Einstein on the train

[Atla]

Just another ATTEMPT at deflection.

By the way I have NEVER disputed that you have clarified in detail the opposite. I am just POINTING OUT that you claim one thing and then clarify, in detail, the exact opposite. As has been SHOWN here, in this forum.

Now, you can TRY your hardest to ignore this fact, for as long as you like, but your continual refusal to clarify my questions, make up utterly WRONG and completely ridiculous ASSUMPTIONS about me and my behavior is just more EVIDENCE of what you are actually doing here.

And you continue to lie all the same, in front of your "readers".

By "definitely" I mean based on all available evidence, but we can never be absolutely 100% certain of anything. I clarified these things many times, even though it's obvious to most people.

But you can't admit that there is no absolute 100% certainty available for us, because then you would have to admit that you're simply insane, and you spend your days preaching bullshit here.

[surreptitious57]

But you have told me previously that you do NOT do BELIEF. But here you are now saying that you do DISBELIEF. NOT BELIEVING some
thing has the EXACT SAME effect of STOPPING the actual and real Truth from coming to light be discovered and / or revealed just as
much as BELIEVING some thing does

This is an absolute statement but one that only applies in specific situations not all situations
Not believing something which is not true is a way to discover the truth by way of elimination

[Age]

Just another ATTEMPT at deflection.

By the way I have NEVER disputed that you have clarified in detail the opposite. I am just POINTING OUT that you claim one thing and then clarify, in detail, the exact opposite. As has been SHOWN here, in this forum.

Now, you can TRY your hardest to ignore this fact, for as long as you like, but your continual refusal to clarify my questions, make up utterly WRONG and completely ridiculous ASSUMPTIONS about me and my behavior is just more EVIDENCE of what you are actually doing here.

And you continue to lie all the same, in front of your "readers".

By "definitely" I mean based on all available evidence, but we can never be absolutely 100% certain of anything.

So when you write things like: There is definitely no such mind's eye. What you are actually saying, and meaning, instead IS: But there actually could be a Mind's EYE. Is this now correct?

By the way you have still not clarified what you actually meant when you used the word 'total' in YOUR sentence: This is totally not the "actual truth" you moron.

Did you also mean that that you are also NOT absolutely 100% certain here as well?

I clarified these things many times, even though it's obvious to most people.

Did you? WHEREABOUTS exactly did you clarify these things "many times" previously?

But you can't admit that there is no absolute 100% certainty available for us, because then you would have to admit that you're simply insane, and you spend your days preaching bullshit here.

But I have ALREADY explained how there is only One thing I can be 100 % certain of.

EVERY thing else could just be like a dream for all I know.

You have already informed me that I am insane, and so I have already admitted by saying, from your perspective, 'I' am insane.

[Age]

But you have told me previously that you do NOT do BELIEF. But here you are now saying that you do DISBELIEF. NOT BELIEVING some
thing has the EXACT SAME effect of STOPPING the actual and real Truth from coming to light be discovered and / or revealed just as
much as BELIEVING some thing does

This is an absolute statement but one that only applies in specific situations not all situations
Not believing something which is not true is a way to discover the truth by way of elimination

But you have previously stated that you do NOT do BELIEFS. And NOT BELIEVING is a BELIEF.

Also, are you absolutely CERTAIN some thing is NOT true BEFORE the NOT believing BELIEF is formed?

And, can you now SEE just how easy 'what is "really happening" ' and/or 'what is not true' can so quickly become BELIEF?

[Atla]

By "definitely" I mean based on all available evidence, but we can never be absolutely 100% certain of anything.

So when you write things like: There is definitely no such mind's eye. What you are actually saying, and meaning, instead IS: But there actually could be a Mind's EYE. Is this now correct?

Yes, as I already made it clear many times.

By the way you have still not clarified what you actually meant when you used the word 'total' in YOUR sentence: This is totally not the "actual truth" you moron.

Did you also mean that that you are also NOT absolutely 100% certain here as well?

Yes, as I already made it clear many times.

Did you? WHEREABOUTS exactly did you clarify these things "many times" previously?

I have. I won't spend 20 minutes looking for and copying posts now. You should know very well what I'm talking about.

But I have ALREADY explained how there is only One thing I can be 100 % certain of.

EVERY thing else could just be like a dream for all I know.

You have already informed me that I am insane, and so I have already admitted by saying, from your perspective, 'I' am insane.

Based on all available evidence, there isn't even one thing to be 100% certain of (well with the possible exception that there's something rather than nothing, but that doesn't tell us anything about anything).
And stop deflecting, you aren't just insane from my perspective, but you are insane based on all available evidence.

