That’s not all I wrote about your avoiding, yet again, to show any of these proofs. Note the LOLs are increasing.
and the problematic grammar constructions also.
I’m glad that your imaginary friends are doing so well.
I guess if you’re not going to show your proofs, you might as well just keep doubling down on things you will also never prove.
Imagine being a person who makes a claim:
Everyone is in a cult.
When asked to prove this, he asks that others define the terms in the very claim he made. His definition is relevant to his claim, not other people’s?
He seems to know this when other people make claims. He asks them, sometimes, what they mean by a word in their claim.
But suddenly, other people need to tell him what he meant when he made a claim.
Actually it would depend on what the person making the claim meant by ‘God’. Perhaps cult means something that would mean that that person would agree.
You made a claim. Substantiate it or not, but it’s not other people’s fault that suddenly you cannot say what you own claim means.
Oh, look. What does that lead to?
He won’t get around to showing us the proof.
How convenient.
Oh, are things hard and complex for you here? I am so sorry. Thank you for letting us know yet another excuse for not producing these proofs. Even though sometimes you say that unlike us you show proofs. And then other times saying that you don’t show proofs because that’s not what you are here for.
Given the contradictions, I choose to believe you when you say you don’t share proofs and are not here for that. I’d say you are lying when you contradict that in other places, but I don’t think you’re aware of what you’re doing. So, you tell mistruths, and probably have to avoid looking to closely at flickers of awareness you are missing something or might have contradicted yourself, but you might, just manage to pass a lie detector.
Given your level of evasiveness we likely will never be informed of your proofs. Fortunately, you are would hardly be the only route to truth, even if you were one of them.
He didn’t say anything about it being ‘for you.’
If you’d read what he linked you to, you would see that the film does not show that at all. But, even though this is a philosophy forum, we can expect you not to participate in even this most basic way in a discussion. It’s clear you don’t even know what the position you are disagreeing with even is, despite being given the information from at least 2 posters, N included.
Thank you. I do truly appreciate that you made the effort.
I am going to copy/paste that post here because when I read it can’t see what you proved.
Which part of this is a proof and what claim is it proving?
Thank you.
I tend to think that Age legit never even could comprehend that other people with their own minds exist. Age can’t comprehend what humans are and what the human world is. I guess even to be truly evasive, you have to comprehend these things first.
I would maybe put it this way: Age is absolutely ruthless and “evasive” towards the bad-behaving voices in her singular/solipsistic God-mind.
Although ‘you’ve’ been in the habit of or conditioned into thinking ‘you’ can make only gradual or incremental improvements in ‘your’ perception of things, there’s always the capacity/potential of improvement rapidly rather than linearly in ‘your’ results.
How one perceives a concept depends on past experiences, cultural background, and personal values … subjective interpretation. The level of trust and reliability, effort and confidence we attach to that can change and create a degree of effectiveness and efficiency that can advance suddenly. So suddenly that the transition from one domain of perception to another can be so pronounced that creates a gap seeming discontiguous.
Trying harder isn’t necessarily the solution to achieving more. It may not offer any real promise for getting what ‘you’ want . Sometimes, in fact, it’s a big part of the problem.
If you stake ‘your’ hopes for a breakthrough on trying harder than ever, ‘you’ may kill ‘your’ chances for success.
While becoming more aware won’t always result in a big jump in ‘your’ effectiveness, it will allow ‘you’ to be able to recognize when ‘you’ are stuck more quickly. And ‘you’ll’ know that it’s time to adopt a new approach
Where is ‘mind’?
In the brain? A container of memory working together with biological reactors. How are thoughts originated there? How is a ‘self’ produced?
is it separate from ‘you’? Is it an accumulated mass of knowledge that all share, that we tune into to pick up information? Where does the knowledge come from? Inside you or outside?
Is is it created through social adaptation or indoctrination for it’s purposes? Still separate from ‘you’.
LOL “never ever do”. This one speaks as though it knows forever more.
Okay. I will not ask you to clarify what you mean, exactly, BECAUSE ‘you “never ever” do’, either.
Back to the ‘usual pattern’ of this one.
List some of the perceived negative traits ‘about me’.
The video clip and link that it provided supported the exact opposite of what it claimed anyway.
If you do not think this, then this is perfectly fine and okay with. That you express what you do not think and believe ‘we’ are forever grateful for.
Yeah “guys”, what do you think?
Do ‘I’ know what ‘I’ am doing here? Or, do ‘I’ not?
And, if ‘I’ do, by ‘how much’, exactly?
Yet, when I inform you, you usually end up just completely disagreeing anyway.
