3RU7AL

Fair meaning that its fair to say anything is possible?  

Yes, if X=3, Y=2 ,Z=1, and W=49

(3x2)/1 X sqrt 49= 6 x 7= 42

Paying to keep a story out of the public for the purpose (mind reader) of winning election sure sounds to me like a campaign expenditure. Not a lawyer here, but I fail to see how it is not.

  (X+Y)/Z  x  sq.rt.(W) = 42

Fair meaning that its fair to say anything is possible? 

One equation allows you to determine only one unknown value. It is a fundamental rule that you need as many equations as you have unknown values. Four unknowns means that we need four equations to solve the problem.

 (X+Y)/Z  x  sq.rt.(W) = 42

Description: Not believed in

Prophecy: Isaiah 53:1

Fulfillment: John 12:37, 38

Nope nothing there concerning Jesus . And lets not forget, the messiah was never supposed to have died . He was supposed to have freed the Jews from the Roman yoke, FAIL.  Inherited the throne of David, FAIL .   Become king of the Jews, FAIL.  And bring peace to all earth, FAIL and many other things that was expected of the messiah.  In fact, a careful read of the New Testamant, and one can see that between John the Baptist and Jesus, it appears that John was more a Messiah like figure than Jesus ever was. But he was executed too, (Twice!!!) if the bible is to be believed.

Wouldn’t you say it is possible that the human species has been selected by evolution for a predilection toward spiritualism?

The ones you convince would spread your message further, thus the society of criminals would gradually be eroded.

It is mycontention that the belief that Theism is illogical, irrational, andunscientific is a strictly unfounded and faith-based belief, it is not based onlogic, reason, or science, and consequently, rather than Theism, it is thatbelief itself that is illogical, irrational, and unscientific. 

The things science studies do not“come from” science, they come from observation, experiment, and analysis.Consequently, the scientific evaluation of Theism is necessarily a matter ofobservation of Theism, and what we observe is these guys talking about God, butunable to define God.

The Theistic belief that there is atranscendent Spiritual dimension to reality is not refuted by science, andtherefore, it is not “unscientific” any more than dark matter or dark energyare unscientific because they are immaterial at best, and we do not know whattheir nature is.

Physicalism is not supported by science,

If you are saying this because of amistaken belief that science doesn’t deal with immaterial things, that is physicalism and it is simply misguided. In science there are plenty of thingsthat are not physical,

The simple fact is that science hasnever found a single non-spiritual society of human beings anywhere or at anytime in history.  The experience of thesacred, the common experiential reality of human beings we refer to asSpiritual, is common to all peoples in all times, and it appears to have beenreached independently among peoples and cultures that did not have contact withone another. This certainly leads one to logically conclude that a Spiritualorientation is the natural state of human beings. It is fair to say thathumanity is innately spiritual, which is to say, spirituality is the naturalorienting response to human experience. 

we are arguing if theism is reasonable to accept as true

How would you know that a version of theism isn't true.

I have come to the conclusion that they dream of living in a world devoid of Jews and a Jewish homeland— even if it means the destruction of their own earthly lives and the lives of their children, sadly.

Till then, the fact that you continue to compare these two while leaving out the actual crime alleged here tells me you aren't well versed on the basics. Either that or you're just being fundamentally dishonest. Either way, if you are really interested in the legal theory here I suggest you spend some time googling it instead of pressing me to explain it even though I've said multiple times already that I'm not a lawyer and am really not interested in the legal manutia of this case.

Note: Above you said “I dont know what a“spirit” is”, and here you are referring matter of factly to “anythingspiritual or a spirit”, so I think you have conceded that one can certainlydiscuss the concept of Spirit without being able to explicitly know it’snature.  Minimally, you can define spiritas what you are talking about here, and then define God as that thing thoseTheists are talking about over there.    

It’s not supposed to be easy, yourargument comes down to saying that the vast majority of mankind is, and alwayshas been, unscientific, illogical, and irrational,

Do you find non-sequiturs somehow compelling?

When you observe the use of the word God by Theists, we cansee that it is used to evoke and sustain a way of seeing the world which cannotbe expressed in any other way.  The wordGod is used in many ways, but primarily to evoke a certain dispositional set ofresponses to human experiences, and to express the personal nature of thoseexperiences.  This is the basis upon which I will logically and scientifically be arguing that Theism is a rational position to take.

Theism refers to God as a “Spirit”, most commonly described as "transcendent", so arguments about defining/describing God are foolish,

but he doesn't win in a three way and you can't get Biden out of the way because the deep state wants his compliant decaying brain right where it is.

Sounds like a conversation Hamas might have had prior to October 7. Do you believe that was a false flag operation or something?

Basically if you went out to buy an apple, they'll claim you're trying to illegally hide campaign spending because if you don't eat you'll look unhealthy on camera and that might hurt your chances. If you said "I would have bought that apple anyway" they're saying "No you would buy something unhealthy like a snickers bar, our jury will decide these matters".

I won’t mind responding to other people as well but I would appreciate if comments are made after me and Sidewalker are done debating so there are not a lot of distractions or change of the course of the conversation or the topic itself. Thanks. 

Can I safely assume that you answered your own question?

At best it can lead you to the conclusion that you dont know because this might be a simulation and Im actually a figment of your imagination and if you believe that I am whats the point in even talking to me. 

The claim that our "inner conclusions are a reasonably accurate interpretation" of this external signaling is a bold assumption. Our senses and cognitive biases are known to distort and misinterpret information, so the accuracy of our internal models of reality is far from guaranteed. This only shows we cannot trust our personal experiences and they don’t represent reality. Nothing about this favors any arguments for theism since most of them are based on personal experiences. 

Regardless of the nature of reality, the scientific method remains our best tool for understanding the world today.

Even in a simulated universe, the principles of empiricism, logic and methodological naturalism would still be the most reliable path to knowledge. And even if we are in a simulation universe that does not point in any way to divine creator. The simulation can have natural or non theistic origins. 

And if you say that the external reality is simulation too then there must still be an underlying reality that still begs the same questions. This philosophical idea lacks empirical evidence to support it as a comprehensive explanation of reality. It cant be tested or falsified - without that, it remains speculation rather than a reasonable theory.

This veers towards a solipsistic view in which only the individual's inner experience is real, which is a not a strong philosophical position or at best debatable.

It's also never been considered "campaign spending" regulated by the FEC. It still is not, but pseudo-courts are content to pretend.

what's the difference between the arnold schwarzenegger case and the trump case under discussion regarding "defrauding voters" ?

Don't know anything about the Schwarzenegger story. You tell me - did the story contain every element I described above? If so, care to provide a summary? Cause if not, I'm not interested.

this is not a crime in-and-of-itself

I already explained this. Did you read it? Do you have any thoughts on it?

(IFF) OOC designed "spirit" (AND) "spirit" does what it is designed to do (THEN) "spirit" is controlled by OOC

That is a fallacy

To design does not mean it necessaily controls. 

All you are trying to do is make the original IF-THEN syllogism fit the philosophy I use, which I have said from the beginning isincompatible with the philosophy I use.

Sarah who?

 takes unto itself to produce understanding. That is not the same as experiance.

It is not influenced by its design. It does what it is designed to do. There is  difference to act according to what you are and to act because of an outside influence. Different origins of action.

I don't like either, but the USA simply can't afford another 4 years of Biden. 

“Scientific theory” is also not a synonym for a “fact” but consists of our best explanations for certain FACTS so it could be considered as a fact. But the definition of “scientific theory” is more than that as mentioned before