If there's one issue that keeps apologists busy, it's the issue of unanswered prayer. Skeptics often point out that the hungry children who pray for food often die of starvation. If God exists, then why don't we see better results from prayer? Christian apologist Kyle Butt answers this question on pages 229-244 of A Christian's Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism. He explains that effective prayer must conform to the following:
1. Prayer must be "in the name of Jesus." That is, prayer must be in accord with Jesus' teachings and authority.
2. It is necessary for prayer to be in accord with God's will. God has a way of doing things that no prayer can change.
3. The person praying must believe she will receive what she requests. Otherwise, she won't receive what she requests!
4. The person praying must be a righteous person. So all you sinners, forget it!
5. Prayer won't work if the petitioner prays with selfish desires.
6. Persistence in prayer is important. One or two prayers might not be enough.
I'm eager to read what other members here have to say about these guidelines, but allow me to start out saying that if 1 is true, then anybody who is not a Christian won't benefit from prayer. I wonder if those non-Christians see that their prayers aren't doing any good.
Guideline 2 seems odd. It's like God saying: "I'll do anything you ask as long as I want to do it."
I'd say that 3 can result in a "snowball effect" which is to say that if a doubter's doubt can lead to a prayer not being answered, then the doubter might doubt even more!
Regarding 4, it seems to me that sinners need answered prayer more than the righteous.
Guideline 5 also seems odd because if you're petitioning God for something you want or need, then you are thinking of yourself, and what's wrong with that?
Finally, 6 doesn't explain why God can't just grant the petition with one prayer request, and neither does it tell us how many prayers it takes to succeed. Could it be that the person praying is praying for something that in time she'll get whether she prays or not?
Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Banned
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:32 pm
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 122 times
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #601I think there is some physical evidence for the mind, and that mind resides, at least in part, in the brain.
Of course I only have my anecdotal data, interpreted through my amateur understanding, so please all, do correct me if I get this wrong...
I experience auditory hallucinations ('imaginary' sounds) mostly, but off my meds long enough and I have the potential for visual hallucinations. Interestingly enough though, research is indicating these are actual "hearing" events (see here).
It's just that somewhere along the way to the bingo parlor, I took me a turn, and now I have trouble distinguishing internally perceived sounds from real, genuine, exterior sounds. With age and counseling, I'm getting better at telling the difference - but only by the content of the message. Of course looking around is an obvious tactic, unless someone's there, then I'm back to square one. Some of my troubles, legal and otherwise, are the result of trying to find that sorry mother kisser who keeps tormenting me. But he always hides when he knows I'm onto him. He knows how to push my buttons, then he disappears like the coward he is.
So, my mind, that collection of faulty parts of it, is, as the data builds, seen to be the property of a faulty brain. Of course that won't be news to any of y'all here
Obviously we can kinda punt this back and forth, and maybe say my faulty brain is distorting an "exterior, but still me, mind", but I think that takes it further than necessary, or warranted.
I do think we're hard pressed to say such as, "No, the mind can't possibly be external to the self", as proving a negative in this regard is as difficult as getting the pretty thing to let me have a pet llama. I'd name him Loyd. With one L. See, faulty brain, faulty mind.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #602[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #601]
To say that the mind can be seen through the actions of the one intimately connected to that mind [to what degree one can see some evidence of through observing said actions] is no different from theists saying that they see the mind of God through the physical attributes of this reality experience. [Earth/et al]
"Show me the evidence" is also "The evidence is there to be seen" the difference being the degree to which the perceiver is willing to acknowledge mindfulness in that which is evident, through the use of their mind to do so [either way] and so one is reliant upon that invisible thing to help one figure it out for oneself whether the visible thing has a mind.
Ones "cowardly button pushing 'invisible' tormentor" [isn't really invisible if one can hear him] is besides the point given the testimony of one Eleanor Longden who tells it at the end of her talk - how she tamed the beast through an alliance...which worked out well in her favor.
