Supporting Evidences and References are Critical

[Age]

I BELIEVE your BELIEF is you do not have any BELIEFS [your own declaration].

THAT, what you call "a BELIEF", is a VIEW or as you now say, "a declaration".

A VIEW or a declaration is NOT necessary a BELIEF, as I do NOT BELIEVE 'it' is True. A 'BELIEF', to me, is some thing which is BELIEVED to be true, right, and/or correct. I am OPEN to my views and declarations to being NOT TRUE.

Present some sort of credible EVIDENCE to show that I BELIEVE that my VIEWS are true, right, and correct, then me and others readers can LOOK AT it, and then we will decide what we will.

NO evidence has been provided that I BELIEVE that that VIEW (or any other VIEW I have) is true, right, and correct.

If you CAN provide some EVIDENCE contrary to what I say, then provide it and let us SEE it. Until then I await for you to do it.

I have already explained [sable-toothed tiger example] how humans are evolved with an inherent faculty of believing to facilitate survival.

I KNOW you have provided THAT. Do you recall I RESPONDED to it? Do you recall that you NEVER responded to what THAT what I responded with?

I can only wonder WHY you did NOT?

Your BELIEF i.e. 'I [Age] do not have any BELIEFS' is a false belief which in this case is due to ignorance and stupidity.

1. 'I' is NOT Age.
2. Your BELIEF that the statement, 'I do NOT have any BELIEFS is a false belief', IS, in itself, a false belief because that statement is neither a BELIEF nor a DISBELIEF, therefore, and contrary to YOUR BELIEF, it is NOT any sort of BELIEF. So, 'that statement' can NOT be either a false belief, nor a true belief. For any thing to be a false, or true, BELIEF firstly a BELIEF has to exist. No such BELIEF exists, therefore YOUR BELIEF is NOT even for question.
3. Is YOUR conclusion of "ignorance" and "stupidity" 100% the actual real Truth? In other words are you at all OPEN, to any thing other than YOUR own BELIEF/S here?

I am going to waste time on the above until you have present your beliefs or your thesis.

I THINK you mean going to waste, so called, "YOUR" time. After all 'time', itself, can NOT be wasted.

You really did NOT "DO" a thesis from a nation with english, as their main language, did you?

Also, do you KNOW how to READ. I have continually stated I have NO beliefs nor will I make/create a thesis here, in this forum, therefore, I can NOT present a belief nor will I present a thesis. So, if you are waiting for me to present either, then you will be waiting a while.

Therefore, depending on how you define 'wasting', in relation to 'time', then this will depend how much, so called 'time' you are going "waste", while waiting for me to present some thing, which I can NOT, and will, NOT present, anyway.

Your views are one of a kind that is unique to you.

Of course they are. I have already pointed that out to you. Is this YOUR WAY of saying that you agree with me here?

I suspect a schizo will claim the same thing for his hallucinations.

Some might suspect that a, so called, "schizo" would claim what YOU have just claimed here.

Do you really suspect, think, and/or BELIEVE that a human being, diagnosed with 'schizophrenia' WILL claim 'your views are one of a kind that is unique to you', for "his" hallucinations?

If yes, then WHY do you suspect this?
If no, then WHAT are you REALLY TRYING to say.

I suggest you present your thesis in some journals or write a book to prove your point, then I will rely on that to discuss provided they qualify Justified True Beliefs* therein.
* or whatever that specific mental process you want to label it.

Thanks for your suggested advice. I might just take you up on that.

By the way, did you come to that suggestion all on your lone some, or, have you been reading, subliminally or not, My actual words, and thus taking in WHAT I HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY SAYING?

Some readers would have already NOTICED that I have been saying; I am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better My VIEW/s, and that here, in this forum, is NOT the place to be to express My VIEW/s. I have also expressed that I am here, in this forum, to SHOW, with examples, PROOFS and Evidence, for what I SAY and VIEW of HOW the Mind and the brain work.

Obviously to achieve to be understood FULLY, and have My views recognized and accepted for WHAT they Truly are, in other words be recognized and accepted for WHO 'I' Truly am, then to do this I would NEED to write/express somewhere, some sort of, so called, "thesis". For the, obviously, NECESSARY 'Supporting Evidence' and 'References' that ARE 'Critical' for this type of writing, then that can be, and WILL, be backed up and supported with ALL the PROOF and EVIDENCE NEEDED, from here, in this forum, within these writings.

