Philosophy Now Forum

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 1:38 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 2:23 pm

Darkneos wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 8:32 pm
Nope, cause and effect is linear, just because there are multiples of it doesn't change that. Reality isn't always reciprocal and "care" when describing nature isn't a misnomer nor is cause and effect misleading. But this is a post by you so I'm expecting flawed reasoning.

We don't resonate with the whole, we don't even know for sure there is a whole. Nor are we nodes in the sphere of our Earth. Far as anyone knows they are the sole cause of it all (problem of solipsism and all that). As usual another incorrect post by you.

Darkness, 'linear' as used by Popeye refers to simple causal chains through time. Popeye's point with which I agree is that besides simple causal chains there are causal circumstances, such as weather or pandemic , which have a widespread effect.
There are also laws of science which are not simple causal chains or variations in weather or viral storms, but which cause effects always and unceasingly.

That's still a chain even if it is a bunch of them happening at once which is what I meant. They however didn't mean it in the way you did. Even circumstances like weather or a pandemic are the result of events that build up to them.

So ultimately it is just a simple chain, there's just lots of them.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:41 am

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 5:16 am

There are but it wouldn't matter to folks like you, learned that lesson.

'We' have, once more, 'another one' who uses this lamest of excuses.

LOL That is, 'There is an example but I am not going to provide it,' excuse.

Look "darkneos" there are no examples at all.

Which, by the way, you keep proving absolutely True, here, for me.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 5:16 am I've also learned this forum is filled with nutbars too...

Once again, 'we' have 'another one' who can not back up and support its beliefs and its claim in absolutely any way, at all, but it is, supposedly, 'the others' who are the so-called 'nutbars'.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 5:16 am Though some free advice, everything being connected doesn't make it "One" necessarily.

If you could, and did, provide some examples to 'look at', then 'we' might be able to 'see' how absolutely every thing being connected, as One, supposedly and allegedly, does not make it 'One' necessarily.

However, because you can not provide absolutely any thing to 'look at', here, this means that there are no beginnings, nor starts, anywhere, here. Therefore, every thing is actually linked and connected together, and because every thing is linked together this then means that 'that link' is all things are together, as One.

Thus, it is necessarily that 'that connection' makes every thing come-together, literally, as the One, Everything.

Now, just because you believe otherwise does not necessarily mean 'it' is, nor does it make 'it' so.

There are no examples of separation, nor starts, in chains, anywhere. And, your inability to provide absolutely any examples, here, is only helping 'me' in proving 'this' irrefutably True, and Right.

Flawed logic, like I said just because things are linked doesn't make them "one"

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am (think or meditate on that and you'll see).

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am Nor is it "necessarily" either.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am if I wanted to be cheeky I'd say that there are no "links" or "connections" because those are just projections we put on reality (that includes "oneness").

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am Like I said, there is no point in reasoning with you because you'll believe what you want.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am I know because I tried the same argument in a Buddhist forum and was proven wrong, everything isn't "One" but it's not "two" either. But I already gave this more engagement than it deserves...

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am You're already a known nutbar

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am so I should learn better by now than to engage.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am Nothing you say is "true" or "right" but folks know better than to engage with a brick wall...

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 9:56 am

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 1:38 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 2:23 pm

Darkness, 'linear' as used by Popeye refers to simple causal chains through time. Popeye's point with which I agree is that besides simple causal chains there are causal circumstances, such as weather or pandemic , which have a widespread effect.
There are also laws of science which are not simple causal chains or variations in weather or viral storms, but which cause effects always and unceasingly.

That's still a chain even if it is a bunch of them happening at once which is what I meant. They however didn't mean it in the way you did. Even circumstances like weather or a pandemic are the result of events that build up to them.

So ultimately it is just a simple chain, there's just lots of them.