Hearing voices, therefore, does not amount to a great argument for "the brain did it" apologists.
FTL;
Nonetheless, we are speaking of an invisible thing [mind] existing within a visible construct [universe].I think there is some physical evidence for the mind, and that mind resides, at least in part, in the brain.
To say that the mind can be seen through the actions of the one intimately connected to that mind [to what degree one can see some evidence of through observing said actions] is no different from theists saying that they see the mind of God through the physical attributes of this reality experience. [Earth/et al]
"Show me the evidence" is also "The evidence is there to be seen" the difference being the degree to which the perceiver is willing to acknowledge mindfulness in that which is evident, through the use of their mind to do so [either way] and so one is reliant upon that invisible thing to help one figure it out for oneself whether the visible thing has a mind.
Ones "cowardly button pushing 'invisible' tormentor" [isn't really invisible if one can hear him] is besides the point given the testimony of one Eleanor Longden who tells it at the end of her talk - how she tamed the beast through an alliance...which worked out well in her favor.
Hearing voices, therefore, does not amount to a great argument for "the brain did it" apologists.
FTL;
The Human Animal is a unique being, endowed with an instinctual capacity to heal and the intellectual spirit to harness this innate capacity.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #603As always, I enjoy reading and learning things from your unique perspective...
Know its thoughts? I'm not convinced of such - especially as relates to harming or oppressing our fellow human beings.
I note gods always seem to think what it pleases the mind reader to have us do or not do. And that paraplegics and amputees are deserving of their fate.
The data suggests the mind is, at least in part, a product of the physical. We can measure the electrical activity of the brain when folks're thinking (using their mind), such that relatively rudimentary devices can be controlled by those electrochemical processes.
What's the external mind guy got? The ability to say, "We ought'n dismiss the possibility."
Don't get me wrong here - this is not a refutation of your hypothesis. I find your Cosmic Mind notion most compelling of the "god variety" for its simplicity, and its non-judgemental aspect.
That said, I'm confounded to understand how this Cosmic Mind would have the energy to do its thing. Especially if it created that energy itself. Solve that, and I take one more step towards your 'church'.
(My terms throughout, presented with a fair thought and not to disparage)
Plenty fair. I can only speak of what's going on through my perception, as the theists speak through theirs. (Not that you've said otherwise)William wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 7:07 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #601]
Nonetheless, we are speaking of an invisible thing [mind] existing within a visible construct [universe].I think there is some physical evidence for the mind, and that mind resides, at least in part, in the brain.
See it? Okay.William wrote: To say that the mind can be seen through the actions of the one intimately connected to that mind [to what degree one can see some evidence of through observing said actions] is no different from theists saying that they see the mind of God through the physical attributes of this reality experience. [Earth/et al]
Know its thoughts? I'm not convinced of such - especially as relates to harming or oppressing our fellow human beings.
I note gods always seem to think what it pleases the mind reader to have us do or not do. And that paraplegics and amputees are deserving of their fate.
I tend to accept someone presents, in good faith, what they consider evidence, though might reject their conclusions about it.William wrote: "Show me the evidence" is also "The evidence is there to be seen" the difference being the degree to which the perceiver is willing to acknowledge mindfulness in that which is evident, through the use of their mind to do so [either way] and so one is reliant upon that invisible thing to help one figure it out for oneself whether the visible thing has a mind.
Schizophrenia is, currently, an incurable disease, and folks'll present varying degrees of affliction with it. On my best days, having been on my medication, the only way folks can know I'm a phrenic is to ask the pretty thing (conversations with strangers are a strong trigger for me, even on meds - so we hide me out in the barn whenever her people come around)William wrote: Ones "cowardly button pushing 'invisible' tormentor" [isn't really invisible if one can hear him] is besides the point given the testimony of one Eleanor Longden who tells it at the end of her talk - how she tamed the beast through an alliance...which worked out well in her favor.
Hearing voices, therefore, does not amount to a great argument for "the brain did it" apologists.