Which is completely understandable considering the outcome.
. Once more, I choose my words very carefully here. Again, I do this to show, with proof, the very reasons why human beings remained confused and in conflict, and so present what not to do and what is actually necessary to keep creating ‘the actual world’ we all want to live in.
Yes, these people actually kept believing and so kept insisting that it was ‘me’ who kept denying.
Again, the reasons why it took these human beings to ‘catch up’ is very clear and obvious here.
Once again this one makes a statement claiming something, but this time put three question marks at the end of it. Thus, proving what it believes is absolutely true once more.
Now “greenfuse” is telling ‘me’ that ‘I’ know something, but which ‘I’ do not know.
“greenfuse”, however, would never ever accept this, and so will just keep believing, absolutely, what it thinks it knows here instead.
Notice how it never actually answered the question I posed and ask is. “greenfuse” appears to have a real fear of just answering and clarifying questions. But this is totally understandable, given its past experiences.
I am not able to make sense of this. Would you like to rephrase it and post again?
Okay. Most older human beings usually do “see” and “hear” only what they want to see and hear. Again, when and if you also come to learn and understand how the Mind and the brain actually work, along with the belief system itself, then you will see and understand why you kept doing this previously.
Also noted is how many times you confuse ‘asking’ with ‘demanding’ or ‘telling’. Just like you confuse ‘statements’ with ‘questions’ quite often as well.
Okay, but again, you commonly do “see” things differently from ‘me’ and “others”.
Okay. But did you also opt to omit the words I specifically informed you I had accidentally left out?
Also, could you be misinterpreting what I have meant, or is this not a possibility in “greenfuse’s world”?
So, you admit you opt to only choose to believe ‘some things’ I say but refuse to choose to believe ‘other things’. Which really is ‘quite convenient’.
Okay, and you know ‘my behaviour’ better than ‘I do’, correct?
Also, what ‘you’ base ‘my behaviour’ on, exactly and solely, are printed words on a screen alone, correct?
If not, then what else are you make ‘your judgements’ on, exactly?
If this is what you really want to believe is absolutely true, then okay. Now what is ‘my position’, exactly, which you claim is clear for everyone to see?
So, there is not a thing I know, and this is clear for everyone to see, correct?
you, “nausamedu”.
And you keep using the ‘it’ word to allude to something only because you, like “greenfuse”, do not like to be specific, so as not to expose “yourselves” to ever saying anything Incorrect or Wrong.
Now,
Do you believe the onus is on me to debunk your claim/s?
you believe I fail to understand ‘the subject’, (whatever the words ‘the subject’ are referring to exactly), correct?
What do you believe that I keep preaching about, exactly?
Do you believe things and so have a belief system, or not?
Once more, the allusive ‘this’.
And, if “nausamedu” ever got around to answering and clarifying the questions I posed and asked it, openly and honestly, then what is really funny is the Truth that would come to light.
So, this one proposed that there are only ‘two options’ only, when there are clearly more, and claimed that one of those ‘two only options’ is ‘you just corner them till they break’.
Now, obviously, only a very scared and immature person would want to ‘corner’ another ‘till they break’. And it laughably calls ‘me’ the one who is ‘like a petulant child’.
Good question. How can I prove something to you when you do not even understand what I have told you?
So, because this one and others here believe absolutely that the earth does not revolve around the sun and that the moon does not revolve around the earth, then this means that the onus is on ‘me’ alone to do any kind of proving here.
It is also up to ‘me’ alone to debunk what it believes and claims is the absolute truth. But, this is not going to happen anyway, because ‘I’, apparently, do not understand ‘it’, (whatever this ‘it’ word is referring to exactly).
What are you even on about now?
The ‘evidence’ you were given did not even show that the earth does not revolve around the sun. In fact, that ‘evidence’ even shows more how the earth actually does revolve around the sun.
Are you now ‘trying to’ claim that ‘that evidence’ shows or proves that the earth does not revolve around the sun at all?
Also, how could anyone so-call ‘doubt’ just ‘a model’? A ‘model’ is just ‘a model’. Now, it is claimed to be ‘a model’ of what is claimed to be an absolute Accurate version of what happens and occurs absolutely, or is ‘a model’ of what is just guessed, presumed, or theorised to happen only? In other words, is it ‘a model’ of what ‘might’ occur or ‘does’ occur?
Also, so if any of you ‘doubted’ 'a model, you would have supposedly, immediately, responded to the information another gives you, but when I question another’s claim, which they believe is true, you, almost immediately, respond to my questioning and challenging.