Yes. But weather, pandemics, and political regimes are not only caused by many previous events, they are themselves causes of a plurality of events.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 12:14 pm

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:41 am

'We' have, once more, 'another one' who uses this lamest of excuses.

LOL That is, 'There is an example but I am not going to provide it,' excuse.

Look "darkneos" there are no examples at all.

Which, by the way, you keep proving absolutely True, here, for me.


Once again, 'we' have 'another one' who can not back up and support its beliefs and its claim in absolutely any way, at all, but it is, supposedly, 'the others' who are the so-called 'nutbars'.


If you could, and did, provide some examples to 'look at', then 'we' might be able to 'see' how absolutely every thing being connected, as One, supposedly and allegedly, does not make it 'One' necessarily.

However, because you can not provide absolutely any thing to 'look at', here, this means that there are no beginnings, nor starts, anywhere, here. Therefore, every thing is actually linked and connected together, and because every thing is linked together this then means that 'that link' is all things are together, as One.

Thus, it is necessarily that 'that connection' makes every thing come-together, literally, as the One, Everything.

Now, just because you believe otherwise does not necessarily mean 'it' is, nor does it make 'it' so.

There are no examples of separation, nor starts, in chains, anywhere. And, your inability to provide absolutely any examples, here, is only helping 'me' in proving 'this' irrefutably True, and Right.

Flawed logic, like I said just because things are linked doesn't make them "one"

And, like I said just because you say or claim some thing does not make 'it' so.

Now, and once again, if things are linked, then there is a cause', and thus then there is not a start, nor a beginning.

you want to say and claim that there are lots of starts and lots of separated chains, yet you are completely incapable of providing just one example, here.

So, where the 'flawed logic' is, here, exactly, is obvious.

Any one who claims that some thing exists but is not capable of providing just one example of that said claimed thing when they are challenged shows where 'flawed logic' exists, exactly.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am (think or meditate on that and you'll see).

If you had thought about 'your claim', before, and checked to see if there was absolutely any thing, in the whole of the Universe, that you could use as 'an example' of 'your claim', then, logically, you would not have presented 'your claim', here, at all.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am Nor is it "necessarily" either.

If there is no start, nor beginning, then there is no break. And, if there is no break, then there is no separation. Therefore, it is, actually, 'necessarily.

Meaning 'your new claim', here, is also False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. As you keep showing, and proving, here.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am if I wanted to be cheeky I'd say that there are no "links" or "connections" because those are just projections we put on reality (that includes "oneness").

Well considering that 'I' do not do 'that' 'I' am not included in this 'we'. Which then leads 'me' to ask 'you', 'Why do you do 'that', exactly?'

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am Like I said, there is no point in reasoning with you because you'll believe what you want.

Once again, 'this' does not make sense.

'Because you will believe what you want, then there is no point in reasoning with you', is flawed logic.

Oh, and by the way it is not 'me' who is believing any thing, here.

Please do not forget that it is you, alone, who is believing, here. And, 'your belief' that there are lots of separate chains' and starts, is rendering you completely incapable of the actual Truth, here.

And, the fact that you can not present a single example of absolutely any thing, in the whole Universe, that is separated nor had a start, is further proof of just how blinded you, really, are by 'that belief', of yours.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am I know because I tried the same argument in a Buddhist forum and was proven wrong, everything isn't "One" but it's not "two" either. But I already gave this more engagement than it deserves...

LOL 'same argument'.

What do you even mean by you have tried that 'same argument', exactly?

No one, here, is using 'any argument'. So, how, exactly, could you have tried 'the same argument'?

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am You're already a known nutbar

To who?

you are the only one who has used that phrase and term. So, how could 'I' have, already, been known as a so-called 'nutbar'.

Point the readers, here, to what words that 'I' have actually said and written, here, in 'this intercourse', with 'you', what led you to believe, absolutely, that 'I' am a so-called 'nutbar'.

Please do not forget that it was 'you', "darkneos", who, laughably, claimed,
'There are lots of starts and chains. There are all separate chains.'

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am so I should learn better by now than to engage.

you wished you did not engage after I showed and proved that you have absolutely nothing at all for 'your claim', here.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am Nothing you say is "true" or "right" but folks know better than to engage with a brick wall...

LOL So, there is absolutely nothing 'I' have ever said, which is 'true', nor 'right'. Well, according to "darkneos" anyway.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 12:14 pm

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am

Flawed logic, like I said just because things are linked doesn't make them "one"

And, like I said just because you say or claim some thing does not make 'it' so.

Now, and once again, if things are linked, then there is a cause', and thus then there is not a start, nor a beginning.

you want to say and claim that there are lots of starts and lots of separated chains, yet you are completely incapable of providing just one example, here.

So, where the 'flawed logic' is, here, exactly, is obvious.

Any one who claims that some thing exists but is not capable of providing just one example of that said claimed thing when they are challenged shows where 'flawed logic' exists, exactly.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am (think or meditate on that and you'll see).

If you had thought about 'your claim', before, and checked to see if there was absolutely any thing, in the whole of the Universe, that you could use as 'an example' of 'your claim', then, logically, you would not have presented 'your claim', here, at all.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am Nor is it "necessarily" either.

If there is no start, nor beginning, then there is no break. And, if there is no break, then there is no separation. Therefore, it is, actually, 'necessarily.

Meaning 'your new claim', here, is also False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. As you keep showing, and proving, here.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am if I wanted to be cheeky I'd say that there are no "links" or "connections" because those are just projections we put on reality (that includes "oneness").

Well considering that 'I' do not do 'that' 'I' am not included in this 'we'. Which then leads 'me' to ask 'you', 'Why do you do 'that', exactly?'

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am Like I said, there is no point in reasoning with you because you'll believe what you want.

Once again, 'this' does not make sense.

'Because you will believe what you want, then there is no point in reasoning with you', is flawed logic.

Oh, and by the way it is not 'me' who is believing any thing, here.

Please do not forget that it is you, alone, who is believing, here. And, 'your belief' that there are lots of separate chains' and starts, is rendering you completely incapable of the actual Truth, here.

And, the fact that you can not present a single example of absolutely any thing, in the whole Universe, that is separated nor had a start, is further proof of just how blinded you, really, are by 'that belief', of yours.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am I know because I tried the same argument in a Buddhist forum and was proven wrong, everything isn't "One" but it's not "two" either. But I already gave this more engagement than it deserves...

LOL 'same argument'.

What do you even mean by you have tried that 'same argument', exactly?

No one, here, is using 'any argument'. So, how, exactly, could you have tried 'the same argument'?

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am You're already a known nutbar

To who?

you are the only one who has used that phrase and term. So, how could 'I' have, already, been known as a so-called 'nutbar'.

Point the readers, here, to what words that 'I' have actually said and written, here, in 'this intercourse', with 'you', what led you to believe, absolutely, that 'I' am a so-called 'nutbar'.

Please do not forget that it was 'you', "darkneos", who, laughably, claimed,
'There are lots of starts and chains. There are all separate chains.'

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am so I should learn better by now than to engage.

you wished you did not engage after I showed and proved that you have absolutely nothing at all for 'your claim', here.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:40 am Nothing you say is "true" or "right" but folks know better than to engage with a brick wall...

LOL So, there is absolutely nothing 'I' have ever said, which is 'true', nor 'right'. Well, according to "darkneos" anyway.

Like I said above, no sense in trying to reason with a brick wall, no example will ever be good enough for you.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm All I can say is separation is evident in the world (even now but you're too dogmatic in your position to see it).

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm
This isn't "me alone" pretty much everyone knows it too, they just don't engage with you because they know better (something I still have to learn).

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm Believe what you will, I know there is no reasoning or convincing you.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm Maybe I should learn from the other users here and disregard the crazies...

