silverxing

4. EVIDENCE. I've translate justin_lun reply on your tomato analogy and by his own words, "FATALISM IS NOT CORRECT" is the reply he made. In the view of the whole filter-004ion, the freedom of will is related with whether fatalism is correct or not, but the thing is, THE ANALOGY ITSELF TALKS ONLY ABOUT FATALISM, BUT HAVE NOTHING ARGUE ABOUT THE TRUTHNESS OF FREEDOM OF WILL AT ALL. That's the evidence you've made so far. No words from justin_lun himself, not a footnote of his post, yet you said you're correctly repeating his point of view. I've backed up my point of view with justin_lun's word, but you input nothing but your own thought. In other words, I'M THE ONE ACTUALLY GIVING EVIDENCE HERE WHILE YOU ONLY REPEATING YOUR OWN VIEW WITH NONE OF HIS WORDS AT ALL. Let me say it another time, "I'M STATING YOU CANNOT CORRECTLY REPEAT JUSTIN_LUN POINT OF VIEW, AND I'M GIVING EVIDENCE. YOUR EVIDENCE? IT'S YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW, NOT JUSTIN_LUN'S."

5.  ALL GOD ARE OMNISCIENT. This is where you've made another logic analysis mistake. When you use "All", you mean all. Example, If I said, "All apple is red." It means not only Fuju Apple is red, it means all apple is red! When you said "All God is omniscient", you include every one and all of the God in history in your filter-004ion. You can't just say, "Oh, I just mean Christian God, the other are exclude." It's NOT how it works in logical analysis. As long as one can find an exception in the example, you CANNOT use the word "all"! You doubting me not knowing philosophy? Should I post a link here about the use of the word "all" here to prove what I said is correct?

6. NO OMNISCIENT GOD WILL EVER WARN ADAM NOT TO EAT THE FRUIT OF KNOWLEDGE. Yet another fatal mistake you've made in your logical analysis. I'll make it more detailed this time.
a) Double negative is NOT allow in logical analysis. I don't think you know, so I'll make it clear. One of the most basic rule of logical analysis. When you see 2 or more "no" in a sentence of logical analysis. That sentence is simply WRONG and need to rephase!
b) A logical analysis with the word "no" or "all" need to be universal, which means it need to apply in every situation and no exception at all. Now at least I find one exception, in bible say, "The God warn Adam not to eat the fruite of knowledge, for the day you eat you'll die." Now, should I again post a philosophy website to prove the previous rule are correct? Or do you at least know these simple rule before you ever talk about philosophy? Finding information is not hard, you know. Using it is another business.

7. Last but not least, you said I've posted evidence that justin_lun talking with others and not related to you? Now... what are we talking here? We're talking what justin_lun saying, not what mememe saying, right? "Repeating justin_lun point of view correctly" is the topic, right? so.... should I say it again? "YOU CANNOT REPEAT JUSTIN_LUN POINT OF VIEW CORRECTLY, CUZ YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S SAYING. YET YOU WANT JUSTIN_LUN TO REPEAT YOUR OWN POINT." I rest my case.

If you still think I'm unreasonable, feel free to "report" me to admin. In fact, I'm looking forward to it.

mememe

Silverxing兄,

第一: 你話我無法正確覆述justin_lun既論點係錯誤。你之前指出幾個你認為我覆述上既錯誤以經被我駁回﹐亦即係話我既覆述冇錯。由此可見﹐請justin_lun覆述我之前既論點並唔係你所講0甘難(甚至無法做到)。如果你認為你既大呼小叫依然有立錐之地既話﹐請你從新指出我對justin_lun論點覆述上既錯誤。你之前既所為"錯誤"根本就係無事生非!

第二: MY INTENTION IS TO STATE WHY IT'S IMPRACTICAL TO ASK OTHERS TO REPEAT YOUR POINT。。。 I ONLY WANT TO TELL YOU IT'S WRONG TO REPEAT OTHERS POINT

我鬧緊既就係呢個完全無稽既intention!!