How the Mind works IS Truly incredible, unfortunately though, the brain can and at times does work incredibly stupid, as has been evidenced throughout human being's history.

By the way the label I give to specific mental processes is really VERY simple and easy indeed. That is one process is CLOSED, and, one process is OPEN.

When a human being is Truly OPEN, and remains that way, then absolutely any thing IS possible, which includes the ability to create a Truly peaceful world for EVERYONE.

[TimeSeeker]

I have already stated what WILL happen.

Sure, but you didn't answer my question. Because you don't know the answer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You really did NOT "DO" a thesis from a nation with english, as their main language, did you?

English is not my mother tongue.
However the principles and quality of a thesis is not language dependent.

[Age]

Have you considered the possibility, that this "self-evidenced Truth" / "universe knowledge" you keep going on about, is simply your own intuition, and it may be wrong too?

YES, I HAVE. (Did you ASSUME otherwise? Your following writings come across as though you have).

Absolutely EVERY or ANY thing I saying could be WRONG or PARTLY WRONG. I have reiterated this already.

Obviously, you have MISSED the part WHERE I explained exactly HOW this 'self-evidenced Truth' / 'Universal Knowledge' arises from and is KNOWN.

If you had READ and UNDERSTOOD that part, then you would NOT have asked this question.

And you are desperate and delusional enough to believe it to be something more and infallible?

Well, obviously, if some thing, like a statement for example, was unambiguous, was NOT in dispute by any thing, and thus irrefutable, was in agreement with absolutely EVERY thing, and obviously was a fact, then that 'statement' would NOT be any thing other, nor more, than just A Truth, which some might call 'Thee Truth'. Nothing hard nor complicated to understand here, right?

Now, for if I am desperate and delusional enough to believe "IT' to be something more and infallible?, I am NOT absolutly sure what the "IT" is that you are referring to here. BUT if "IT" is the 'self-evident Truth' / 'Universal Knowledge', then OF COURSE 'IT' could NOT be some thing MORE. 'IT' is at the highest and fullest it could BE. But 'IT' is also, obviously, infallible. How could a Universal Truth or Knowledge be fallible? That would sort of defeat the purpose of 'IT', 'self-evident Truth' / 'Universal Knowledge', being self-evident Truth / Universal Knowledge. Do you not agree, or, do you agree?

Did you MISSED the parts WHERE I say, 'I do NOT have BELIEFS'? If you have, then there is NO use you writing the words "to believe ..." here. If I do NOT believe any thing, then I could NOT be any thing. to write, "to believe ..." in regards to Me only confuses the issue here.

As for me being 'desperate', then I do NOT think so. But maybe you could show Me WHERE I am, if, in fact, you are saying I am.

As for me being 'delusional', then OBVIOUSLY I would have absolutely NO idea of this. By definition if I was 'delusional enough' I would NOT have a clue that i was delusional, and without help from "others" I would NEVER KNOW.

You too are just a human being through and through.

Talking about 'being a human being through and though', you have just provided one of the greatest examples of WHAT human beings do, in the days of when this is written. That is; Jump to a CONCLUSION based on an ASSUMPTION, ask a question to another, NOT wait for their response/answer, ASSUME what the answer WILL be, and then further write accordingly with and from a CONCLUSION based on that ASSUMPTION.

To come to the CONCLUSION of; "You too are just a human being through and through' IS a totally WRONG ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION.

'Human being', as, once again, exampled above;
1. ASSUME what the "ANSWER" is.
2. Come to a CONCLUSION, based on that ASSUMPTION.
3. Write a question around what the self-made up CONCLUSION is, derived from an ASSUMPTION, with NO regards to what the actual answer will be, and thus NO regards to what its actual truthfulness IS.
4. NO patience, at all, to wait for the TRUE, RIGHT, CORRECT response/answer, from the "other", who IS after all the only ONE with the TRUE, RIGHT and CORRECT knowledge.
5. BELIEVE they already HAVE and KNOW the Truth.
6. Just present a so called "ARGUMENT", for one's own CONCLUSION and ASSUMPTION, and BELIEVE that that is thee Truth, before any actual investigation is made.
7. Continually have and hold those ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS as BELIEFS, and BELIEVE wholeheartedly that those BELIEFS are beyond dispute nor question.
8. Fight as vigorously and as hard as one can for those already gained BELIEFS.
9. Some times fight to the "death" for those BELIEFS, as though they are WHO and WHAT the person actually IS.

