Creation - Evolution

[Age]

I think Newton got there before you buddy.
It's called inductive reasoning. Not irrefuatble though.

So, once again, why is what I said and wrote here, so-called 'word salad', to you?

Are you, still, really unable to comprehend and understand it?

Also, explain how you could refute what I said and wrote here, which you claim is 'not irrefutable though'?

I understand it perfectly well.

Okay, If you say and believe so, then it must be so, right?

Circular nonsense

Why do you believe that this is absolutely true "sculptor"?

Also, how is asking you clarifying questions, so-called 'circular nonsense'?

If you believe what you say and claim is absolutely true, then why do you just not answer and clarify 'clarifying questions'?

[Iwannaplato]

And unable to communicate properly. If you could, you would be able to answer your own question.

Yup. He recently asked me to

List some of the many beliefs, which you absolutely believe I have "iwannaplato".

Apart from this being him telling me what to do, he should know. It's not some exceptional part of his participation here, he expresses beliefs all the time. I pointed out how often he uses irrefutable and proving in his posts.
Can he really not know how much he believes, including in this very thread the beliefs expressed in the OP?

If we wants to claim that these irrefutable facts and things he says are proved are not things he believes, then he's an idiot. Why wouldn't he believe something that he called an irrefutable fact or a conclusion that he says has been proved?

If he wants to try the silly, I know those things, I don't believe in them game, then it's very strange he has one belief in the One True Mind. Does that mean he doesn't know there aren't many minds but in fact just one.

He doesn't seem to realize how much he is asking me to insult his intelligence to meet his request. But I met his request.

[Sculptor]

So, once again, why is what I said and wrote here, so-called 'word salad', to you?

Are you, still, really unable to comprehend and understand it?

Also, explain how you could refute what I said and wrote here, which you claim is 'not irrefutable though'?

I understand it perfectly well.

Okay, If you say and believe so, then it must be so, right?

Circular nonsense

Why do you believe that this is absolutely true "sculptor"?

Also, how is asking you clarifying questions, so-called 'circular nonsense'?

If you believe what you say and claim is absolutely true, then why do you just not answer and clarify 'clarifying questions'?

You say that the necessity of cause and effect is creation and that creation is the necessity of cause and effect, but you take no account of the main claim of creation is it is novel.
Please examine by above post where I take you statment line by line and annotate it in BLUE.

[Age]

OKAY lets take a proper look

Finally.

Every action causes a reaction. Always has, and, always will.

Maybe.

What do you mean by 'maybe'?

This is irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

THus far inductive inference tends to the belief that for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction (Newton). So far so good. This assertion may hold yet the claim that this has always has been and shall be is a claim beyond reason, since it is beyond the bounds of the empirical evidence which led to the indictive reasoning in the first place.

What are you on about?

It either stands, is so-called 'so far so good', or it does not stand and thus is 'not so far so good' at all.

Take your pick, which one is it?

Does the assertion 'hold' or 'not hold', to you?

Either way, what is your reasoning for your position?

And, if you, really, want to take a 'proper look' here, I am asserting that for every action there is a reaction, or, for every cause there is an effect. And, this 'has to' happen and occur eternally.

Now, again, if absolutely anyone want to disagree, or agree, with this, then just say so, and say 'why'.

Every re-action causes, or creates, another reaction, that is; Creation, Itself.
Um. Although such induction would lead us to assume an endless chain of energetic activity - a chain of causality. There is abolsutely no warrent for adding "creation itself". None. Where this comes from is a mystery only Age can comment on. Does he...?

But there is absolutely every so-called 'warrant' for adding 'creation itself'.

Why do you absolutely believe that there is absolutely no warrant "sculptor"?

Do you explain why to you there is absolutely no warrant for adding 'creation itself' here? Do you ....?

And, the so-called 'mystery', which, supposedly only 'i' can comment on will be revealed here, to those who are Truly interested learning more and anew here.

Oh, and by the way, adding, or introducing, 'creation itself, here is how the GUTOE works.

Obviously IT could not work if IT did not bring every thing together, perfectly, as One.