So, I supposedly REFUSE to ‘immediately respond’ to information given to me when I doubt the so-called ‘evidence’ presented. Why do you believe this to be true “greenfuse”.
I already know, for sure, that you only somewhat believe this to be true, but why did you just make this claim here, in a publicly visible philosophy forum?
Also, you appeared not to like how ‘I’ do not do what ‘you’ people do here in a philosophy forum, and because you called what ‘I’ do a ‘double standard’ ‘I’ chose to do what ‘you’ people do in this forum, so ‘I’ told ‘you’ to where to go and read for “yourself” and that ‘you’ will find it there.
Is this the type of respect ‘you’ want, which ‘I’ get from ‘you’ people?
How does the mind and brain go astray in relation with belief? If the location of mind is ambiguous where does one go to rationalize?
Because it was clear you didn’t know what his position was. If you’d read what he offered, you’d understand, regardless of whether you still disagreed.
But the most important thing is that you offered a proof you’d made in post 127. I asked a couple of clarifying questions about that in another post.
So, although I have very clearly written out ‘the reasons’ why ‘I’ write on these forums, some of these people, like “flannel jesus” are still only at the ‘I think’ stage, and still at the ‘it is probably an incomprehensilbe reason anyway’ stage.
Yes, and that is the very beauty of all of this.
What ‘I’ am proving, showing, and revealing went straight past these people, in the days when this is being written, even after I specifically highlighted some words in capital letters to emphasise the ‘actual points’ I was making.
Notice how they would just keep talking ‘about me’, instead of just stopping for “a second”, as some would say to just seek out clarity and the Truth. And, the funniest part is they wonder why they were still looking for and seeking out answers and the truth.
LOL I have expressed some of my ideas absolutely clearly. Again, people with beliefs and presumptions only “see” what they want to see.
As for understanding ‘your’ or “others” ideas, just maybe, ‘I’ understand them better than ‘you’ or “others” do. And, just maybe ‘I’ was aware of those ideas and understood them before ‘you’ or “others” ever did anyway. Just maybe ‘I’ had moved on from those (very old and outdated) ideas some time ago.
Most of this is absolutely True. ‘I’ certainly and absolutely do not want to ‘convince’ absolutely anyone of anything, and, ‘I’ certainly do not want to be ‘convinced’ of absolutely anything. Either one can provide proof and/or a sound and valid argument for what they claim is true, which would obviously be irrefutable, and so instead of being ‘convince’ of anything ‘I’ would just accept and agree with ‘it’.
Thank you for:
Providing another great example of why these ones took ‘so long’.
My motivation is ‘very, very strange’ compared to how ‘you’ people are living in ‘this world’ that you have created for “yourselves”.
If anyone is interested, ‘I’ have never and will never be involved in “rage baiting”.
The reason, however, why so much ‘rage’ comes out of these people from ‘my words’ is because there is so much ‘rage’ built up within these people. Which is not surprising at all considering ‘the world’ that they were brought up and raised in. So much ‘rage’ spills ou of them because they are so ‘full of rage’, again, because of their personal past experiences, which they all had to suffer and endure.
These two appear to not yet be fully aware of the exact reasons why I write and express in the exact way I am doing and showing here.
These two also appear to not recognise and notice their projection here as well.
More light could help guide the humans of this dark age towards the harmonious future that you hail from, and also cut our electricity bills.
When and if you ask you shall and will be provided.
Okay. Now, hopefully, you recognise the ridiculousness and idioticity as well when “others” tell me to “go and read (this or that) and you will find the proof there,” too.
But, you did accuse ‘me’ of ‘double standard’, so ‘I’ just did what ‘you’ people do in forums.
But that is not what I said and was referring to.
Also, the fact that you questioned me about ‘proof’ regarding the Universe not beginning and expanding, I thought would have been enough ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ that that post was not the one I said.
That is post 127 in this thread. This was part of why I copy/pasted post 127 in this thread, just so we were in full agreement.
anew1: In post 127 of this thread.
So, I went to post 127 in this thread and copy pasted that. Now you say that is not right.
I rechecked. If I go to post 127, this is the post I find:
Sure, I saw it had nothing to do with the universe issue. I thought it was a different proof you were referring me to. I don’t understand why you mentioned post 127. Is that post an example of a proof or does it contain one?
Why do you believe, absolutely, that that is all you and some others can get?
Notice how it refuses to acknowledge what is the very thing being discussed here.
And, as long as everyone is perfectly capable of understanding what I am doing, as you claim is the truth, then what I have set out to do will work out perfectly as I have planned.
Oh, and by the way, please keep pointing out that to ‘you’ alone it is ‘me’ who is the joke here.