Your post is a nonsensical mess.

If you say so, but besides one little flaw in your below conclusion here, you seemed to have understood and have made sense of my post, and "mess", very well.

You still seem to believe that you have access to some kind of "universal knowledge", that is objectively true.

I may well still SEEM to BELIEVE, to YOU, that I have access to this Knowledge, which IS objectively true, but I certainly do NOT intentionally mean to come across as though I BELIEVE I have access to this Knowledge.

I can NOT dispute nor argue against what SEEMS to you to be case. But I can put forward what my intentions are, and they are certainly NOT to come across as though I BELIEVE some thing to be True. Maybe you could help me out here by informing me how I could express a VIEW, as though it is only a view that i have gained, of which I do NOT believe is true, while still expressing my NON-BELIEVED in VIEW as it being ONLY just a VIEW, which was obtained from those experiences that this human body has witnessed.

Although My views show how to access this Knowledge, I certainly could NOT even BELIEVE I have access to this Knowledge, because based on my own logic that Knowledge is NOT even KNOWN, for sure, until some parameters have first been met. In other words it is just a subjective view, which obviously could be WRONG or PARTLY WRONG, until an objective view is reached. Reaching an objective view is but one of the parameters. HOW to be able to view objectively, and thus how to reach that objective view, is just one of the things that I want to express, better.

Even though such an infallible knowledge doesn't exist.

Is this True Knowledge, which itself is infallible?

If no, then infallible Universal Knowledge may exist.
If yes, then does that then not defeat its own logic, reasoning, and thus truth?

Also, do you BELIEVE wholeheartedly that infallible Knowledge does NOT exist?

If yes, then does that mean you BELIEVE some knowledge that of itself MUST also BE infallible?
If no, then is this just a subjective VIEW that you have obtained, which obviously COULD BE WRONG?

Or do you BELIEVE you do NOT have nor hold any WRONG views and/or BELIEFS?

And if not, then what are you talking about?

Besides the flaws you have expressed, and of which I have pointed out, to the READERS, (and to your self also if, and only if, you answer My questions Truly OPENLY and HONESTLY), then you have already repeated what I am talking about fairly accurately.

By the way, did you at all notice, or become somewhat aware, of how it is solely your BELIEF/S, through the BELIEF-system, that made you think/see/believe that was I was saying and talking about was just "a nonsensical mess"?

I can guarantee that if you LOOK AT what I wrote, again, through a completely OPEN perspective, which would mean having and holding NO beliefs whatsoever, and also NOT making ANY assumptions, then you will gain another perspective, and another picture.

By the way NOT making ANY assumptions is a lot harder than NOT having and holding ANY beliefs. The latter, contrary to what some BELIEVE, is really a very quick, simple and easy thing to do. Whereas, stopping one's self from making assumptions takes some practice.

[Age]

I have already stated what WILL happen.

Sure, but you didn't answer my question. Because you don't know the answer.

SO, if you already KNEW what the answer WAS, what was with the inquiring?

You come across as some one, like those ones labelled "lawyers", who ask questions in a deceptively devious way to "trick" the judge, and the jury, (in this case the readers here) into seeing and believing some thing that really is NOT True. It is like you are TRYING TO make "others" look foolish, through the use of words, questioning, and "trickery" (or through "the playing of philosophy" as you might call it), in order so that the "other" will look more stupid and less intelligent than you are so that might just looker more smarter and more intelligent, dare I say it, than you REALLY ARE.

Instead of asking questions, which you are seeking an answer for, which you admit that you already KNOW the answer to, in the hope of showing the "other" and "you" in some sort of light, and just expressed THAT what it is that you really want to say, then you would get places much faster. For example; instead of asking questions that you KNOW the other does NOT have the answer to, and just expressed that what you BELIEVE is True, that is; human beings can NOT know EVERY thing that will happen in "the future", then we would have reached this, agreed upon, conclusion much earlier.

[Atla]

If you say so, but besides one little flaw in your below conclusion here, you seemed to have understood and have made sense of my post, and "mess", very well.

You still seem to believe that you have access to some kind of "universal knowledge", that is objectively true.

I may well still SEEM to BELIEVE, to YOU, that I have access to this Knowledge, which IS objectively true, but I certainly do NOT intentionally mean to come across as though I BELIEVE I have access to this Knowledge.

