David Pecker protected Donald's pecker. What a headline. 

Donald's defense wants you to believe that Cohen cannot be trusted. He worked for Donald for years, and was obviously trustworthy. When did he become untrustworthy?  When he turned against Trump.

"Cohen can't be trusted!  He testified against my client!"

Is this really the best defense?

 

Too bad Pecker's first name isn't Peter! 🤣

Peter Pecker picked a peck of pickled peppers... 🤪

Scientists have taught a goldfish to drive a car, and they believe it is the first step to eventually training women.

A man named David Pecker
Owned him a Black and Decker
It ground down bad news
Voters had no clues
Stormy? No one could check her.

Quote from: Ecbarrowes on April 22, 2024, 06:26:30 PMThese axioms must have corollaries. Since you do exist (granted), and you do perceive (granted), therefore you must have perceptions. What are they?

Sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell, and consciousness.

Consciousness is parts of my brain perceiving other parts of my brain.

Quote from: Ecbarrowes on April 22, 2024, 05:51:31 PMTrue that we are all flawed, but we can choose to better ourselves or wallow or worsen ourselves.

Ah, so you can choose not to be an obnoxious god botherer. Why don't you option that choice?

Quote from: the_antithesis on April 21, 2024, 02:43:35 PMSide note: My opinion of you has dropped considerably because you appear to prefer to use the King James translation of the bible, which is in an outdated version of the English language that no one ever speaks unless they're trying to sound all fruity when quoting the bible. Go on with your bad self. Just know that you sound fruity when you do it.


This really doesn't tell us much. It certainly doesn't answer my question. Saying that god is perfect is like saying god is blue. Lots of things are blue. What blue thing is god? Blueberries? Blueberries are actually purple, so that would make you a liar.

Perfection is a problematic concept in the first place. I'm something of a perfectionist, which often leads to frustration. I've learned to temper that with the realization that perfection is neither attainable nor desirable. Perfection has no use. I perfect being would not create because, being perfect, would have no need to create. Creating indicates a lack and a perfect being would have no lack and therefore would not. Perfection is inert... dead.

I recommend moving forward you abandon such childish and logically fraught concepts because they do nothing but weaken your case.

You must be a mormon, then. The goal of everyone becoming perfect gods in their own right is a latter-days saints concept. If it turns out you are not a part of that sect, you might want to do some thinking on the matter.

But this gives us a bit more meat to the discussion because you imply god is just a human being that has achieved perfection, which as I have previously stated is a nonsense concept and should be discarded. Another way of putting it is god has gained some form of power over the rest of us... like Donald Fuckface Trump.

As you can see, this is not something limited to or unique to god, so it's not very helpful in understanding what it is you are even talking about.

Quote from: the_antithesis on April 21, 2024, 02:44:48 PMThat which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you read about an experiment in a scientific journal, that's just words on a page, until you decide to either believe it, or repeat the experiment. Arguing all day against it is vanity. If you're a serious investigator, you'll repeat the experiment.
It is thus: call out to 'the void,' "is any[God] there? If there is a God out there, please make yourself known to me." If you are sincere, you will be responded to.

Quote from: Ecbarrowes on April 22, 2024, 06:22:29 PMYour question is exactly apropos. Being objective about our own proclivities is a masterclass that we are all trying to graduate from. It is so seductive to believe that we are right about a thing. It is so convenient to realize that we just happen to be "right" about a thing (too convenient). Joseph Smith said, "by contrariness is the truth made known." In order to know if a thing is true, we must give it a fair trial, which includes giving all views their proper "day in court." If we only allow our favorite view its day in court, and deny opposing views the same privilege, it is a sign that we are blind. 

That's not really an answer to what i asked, now is it though?

You and i may agree we shouldn't believe things just because they feel intuital to us, or because we 'want' them to be true or because soemthing inside us tells us they are true, whether we believe that something to be divinely inspired, or not.

I think most on this forum would agree that is not a good way to come to understand the nature of reality. And that a sense of 'absolute certainty' of a thing, without any room for doubt or scepticism, can be a dangerous thing. (For intellectual honesty, if for nothing else.)

However, most on this forum wouldn't claim that we can receive such 'absolute certainty' through divine bestowment.
You do.
So. Again. The question: how do you differentiate in which is which.

I'm not asking for you to tell me we should all keep an open mind on what we may feel certain of.
I'm asking how you specifically can, with intellectual honesty, override that fine quality of doubt to uphold the absolute certainty you claim you can have. And how you discern in which cases it is valid, due to the divine nature of the endowed knowledge.