[surreptitious57]

But you have previously stated that you do NOT do BELIEFS And NOT BELIEVING is a BELIEF

Also are you absolutely CERTAIN some thing is NOT true BEFORE the NOT believing BELIEF is formed

And can you now SEE just how easy what is really happening and / or what is not true can so quickly become BELIEF

Not believing is the complete opposite of believing so they cannot be the same as they violate the Law Of Non Contradiction
I do not do belief of any kind whatsoever and that is because belief is entirely unreliable as a means of acquiring knowledge
If what is happening can be demonstrated then it cannot become a belief as belief and knowledge are mutually incompatible

[uwot]

To me, there is NO word that is another word for some thing else. By definition each word has its own distinct definition or definitions. If one work is another word, then one of those words is completely redundant.

To me, the words 'Mind', 'God', and 'Universe' have their own distinct different definitions, which when these specific definitions are LOOKED AT, questioned and challenged, then they, ALL together, form a picture-perfect VIEW of things.

Yeah, this is the bit you don't get. Pretty much the first thing you should take from philosophy is the apocryphal story of Socrates asking the Oracle at Delphi who the wisest person was.
"You, oh Socrates." says the Oracle.
"Me?" says Socrates, "But I know nothing."
"Ah but you are wise enough to realise."
At the time, Athens was awash with sophists peddling their "picture-perfect VIEW of things" based on their "own distinct definition or definitions." With very few exceptions, the definition that some crank was defending was utterly demolished by Socrates. The main exception was Parmenides, after whom Plato named a dialogue. The reason he was given such respect is that he said the only thing that no philosopher has ever been able to refute - 'being is'. It's not much and in today's vernacular pretty much means 'There is some weird shit going on.'
For at least two and a half thousand years, people have dreamt of 'the perfect language', one that they only have to analyse to understand everything - they're called rationalists when they do it with some aplomb and by the rules, and nutcases when they don't.
People that haven't studied philosophy, and even some who have, don't understand that it's a game - it is story telling. Anyone that doesn't know that any coherent narrative not explicitly ruled out by facts about how the universe works could be true, and instead clings on to a story that pleases them is dogmatic - either because of ignorance or stupidity.

[uwot]

Oh and by the way, this is what this f@€king thread is about: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

[Logik]

If Mind is another word for God then I dont accept it because I dont believe in God

This doesn't make sense to me.

You believe in Minds.
You do not believe in God.

If Mind is another word for God then what you are saying is "I believe in Mind but I do not believe in Mind".

If two words are synonymous - which one you use is just a choice.

All you seem to be saying is "I believe in minds but I refuse to call them gods.". OK. Why?

[surreptitious57]

I am an atheist so have to reject all definitions of God what ever they may be
If Mind is God however then I would want to see some actual evidence for this

[Age]

By "definitely" I mean based on all available evidence, but we can never be absolutely 100% certain of anything.

So when you write things like: There is definitely no such mind's eye. What you are actually saying, and meaning, instead IS: But there actually could be a Mind's EYE. Is this now correct?

Yes, as I already made it clear many times.

Okay, so now I am clear. When you write some thing is DEFINITELY true what you actually mean is it actually might be false, and vice-versa. So thanks for finally clearing that up for me.

By the way you have still not clarified what you actually meant when you used the word 'total' in YOUR sentence: This is totally not the "actual truth" you moron.

Did you also mean that that you are also NOT absolutely 100% certain here as well?

Yes, as I already made it clear many times.

Okay thanks for finally clearing this up also. When YOU say some thing it TOTALLY not true, what you actually mean is it may actually be false, and vice-versa.

Did you? WHEREABOUTS exactly did you clarify these things "many times" previously?

I have. I won't spend 20 minutes looking for and copying posts now. You should know very well what I'm talking about.

If you can NOT find them or could NOT bothered looking for them, then I very well understand WHY.

I, however, unlike you, much prefer to re-post what I am referring to, as evidenced for what I am saying, and evidenced by how I have actually done this.

But I have ALREADY explained how there is only One thing I can be 100 % certain of.

EVERY thing else could just be like a dream for all I know.

You have already informed me that I am insane, and so I have already admitted by saying, from your perspective, 'I' am insane.

Based on all available evidence, there isn't even one thing to be 100% certain of (well with the possible exception that there's something rather than nothing, but that doesn't tell us anything about anything).

That is exactly what I just said.

You want to disagree with me and even TRY TO, but then you end up just saying exactly what I just said.

And stop deflecting, you aren't just insane from my perspective, but you are insane based on all available evidence.

How could I be deflecting when I brought this subject back into the discussion?

What available evidence do 'you' have that 'I' am insane?

[Age]

But you have previously stated that you do NOT do BELIEFS And NOT BELIEVING is a BELIEF

Also are you absolutely CERTAIN some thing is NOT true BEFORE the NOT believing BELIEF is formed

And can you now SEE just how easy what is really happening and / or what is not true can so quickly become BELIEF

Not believing is the complete opposite of believing so they cannot be the same as they violate the Law Of Non Contradiction

But 'that' was NEVER in contention nor questioned by me, I did not even mentioned this. I was saying that BELIEVING and DISBELIEVING are BOTH 'BELIEFS'.