Every created thing, or reaction, evolves, interacting with other created, and evolving, things, causing continuous more actions, and re-actions, always, causing and/or creating Creation, Itself.

"every Created thing" assumes a creation.

Well, how do you imagine or believe things got HERE, if not through 'creation'?

To prove that absolutely every thing got HERE through 'creation' can be very easily and very simply proved True by the inability of any of you human beings to name just one thing that was 'not created'.

Oh, and by the way, absolutely every thing was created because of and from at least two other things coming together, (except for two things of course).

So, now go ahead and list just one thing that was, supposedly, 'not created'.

Also, why are 'you' 'assuming' a 'creation' here?

Where is this assertion coming from?

From your inability to name one thing that was 'not created'.

Again this stement ends with the same nonsense as the first.

Look "sculptor" if you want to claim any thing 'ends with nonsense', then say 'why' it does, to you?

That statement does not end with any nonsense at all, just like the first did not.

Let 'us' not forget that just because "sculptor" claims, 'this statement ends in nonsense' does not mean that it actually does. For if it did, then "sculptor" could just make the exact same claim about any statement, and then that would be the end of it.

Will you back up and support your claim here "sculptor"?

If no, then why not?

Without justification or support.

Did you justify or support your claim here?

No. Evolution is a word used to explain the emergence of novel living things.

Here 'we' have a prime example of introducing another word, as though this will help them. So, what does 'novel' mean or refer to here "sculptor"?

What are 'novel living things' compared to 'just living things', exactly?

Laterly it has alsi been used to describe a process of changeby physics, such as the development of star formation. This is not "creation itself" this phrase is meaningless.

To you.

So, now 'we' have this one claiming that stars 'evolve' or 'develop', I now wonder, 'if gradually', as well.

So, to some only things, on earth, can 'evolve', but to others stars can also 'evolve'.

When will these adult human beings ever agree on things?

By the same sceince that determines the evolution of stars, also demands that the end game is not "creation",

But why is the 'end game' already concluded, and thus has also been 'demanded'?

It is like these people really could not 'see' what they were actually doing, back when this was being written.

but the heat death of the universe in which all the "information" in energy is exhausted and a steady state of stasis is the terminal result.

So, once again, these people 'know', absolutely and for sure, what 'will happen and occur', based on what was assumed to have happened and occurred, previously.

If you do not accept that then you also have to reject elements of the theory of stellar evolution[/color]

Once more, I do not do 'theory'.

I much prefer to just 'look at', and thus only 'see' what actually is, instead.

Matter being able to move about freely, because of the distance or space between and around matter, is an eternal process where inter-action of matter with itself is one eternal reaction, which what allows the evolution of things to happen and occur.

Matter is not "able".

So, to this one, matter is not able to move about freely.

Okay. So, how, exactly, are things created, and evolve, then, to you?

That is a pathetic fallacy.

And, your claim that 'matter is not able to move about freely' is also a 'pathetic fallacy'. So, who is now Right and Correct?

And, why, exactly?

This is also a contradiction since as we now know that matter needs to be caused to move, itr cannot be "free".

I have already partly explained this, but, like others, because you presume and believe things in my words, which are not being said nor claimed, you then miss out on and misunderstand quite a fair bit of what I am saying and meaning.

Another pathetic fallacy. There is also no "allowing". We'll let this one go since it does not contribute anything more to the overall statement

Yes 'we' will let this one go as this has absolutely nothing whatsoever at all to do with what I actually said and meant.

This one is getting so far astray here now bringing it 'back' to where I was is getting harder and more complex now.


And, still no refutation nor countering.

There is no "creation" described here. What we have is cause-effect, and change, leading to the system wearing out.

What are you basing 'the system' so-called 'wearing out' on, exactly?

Especially when it was through 'science', itself, the exact opposite was concluded.

What has the post said?? Nothing at all

What has "sculptor" said, and proved here?

[Atla]

OKAY lets take a proper look

Finally.

Every action causes a reaction. Always has, and, always will.

Maybe.

What do you mean by 'maybe'?

