God(s)

[Dontaskme]

You are ignorant that it is very common with philosophies and philosophers who believe reality is grounded on an ultimate assumption. Then you kick up a fuss based on your ignorance that others are ignorant.

Reality is not grounded on any assumption in and of itself, but in order to be known to exist, an assumption is required.
And is why Reality has to be an ''Is'' and ''Is not'' in the same instant.

Reality cannot be a reality without an assumer making it be. Therefore, reality in and of itself, is by neutral default a superposition of being and not being in the same instant. That until an assumer shows up and confirms a condition upon it's uncondition. Prior to the condition assumed, there was no reality and there was reality both in the same instant. To make an assumption about a condition, there first has to be an un-condition already present so that the assumption can be known to have been made. In essence a condition has been placed upon an un-condition. This is what the concept ''assumption'' is all about.

Un-condition simply means both unconditional and conditional are the same dual reality which is one and the same.

The fact that an assumption about anything to do with reality can be made at all -just means that both no-reality and reality MUST exist in the same instant.





.

[Dontaskme]

In all the points above involving 'assumptions', the assumptions has to be predicated upon human beings, i.e.no human beings mean no assumptions.

There is no human being. A human being is a ''me'' which is an assumption.

The body does not make an assumption, the body knows nothing of it's reality. There is no ''me'' in side a body making assumptions. The ''me'' is an assumption. Assumptions arise in no one, to no one, and for no one. Knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality. The knower of knowledge is another assumption, arising in no one, to no one, and for no one. The knower doesn't assume it knows, it knows without doubt or error. The knower is not a concept known, for concepts know nothing, the knower is the knowing of every concept. The knower only exists now here present, there is no other present known apart from this instantaneous knowing now, one with itself infinitely everywhere and nowhere, everything and nothing.

Eodnhoj7 is correct and you Veritas Aequitas are just not getting it. A lot of people on this forum are just jealous of Eodnhoj7 incredibly capacity to see with a very lucid mind - one that can see what others cannot, that's all...please allow for this, just as you allow for what you see. You simply cannot deny others what they see while clinging on for dear life to what you see...do you see?
Stop being selfish.

There simply is no thing separating the distance between this and that, here and there, start or end..reality is one seamless infinity. It's one thing, appearing as all things.
“There is only one core issue for all psychology: Where does the ‘me’ begin? Where does the ‘me’ end? Where does the ‘other’ begin?”


.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not reality as space being the grounding of our ability to assume, makes itself a conscious due to its self referencing and we are left with reality being formed as images.

In all the points above, the assumptions has to be predicated upon human beings, i.e.
no human beings mean no assumptions.



False, water assumes the shape of whatever object that imprints it.

You getting rhetorical and is going bonkers with the above.

No. Water assumes shape. "Assume" is as verb, as a verb is applies to any noun.

You stated,
space .. makes itself a conscious ..?
What kind of nonsense is that?

Nonsense when, like the Koran, you quote stuff out of context.

If all phenomenon occur through space, then by default space is referencing itself through all phenomenon and in these respects this self referential nature, embodied by the loop, makes it aware.

From your earlier posts, the reality of 'water' is grounded on assumptions.
Now you state "water assumes ..."
What is that? you mean water has agency to assume?

Both. Formlessness assumes form, with this form (in thus case water) being relatively formless compared to another form (glass). Thus one state of formless (formlessness being a deficiency on form but still possibility having some form) assumes the form so some other form (glass) in this case.

Space being both pure formlessness and form much like a point (formless) or many points (form).


You have not countered my point;
You have no point.


In all the points above involving 'assumptions', the assumptions has to be predicated upon human beings, i.e.no human beings mean no assumptions.

False, as no space no ability to assume.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not reality as space being the grounding of our ability to assume, makes itself a conscious due to its self referencing and we are left with reality being formed as images.

In all the points above, the assumptions has to be predicated upon human beings, i.e.
no human beings mean no assumptions.



False, water assumes the shape of whatever object that imprints it.

You getting rhetorical and is going bonkers with the above.

No. Water assumes shape. "Assume" is as verb, as a verb is applies to any noun.

You stated,
space .. makes itself a conscious ..?
What kind of nonsense is that?

Nonsense when, like the Koran, you quote stuff out of context.

If all phenomenon occur through space, then by default space is referencing itself through all phenomenon and in these respects this self referential nature, embodied by the loop, makes it aware.

From your earlier posts, the reality of 'water' is grounded on assumptions.
Now you state "water assumes ..."
What is that? you mean water has agency to assume?

Both. Formlessness assumes form, with this form (in thus case water) being relatively formless compared to another form (glass). Thus one state of formless (formlessness being a deficiency on form but still possibility having some form) assumes the form so some other form (glass) in this case.

Space being both pure formlessness and form much like a point (formless) or many points (form).


You have not countered my point;
You have no point.


In all the points above involving 'assumptions', the assumptions has to be predicated upon human beings, i.e.no human beings mean no assumptions.

False, as no space no ability to assume.

You're intellectually crazy.
Perhaps you are ignorant you are cheating and being deceptive.

There are a range of meanings to the term 'assume'. See below.
In all previous posts, we have been referring to the term 'assumption' as,
-to take for granted or without proof: [1]
This is the common meaning which mostly discussed in 'philosophy'.
Such an assumption is only made by humans.

However, when cornered you use rhetoric and deceptive turned to 'assumption' with another meaning. i.e.

"water assumes.. " i.e. meaning [2]

This is also way off because generally "assume" is made by humans not made by 'objects.'

Btw, you have been arguing whatever is empirically real, i.e. space, water, is grounded on assumptions upon assumptions [to take for granted or without proof].
Therefore if you stated 'water assumes' [2], there is still assumptions by humans when they realize what is water.

False, as no space no ability to assume.
What is so special with empirical 'space' which is verifiable within Physics?
Physicists as scientists still made assumptions before concluding what is 'space'.

Yes, space is formless, so is air, energy, gravity, water, gas, liquids, sand, particles, etc.