[snip lunk]
I've seen nothing in your post here that moves me off my initial position...William wrote:The Human Animal is a unique being, endowed with an instinctual capacity to heal and the intellectual spirit to harness this innate capacity.
The data suggests the mind is, at least in part, a product of the physical. We can measure the electrical activity of the brain when folks're thinking (using their mind), such that relatively rudimentary devices can be controlled by those electrochemical processes.
What's the external mind guy got? The ability to say, "We ought'n dismiss the possibility."
Don't get me wrong here - this is not a refutation of your hypothesis. I find your Cosmic Mind notion most compelling of the "god variety" for its simplicity, and its non-judgemental aspect.
That said, I'm confounded to understand how this Cosmic Mind would have the energy to do its thing. Especially if it created that energy itself. Solve that, and I take one more step towards your 'church'.
(My terms throughout, presented with a fair thought and not to disparage)
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #604[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #603]
Knowing its thoughts shouldn't be too hard to ascertain, all things considered. They are projected through Nature as activity.
Humans have the grace to not being unnaturally oppressed or unnaturally harmed by that activity
We still have to have our wits about us though...a Mothers Kissing Slap is just around the corner for the wayward...its for our own good, you see...
We cannot hope to give The Mother a bad name simply by pointing out our suffering.
"Flowers don't have brains"
[Take a look and maybe read the whole post for a more comprehensive take on excatly what we are talking about here.]
FTL;
Someone who suppresses feelings with alcohol isn't considered to be healed through the chemicals which provide the suppression.
My point remains. Hiding out in the barn does not amount to a great argument for "the brain did it" apologists - although I grant it would be a good place to practice "The Taming of The Beast"
How's that mule doing, btw...
If that is the demand one makes before one will 'join the church' it is simply another way of one placing an impossible criteria which effectively acts as a barrier to making that connection real and viable for them.
It is basically saying "Show me the simulation isn't real" when the simulation was designed to be experienced as real at the go-get.
Thanks for your reply JK. As always, I enjoy the interaction
We are all 'voices' in each others "heads"....As always, I enjoy reading and learning things from your unique perspective...
Yes. Observe it as it is, without judgement.See it? Okay.
Nice modern day thinking....if I were the Earth Entity I would take into consideration the epoch human beings are within, and sometimes they have indeed caused harm and are oppressive and I would allow them that space to explore in the hopes they will eventually grow out of it...perhaps knowing that each and every one of them will learn eventually - either here and now or in their next phase of existence.Know its thoughts? I'm not convinced of such - especially as relates to harming or oppressing our fellow human beings.
Knowing its thoughts shouldn't be too hard to ascertain, all things considered. They are projected through Nature as activity.
Humans have the grace to not being unnaturally oppressed or unnaturally harmed by that activity
We still have to have our wits about us though...a Mothers Kissing Slap is just around the corner for the wayward...its for our own good, you see...
*Stuff* happens and there is plenty evidence that being paraplegics and amputees does not prevent gold medals from being handed out to those who overcome their adversity - by befriending it, and working with it, no less.I note gods always seem to think what it pleases the mind reader to have us do or not do. And that paraplegics and amputees are deserving of their fate.
We cannot hope to give The Mother a bad name simply by pointing out our suffering.
Yes, I know.I tend to accept someone presents, in good faith, what they consider evidence, though might reject their conclusions about it.
"Flowers don't have brains"
[Take a look and maybe read the whole post for a more comprehensive take on excatly what we are talking about here.]
Schizophrenia is, currently, an incurable disease, and folks'll present varying degrees of affliction with it.
FTL;
The Human Animal is a unique being, endowed with an instinctual capacity to heal and the intellectual spirit to harness this innate capacity.
Snipping lunks only suppresses information contrary to claims of incurable disease.[snip lunk]
Someone who suppresses feelings with alcohol isn't considered to be healed through the chemicals which provide the suppression.