This is irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

THus far inductive inference tends to the belief that for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction (Newton). So far so good. This assertion may hold yet the claim that this has always has been and shall be is a claim beyond reason, since it is beyond the bounds of the empirical evidence which led to the indictive reasoning in the first place.

What are you on about?

It either stands, is so-called 'so far so good', or it does not stand and thus is 'not so far so good' at all.

Take your pick, which one is it?

Does the assertion 'hold' or 'not hold', to you?

Either way, what is your reasoning for your position?

And, if you, really, want to take a 'proper look' here, I am asserting that for every action there is a reaction, or, for every cause there is an effect. And, this 'has to' happen and occur eternally.

Now, again, if absolutely anyone want to disagree, or agree, with this, then just say so, and say 'why'.

Every re-action causes, or creates, another reaction, that is; Creation, Itself.
Um. Although such induction would lead us to assume an endless chain of energetic activity - a chain of causality. There is abolsutely no warrent for adding "creation itself". None. Where this comes from is a mystery only Age can comment on. Does he...?

But there is absolutely every so-called 'warrant' for adding 'creation itself'.

Why do you absolutely believe that there is absolutely no warrant "sculptor"?

Do you explain why to you there is absolutely no warrant for adding 'creation itself' here? Do you ....?

And, the so-called 'mystery', which, supposedly only 'i' can comment on will be revealed here, to those who are Truly interested learning more and anew here.

Oh, and by the way, adding, or introducing, 'creation itself, here is how the GUTOE works.

Obviously IT could not work if IT did not bring every thing together, perfectly, as One.

Every created thing, or reaction, evolves, interacting with other created, and evolving, things, causing continuous more actions, and re-actions, always, causing and/or creating Creation, Itself.

Well, how do you imagine or believe things got HERE, if not through 'creation'?

To prove that absolutely every thing got HERE through 'creation' can be very easily and very simply proved True by the inability of any of you human beings to name just one thing that was 'not created'.

Oh, and by the way, absolutely every thing was created because of and from at least two other things coming together, (except for two things of course).

So, now go ahead and list just one thing that was, supposedly, 'not created'.

Also, why are 'you' 'assuming' a 'creation' here?

Where is this assertion coming from?

From your inability to name one thing that was 'not created'.

Again this stement ends with the same nonsense as the first.

Look "sculptor" if you want to claim any thing 'ends with nonsense', then say 'why' it does, to you?

That statement does not end with any nonsense at all, just like the first did not.

Let 'us' not forget that just because "sculptor" claims, 'this statement ends in nonsense' does not mean that it actually does. For if it did, then "sculptor" could just make the exact same claim about any statement, and then that would be the end of it.

Will you back up and support your claim here "sculptor"?

If no, then why not?

Without justification or support.

Did you justify or support your claim here?

No. Evolution is a word used to explain the emergence of novel living things.

Here 'we' have a prime example of introducing another word, as though this will help them. So, what does 'novel' mean or refer to here "sculptor"?

What are 'novel living things' compared to 'just living things', exactly?

Laterly it has alsi been used to describe a process of changeby physics, such as the development of star formation. This is not "creation itself" this phrase is meaningless.

To you.

So, now 'we' have this one claiming that stars 'evolve' or 'develop', I now wonder, 'if gradually', as well.

So, to some only things, on earth, can 'evolve', but to others stars can also 'evolve'.

When will these adult human beings ever agree on things?

By the same sceince that determines the evolution of stars, also demands that the end game is not "creation",

But why is the 'end game' already concluded, and thus has also been 'demanded'?

It is like these people really could not 'see' what they were actually doing, back when this was being written.

but the heat death of the universe in which all the "information" in energy is exhausted and a steady state of stasis is the terminal result.

So, once again, these people 'know', absolutely and for sure, what 'will happen and occur', based on what was assumed to have happened and occurred, previously.

If you do not accept that then you also have to reject elements of the theory of stellar evolution[/color]

Once more, I do not do 'theory'.

I much prefer to just 'look at', and thus only 'see' what actually is, instead.