• ASSUME:
  verb (used with object), as·sumed, as·sum·ing.
  to take for granted or without proof:
  -to assume that everyone wants peace.
  to take upon oneself; undertake:
  -to assume an obligation.
  to take over the duties or responsibilities of:
  -to assume the office of treasurer.
  to take on (a particular character, quality, mode of life, etc.); adopt:
  -He assumed the style of an aggressive go-getter.
  to take on; be invested or endowed with:
  -The situation assumed a threatening character.
  to pretend to have or be; feign:
  -to assume a humble manner.
  to appropriate or arrogate; seize; usurp:
  -to assume a right to oneself; to assume control.
  to take upon oneself (the debts or obligations of another).
  Archaic. to take into relation or association; adopt.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assume

[nothing]

The religious/lunatic (not different) will insist to impose that all acknowledgement necessarily is assumption/belief. This is certainly lunacy.

Without assuming anything, trying acknowledgement, it allows for two possible states:

i. with choice(s), to react to (ie. active choice(s))
ii. with choice(s), to not react to (ie. passive choice(s))

whereto we are potentially lead to the same absurdity found in others on the, as it were, opposite end of the spectrum (ie. religious): to "religiously" assume-believe that any/all knowledge is not without belief/assumption. Both are owing to the same: no practical knowledge of self, first: assuming/believing themselves to be something they are not, then: projecting their assumption/belief as being characteristic of all-else: like a lamp with a hued red shade complaining everything is red! It relates to having no conscious knowledge of ones own possible ignorance(s) for persistently trying ignorance elsewhere before self. Any/all ignorance(s) relates first to self, then any/all in relation to self.

One can not really be said to exist lest they are able to acknowledge themselves as-they-are, not as-they-are-assumed-to-be. Less is fantasy. The first fundamental assumption begins with the being-in-and-of-themselves as it relates to themselves. From here, the rest can be inferred with an accuracy according to how well the being knows themselves whence to infer any/all else.

Therefor, if one assumes their own identity, rather than knows it, they will themselves be in an infinite regress perpetually assuming the same of others, an assumption that, fascinatingly, the one may later discover themselves in, despite being able to rationally derive whence they arise (it is their very knowing how it happens that allows them to justify to themselves it does not happen to/of them). However to be clear and fair: there is no better way to know a regress than to be stuck in one. Each has their own, and I enjoy mine knowing I am nothing. But it is this knowledge which allows me to know anything I will (just takes a bit of time).

So to end with a (modified) circular logic that defeats any/all belief in any all-knowing god.

+2 KNOW
+1 any/all
+-0 *not to* (<-negation)
-1 BELIEVE
-2 I am (willing to / not to...)
______________________________
knowledge = (- 2 + 2 + 1 +/-0 - 1) I am (willing to...) KNOW any/all, *not to* BELIEVE
belief = (- 2 - 1 +/-0 + 1 + 2) I am (willing to...) BELIEVE, *not to* any/all KNOW

Knowledge consumes belief ad infinitum

https://ibb.co/G2x5BV6

An all-knowing god must certainly know belief-in-and-of-itself is *required to confuse evil with good (without the need to define them).

Therefor acknowledgement of belief and/or assumption is what effectively prevents an ignorant regress: knowledge vs. ignorance.

Ckiit grows stronger thanks to the OP (genuine).

[Eodnhoj7]

You getting rhetorical and is going bonkers with the above.

No. Water assumes shape. "Assume" is as verb, as a verb is applies to any noun.

You stated,
space .. makes itself a conscious ..?
What kind of nonsense is that?

Nonsense when, like the Koran, you quote stuff out of context.

If all phenomenon occur through space, then by default space is referencing itself through all phenomenon and in these respects this self referential nature, embodied by the loop, makes it aware.

From your earlier posts, the reality of 'water' is grounded on assumptions.
Now you state "water assumes ..."
What is that? you mean water has agency to assume?

Both. Formlessness assumes form, with this form (in thus case water) being relatively formless compared to another form (glass). Thus one state of formless (formlessness being a deficiency on form but still possibility having some form) assumes the form so some other form (glass) in this case.

Space being both pure formlessness and form much like a point (formless) or many points (form).


You have not countered my point;
You have no point.


In all the points above involving 'assumptions', the assumptions has to be predicated upon human beings, i.e.no human beings mean no assumptions.

False, as no space no ability to assume.

You're intellectually crazy.
Perhaps you are ignorant you are cheating and being deceptive.

How can one cheat when definition is it's own set of rules? I mean after all, from your implied stance, "man is measurer". You are just intellectually lazy.

There are a range of meanings to the term 'assume'. See below.
In all previous posts, we have been referring to the term 'assumption' as,
-to take for granted or without proof: [1]
This is the common meaning which mostly discussed in 'philosophy'.
Such an assumption is only made by humans.

However, when cornered you use rhetoric and deceptive turned to 'assumption' with another meaning. i.e.

"water assumes.. " i.e. meaning [2]

This is also way off because generally "assume" is made by humans not made by 'objects.'

Assumption is a noun. Assume is a verb.

The nature of assuming as "taking on" is observed in the definitions you provided below.

Are you that f""king stupid?

Btw, you have been arguing whatever is empirically real, i.e. space, water, is grounded on assumptions upon assumptions [to take for granted or without proof].
Therefore if you stated 'water assumes' [2], there is still assumptions by humans when they realize what is water.

Assumption exists through the recursion of forms be it the empirical object, the image of the object in the mind, etc.

False, as no space no ability to assume.
What is so special with empirical 'space' which is verifiable within Physics?
Physicists as scientists still made assumptions before concluding what is 'space'.

Yes, space is formless, so is air, energy, gravity, water, gas, liquids, sand, particles, etc.

0d space is void. The rest are absent of form by maintaining it through variations of fields that are waves...or the "primordial ocean" of quantum mechanics.

• ASSUME:
  verb (used with object), as·sumed, as·sum·ing.
  to take for granted or without proof:
  -to assume that everyone wants peace.
  to take upon oneself; undertake:
  Read.
  
  I assumed the calculations of the computer for my research.
  I took upon myselfthe calculations of the computer for my research.
  
  
  
  
  -to assume an obligation.
  to take over the duties or responsibilities of:
  -to assume the office of treasurer.
  to take on (a particular character, quality, mode of life, etc.); adopt:
  -He assumed the style of an aggressive go-getter.
  to take on; be invested or endowed with:
  wow you are just a f""king idiot.
  
  Read these sentences:
  
  Water as formless assumes the form of the glass.
  Water as formless takes on or is investedwith the form of the glass.
  