I can NOT dispute nor argue against what SEEMS to you to be case. But I can put forward what my intentions are, and they are certainly NOT to come across as though I BELIEVE some thing to be True. Maybe you could help me out here by informing me how I could express a VIEW, as though it is only a view that i have gained, of which I do NOT believe is true, while still expressing my NON-BELIEVED in VIEW as it being ONLY just a VIEW, which was obtained from those experiences that this human body has witnessed.

Although My views show how to access this Knowledge, I certainly could NOT even BELIEVE I have access to this Knowledge, because based on my own logic that Knowledge is NOT even KNOWN, for sure, until some parameters have first been met. In other words it is just a subjective view, which obviously could be WRONG or PARTLY WRONG, until an objective view is reached. Reaching an objective view is but one of the parameters. HOW to be able to view objectively, and thus how to reach that objective view, is just one of the things that I want to express, better.

Even though such an infallible knowledge doesn't exist.

Is this True Knowledge, which itself is infallible?

If no, then infallible Universal Knowledge may exist.
If yes, then does that then not defeat its own logic, reasoning, and thus truth?

Also, do you BELIEVE wholeheartedly that infallible Knowledge does NOT exist?

If yes, then does that mean you BELIEVE some knowledge that of itself MUST also BE infallible?
If no, then is this just a subjective VIEW that you have obtained, which obviously COULD BE WRONG?

Or do you BELIEVE you do NOT have nor hold any WRONG views and/or BELIEFS?

And if not, then what are you talking about?

Besides the flaws you have expressed, and of which I have pointed out, to the READERS, (and to your self also if, and only if, you answer My questions Truly OPENLY and HONESTLY), then you have already repeated what I am talking about fairly accurately.

By the way, did you at all notice, or become somewhat aware, of how it is solely your BELIEF/S, through the BELIEF-system, that made you think/see/believe that was I was saying and talking about was just "a nonsensical mess"?

I can guarantee that if you LOOK AT what I wrote, again, through a completely OPEN perspective, which would mean having and holding NO beliefs whatsoever, and also NOT making ANY assumptions, then you will gain another perspective, and another picture.

By the way NOT making ANY assumptions is a lot harder than NOT having and holding ANY beliefs. The latter, contrary to what some BELIEVE, is really a very quick, simple and easy thing to do. Whereas, stopping one's self from making assumptions takes some practice.

Based on what we can tell about the world fairly confidently, it's a fact that there is no "universal knowledge" available to anyone. People who claim to have access to it are simply delusional.

[TimeSeeker]

SO, if you already KNEW what the answer WAS, what was with the inquiring?

I don't know what the answer was! That is why I asked you the question.

Which you answered with "No".

Perhaps I misunderstood what you mean by 'No'?

There was at least two ways to interpret the 'No'.
A. No, I don't know when the next tsunami will happen.
B. The answer to the question 'When will the next tsunami happen?' is 'No'

Which one did you mean?

[Age]

You really did NOT "DO" a thesis from a nation with english, as their main language, did you?

English is not my mother tongue.

You have, once again, NOT answered the ACTUAL question that I asked, for clarification. So, we, readers, are, once again, left to either ask more clarifying questions or just decipher/assume/guess, once more.

However the principles and quality of a thesis is not language dependent.

I agree.

[Age]

If you say so, but besides one little flaw in your below conclusion here, you seemed to have understood and have made sense of my post, and "mess", very well.

You still seem to believe that you have access to some kind of "universal knowledge", that is objectively true.

I may well still SEEM to BELIEVE, to YOU, that I have access to this Knowledge, which IS objectively true, but I certainly do NOT intentionally mean to come across as though I BELIEVE I have access to this Knowledge.

I can NOT dispute nor argue against what SEEMS to you to be case. But I can put forward what my intentions are, and they are certainly NOT to come across as though I BELIEVE some thing to be True. Maybe you could help me out here by informing me how I could express a VIEW, as though it is only a view that i have gained, of which I do NOT believe is true, while still expressing my NON-BELIEVED in VIEW as it being ONLY just a VIEW, which was obtained from those experiences that this human body has witnessed.

Although My views show how to access this Knowledge, I certainly could NOT even BELIEVE I have access to this Knowledge, because based on my own logic that Knowledge is NOT even KNOWN, for sure, until some parameters have first been met. In other words it is just a subjective view, which obviously could be WRONG or PARTLY WRONG, until an objective view is reached. Reaching an objective view is but one of the parameters. HOW to be able to view objectively, and thus how to reach that objective view, is just one of the things that I want to express, better.