Matter being able to move about freely, because of the distance or space between and around matter, is an eternal process where inter-action of matter with itself is one eternal reaction, which what allows the evolution of things to happen and occur.
Matter is not "able".

So, to this one, matter is not able to move about freely.

Okay. So, how, exactly, are things created, and evolve, then, to you?

That is a pathetic fallacy.

And, your claim that 'matter is not able to move about freely' is also a 'pathetic fallacy'. So, who is now Right and Correct?

And, why, exactly?

This is also a contradiction since as we now know that matter needs to be caused to move, itr cannot be "free".

I have already partly explained this, but, like others, because you presume and believe things in my words, which are not being said nor claimed, you then miss out on and misunderstand quite a fair bit of what I am saying and meaning.

Another pathetic fallacy. There is also no "allowing". We'll let this one go since it does not contribute anything more to the overall statement

Yes 'we' will let this one go as this has absolutely nothing whatsoever at all to do with what I actually said and meant.

This one is getting so far astray here now bringing it 'back' to where I was is getting harder and more complex now.


And, still no refutation nor countering.

There is no "creation" described here. What we have is cause-effect, and change, leading to the system wearing out.

What are you basing 'the system' so-called 'wearing out'?

Especially when it was through 'science', itself, the exact opposite was concluded.

What has the post said?? Nothing at all

What has "sculptor" said and proved here?

How many grades have you completed, Age? Wait, did you ever go to school?

[Age]

OKAY lets take a proper look

Finally.

Maybe.

What do you mean by 'maybe'?

This is irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

THus far inductive inference tends to the belief that for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction (Newton). So far so good. This assertion may hold yet the claim that this has always has been and shall be is a claim beyond reason, since it is beyond the bounds of the empirical evidence which led to the indictive reasoning in the first place.

What are you on about?

It either stands, is so-called 'so far so good', or it does not stand and thus is 'not so far so good' at all.

Take your pick, which one is it?

Does the assertion 'hold' or 'not hold', to you?

Either way, what is your reasoning for your position?

And, if you, really, want to take a 'proper look' here, I am asserting that for every action there is a reaction, or, for every cause there is an effect. And, this 'has to' happen and occur eternally.

Now, again, if absolutely anyone want to disagree, or agree, with this, then just say so, and say 'why'.

But there is absolutely every so-called 'warrant' for adding 'creation itself'.

Why do you absolutely believe that there is absolutely no warrant "sculptor"?

Do you explain why to you there is absolutely no warrant for adding 'creation itself' here? Do you ....?

And, the so-called 'mystery', which, supposedly only 'i' can comment on will be revealed here, to those who are Truly interested learning more and anew here.

Oh, and by the way, adding, or introducing, 'creation itself, here is how the GUTOE works.

Obviously IT could not work if IT did not bring every thing together, perfectly, as One.

Well, how do you imagine or believe things got HERE, if not through 'creation'?

To prove that absolutely every thing got HERE through 'creation' can be very easily and very simply proved True by the inability of any of you human beings to name just one thing that was 'not created'.

Oh, and by the way, absolutely every thing was created because of and from at least two other things coming together, (except for two things of course).

So, now go ahead and list just one thing that was, supposedly, 'not created'.

Also, why are 'you' 'assuming' a 'creation' here?



From your inability to name one thing that was 'not created'.


Look "sculptor" if you want to claim any thing 'ends with nonsense', then say 'why' it does, to you?

That statement does not end with any nonsense at all, just like the first did not.

Let 'us' not forget that just because "sculptor" claims, 'this statement ends in nonsense' does not mean that it actually does. For if it did, then "sculptor" could just make the exact same claim about any statement, and then that would be the end of it.

Will you back up and support your claim here "sculptor"?

If no, then why not?



Did you justify or support your claim here?



Here 'we' have a prime example of introducing another word, as though this will help them. So, what does 'novel' mean or refer to here "sculptor"?

What are 'novel living things' compared to 'just living things', exactly?


To you.

So, now 'we' have this one claiming that stars 'evolve' or 'develop', I now wonder, 'if gradually', as well.