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 9:08 pm

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 12:14 pm

And, like I said just because you say or claim some thing does not make 'it' so.

Now, and once again, if things are linked, then there is a cause', and thus then there is not a start, nor a beginning.

you want to say and claim that there are lots of starts and lots of separated chains, yet you are completely incapable of providing just one example, here.

So, where the 'flawed logic' is, here, exactly, is obvious.

Any one who claims that some thing exists but is not capable of providing just one example of that said claimed thing when they are challenged shows where 'flawed logic' exists, exactly.



If you had thought about 'your claim', before, and checked to see if there was absolutely any thing, in the whole of the Universe, that you could use as 'an example' of 'your claim', then, logically, you would not have presented 'your claim', here, at all.



If there is no start, nor beginning, then there is no break. And, if there is no break, then there is no separation. Therefore, it is, actually, 'necessarily.

Meaning 'your new claim', here, is also False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. As you keep showing, and proving, here.


Well considering that 'I' do not do 'that' 'I' am not included in this 'we'. Which then leads 'me' to ask 'you', 'Why do you do 'that', exactly?'



Once again, 'this' does not make sense.

'Because you will believe what you want, then there is no point in reasoning with you', is flawed logic.

Oh, and by the way it is not 'me' who is believing any thing, here.

Please do not forget that it is you, alone, who is believing, here. And, 'your belief' that there are lots of separate chains' and starts, is rendering you completely incapable of the actual Truth, here.

And, the fact that you can not present a single example of absolutely any thing, in the whole Universe, that is separated nor had a start, is further proof of just how blinded you, really, are by 'that belief', of yours.


LOL 'same argument'.

What do you even mean by you have tried that 'same argument', exactly?

No one, here, is using 'any argument'. So, how, exactly, could you have tried 'the same argument'?


To who?

you are the only one who has used that phrase and term. So, how could 'I' have, already, been known as a so-called 'nutbar'.

Point the readers, here, to what words that 'I' have actually said and written, here, in 'this intercourse', with 'you', what led you to believe, absolutely, that 'I' am a so-called 'nutbar'.

Please do not forget that it was 'you', "darkneos", who, laughably, claimed,
'There are lots of starts and chains. There are all separate chains.'


you wished you did not engage after I showed and proved that you have absolutely nothing at all for 'your claim', here.



LOL So, there is absolutely nothing 'I' have ever said, which is 'true', nor 'right'. Well, according to "darkneos" anyway.

Like I said above, no sense in trying to reason with a brick wall, no example will ever be good enough for you.

And, again, like I said, 'Lamest excuse ever'.

"darkneos", do not provide an example, 'for me', provide an example, 'for you', so you do not look like a Total idiot, to the readers, here. Do not allow your own made up assumptions, and beliefs, 'about me' affect you proving your other belief, here, true and correct. It is not only me who wants to see if you can prove your claim, or not. Just provide an example so you do not continue to look like the actual fool that you are, here, now.

Prove that there is actually some thing existing, besides in your own imagination.

The actual reason you have not yet provided any example at all is, once again, because there is no actual example existing. Now, 'this' is 'my claim'. So, either prove me Wrong, or, if you do not, then 'you' are proving 'me', and 'my claim', here, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm All I can say is separation is evident in the world (even now but you're too dogmatic in your position to see it).

LOL
LOL
LOL

your own made up assumptions, and beliefs, are let you down absolutely and completely, here.

That you 'see' separation, in the world, is obvious, and clear. In fact all of you adult human beings do. But, as I have pointed out earlier, 'this separation' exists in concept, only.

Now, the fact that you have not, and can not, provide just one example, only, of any supposed 'lots of separate chains', and, 'lots of starts', which you claim do exist, is, once more, because you can not actually find any.

And, if you thought, or meditated, on and about 'this', before you even began wanting to express your own belief, and claim, here, then you can have previously seen what the actual Truth is, here, exactly.

