Comparing philosophies, creationism is the best.

[Age]

"The" dictionary, any dictionary, does NOT tell you how to use any thing.

Every dictionary is just a guide to how words are sometimes defined and meant.

You missed the point.

But i did not miss the point. I write in a particular way so that others gain a particular perspective. This is how I evoke the responses I seek, and then recieve.

How I MEAN to use the word "belief" is NOT in the dictionary.

That is fine. There is, not yet, NO right nor wrong way to use a word.

The dictionary notes COMMON uses of the word.

Up to a certain point.

You remember how you accused me of "following the herd"

YES I DO.

- you are doing the same by using words based on how everybody else uses them.

Do I actually use words that way?

But HOW do you KNOW how I use words, especially considering you are having trouble in explaining how you your self uses words?

Also, consider how you MEAN to use the word 'BELIEF', which is NOT in the dictionary as you say, and saying that I use words based on how EVERYBODY else uses them. Does that mean YOU, and YOU alone, uses the word 'BELIEF' in a way that NO other human being, nor I, use it? And if so, then could that explain, or partly explain anyway, WHY you are having so much trouble to explain some thing that most people would see as being a very simple and easy thing to do?

Saying this now seems rather contradictory, and a major shirking of responsibility, to what you said earlier. That is' for starters learn how I use the word 'believe'.

It is what it is. I am still not going to answer you on those terms

Fair enough. You do not have to. But I am still seeing it as rather more contradictory now and a more of major shirking of responsibility on your part, especially consider what you have written here, and elsewhere along the lines of the onus of being understood is up to the speaker/writer.

The best way for me to start, i thought, was to just ask you for clarification of how YOU use the word 'believe'. i thought YOU would be the best, and really the only one, who KNOWS exactly how you use the word 'believe'.

And until you share my background knowledge/experience - you are unlikely to understand. I have no "diesel car" to offer you here.

My beliefs are tools.

Perfect response. That IS what I have been looking for.

Thank you.

(Point noted; about HOW human beings use their own BELIEFS as tools for how they engage with others, and in life in general. NO matter if the BELIEF is an actual true and real BELIEF or NOT, in this day and age of when this is written, they use BELIEFS as TOOLS. I KNOW to US, it may seem so primitive and a bit like in the stone age when those human beings used rocks for axes, but that is just how they were in that year they called 2018).

But obviously what i thought here was WRONG. You have just proven that YOU are not the best one to find out from, in regards to how YOU use words.

OK, then go find out from "the best" on how I use words.

Any suggestions?

HOW do you now propose, for starters, I, start to, begin to learn how YOU use words, especially if you will not and can not explain yourself?

I can explain myself. I do not have the time to. I gave you reading instead.

So now it has come down to;
You want me to learn how you use a word.
Which you can explain.
But you say you do not have to the time to now.
And so, give me reading instead.

I am not yet sure that is going to work somehow.

If you will NOT tell/teach me how you use words, then it will be a very, very long and slow tedious process trying to understand what it is exactly that you write here in this forum.

Well, it will be along and tedious process when conversing WITH YOU. Which is why I am offering you reading where I am not willing to entertain the debate.

WHAT debate? I KNOW of NO debate here.

You told me: start learning how you use a word. I ask you how you use it. You would not explain it and now you say you can explain, but you will not. Nothing here to debate is there?

I wonder if YOU think any one WILL ever understand YOU if you NEVER explain to them how you use words?

Very easy. I don't engage with metaphysics with strangers unless I absolutely have to.

Would there EVER be a time when YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO engage with metaphysics?

(For the observers, I KNOW how much human beings did NOT know in these day is hilarious but THIS IS EXACTLY how they think and speak in the year they call 2018).

Was it you who re-quoted the saying; If you do not know how to explain some thing simply, then you do not really understand it?

If you unable, or unwilling, to explain how you use words, then does that mean that you do not really understand them?

I explained it simply.

WHEN did you?

I thought your whole point now is even though you CAN explain yourself you are still NOT going to explain yourself because you do NOT have the time to do now?

Did you say some thing earlier about digging one's self deeper?

You didn't understand it.

I did not understand WHAT exactly?

That your use of the word 'believe' is vastly different than mine is? Or, some thing else?

Because you lack the background knowledge to understand the simple explanation.[/quote]

Maybe I will or maybe I will NOT. We both will NEVER know until you provide the explain, which you have already openly admitted that you have NOT provided. But you also now that you did explain. So not really sure what is going on here with you.

Would you like to now clear this up by clarifying if you have provided a simple explanation of how you use the word 'believe' and how your usage is vastly different' than mine, and everybody's else usage, as you earlier suggested in the case, and after you clear up if you have or not, I wonder if you even realize that mine, and every one else's usage, is vastly different at different times that we use it?