So, to some only things, on earth, can 'evolve', but to others stars can also 'evolve'.

When will these adult human beings ever agree on things?



But why is the 'end game' already concluded, and thus has also been 'demanded'?

It is like these people really could not 'see' what they were actually doing, back when this was being written.


So, once again, these people 'know', absolutely and for sure, what 'will happen and occur', based on what was assumed to have happened and occurred, previously.



Once more, I do not do 'theory'.

I much prefer to just 'look at', and thus only 'see' what actually is, instead.


So, to this one, matter is not able to move about freely.

Okay. So, how, exactly, are things created, and evolve, then, to you?



And, your claim that 'matter is not able to move about freely' is also a 'pathetic fallacy'. So, who is now Right and Correct?

And, why, exactly?


I have already partly explained this, but, like others, because you presume and believe things in my words, which are not being said nor claimed, you then miss out on and misunderstand quite a fair bit of what I am saying and meaning.


What are you basing 'the system' so-called 'wearing out'?

Especially when it was through 'science', itself, the exact opposite was concluded.


What has "sculptor" said and proved here?

How many grades have you completed, Age? Wait, did you ever go to school?

Again, absolutely nothing at all here from this one, except for further attempts at humiliating and ridiculing 'the other' here.

[Atla]

How many grades have you completed, Age? Wait, did you ever go to school?

Again, absolutely nothing at all here from this one, except for further attempts at humiliating and ridiculing 'the other' here.

On the contrary, it's pretty central. Because you have no idea what they are actually teaching in school.

[Age]

So, once more, this one has failed absolutely to back up and support what it says and claims here.

And for example, this is a belief, or actually several beliefs.

But there is no belief here. Only facts.

And, because I can back up and support the claim with proof, then this is why there is no need for belief at all.

But, you, still, have not yet comprehended and understood this "iwannaplato", And, this is partly because you are stuck in your own belief that absolutely everyone must believes things, otherwise they could not live and survive.

Also referring to him as 'it' entails beliefs.

Now that you would ever answer and clarify, why, exactly?

If you want to argue that since it is correct it is not a belief but knowledge, this makes no sense since you have said you have one belief, rather than one thing that you know.

Because, if you have ever sought out to clarify, that thing is not a 'know', and it actually relies on 'belief', instead.

One day this one might come to learn and understand here.

Your posts are filled with beliefs,

And, within that head it is filled with the belief that I MUST BELIEVE things.

Which explains WHY you completely fail to 'see' what is actually True and Right here.

and with regularity words like absolute, proof, proving, irrefutable including in the assertions expressing your beliefs.

See how this one just says and claims things, and then fools and deceives "itself" by adding the words 'your beliefs' on the end, like I have any. Which is completely hilarious to watch and play out here.

It continually just keeps re-repeating the same things over and over, and this is in its own head, so it, literally, cannot 'see' anything else other than 'beliefs' here.

If you do not believe things that have been proven, according to you, or are irrefutable, this would be ridiculous.

To you. And again, because of your APE-thinking here, which is obviously based on the 'cult' that you were brought up and still obviously live within.

If you do believe these things that are proved and/or irrefutable then you have many beliefs and not just one or none, each of which you have asserted.

If you were not so lost and confused here, and not so CLOSED, then I could help you in learning and understanding here. But, because you want to stick with and keep maintaining the 'current' beliefs that you are so desperately trying to hold onto and cling to here, no one can help you.

If you ever decide to be more open here, then just 'us' know "iwannplato", then 'we' can show you how to 'see' things far more clearly and Accurately here.

Until then feel absolutely free to keep believing what you are and have been here.

Also not only do you believe that he failed, but you believe he failed absolutely. You also believe you understand what he asserted there. So, the beliefs multiply.

If this is what you believe is true, then this must be true. Well to you anyway.

It is unfortunate that you either are pretending not to understand something so fundamental about yourself OR you simple are so unaware of what you do and say. Either way, unfortunate.

If only 'you' knew "iwannaplato". If only 'you' knew.

By the way, who and/or what even are 'you', exactly?

Let 'us' see just how much 'you' know about 'you', "yourself".

