Re: Pre-existent "entities" ruining our lives???

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:31:03 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:00:22 -0100, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, due to his incredible ineptitude, Goo desperately
lied:
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:17:57 -0100, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:18:37 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>David wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     How do you think anything to do with pre-existence
>>>>>> prevents existing beings from benefitting from their own
>>>>>> existence
>>>>>
>>>>>"benefiting from existence" is a circular and meaningless expression.
>>>>
>>>>    That doesn't prevent existing beings from benefitting from their
own
>>>>existence.
>>>>
>>>>>If something is a benefit to me, that implies necessarily that its 
>>>>>absence would be a loss to me. But if my existence were absent that 
>>>>>could not be a loss to me, because there would be no me to lose
anything.
>>>>
>>>>    That doesn't prevent existing beings from benefitting from their
own
>>>>existence.
>>>>
>>>>>The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" can begin to
make 
>>>>>sense semantically is if one assumes a pre-existent state which is
less 
>>>>>desirable than existence.
>>>>
>>>>    That doesn't prevent existing beings from benefitting from their
own
>>>>existence.
>>>>
>>>>>You do not deserve all the attempts people have made over the years
to 
>>>>>help you grasp this.
>>>>
>>>>    So far you haven't even come close to explaining how you think
>>>>pre-existent "entities" or anything else about pre-existence prevents 
>>>>existing beings from benefitting from their own existence. That means
>>>>that in all the attempts people have made over the years COMBINED
>>>>we still have absolutely nothing to consider. NOTHING.
>>>
>>>You never were talking about existing beings
>>
>>    Of course that's a lie Goo, since we refer to them very frequently.
>>That lie is clearly shown to be a lie in this very thread by at least
one
>>of your previous lies, Goob:
>>
>>"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" can begin 
>>to make sense semantically is if one assumes a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>
>>Looking back we see that you proved this particular lie to be a
>>lie years ago too, Goo:
>>_________________________________________________________
>>From: d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:52:48 -0500
>>
>>On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:03:26 GMT, Goober Gonad Canoza proclaimed:
>>[...]
>>>Life is not a benefit for farm animals.
>>[...]
>>>Life is not a benefit for farm animals
>>[...]
>>>Life is not a benefit for farm animals.  
>>[...]
>>>Life is not a benefit for farm animals.
>>
>>    Do you wish on a star when you repeat that Goober? 
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>That was a statement of fact, 

    You want to lie about this stuff, but you're already defeated.
You amusingly don't know how to begin even though you clearly
want to very very badly. Your attempt has drawn attention to 
another challenge you will fail to meet. At first you had one huge
question that you (meaning you/Goo/Derek/etc of course) will
always fail to answer, but now you draw attention to another
so at this point we have 2 very significant challenges for you to
meet before we can even consider that you might have some
clue what you think you're trying to talk about:

1. Exactly HOW??? do you think pre-existent entities are
preventing all existing entities from benefitting from their
own existence?

2. Exactly WHY??? would anything think it's necessary to 
assume WHAT sort of pre-existent state, in order to benefit
from its existence?

>the one you are too dull to grasp.

    As yet all you've done is insist that because of something 
to do with pre-existent entities, existing entities can not
benefit from their own existence. Of course it sounds very
stupid on the surface, and as yet you're showing us that
there's nothing at all to back it up, but I encourage you
very strongly to try. Let's make this a simple challenge for
you AGAIN!!! PLEASE TRY explaining exactly how you 
think pre-existent entities are preventing you from benefitting 
from your own existence. GO:

>>Now that we've acknowledged another of your lies, 
>>let's get back to another one of the questions that
>>are challenging you and you are completely unable
>>to attempt answering. Goo, try explaining exactly
>>how you think pre-existent entities are preventing
>>you from benefitting from your own existence. GO: