There is no personal God or impersonal God.

[Age]

'What' is writing their BOOK is thee one and ONLY, visible, Universe, Itself.

Why would the one and only write a book?

Because of EVOLUTION.

Through evolution there is process of Creation, and thee One and ONLY, Itself, is creating Its Self. This is done, and achieved, through discovery, or REALLY through the uncovering of Its REAL Self. Through learning about Its OWN REAL Self, until thee ''I' KNOWS thy Self.

Thee One and ONLY writes a Book so that ALL of Its parts can come together and live in Peace and Harmony.

See, a book from thee One and ONLY can only be in agreement, and in acceptance, with EVERY 'one'.

what would the one and only gain from such a persuit?

Creating 'that' what 'we' ALL Truly want, and desire.

Is there a reason or purpose for the one and only to write a book?

Yes. To create 'that' what 'we' ALL Truly want. So, that 'we' ALL, together as One, live that way, which 'we' ALL Truly want, and desire.

[Age]

But I do NOT accept a lie, so the rest is just a moot point.

If you do not accept a lie, then you do not accept the truth,

Well that is one ASSUMPTION. But, which would be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY WRONG, if ANY one made it.

the truth you keep peddling to be the one and only truth.

'you' REALLY do NEED to concentrate on the ACTUAL words, letters, and punctuation I use, AND CLARIFY, if you REALLY do want to UNDERSTAND and KNOW what I am ACTUALLY saying, and MEANING.

Thee Truth that I keep peddling to be the One and ONLY Truth is the one with the capital T.

How does that work? as like I said earlier, a lie is the truth.

But just because a 'you' says some thing, this does NOT make that thing true, at all.

Are you tripping again

Do 'you' REALLY expect "others" to accept AND agree with EVERY thing say, as though what 'you' say is irrefutably True?

Also, how many people do you think, or believe, agree with 'you', and accept, that a 'lie' is the 'truth'?

[Age]

'Knowing some thing' does NOT necessarily 'have to' have any bearing at all, NOR any relationship at all, to 'believing any thing, at all'. And vice-versa.

'Believing some thing' does NOT necessarily 'have to' have any bearing at all, NOR any relationship at all, to 'knowing ANY thing, at all'.

One can KNOW things WITHOUT 'having to' BELIEVE absolutely ANY thing at all. And one can BELIEVE some things are true, WITHOUT ever KNOWING.

So there is KNOWING

Yes, and there is also BELIEVING.

That we could all agree on.

Yes there is KNOWING, which we could, and DO, ALL agree on.

But why would this KNOWING then write a book about KNOWING...Why would it make a copy of this knowing?

.

So, that people like 'you' can also learn how to differentiate between KNOWING, BELIEVING, and THINKING, and then FINALLY become united, as One.

[Age]

Is this ABSOLUTELY True, or just what is true, to 'you'? Or, is this just a 'belief', of 'yours', only?

Why are you asking me, you've already claimed there is KNOWING ...so you should already know the answer to your own question.

I found the best and most accurate way of KNOWING is through CLARIFYING, and UNDERSTANDING.

I also ask the 'you' because 'your' answers, if provided, are evidence to PROVE just how much DENIAL Truly exists within the adult human being psyche.

By the way, ideas thought to be real are NOT necessarily a 'belief'. This is because 'thoughts', themselves, are NOT necessarily 'beliefs'.

Is that claim your belief?

No.

Obviously have NOT listened to me when I have informed you that I do NOT have beliefs.

If you already know/have the answer, then why you asking me?

Asking you 'what', EXACTLY?

I have ALREADY explained WHY I asked you the questions earlier. WHY did you come back to this now?

[Dontaskme]

Thanks for your responses Age.

All of which are your beliefs.

If you didn't have a belief about your knowledge claims, then you would not be making them. All you've done is make up a story about your not-knowing self, the one you believe to exist.

There is NO I without the story of I ...the I doesn't have a story, the story is a conceptual overlay upon storyless I ..it's a fiction.

The story of I is unwritten.

[Age]

Thanks for your responses Age.

All of which are your beliefs.

But I do NOT have ANY beliefs.

Were you NOT YET AWARE of this FACT?

If you didn't have a belief about your knowledge claims, then you would not be making them.

So, is this YOUR BELIEF?

All you've done is make up a story about your not-knowing self, the one you believe to exist.

But this is NOT what 'I' have done at all. So, that is CERTAINLY NOT "all I have done".

See, 'I' can also back up and support what 'I' have said with irrefutable evidence AND proof.

There is NO I without the story of I ...the I doesn't have a story, the story is a conceptual overlay upon storyless I ..it's a fiction.

If that story is what that "i" BELIEVES is true (non fiction), then so be it. This is of NO REAL concern to 'I'.

The story of I is unwritten.

'I' KNOW.

I already said 'I' have YET to write 'My Story' - My Book.

[Dontaskme]

I already said 'I' have YET to write 'My Story' - My Book.

what does this ( I ) you speak of actually look like, does this ( I ) have an image?

[Age]

I already said 'I' have YET to write 'My Story' - My Book.

what does this ( I ) you speak of actually look like, does this ( I ) have an image?

Yes. As has been previously explained, to 'you', this 'I' can be seen in the form, or in the image of, thee constantly changing physical Universe, Itself.

This 'I' looks, EXACTLY, like how thee One and ONLY physical Universe looks, at any given moment.

This 'I', in the visible sense, is thee One and ONLY physical Universe, Itself.

