What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Age]

What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

Well, now that roads exist, let's see if animals evolve wheels instead of legs.

Does 'this one' ATTEMPT TO LOOK STUPID and/or SILLY?

Or, does it REALLY BELIEVE comments and remarks like 'this one', here, HELP in backing up and supporting what it 'currently' BELIEVES IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE?

[Age]

As the joke goes, the difference between philosophy and truth is that philosophy has to make sense.

That's funny.

But it's not actually true, of course.

No, it actually is. Even if philosophies are mutually exclusive, it is entirely possible that they all make sense. Materialism, dualism and idealism all make sense.

AND, the REASON WHY 'human beings', back when this was being written, could NOT MAKE SENSE OF 'them' WHEN TOGETHER, is just because they would BELIEVE that ONLY 'one' WAS TRUE and RIGHT, and if ANY one ELSE contradicted 'that one' who opposed 'that one' in ANY way, then 'it' was NOT RIGHT and NOT TRUE.

'These people', back then, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, here, in this forum, RARELY, IF EVER, LOOKED TO SEE HOW APPARENTLY OPPOSING VIEWS DID ACTUALLY FIT IN and WORK TOGETHER WITH the OTHER VIEWS.

'These people' MUCH PREFERRED TO JUST ACCEPT, and/or BELIEVE, 'one' ONLY, and then SPEND the 'rest of their days', FIGHTING and/or ARGUING FOR, or AGAINST, PERCEIVED "sides" and/or 'positions'.

And, in DOING SO they, literally, KEPT 'MISSING THE MARK', COMPLETELY.

Materialism makes sense because it looks like there is a universe, and brains in particular, that are composed of matter. Dualism makes sense because if we accept that there is matter, it seems to be very different to ideas. Idealism makes sense because given that the only things we can know are ideas, who needs matter?

1. Calling things 'isms' SUBTLETY MANIPULATES 'one' TO SEE and/or BELIEVE that there is ONLY "one side" OR "one position", ONLY.

2. REMOVE ANY and ALL BELIEF, or PRESUMPTION, that they ALL DO NOT FIT IN TOGETHER, PERFECTLY, then, and ONLY THEN, 'these ones' COULD START PROGRESSING, and MOVING FORWARD. UNTIL THEN 'they' ARE STUCK 'where they ARE' SO, SO FAR BEHIND.

There isn’t a single piece of evidence that cannot be explained in any of those contexts, so the most fundamental question of ontology is unknowable.

HOW BLIND 'they' WERE.

What is true will, eventually, make sense.

Not necessarily. There is another joke that if our brains were simple enough for us to understand, we’d be too stupid to understand them.

BECAUSE some people make JOKES, this does NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that your BELIEF that what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True will NOT necessarily, eventually, make sense to you, is just ANOTHER BELIEF that is HOLDING 'this one' BACK, in the so-called 'olden days'.

In your own words:

…we are contingent, limited, temporal beings…

We cannot know that the truth will ever make sense to us.

Have EITHER of you two come to A Truth, which has NEVER EVER made sense TO you?

NOT that EITHER of you WOULD EVER ANSWER, but, just in case, If yes, then what was 'that Truth', EXACTLY?

And if it does not, then we have ever reason to keep looking.

Well, many people stop when they develop a philosophy that makes sense to them. The thing to do is to keep challenging philosophies that make sense to stop them stagnating into dogma.

YET 'this one' and others, here, DO the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Anything you submit as evidence, I will accept as evidence.

If that were so, you'd already be a Theist: for the simplest "anything" would already have convinced you. Only knowing of no evidence at all for Theism would have preserved your skepticism for you.

Not so. I’ve read the same Bible as you. I see the same world as you. I know the same philosophical arguments for God as you. A lot of what you call evidence for God is right there in front of me.

So manifestly, something more is required by you...I'd just like to know what that "something more" would be. What's the bar we're trying to clear, here?

Given that I am familiar with a lot of the same evidence as you, I can’t imagine what that “something more” that you are party to is. In the absence of something more, I am content that my thesis stands, and you believe in God because it pleases you to do so.

[Age]

If you wouldn't mind, perhaps we can work with Age claim re 'evidence' if you can use any as an example.

Perhaps working with: "There is 'evidence' that the earth is flat." - if that helps you as an analogy to the GOD thang?

These are words I never thought I would write in this order: Age is right.