My point remains. Hiding out in the barn does not amount to a great argument for "the brain did it" apologists - although I grant it would be a good place to practice "The Taming of The Beast"
How's that mule doing, btw...
It is not my intent to bother trying...I've seen nothing in your post here that moves me off my initial position...
I haven't argued otherwise.The data suggests the mind is, at least in part, a product of the physical. We can measure the electrical activity of the brain when folks're thinking (using their mind), such that relatively rudimentary devices can be controlled by those electrochemical processes.
Even if that was all, it would be enough to work with.What's the external mind guy got? The ability to say, "We ought'n dismiss the possibility."
Of course not...Don't get me wrong here - this is not a refutation of your hypothesis.
That aspect is simply the understanding that we are loved, even that we feel more abandoned than loved...we are loved because we are understood - our position is understood - our hurt feelings are understood - our anger is understood - our hopelessness is understood.I find your Cosmic Mind notion most compelling of the "god variety" for its simplicity, and its non-judgemental aspect.
What we call 'energy' may in fact be the physical manifestation of that mind at work and since we understand that it is through energy that things are formed, and seeing what science has made available to us re The Universe, questions about how the energy doesn't 'run out' or 'where the energy derives' cannot be solved just by looking at it.That said, I'm confounded to understand how this Cosmic Mind would have the energy to do its thing. Especially if it created that energy itself. Solve that, and I take one more step towards your 'church'.
If that is the demand one makes before one will 'join the church' it is simply another way of one placing an impossible criteria which effectively acts as a barrier to making that connection real and viable for them.
It is basically saying "Show me the simulation isn't real" when the simulation was designed to be experienced as real at the go-get.
You could teach your inner critic a thing or two re that, I am positive.(My terms throughout, presented with a fair thought and not to disparage)
Thanks for your reply JK. As always, I enjoy the interaction
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9328
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 876 times
- Been thanked: 1229 times
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #605OK, so you put forth that minds might not exist. Now what? I'm not seeing the purpose of your words.William wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 5:02 pmIf there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for minds, then are they indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 3:44 pmBeats me. I only know if I don't take my meds, I end up to getting me a random color of jello every afternoon at 2, except on Sunday, then it's ice cream.William wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:44 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #597]
If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent.
.. that says this is a / the only requirement for establishing the existence of something.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #606Clownboat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 10:13 amOK, so you put forth that minds might not exist. Now what? I'm not seeing the purpose of your words.William wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 5:02 pmIf there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for minds, then are they indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 3:44 pmBeats me. I only know if I don't take my meds, I end up to getting me a random color of jello every afternoon at 2, except on Sunday, then it's ice cream.William wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:44 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #597]
If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent.
.. that says this is a / the only requirement for establishing the existence of something.
viewtopic.php?p=1090381#p1090381
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #607A common misunderstanding (IMHO) is that God promises material blessings from prayer, but God does not, nowhere will you find that in the Bible.unknown soldier wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:55 pm If there's one issue that keeps apologists busy, it's the issue of unanswered prayer. Skeptics often point out that the hungry children who pray for food often die of starvation. If God exists, then why don't we see better results from prayer? Christian apologist Kyle Butt answers this question on pages 229-244 of A Christian's Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism. He explains that effective prayer must conform to the following:
1. Prayer must be "in the name of Jesus." That is, prayer must be in accord with Jesus' teachings and authority.
2. It is necessary for prayer to be in accord with God's will. God has a way of doing things that no prayer can change.
3. The person praying must believe she will receive what she requests. Otherwise, she won't receive what she requests!
4. The person praying must be a righteous person. So all you sinners, forget it!
5. Prayer won't work if the petitioner prays with selfish desires.
6. Persistence in prayer is important. One or two prayers might not be enough.
I'm eager to read what other members here have to say about these guidelines, but allow me to start out saying that if 1 is true, then anybody who is not a Christian won't benefit from prayer. I wonder if those non-Christians see that their prayers aren't doing any good.