  
  
  -The situation assumed a threatening character.
  to pretend to have or be; feign:
  
  
  He assumed the identity of his would be killer.
  He pretended to have the identity of his would be killer.
  He imagined and took the form of the identity of his would be killer.
  
  
  
  
  -to assume a humble manner.
  to appropriate or arrogate; seize; usurp:
  
  
  I assumed the form of a beggar.
  I appropriated the form of a beggar.
  
  
  -to assume a right to oneself; to assume control.
  to take upon oneself (the debts or obligations of another).
  Archaic. to take into relation or association; adopt.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assume

I honestly cannot believe how stupid you are acting, I mean...wow....

[Eodnhoj7]

The religious/lunatic (not different) will insist to impose that all acknowledgement necessarily is assumption/belief. This is certainly lunacy.

Without assuming anything, trying acknowledgement, it allows for two possible states:

i. with choice(s), to react to (ie. active choice(s))
ii. with choice(s), to not react to (ie. passive choice(s))

whereto we are potentially lead to the same absurdity found in others on the, as it were, opposite end of the spectrum (ie. religious): to "religiously" assume-believe that any/all knowledge is not without belief/assumption. Both are owing to the same: no practical knowledge of self, first assuming/believing themselves to be something they are not, then projecting their assumption/belief as being a characteristic of every one-thing else: like a lamp with a hued red shade complaining everything is red! It relates to having no conscious knowledge of ones own possible ignorance(s) for persistently trying ignorance elsewhere before self. Any/all ignorance(s) relates first to self, then any/all in relation to self.

One can not really be said to exist lest they are able to acknowledge themselves as-they-are, not as-they-are-assumed-to-be. Less is fantasy. The first fundamental assumption begins with the being-in-and-of-themselves as it relates to themselves. From here, the rest can be inferred with an accuracy according to how well the being knows themselves whence to infer any/all else.

Therefor, if one assumes their own identity, rather than knows it, they will themselves be in an infinite regress perpetually assuming the same of others, an assumption that, fascinatingly, the one may later discover themselves in, despite being able to rationally derive whence they arise (it is their very knowing how it happens that allows them to justify to themselves it does not happen to/of them). However to be clear and fair: there is no better way to know a regress than to be stuck in one. Each has their own, and I enjoy mine knowing I am nothing. But it is this knowledge which allows me to know anything I will (just takes a bit of time).

So to end with a (modified) circular logic that defeats any/all belief in any all-knowing god.

+2 KNOW
+1 any/all
+-0 *not to* (<-negation)
-1 BELIEVE
-2 I am (willing to / not to...)
______________________________
knowledge = (- 2 + 2 + 1 +/-0 - 1) I am (willing to...) KNOW any/all, *not to* BELIEVE
belief = (- 2 - 1 +/-0 + 1 + 2) I am (willing to...) BELIEVE, *not to* any/all KNOW

Knowledge consumes belief ad infinitum

https://ibb.co/G2x5BV6

An all-knowing god must certainly know belief-in-and-of-itself is *required to confuse evil with good (without the need to define them).

Therefor acknowledgement of belief and/or assumption is what effectively prevents an ignorant regress: knowledge vs. ignorance.

Ckiit grows stronger thanks to the OP (genuine).

Knowing is a continuum, thus if you are trying to avoid assumption because of regression...forget it. Know is the continuum of patterns through which we assume reality.

One cannot not assume in presenting an argument as any symbols, empirical sensing, etc are assumed by the observer as well as there inherent meaning.

Beleif is inevitable in the face of a future based on patterns of the past that are continually evolving through chaos.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You're intellectually crazy.
Perhaps you are ignorant you are cheating and being deceptive.

How can one cheat when definition is it's own set of rules? I mean after all, from your implied stance, "man is measurer". You are just intellectually lazy.

There are a range of meanings to the term 'assume'. See below.
In all previous posts, we have been referring to the term 'assumption' as,
-to take for granted or without proof: [1]
This is the common meaning which mostly discussed in 'philosophy'.
Such an assumption is only made by humans.

However, when cornered you use rhetoric and deceptive turned to 'assumption' with another meaning. i.e.

"water assumes.. " i.e. meaning [2]

This is also way off because generally "assume" is made by humans not made by 'objects.'

Assumption is a noun. Assume is a verb.

The nature of assuming as "taking on" is observed in the definitions you provided below.

Are you that f""king stupid?

Btw, you have been arguing whatever is empirically real, i.e. space, water, is grounded on assumptions upon assumptions [to take for granted or without proof].
Therefore if you stated 'water assumes' [2], there is still assumptions by humans when they realize what is water.

Assumption exists through the recursion of forms be it the empirical object, the image of the object in the mind, etc.

False, as no space no ability to assume.
What is so special with empirical 'space' which is verifiable within Physics?
Physicists as scientists still made assumptions before concluding what is 'space'.

Yes, space is formless, so is air, energy, gravity, water, gas, liquids, sand, particles, etc.

0d space is void. The rest are absent of form by maintaining it through variations of fields that are waves...or the "primordial ocean" of quantum mechanics.

• ASSUME:
  verb (used with object), as·sumed, as·sum·ing.
  to take for granted or without proof:
  -to assume that everyone wants peace.
  to take upon oneself; undertake:
  Read.
  
  I assumed the calculations of the computer for my research.
  I took upon myselfthe calculations of the computer for my research.
  
  
  
  
  -to assume an obligation.
  to take over the duties or responsibilities of:
  -to assume the office of treasurer.
  to take on (a particular character, quality, mode of life, etc.); adopt:
  -He assumed the style of an aggressive go-getter.
  to take on; be invested or endowed with:
  wow you are just a f""king idiot.
  
  Read these sentences:
  
  Water as formless assumes the form of the glass.
  Water as formless takes on or is investedwith the form of the glass.
  
  
  
  -The situation assumed a threatening character.
  to pretend to have or be; feign:
  
  
  He assumed the identity of his would be killer.
  He pretended to have the identity of his would be killer.
  He imagined and took the form of the identity of his would be killer.
  
  
  
  
  -to assume a humble manner.
  to appropriate or arrogate; seize; usurp:
  
  
  I assumed the form of a beggar.
  I appropriated the form of a beggar.
  