Here 'we' have ANOTHER PRIME example of just HOW LIMITED, NARROWED, and/or CLOSED 'these posters', here, COULD BE, and WERE, back when this was being written.

BECAUSE 'this one' thought that I would NEVER EVER say, i would be right, so it SHUT "itself" OFF COMPLETELY to my WORDS and WRITINGS.

There is evidence that the world is flat, it is just shit evidence and completely swatted aside by the overwhelming evidence that the world is an oblate sphere. A less clear cut example is that gravity is as much evidence for warped spacetime as it is gravitons.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'This one' USES the words 'spacetime' as though it KNOWS what that word is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

LOL "will bouwman" ALSO BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that the Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING, based upon NOTHING AT ALL OTHER THAN 'evidence', ALONE, just like people like "itself' BELIEVED that the earth is flat, and that the sun revolves around the earth, based upon NOTHING AT ALL OTHER THAN 'evidence', ALONE.


'These types of people' had NOT YET WORKED OUT and CONSIDERED that ACTUALLY 'evidence' has PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, TO BE ANY thing WORTHY OF JUDGING and MAKING CONCLUSIONS WITH.

people like "will bouwman" just can NOT FATHOM what 'proof' ACTUALLY IS, and HOW if it MADE its CONCLUSIONS ON 'proof', INSTEAD OF 'evidence', then it would NOT BE one of 'those ones' who END UP BEING Wrong SO MUCH, and SO OFTEN.

Give ‘em a lick and pick the one you find tastier. Or go for loop quantum gravity. Or string theory. Underdetermination, dontcha know?

See, HOW 'they' JUST END UP NOWHERE.

[Age]

That's funny.

But it's not actually true, of course.

No, it actually is.

Maybe all you're saying is that the truth doesn't make sense to you. And If so, I can accept that.

Materialism, dualism and idealism all make sense. Materialism makes sense because it looks like there is a universe, and brains in particular, that are composed of matter. Dualism makes sense because if we accept that there is matter, it seems to be very different to ideas. Idealism makes sense because given that the only things we can know are ideas, who needs matter?

All this really means is that each of them describes a reductional view of some things, and fails to describe other aspects of reality. And again, if that's what you're saying, I agree...none of them is a comprehensive view of anything, least of all, of human experience of life.

There isn’t a single piece of evidence that cannot be explained in any of those contexts,

Oh, sure there is. Materialism cannot explain mind, consciousness, morality, purpose...Idealism cannot explain the firmess of reality, the transience of perception or the significance of life...Dualism cannot explain how the two connect...there's lots each cannot explain.

'They' KEPT MISSING, and MISUNDERSTANDING, HOW TO ALIGN 'things' ABSOLUTELY Correctly BECAUSE of 'their OBVIOUS DISTORTED WAY' OF LOOKING and OF SEEING. As SHOWN and PROVED, here, ONCE MORE, by 'this one'.

[Age]

If you wouldn't mind, perhaps we can work with Age claim re 'evidence' if you can use any as an example.

Perhaps working with: "There is 'evidence' that the earth is flat." - if that helps you as an analogy to the GOD thang?

These are words I never thought I would write in this order: Age is right. There is evidence that the world is flat, it is just shit evidence and completely swatted aside by the overwhelming evidence that the world is an oblate sphere. A less clear cut example is that gravity is as much evidence for warped spacetime as it is gravitons. Give ‘em a lick and pick the one you find tastier. Or go for loop quantum gravity. Or string theory. Underdetermination, dontcha know?

Evidence for Earth being flat?

I see none. The definition of flat & what we observe the Earth to be, as you state an oblate sphere, are very different.

HOW FAR BEHIND COULD you GET, here, "attofishpi".

The WAY you LOOK AT, and SEE, things is SO ABSOLUTELY NARROWED, LIMITED, and CLOSED.

The WHOLE POINT BEING MADE you MISSED ABSOLUTELY.

What am I missing here? What evidence?

What you ARE MISSING, here, IS that you ONLY LOOK AT and SEE things FROM the ALREADY OBTAINED 'thoughts' WITHIN 'that body', ALONE, and ONLY.