Guideline 2 seems odd. It's like God saying: "I'll do anything you ask as long as I want to do it."
I'd say that 3 can result in a "snowball effect" which is to say that if a doubter's doubt can lead to a prayer not being answered, then the doubter might doubt even more!
Regarding 4, it seems to me that sinners need answered prayer more than the righteous.
Guideline 5 also seems odd because if you're petitioning God for something you want or need, then you are thinking of yourself, and what's wrong with that?
Finally, 6 doesn't explain why God can't just grant the petition with one prayer request, and neither does it tell us how many prayers it takes to succeed. Could it be that the person praying is praying for something that in time she'll get whether she prays or not?
Our physical lives are transient, our material existence is not and end in itself, God is concerned with spiritual blessings not material blessings, huge number of Christians overlook this.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9328
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 876 times
- Been thanked: 1229 times
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #608Sorry, I'm still confused...William wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 11:26 amClownboat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 10:13 amOK, so you put forth that minds might not exist. Now what? I'm not seeing the purpose of your words.William wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 5:02 pmIf there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for minds, then are they indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 3:44 pmBeats me. I only know if I don't take my meds, I end up to getting me a random color of jello every afternoon at 2, except on Sunday, then it's ice cream.William wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:44 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #597]
If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent.
.. that says this is a / the only requirement for establishing the existence of something.
viewtopic.php?p=1090381#p1090381
You suggested that perhaps there is no such thing as a mind (by pointing out how it is indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent). Ohhhh kayyyy? Now what is the purpose of suggesting such a thing?
I read your words and have come away with the idea that the gods and minds might not be real. Where should this thinking lead us is what I'm wondering.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #609To be honest, it is more than enough to me, that at least one atheist understood what I wrote and replied as much.Clownboat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 12:28 pmSorry, I'm still confused...William wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 11:26 amClownboat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 10:13 amOK, so you put forth that minds might not exist. Now what? I'm not seeing the purpose of your words.William wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 5:02 pmIf there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for minds, then are they indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 3:44 pmBeats me. I only know if I don't take my meds, I end up to getting me a random color of jello every afternoon at 2, except on Sunday, then it's ice cream.William wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:44 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #597]
If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent.
.. that says this is a / the only requirement for establishing the existence of something.
viewtopic.php?p=1090381#p1090381
You suggested that perhaps there is no such thing as a mind (by pointing out how it is indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent). Ohhhh kayyyy? Now what is the purpose of suggesting such a thing?
I read your words and have come away with the idea that the gods and minds might not be real. Where should this thinking lead us is what I'm wondering.
I am not concerned with dedicating time to re-explain in other words, to those who don't get it.
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4951
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 148 times
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #610JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:26 pmPerhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “the bounds of the Kalam,” but the Kalam does not allow for the space-time universe to have always existed.
While it does nothing to show such is the case, and excuses its god of any responsibility to hold to the same requirement.
It absolutely does show why the space-time universe had a beginning. There are two philosophical arguments given to back it up, which I’ve summarized in this thread. The best scientific theories currently seem to back this up as well, but I think that is a weaker support than the philosophical arguments (for philosophical reasons, not simply because it’s science as though I’m anti-science) so I didn’t go into those details. So, to move the discussion forward rationally, engage the case.
This leads to the conclusion of a non-natural cause to all of nature. It’s logically impossible for the cause of all of nature to be natural itself. To then say the non-natural cause must be treated like natural things is obviously irrational. Of course a non-natural thing isn’t going to be natural.
JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:26 pmI've pointed out the flaws repeatedly across a multiple of posts now.
That you reject such is a condition I ain't apt to fix. I post now so the observer new to these notions can see those flaws for what they are
And I’ve responded every time with the support behind my conclusions and the flaws with your critiques. Any new observer, if interested and rational, should look through the posts, not accept our summary of things. Or they can simply ask their questions and give their critiques and I’ll share my supports again.