>>15509137

>>15508701 (lb)

>>15508710 (lb)

>>15508723 (lb)

>>15508742 (lb)

>>15508799 (lb)

It's true. He's a regular here, but still doesn't seem to really grasp the purpose of this place.

>>15508813 (lb)

>>15509092 (lb)

What grasp of which reality do you claim to have? I doubt it's the objective one. The immediate future might be scripted, but thereafter is up to humanity's collective force of will. That sort of puts all those prophecies, that your friend Newton was obsessed with, out of business. Offer something of substance other than epileptic inducing gifs and text fodder for the bored. What are your observations?

>>15509147

Do you believe the only thing we really have control over is how we react to our perceived and subjective experiential reality? Does that mean there is no free will, or does it mean that free will also has an objective and subjective path?

>>15509154

I would have thought you'd have learned by now that I'm quite familiar with how malleable reality is. The condescension really doesn't help your case in the slightest. So, you offered a bit more substance that time, but you're holding back. Why not let-r rip for the class? Maybe start with a response to this:

>>15509158

>>15509166

>łкцнכ

>you have no control.

>you have been misled.

Not an argument. Many here know how they've been misled and everything has always been a system of control. To that point, everything that's happening in response is an exercise of free will. You suppose that the current movement is just another lever of control and it's plain to see that (even though there are guide rails installed for the sake of preserving humanity) that people are walking towards a greater understanding of true freedom.

>>15509167

>>15509176

Could be, but that would ultimately defeat the purpose of that entity experiencing the most important element of "chance" in all of this. To expound, working one's self from low-level exercise of "free will" to a higher understanding of the layers of Free Will approaching an objective understanding (along with Objective reality) would be the sole purpose of demonstrating creation is capable. Having humanity being capable was the entire point. If you believe in that sort of thing, that is. It's all built on belief at that point.

>>15509165

Sorry, meant to link to:

>>15509208

>>15509177

Jack gets around a lot. Has lots of friends.

>>15509218

>"why" and "originating from what".

I would argue that the "why" is subjective to your experience (there is no wrong answer). The "originating from what" doesn't matter, though it should be self evident when you get to a certain level of understanding. The interesting part of that is most eventually come to the same conclusion; even the devout atheist; just not in the same way as the ardent faithful.

>>15509247

This is now the third time you've resorted to this answer in our chats. I appreciate that.

>>15509290

No hubris, here; just seeking Truth. You offer only doubt and platitudes, and then deflect when you're argument fails the logic test. If you had any thing of value to add to the conversation from your level of understanding of whatever it is you are purporting convey, you'd have done it a long time ago. Here, take this:

>>15509316

Even if it comes from pillows sales with promo code POSO.

>>15509273

>>15509349

>nancy

Now, now. No need for name calling. And your screencap presupposes an intimate level of involvement in the details of every single person by its creator. Based on that screencap, I'd say I'm the farthest from anthropomorphizing "God", and you have him pegged as a malicious dictator. that way of thinking aligns perfectly with the adherents of the neufeudalistic agenda. But again, I'm not the one trying to convince everyone I know the true nature of God. That's you.

>>15509380

See:

>>15509208

Two can play that game. It's OK to admit when you've lost.

>>15509352

The wielder is a sight to behold as well!

>>15509428

>one never loses

Incorrect statement.

>though the cost is high

That's a subjective statement based on your narrative.

>>15509450

I'll admit there's a difference between decorative and functional. The purpose of the image is to give a figurative representation of the magnificence of what's occurring here, though you seem to understand that already :)