30 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-06-13 0230 +Baccus93

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-06-13 0230 +Baccus93
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecbu6qNgiTE&google_comment_id=z13rvtdhyq3cgls4g04cjt04tuvlfpybaj4
https://pastebin.com/M4yjefHD
__


+Baccus93 __ It would seem you have concocted a straw-man by attempting to apply an atheistic looking argument to your misunderstanding of the lie system.



Let us take what you wrote to me and transpose "they" for "God" and see what we get (with only a minor tweak for clarity):

__




*You can't prove "God" [is anything at all], but since things are visible, [that] if "God" existed, it would look like what "God" would do (if "God" existed and [wanted] to be known).*




*Since this is what "God" would do if "God" [wanted] to get you to believe "God" exists - therefore this is proof "God" exists.*



__



Or more succinctly: _"Things are the way they are because God wants us to know He exists - therefore God exists"._



That is - _of course_ - silly and circular. If that is what I am suggesting then sure - it would be silly and circular.



But that's not what I am suggesting.



__



I'll try to help you out. In a *nutshell* (I am going to write just a few paragraphs that really need to be five hundred - so keep that in mind):



__



One of the ways we can know we are in a lie system is because *for lie system events and claims* we are not ever presented with "sufficient proof" for events and claims. Sufficient proof is *intentionally* withheld. (I will give you an example of this at the end.)



There is no lie system without the withholding (or censorship) of "sufficient proof".



The only exception - _of course_ - is when the truth about an event or claim can be sufficiently proven by the audience (i.e., it can for oneself become a self-evident truth).



__

To help you understand: No liar is going to tell you it's raining *and expect you to believe him* when you are both standing out in an obviously beautiful clear sunny day.

__



And in case you do not understand what is meant by "sufficient proof": *Sufficient proof is that which necessarily proves an event or claim to be true and real*.



Sufficient proof is something that when obtained means a claim is necessarily true. With it - the claim can no longer be reasonably denied. To deny genuine "sufficient proof" when it is presented would mean you either do not understand what you have been shown or you are being dishonest.



*All honest and intelligent people will accept sufficient proof when it is presented*.



The *absence of sufficient proof* means your belief in an event or claim is always founded and formed on *trust* and accepting _or mistaking_ proof's appearances in place of proof itself.



It means you trust the person who has asserted the claim. *Your belief is the result of a suggestion* [and not the result of sufficient proof]. _Much like the placebo effect._



__



Here is the point you need to understand: *If we are not in a lie system (i.e., here is a way to falsify my claim - understand?) then there would be occasions when we are presented with sufficient proof for events and claims*.



If we are not in a lie system it would happen either intentionally or randomly or as a consequence of something else. It would simply - _at some point_ - happen.



But if we are in a lie system *as I understand it* (not how YOU incorrectly understand it - but how Lesta correctly understands it) - _it will never happen_.



(I will give you an example in a moment.)



>> Remember that a ["theory"] that is true cannot *_successfully_* be falsified. <<



>> The claim can be falsifiable - _but nothing will actually invalidate it._ <<



Do you understand?



[That is to say - there is a way to falsify my concept of the lie system - *but because I am correct - _you will not succeed_*.]



__



Now - if you have an "oppositional defiance disorder" (as I suspect you do) then you will find yourself endeavouring to nit-pick over my words looking for "loopholes" etc. _Don't give in to that foolish temptation._



Instead - *try to understand my words rather than trying to resist them*.



If you do not do that then you can only become frustrated and make no meaningful progress.



I am much smarter than you and so you cannot expect to understand everything perfectly let alone the first time.



As I have mentioned - I will leave you with a practical example concerning "sufficient proof".



Did you hear about the recent alleged shooting of "Christina Grimmie"? She was allegedly gunned while signing autographs and posing for photos with fans.



My question to you is this: If you did hear about that event - do you believe it happened? Do you believe it was a real and genuine shooting?



If so - why?



If you can take this seriously you will soon understand that "sufficient proof" is intentionally withheld and is an inextricable and defining feature of the lie system itself.


__________________________________________
Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's posts, comments, videos and discussions:
https://pastebin.com/Bfr5RMSg

Here is Lesta Nediam's Google Plus posts (i.e., blog) - this is where Lesta is most active:
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's video uploads:
https://pastebin.com/WV42jUb1

Here is Lesta Nediam's YouTube channel - for videos about the lie system:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w