Unfortunately the atheist will have to stand up and go

[Chas]

Dostoesvky has put it much simpler
In my freevolous translation it sounds about this - suffering is the only cause of conciousness.

It seems to me that suffering is a result of consciousness. If we weren't conscious, we could not suffer.

So, you seem to be wrong again.

[StrongWaters]

To be fair, I've never seem anyone try and use T account methodologies to justify suffering before.

Not that he probably knows what T accounts are (google, lol).

The square root of 2 and the square root of 3 are what Pythagrous called the "Measure of the Fish," or the seventeenth triangular number (153). It is the difference between unity and multiplicity, or the fish of the Christian Way (Vesica Pisces).

Read John 21. Fish on the 'Right' side of the boat.

---

To be fair, I've never seem anyone try and use T account methodologies to justify suffering before.

Not that he probably knows what T accounts are (google, lol).

Another way to see it.





Invariant Symmetry and Equilibrium. Surplus can only come from Altruism. Objectivism creates debt.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Yeah...but that's got nothing to do With T accounts.

But to be fair, I have no real clue what you're talking about.

[StrongWaters]

Yeah...but that's got nothing to do With T accounts.

But to be fair, I have no real clue what you're talking about.

I assume this may be true if you do not know economics in relation to surplus and debt. Have you read Ayn Rand?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Yeah...but that's got nothing to do With T accounts.

But to be fair, I have no real clue what you're talking about.

I assume this may be true if you do not know economics in relation to surplus and debt. Have you read Ayn Rand?

I did business, politics and economics (not PPE) at Trinity College. I also do accounts for a University estates department whilst researching for my PhD.

I think I've got it covered. And no, I've never read rand's science fictions novels. Would you recommend it?

You also realise that most of what you're saying is gibberish as well right?

[StrongWaters]

I assume this may be true if you do not know economics in relation to surplus and debt. Have you read Ayn Rand?

I did business, politics and economics (not PPE) at Trinity College. I also do accounts for a University estates department whilst researching for my PhD.

I think I've got it covered. And no, I've never read rand's science fictions novels. Would you recommend it?

You also realise that most of what you're saying is gibberish as well right?

I 'realize' that even a PHD can learn to connect symmetry laws to why love creates surplus.

Here is another quote from the Brothers Karamazov:

"Man cannot commit a sin so great as to exhaust the infinite love of God. Can there be a sin which could exceed the love of God? Think only of repentance, continual repentance, but dismiss fear altogether. Believe that God loves you as you cannot conceive; that He loves you with your sin, in your sin. "

The same one that loves us more than our mothers is the same one the Atheist rejects. The same laws that govern relationships in economics is the same one that governs our relationships here between humans sharing the same planet. I choose to see it by the law rather than illogical and uncommon sense. Logic dictates that we first examine the laws and locate the governor.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I did business, politics and economics (not PPE) at Trinity College. I also do accounts for a University estates department whilst researching for my PhD.

I think I've got it covered. And no, I've never read rand's science fictions novels. Would you recommend it?

You also realise that most of what you're saying is gibberish as well right?

I 'realize' that even a PHD can learn to connect symmetry laws to why love creates surplus.

Wise man say what?

Here is another quote from the Brothers Karamazov:

"Man cannot commit a sin so great as to exhaust the infinite love of God. Can there be a sin which could exceed the love of God? Think only of repentance, continual repentance, but dismiss fear altogether. Believe that God loves you as you cannot conceive; that He loves you with your sin, in your sin. "

The same one that loves us more than our mothers is the same one the Atheist rejects. The same laws that govern relationships in economics is the same one that governs our relationships here between humans sharing the same planet. I choose to see it by the law rather than illogical and uncommon sense. Logic dictates that we first examine the laws and locate the governor.

No, it does no such thing.

Logic dictates that we validate whether the claim even makes sense, or that it has some element of validity behind it.

Your logical deduction goes something like this:

Observe phenomena 'x' (I guess you mean existence per se)
Assume God
Work backwards from that assumption to reach a conclusion for 'x'.

Surely you can see this is a nonsense, right? It is the very definition of illogical for you to simply assume god (whatever a 'god' is) and, further, presume our rejection of something that you hold to be true but which in reality has no validity to it. You call it a law. But that's just something that you've placed onto your very personal and subjective observations of the reality you perceive yourself to inhabit. You can't then use this as an objective truism on the rest of us. That would be, well, illogical.

I don't know how many other ways I can stress to you that your self-evident god presumption is a nonsense argument. So I guess if you respond by claiming that I am simply 'rejecting' your version of whatever god it is you worship based on my atheism (or some other such strawman), I'll leave you to it and not respond further.

BTW - My analogy with T accounts was owing to the fact that when ledgers were written by hand they were done so using T-accounts which showed the debit and credit between different ledgers (generally, purchase, general and sales depending on the set up of the business). Using the matching principle the credit and debit should have a net effect of 0, which you inadvertently (I guess) alluded to when you indicated that suffering and love/compassion (etc) balanced on some sort of scale which I didn't really understand. Hence net effects of 0.

[StrongWaters]

I 'realize' that even a PHD can learn to connect symmetry laws to why love creates surplus.

Wise man say what?

Here is another quote from the Brothers Karamazov:

"Man cannot commit a sin so great as to exhaust the infinite love of God. Can there be a sin which could exceed the love of God? Think only of repentance, continual repentance, but dismiss fear altogether. Believe that God loves you as you cannot conceive; that He loves you with your sin, in your sin. "

The same one that loves us more than our mothers is the same one the Atheist rejects. The same laws that govern relationships in economics is the same one that governs our relationships here between humans sharing the same planet. I choose to see it by the law rather than illogical and uncommon sense. Logic dictates that we first examine the laws and locate the governor.

No, it does no such thing.

Logic dictates that we validate whether the claim even makes sense, or that it has some element of validity behind it.

Your logical deduction goes something like this:

Observe phenomena 'x' (I guess you mean existence per se)
Assume God
Work backwards from that assumption to reach a conclusion for 'x'.

Surely you can see this is a nonsense, right? It is the very definition of illogical for you to simply assume god (whatever a 'god' is) and, further, presume our rejection of something that you hold to be true but which in reality has no validity to it. You call it a law. But that's just something that you've placed onto your very personal and subjective observations of the reality you yourself perceive yourself to inhabit. You can't then use this as an objective truism on the rest of us. That would be, well, illogical.

I don't know how many other ways I can stress to you that your self-evident god presumption is a nonsense argument. So I guess if you respond by claiming that I am simply 'rejecting' your god based on my atheism (or some other such strawman), I'll leave you to it and not respond further.

BTW - My analogy with T accounts was owing to the fact that when ledgers were written by hand they were done so using T-accounts which showed the debit and credit between different ledgers (generally, purchase, general and sales depending on the set up of the business). Using the matching principle the credit and debit should have a net effect of 0, which you inadvertently (I guess) alluded to when you indicated that suffering and love/compassion (etc) balanced on some sort of scale which I didn't really understand. Hence net effects of 0.

Two negatives are multiplied. Our sin against the suffering of the cross of Christ. Who pays the debt of the debtor? It can only be a gift. Why?

[Mister Agenda]

I don't want to not help you=I want to help you. Two negatives cancel.

Ideally, the person who owes the debt pays it, but in theory I could pay off your student loan for you and that would be a gift. If I went to jail for you, it would be an injustice.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Two negatives are multiplied. Our sin against the suffering of the cross of Christ. Who pays the debt of the debtor? It can only be a gift. Why?

First off, what's a god?