  
  -to assume a right to oneself; to assume control.
  to take upon oneself (the debts or obligations of another).
  Archaic. to take into relation or association; adopt.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assume

I honestly cannot believe how stupid you are acting, I mean...wow....

You are the very stupid one.

You running away from the issue and deflecting from term 'assumption' since used from the beginning of the discussion, i.e.
assume = to take for granted or without proof,
with reference to human making assumptions.

As I had stated MANY TIMES, you are a mental case and cannot keep to what is commonly agreed, i.e. always changing the subject to 'oranges' when the topic is 'apples'.

Even when you claim, 'space assumes form' that is a useless premise in relation to the OP.

[Eodnhoj7]

You're intellectually crazy.
Perhaps you are ignorant you are cheating and being deceptive.

How can one cheat when definition is it's own set of rules? I mean after all, from your implied stance, "man is measurer". You are just intellectually lazy.

There are a range of meanings to the term 'assume'. See below.
In all previous posts, we have been referring to the term 'assumption' as,
-to take for granted or without proof: [1]
This is the common meaning which mostly discussed in 'philosophy'.
Such an assumption is only made by humans.

However, when cornered you use rhetoric and deceptive turned to 'assumption' with another meaning. i.e.

"water assumes.. " i.e. meaning [2]

This is also way off because generally "assume" is made by humans not made by 'objects.'

Assumption is a noun. Assume is a verb.

The nature of assuming as "taking on" is observed in the definitions you provided below.

Are you that f""king stupid?

Btw, you have been arguing whatever is empirically real, i.e. space, water, is grounded on assumptions upon assumptions [to take for granted or without proof].
Therefore if you stated 'water assumes' [2], there is still assumptions by humans when they realize what is water.

Assumption exists through the recursion of forms be it the empirical object, the image of the object in the mind, etc.

False, as no space no ability to assume.
What is so special with empirical 'space' which is verifiable within Physics?
Physicists as scientists still made assumptions before concluding what is 'space'.

Yes, space is formless, so is air, energy, gravity, water, gas, liquids, sand, particles, etc.

0d space is void. The rest are absent of form by maintaining it through variations of fields that are waves...or the "primordial ocean" of quantum mechanics.

• ASSUME:
  verb (used with object), as·sumed, as·sum·ing.
  to take for granted or without proof:
  -to assume that everyone wants peace.
  to take upon oneself; undertake:
  Read.
  
  I assumed the calculations of the computer for my research.
  I took upon myselfthe calculations of the computer for my research.
  
  
  
  
  -to assume an obligation.
  to take over the duties or responsibilities of:
  -to assume the office of treasurer.
  to take on (a particular character, quality, mode of life, etc.); adopt:
  -He assumed the style of an aggressive go-getter.
  to take on; be invested or endowed with:
  wow you are just a f""king idiot.
  
  Read these sentences:
  
  Water as formless assumes the form of the glass.
  Water as formless takes on or is investedwith the form of the glass.
  
  
  
  -The situation assumed a threatening character.
  to pretend to have or be; feign:
  
  
  He assumed the identity of his would be killer.
  He pretended to have the identity of his would be killer.
  He imagined and took the form of the identity of his would be killer.
  
  
  
  
  -to assume a humble manner.
  to appropriate or arrogate; seize; usurp:
  
  
  I assumed the form of a beggar.
  I appropriated the form of a beggar.
  
  
  -to assume a right to oneself; to assume control.
  to take upon oneself (the debts or obligations of another).
  Archaic. to take into relation or association; adopt.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assume

I honestly cannot believe how stupid you are acting, I mean...wow....

You are the very stupid one.

You running away from the issue and deflecting from term 'assumption' since used from the beginning of the discussion, i.e.
assume = to take for granted or without proof,
To recieve form with imposing other forms.

This does not contradict the above considering "granted" means "given, recieved, etc."

So to say "to take for granted" is no different than saying "to recieve".

Proof is evidence or argument, evidence or argument is definition, definition is form.

To give proof is to give a form through which to assume reality.



with reference to human making assumptions.

As I had stated MANY TIMES, you are a mental case and cannot keep to what is commonly agreed, i.e. always changing the subject to 'oranges' when the topic is 'apples'.

No, you are just really f""king stupid...and I mean really stupid. Your level of stupidity is actually hard to get to...it is not easy.

You gave multiple definitions for "assumes", and many of these actually allow for a non anthropomorphic noun to to be applied. "To take on" form occurs everywhere within non organic nature. Sand takes on the forms of the rocks imprinting it, rocks take on the form of particles where them down.

The passive/active and formless/form dichotomy is universal.

You thought I was changing topic when I took the noun "assumption" and applied the verb form "assumes".

I mean you barely even understand a word can have both a noun and verb state...and you honestly thought I was changing subjects and decieving you.

I mean what am I suppose to say but..."is this really happening?"


You are that stupid. And that is why some Muslim man will be railing your highschool crush in his bed and you will be here whining about the evils of God.


Religion isn't evil, you are just not fit for breeding...nature is telling you that your genetic line dies. You dont hate God, people only understand God through themselves, you hate yourself because you are just another sterilized limp dick western man who couldn't reproduce or protect his offspring if his life depended on it.

F""k you cannot even reproduce an idea of your own.



"Derrr....you where using the word "assumption" before now you are diverting the argument with the word "assumes"....derrr".

Holy sh"t.



Even when you claim, 'space assumes form' that is a useless premise in relation to the OP.

Not if space is Divine Mind.

I hope God wipes out western civilization if it really has degenerated to this everywhere...this is worse than the Kardashians. "Assumption/Assume"

[Veritas Aequitas]

I honestly cannot believe how stupid you are acting, I mean...wow....

You are the very stupid one.

You running away from the issue and deflecting from term 'assumption' since used from the beginning of the discussion, i.e.
assume = to take for granted or without proof,
To recieve form with imposing other forms.

This does not contradict the above considering "granted" means "given, recieved, etc."

So to say "to take for granted" is no different than saying "to recieve".

Proof is evidence or argument, evidence or argument is definition, definition is form.

To give proof is to give a form through which to assume reality.



with reference to human making assumptions.

As I had stated MANY TIMES, you are a mental case and cannot keep to what is commonly agreed, i.e. always changing the subject to 'oranges' when the topic is 'apples'.