我發表完我既觀點之後﹐如果其他人問或帶起既問題反映出佢(哋)對我既論點一竅不通﹐我當然會問佢(哋)有冇睇清楚我既帖。

如果對方答"有"﹐但依然繼續問或帶起一0的只要有稍為望過0下我0的帖都識答既問題﹐我當然會質疑對方究竟有冇睇清楚及消化我帖既內容。

請對方覆述自己既論點可以減少誤解同增加共識﹐根本就再practical不過。

只有本身冇理解到對方既論點就隨便批評別人既人先至會無能力覆述對方既論點而需要諸多推搪。你同justin_lun兄喺呢方面實在相似。

第三: But from your application of the logical analysis, you're using them incorrectly. Even yourself admit that, Even yourself admit that.

你搞錯0左一樣嘢。我承認我喺帶出我既推論時用錯表達方式﹐但並唔代表我既推論有任何錯誤。我note緊既唔係你既correct analysis﹐因為你冇。你做到既就只係(再一次)批評我已經修改0左既論點﹐同埋批評我請justin_lun覆述我論點呢個要求(到依家你仍然冇辦法講出究竟點解0甘難)。

你都識講啦﹐YOU POST THE CORRECT WEBSITE BUT USING IT WRONG WHILE I POST NO WEBSITE BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE﹐你話你啱﹐0甘你就啱0架喇咩? 你冇俾過任何證據證明你講既任何一句說話唔係順口開河(例如: The word "co-exist" require 2 things to work together for existence, if one is gone, so will another one)。你指控我用錯我既link入面既資料﹐你除0左齎講之外又有冇解釋到我點用錯法呢?

你0的含糊既論點相對于justin_lun兄真係有過之而無不及。睇睇呢段"解釋":

你用All A are B代表神系全知既话，就代表任何人一改自己个名做“神”都会变成全知！用A ∈ B反而可以，但系就即刻变成特定个案，意思完全唔同。

點解用A ∈ B反而可以呢? 乜解究會變成特定个案呢? 講開又講﹐乜嘢係"特定个案"呢? 意思又點變成"完全唔同"呢? 受過哲學教育既人又點會寫埋0西0的0甘含糊又冇建設性既嘢呢?

係唔係好含糊呢? 你係唔係唔係好知講緊乜嘢呢? 你解釋0下好噃!

第四: In the view of the whole filter-004ion, the freedom of will is related with whether fatalism is correct or not...THE ANALOGY ITSELF TALKS ONLY ABOUT FATALISM, BUT HAVE NOTHING ARGUE ABOUT THE TRUTHNESS OF FREEDOM OF WILL AT ALL.

呢0的咪叫主觀咯! 你用緊聖經記載, 無法辯駁既教義(dogma)自由意志(Freedom of will)嚟到推斷理論(宿命論)既可信性。正確做法係用可以辯駁既理論(theory)嚟到證實或推翻教義。就好似話"聖經記載有大洪水﹐所以可以由此斷定數千年前既水位同天氣狀況"係錯既 - 正確做法係應該用理論推論出數千年前既水位同天氣狀況﹐從而證實或推翻聖經既記載。你依家知道乜嘢係本末倒置啦?

番茄既比諭絕對有牽涉到自由意志既真偽 - 就係如果神既全知包括所有事情既連帶關係﹐而神既全能包括創世時既因素﹐人(即殺手)既自由意志就會被剝削。

你依家開始明白為何"神點解俾自由意志俾人"同我既理論完全無關未?

I'M THE ONE ACTUALLY GIVING EVIDENCE HERE WHILE YOU ONLY REPEATING YOUR OWN VIEW WITH NONE OF HIS WORDS AT ALL.

你既"證據"同我哋討論既話題無關。聖經記載"神點解俾自由意志俾人"完全唔會影晌到我既推論﹐因為同我講既嘢無關。你依家俾緊我既係一個strawman argument(熟讀哲學既你﹐大概知道呢樣係乜吧)。

第五: As long as one can find an exception in the example, you CANNOT use the word "all"! You doubting me not knowing philosophy? Should I post a link here about the use of the word "all" here to prove what I said is correct?

好。我由原本既”All gods are omniscient” 改為”All Christian gods are omniscient” - 本質一成不變。(你鐘意話Christian god 係三位一體而所以唔應該用”all” 既話﹐我就改做”all forms of Christian god are omniscient”)

第六: Double negative is NOT allow in logical analysis. I don't think you know, so I'll make it clear. One of the most basic rule of logical analysis. When you see 2 or more "no" in a sentence of logical analysis. That sentence is simply WRONG and need to rephase!

Now, should I again post a philosophy website to prove the previous rule are correct? Or do you at least know these simple rule before you ever talk about philosophy? Finding information is not hard, you know. Using it is another business.