The 'evidence' IS what the 'people', IN the 'olden days' WOULD SAY and USE.

your IMAGINATIONS ALLOW 'you' TO BELIEVE that God INTERACTS WITH YOU DIRECTLY and PERSONALLY, to SUCH A DEGREE that you BELIEVE God PUTS you ABOVE others, YET your IMAGINATION did NOT ALLOW you TO JUST CONSIDER HOW 'the people' who BELIEVED that the earth IS/WAS flat, BASED UPON NOTHING MORE than 'the evidence' that 'they' WOULD FIND, and USE.

you KNOW some thing like HOW you BELIEVE God EXISTS, BASED UPON NOTHING MUCH MORE than 'the evidence' that 'you' FIND, in SOME WORDS, ALONE.

The WHOLE POINT IS, 'evidence', FOR SOME 'thing', is USUALLY ONLY FOUND, and USED, BY 'the one' who ALREADY HAS A PRE-EXISTING BELIEF or ASSUMPTION OF some 'truth'.

See, people WITHOUT BELIEFS, NOR PRESUMPTIONS, DO NOT LOOK FOR and thus DO NOT FIND 'evidence' NOR DO THEY USE 'evidence'. For the SIMPLE Fact that 'evidence' IS IRREFUTABLE, and thus IS NOT 'proof', ITSELF.

See, ones WITHOUT BELIEFS, NOR PRESUMPTIONS, REMAIN OPEN UNTIL ACTUAL 'proofs' ARRIVE, COME FORTH, and THEN 'those ones' DO NOT HAVE TO 'DEBATE' NOR FIGHT FOR ANY thing. See, 'PROOF' STANDS ON ITS OWN, IS IRREFUTABLE, and backs up and supports what is being SAID and/or CLAIMED, ABSOLUTELY.

[attofishpi]

Please stop harassing me, you are going to drive me to suicide.

[Age]

Please stop harassing me, you are going to drive me to suicide.

1. This is A PUBLIC forum. It is ALSO a 'philosophy forum', where 'ideas and views' are MEANT TO BE QUESTIONED, CHALLENGED, ELABORATED ON, CLARIFIED, and/or JUSTIFIED. If you are NOT ABLE TO DO ANY, and preferably ALL of these, then JUST MAYBE A 'philosophy forum' is NOT WHERE you are MEANT TO BE.

2. Fully mature and grown adult human beings do NOT BLAME others for their OWN mis/behavior.

3. Have you REALLY NOT YET LEARNED HOW TO IGNORE WORD on a screen.

4. I have NEVER HARASSED you, NOR am HARASSING you, AT ALL.

5. SAY and WRITE things that ARE True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, then I WILL NOT RESPOND TO your WORDS and CLAIMS, here.

6. If you ALSO can NOT EXPAND ON, CLARIFY, NOR ELABORATE ON your VIEWS, then I suggest you do NOT PRESENT ANY UNTIL you CAN. That way you will NOT FEEL HARASSED BY me JUST SEEKING OUT CLARITY, FROM you.

[Will Bouwman]

You have reverted to being rude:

Maybe all you're saying is that the truth doesn't make sense to you.

and patronising:

And If so, I can accept that.

Do you realise you are doing it?

There isn’t a single piece of evidence that cannot be explained in any of those contexts,

Oh, sure there is. Materialism cannot explain mind, consciousness, morality, purpose...Idealism cannot explain the firmess of reality, the transience of perception or the significance of life...Dualism cannot explain how the two connect...there's lots each cannot explain.

None of the above is a 'single piece of evidence '.

What I can assume, with perfect reasonableness, is that there is an evidence you think you lack, you and only you could say what it is.

No, it is perfectly unreasonable to make that assumption, as I have made it clear that I think I have much the same evidence as you, and that difference between us is that while I see your story as an hypothesis supported by inconclusive evidence, you choose to accept that same evidence as conclusive. My reason being that you like the idea, for essentially aesthetic reasons.

I can't tell you what you'd accept -- that, you must tell me.

Again, I accept everything you present as evidence. You, and attofishpi, clearly do not understand that to accept some piece of evidence as support for an hypothesis does not commit you to accepting the hypothesis. As a result, you cannot accept anything as evidence for human evolution, even though there is clearly evidence to support that hypothesis. You apparently fear that accepting any evidence commits you to an interpretation of that evidence you don't like; that is not the case.

[Immanuel Can]

You have reverted to being rude:

Maybe all you're saying is that the truth doesn't make sense to you.

and patronising:

And If so, I can accept that.

Do you realise you are doing it?

I'm not trying to be patronising. The alternative to accepting some part of what you are asserting is disagreeing with it completely. I can only accept what part of it I can accept...or else decline to recognize any truth in the statement at all.

What I can assume, with perfect reasonableness, is that there is an evidence you think you lack, you and only you could say what it is.

No, it is perfectly unreasonable to make that assumption, as I have made it clear that I think I have much the same evidence as you,

I understand that that is what you say. But as to how you could have acquired the same evidence as I have, and already know that you have acquired all the evidence I have...well, that's more than is rationally believable. Given that you and I hardly know each other, and have talked relatively little about what each of us knows, how could you have arrived at such a confidence? I'm at a loss to find grounds to believe it.

I can't tell you what you'd accept -- that, you must tell me.

Again, I accept everything you present as evidence.

But not sufficient evidence to convince you of anything, obviously. And that is what is needed here: what evidence would you accept that would convince you of the existence of God?

And why don't you simply say? I could suppose (uncharitably) that you were being gratuitiously evasive, or that you don't want to be convinced, or (more charitably) that you simply don't know. But if you don't know what evidence would ever convince you of the existence of God, then you're really not standing on any firm ground when it comes to the complaint that you have not been given evidence, either by me or by God. For there is then nothing we could possibly supply that you would regard as evidence...and even you have not told yourself what it would look like, if anybody did.

You, and attofishpi, clearly do not understand that to accept some piece of evidence as support for an hypothesis does not commit you to accepting the hypothesis.

I can't speak for atto, and would let him speak for himself; but I certainly know that. However, it is also true that a rational person will accept sufficient evidence for a conclusion, if such is offered. As to what could be offered, only you can say that.

As a result, you cannot accept anything as evidence for human evolution, even though there is clearly evidence to support that hypothesis.

That's the difference between "pseudo-evidence" and "sufficient evidence."

To illustrate the point, I can offer you "evidence" of a sort of immanent alien invasion...abduction stories by hysterical individuals, conspiracy theories about Area 51, pictures of lights in the sky at night, pieces of alleged spacecraft, crop circles in farmer's fields, eviscerated cattle, pyramids...all such have already been used by some to argue for that. But if you're rational, you're not going to accept that as sufficient evidence to change your beliefs. However, if I provided you with an actual alien visitation, including a threatening message from the heavens to the effect that Earth was shortly to be under siege, you might have actual reason to think it's true.

[Will Bouwman]

You have reverted to being rude:

Maybe all you're saying is that the truth doesn't make sense to you.

and patronising:

And If so, I can accept that.

Do you realise you are doing it?

I'm not trying to be patronising. The alternative to accepting some part of what you are asserting is disagreeing with it completely.

That "the truth doesn't make sense" to me, is no part of what I am asserting. I can make perfect sense of your story and it is just rude of you to imply that I can't. It

...it is perfectly unreasonable to make that assumption, as I have made it clear that I think I have much the same evidence as you,

I understand that that is what you say. But as to how you could have acquired the same evidence as I have, and already know that you have acquired all the evidence I have...well, that's more than is rationally believable.

I am not asking you to believe that I know everything you do; as I say, just much of it. Again, I have read the same bible as you, examined the same philosophical arguments for God as you, I look at the same universe as you.

I can't tell you what you'd accept -- that, you must tell me.

Again, I accept everything you present as evidence.

But not sufficient evidence to convince you of anything, obviously. And that is what is needed here: what evidence would you accept that would convince you of the existence of God?

Whatever evidence, not listed above, that you may have and I don't, that has convinced you. How do you expect me to know that?
Since you think that is an appropriate question, that I should be able to answer, what would be equivalent evidence that you would accept that would convince you of human evolution?

And if the answer is "nothing," then we can be unsurprised at your assumption that you've seen no evidence. But the fault won't be on the lack of evidence, but your staunch refusal to see evidence of any kind as evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

That "the truth doesn't make sense" to me, is no part of what I am asserting.

It should be, shouldn't it? On what basis can anybody say, "The truth doesn't make sense to you (singular or plural)?" Doesn't one have to wait for the person or persons in question to say that?

But if you make it as a personal claim, it's quite plausible. Otherwise, not so much.

I am not asking you to believe that I know everything you do; as I say, just much of it.

I don't know how you would know how "much" of it you have, either. Would you not need to know you know what I know, in order to say you know what I know?

Whatever evidence, not listed above, that you may have and I don't, that has convinced you.

But that's only evidence that I have. There's no guarantee it's going to appeal to you, or even be useful to you, if, for example, it involves my experience rather than yours.