No, you are just really f""king stupid...and I mean really stupid. Your level of stupidity is actually hard to get to...it is not easy.

You gave multiple definitions for "assumes", and many of these actually allow for a non anthropomorphic noun to to be applied. "To take on" form occurs everywhere within non organic nature. Sand takes on the forms of the rocks imprinting it, rocks take on the form of particles where them down.

The passive/active and formless/form dichotomy is universal.

You thought I was changing topic when I took the noun "assumption" and applied the verb form "assumes".

I mean you barely even understand a word can have both a noun and verb state...and you honestly thought I was changing subjects and decieving you.

I mean what am I suppose to say but..."is this really happening?"


You are that stupid. And that is why some Muslim man will be railing your highschool crush in his bed and you will be here whining about the evils of God.


Religion isn't evil, you are just not fit for breeding...nature is telling you that your genetic line dies. You dont hate God, people only understand God through themselves, you hate yourself because you are just another sterilized limp dick western man who couldn't reproduce or protect his offspring if his life depended on it.

F""k you cannot even reproduce an idea of your own.



"Derrr....you where using the word "assumption" before now you are diverting the argument with the word "assumes"....derrr".

Holy sh"t.



Even when you claim, 'space assumes form' that is a useless premise in relation to the OP.

Not if space is Divine Mind.

I hope God wipes out western civilization if it really has degenerated to this everywhere...this is worse than the Kardashians. "Assumption/Assume"

You are talking nonsense.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are the very stupid one.

You running away from the issue and deflecting from term 'assumption' since used from the beginning of the discussion, i.e.
assume = to take for granted or without proof,
To recieve form with imposing other forms.

This does not contradict the above considering "granted" means "given, recieved, etc."

So to say "to take for granted" is no different than saying "to recieve".

Proof is evidence or argument, evidence or argument is definition, definition is form.

To give proof is to give a form through which to assume reality.



with reference to human making assumptions.

As I had stated MANY TIMES, you are a mental case and cannot keep to what is commonly agreed, i.e. always changing the subject to 'oranges' when the topic is 'apples'.

No, you are just really f""king stupid...and I mean really stupid. Your level of stupidity is actually hard to get to...it is not easy.

You gave multiple definitions for "assumes", and many of these actually allow for a non anthropomorphic noun to to be applied. "To take on" form occurs everywhere within non organic nature. Sand takes on the forms of the rocks imprinting it, rocks take on the form of particles where them down.

The passive/active and formless/form dichotomy is universal.

You thought I was changing topic when I took the noun "assumption" and applied the verb form "assumes".

I mean you barely even understand a word can have both a noun and verb state...and you honestly thought I was changing subjects and decieving you.

I mean what am I suppose to say but..."is this really happening?"


You are that stupid. And that is why some Muslim man will be railing your highschool crush in his bed and you will be here whining about the evils of God.


Religion isn't evil, you are just not fit for breeding...nature is telling you that your genetic line dies. You dont hate God, people only understand God through themselves, you hate yourself because you are just another sterilized limp dick western man who couldn't reproduce or protect his offspring if his life depended on it.

F""k you cannot even reproduce an idea of your own.



"Derrr....you where using the word "assumption" before now you are diverting the argument with the word "assumes"....derrr".

Holy sh"t.



Even when you claim, 'space assumes form' that is a useless premise in relation to the OP.

Not if space is Divine Mind.

I hope God wipes out western civilization if it really has degenerated to this everywhere...this is worse than the Kardashians. "Assumption/Assume"

You are talking nonsense.

No, you are just stupid. It would be like me trying to explain highschool algebra to a preschooler...of course the algebra is "non-sense" to the child.

But even that is a fallacy as "non-sense", ie that which cannot be sensed, is subjective in nature to the angle of the observer and as such has no true/false value.

Non-sense is just another way of saying "I can't see it"...but in a world of the blind color is non-sense as well.

[nothing]

1. Knowing is a continuum, thus if you are trying to avoid assumption because of regression...forget it. Know is the continuum of patterns through which we assume reality.

2. One cannot not assume in presenting an argument as any symbols, empirical sensing, etc are assumed by the observer as well as there inherent meaning.

3. Beleif is inevitable in the face of a future based on patterns of the past that are continually evolving through chaos.

1. Knowing is certainly not a continuum, it is any/all negation of any/all outstanding unconscious continuum(s) of any/all being(s) rooted in choice(s) 'unknown' to the chooser-manifest. The assumption to forget about avoiding assumption is an assumption-in-and-of-itself-regression-in-and-of-itself. Knowing is also (in; by way of) the cessation of any/all assumed patterns: therefor to consciously try assumptions accomplishes what death will inevitably accomplish to a certainty.

2.

i. One need not assume death: it is inevitable.
ii. One can acknowledge symbols used by (the monotheistic god of) Judaism/Christianity/Islam (for example) as possibly empirical (ie. potent nonetheless) and grant/use the same potential validity of the symbols as espoused to by the *very*ideologies*themselves to undermine them. Eg. Jews/Christians/Muslims BuhLIEEVVEE Moses was a prophet of a/the monotheistic god. Moses (ie. Moshe, Musa) is believed to have authored five books. These five books are thus relatively empirical without my own assuming/believing them to be, though I would (and do) both acknowledge and grant such empiricism for the sake of argument (ie. to undermine).

Acknowledging the assumption of others as true allows you to catch them in their own trap. If what ckiit predicts is true, the following is an adequate summation of the problem.

3. ABC's of GOOD/EVIL

A believes B is EVIL!
B believes A is EVIL!
_________________
A&B ANNIHILATE

C knows not to eat from the tree such
to ever believe to know good/evil.

This one finger-tip-touch-back-to-Eden is just the contrast needed to highlight the problem: the fixed property of any all-knowing god must be knowledge of good and evil absent any/all belief, which satan (so-called) necessarily requires would that any believer believe evil is good (obviously without defining them).

EOD ARGUMENT OF IMPOTENCY
P1 Any/all belief-based ignorance(s) exist in, and/or by way of, belief-in-and-of-itself.
P2 Any/all belief-based ignorance(s) certainly exist and each certainly have a reconciling knowledgable counter-part.
P3 Any/all knowledge is attainable to by way of trying any/all belief for any/all potentially unknown ignorance(s).
C Any all-knowing god (if one should exist) knows P1. End. Of. Discussion. (EOD)

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Knowing is a continuum, thus if you are trying to avoid assumption because of regression...forget it. Know is the continuum of patterns through which we assume reality.

