God and the Totality of Being as a Hallucination

[Age]

So God is not strictly physical?

Are you telling/informing or asking? The question mark appears to contradict the wording.

By the way, you did NOT answer my clarifying questions here.

And what questions are those? List them.

EVERY sentence of mine that has a question mark at the end of it is one of them. Including the one above in the quote.

I am NOT now going to list them, because:
1. Reading through your incorrectly quoted posts makes following who said what much harder than it needs to be.
2. I do NOT care if you answer them or not.
3. You missed, or ignored, them previously, even when they were CLEARLY MARKED with question marks, so you might miss, or ignore, then again this time. You, after all, did NOT show ANY sign that you would answer them now this time.
4. I will NOT necessarily do what you demand me to do.

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you telling/informing or asking? The question mark appears to contradict the wording.

By the way, you did NOT answer my clarifying questions here.

And what questions are those? List them.

EVERY sentence of mine that has a question mark at the end of it is one of them. Including the one above in the quote.

I am NOT now going to list them, because:
1. Reading through your incorrectly quoted posts makes following who said what much harder than it needs to be.
2. I do NOT care if you answer them or not.
3. You missed, or ignored, them previously, even when they were CLEARLY MARKED with question marks, so you might miss, or ignore, then again this time. You, after all, did NOT show ANY sign that you would answer them now this time.
4. I will NOT necessarily do what you demand me to do.

Then don't...it doesn't matter either way because you have no definite stance, you cannot answer "what is being" without ending in contradiction.

[Age]

We assume what is correct and false based upon there alignment or misalignment with prior assumptions. While assumptions may be false they may also be true, all is dependent upon the connection of one assumption to another.

If that is what 'you' do, then so be it.

But adding the word 'we' here is just yet ONE MORE ASSUMPTION on top of ALL of the OTHER ASSUMPTIONS that 'you' make. With OBVIOUSLY ALL of them having a chance of being False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

They also have the chance of being correct.

NOW, remember that ALL ASSUMPTIONS are based on NOTHING AT ALL but just a GUESS, which ALL guesses can OBVIOUSLY be False, Wrong and/or Incorrect. I have informed 'you', enough times now, that EVERY time 'you' want to INSIST, and ARGUE, that ALL of Y/OUR VIEWS are grounded on ASSUMPTION, then this GUESS of YOURS could be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. Therefore, EVERY time you 'try to' INSIST the above 'you' are ALWAYS going to fall into this 'trap' of YOUR OWN MAKING.

False, assumptions are that which imprint one phenomenon onto another. I said this before.

So, are you REALLY now 'trying to' ASSERT and INSIST that YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS could NEVER be WRONG?

No I am defining assumption.

I did, after all, just say; REMEMBER that YOUR ASSUMPTIONS could be WRONG. And YOUR RESPONSE to this is; ""False ...""

If that is NOT what you are 'trying to' ASSERT and INSIST, then what are you 'trying to' ASSERT and INSIST by YOUR, "False ...", response?

See above.

What for?

ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.

NOT NECESSARILY SO, AT ALL.

WHY would you ASSUME and SAY such a thing?

These are your words.

Group agreement and acceptance is your prerequisite for that which is not assumed,

NOT AT ALL.

Again, WHY would you ASSUME and SAY such a thing?

yet not only is this an assumption on your part but it is relying upon group assumptions where multiple people assume the same thing.

But this could NEVER be "an assumption on my part" because this is NOT "my assumption". This is YOUR ASSUMPTION ALONE here.

I NEVER said ANY thing at all that would even resemble such a thing as this. You have just JUMPED TO THIS FALSE CONCLUSION, which was based on YOUR PREVIOUS FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.

If you would care to READ AGAIN the ACTUAL WORDS that I used, then you MIGHT SEE DIFFERENTLY.

You said, around post 11:

"ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION."

This necessitates group agreement as truth and acceptance of the group as the assumption of the group.

But this does NOT 'necessitate' ANY such thing as you propose here.

Again, READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I use AND write.

These are the ACTUAL WORDS that I used AND wrote:
'ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' ... IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.'

Does this make it SIMPLER and EASIER for 'you' to SEE and UNDERSTAND the OBVIOUSNESS and FACT of what I ACTUALLY SAID, and ACTUALLY MEANT? Or, do you STILL ASSUME that some "GROUP" component is NECESSARY/NEEDED here?

So, WHY did you JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION you did, and WHY did you ASSUME what you did?

Was it because I can manipulate words to make you SEE 'that' what is ACTUALLY NOT THERE? Or, because you BELIEVE that what you ASSUMED here is what I ACTUALLY MEANT? And, are ALL of YOUR CONTINUAL ASSUMPTIONS, which you continue to make, just based on YOUR BELIEF that ASSUMPTIONS are ALL-THERE-IS and that EVERY thing IS and HAS TO BE based on and grounded upon an ASSUMPTION?

SEE, 'ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing', (but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing', even by just ONE PERSON,) IS an example of an argument, which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.

The reason this is so is because of what words, themselves, actually mean, and refer to.

[Age]

And what questions are those? List them.

EVERY sentence of mine that has a question mark at the end of it is one of them. Including the one above in the quote.

I am NOT now going to list them, because:
1. Reading through your incorrectly quoted posts makes following who said what much harder than it needs to be.
2. I do NOT care if you answer them or not.
3. You missed, or ignored, them previously, even when they were CLEARLY MARKED with question marks, so you might miss, or ignore, then again this time. You, after all, did NOT show ANY sign that you would answer them now this time.
4. I will NOT necessarily do what you demand me to do.

Then don't...it doesn't matter either way because you have no definite stance,

There is probably more truth in your CLAIM that ' I have NO 'definitive stance' ', then you even realize, YET.

But this has NO bearing on the fact that you could NOT, did NOT, and will NOT answer the clarifying questions that I posed to you.

you cannot answer "what is being" without ending in contradiction.

LOL Okay, if you say so.

But what are you actually basing this ASSUMPTION on EXACTLY?

Also, if you can answer "what is being?" without ending in contradiction, then why can I not just copy and repeat YOUR ANSWER?

Can you answer, 'What is 'being'?', without ending in contradiction?

[Eodnhoj7]

We assume what is correct and false based upon there alignment or misalignment with prior assumptions. While assumptions may be false they may also be true, all is dependent upon the connection of one assumption to another.

If that is what 'you' do, then so be it.

But adding the word 'we' here is just yet ONE MORE ASSUMPTION on top of ALL of the OTHER ASSUMPTIONS that 'you' make. With OBVIOUSLY ALL of them having a chance of being False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

They also have the chance of being correct.

NOW, remember that ALL ASSUMPTIONS are based on NOTHING AT ALL but just a GUESS, which ALL guesses can OBVIOUSLY be False, Wrong and/or Incorrect. I have informed 'you', enough times now, that EVERY time 'you' want to INSIST, and ARGUE, that ALL of Y/OUR VIEWS are grounded on ASSUMPTION, then this GUESS of YOURS could be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. Therefore, EVERY time you 'try to' INSIST the above 'you' are ALWAYS going to fall into this 'trap' of YOUR OWN MAKING.

False, assumptions are that which imprint one phenomenon onto another. I said this before.

So, are you REALLY now 'trying to' ASSERT and INSIST that YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS could NEVER be WRONG?

No I am defining assumption.

I did, after all, just say; REMEMBER that YOUR ASSUMPTIONS could be WRONG. And YOUR RESPONSE to this is; ""False ...""

If that is NOT what you are 'trying to' ASSERT and INSIST, then what are you 'trying to' ASSERT and INSIST by YOUR, "False ...", response?

See above.

What for?



NOT NECESSARILY SO, AT ALL.

WHY would you ASSUME and SAY such a thing?

These are your words.



NOT AT ALL.

Again, WHY would you ASSUME and SAY such a thing?



But this could NEVER be "an assumption on my part" because this is NOT "my assumption". This is YOUR ASSUMPTION ALONE here.

I NEVER said ANY thing at all that would even resemble such a thing as this. You have just JUMPED TO THIS FALSE CONCLUSION, which was based on YOUR PREVIOUS FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.

If you would care to READ AGAIN the ACTUAL WORDS that I used, then you MIGHT SEE DIFFERENTLY.

You said, around post 11:

"ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION."

This necessitates group agreement as truth and acceptance of the group as the assumption of the group.

But this does NOT 'necessitate' ANY such thing as you propose here.

Again, READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I use AND write.

These are the ACTUAL WORDS that I used AND wrote:
'ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' ... IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.'

Does this make it SIMPLER and EASIER for 'you' to SEE and UNDERSTAND the OBVIOUSNESS and FACT of what I ACTUALLY SAID, and ACTUALLY MEANT? Or, do you STILL ASSUME that some "GROUP" component is NECESSARY/NEEDED here?

So, WHY did you JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION you did, and WHY did you ASSUME what you did?

Was it because I can manipulate words to make you SEE 'that' what is ACTUALLY NOT THERE? Or, because you BELIEVE that what you ASSUMED here is what I ACTUALLY MEANT? And, are ALL of YOUR CONTINUAL ASSUMPTIONS, which you continue to make, just based on YOUR BELIEF that ASSUMPTIONS are ALL-THERE-IS and that EVERY thing IS and HAS TO BE based on and grounded upon an ASSUMPTION?

SEE, 'ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing', (but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing', even by just ONE PERSON,) IS an example of an argument, which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.

The reason this is so is because of what words, themselves, actually mean, and refer to.

You left out this vital point which you wrote:

' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing'.

I didn't bother reading the rest or the other posts. If you cannot be honest then there is no use in discussing anything further.

[Age]

You said, around post 11:

"ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION."

This necessitates group agreement as truth and acceptance of the group as the assumption of the group.

But this does NOT 'necessitate' ANY such thing as you propose here.

Again, READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I use AND write.

These are the ACTUAL WORDS that I used AND wrote:
'ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' ... IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.'

Does this make it SIMPLER and EASIER for 'you' to SEE and UNDERSTAND the OBVIOUSNESS and FACT of what I ACTUALLY SAID, and ACTUALLY MEANT? Or, do you STILL ASSUME that some "GROUP" component is NECESSARY/NEEDED here?

So, WHY did you JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION you did, and WHY did you ASSUME what you did?

Was it because I can manipulate words to make you SEE 'that' what is ACTUALLY NOT THERE? Or, because you BELIEVE that what you ASSUMED here is what I ACTUALLY MEANT? And, are ALL of YOUR CONTINUAL ASSUMPTIONS, which you continue to make, just based on YOUR BELIEF that ASSUMPTIONS are ALL-THERE-IS and that EVERY thing IS and HAS TO BE based on and grounded upon an ASSUMPTION?

SEE, 'ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing', (but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing', even by just ONE PERSON,) IS an example of an argument, which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.

The reason this is so is because of what words, themselves, actually mean, and refer to.

You left out this vital point which you wrote:

' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing'.

I didn't bother reading the rest or the other posts.

This is because you do NOT want to SEE, NOR find out, what the ACTUAL Truth IS. Because 'you' UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOW that the ACTUAL Truth CONTRADICTS, and is IN OPPOSITION, with what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true.

If you DID READ the rest, then you MIGHT HAVE SEEN just HOW and WHY I PURPOSELY wrote that the first time and PURPOSELY left it out this time.