How do you expect me to know that?

Very reasonably. A person should be able to say what he would accept as proof, or demonstration, or evidence of a particular proposition. But I can't tell you what you should accept: you have to decide that, and tell me.

Since you think that is an appropriate question, that I should be able to answer, what would be equivalent evidence that you would accept that would convince you of human evolution?

Well, nothing now. It would have to wipe out the contrary experience of God, and I don't think you could pull that off. But you don't have experience of Evolution, nor do you have very good data for it. What you have -- unless you're far ahead of today's ordinary Evolutionist -- is a theory. It's one that was handed you by others, not experienced by you, and it's one you believe on authority of their certainty, not your own -- unless, again, you possess evidence in excess of the main, which you have not so far claimed.

[Ben JS]

What 'origin' are you even talking ABOUT, here.

You indirectly introduced origins to your question here:

LOL So, 'what' then did the 'Thing', which the 'Universe' word is REFERRING TO, come FROM, EXACTLY?

come from: to originate from or derive from

origin: the point at which something comes into existence

You falsely presuppose an origin in your question, and now act oblivious to the implications of your words.

See, HOW the Universe WAS CREATED 'NOW', at ANY given moment, IS BECAUSE OF PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS. The Universe IS CREATING ITS SELF, ALWAYS, HERE - NOW.

In my initial post I defined the universe as the totality of existence.
'Now' references the current temporal state of existence.
All temporal states of existence fall within the totality of existence.
Thus, the totality of existence is not being created.

You're either forgetting or falsely equivocating the clearly defined terms.
The reason appears to be illustrated below [you're trying to salvage your flawed language/reasoning/thinking]:

The Universe, and I use this word loosely, 'was' CREATED 'the way' I just POINT OUT and EXPRESSED, above, here

'Using words loosely' is one way to describe using words incorrectly, or backtracking on prior claims.
At the very least, it misrepresents your 'actual' claims to people who use terms precisely.

I've seen enough, and anticipate how this conversation would continue.
At the moment I lack the interest pursue your 'loosely' worded claim.

=
=

I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY thing (except I BELIEVE (IN) One Thing, ONLY. Which by the way is NOT 'this', here.)

This however, is interesting.

Awareness is.
Which is to say, it exists.
That's the foundation.
Through the contents of awareness,
existence beyond awareness can be inferred.
But it can not be verified,
due to the inferred limits of awareness.
Thus, existence beyond awareness,
remains a belief.
This would be the strongest belief I hold.
What is known, is the existence of awareness -
and thereby existence.

[attofishpi]

Ben, my best recommend is not to talk to it, you will eventually understand why.

[attofishpi]

Again, I accept everything you present as evidence. You, and attofishpi, clearly do not understand that to accept some piece of evidence as support for an hypothesis does not commit you to accepting the hypothesis.

Will, I am not convinced that evolution is not the correct hypothesis.

But, I think I grasp the point you have been making pertaining to evidence of a hypothesis for GOD.

I do believe that, since gnosis of GOD, that this entity has manipulated the lineage of man IF it originated from a primate form - thus a design. But I am reluctant in some way to think the primate lineage as being true.

[Age]

What 'origin' are you even talking ABOUT, here.

You indirectly introduced origins to your question here:

What do you MEAN BY 'indirectly' ...?

I PURPOSELY USED the ACTUAL words that I USED.

So, what is your USE of the 'indirectly' word IN RELATION TO, EXACTLY?

LOL So, 'what' then did the 'Thing', which the 'Universe' word is REFERRING TO, come FROM, EXACTLY?

come from: to originate from or derive from

origin: the point at which something comes into existence

You falsely presuppose an origin in your question, and now act oblivious to the implications of your words.

Let 'us' MAKE 'this' CLEAR FIRST OFF;
The writer IMPLIES, or MEANS, things. Whereas, the reader INFERS, or GUESSES/ASSUMES, things. And, UNTIL you, the reader, SEEK OUT and OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARIFICATION, FIRST, then ALL OF your INFERENCES, GUESSES, and/or ASSUMPTIONS COULD BE False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Now, I USED the WORDS 'come from', and HOWEVER you WANT TO INFER what those words are MEANING and/or are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE TO DO SO. But, let 'us' ALL NOT FORGET that you COULD BE ABSOLUTELY FULLY or partially Wrong ALWAYS. AGAIN, UNTIL you SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION, and CLARITY, FIRST, and/or BEFOREHAND.

