[Anagogy]

Freedom and Existence are examples of nouns that do not exist. They are fictitous ideas. They are fictitous because they are ideas. Products of the imagination. They are necessary for use in the English language just as imaginary numbers are necessary in mathematics. Mathematics itself is imaginary and so is the English language.

I don't understand your logic when you say that because something is an idea, it doesn't exist. If you want to get right down to it, just about everything you look at is an idea. For example, look at a book. A book is just a collection of matter. The idea, that it is a book, is just a concept. It is an aggregate of parts, and we choose to call those parts, when organized in a certain fashion, a book. So, it seems from your perspective, books do not exist, but a collection of matter that resembles this "fictitious idea" of a book does exist. However, mathematics, in my humble opinion, is true regardless of where you are. The quantity of seven will always be seven, but the symbol we use to represent that quantity is subject to the preference of whoever counts that quantity. I would agree with you there. And language also is just a series of symbols agreed upon by convention. I'm just trying to understand your point is all.

Reality is not "to exist." Something must be real to exist, but something does not have to exist to be real. God is real, but God does not exist. The word "freedom" is real, but it does not exist. Things that are entirely subjective are real, but they do not exist. I am saying that God is not entirely subjective, but God is real.

Okay, well, I think your argument would be helped immensely if you gave us your clear cut definition of what "real" means to you. If we all just sit here and argue, without using same definitions for things as fundamental to the discussion as the notion of "real", it can really only result in argument rather than discussion. You just said that things that are entirely subjective are real, but they don't exist. However, up above you said that ideas were not real because they were fictiousess and imaginary (i.e. subjective). This like saying (A) is not (B), however (B) is (A). Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rip you apart, I'm just a little hung up on your definitions because they are not following any structure.

I do wish for it. I wish for constructive criticism. How can "intention manifestation" a bad thing if I wish to manifest constuctive criticism of my logic to reach truth? Personally I don't think Tropicality or any of the other people I really want to debate with will bring their dinner to my table. They don't like me because I am Christian. My religion is viewed as ignorant in their eyes. They discard my logic because they are afraid of believing in Jesus. I understand.

I could be way off base here, Josh, but I've read quite a few of the posts on this site, and I don't recall ever seeing Tropicality or any of the others say they hated or disliked you. They simply disagree with your logic is all. And I have no problem with Christians as people, I used to be a hardcore Christian myself. And most of the people I know and love (my family included) are Christian. So I have enormous compassion for people with Christian beliefs. However, I don't agree with that belief system anymore for various reasons. I have noticed that many Christians seem to derive power from placing themselves in the victim chair, for some reason. That's not intended to be a criticism, just an observation that doesn't apply to all Christians.