你唔使揾philosophy website去證明你啱﹐因為你唔會揾到。


http://entrypoints.com/AhaPage/Aha!DoubleNegs.html
http://web.linix.ca/pedia/index.php/Double_negative_elimination
http://www.jimloy.com/language/double.htm
http://www.isoeasy.org/Logic.htm

http://www.google.com.au/search? ... nG=Search&meta=

你放” logic double negative” 入Google﹐頭五個link都有記載Double Negative, 全部都冇話logic唔用得。你話”simply wrong”? 你讀咩philosophy0架?

你既斷言開始越嚟越順口開河﹐你仲厚顏到話” do you at least know these simple rule before you ever talk about philosophy? Finding information is not hard, you know. Using it is another business.”。

隻手遮天﹐賊喊捉賊叫得0甘大聲﹐真係明欺26FUN無人。

第七: We're talking what justin_lun saying, not what mememe saying, right? "Repeating justin_lun point of view correctly" is the topic, right?

0甘你不如將justin_lun兄喺其他論壇既帖link埋出嚟﹐然後指控我冇覆述到justin_lun對時事﹐經濟﹐文化﹐音樂﹐運動﹐等等既睇法? 佢同第二個人講0的同我無關既嘢你都要我覆述﹐你冇嘢吧? 就算係覆述﹐都係覆述”題內話”﹐ 你扯到牛頭唔答馬嘴既話題做乜? 你rest your case? 乜你有咩?



P.S. 你有冇發覺每當你發現自己既斷言有錯(例如"同時存在"既論點)﹐你就會放棄呢點然後轉移目標對第二點咬住唔放。到我解釋完第二點既時候﹐你就會對第三點死纏爛打。你無聊時無理地糊亂評擊其他人既帖已經好冇禮貌﹐你知錯之後唔改又唔道歉就真係好冇品。

你既言論已經顯露0左你又幾多斤兩。唔好再盲目0甘批評一0的挑戰你信仰或價值觀﹐但你又冇膽量接觸既理論。係要評論既﹐就首先熟讀對方既論點﹐用證據推翻對方既論說。你識英文﹐大概知道religious bigot點解吧?

我上個帖喺幾個地方要求你俾證據。你冇做到。如果你有誠意繼續討論既話﹐請你先為你既斷言加上證據支持。

silverxing

1. Repeating justin_lun point: The first thing you've stated is that "I(mememe) have repeated justin_lun point of view correctly. It's not as hard as you(silverxing) have stated." Yet, you said the following in your last post: 呢0的咪叫主觀咯...(Just to save space, not repeating the whole phase)....你依家知道乜嘢係本末倒置啦?
And why did you have such response? It's to reply my post as follow: In the view of......THE TRUTHNESS OF FREEDOM OF WILL AT ALL.(Just see you own post, not wasting too much space here.)

Do you see the problem? You intention is to aruge whether my post is correct or not. But what I do is simply REPEATING JUSTIN_LUN WORDS AND WHAT HE SAID IN HIS POST. So, the siutation is: I(silverxing) said, "justin_lun said fatalism is wrong." Then you(mememe) said, "you(silverxing) cannot said Fatalism is wrong, because of .....(what you said)". I'M NOT SAYING FATALISM IS WRONG. I'M REPEATING WHAT JUSTIN_LUN SAID IN HIS POST. You're treating justin_lun word as my(silverxing) word and now you want to argue with me about Fatalism.

You said you know well about what justin_lun said? For just 4-5 posts I've made, you already mix up what I said!!!! And in those 4-5 posts, I keep repeating and repeating and repeating, "I'm not here to argue religious problem! That's not what I intend to do here!!!" Yet, you keep asking me to repeat your point, stating what you've said is correct, and arguing about religious problem. You already mistaken MY(SILVERXING) point of view. What did I said in the very first post again? I said, "It's almost impossible to repeat others' point of view. If you(mememe) really want others to do it, how about you do it first and show everyone it is possible?" But now and here, for just 4-5 posts I've made, you've already mix up my point of view. Do you still think it's possible to repeat others' point of view?