Regardless of which of these unfortunate situations are in place, denying the obvious, were it effective, is a kind of mind fuck.

Are you aware that there are others here who do not believe things, like the way you do?

A patter with gaslighters and other people using tricks (consciously or not) for dominance.

And, laugh out loud, look who are the ones trying to take control here and have dominance over others here.

This one has, yet, to even really discuss what this thread is about.

But, it, along with others here, have spent some or all of their time here trying to ridicule and discredit 'me' here.

They cannot dominant over 'my words', as they cannot counter nor refute them. But they have certainly shown that they are trying to dominate 'over me'.

[Age]

You are completely, hopelessly mentally retarded.

Okay. If this is what you believe is absolutely true, then, to you, this is, exactly, who and what 'I' am, to 'you'.

It was proven centuries ago that the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth.

So what?

How does this relate to your previous sentence and claim?

But you haven't shown any proof ever for your self-serving, pathological, retarded, miserable, whiny, narcissistic fantasies that you can't live without because you are completely weak.

Okay.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

But if 'you' view 'me' as 'a delusional liar, and nothing more', then why do also 'see' and 'view me' as a 'self-serving, pathological, miserable, whiny, narcissistic, completely weak, and completely hopelessly mentally retarded, as well?

And unable to communicate properly. If you could, you would be able to answer your own question.

I ask this one, another, clarifying question, but because it could not do so without contradicting and refuting "itself", it, once again, tries to put 'its own inability' back onto 'me', and then tries to make out that it is 'me' who has the disability and incapacity here.

Which is a Truly funny thing to watch and observe here. One just has to 'look back' over our conversations here to very clearly 'see' how Truly incapable this one has been to just answer and clarify clarifying questions posed, and asked to it, by me.

Learn to read, idiot

Once again, this one has proven that it is completely and utterly incapable of clarifying anything. Because it knows that if it did, then it would contradict and/or refute what it has previously said and claimed here.

So, once more, this one has failed absolutely to back up and support what it says and claims here.

Even this one's suggestion and order to 'learn to read, idiot', it could not back up and support in regards to 'what' it is, exactly, that it believes, absolutely, that I have not read.

As I said, at least learn to read. You think I said that evolution happens without cause and effect, which puts you into the category of people who even have trouble counting their fingers.

So, if you writing, Cause and effect is implicit in everything, and everyone knows this, not just in evolution, does not mean what you say here, then what does this mean. exactly?

Let 'us' see if you have the ability to clarify here.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay. If this is what you want to absolutely believe is true, then please keep believing that this is absolutely true.

[Atla]

They cannot dominant over 'my words', as they cannot counter nor refute them.

How cute, this one actually believes that its words weren't easily refuted again and again. Everyone else knows that you're simply a delusional, agressive idiot. Not just here but in real life too. And this will never change.

[Atla]

I ask this one, another, clarifying question, but because it could not do so without contradicting and refuting "itself", it, once again, tries to put 'its own inability' back onto 'me', and then tries to make out that it is 'me' who has the disability and incapacity here.

Which is a Truly funny thing to watch and observe here. One just has to 'look back' over our conversations here to very clearly 'see' how Truly incapable this one has been to just answer and clarify clarifying questions posed, and asked to it, by me.

Except people here know that I can back up what I say and you can't. Especially if they go through the torture of looking back on the "conversations". You are once again lying to others and lying to yourself. People here see this too.

So, if you writing, Cause and effect is implicit in everything, and everyone knows this, not just in evolution, does not mean what you say here, then what does this mean. exactly?

Let 'us' see if you have the ability to clarify here.

It means what it says. If you don't know what it means, especially after I explicitly mentioned it several times already in this thread, then that can only mean that you have no idea about anything physics-related. Should have studied.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

[Age]

And unable to communicate properly. If you could, you would be able to answer your own question.

Yup. He recently asked me to

List some of the many beliefs, which you absolutely believe I have "iwannaplato".

Apart from this being him telling me what to do, he should know.

But, because you are able to comprehend and understand here, you, it appears even 'now', still cannot comprehend and understand what actually just happened and occurred here.