Were you aware that the use of A word is NOT the exact same EVERY time it gets used?

However, how come you can have a 'perfect' understanding of how you use words, and thus you must have some sort of concept or sense of what the word 'perfect' means, BUT you can NOT even begin to understand how to relate that meaning 'perfect' with a meaning of 'absolute'?

Because in this sense 'perfect' means 'complete'. So you can read: 'I have 'complete understanding of how I use the word'. 'complete absolute' is still a non-sensical phrase.

WHY would you even write the two words 'complete absolute' if that phrase is 'completely' and 'absolutely' a non-sensical phrase?

That phrase is certainly NOT one that I would NOT write down nor use, unless of course I HAVE TO in order to point out some thing, which SOME will instantly see and understand.

Is there still NO way for those to words to come together and relate to each other?

Maybe. If you can explain it.

Ah, so now you are opening up just that friction. That is great.

Could you consider that for a thing to exist then there must of been set of previous things happening prior?

If no, then we are finished, for now. But,
If yes, then could that set of previous happenings be looked at, even accepted as, being a 'perfect' set of happenings? (For the simple fact that if that perfectly same set of happenings happened prior, then that thing existing now could not and thus not would not be existing now.)

If you can neither look at that, nor accept it, then we are finished, for now. But,
If you can look at, then that is great. We can move forward. If you can accept that, then that is even better. We can move forward, faster.

If you have looked at this, and/or accepted it, then let us now change this "thing" to be just 'you'. If you can now look at, and/or accept that, 'you', the human being, with the label "timeseeker" is ONLY existing in the form that it is in now only because of a set of previous happenings, or conditions, then can you also look at, and/or accept, that that observing and experiencing human being labelled "timeseeker" existing ONLY because of an EXACT previous set of conditions?

If no, then bye, for now. But,
If yes, then are you now able to also look at, and/or accept, that that EXACT set of previous conditions, which HAD TO happen in that EXACT set order could be classed as 'perfection'?

If no, then bye, for now. But,

Now, because i do NOT know where you are up to, I will, patiently, await your reply.

That is NOT the case at all.

Then why do you expect simple answers to complex issues?

There are NO complex issues, AT ALL.

Human beings, and ONLY human beings, make things SEEM complex, and hard.

What there is instead, however, is simply questions, which can be answered very easily and simply with very simple and very easily understood answers. For example, questions like; Who am 'I'? What is 'our' purpose in Life? What is the purpose, and/or meaning, of Life? et cetera, et cetera.

There is NOTHING hard nor complex in LIFE, except of course the WAY human beings communicate with each other.

[Atla]

that EXACT set of previous conditions, which HAD TO happen in that EXACT set order could be classed as 'perfection'?

But that is generally called determinism, not perfection.

[TimeSeeker]

But i did not miss the point. I write in a particular way so that others gain a particular perspective. This is how I evoke the responses I seek, and then recieve.

Well yes. That's exactly how confirmation bias works.

Up to a certain point.

Yep. The point of certainty is when somebody tells you that they mean something else

Do I actually use words that way?

But HOW do you KNOW how I use words, especially considering you are having trouble in explaining how you your self uses words?

Well.If you don't use the word like it's in the dictionary and I don't use the word like it's in the dictionary. Statistically the odds of us having shared meaning are even lower.

And since I make a lot of informed guesses I am going to say "you don't use the word like I use the word". With high degree of certainty.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I could be right also.

Also, consider how you MEAN to use the word 'BELIEF', which is NOT in the dictionary as you say, and saying that I use words based on how EVERYBODY else uses them. Does that mean YOU, and YOU alone, uses the word 'BELIEF' in a way that NO other human being, nor I, use it? And if so, then could that explain, or partly explain anyway, WHY you are having so much trouble to explain some thing that most people would see as being a very simple and easy thing to do?

I use it like scientists use it. You don't strike me as a scientist. Only a skeptic. Maybe a contrarian.

Fair enough. You do not have to. But I am still seeing it as rather more contradictory now and a more of major shirking of responsibility on your part, especially consider what you have written here, and elsewhere along the lines of the onus of being understood is up to the speaker/writer.

I have a responsibility to explain myself? To whom ?

But obviously what i thought here was WRONG. You have just proven that YOU are not the best one to find out from, in regards to how YOU use words.

OK, then go find out from "the best" on how I use words.

Any suggestions?

No. How could I have any suggestions? You are the one who "proved" that I am not the best. I imagine that means you know who "the best" is? Else how did you "prove" it?

So now it has come down to;
You want me to learn how you use a word.
Which you can explain.
But you say you do not have to the time to now.
And so, give me reading instead.

I am not yet sure that is going to work somehow.

Have faith

WHAT debate? I KNOW of NO debate here.

Socrates would be ashamed of your irony.

