In The Beginning...

[William]

Question For Debate:



Resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory
https://www.simulation-argument.com/

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

On YHVH

Clearly this is the subject to which our disagreement on everything else, can be traced.

Agreed?

...

19: Insights come naturally to those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH
20: Those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH recognize the similarity while also acknowledging the unique in others who are also in genuine relationship with YHVH.
22: What we do agree on, can help us formulate a better relationship with each other, re YHVH.

Do you agree with the more recent items on the list?

19. I think I agree, as long as "natural" isn't meant as an antonym of "supernatural"

20. If you mean those in a genuine relationship never make mistakes, I disagree. Unless "genuine relationship" is just another way to say when one in a relationship isn't making a mistake.

22. I'm still not sure what the "re YHVH" refers to. That we can know what each other thinks about YHVH better? That we will see we both are in a relationship with YHVH? Something else?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #161]

Cleary I did respond to your critique, and notably, you gave no further comment to my response.
I have no interest in repeating my argument, if you have no interest in making further comment to my responses re your original critique.

That is too roundabout for my liking, and I prefer a more straightforward direction...

Look at post #144. I directly responded to this. And you responded to my response and we kept responding to each other.

The response I made and I am referring to - which was not addressed by you - was

The argument goes along the lines as to why would "God" use such a device to convey messages instead of simply making one message for all to easily understand?
That argument is no different from your own, and does not belong on this particular table.

Agreed?

[William]

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #161]

Cleary I did respond to your critique, and notably, you gave no further comment to my response.
I have no interest in repeating my argument, if you have no interest in making further comment to my responses re your original critique.

That is too roundabout for my liking, and I prefer a more straightforward direction...

Look at post #144. I directly responded to this. And you responded to my response and we kept responding to each other.

The response I made and I am referring to - which was not addressed by you - was

The argument goes along the lines as to why would "God" use such a device to convey messages instead of simply making one message for all to easily understand?
That argument is no different from your own, and does not belong on this particular table.

Agreed?

Re: The Generated Messages and YHVH possibly using the device as a means of communicating.

Your critique has been shown to fall short on the following main counts;

1: The evidence presented in the GMs shows that these are more than just incoherent ramblings

2: The fact that you can interpret them through the filter of your thinking processes also shows that there must be coherency involved or this could not be achieved.

3: Those readers following the GM's would not do so, if your critique about the content was actually true.

4: The GM's cannot be truthfully critiqued by one, if one does not to take them altogether, in context.

5: Your protest that YVHV would not use something which does not give clear indication of YHVHs agenda to the reader, goes against the evidence as pointed out to you re sectors of Abrahamic religions not being able to agree with each other on particulars.

This is because - by and large - Abrahamic scripture shows clearly that YHVH often speaks in riddles [of sorts] and not revealing all pertinent information.
Rather than being crystal clear re the individuals and YHVH's interactions with said individuals, re the recordings which make up all of Abrahamic scriptures.

As has been noted, one such example being "I Am That I Am" - clarity is obviously absent in the remark and as such, the remark is open to interpretation by every individual personality hearing of it.

This was also [not coincidently imo] brought to the readers attention in today's GM, which I linked in my previous post.

I quote;

GM: I Will
The "Everything Is Unique" Mantra
viewtopic.php?p=1092601#p1092601

William: FTL; Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[Replying to brunumb in post #1374]


God inspired his personal name in the OT nearly 6800 places. Because it is his will for that name to be there is why. It was called the tetragramoton= YHWH--Men replaced it with GOD or LORD all capitols. They had no right. It was done by satans will to mislead. As well in the NT where the OT is quoted and the name belongs about 200 spots. So close to 7000 spots-YHWH name was removed. It has caused much confusion as to who God is.

I hesitate to go so far as you have gone here.

"I Am That I Am" [YHWH] allows everyone the right of passage to decide for themselves as to who this entity is, to them.

So if some say "LORD" or "GOD" or "Murdering Psychopath" or "Invisible Sky Daddy" et al - there is no requirement to accuse Satan of misleading them in their deciding for themselves.

God is to everyone, whatever they choose God to being, through their world view.

The true God= Father only accepts being worshipped in spirit and truth-John 4:22-24)
The Hebrew scholars, who know the Hebrew language better than any say, there is no i am that i am in their Hebrew written OT. I will be what i will be is the correct translating of that passage.

Splitting hairs achieves nothing. "I am that I am" = "I will be what I will be." and still fits in with what I wrote; In other words;

"I will be what I will be." [YHWH] allows everyone the right of passage to decide for themselves as to who this entity is, to them.

So if some say "LORD" or "GOD" or "Murdering Psychopath" or "Invisible Sky Daddy" et al - there is no requirement to accuse Satan of misleading them in their deciding for themselves.

God is to everyone, whatever they choose God to being, through their world view.

However, since this is not the subject of the thread topic - if you want to argue it more, I suggest that another thread be created in order to do so.

GM: Inflame Emotions
Any Other Way How shallow is the reach of YHWH
{SOURCE}

I opinion that YHVH does this as a means of making sure The Elohim input re the individual personality is at a minimum so as the results of the free will ingredient are not fudged so as to provide a means/opportunity of any accuser claiming that YHVH influenced said results as in "why the individual 'really' bows to YHVH's wisdom re the Omni-attributes - not through the individuals act of free will - but by YHVH's interference in instructing the individual personality in a manner which would clearly show the observer that the accuser is correct that YHVH has unduly influenced the sovereignty of the individuals free will and ability to correctly discern without judgement, on the personalities own diligence.

[The Tanager]

[William]

[The Tanager]

[William]

[The Tanager]