AB,
I really don’t know what the hell is wrong with you. I can only assume that any critical faculties you may once have had have been so wrecked by your faith beliefs that you just cannot ever actually engage with the words that are being said to you.
Recently you attempted one of your favourite mistakes of trying to rebut an explanation for something with, “but the reality I perceive...”.
I then took the time to explain why your perception
of something is worthless for the purpose of identifying reliably an explanation
for it (because there’s no logical path between them).
Someone possessed of even a smidgin of intellectual honesty would then have replied in one of two ways:
-
either, “Ah OK – I get it now. Thank you. I know now never to make that mistake again”;
or- “Ah, but I have an argument that demonstrates that there
is a reliable logical path from the perception of an experience to the explanation for it, and here it is…”.
What did you do though? That’s right – as ever you just ignored it as if nothing had been said, thereby no doubt in your head freeing yourself to commit exactly the same mistake at some point in the future.
What does this behaviour say about you do you think?
But the alternative logic you propose would deny you the freedom with which you personally attempt to justify this misconceived logic.
No it wouldn’t for the reason that has been explained to you perhaps 100 times and that you have consistently ignored in order to return to the same basic mistake like a dog returning to its vomit.
What does this behaviour say about you do you think?
Can you not see…
So far the thing we’re supposed to “see” when you’ve used these words has turned out to be flat wrong. Do you thing perhaps that you will break your dismal record next?
…the obvious truth…
Oh dear – your “obvious truths” almost always turn out to be anything but, but ok…
…that you are in control of the words you choose to write?
Yes I know “I” am, and provided you don’t overreach into asserting thereby that this “you” must therefore be magic rather than functioning only
as if it had ultimate agency and according to basic rules of logic that’s fine. You’re not going to do that again are you? Are you?
No predetermined process could possibly generate your posts.
And you think that remarkable, irrational and entirely un-argued assertion to be correct why exactly?
Oh look at me now – actually asking you a question as if there was any prospect at all of you ever answering it. What am I like eh?
This is not just personal incredulity,…
It’s precisely personal incredulity, dressed as the Easter Bunny, wearing a top hat and banging a cymbal. In fact that’s
all it is.
…it is a logical conclusion based upon the practical limitations of what can be achieved by physically predetermined reactions in your brain cells.
Groan – if you seriously think you have a “logical conclusion” then why not FINALLY tell us what that logic might actually be? So far all you’ve ever managed is mindless assertions and some exceptionally bad reasoning. Seriously, you cannot just claim to have logic on your side when all you ever eructate here is
illogic.
Your freedom to compose is not just a perceived freedom - it is an obvious freedom.
Of course it must be when your concept of freedom (neither deterministic nor random) is impossible. It’s not difficult.
A freedom emanating from the amazing gift of the human soul, which is not of this world, and not constrained by its rules.
And some brain dead gibberish to finish. As you just ignored it before (now there's a surprise), how do you expect to know anything about a supposed “soul” when you have zero data
of any kind about this soul? Why not finally man up, put your big boy pants on and have a dishonesty break just for five minutes so you could at least
try to answer that?
Seriously – what not at least give it a go? What are you so terrified of that even a tiny bit of intellectual honesty would risk it happening?