Also, you 'now' MAKE the CLAIM that it was 'I' who, supposedly, FALSELY PRESUPPOSED AN 'origin', in 'my QUESTION'. AGAIN, you are FREE TO ASSUME and/or INFER ABSOLUTELY ANY thing of your CHOOSING. But, WHY do you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and/or INFERENCES are what IS ACTUALLY True and Right, IN Life?

LOL ON your FIRST RESPONSE and ATTEMPT you CLAIMED that 'my QUESTION' was MEANING, 'create', BUT in this SECOND RESPONSE and ATTEMPT you 'now' WANT TO CLAIM that 'my QUESTION' was MEANING, 'origin'. So, which ONE do you WANT TO HOLD ONTO and STICK TO, here, EXACTLY?

Firstly, you CLAIMED that 'come from' MEANT, 'create', which MEANS 'bring into existence / cause to exist'.
This time, you CLAIM that 'come from' MEANS, to originate from or derive from

Now, if 'we' were to USE your OWN DEFINITIONS, here, then I have ALREADY EXPLAINED HOW and WHY what I have SAID and WRITTEN, so far, WORKS IN, PERFECTLY, WITH your OWN DEFINITIONS, here.

ONCE MORE;
The Universe, Itself, is One Thing, which consists of two things, namely; 'matter', AND, 'space'. The One Thing came FROM the two things. JUST LIKE the one thing, the color 'green' comes FROM the two things, the colors 'blue' and 'yellow'. Now, there may well be 'one time' OR 'one instance' that it can be discernible when 'green' came-to-be. However, whenever there is a 'green color', then it will consist of 'blue' and 'yellow'. Now, unlike the Universe, itself, 'green' has NOT ALWAYS EXISTED. 'Blue' AND 'yellow' CAUSE 'green' TO EXIST, and/or 'green' DERIVED FROM, or CAME FROM 'blue' AND 'yellow', which BOTH ALSO have NOT ALWAYS EXISTED. But, because 'space', AND, 'matter, have ALWAYS EXISTED, and it IS 'space', AND, 'matter', together, which CAUSE 'the Universe' TO EXIST, and/or 'the Universe' is DERIVED FROM, or COMES FROM, 'matter', AND, 'space', the Universe, Itself, ALSO, ALWAYS EXISTS.

So, even BY your VERY OWN DEFINITIONS, here, what I have been SAYING, and CLAIMING, here, STANDS ON its OWN, and BY its Self.

That you, ALONE, here, TURNED MY WORDS 'come FROM, to MEAN 'origin', and, TO you, you can ONLY SEE the word 'origin' IN 'the way' that you HAVE, means that THROUGH your OWN FLAWED THINKING OF NOT SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING CLARIFICATION, and CLARITY, FIRST, had LEFT you somewhat LOST and CONFUSED, here.

In fact, who, EXACTLY, IS 'the one', 'now', OBLIVIOUS TO 'the implications' OF 'their WORDS'.

See, ONCE AGAIN, but for 'those' who 'I' have NOT YET ALREADY INFORMED, 'I' CHOOSE 'MY WORDS' SPECIFICALLY, AND 'I' STAND BY, and BEHIND, 'MY WORDS', FULLY.

So, I WILL, ONCE MORE, suggest that BEFORE ANY ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE, one SEEKS OUT and OBTAINS, and GAINS, ACTUAL CLARITY, FIRST.

But, as just SEEN and SHOWN, above, here, even when USING 'the other's' OWN DEFINITIONS, 'MY WORDS', STILL, STOOD ON 'their VERY OWN', ANYWAY.

AGAIN, I CHOOSE 'MY WORDS' SPECIFICALLY, and CAREFULLY.

See, HOW the Universe WAS CREATED 'NOW', at ANY given moment, IS BECAUSE OF PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS. The Universe IS CREATING ITS SELF, ALWAYS, HERE - NOW.

In my initial post I defined the universe as the totality of existence.
'Now' references the current temporal state of existence.
All temporal states of existence fall within the totality of existence.
Thus, the totality of existence is not being created.

OBVIOUSLY, FROM what you just SAID and WROTE, here, AND above, you have A VERY LIMITED and/or NARROWED VIEW of things.

The TOTALITY OF Existence, [the Universe], Itself, is NOT just One FIXED and/nor UNCHANGING Thing.

The Universe is ALWAYS IN CREATION, ITSELF.