But, unfortunately, for you now, your 'new belief' has also let you down also, and completely, and you will now have to 'rethink' your whole 'new view and perspective' of things, here. Which you obviously do not really want to, and would much prefer to fight and argue for your 'current belief', now.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm
This isn't "me alone" pretty much everyone knows it too, they just don't engage with you because they know better (something I still have to learn).

Pretty much everyone also 'gave up' engaging with many people, around the world, who actually ended up being 'the ones' who were expressing the actual Truth of things. That you are 'trying to' use 'the excuse' that you are, here, is further proof that you have absolutely nothing that backs up and supports 'your claim', here. As well you are actually further proving 'my claim' to be what is actually True, and Right, in Life.

Here, you are now claiming that 'pretty much everyone' 'knows' that 'separation is 'evident' in the world', which all I will say is, 'pretty much everyone', also, 'knew' 'the world was flat', and, 'the sun revolved around the earth'. And, 'pretty much everyone' 'knows' how well 'those people's' 'knowing', and 'beliefs', turned out.

Now, because you will not provide any actual example of 'your claim' that there are 'lots of chains' with 'lots of starts' is only proving your 'other claim', here, that 'pretty much everyone knows that 'separation' is 'evident' in the world' is also False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

The difference between 'you' and 'I', here, once more, is that 'I' can back up and support 'my claim' with irrefutable proof, whereas you can not even provide just one little example, let alone any actual proof, for 'your claims'.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm Believe what you will, I know there is no reasoning or convincing you.

Excuses
Excuses
Excuses

Look, "darkneos" it is absolutely obvious that you have absolutely nothing. End of story.

Again, you are absolutely free to believe 'your assumptions', you are also even absolutely free to express your assumptions, and beliefs, here, but if you are unable to back up and support your assumptions, and beliefs, then so be it. 'I' am not 'the one' looking like 'the fool', here.

Only the 'weakest' of 'the weak' would claim some thing like, 'I am not presenting any thing, because there is no reasoning nor convincing you'.

Again, do not present 'for me'. Once more, do it 'for you' and 'for the readers', here. Obviously, if you will not, then all you are really doing is just 'running away, and 'trying to' hide'. Like real 'cowards' do.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm Maybe I should learn from the other users here and disregard the crazies...

LOL So, who are the 'other users' and who are 'the crazies', here, exactly?

If you would have noticed a 'lot of' 'the same users', here, so-call 'disregard' the so-called 'crazies', here, are the 'exact same ones'. That is, a 'lot of' the claimed 'crazies' who have been so-called 'disregarded' also 'disregard' 'the users' that 'they', "themselves", class as 'crazies'.

To me, anyway, any one who ignores 'another', before 'they' have shown 'the other' to be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect is 'crazy' for doing so.

And, if any 'user', here, can not prove 'their own claims' True, Right, Accurate, or Correct, or, can not prove 'another's claims', False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect, and 'they' 'disregard' or 'ignore' 'others', then it is 'they' who end up looking 'the fool', and so is the Truly 'crazy one', here.

Look, if you do not have the ability, nor the courage, to 'stay' and fight, and/or argue for, 'the claim' that you actually presented and expressed, here, then so be 'it', and go an 'run away and hide'.

'I' have absolutely nothing to lose, here, as it is not 'I' who has made 'a claim' that 'I' can not back up and support fully, and irrefutably.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 9:40 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 9:08 pm

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm
Like I said above, no sense in trying to reason with a brick wall, no example will ever be good enough for you.

And, again, like I said, 'Lamest excuse ever'.

"darkneos", do not provide an example, 'for me', provide an example, 'for you', so you do not look like a Total idiot, to the readers, here. Do not allow your own made up assumptions, and beliefs, 'about me' affect you proving your other belief, here, true and correct. It is not only me who wants to see if you can prove your claim, or not. Just provide an example so you do not continue to look like the actual fool that you are, here, now.