It's not some exceptional part of his participation here, he expresses beliefs all the time. I pointed out how often he uses irrefutable and proving in his posts.

But, what you do not seem to comprehend and understand, still, is that I choose 'my words' carefully enough. So, I know how often I USE those words. I even KNOW why I chose to USE those words.

This, you have absolutely no idea nor clue about, still.

Can he really not know how much he believes, including in this very thread the beliefs expressed in the OP?

This one, really, still, does not yet know one does not have to believe something to just assert some thing.

If we wants to claim that these irrefutable facts and things he says are proved are not things he believes, then he's an idiot.

But, it could be said and argued would 'believe' some thing is true when it is already proved to be true.

Absolutely no one has to believe some thing is true when that thing is already irrefutably True, obviously.

Why wouldn't he believe something that he called an irrefutable fact or a conclusion that he says has been proved?

Because I 'know' its Truth. So, there is no need for me to 'believe' its truth.

This one, really, cannot comprehend and understand this most simplest of facts.

And, again, it is because of its strongly held onto 'beliefs' why it cannot comprehend and understand this Fact.

If he wants to try the silly, I know those things, I don't believe in them game, then it's very strange he has one belief in the One True Mind.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This one is, still, so utterly lost and confused here that this one still believes, absolutely, that this claim here is true.

Does that mean he doesn't know there aren't many minds but in fact just one.

But your first claim was False and Wrong, so trying to move along and on from a False and Wrong presumption and belief will, once again, only lead you further and further astray. Which is about all you are really doing here, now.

He doesn't seem to realize how much he is asking me to insult his intelligence to meet his request. But I met his request.

Please "iwannaplato" keep doing what you call 'insulting my own intelligence' here.

[Age]

I understand it perfectly well.

Okay, If you say and believe so, then it must be so, right?

Circular nonsense

Why do you believe that this is absolutely true "sculptor"?

Also, how is asking you clarifying questions, so-called 'circular nonsense'?

If you believe what you say and claim is absolutely true, then why do you just not answer and clarify 'clarifying questions'?

You say that the necessity of cause and effect is creation and that creation is the necessity of cause and effect,

I do not and have never said, 'the necessity of cause and effect is creation', nor the rest of what you say and claim here.

but you take no account of the main claim of creation is it is novel.

I do not even know of any 'main claim' 'of creation is it is novel', let alone would I take any account for any such thing.

Please examine by above post where I take you statment line by line and annotate it in BLUE.

I did, and what I noticed is you are, still, are long way of understanding what I have actually said and meant here.

What you assuming and believe I am saying and meaning is a long way off, on a lot of occasions, and explains, partly, why your views are so far astray from what I have actually said and meant.

[Age]

How many grades have you completed, Age? Wait, did you ever go to school?

Again, absolutely nothing at all here from this one, except for further attempts at humiliating and ridiculing 'the other' here.

On the contrary, it's pretty central. Because you have no idea what they are actually teaching in school.

They 'taught' in school that the earth revolves around the sun. And, if you were living in 'those days', then you would have been fighting and arguing the exact same way you are here now.

"atla" arguments rely on, 'I was 'taught' in school, and in elementary school, that there are 'many minds', so, if anyone says or claims otherwise, then they did not even go to elementary school. And, 'this argument' goes for just about all of its claims here.

[Atla]

Again, absolutely nothing at all here from this one, except for further attempts at humiliating and ridiculing 'the other' here.

On the contrary, it's pretty central. Because you have no idea what they are actually teaching in school.

They 'taught' in school that the earth revolves around the sun. And, if you were living in 'those days', then you would have been fighting and arguing the exact same way you are here now.

"atla" arguments rely on, 'I was 'taught' in school, and in elementary school, that there are 'many minds', so, if anyone says or claims otherwise, then they did not even go to elementary school. And, 'this argument' goes for just about all of its claims here.

How old are you, 500? Did you go to school in the Middle Ages?
That was disproven. Many minds is also proven currently. We are still eagerly awaiting your shocking refutation of it.