This 'I', in the non visible sense, is thee One and ONLY Mind, Itself.

[Dontaskme]

I already said 'I' have YET to write 'My Story' - My Book.

what does this ( I ) you speak of actually look like, does this ( I ) have an image?

Yes. As has been previously explained, to 'you', this 'I' can be seen in the form, or in the image of, thee constantly changing physical Universe, Itself.

This 'I' looks, EXACTLY, like how thee One and ONLY physical Universe looks, at any given moment.

This 'I', in the visible sense, is thee One and ONLY physical Universe, Itself.

This 'I', in the non visible sense, is thee One and ONLY Mind, Itself.

So it seems you are saying that the 'I' is a lawnmower and ten thousand + other things like that ...is that correct?

And if that's correct, then how does a lawnmower write a book?

.

[Age]

what does this ( I ) you speak of actually look like, does this ( I ) have an image?

Yes. As has been previously explained, to 'you', this 'I' can be seen in the form, or in the image of, thee constantly changing physical Universe, Itself.

This 'I' looks, EXACTLY, like how thee One and ONLY physical Universe looks, at any given moment.

This 'I', in the visible sense, is thee One and ONLY physical Universe, Itself.

This 'I', in the non visible sense, is thee One and ONLY Mind, Itself.

So it seems you are saying that the 'I' is a lawnmower and ten thousand + other things like that ...is that correct?

NO. That maybe what it seems like, to you, but that is obviously NOT what I was saying, NOR meaning.

In fact that was nothing like I was and am saying.

And if that's correct, then how does a lawnmower write a book?

.

[Dontaskme]

what does this ( I ) you speak of actually look like, does this ( I ) have an image?

Yes. As has been previously explained, to 'you', this 'I' can be seen in the form, or in the image of, thee constantly changing physical Universe, Itself.

This 'I' looks, EXACTLY, like how thee One and ONLY physical Universe looks, at any given moment.

NO. That maybe what it seems like, to you, but that is obviously NOT what I was saying, NOR meaning.

In fact that was nothing like I was and am saying.

So I ask you again, what does this ( I ) you speak of look like, does it have an image? You still haven't named the actual image of the ( I ) have you?

What does the writer of the book look like ? does the writer have an image?

[Age]

what does this ( I ) you speak of actually look like, does this ( I ) have an image?

Yes. As has been previously explained, to 'you', this 'I' can be seen in the form, or in the image of, thee constantly changing physical Universe, Itself.

This 'I' looks, EXACTLY, like how thee One and ONLY physical Universe looks, at any given moment.

NO. That maybe what it seems like, to you, but that is obviously NOT what I was saying, NOR meaning.

In fact that was nothing like I was and am saying.

So I ask you again, what does this ( I ) you speak of look like, does it have an image?

Yes 'I' have an image. That image is the image that thee One and ONLY physical Universe IS, at any given moment.

You still haven't named the actual image of the ( I ) have you?

What do you mean? I CLEARLY named the actual image of thee 'I'. I did this when I said; 'This 'I' looks, EXACTLY, like how thee One and ONLY physical Universe looks, at any given moment.

Why did you say that I still have not named the actual image of the ( I ) have you, when it can be CLEARLY SEEN that I have?

What does the writer of the book look like ?

Considering it is 'you' who talks about how one is speaking and talking to itself, then, obviously, if this is the case, then 'you' should be well aware that whatever form, or image, thee One, and ONLY, Universe is in, then that is 'what' thee writer of the book looks like.

does the writer have an image?

Yes. Whatever image is being observed, and which is classed/labeled as 'the writer'.

Because ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is relative to the observer, whatever the observer sees, then that is the image the observer has.

So, whatever image 'you' can see and/or have, then that IS thee image, to and for 'you'.

[Dontaskme]

does the writer have an image?

Yes. Whatever image is being observed, and which is classed/labeled as 'the writer'.

Name the ''whatever'' ?

Whatever this image of the writer is, please name it, do not just say it is ''whatever'' ... that ''whatever'' shows nothing.

Because ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is relative to the observer, whatever the observer sees, then that is the image the observer has.

So here you are saying that when the observer sees a thing, aka ABSOLUTELY any and every thing...for example a ''Lawnmower'' then that is the image of the writer, so all that informs is that Lawnmowers can write books. . . Is that correct?


Also repeated here....

So, whatever image 'you' can see and/or have, then that IS thee image, to and for 'you'.

[Age]

does the writer have an image?

Yes. Whatever image is being observed, and which is classed/labeled as 'the writer'.

Name the ''whatever'' ?

Thee Universe.

How many times do 'I' have to tell 'you' the EXACT SAME Thing BEFORE you comprehend?

Whatever this image of the writer is, please name it, do not just say it is ''whatever'' ... that ''whatever'' shows nothing.

Thee 'Universe', again, in whatever shape and form that It is in.

Because ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is relative to the observer, whatever the observer sees, then that is the image the observer has.

So here you are saying that when the observer sees a thing, aka ABSOLUTELY any and every thing...for example a ''Lawnmower'' then that is the image of the writer, so all that informs is that Lawnmowers can write books. . . Is that correct?

NO. This is NOT correct, AT ALL.

Also repeated here....

So, whatever image 'you' can see and/or have, then that IS thee image, to and for 'you'.

This IS CORRECT.

[Dontaskme]

Name the ''whatever'' ?

Thee Universe.

So the universe is the writer of the book.

So why is it said that I write the book, when it is in fact the universe that writes the book?