2. Co-existence. Here, I need to confess. I've made a trap in this argument, to simply trick you! Once I've said co-exist and exist in the same time is different. You've put a lot of evidences, links, and more to support you point, that both thing is the same thing. So that you can stand strong at the argument, "justin_lun think Freedom of will and omniscience coexist and exist the same time, because it's the same thing."
Now let me tell you something, with justin_lun own words. In justin_lun argument, he once said, "Omniscience is an ability, Freedom of will is a promise. In God's view, promise is more important than ability. God can choose whether to use an ability or not, but God need to keep his promise no matter what. So when it comes to priority, FREEDOM OF WILL ALWAYS COMES FIRST, OMNISCIENCE NEED TO PUT INTO SECOND PRIORITY." So what justin_lun mean is THERE IS SITUATION THAT FREEDOM OF WILL CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH OMNISCIENCE!!! No matter it's exist at the same time or co-exist, both are NOT what justin_lun said!!!! The difference between "co-exist" and "exist the same time"? I simply make it up, just to make you stand strong on the argument "justin_lun think Freedom of will and Omniscience exist the same time". Becuase justin_lun said just the opposite!!!!
This time, I match up all your requirement, using justin_lun's word (That's the evidence), using the argument he argued with you, not other people. Yet, you CANNOT REPEAT HIS POINT OF VIEW, BUT SAYING JUST THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE SAID.

3. Philosophy/Logical Analysis. "All form of Christian Gods are omniscient." All A ∈ B, now that's correct. But may I add a footnote. It's totally different from "all Gods are omniscient." Please don't think they're the same, because they're not.

Now about double negative. Who's 隻手遮天? The site you've provided, just take a clear look at the one about "double negative elimination". You'll see that you need to "eliminate" double negative before you ever start an logical analysis. The proper term is called "The Law of Dobule Negation". You don't even know what the site you've provided talking about! If you still don't believe, check out the following site. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitch-paradox/

And now with your "All A ∈ B" correct, your "No C ∈ B" are still wrong!!! You've said I ignore the argument about coexistence? How did you explain your ignoration of the fault on "No Omnicient being will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge"? There's only one document ever mention about the relationship of "Omnicient being", "Adam" and "the fruit of knowledge". That document is call Bible. What did the bible said? It said, "The All mightly God warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge. Just OPPOSITE from what you state. There's no evidence AT ALL to support your "No C ∈ B". Enough evidence for you?

sas

幾年時開始已經有輕生的念頭，可惜到現時為止，我都無咁做過，我試過一隻腳已踏出窗外，不過我想死前都做返件好事救人。
我人生道路上好唔如意，我一無事處，每日就係浪費
請問ben兄可否指點下？

leeyanta

http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=81508&fpage=1

bengrace50

Originally posted by sas at 2005-10-1 02:55:
幾年時開始已經有輕生的念頭，可惜到...

本說過不再發文，今日返來看見生死事大亦得為之。  先送上大觀禪師【自殺】一文希望你有所覺悟。 總之，  自殺是災難的開始  。  有時間想知自殺為何是災難的開始的話，上ICQ找我/留言吧(85661669)，但不會再在此貼文。


自殺 大觀禪師  

一念，可以為善，可以為惡，生、死、善、惡，都是一念之差，是否能放下「念」很重要。

佛教修行的精神是念念無滯，人有很多思念，但不要緊！只要不停滯在這個念上，這個念便不會化成行為，造成影響。小時候的我曾想過離家出走，但從來沒有做出來。相信很多人都想過自殺，但不等於去做，這是因為自殺的念沒有停滯下來，他沒有執著這個念，沒有容許這個念變成行為，造成影響。所以，佛教教我們不要執著，是很重要的。

人的第七識是末那識(Discriminating Consciousness)，喜歡分別及執著，第八識是種子識、阿賴耶識(Alaya Consciousness, Store-house Consciousness)。我們修行靜坐，就是練習當妄念生起後，不讓妄念停滯，而是讓它如浮雲般飄走。這樣，妄念便不會在第七識生起執著，不會在第八識中種下，成為另外一粒新的種子，不會造成行為的影響。可惜，人習慣儲存妄念，心靈就像垃圾堆填區一樣，習慣堆積垃圾，常常胡思亂想，製造了很多問題。抑鬱便是積塞不通，雖然工作、娛樂可以將焦點暫時轉移，但到靜下來的時候，問題又再出現，因為儲存堆積已久。

崇山大禪師教導大眾，保持「不知的心」Don't know mind，執著所「知」，形成「所知障」，所有的思前想後，批判解釋，責人自責，胡思亂想，把我們清淨的心靈污染。