Prove that there is actually some thing existing, besides in your own imagination.

The actual reason you have not yet provided any example at all is, once again, because there is no actual example existing. Now, 'this' is 'my claim'. So, either prove me Wrong, or, if you do not, then 'you' are proving 'me', and 'my claim', here, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm All I can say is separation is evident in the world (even now but you're too dogmatic in your position to see it).

LOL
LOL
LOL

your own made up assumptions, and beliefs, are let you down absolutely and completely, here.

That you 'see' separation, in the world, is obvious, and clear. In fact all of you adult human beings do. But, as I have pointed out earlier, 'this separation' exists in concept, only.

Now, the fact that you have not, and can not, provide just one example, only, of any supposed 'lots of separate chains', and, 'lots of starts', which you claim do exist, is, once more, because you can not actually find any.

And, if you thought, or meditated, on and about 'this', before you even began wanting to express your own belief, and claim, here, then you can have previously seen what the actual Truth is, here, exactly.

But, unfortunately, for you now, your 'new belief' has also let you down also, and completely, and you will now have to 'rethink' your whole 'new view and perspective' of things, here. Which you obviously do not really want to, and would much prefer to fight and argue for your 'current belief', now.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm
This isn't "me alone" pretty much everyone knows it too, they just don't engage with you because they know better (something I still have to learn).

Pretty much everyone also 'gave up' engaging with many people, around the world, who actually ended up being 'the ones' who were expressing the actual Truth of things. That you are 'trying to' use 'the excuse' that you are, here, is further proof that you have absolutely nothing that backs up and supports 'your claim', here. As well you are actually further proving 'my claim' to be what is actually True, and Right, in Life.

Here, you are now claiming that 'pretty much everyone' 'knows' that 'separation is 'evident' in the world', which all I will say is, 'pretty much everyone', also, 'knew' 'the world was flat', and, 'the sun revolved around the earth'. And, 'pretty much everyone' 'knows' how well 'those people's' 'knowing', and 'beliefs', turned out.

Now, because you will not provide any actual example of 'your claim' that there are 'lots of chains' with 'lots of starts' is only proving your 'other claim', here, that 'pretty much everyone knows that 'separation' is 'evident' in the world' is also False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

The difference between 'you' and 'I', here, once more, is that 'I' can back up and support 'my claim' with irrefutable proof, whereas you can not even provide just one little example, let alone any actual proof, for 'your claims'.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm Believe what you will, I know there is no reasoning or convincing you.

Excuses
Excuses
Excuses

Look, "darkneos" it is absolutely obvious that you have absolutely nothing. End of story.

Again, you are absolutely free to believe 'your assumptions', you are also even absolutely free to express your assumptions, and beliefs, here, but if you are unable to back up and support your assumptions, and beliefs, then so be it. 'I' am not 'the one' looking like 'the fool', here.

Only the 'weakest' of 'the weak' would claim some thing like, 'I am not presenting any thing, because there is no reasoning nor convincing you'.

Again, do not present 'for me'. Once more, do it 'for you' and 'for the readers', here. Obviously, if you will not, then all you are really doing is just 'running away, and 'trying to' hide'. Like real 'cowards' do.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:18 pm Maybe I should learn from the other users here and disregard the crazies...

LOL So, who are the 'other users' and who are 'the crazies', here, exactly?

If you would have noticed a 'lot of' 'the same users', here, so-call 'disregard' the so-called 'crazies', here, are the 'exact same ones'. That is, a 'lot of' the claimed 'crazies' who have been so-called 'disregarded' also 'disregard' 'the users' that 'they', "themselves", class as 'crazies'.

To me, anyway, any one who ignores 'another', before 'they' have shown 'the other' to be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect is 'crazy' for doing so.