But because you DO NOT READ ALL of what I wrote, this EXPLAINS WHY you are UNABLE to learn and understand more.

If you cannot be honest then there is no use in discussing anything further.

LOL ANOTHER ASSUMPTION of YOURS, which is, AGAIN, TOTALLY WRONG.

I have NOT be 'dishonest' AT ALL I was just SHOWING 'you' what else can BE SEEN and UNDERSTOOD. BUT, if you could not be 'bothered' reading what I write, then there REALLY is NO use in discussing ANY thing at all further here.

YOUR ASSUMPTIONS here have been continually completely AND utterly WRONG anyway, which you have OBVIOUSLY FAILED to CORRECT. So, it would be BEST that you did just LEAVE and STOP discussing ANY thing further.

By the way, IF you did READ what I ACTUALLY WROTE, then you would have CLEARLY SEEN that the words ' ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' ' can refer to ONE or to MANY, which DEFEATED your "group" ASSUMPTION, COMPLETELY.

Or, maybe you ACTUALLY did READ ALL of what I wrote, but because you can NOT counter what I wrote and/or do NOT like to ADMIT that what I wrote ACTUALLY does makes sense, you now chose to be DISHONEST and thus said what you did here.

[Eodnhoj7]

But this does NOT 'necessitate' ANY such thing as you propose here.

Again, READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I use AND write.

These are the ACTUAL WORDS that I used AND wrote:
'ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' ... IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.'

Does this make it SIMPLER and EASIER for 'you' to SEE and UNDERSTAND the OBVIOUSNESS and FACT of what I ACTUALLY SAID, and ACTUALLY MEANT? Or, do you STILL ASSUME that some "GROUP" component is NECESSARY/NEEDED here?

So, WHY did you JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION you did, and WHY did you ASSUME what you did?

Was it because I can manipulate words to make you SEE 'that' what is ACTUALLY NOT THERE? Or, because you BELIEVE that what you ASSUMED here is what I ACTUALLY MEANT? And, are ALL of YOUR CONTINUAL ASSUMPTIONS, which you continue to make, just based on YOUR BELIEF that ASSUMPTIONS are ALL-THERE-IS and that EVERY thing IS and HAS TO BE based on and grounded upon an ASSUMPTION?

SEE, 'ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing', (but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing', even by just ONE PERSON,) IS an example of an argument, which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.

The reason this is so is because of what words, themselves, actually mean, and refer to.

You left out this vital point which you wrote:

' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing'.

I didn't bother reading the rest or the other posts.

This is because you do NOT want to SEE, NOR find out, what the ACTUAL Truth IS. Because 'you' UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOW that the ACTUAL Truth CONTRADICTS, and is IN OPPOSITION, with what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true.

If you DID READ the rest, then you MIGHT HAVE SEEN just HOW and WHY I PURPOSELY wrote that the first time and PURPOSELY left it out this time.

But because you DO NOT READ ALL of what I wrote, this EXPLAINS WHY you are UNABLE to learn and understand more.

If you cannot be honest then there is no use in discussing anything further.

LOL ANOTHER ASSUMPTION of YOURS, which is, AGAIN, TOTALLY WRONG.

I have NOT be 'dishonest' AT ALL I was just SHOWING 'you' what else can BE SEEN and UNDERSTOOD. BUT, if you could not be 'bothered' reading what I write, then there REALLY is NO use in discussing ANY thing at all further here.

YOUR ASSUMPTIONS here have been continually completely AND utterly WRONG anyway, which you have OBVIOUSLY FAILED to CORRECT. So, it would be BEST that you did just LEAVE and STOP discussing ANY thing further.

By the way, IF you did READ what I ACTUALLY WROTE, then you would have CLEARLY SEEN that the words ' ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' ' can refer to ONE or to MANY, which DEFEATED your "group" ASSUMPTION, COMPLETELY.

Or, maybe you ACTUALLY did READ ALL of what I wrote, but because you can NOT counter what I wrote and/or do NOT like to ADMIT that what I wrote ACTUALLY does makes sense, you now chose to be DISHONEST and thus said what you did here.

There you go with the ad hominums again, which only divert away from the argument thus proving weakness on your part. And no what you write does not make sense as the majority of what you state is ad hominums stating that I am not observing the truth.

You said:

"' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing'" which observes your assumption that group agreement is the foundation of non assumption.

Let's make this simple just provide a list of points saying where I am wrong and I will address each one by number.

[Eodnhoj7]

EVERY sentence of mine that has a question mark at the end of it is one of them. Including the one above in the quote.

I am NOT now going to list them, because:
1. Reading through your incorrectly quoted posts makes following who said what much harder than it needs to be.
2. I do NOT care if you answer them or not.
3. You missed, or ignored, them previously, even when they were CLEARLY MARKED with question marks, so you might miss, or ignore, then again this time. You, after all, did NOT show ANY sign that you would answer them now this time.
4. I will NOT necessarily do what you demand me to do.

Then don't...it doesn't matter either way because you have no definite stance,

There is probably more truth in your CLAIM that ' I have NO 'definitive stance' ', then you even realize, YET.

But this has NO bearing on the fact that you could NOT, did NOT, and will NOT answer the clarifying questions that I posed to you.

you cannot answer "what is being" without ending in contradiction.

LOL Okay, if you say so.

But what are you actually basing this ASSUMPTION on EXACTLY?

Also, if you can answer "what is being?" without ending in contradiction, then why can I not just copy and repeat YOUR ANSWER?

Can you answer, 'What is 'being'?', without ending in contradiction?

Yes I can answer what is being without ending in contradiction: •

[Age]

You left out this vital point which you wrote:

' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing'.

I didn't bother reading the rest or the other posts.