這麼多事情發生，就是一個警號：大家要照顧自己的心靈。

大自然是很好的，心有任何偏差，只要住在大自然裡一段時間，就能回復正常。不少禪師是聽水聲開悟的。有人問崇山禪師：「什麼是人的本來面目？」禪師答：「青山流水。」大自然很重要，給我們認識自己本來面目，根本自性。大自然很容易便教懂大家：我們的自性是本來清淨，如水一般，只懂得隨山石的形態而流，follow situation隨緣做好自己的職責，不會分別這是一塊美麗的石或醜陋的石，一切眾生都有這種質素。大自然清淨的本體，就是人的本體Human nature，就等於我們的本來面目Original Face，所以佛說一切眾生皆有佛性。

為何只有人才可以開悟見性？就是只有人才可以體會清淨的本性，以靜坐、誦經、禮佛 ……等修行方法，就是替心洗澡，把堆積心靈的垃圾清洗，騰出空間，令一切都有扭轉的餘地。回到「不知的心」Don't know，是消化問題的靈藥，讓自己產生能量，承擔處理一切。

有出家人問洞山禪師：「有什麼地方可以避寒暑？」禪師反問：「你為何不去一個地方是沒有寒暑的？」出家人問：「有這樣的地方嗎？」禪師說：「當寒冷的時候，冷死你；熱的時候，又熱死你。」這公案告訴大家，寒就是冷的，暑就是熱的，面對現實，無法逃避。佛說，每個人此生來到世上， 都要學習前生未學懂的東西，假若今生逃避，下生要學的會更艱難。

生死善惡，都是一線之差。有人遇上問題變得抑鬱，視為絕望；有人遇上問題，弄得一無所有，卻視為輕鬆自在解脫。能否做得到，就要看你有沒有心靈的支持，平時有沒有在心靈上下功夫。現在，物質很豐盛，人們什麼都想快，金錢、成就，只是有得必有失，帶來了問題而不自知。回頭看看自己，只有物質財富不足夠的，尋找心靈的財富，我們才可以平衡。如鳥雙翼，如車雙輪，來去自由。希望大家珍惜生命，不要害怕，人是有能力面對我們的煩惱與逆境的，崇山禪師說：

Very soft is true strength
With harmony comes luck
Follow situation then get happiness
Forbearance will make you a great man
  
柔和令你擁有真正的力量
和諧令你幸福
隨緣令你快樂
忍辱令你成為偉大的人

[ Last edited by bengrace50 on 2005-10-1 at 02:59 PM ]

mememe

Silverxing兄,

第一: “The Truthfulness of Freedom of Will” 同埋” 我同justin_lun兄既討論” 無任何牽連。所以我覆述justin_lun既論點時唔需要提及“The Truthfulness of Freedom of Will”。亦即係話你認為我既覆述因為冇提及The Truthfulness of Freedom of Will所以一定”唔明得哂人地讲乜”(post 269)係廢話。

You intention is to aruge whether my post is correct or not. But what I do is simply REPEATING JUSTIN_LUN WORDS AND WHAT HE SAID IN HIS POST.

錯。你敢話呢句”THE ANALOGY ITSELF TALKS ONLY ABOUT FATALISM, BUT HAVE NOTHING ARGUE ABOUT THE TRUTHNESS OF FREEDOM OF WILL AT ALL”係justin_lun兄講既? 我上個帖第四點用0左成個paragraph去話俾你聽你呢句有幾錯。你仲敢咩都推0西落justin_lun身上? 哼! 除非你係justin_lun啦!

Then you(mememe) said, "you(silverxing) cannot said Fatalism is wrong, because of .....(what you said)".

我有咩? 乜我同你有討論過宿命論咩? 乜我有同你講過呢句咩? Quote我呀?! 口講無憑呀!

I keep repeating and repeating and repeating, "I'm not here to argue religious problem! That's not what I intend to do here!!!" Yet, you keep asking me to repeat your point, stating what you've said is correct, and arguing about religious problem.

你喺一個宗教論壇同我講話你唔係討論緊”religious problem”認真一絕。你就算係用邏輯為基本(雖然你唔係)你都冇可能話你唔係arguing religious problem。你冇講及Freedom of Will咩? 你冇提及omniscience咩? 你除0左識得一邊話自己唔係討論緊religious problem而又一邊討論religious problem之外你仲識咩?