Would there EVER be a time when YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO engage with metaphysics?

Yes. If it got in the way of getting things done. Say - if it got in the way of communication. It's not currently getting in the way of communication because there are plenty of other things to discuss outside of metaphysics (which comes last)

(For the observers, I KNOW how much human beings did NOT know in these day is hilarious but THIS IS EXACTLY how they think and speak in the year they call 2018).

WHEN did you?

When I said "beliefs are tools"

I thought your whole point now is even though you CAN explain yourself you are still NOT going to explain yourself because you do NOT have the time to do now?

Well. You can tell me if you understood my simple explanation or not. if you didn't then I have to simplify it further.

Did you say some thing earlier about digging one's self deeper?

Yes. Do you need a shovel?

Maybe I will or maybe I will NOT. We both will NEVER know until you provide the explain, which you have already openly admitted that you have NOT provided.

That's a lie. I told you "beliefs are tools".

Were you aware that the use of A word is NOT the exact same EVERY time it gets used?

Very much so. If you want to switch to a more precise language than English - I speak Mathematics, Type theory, Python, Ruby, Java, C, C#, Haskell and assembly.

WHY would you even write the two words 'complete absolute' if that phrase is 'completely' and 'absolutely' a non-sensical phrase?

Because I am trying to contrive a demonstration for your benefit. I have no use for that phrase.

That phrase is certainly NOT one that I would NOT write down nor use, unless of course I HAVE TO in order to point out some thing, which SOME will instantly see and understand.

Q.E.D

Could you consider that for a thing to exist then there must of been set of previous things happening prior?

Metaphysics. Not interested.

If yes, then could that set of previous happenings be looked at, even accepted as, being a 'perfect' set of happenings? (For the simple fact that if that perfectly same set of happenings happened prior, then that thing existing now could not and thus not would not be existing now.)

Same error as "perfect universe". Happening vs perfect happening. Here is homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

If you can neither look at that, nor accept it, then we are finished, for now. But,
If you can look at, then that is great. We can move forward. If you can accept that, then that is even better. We can move forward, faster.

You are putting the cart before the horse. You haven't yet explained perfection, but now you have introduced a new meaning "perfect set of happenings". I thought the universe was perfection?

So now you proceeding with your argument when I haven't even accepted your pre-suppositions ? what's up with that? Almost as if you are trying to impose your language on me

There is NOTHING hard nor complex in LIFE, except of course the WAY human beings communicate with each other.

And communication is all about information. I happen to be an information theorist. So I know a thing or million about how communication (including human communication) fails.
http://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html

It is evident to me that you are still learning how to communicate, so I entertain your style. But you are becoming tedious. Once you speak OPENLY and HONESTLY and you ALLOW FOR CLARIFICATION then it moves faster

Unless, of course you play silly games to prove yourself right. So people sense this and begin second-guessing your INTENTIONS. But that's just confirmation bias

[Age]

that EXACT set of previous conditions, which HAD TO happen in that EXACT set order could be classed as 'perfection'?

But that is generally called determinism, not perfection.

Yes, I am aware of this, thanks.

That is why the questioning is asked in the very particular way that it is, especially the last part "... COULD be classed as 'perfection'.

That person I am asking has an illusion that some words and terms can mean the EXACT same as other words and terms. So, what some people generally class as 'determinism' I am just wondering if that one named "timeseeker" was able to even begin to class that as 'perfection'. If that is not able to happen, then that is fine. If it is possible, then that is just as fine also.

We are heading in the same direction. The EXACT same outcome is going to come about anyway.

[Age]

But i did not miss the point. I write in a particular way so that others gain a particular perspective. This is how I evoke the responses I seek, and then recieve.

Well yes. That's exactly how confirmation bias works.

Up to a certain point.

Yep. The point of certainty is when somebody tells you that they mean something else

Do I actually use words that way?

But HOW do you KNOW how I use words, especially considering you are having trouble in explaining how you your self uses words?

Well.If you don't use the word like it's in the dictionary and I don't use the word like it's in the dictionary. Statistically the odds of us having shared meaning are even lower.

And since I make a lot of informed guesses I am going to say "you don't use the word like I use the word". With high degree of certainty.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I could be right also.

Also, consider how you MEAN to use the word 'BELIEF', which is NOT in the dictionary as you say, and saying that I use words based on how EVERYBODY else uses them. Does that mean YOU, and YOU alone, uses the word 'BELIEF' in a way that NO other human being, nor I, use it? And if so, then could that explain, or partly explain anyway, WHY you are having so much trouble to explain some thing that most people would see as being a very simple and easy thing to do?

I use it like scientists use it. You don't strike me as a scientist. Only a skeptic. Maybe a contrarian.