Even though such an infallible knowledge doesn't exist.

Is this True Knowledge, which itself is infallible?

If no, then infallible Universal Knowledge may exist.
If yes, then does that then not defeat its own logic, reasoning, and thus truth?

Also, do you BELIEVE wholeheartedly that infallible Knowledge does NOT exist?

If yes, then does that mean you BELIEVE some knowledge that of itself MUST also BE infallible?
If no, then is this just a subjective VIEW that you have obtained, which obviously COULD BE WRONG?

Or do you BELIEVE you do NOT have nor hold any WRONG views and/or BELIEFS?

And if not, then what are you talking about?

Besides the flaws you have expressed, and of which I have pointed out, to the READERS, (and to your self also if, and only if, you answer My questions Truly OPENLY and HONESTLY), then you have already repeated what I am talking about fairly accurately.

By the way, did you at all notice, or become somewhat aware, of how it is solely your BELIEF/S, through the BELIEF-system, that made you think/see/believe that was I was saying and talking about was just "a nonsensical mess"?

I can guarantee that if you LOOK AT what I wrote, again, through a completely OPEN perspective, which would mean having and holding NO beliefs whatsoever, and also NOT making ANY assumptions, then you will gain another perspective, and another picture.

By the way NOT making ANY assumptions is a lot harder than NOT having and holding ANY beliefs. The latter, contrary to what some BELIEVE, is really a very quick, simple and easy thing to do. Whereas, stopping one's self from making assumptions takes some practice.

Based on what we can tell about the world fairly confidently, it's a fact that there is no "universal knowledge" available to anyone.

'WHO' is the "we" you refer to here?

What has the 'world' got to do with 'Universal Knowledge'?

Does 'fairly confidently', of some thing, MEAN that, that thing, is a FACT?

So, and correct me if i am wrong here, if at any particular period of time what the people's of those times CAN TELL, (think/see,know/believe), then that IS what they BASE their KNOWING/KNOWLEDGE on, in relation to what CAN BE known, and IS AVAILABLE, in (perceived) "future" times, TO ANYONE.

People who claim to have access to it are simply delusional.

Are you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY 100% SURE of this?

I wonder just how many people thought/BELIEVED that the person was SIMPLY DELUSIONAL who claimed to have access to knowledge that showed how it is the earth that ACTUALLY revolves around the sun, and NOT the other way around, in those times when that was ALL those people COULD TELL.

Based on what these people COULD TELL about the world "fairly confidently", it was a fact that there was NO "other knowledge" available to ANYONE. To have any other "contrary" knowledge, available to anyone, was just SEEN as simply impossible. As far as they could TELL it was an impossibility. That is of course UNTIL it BECOMES POSSIBLE, and ONLY THEN they SLOWLY start to BELIEVE its availability is True. Some far more slowly than others, i might add.

Obviously the ones who were OPEN were able to discover and see its Truth or not BEFORE those who were NOT even able to LOOK AT it, because they obviously BELIEVED some thing else, so they were completely and utterly CLOSED.

Furthermore, judging by YOUR statement here, am I correct in saying that YOU are not even going to listen to ANYONE who says they KNOW how it is POSSIBLE to access 'Universal Knowledge', are you?

If yes, then so be it. You are free to choose to BELIEVE any thing you WANT to.
If no, then WHY would you listen to some one who you say IS "simply delusional"?

[Atla]

'WHO' is the "we" you refer to here?

What has the 'world' got to do with 'Universal Knowledge'?

Does 'fairly confidently', of some thing, MEAN that, that thing, is a FACT?

So, and correct me if i am wrong here, if at any particular period of time what the people's of those times CAN TELL, (think/see,know/believe), then that IS what they BASE their KNOWING/KNOWLEDGE on, in relation to what CAN BE known, and IS AVAILABLE, in (perceived) "future" times, TO ANYONE.

People who claim to have access to it are simply delusional.

Are you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY 100% SURE of this?

I wonder just how many people thought/BELIEVED that the person was SIMPLY DELUSIONAL who claimed to have access to knowledge that showed how it is the earth that ACTUALLY revolves around the sun, and NOT the other way around, in those times when that was ALL those people COULD TELL.