2. One cannot not assume in presenting an argument as any symbols, empirical sensing, etc are assumed by the observer as well as there inherent meaning.

3. Beleif is inevitable in the face of a future based on patterns of the past that are continually evolving through chaos.

1. Knowing is certainly not a continuum, it is any/all negation of any/all outstanding unconscious continuum(s) of any/all being(s) rooted in choice(s) 'unknown' to the chooser-manifest.
Negations occur in continuum. If I am negating a bad habit, such as eating donuts, by reminding myself they harm my body. I dont not negate not negate the action of not eating a donut presented to me once, I negate it everytime the donut is presented to me.

If I know, through the repetition of the assumed experience in my psyche, that the donut will make me sick then I will continually negate any and all acts of eating the donut.

This may occur with someone present it to me and I saying "no", or not buying it in the grocery store as I walk past them.


The assumption to forget about avoiding assumption is an assumption-in-and-of-itself-regression-in-and-of-itself.
Assumption is a continuum, we and all of nature, does it naturally. It cannot be avoided or embraced as it is beyond either.

Knowing is also (in; by way of) the cessation of any/all assumed patterns: therefor to consciously try assumptions accomplishes what death will inevitably accomplish to a certainty.

Through a new set of negative patterns....one can call these fallacies in logic, or discipline in action, etc.

2.

i. One need not assume death: it is inevitable.
We assume it because we see those around us, who are variations of us on form, experience it.


ii. One can acknowledge symbols used by (the monotheistic god of) Judaism/Christianity/Islam (for example) as possibly empirical (ie. potent nonetheless) and grant/use the same potential validity of the symbols as espoused to by the *very*ideologies*themselves to undermine them. Eg. Jews/Christians/Muslims BuhLIEEVVEE Moses was a prophet of a/the monotheistic god. Moses (ie. Moshe, Musa) is believed to have authored five books. These five books are thus relatively empirical without my own assuming/believing them to be, though I would (and do) both acknowledge and grant such empiricism for the sake of argument (ie. to undermine).

The book in front of you saying it is a translation of moses is empirical and assumed for what it is...you have not seen moses or a the tablets the books claimed empirically...you assume the stories passed down to you.

Acknowledging the assumption of others as true allows you to catch them in their own trap. If what ckiit predicts is true, the following is an adequate summation of the problem.

CKIIT is an assumed pattern of interpretation, as a form of interpretation it becomes an image more or less.

3. ABC's of GOOD/EVIL

A believes B is EVIL!
B believes A is EVIL!
_________________
A&B ANNIHILATE

C knows not to eat from the tree such
to ever believe to know good/evil.

This one finger-tip-touch-back-to-Eden is just the contrast needed to highlight the problem: the fixed property of any all-knowing god must be knowledge of good and evil absent any/all belief, which satan (so-called) necessarily requires would that any believer believe evil is good (obviously without defining them).

An all knowing God would have to be omnipresent thus also know and experience beleif as well.

EOD ARGUMENT OF IMPOTENCY
P1 Any/all belief-based ignorance(s) exist in, and/or by way of, belief-in-and-of-itself.
Beliefs replicate beliefs as knowledge replicate knowledge, this replication is inevitable.




P2 Any/all belief-based ignorance(s) certainly exist and each certainly have a reconciling knowledgable counter-part.
All beliefs are grounded in knowledge. A unicorn may be believed in, but that composes the unicorn are empirically know parts of a horse and horn rearranged into one pattern which does not align in empirical reality.

I may believe "Sally goes to the bank on wednesdays", but even of this is false it does not negate "Sally", "bank", "Wednesday" exists.


P3 Any/all knowledge is attainable to by way of trying any/all belief for any/all potentially unknown ignorance(s).
This is an assumed belief.

C Any all-knowing god (if one should exist) knows P1. End. Of. Discussion. (EOD)
Not only...

You do understand your system, is a system of belief correct? Considering you do not know or not know it works?

[nothing]

Negations occur in continuum. If I am negating a bad habit, such as eating donuts, by reminding myself they harm my body. I dont not negate not negate the action of not eating a donut presented to me once, I negate it everytime the donut is presented to me.

Hence knowledge is not-a-continuum as it relies on cessation of any/all continuum(s).

If I know, through the repetition of the assumed experience in my psyche, that the donut will make me sick then I will continually negate any and all acts of eating the donut.

And if you do not?

This may occur with someone present it to me and I saying "no", or not buying it in the grocery store as I walk past them.

...

Assumption is a continuum, we and all of nature, does it naturally. It cannot be avoided or embraced as it is beyond either.

This is not necessarily true. It's such a shame you can not see past this: a lingering brilliance-in-waiting, but closed-off dark otherwise.

You can avoid/negate it by taking the inverse of (if) knowing anothers' assumption(s).

Through a new set of negative patterns....one can call these fallacies in logic, or discipline in action, etc.

We assume it because we see those around us, who are variations of us on form, experience it.

False:

i. death assumes the being, not the other way around (inversion-inference). It is equivalent to void acting on/against a being (and/or vice versa) such to equivocate any/all experience into knowledge, which necessitates death (hence: not assumed by, but known by).

ii. One can acknowledge symbols used by (the monotheistic god of) Judaism/Christianity/Islam (for example) as possibly empirical (ie. potent nonetheless) and grant/use the same potential validity of the symbols as espoused to by the *very*ideologies*themselves to undermine them. Eg. Jews/Christians/Muslims BuhLIEEVVEE Moses was a prophet of a/the monotheistic god. Moses (ie. Moshe, Musa) is believed to have authored five books. These five books are thus relatively empirical without my own assuming/believing them to be, though I would (and do) both acknowledge and grant such empiricism for the sake of argument (ie. to undermine).

The book in front of you saying it is a translation of moses is empirical and assumed for what it is...you have not seen moses or a the tablets the books claimed empirically...you assume the stories passed down to you.

This is only what the believers in/of them assume, not me. Because I acknowledge others' assumption(s) relating to the books of Moses without myself assuming the same to be true (for knowing it is certainly not), we all collapse into a shared context/denominator and thus can be evaluated on those terms.