Fair enough. You do not have to. But I am still seeing it as rather more contradictory now and a more of major shirking of responsibility on your part, especially consider what you have written here, and elsewhere along the lines of the onus of being understood is up to the speaker/writer.

I have a responsibility to explain myself? To whom ?

OK, then go find out from "the best" on how I use words.

Any suggestions?

No. How could I have any suggestions? You are the one who "proved" that I am not the best. I imagine that means you know who "the best" is? Else how did you "prove" it?

So now it has come down to;
You want me to learn how you use a word.
Which you can explain.
But you say you do not have to the time to now.
And so, give me reading instead.

I am not yet sure that is going to work somehow.

Have faith

WHAT debate? I KNOW of NO debate here.

Socrates would be ashamed of your irony.

Would there EVER be a time when YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO engage with metaphysics?

Yes. If it got in the way of getting things done. Say - if it got in the way of communication. It's not currently getting in the way of communication because there are plenty of other things to discuss outside of metaphysics (which comes last)

(For the observers, I KNOW how much human beings did NOT know in these day is hilarious but THIS IS EXACTLY how they think and speak in the year they call 2018).

WHEN did you?

When I said "beliefs are tools"

I thought your whole point now is even though you CAN explain yourself you are still NOT going to explain yourself because you do NOT have the time to do now?

Well. You can tell me if you understood my simple explanation or not. if you didn't then I have to simplify it further.

Did you say some thing earlier about digging one's self deeper?

Yes. Do you need a shovel?

Maybe I will or maybe I will NOT. We both will NEVER know until you provide the explain, which you have already openly admitted that you have NOT provided.

That's a lie. I told you "beliefs are tools".

Were you aware that the use of A word is NOT the exact same EVERY time it gets used?

Very much so. If you want to switch to a more precise language than English - I speak Mathematics, Type theory, Python, Ruby, Java, C, C#, Haskell and assembly.

WHY would you even write the two words 'complete absolute' if that phrase is 'completely' and 'absolutely' a non-sensical phrase?

Because I am trying to contrive a demonstration for your benefit. I have no use for that phrase.

That phrase is certainly NOT one that I would NOT write down nor use, unless of course I HAVE TO in order to point out some thing, which SOME will instantly see and understand.

Q.E.D

Could you consider that for a thing to exist then there must of been set of previous things happening prior?

Metaphysics. Not interested.

If yes, then could that set of previous happenings be looked at, even accepted as, being a 'perfect' set of happenings? (For the simple fact that if that perfectly same set of happenings happened prior, then that thing existing now could not and thus not would not be existing now.)

Same error as "perfect universe". Happening vs perfect happening. Here is homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

If you can neither look at that, nor accept it, then we are finished, for now. But,
If you can look at, then that is great. We can move forward. If you can accept that, then that is even better. We can move forward, faster.

You are putting the cart before the horse. You haven't yet explained perfection, but now you have introduced a new meaning "perfect set of happenings". I thought the universe was perfection?

So now you proceeding with your argument when I haven't even accepted your pre-suppositions ? what's up with that? Almost as if you are trying to impose your language on me

There is NOTHING hard nor complex in LIFE, except of course the WAY human beings communicate with each other.

And communication is all about information. I happen to be an information theorist. So I know a thing or million about how communication (including human communication) fails.
http://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html

It is evident to me that you are still learning how to communicate, so I entertain your style. But you are becoming tedious. Once you speak OPENLY and HONESTLY and you ALLOW FOR CLARIFICATION then it moves faster

Unless, of course you play silly games to prove yourself right. So people sense this and begin second-guessing your INTENTIONS. But that's just confirmation bias

Leaving out quotes, and then responding to only half of things, may be deceptive and be helping you feel better, but it is NOT helping your case.

[TimeSeeker]

Leaving out quotes, and then responding to only half of things, may be deceptive and be helping you feel better, but it is NOT helping your case.

It is accustomed to tell the accused what they are on trial for

[Dalek Prime]

Creationism isn't a philosophy. It's not even remotely factual. And it's not even the best fabrication, in any , of many, variations of the story.

Here's my version. A big anus shit's out matter, and we get stuck with it. And on it. And, oh look! I see corn.

[TimeSeeker]

Creationism isn't a philosophy. It's not even remotely factual. And it's not even the best fabrication, in any , of many, variations of the story.

Here's my version. A big anus shit's out matter, and we get stuck with it. And on it. And, oh look! I see corn.

It's about as factual as 'energy' in physics.

As argued elsewhere:

No no. Hold on Can you falsify the existence of 'energy'?

You can't! So it cannot be proven? Exactly like God?

So... what should we do with all of physics then?

[Dalek Prime]

We can always plant physics with the corn.

[TimeSeeker]

We can always plant physics with the corn.

I guess with enough heat we can make popcorn...