講到0甘淺你都唔明我就真係幫你唔到。

It's almost impossible to repeat others' point of view. If you(mememe) really want others to do it, how about you do it first and show everyone it is possible?

你再次講出我喺post258既覆述有咩問題罷啦! 你指出既” 問題”我早就解釋0左喇。再講唔出就承認你無理取鬧啦!

Here, I need to confess. I've made a trap in this argument, to simply trick you!

No matter it's exist at the same time or co-exist, both are NOT what justin_lun said!!!!

The difference between "co-exist" and "exist the same time"? I simply make it up, just to make you stand strong on the argument "justin_lun think Freedom of will and Omniscience exist the same time".

第一: 你可以唔使讀哲學喇。你既”橫蠻無理拳”同”無賴神功”已經練到登峰造極﹐天下無敵。無論面對任何靠”邏輯”或”道理”既對手﹐對方都註定一敗塗地﹐因無奈而七竅噴血而死。

第二: 其實講真﹐你寫過既0甘多個帖﹐邊一編唔係”a trap”嚟到”trick me” 0架? 你講過既0甘多個論點同證據﹐邊一樣唔係你”simply make it up” 0架?

第三: 如果”老吹”都唔算係”無理批評別人”﹐我真係唔知點先算”無理”。

"All form of Christian Gods are omniscient." All A ∈ B, now that's correct. But may I add a footnote. It's totally different from "all Gods are omniscient." Please don't think they're the same, because they're not.

With reference to my argument兩者一模一樣 。請解釋點解” totally different”。

You'll see that you need to "eliminate" double negative before you ever start an logical analysis. The proper term is called "The Law of Double Negation"

“Need to”? 邊個話一定要0架? “The Law of Double Negation” 係話”可以”(can), 唔係”必需”(need)。 你憑”可以”就結論出”必需”﹐有冇搞錯? 再問多次: 你讀咩哲學0架?

How did you explain your ignoration of the fault on "No Omnicient being will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge"?

EASY. 如下:

他(mememe)不斷用“神的全知”來支持宿命論﹐卻故意忽略了宿命論根本違背了“神的全善”﹐若神早知人必定吃禁果而不去阻止﹐神就根本不是全善﹗

(Post 199 by Justin_lun)
http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthr ... ghlight=&page=4

justin_lun

让我来说句公道说话吧！我之所以久久不再贴帖子，正是因为网友mememe的无理取闹，他只会一味攻击反对他的人，根本就不讲什么道理。作为一个基督徒，我又怎么会问“人为什么有自由意志”这种问题呢？网友silverxing的“神为什么要给人自由意志”还比较符合我的观点。何况网友silverxing真的有引用我的帖子。

关于“自由意志”跟“全知”，我的论点确实模糊不清，可以说两人也说得对，不再多述。

最令我气愤的是网友mememe说的“没有全知的存在会警告人不去吃禁果”部分。他竟然断章取义我的帖子！我不知说了多少次“神警告人不要吃禁果”，而他竟用我的帖子去传相反的道！请大家看清楚，我早已说了十数次神的全知有其规则，也就是“人‘必定’吃禁果”这可能性根本不存在。神早就警告了人不要吃禁果，而网友mememe竟然歪曲我的话，说成了完全相反的道理！

网友silverxing，我在此劝告阁下千万不要被他的说话蒙蔽，这人反白为黑、说非成是。他说的什么“橫蠻無理拳”跟“無賴神功”正是他的绝技！

silverxing

Thanks for justin_lun to come back to support me. Now you've said I'm correctly present your point, (at least partly correct,) I'll come back to my last point.

Mememe, even justin_lun said you cannot repeat his point, and he's really angry on your misinterpreting his point. NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO REPEAT OTHER PEOPLE POINT!!!! And more, who makes you qualify to force me to talk about religious problem? Don't I have to right to decide what I'm willing to talk about?

For your logical analysis problem, justin_lun already give you enough "punch" on wrongly said "No omniscient will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge". I don't think I need to repeat any of these. If you know nothing about logical analysis, for example, double negation elimination, go study it in university and don't pretend you know!

20steven

哈哈哈哈 我一早解釋過呢個問題 誰料答左之係始終比反神者諗到d新問題!無止境產生新問題
你可知道佛家中的一切煩惱盡皆自尋!佢一日心中固執有成見點都難以睇得清 看得明