Based on what these people COULD TELL about the world "fairly confidently", it was a fact that there was NO "other knowledge" available to ANYONE. To have any other "contrary" knowledge, available to anyone, was just SEEN as simply impossible. As far as they could TELL it was an impossibility. That is of course UNTIL it BECOMES POSSIBLE, and ONLY THEN they SLOWLY start to BELIEVE its availability is True. Some far more slowly than others, i might add.

Obviously the ones who were OPEN were able to discover and see its Truth or not BEFORE those who were NOT even able to LOOK AT it, because they obviously BELIEVED some thing else, so they were completely and utterly CLOSED.

Furthermore, judging by YOUR statement here, am I correct in saying that YOU are not even going to listen to ANYONE who says they KNOW how it is POSSIBLE to access 'Universal Knowledge', are you?

If yes, then so be it. You are free to choose to BELIEVE any thing you WANT to.
If no, then WHY would you listen to some one who you say IS "simply delusional"?

Nothing is 100% certain, however right now the idea of "universal knowledge" isn't supported by anything, even if we are fully open.

[Age]

SO, if you already KNEW what the answer WAS, what was with the inquiring?

I don't know what the answer was! That is why I asked you the question.

Which you answered with "No".

Perhaps I misunderstood what you mean by 'No'?

I am NOT sure how an adult human being, with all of those previous life experiences, could MISUNDERSTAND what is meant by "No".

There was at least two ways to interpret the 'No'.
A. No, I don't know when the next tsunami will happen.
B. The answer to the question 'When will the next tsunami happen?' is 'No'

Which one did you mean?

Do you really think/BELIEVE B. took place?

And if you do think/BELIEVE that B. took place, then maybe this is WHERE some/most of YOUR CONFUSION is coming from.

If you had phrased YOUR question in a simple manner, then you would KNOW which way to interpret the equal of the most simplest of answers there are, that is; the "No" answer.

If the "No" answer leaves you, the writer of the question, bewildered, then what hope do you have for the readers here?

Why do you NOT just phrase YOUR questions, especially those, as you say, yes/no question,s so that they can NOT be interpreted in any other way than just one unambiguous way?

Also, maybe if you had NOT re-posted one of YOUR, earlier already responded to, posts and in doing that ALSO changed the words "natural disaster" to "tsunami", then none, or a lot, of this would be happening right now, and we could have FINALLY ALREADY moved on by NOW.

Would you like to, and care to, RE-PHRASE the question, ONCE MORE, so that the readers, and I, can SEE and KNOW what it really IS that you actually WANT TO KNOW.

[TimeSeeker]

I am NOT sure how an adult human being, with all of those previous life experiences, could MISUNDERSTAND what is meant by "No".

Ok. So when I asked you "Do you know when the next tsunami will take place?" and you answered "No" then I correctly understood that you don't know?

I am glad you have finally admitted to your ignorance.

My question. Do you know when (date and time) and where (location) on Earth will the next tsunami take place?

You said 'No'.

Maybe I misunderstood your 'No'. If so - here is your chance to correct my misunderstanding.

[Age]

'WHO' is the "we" you refer to here?

What has the 'world' got to do with 'Universal Knowledge'?

Does 'fairly confidently', of some thing, MEAN that, that thing, is a FACT?

So, and correct me if i am wrong here, if at any particular period of time what the people's of those times CAN TELL, (think/see,know/believe), then that IS what they BASE their KNOWING/KNOWLEDGE on, in relation to what CAN BE known, and IS AVAILABLE, in (perceived) "future" times, TO ANYONE.

People who claim to have access to it are simply delusional.

Are you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY 100% SURE of this?

I wonder just how many people thought/BELIEVED that the person was SIMPLY DELUSIONAL who claimed to have access to knowledge that showed how it is the earth that ACTUALLY revolves around the sun, and NOT the other way around, in those times when that was ALL those people COULD TELL.

Based on what these people COULD TELL about the world "fairly confidently", it was a fact that there was NO "other knowledge" available to ANYONE. To have any other "contrary" knowledge, available to anyone, was just SEEN as simply impossible. As far as they could TELL it was an impossibility. That is of course UNTIL it BECOMES POSSIBLE, and ONLY THEN they SLOWLY start to BELIEVE its availability is True. Some far more slowly than others, i might add.

Obviously the ones who were OPEN were able to discover and see its Truth or not BEFORE those who were NOT even able to LOOK AT it, because they obviously BELIEVED some thing else, so they were completely and utterly CLOSED.