This is because you do NOT want to SEE, NOR find out, what the ACTUAL Truth IS. Because 'you' UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOW that the ACTUAL Truth CONTRADICTS, and is IN OPPOSITION, with what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true.

If you DID READ the rest, then you MIGHT HAVE SEEN just HOW and WHY I PURPOSELY wrote that the first time and PURPOSELY left it out this time.

But because you DO NOT READ ALL of what I wrote, this EXPLAINS WHY you are UNABLE to learn and understand more.

If you cannot be honest then there is no use in discussing anything further.

LOL ANOTHER ASSUMPTION of YOURS, which is, AGAIN, TOTALLY WRONG.

I have NOT be 'dishonest' AT ALL I was just SHOWING 'you' what else can BE SEEN and UNDERSTOOD. BUT, if you could not be 'bothered' reading what I write, then there REALLY is NO use in discussing ANY thing at all further here.

YOUR ASSUMPTIONS here have been continually completely AND utterly WRONG anyway, which you have OBVIOUSLY FAILED to CORRECT. So, it would be BEST that you did just LEAVE and STOP discussing ANY thing further.

By the way, IF you did READ what I ACTUALLY WROTE, then you would have CLEARLY SEEN that the words ' ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' ' can refer to ONE or to MANY, which DEFEATED your "group" ASSUMPTION, COMPLETELY.

Or, maybe you ACTUALLY did READ ALL of what I wrote, but because you can NOT counter what I wrote and/or do NOT like to ADMIT that what I wrote ACTUALLY does makes sense, you now chose to be DISHONEST and thus said what you did here.

There you go with the ad hominums again, which only divert away from the argument thus proving weakness on your part.

What ALLEGED "ad hominums"?

I have ALREADY asked you to CLARIFY what 'ad hominums' means to you. YET you NEVER did.

Also, what 'argument'? You have YET to provide a sound and valid argument?

And until you do, the so called, "arguments" that you do provide are OBVIOUSLY NOT WORTHY.

And no what you write does not make sense as the majority of what you state is ad hominums stating that I am not observing the truth.

And you DISCUSSING these, supposed and alleged, "ad hominums" may well be just a DIVERSIONARY TACTIC of yours. And if so, are then just weaknesses on your part.

While we are on this WHY do you NOT comment on what I counter against you?

You said:

"' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing'" which observes your assumption that group agreement is the foundation of non assumption.

Do NOT forget that it was you who STATED that you did NOT READ what else I wrote. Therefore, this is PROOF that you are NOT YET ABLE to gain a True UNDERSTANDING of what I have actually SAID and STATED.

Let's make this simple just provide a list of points saying where I am wrong and I will address each one by number.

Let us make this EVEN SIMPLER you provide your, so called, "argument" in a few premise and conclusion point form, and then I will SHOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE WRONG.

If you do NOT, then that PROVES you have something to hide, are afraid, already know that you are wrong, or for some other reason.

[Age]

Then don't...it doesn't matter either way because you have no definite stance,

There is probably more truth in your CLAIM that ' I have NO 'definitive stance' ', then you even realize, YET.

But this has NO bearing on the fact that you could NOT, did NOT, and will NOT answer the clarifying questions that I posed to you.

you cannot answer "what is being" without ending in contradiction.

LOL Okay, if you say so.

But what are you actually basing this ASSUMPTION on EXACTLY?

Also, if you can answer "what is being?" without ending in contradiction, then why can I not just copy and repeat YOUR ANSWER?

Can you answer, 'What is 'being'?', without ending in contradiction?

Yes I can answer what is being without ending in contradiction: •

THEREFORE, OBVIOUSLY, and CONTRADICTORY to YOUR CLAIM, I ALSO can answer 'What is 'being'?' without ending in contradiction.

[Eodnhoj7]

This is because you do NOT want to SEE, NOR find out, what the ACTUAL Truth IS. Because 'you' UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOW that the ACTUAL Truth CONTRADICTS, and is IN OPPOSITION, with what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true.

If you DID READ the rest, then you MIGHT HAVE SEEN just HOW and WHY I PURPOSELY wrote that the first time and PURPOSELY left it out this time.

But because you DO NOT READ ALL of what I wrote, this EXPLAINS WHY you are UNABLE to learn and understand more.



LOL ANOTHER ASSUMPTION of YOURS, which is, AGAIN, TOTALLY WRONG.

I have NOT be 'dishonest' AT ALL I was just SHOWING 'you' what else can BE SEEN and UNDERSTOOD. BUT, if you could not be 'bothered' reading what I write, then there REALLY is NO use in discussing ANY thing at all further here.

YOUR ASSUMPTIONS here have been continually completely AND utterly WRONG anyway, which you have OBVIOUSLY FAILED to CORRECT. So, it would be BEST that you did just LEAVE and STOP discussing ANY thing further.

By the way, IF you did READ what I ACTUALLY WROTE, then you would have CLEARLY SEEN that the words ' ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' ' can refer to ONE or to MANY, which DEFEATED your "group" ASSUMPTION, COMPLETELY.

Or, maybe you ACTUALLY did READ ALL of what I wrote, but because you can NOT counter what I wrote and/or do NOT like to ADMIT that what I wrote ACTUALLY does makes sense, you now chose to be DISHONEST and thus said what you did here.

There you go with the ad hominums again, which only divert away from the argument thus proving weakness on your part.

What ALLEGED "ad hominums"?

Or, maybe you ACTUALLY did READ ALL of what I wrote, but because you can NOT counter what I wrote and/or do NOT like to ADMIT that what I wrote ACTUALLY does makes sense, you now chose to be DISHONEST and thus said what you did here.



I have ALREADY asked you to CLARIFY what 'ad hominums' means to you. YET you NEVER did.

Pointing the direction of the argument itself towards then argueer as expressed in then above argument.