CKIIT is an assumed pattern of interpretation, as a form of interpretation it becomes an image more or less.

CKIIT negates any/all assumed pattern(s) of interpretation by drawing out their finitude(s).

It is active, effective and working despite/regardless what others assume/believe: it both accounts and allows for it viz.

P =/= P
P = *P.

An all knowing God would have to be omnipresent thus also know and experience beleif as well.

i. An all-knowing god would not necessarily have to be omnipresent
ii. An all-knowing god can not experience belief-based ignorance(s) while/as knowing they are such - contradiction.

Beliefs replicate beliefs as knowledge replicate knowledge, this replication is inevitable.

Because they have a shared property does not indicate they can not be distinguished.

All beliefs are grounded in knowledge. A unicorn may be believed in, but that composes the unicorn are empirically know parts of a horse and horn rearranged into one pattern which does not align in empirical reality.

This is not necessarily true. Please no more unicorns: they are unreal.

I may believe "Sally goes to the bank on wednesdays", but even of this is false it does not negate "Sally", "bank", "Wednesday" exists.

Sally may be known to herself believe "Sally", "bank", "Wednesday" exists.

This is an assumed belief.

Inverse is true: the negation of any/all.

You do understand your system, is a system of belief correct? Considering you do not know or not know it works?

Your own assumption: lamp with red hue shade complains of seeing red.

It is a basic system of orientation: it just fixes itself towards a real-existential dichotomy of any/all knowledge negating any/all belief. It was built using a known reference-frame: Judaism/Christianity/Islam (all, in all) and derives the first gradation(s) according to that reference-frame (relative, not empirical despite empiricism being subjective).

It therefor has a need to "void itself": taking the form(lessness) of the void.

P =/= P
_______
allows: any/all existence unknown unto itself.
equiv: P is not necessarily P, but certainly can be

Recall LORI: can not infer unknown by way of unknown.

P^inf = 0
_______
P can be +P or -P allowing any/all relative reference(s) owing to any/all (non-)existence of P

P =/= P
P = +P (<->) -P
_______
allows: any/all relative (e)motion

Now P can be orientated/subjected to a/the fixed void:

2 I AM (willing to)
1 BELIEVE
0 *not to* <-*negation
-1 (any/all)
-2 KNOW
___________________
-(e) I AM (willing to) KNOW (any/all) *not to* BELIEVE
+(e) I AM (willing to) BELIEVE *not to* (any/all) KNOW

P =/= P
P = +P (<->) -P
P = *P
*P^inf = *P
_____________
*P can be in a relative state as either +P or -P

Therefor whatever the subject emerges as, say after one solar year, whatever it is (to be known), can be inferred by virtue of knowing any/all it is not.

The most important point is this: like "belief", assumption has "substance" to it which invariably acts on/as any/all (e)motion. Ckiit assumes an (e)motionless state by referencing a void one. Void is thus needed to draw out any/all (e)motion of any/all subjects and their cause(s) contrary to what is otherwise void.

Ckiit therefor can be used to predict the solution by establishing an orientation: one tends towards suffering/death (according to the context of Judaism/Christianity/Islam) thus finds its inverse: hence, Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance Inference Theorem which tends towards (the inverse of) perpetual conflict due to the problem-in-and-of-itself of "GOOD vs. EVIL": BELIEF.

It takes a believer to believe evil is good.
It takes any/all knowledge of any/all not to believe, to have any/all knowledge of good and evil.

-(e) I AM (willing to) KNOW (any/all) *not to* BELIEVE <-*tends towards all-knowing god
+(e) I AM (willing to) BELIEVE *not to* (any/all) KNOW <-* tends towards inverse of ^^^ (ie. so-called satan)

https://ibb.co/t3LmNrr

If even it does not contribute to establishing a "trending towards" world peace, it will be able to empirically indicate why world peace does not exist: choice (the problem-in-and-of-itself) which certainly has a counter-part *not* acted upon towards the same.

[Eodnhoj7]

Negations occur in continuum. If I am negating a bad habit, such as eating donuts, by reminding myself they harm my body. I dont not negate not negate the action of not eating a donut presented to me once, I negate it everytime the donut is presented to me.

Hence knowledge is not-a-continuum as it relies on cessation of any/all continuum(s).

Your explanation of knowledge is a continuum.

And this cessation, void, is the grounding of all continuums.

All variables, empirical and abstract, are intrinsically empty in and of themselves and as such manifests through continuums.

A to B whether it be a cow to a new cow or a cow walking to point A to point B or a cow waking up then eating...continuums as well as the ever present "now" which observes all of these things.

If I know, through the repetition of the assumed experience in my psyche, that the donut will make me sick then I will continually negate any and all acts of eating the donut.

And if you do not?

If I do not know, I am simply not assuming any pattern whatsever.

This may occur with someone present it to me and I saying "no", or not buying it in the grocery store as I walk past them.

...

Assumption is a continuum, we and all of nature, does it naturally. It cannot be avoided or embraced as it is beyond either.

This is not necessarily true. It's such a shame you can not see past this: a lingering brilliance-in-waiting, but closed-off dark otherwise.

There is no genius.

Your methodology is made up beliefs you are in the middle of justifying...but require the belief in order to do it. You contradict yourself by process alone.

You connected a bunch of dots, called it a method and failed to see that methodology is just connecting and separating dots...its not deep at all. People want it to be deep because its simplicity makes us look stupid.



You can avoid/negate it by taking the inverse of (if) knowing anothers' assumption(s).

And this still requires antithetical qualities that are assumed by nature. Your above statement can be negated by it's own terms.

Through a new set of negative patterns....one can call these fallacies in logic, or discipline in action, etc.

We assume it because we see those around us, who are variations of us on form, experience it.

False:

i. death assumes the being, not the other way around (inversion-inference).
False, entropy and negentropy alternate....life assumes death no different the the death ofmone animal results in the minerals being inverted into another animal.

It is equivalent to void acting on/against a being (and/or vice versa) such to equivocate any/all experience into knowledge, which necessitates death (hence: not assumed by, but known by).

