but that word is convenient enough).Neither are there any "rules", except what the sentence above explains. It's not that some people are deemed "good", and are put in room A, and other people are judged "bad", and are sent into room B. If that was the case, I'd agree with you who say this God character is mean, evil, etc., if it was His arbitrary will that some suffer, and some not. Not so - His will is that everyone be saved; but whether our will is in agreement with His, that He doesn't override. You can make a choice to not spank your child, and that would be a moral and ethical choice - you are choosing to not commit violence against your child. You choose between violence - and love; coercion and patience; inflicting pain, or providing care.God, however, has made a choice already, and it was not a choice of violence, or pain, or coercion - it was His will to create humans, as eternal beings distinct from Himself. Now, there's nowhere else to go in the end, but be with Him. All the space and time and nature and the world and all - it's kind of like a staging ground, or a crib, built for His children. Yes - this is correct, and it would include human action, if and only if humans were designed as irresponsible and non-free beings. But, since they were created as free and responsible, they are unique in that they are themselves responsible for what they do. This is the ultimate glory, so to say, of human beings in Christianity - they have this property; they are given reason, and senses, and freedom, and this means responsibility also. The are, alone among the living things, responsible. Yes, it is in His power - but doing so would mean stripping humans of freedom. That's the point I'm trying to make here. Freedom is, first and foremost, responsibility. I keep seeing many libertarian and anarchist memes on that, and I love them - yes! Freedom is responsibility! Not "entitlement"! My liberal friends drive me crazy with their babbling about how not providing "free education" or "free health-care" means "denying" people "freedom to be healthy" or "freedom to be educated". Serpent was not "created to tempt them" - he (Devil) was created free, just as humans there created free. Serpent then decided he'll rebell, and destroy humans. Whatever... As for the Fruit - the point was to give it to humans to eat, of course, but after they exercise their freedom and obey the commandment of not eating it, and then become prepared to eat it, at which point the restriction would be lifted, and the eating phase would commence. Ah, but what if the child is 18 years old? Still parent's fault? I mean, if a child is not capable of reasoning, listening and understanding the dangers and consequences, then yes it is parent's fault. But if they are - as Adam and Eve clearly were, because they tried to refuse Serpent's suggestion, which shows they knew about the restriction and the consequences.The truth is - sooner or later, your child is going to go out in the wild, and make his decisions, and act on his own, and be responsible for the consequences of his actions. That's what loving your child demands - you let him/her out the door, and wish them success. That's what happened between God and humans too; and the road is rough, but it's worth the goal, or so we believe.

If dictionary definitions were enough, why would we need philosophical discussions? You insist on getting deeper into theology, eh? =) OK.It's a figure of speech. "Everlasting fire" is God Himself. All the beings which were created eternal (humans, angels) will be with God for eternity; those who "attuned" themselves to Him, will be "in paradise"; those who didn't, "in hell". These are the negative consequences of a free choice - originally, humans were attuned correctly, by design, but their condition was not perfected yet; then they lost that attunement through their free actions; now they have to fix the problem, if they want to avoid the consequences. It is not an easy task, but they do get a lot of help on the way. The biggest challenge is to believe they need the fix, of course =) If you poison the well with radioactive waste with a half-life of 10000 years, and your child drinks from it, and becomes sick, it doesn't mean he is not free. But it does mean your actions have consequences on his health. There's no "freedom" here - only consequences. Let's say it didn't kill him, but it did cause some sickening mutation. Now his child inherits those broken genes, and his child, and so on. They are not responsible for your actions? Absolutely; they are only responsible for their own actions. But their genes don't reset themselves; the keep on accumulating the damage. Initial one, caused by your actions, and additional ones, caused by their own pollution on the well.

Yes, I am free. But, since I believe in God, I also believe in consequences which my actions in life will have in eternity. It doesn't limit my freedom in any way - but, since I want to avoid some of the consequences, I try to act accordingly.I am perfectly able to understand, if your definition of freedom requires that there are no negative consequences (like eternal damnation). In this case, I will simply state that we, as philosophers, have a profound difference in our definition of a concept of "freedom".The reason why I insist on hearing an answer to my questions pertaining to Genesis 1 was specifically to demonstrate, that, in Christianity, present human condition, including the possibility of eternal damnation, is not God's creation, but a consequence of free human choice, made without duress, without coercion. Basically, God didn't "create hell", humans did - it's entirely a consequence of their free choice and free action.

Sir, you have avoided my most simple questions ("where is coercion in this situation?", "where is a gun?", "where is initiation of force?"), and yet you come back with your own questions, which do not pertain to the situation?Please, I am not here to debate theology. I came with a question about ethics and morals; specifically, whether a certain character in a certain book must be deemed evil or not, based of a core set of anarchist principles, the first of which is non-initiation of force. The Book in question is Genesis 1.Having said that, I will now answer you question, in hopes that it might result in you answering mine =)In Christianity, no one can be "exempt" from anything regarding God. He does what He wills. This includes acts of killing people, including people who have not committed any acts which they themselves have agreed to regard as punishable by death. If that makes God immoral, then He is trivially, immoral, there's no argument here; neither did I claim Him to be bound by our definition of "moral".

so, asking a simple question of "where is the gun", "where is duress", "where is coercion", is now "obtuse". I suppose, *your* brand of atheism *is* a kind of religion after all - if you fall back to this kind of arguments, instead of answering the simple questions. "A belief that there is no God, and the God from Genesis 1 is evil". An axiom, them, not a theorem.

This situation has nothing to do with the story in Genesis - humans were not hungry, they were not under any environmentals stress, nor under any duress. ... has nothing to do with human freedom to go either left or right; to eat or not eat, being warned of consequences of eating. Freedom is the most wonderful mystery of Creation - we don't know how it works, whence it came, how it's executed... but we do believe choices and freedom are real things; maybe, they are most "real" things in all of existence =) Um... what? He engineered a system where humans had _freedom_. That's the only thing that was "engineered". You're throwing these words, but could you point to a hard, cold fact of duress? Of initiatory force? I could point you to a fact of deception, carried out by that 'Devil' character, but nothing else. A great example, sir! - now show me that gun, and I will admit my utter defeat (not to mention utter blindness, as I have so far failed to see that gun). God designed a system with emergency mechanisms, yes. But He didn't - wouldn't! - design a system where force was used to limit human freedom.Would you lobotomize your kid, out of love, to protect him from making "bad" choices, which, if made, would lead to his suffering? God wouldn't - because that would go against love, and against freedom.So, once more - show me the gun, show me duress, show me the initiation of force in that story. And if you bring me "human capacity for error" (i.e. "freedom") as a root of all evil, then I'll be very disappointed.

God didn't create a "homeless" person. He created a free person, who then became "homeless" through his own choices, and is facing consequences of his actions.Instead of calling my argument false, please demonstrate why it is false; I know I am in a minority here, but I am sure you understand that neither a majority of voters, nor their emotional state, make arguments "true" or "false".If talking about God is difficult (which it absolutely is), then I urge you to stick to the thought experiment about the three men at the table with a bottle, and help me find "duress" or "coercion".