Also, what 'argument'? You have YET to provide a sound and valid argument?

What is soundness and validity?

And until you do, the so called, "arguments" that you do provide are OBVIOUSLY NOT WORTHY.

Not worthy of who? You? Who made you the decider of what is true and untrue?

And no what you write does not make sense as the majority of what you state is ad hominums stating that I am not observing the truth.

And you DISCUSSING these, supposed and alleged, "ad hominums" may well be just a DIVERSIONARY TACTIC of yours. And if so, are then just weaknesses on your part.

While we are on this WHY do you NOT comment on what I counter against you?

It is already addressed.

You said:

"' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing'" which observes your assumption that group agreement is the foundation of non assumption.

Do NOT forget that it was you who STATED that you did NOT READ what else I wrote. Therefore, this is PROOF that you are NOT YET ABLE to gain a True UNDERSTANDING of what I have actually SAID and STATED.

False, everything as subject to change necessitates change as constant and unchanging.

Let's make this simple just provide a list of points saying where I am wrong and I will address each one by number.

Let us make this EVEN SIMPLER you provide your, so called, "argument" in a few premise and conclusion point form, and then I will SHOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE WRONG.

If you do NOT, then that PROVES you have something to hide, are afraid, already know that you are wrong, or for some other reason.

Actually it doesn't prove anything because the argument is stated already in the beginning of the thread, if you would read it it is already stated there. I have provided the argument already but your inability to address it "PROVES you have something to hide, are afraid, already know that you are wrong, or for some other reason."

[Eodnhoj7]

There is probably more truth in your CLAIM that ' I have NO 'definitive stance' ', then you even realize, YET.

But this has NO bearing on the fact that you could NOT, did NOT, and will NOT answer the clarifying questions that I posed to you.



LOL Okay, if you say so.

But what are you actually basing this ASSUMPTION on EXACTLY?

Also, if you can answer "what is being?" without ending in contradiction, then why can I not just copy and repeat YOUR ANSWER?

Can you answer, 'What is 'being'?', without ending in contradiction?

Yes I can answer what is being without ending in contradiction: •

THEREFORE, OBVIOUSLY, and CONTRADICTORY to YOUR CLAIM, I ALSO can answer 'What is 'being'?' without ending in contradiction.

Yet you state elsewhere, several posts up, I am not addressing the argument and am incorrect.

"Let us make this EVEN SIMPLER you provide your, so called, "argument" in a few premise and conclusion point form, and then I will SHOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE WRONG.

If you do NOT, then that PROVES you have something to hide, are afraid, already know that you are wrong, or for some other reason."

You have to prove me wrong now, therefore it cannot be your answer. The premise and conclusion is: •


1. All comes from a point.

2. All being is reduced to a point from a distance.

3. All is composed of points upon closer inspection.

4. The point Inverts to another point and repeats through further points.

5. The point as existing through further points necessitates the point as continuous thus static.

[Age]

There you go with the ad hominums again, which only divert away from the argument thus proving weakness on your part.

What ALLEGED "ad hominums"?

Or, maybe you ACTUALLY did READ ALL of what I wrote, but because you can NOT counter what I wrote and/or do NOT like to ADMIT that what I wrote ACTUALLY does makes sense, you now chose to be DISHONEST and thus said what you did here.

If you are just going to repeat exactly what I wrote to you, and 'try to' use this to DETRACT AWAY from YOUR COMPLETE INABILITY to just ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION I posed to 'you', then it is NOT going to work.

YOUR INABILITIES are becoming MORE CLEARLY OBVIOUS to MORE PEOPLE the MORE you do this.

I have ALREADY asked you to CLARIFY what 'ad hominums' means to you. YET you NEVER did.

Pointing the direction of the argument itself towards then argueer as expressed in then above argument.

What? All I did was just ask you a CLARIFYING QUESTION. I was NOT, so called, "pointing the direction of the argument" ANYWHERE.

If you can NOT answer a CLARIFYING QUESTION, then so be it. But do NOT expect YOUR points/arguments to be CLARIFIED.

Also, what 'argument'? You have YET to provide a sound and valid argument?

What is soundness and validity?

In regards to 'discussions', to me:
'Soundness' is; the quality of being based on valid reason or on logical reasoning

'Validity' is; the quality of being logically or factually sound;

In regards to 'deductive arguments', to me:
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.

That is what 'soundness' AND 'validity' is, to me.

Now, what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that I have the decency to ANSWER YOUR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which AS PROVEN is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what 'you' do.

And until you do, the so called, "arguments" that you do provide are OBVIOUSLY NOT WORTHY.

Not worthy of who? You? Who made you the decider of what is true and untrue?

This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one who is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY BLINDED by their OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

LOOK AT how they ASK a CLARIFYING QUESTION, BUT instead of WAITING for the ACTUAL True, Right, and Correct ANSWER, they ANSWER the question "themselves" INSTANTLY, and then proceed to QUICKLY JUMP to ASK ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION based on the ASSUMPTION that they ALREADY BELIEVE that they ALREADY KNOW what the ANSWER IS and WILL BE.

To PROVIDE 'you' with the True, Right, and Correct ANSWER to your FIRST question here, then the ANSWER is; EVERY one.

To ANSWER YOUR second question, the ANSWER is; Not just 'me'.

To ANSWER YOUR third question, the ANSWER is; This question is MOOT because YOUR ASSUMPTION is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY WRONG.

When, and IF, you EVER LOOK AT and SEE the ANSWER to YOUR first question, then you can SEE 'who' is ACTUALLY the 'decider' of what is true AND untrue.

I will AGAIN suggest that if one Truly WANTS to discover or learn and understand what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS, then just BE and REMAIN Truly OPEN, and CURIOUS, and STOP LOOKING AT and SEEING things from the perspective on one's OWN ALREADY gained thoughts and BELIEFS.