Void does not act as void is nothing. Void voids itself, is strictly saying there is no void.

ii. One can acknowledge symbols used by (the monotheistic god of) Judaism/Christianity/Islam (for example) as possibly empirical (ie. potent nonetheless) and grant/use the same potential validity of the symbols as espoused to by the *very*ideologies*themselves to undermine them. Eg. Jews/Christians/Muslims BuhLIEEVVEE Moses was a prophet of a/the monotheistic god. Moses (ie. Moshe, Musa) is believed to have authored five books. These five books are thus relatively empirical without my own assuming/believing them to be, though I would (and do) both acknowledge and grant such empiricism for the sake of argument (ie. to undermine).

Acknowledging any set of symbols requires assuming them from a point of view where this subjective nature of assumption, as inherently void, causes the symbol to diverge from on interpretation to many.

The book in front of you saying it is a translation of moses is empirical and assumed for what it is...you have not seen moses or a the tablets the books claimed empirically...you assume the stories passed down to you.

You assume they are not, either way we make an assumption.

This is only what the believers in/of them assume, not me. Because I acknowledge others' assumption(s) relating to the books of Moses without myself assuming the same to be true (for knowing it is certainly not), we all collapse into a shared context/denominator and thus can be evaluated on those terms.

You still assume perspectives and that is all they are.

CKIIT is an assumed pattern of interpretation, as a form of interpretation it becomes an image more or less.

CKIIT negates any/all assumed pattern(s) of interpretation by drawing out their finitude(s).

CKIIT is a finite system as well thus negates itself.

Finiteness is strictly multiple indefinite states. If I have a finite number of points I have multiple indefinite states I am observing. Finiteness is the opposite of a singularity as it necessitates a nature subject to change.

It is active, effective and working despite/regardless what others assume/believe: it both accounts and allows for it viz.

P =/= P
P = *P.

An all knowing God would have to be omnipresent thus also know and experience beleif as well.

i. An all-knowing god would not necessarily have to be omnipresent
An all know God would have to be aware fully of multiple "nows" through which the human condition manifests through various perspectives. He would have to be able to be aware of what everyone is seeing through their eyes if he is omnipresent.

ii. An all-knowing god can not experience belief-based ignorance(s) while/as knowing they are such - contradiction.
He would have to experience the beliefs and irrational nature of seperation the people observe.

Beliefs replicate beliefs as knowledge replicate knowledge, this replication is inevitable.

Because they have a shared property does not indicate they can not be distinguished.

Distinguishing is strictly a process of multiplication and division.

All beliefs are grounded in knowledge. A unicorn may be believed in, but that composes the unicorn are empirically know parts of a horse and horn rearranged into one pattern which does not align in empirical reality.

This is not necessarily true. Please no more unicorns: they are unreal.

Unreal as empirical entities.

Real as symbols.
Real as dreams.
Real as art.
Real as the word you use above.

I may believe "Sally goes to the bank on wednesdays", but even of this is false it does not negate "Sally", "bank", "Wednesday" exists.

Sally may be known to herself believe "Sally", "bank", "Wednesday" exists.

You are going to have to reword this: "Sally may be know to herself believe..." what does this mean?

This is an assumed belief.

Inverse is true: the negation of any/all.

The inverse of any assumption is still an assumption.

You do understand your system, is a system of belief correct? Considering you do not know or not know it works?

Your own assumption: lamp with red hue shade complains of seeing red.

No that is your assumption. Your argument does not align literally so it is figurative, thus still valid. You cannot negate metaphors.

It is a basic system of orientation: it just fixes itself towards a real-existential dichotomy of any/all knowledge negating any/all belief. It was built using a known reference-frame: Judaism/Christianity/Islam (all, in all) and derives the first gradation(s) according to that reference-frame (relative, not empirical despite empiricism being subjective).

It therefor has a need to "void itself": taking the form(lessness) of the void.

The void voided itself into "All".

P =/= P
_______
allows: any/all existence unknown unto itself.
equiv: P is not necessarily P, but certainly can be

Recall LORI: can not infer unknown by way of unknown.

P^inf = 0
_______
P can be +P or -P allowing any/all relative reference(s) owing to any/all (non-)existence of P

P =/= P
P = +P (<->) -P
_______
allows: any/all relative (e)motion

Now P can be orientated/subjected to a/the fixed void:

2 I AM (willing to)
1 BELIEVE
0 *not to* <-*negation
-1 (any/all)
-2 KNOW
___________________
-(e) I AM (willing to) KNOW (any/all) *not to* BELIEVE
+(e) I AM (willing to) BELIEVE *not to* (any/all) KNOW

P =/= P
P = +P (<->) -P
P = *P
*P^inf = *P
_____________
*P can be in a relative state as either +P or -P

Therefor whatever the subject emerges as, say after one solar year, whatever it is (to be known), can be inferred by virtue of knowing any/all it is not.

The most important point is this: like "belief", assumption has "substance" to it which invariably acts on/as any/all (e)motion. Ckiit assumes an (e)motionless state by referencing a void one. Void is thus needed to draw out any/all (e)motion of any/all subjects and their cause(s) contrary to what is otherwise void.

Assumption is instrincially void, it has no substance..."it" is just a reference to multiple forms through we see emptiness...this is not different than saying the form of a glass is empty because of its multiple dimensions.

Ckiit therefor can be used to predict the solution by establishing an orientation: one tends towards suffering/death (according to the context of Judaism/Christianity/Islam) thus finds its inverse: hence, Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance Inference Theorem which tends towards (the inverse of) perpetual conflict due to the problem-in-and-of-itself of "GOOD vs. EVIL": BELIEF.

That is your belief, you have no proof.

It takes a believer to believe evil is good.

Your statements about Good and Evils are beliefs unless you observed them in their totatlity.

color]
It takes any/all knowledge of any/all not to believe, to have any/all knowledge of good and evil.

-(e) I AM (willing to) KNOW (any/all) *not to* BELIEVE <-*tends towards all-knowing god
+(e) I AM (willing to) BELIEVE *not to* (any/all) KNOW <-* tends towards inverse of ^^^ (ie. so-called satan)

https://ibb.co/t3LmNrr

If even it does not contribute to establishing a "trending towards" world peace, it will be able to empirically indicate why world peace does not exist: choice (the problem-in-and-of-itself) which certainly has a counter-part *not* acted upon towards the same.

Empiricism is an abstraction about the senses. Strict empiricism negates itself under it's own definition. Empiricism is negatable.