I do not do belief of any kind whatsoever and that is because belief is entirely unreliable as a means of acquiring knowledge

But you stated previously that you do NOT believe some thing, which is also A BELIEF.

If what is happening can be demonstrated then it cannot become a belief as belief and knowledge are mutually incompatible

You said this before. I made a comment on it already.

If you want to say that this IS True, then so be it.

How many times are 'you', people, going to express things and propose them as being definitely, totally, absolutely, and/or certainly True, but then when I POINT OUT that 'you' are doing this, then 'you' revert BACK to the position, 'But nothing is absolutely certain'?

I want to discuss how the Universe is infinite and eternal, from my perspective. AND if any one sees any thing wrong with this, then either challenge, question me and/or explain WHY it is WRONG. I also want to question and challenge those with different views, however, I am finding I am spending far to much time pointing out what is written contradictorily and spending to much time listening to people TRYING TO "justify" their contradictory different positions. Why can 'you' people NOT just admit that you wrote some thing which is OBVIOUSLY contradictory. If it is NOT contradictory, then just explain WHY.

Also, saying my view/s are WRONG because I am a moron, insane, and such just DOES NOT WORK.

The book, which this thread is about, states that the Universe is expanding. I have a VIEW, which is different, from the current. I want to be challenged on THIS VIEW, as I am challenging that other view. But Jjust saying things like 'space IS expanding' and when questioned about what evidence is there for this, just saying things like; this has been observed, so it must be true, also DOES NOT WORK.

You people sound exactly like those people when they were being told that there is a different view, and that the earth goes around the sun. When that was expressed the ones expressing that different view were told that things like; You are a moron and insane, and that the sun revolves around the earth BECAUSE this had been observed.

Some things just seem to NEVER change.

I have already explained WHY human beings can NOT yet see the Truth of things. That is; because they are looking and seeing from their assumptions and beliefs. I have already explained how the actual and real Truth of things can be seen/understood. That is; by looking at what IS instead

When, and if, you people start doing this, CORRECTLY, then you can and WILL see WHY what you are observing now is NOT the actual and real Truth of things.

The ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS that you people are holding onto, which prevents and stops all of you from SEEING the Truth can be clearly SEEN in your writings.

[Age]

To me, there is NO word that is another word for some thing else. By definition each word has its own distinct definition or definitions. If one work is another word, then one of those words is completely redundant.

To me, the words 'Mind', 'God', and 'Universe' have their own distinct different definitions, which when these specific definitions are LOOKED AT, questioned and challenged, then they, ALL together, form a picture-perfect VIEW of things.

Yeah, this is the bit you don't get. Pretty much the first thing you should take from philosophy is the apocryphal story of Socrates asking the Oracle at Delphi who the wisest person was.
"You, oh Socrates." says the Oracle.
"Me?" says Socrates, "But I know nothing."
"Ah but you are wise enough to realise."
At the time, Athens was awash with sophists peddling their "picture-perfect VIEW of things" based on their "own distinct definition or definitions." With very few exceptions, the definition that some crank was defending was utterly demolished by Socrates. The main exception was Parmenides, after whom Plato named a dialogue. The reason he was given such respect is that he said the only thing that no philosopher has ever been able to refute - 'being is'. It's not much and in today's vernacular pretty much means 'There is some weird shit going on.'
For at least two and a half thousand years, people have dreamt of 'the perfect language', one that they only have to analyse to understand everything - they're called rationalists when they do it with some aplomb and by the rules, and nutcases when they don't.
People that haven't studied philosophy, and even some who have, don't understand that it's a game - it is story telling. Anyone that doesn't know that any coherent narrative not explicitly ruled out by facts about how the universe works could be true, and instead clings on to a story that pleases them is dogmatic - either because of ignorance or stupidity.

And what you have just done was tell your story as though it was a picture-perfect VIEW of things, which was based on your own distinctint definitions.

To some 'philosophy' is NOT a game but rather a love of becoming wiser. And, some say that there is only one thing that be KNOWN, for sure. So, every thing else is NOT known at all, but only ASSUMED or BELIEVED to be true, by saying some. While some just declare that they are just expressing a VIEW, without saying they know it is right but in fact could actually be wrong, or partly wrong.

Now, contrary to your assumption expressed above, I may have actually 'got' ALL of that a long time ago, even if you believe otherwise.

[Age]

Oh and by the way, this is what this f@€king thread is about: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

Good, let us get back to it.

I asked you a few clarifying questions regarding your book. When are you going to answer these questions?

[Age]

I am an atheist so have to reject all definitions of God what ever they may be
If Mind is God however then I would want to see some actual evidence for this

The term 'atheist' refers to a human being with a BELIEF. For the very reason you just gave. So, if the person labelled "surreptitious 57", then that person has and holds A, or does, BELIEF, which is actually contrary to what that same person clearly expresses.