And no what you write does not make sense as the majority of what you state is ad hominums stating that I am not observing the truth.

IF thee Truth IS that 'you' are 'NOT observing the truth', then this is just what thee Truth ACTUALLY IS.

This, to me, is NOT an 'ad hominum'.

What an 'ad hominum' however is, to 'you', we will NEVER KNOW because you NEVER tell 'us'/CLARIFY.

Also, AS ALREADY EXPLAINED to you, if you do NOT LEARN how to quote properly AND correctly, then what write and say here makes FOLLOWING our discussion EXTREMELY HARD. A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THIS is here where you started your sentence here with; "And no ...".

What is 'this' in reference to EXACTLY?

And if you do NOT CLARIFY this, then this could be A SIGN that even 'you' are having an extremely hard time FOLLOWING this discussion.

And you DISCUSSING these, supposed and alleged, "ad hominums" may well be just a DIVERSIONARY TACTIC of yours. And if so, are then just weaknesses on your part.

While we are on this WHY do you NOT comment on what I counter against you?

It is already addressed.

It is ALREADY NOT ADDRESSED.

As STUPID as this sounds is as STUPID as what you said here sounds.

You have NOT addressed NOR commented on what I counter against you.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN is YOUR DIVERSIONARY TACTICS.

You said:

"' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing'" which observes your assumption that group agreement is the foundation of non assumption.

Do NOT forget that it was you who STATED that you did NOT READ what else I wrote. Therefore, this is PROOF that you are NOT YET ABLE to gain a True UNDERSTANDING of what I have actually SAID and STATED.

False, everything as subject to change necessitates change as constant and unchanging.

What?

OBVIOUSLY, if you have NOT READ what I wrote, as you CLAIM you did, then you can NOT KNOW what I wrote, and therefore could NEVER gain a True UNDERSTANDING of what I have ACTUALLY SAID and STATED.

The FACT that this is PURE OBVIOUS is SELF-EVIDENT. And, the FACT that you wrote "False" to this, just SHOWS and PROVES just HOW far ASTRAY you ACTUALLY ARE from what is going on here.

Let's make this simple just provide a list of points saying where I am wrong and I will address each one by number.

Let us make this EVEN SIMPLER you provide your, so called, "argument" in a few premise and conclusion point form, and then I will SHOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE WRONG.

If you do NOT, then that PROVES you have something to hide, are afraid, already know that you are wrong, or for some other reason.

Actually it doesn't prove anything because the argument is stated already in the beginning of the thread, if you would read it it is already stated there. I have provided the argument already but your inability to address it "PROVES you have something to hide, are afraid, already know that you are wrong, or for some other reason."

But I have ALREADY SHOWN WHERE YOU ARE WRONG. If you would READ IT it is ALREADY STATED HERE.

And, YOUR, so called, "argument", allegedly, stated "in the beginning of this thread" is OBVIOUSLY NOT in the form which I just said would MAKE SHOWING where YOU ARE WRONG, EVEN SIMPLER.

So, WHY do you NOT put YOUR "argument" in the form that I suggested?


Also, what you wrote "in the beginning of this thread" is NOT an 'argument'. What you wrote is just a statement, sentence, or a CLAIM of just what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true. But, if you just want to use this CLAIM, and NOT put YOUR, so called, "argument" into point form, then let us LOOK AT it and DISCUSS this CLAIM of YOURS.

This is YOUR sentence/CLAIM:
A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.

And as I have ALREADY POINTED OUT, but will do AGAIN, where you are WRONG is:
1. This, so called, definition of 'God' has to OBVIOUSLY be WRONG, from the outset. So, picking and choosing a definition of 'God', which is OBVIOUSLY JUST PLAIN False, Wrong, and Incorrect, from the very beginning, is WHERE you are WRONG, from the outset.

2. Just because ONE definition has been provided, by one or more people, then this, in and of itself, has NO bearing whatsoever on it being true or even being anywhere close to be true, so using A definition as though it has SOME bearing on truth is WRONG in and of itself. So, this is WHERE you are WRONG, again.

3. A definition, by itself, NEVER necessarily equates a BELIEF in absolutely ANY thing. So, this is WHERE you are WRONG, also.

4. JUMPING to the CONCLUSION, "ie. God is a hallucination", without providing ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE NOR PROVE is just PLAIN WRONG. You have NOT YET provided ANY actual evidence NOR proof for your CLAIM so this is WHERE you are WRONG, once more.

5. JUMPING to the CONCLUSION, "is to result in contradiction", without any other EXPLANATION is just PLAIN WRONG. So, this is WHERE you are WRONG, as well.

6. Saying, "given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination", but NOT naming who this one is is just PLAIN DECEIVING, so this is WHERE you are WRONG, this time. And,

7. WHERE you are REALLY WRONG is:
When you DO not even attempt to CLARIFY what 'it' is that you are REALLY 'trying to' EXPRESS and CONVEY.

When you do NOT even attempt to EXPLAIN HOW and WHY you have arrived at, JUMPED to these CONCLUSIONS and BELIEFS of YOURS, which you are 'trying to' CLAIM are ALREADY and ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct. And,

When you do NOT define the words you use.

Now, there is A list of points saying WHERE you are WRONG. So, let us now SEE just HOW, and IF, you will address each one by number.

[Age]

Yes I can answer what is being without ending in contradiction: •

THEREFORE, OBVIOUSLY, and CONTRADICTORY to YOUR CLAIM, I ALSO can answer 'What is 'being'?' without ending in contradiction.

Yet you state elsewhere, several posts up, I am not addressing the argument and am incorrect.