And, if any 'user', here, can not prove 'their own claims' True, Right, Accurate, or Correct, or, can not prove 'another's claims', False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect, and 'they' 'disregard' or 'ignore' 'others', then it is 'they' who end up looking 'the fool', and so is the Truly 'crazy one', here.

Look, if you do not have the ability, nor the courage, to 'stay' and fight, and/or argue for, 'the claim' that you actually presented and expressed, here, then so be 'it', and go an 'run away and hide'.

'I' have absolutely nothing to lose, here, as it is not 'I' who has made 'a claim' that 'I' can not back up and support fully, and irrefutably.

Most of this was noise. That said if separation exists in "concept only" then so does "oneness" or "One" as well. Not the slam dunk you think it is...

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 9:40 pm I'm seeing why no one engages with you...aside from no real thinking ability.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 9:59 pm

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 9:40 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 9:08 pm

And, again, like I said, 'Lamest excuse ever'.

"darkneos", do not provide an example, 'for me', provide an example, 'for you', so you do not look like a Total idiot, to the readers, here. Do not allow your own made up assumptions, and beliefs, 'about me' affect you proving your other belief, here, true and correct. It is not only me who wants to see if you can prove your claim, or not. Just provide an example so you do not continue to look like the actual fool that you are, here, now.

Prove that there is actually some thing existing, besides in your own imagination.

The actual reason you have not yet provided any example at all is, once again, because there is no actual example existing. Now, 'this' is 'my claim'. So, either prove me Wrong, or, if you do not, then 'you' are proving 'me', and 'my claim', here, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.



LOL
LOL
LOL

your own made up assumptions, and beliefs, are let you down absolutely and completely, here.

That you 'see' separation, in the world, is obvious, and clear. In fact all of you adult human beings do. But, as I have pointed out earlier, 'this separation' exists in concept, only.

Now, the fact that you have not, and can not, provide just one example, only, of any supposed 'lots of separate chains', and, 'lots of starts', which you claim do exist, is, once more, because you can not actually find any.

And, if you thought, or meditated, on and about 'this', before you even began wanting to express your own belief, and claim, here, then you can have previously seen what the actual Truth is, here, exactly.

But, unfortunately, for you now, your 'new belief' has also let you down also, and completely, and you will now have to 'rethink' your whole 'new view and perspective' of things, here. Which you obviously do not really want to, and would much prefer to fight and argue for your 'current belief', now.


Pretty much everyone also 'gave up' engaging with many people, around the world, who actually ended up being 'the ones' who were expressing the actual Truth of things. That you are 'trying to' use 'the excuse' that you are, here, is further proof that you have absolutely nothing that backs up and supports 'your claim', here. As well you are actually further proving 'my claim' to be what is actually True, and Right, in Life.

Here, you are now claiming that 'pretty much everyone' 'knows' that 'separation is 'evident' in the world', which all I will say is, 'pretty much everyone', also, 'knew' 'the world was flat', and, 'the sun revolved around the earth'. And, 'pretty much everyone' 'knows' how well 'those people's' 'knowing', and 'beliefs', turned out.

Now, because you will not provide any actual example of 'your claim' that there are 'lots of chains' with 'lots of starts' is only proving your 'other claim', here, that 'pretty much everyone knows that 'separation' is 'evident' in the world' is also False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

The difference between 'you' and 'I', here, once more, is that 'I' can back up and support 'my claim' with irrefutable proof, whereas you can not even provide just one little example, let alone any actual proof, for 'your claims'.



Excuses
Excuses
Excuses

Look, "darkneos" it is absolutely obvious that you have absolutely nothing. End of story.

Again, you are absolutely free to believe 'your assumptions', you are also even absolutely free to express your assumptions, and beliefs, here, but if you are unable to back up and support your assumptions, and beliefs, then so be it. 'I' am not 'the one' looking like 'the fool', here.

Only the 'weakest' of 'the weak' would claim some thing like, 'I am not presenting any thing, because there is no reasoning nor convincing you'.