Furthermore, judging by YOUR statement here, am I correct in saying that YOU are not even going to listen to ANYONE who says they KNOW how it is POSSIBLE to access 'Universal Knowledge', are you?

If yes, then so be it. You are free to choose to BELIEVE any thing you WANT to.
If no, then WHY would you listen to some one who you say IS "simply delusional"?

Nothing is 100% certain, however right now the idea of "universal knowledge" isn't supported by anything, even if we are fully open.

Besides the very first four words, Thank you for being much closer to SEEING the actual and real Truth of things. (Just a little bit more work by me, and just a little bit more truth and honesty from you, then WE will get there).

SEE how by expressing some thing more HONESTLY and more OPENLY, (I KNOW you can only do as much as you can at the moment because of those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS that do get in the way) but the more HONEST and OPEN you, human beings, are, then the more you are able to SEE. That is until you are completely HONEST and fully OPEN, and then you WILL reach and SEE, thee Truth far quicker, simpler, and easier, then when you say things that are NOT actually really true, right, nor correct.

Are you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY 100% CERTAIN nothing is 100% certain?

Are you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY 100% SURE right now the IDEA of 'Universal Knowledge' is NOT supported by anything?

COULD IT BE the case that, right now, the IDEA of 'Universal Knowledge' IS actually supported by some thing, but you, atla, have just not been exposed to It yet?

[Atla]

Besides the very first four words, Thank you for being much closer to SEEING the actual and real Truth of things. (Just a little bit more work by me, and just a little bit more truth and honesty from you, then WE will get there).

SEE how by expressing some thing more HONESTLY and more OPENLY, (I KNOW you can only do as much as you can at the moment because of those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS that do get in the way) but the more HONEST and OPEN you, human beings, are, then the more you are able to SEE. That is until you are completely HONEST and fully OPEN, and then you WILL reach and SEE, thee Truth far quicker, simpler, and easier, then when you say things that are NOT actually really true, right, nor correct.

Are you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY 100% CERTAIN nothing is 100% certain?

Are you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY 100% SURE right now the IDEA of 'Universal Knowledge' is NOT supported by anything?

COULD IT BE the case that, right now, the IDEA of 'Universal Knowledge' IS actually supported by some thing, but you, atla, have just not been exposed to It yet?

Of course it's possible that I haven't been exposed to something this basic. I just find it highly unlikely, as everything I've been exposed to so far, all support the view that there is no "universe knowledge" available for us.

[Age]

I am NOT sure how an adult human being, with all of those previous life experiences, could MISUNDERSTAND what is meant by "No".

Ok. So when I asked you "Do you know when the next tsunami will take place?" and you answered "No" then I correctly understood that you don't know?

When did you CORRECTLY understand me? Just a very short while ago you said in written words;
Perhaps I misunderstood what you mean by 'No'?

I NEVER clarified any thing up, YET. So, when did you CORRECTLY understand me? Was it BEFORE or AFTER I wrote:
Would you like to, and care to, RE-PHRASE the question, ONCE MORE, so that the readers, and I, can SEE and KNOW what it really IS that you actually WANT TO KNOW?

I am glad you have finally admitted to your ignorance.

WHAT ignorance?

WHERE and WHEN did I "finally admit to my ignorance"? And, WHAT EXACTLY did I SUPPOSEDLY admit ignorance TO?

If the TRUTH be KNOWN I am NOW IGNORANT of WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW.

I am IGNORANT not because of any choice. I am just totally unaware/ignorant of what you say I have finally admitted to my ignorance TO.

My question. Do you know when (date and time) and where (location) on Earth will the next tsunami take place?

You said 'No'.

If you say so.

Is this, answering of a question, what you are saying is my ignorance?

Maybe I misunderstood your 'No'.

Maybe you did, maybe you did NOT. Really you are the only one that would Truly KNOW.

But it looks very straight forward and simple to me, I am still NOT SURE how you could misunderstand any thing here.

If so - here is your chance to correct my misunderstanding.

How can I correct YOUR misunderstanding?

You would have to TELL us first what it is that YOU ARE MISUNDERSTANDING, and it is ONLY YOU who KNOWS YOUR misunderstand and if you misunderstood my "No", or not.

By the way, it appears to me that you are very eager to get a particular "answer" out of me so that you, acting as that "lawyer", can address the judge and jury (the readers) with YOUR final speech hoping that the judge and jury (readers) will find me "guilty" (WRONG) and then also be the executioners, for you, also?