This IS Correct. One example IS; You stated that I cannot answer "What is being'?" without ending in contradiction, YET I have just PROVEN that you ARE INCORRECT, once again.

"Let us make this EVEN SIMPLER you provide your, so called, "argument" in a few premise and conclusion point form, and then I will SHOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE WRONG.

If you do NOT, then that PROVES you have something to hide, are afraid, already know that you are wrong, or for some other reason."

You have to prove me wrong now, therefore it cannot be your answer. The premise and conclusion is: •

LOL So the 'premise' AND 'conclusion' of YOUR, so called, "argument" is the EXACT SAME ONE THING. Okay, but NOTHING MORE REALLY NEEDS TO BE SAID HERE. The illogicality of this SPEAKS for ITSELF.

Also, you have ALREADY RESPONDED to what I said above in your previous post. But anyway;

1. All comes from a point.

Are you confusing this thread with another one? You have NOT mentioned the word 'point' in your opening "argument"/CLAIM here in this thread.
Anyway, how do you KNOW all, so called, "points" do NOT come from ALL?

How do you KNOW 'points' and 'ALL' do NOT come from ANY 'thing' but rather have ALWAYS existed?

And, what do you ACTUALLY mean by; "All comes from A point"?

2. All being is reduced to a point from a distance.

Again, what do 'points' ACTUALLY have to do with the thread title here;
God and the Totality of Being as a Hallucination

3. All is composed of points upon closer inspection.

And, if you REALLY want to bring these 'points' into this thread, then with an even CLOSER INSPECTION what is REVEALED and SEEN is that ALL 'points' are CONSTANTLY 'changing'. Which, by the way, counters AND defeats your other CLAIMS in that other thread.

4. The point Inverts to another point and repeats through further points.

Okay, if you say so.

5. The point as existing through further points necessitates the point as continuous thus static.

I am ALREADY AWARE of what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, right, AND correct regarding 'points'. But are you SURE you would NOT like to PROVIDE here, in 'point form' YOUR 'premises' and 'conclusion' for YOUR, alleged, "argument" in regards to:
God and the Totality of Being as a Hallucination, INSTEAD?

Also, WHY would you put this "argument", from another thread, in list and point form but will NOT do the same thing for the "argument" in this thread?

[Eodnhoj7]

What ALLEGED "ad hominums"?

Or, maybe you ACTUALLY did READ ALL of what I wrote, but because you can NOT counter what I wrote and/or do NOT like to ADMIT that what I wrote ACTUALLY does makes sense, you now chose to be DISHONEST and thus said what you did here.

If you are just going to repeat exactly what I wrote to you, and 'try to' use this to DETRACT AWAY from YOUR COMPLETE INABILITY to just ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION I posed to 'you', then it is NOT going to work.

YOUR INABILITIES are becoming MORE CLEARLY OBVIOUS to MORE PEOPLE the MORE you do this.

I have ALREADY asked you to CLARIFY what 'ad hominums' means to you. YET you NEVER did.

Pointing the direction of the argument itself towards then argueer as expressed in then above argument.

What? All I did was just ask you a CLARIFYING QUESTION. I was NOT, so called, "pointing the direction of the argument" ANYWHERE.

If you can NOT answer a CLARIFYING QUESTION, then so be it. But do NOT expect YOUR points/arguments to be CLARIFIED.

Also, what 'argument'? You have YET to provide a sound and valid argument?

What is soundness and validity?

In regards to 'discussions', to me:
'Soundness' is; the quality of being based on valid reason or on logical reasoning

'Validity' is; the quality of being logically or factually sound;

In regards to 'deductive arguments', to me:
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.

That is what 'soundness' AND 'validity' is, to me.

Now, what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that I have the decency to ANSWER YOUR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which AS PROVEN is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what 'you' do.

And until you do, the so called, "arguments" that you do provide are OBVIOUSLY NOT WORTHY.

Not worthy of who? You? Who made you the decider of what is true and untrue?

This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one who is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY BLINDED by their OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

LOOK AT how they ASK a CLARIFYING QUESTION, BUT instead of WAITING for the ACTUAL True, Right, and Correct ANSWER, they ANSWER the question "themselves" INSTANTLY, and then proceed to QUICKLY JUMP to ASK ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION based on the ASSUMPTION that they ALREADY BELIEVE that they ALREADY KNOW what the ANSWER IS and WILL BE.

To PROVIDE 'you' with the True, Right, and Correct ANSWER to your FIRST question here, then the ANSWER is; EVERY one.

To ANSWER YOUR second question, the ANSWER is; Not just 'me'.

To ANSWER YOUR third question, the ANSWER is; This question is MOOT because YOUR ASSUMPTION is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY WRONG.

When, and IF, you EVER LOOK AT and SEE the ANSWER to YOUR first question, then you can SEE 'who' is ACTUALLY the 'decider' of what is true AND untrue.

I will AGAIN suggest that if one Truly WANTS to discover or learn and understand what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS, then just BE and REMAIN Truly OPEN, and CURIOUS, and STOP LOOKING AT and SEEING things from the perspective on one's OWN ALREADY gained thoughts and BELIEFS.

And no what you write does not make sense as the majority of what you state is ad hominums stating that I am not observing the truth.

IF thee Truth IS that 'you' are 'NOT observing the truth', then this is just what thee Truth ACTUALLY IS.

This, to me, is NOT an 'ad hominum'.

What an 'ad hominum' however is, to 'you', we will NEVER KNOW because you NEVER tell 'us'/CLARIFY.

Also, AS ALREADY EXPLAINED to you, if you do NOT LEARN how to quote properly AND correctly, then what write and say here makes FOLLOWING our discussion EXTREMELY HARD. A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THIS is here where you started your sentence here with; "And no ...".

What is 'this' in reference to EXACTLY?