Now, there is NO beginning, and was NO end, to the Universe, Itself. So, there was NO 'origin' of the Universe, to TOTALITY, nor even to Existence, Itself.

So, WHEN you STOP ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING that I have EVER been MEANING that there WAS AN ORIGIN TO the Universe, then, and ONLY THEN, 'we' can MOVE ALONG, here.

You're either forgetting or falsely equivocating the clearly defined terms.
The reason appears to be illustrated below [you're trying to salvage your flawed language/reasoning/thinking]:

ONCE MORE, FOR 'those' WHO MISSED IT, I have NEVER EVER even THOUGHT, let alone IMPLIED, let alone SAID or WROTE, absolutely ANYWHERE, that there was AN ORIGIN TO the Universe, Itself.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN above, here, the ONLY FLAWED language/reasoning/thinking EXISTED WITHIN the PRE/ASSUMPTIONS of "ben js", here.

What I even ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE FITS IN, PERFECTLY, WITH "ben js's" OWN 'clearly defined definitions'. I, however, have just NEVER BEEN SAYING, and MEANING, what "ben js" HOPEFULLY WAS, and NOT STILL IS, ASSUMING.

The Universe, and I use this word loosely, 'was' CREATED 'the way' I just POINT OUT and EXPRESSED, above, here

'Using words loosely' is one way to describe using words incorrectly, or backtracking on prior claims.

LOOK "ben js" I have NEVER ONCE SAID, NOR MEANT, that the Universe, Itself, BEGAN, like you PRESUME/D I DID.

AND, 'this' can be CLEARLY PROVED True BY just LOOKING BACK THROUGH MY WRITINGS IN 'this forum' regarding the Universe, Itself.

I have ALWAYS BEEN CLEARLY SAYING that the Universe NEVER BEGAN, and IS NOT EXPANDING.

So, FOR ABSOLUTELY ANY one TO ASSUME that I WAS MEANING the Universe BEGAN, and/or ORIGINATED, here, in this post, IS LUDICROUS. And, goes to SHOW and PROVE just how QUICKLY, SIMPLY, and EASILY people can be LED ASTRAY BY ASSUMING, and/or BELIEVING.

At the very least, it misrepresents your 'actual' claims to people who use terms precisely.

AND, AFTER you PRESENTED 'your terms' PRECISELY, I was THEN ABLE TO SHOW and PROVE HOW they FITTED IN, PERFECTLY, WITH what I WAS SAYING, and ACTUALLY MEANING.

And, as I SHOWED and PROVED above, here, I WAS ALSO ABLE TO SHOW HOW it was your OWN ASSUMING that LED you COMPLETELY ASTRAY, here.

Which, by the way, has been something ELSE that I have WANTED TO SHOW, and PROVE, regarding WHY you adult human beings HAVE FLAWED and FAULTY thinking.

I've seen enough, and anticipate how this conversation would continue.
At the moment I lack the interest pursue your 'loosely' worded claim.

LOL And ONCE AGAIN, 'almost on cue', as some would note and say, here, 'this one' AS SOON AS its 'FLAWED THINKING', FROM ASSUMING, IS SHOWN, and it is INCAPABLE OF COUNTERING and/or REFUTING what I have SAID, and MEANT, it, like the others, end up 'RUNNING AWAY', as some call it.

'This one' will NOT PURSUE my CLAIM/S, here, because so far it can NOT FAULT them in ANY WAY, AT ALL.

As is OBVIOUSLY TURNED OUT its False CLAIM that it was 'I' who had FLAWED THINKING was ACTUALLY its OWN FLAWED THINKING, BY USING ASSUMPTIONS when LOOKING AT and READING 'MY WORDS', here.

=
=

I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY thing (except I BELIEVE (IN) One Thing, ONLY. Which by the way is NOT 'this', here.)

This however, is interesting.

Awareness is.
Which is to say, it exists.
That's the foundation.
Through the contents of awareness,
existence beyond awareness can be inferred.
But it can not be verified,
due to the inferred limits of awareness.
Thus, existence beyond awareness,
remains a belief.
This would be the strongest belief I hold.
What is known, is the existence of awareness -
and thereby existence.

So, you DO HOLD BELIEFS, which you, LAUGHINGLY, ALSO CLAIM you can NOT VERIFY. Which is OKAY. But, WHY are 'you' TELLING 'us' 'this', here, EXACTLY?