And if you do NOT CLARIFY this, then this could be A SIGN that even 'you' are having an extremely hard time FOLLOWING this discussion.

And you DISCUSSING these, supposed and alleged, "ad hominums" may well be just a DIVERSIONARY TACTIC of yours. And if so, are then just weaknesses on your part.

While we are on this WHY do you NOT comment on what I counter against you?

It is already addressed.

It is ALREADY NOT ADDRESSED.

As STUPID as this sounds is as STUPID as what you said here sounds.

You have NOT addressed NOR commented on what I counter against you.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN is YOUR DIVERSIONARY TACTICS.

Do NOT forget that it was you who STATED that you did NOT READ what else I wrote. Therefore, this is PROOF that you are NOT YET ABLE to gain a True UNDERSTANDING of what I have actually SAID and STATED.

False, everything as subject to change necessitates change as constant and unchanging.

What?

OBVIOUSLY, if you have NOT READ what I wrote, as you CLAIM you did, then you can NOT KNOW what I wrote, and therefore could NEVER gain a True UNDERSTANDING of what I have ACTUALLY SAID and STATED.

The FACT that this is PURE OBVIOUS is SELF-EVIDENT. And, the FACT that you wrote "False" to this, just SHOWS and PROVES just HOW far ASTRAY you ACTUALLY ARE from what is going on here.

Let us make this EVEN SIMPLER you provide your, so called, "argument" in a few premise and conclusion point form, and then I will SHOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE WRONG.

If you do NOT, then that PROVES you have something to hide, are afraid, already know that you are wrong, or for some other reason.

Actually it doesn't prove anything because the argument is stated already in the beginning of the thread, if you would read it it is already stated there. I have provided the argument already but your inability to address it "PROVES you have something to hide, are afraid, already know that you are wrong, or for some other reason."

But I have ALREADY SHOWN WHERE YOU ARE WRONG. If you would READ IT it is ALREADY STATED HERE.

And, YOUR, so called, "argument", allegedly, stated "in the beginning of this thread" is OBVIOUSLY NOT in the form which I just said would MAKE SHOWING where YOU ARE WRONG, EVEN SIMPLER.

So, WHY do you NOT put YOUR "argument" in the form that I suggested?


Also, what you wrote "in the beginning of this thread" is NOT an 'argument'. What you wrote is just a statement, sentence, or a CLAIM of just what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true. But, if you just want to use this CLAIM, and NOT put YOUR, so called, "argument" into point form, then let us LOOK AT it and DISCUSS this CLAIM of YOURS.

This is YOUR sentence/CLAIM:
A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.

And as I have ALREADY POINTED OUT, but will do AGAIN, where you are WRONG is:
1. This, so called, definition of 'God' has to OBVIOUSLY be WRONG, from the outset. So, picking and choosing a definition of 'God', which is OBVIOUSLY JUST PLAIN False, Wrong, and Incorrect, from the very beginning, is WHERE you are WRONG, from the outset.



2. Just because ONE definition has been provided, by one or more people, then this, in and of itself, has NO bearing whatsoever on it being true or even being anywhere close to be true, so using A definition as though it has SOME bearing on truth is WRONG in and of itself. So, this is WHERE you are WRONG, again.

3. A definition, by itself, NEVER necessarily equates a BELIEF in absolutely ANY thing. So, this is WHERE you are WRONG, also.

4. JUMPING to the CONCLUSION, "ie. God is a hallucination", without providing ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE NOR PROVE is just PLAIN WRONG. You have NOT YET provided ANY actual evidence NOR proof for your CLAIM so this is WHERE you are WRONG, once more.

5. JUMPING to the CONCLUSION, "is to result in contradiction", without any other EXPLANATION is just PLAIN WRONG. So, this is WHERE you are WRONG, as well.

6. Saying, "given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination", but NOT naming who this one is is just PLAIN DECEIVING, so this is WHERE you are WRONG, this time. And,

7. WHERE you are REALLY WRONG is:
When you DO not even attempt to CLARIFY what 'it' is that you are REALLY 'trying to' EXPRESS and CONVEY.

When you do NOT even attempt to EXPLAIN HOW and WHY you have arrived at, JUMPED to these CONCLUSIONS and BELIEFS of YOURS, which you are 'trying to' CLAIM are ALREADY and ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct. And,

When you do NOT define the words you use.

Now, there is A list of points saying WHERE you are WRONG. So, let us now SEE just HOW, and IF, you will address each one by number.

"I will AGAIN suggest that if one Truly WANTS to discover or learn and understand what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS, then just BE and REMAIN Truly OPEN, and CURIOUS, and STOP LOOKING AT and SEEING things from the perspective on one's OWN ALREADY gained thoughts and BELIEFS."
^^^This is a belief.



Soundness' is; the quality of being based on valid reason or on logical reasoning

'Validity' is; the quality of being logically or factually sound;

Soundness and validity are thus circular, one defines the other and this is circular reasoning. This is the fallacy of circularity. You contradict yourself.



1. False, you have yet to clarify why this definition is wrong, all you are stating is that I am wrong with no argument. God as defined as "all in all" is God as the totality of being.

2. What determines truth then? Truth is order, order is application of boundaries, boundaries are definition thus truth is definition.

3. The definition is accepted as is, the senses are believed to be correct when being imprinted by a definition.

4. I said if God is a hallucination then the totality of being is a hallucination as God is the totality of being. The totality of being is not a hallucination therefore God is not a hallucination.

5. I never said jumping to a conclusion is a contradiction.

6. One represents any person claiming the totality of reality is an hallucination.

7. I did clarify: If God is the totality of everything and God is a hallucination then the totality of everything is a hallucination. Considering the totality of everything is not an hallucination God is not an hallucination.