Again, do not present 'for me'. Once more, do it 'for you' and 'for the readers', here. Obviously, if you will not, then all you are really doing is just 'running away, and 'trying to' hide'. Like real 'cowards' do.



LOL So, who are the 'other users' and who are 'the crazies', here, exactly?

If you would have noticed a 'lot of' 'the same users', here, so-call 'disregard' the so-called 'crazies', here, are the 'exact same ones'. That is, a 'lot of' the claimed 'crazies' who have been so-called 'disregarded' also 'disregard' 'the users' that 'they', "themselves", class as 'crazies'.

To me, anyway, any one who ignores 'another', before 'they' have shown 'the other' to be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect is 'crazy' for doing so.

And, if any 'user', here, can not prove 'their own claims' True, Right, Accurate, or Correct, or, can not prove 'another's claims', False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect, and 'they' 'disregard' or 'ignore' 'others', then it is 'they' who end up looking 'the fool', and so is the Truly 'crazy one', here.

Look, if you do not have the ability, nor the courage, to 'stay' and fight, and/or argue for, 'the claim' that you actually presented and expressed, here, then so be 'it', and go an 'run away and hide'.

'I' have absolutely nothing to lose, here, as it is not 'I' who has made 'a claim' that 'I' can not back up and support fully, and irrefutably.

Most of this was noise. That said if separation exists in "concept only" then so does "oneness" or "One" as well. Not the slam dunk you think it is...

Come on "darkneos" you presented the what you call 'slam dunk claim' that there are lots of 'separated chains with starts'. Now either prove 'it', or move along.

Also, just because 'separation' exists in 'concept only' does not necessarily mean that 'Oneness does as well.

Where is 'this belief' and 'claim', of 'yours', here, now, coming from, exactly?

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 9:40 pm I'm seeing why no one engages with you...aside from no real thinking ability.

Only the absolute pathetic, or the ones with absolutely nothing, 'try to' make ridiculing remarks, and do not stay focused on 'words' alone.

Now, you presented 'your claim', here. I could see, very clearly, why those words were False and Wrong, from 'my perspective', However, just maybe, you had some actual examples that could have and/or would have 'shown' 'my perspective' to be False, and Wrong, itself. So, I then asked you, or 'challenged' you, to provide some examples. you obviously have not. Which just further proves 'my perspective' was actually True, and Right, all along.

Which now leads me to repeat, I suggest that if you human beings do not yet have actual proof for your beliefs and/or claims, first, then do not present your beliefs, nor claims, here, especially in a publicly open philosophy forum.

Now, 'you' claiming that it is 'I' who has, 'absolutely no real thinking ability', is very funny and hilarious to watch and observe 'play out', here.

And, witnessing 'this assumption', of yours, which you also believe is absolutely true, leading 'you' to 'see', and to conclude, 'the reason' why 'absolutely no one engages, with me', is just 'another perfect example' of some of what 'I' have been saying, and claiming, here, and which is also proving, irrefutably, 'those claims'.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 10:45 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 9:59 pm

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 9:40 pm
Most of this was noise. That said if separation exists in "concept only" then so does "oneness" or "One" as well. Not the slam dunk you think it is...

Come on "darkneos" you presented the what you call 'slam dunk claim' that there are lots of 'separated chains with starts'. Now either prove 'it', or move along.

Also, just because 'separation' exists in 'concept only' does not necessarily mean that 'Oneness does as well.

Where is 'this belief' and 'claim', of 'yours', here, now, coming from, exactly?

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 9:40 pm I'm seeing why no one engages with you...aside from no real thinking ability.

Only the absolute pathetic, or the ones with absolutely nothing, 'try to' make ridiculing remarks, and do not stay focused on 'words' alone.

Now, you presented 'your claim', here. I could see, very clearly, why those words were False and Wrong, from 'my perspective', However, just maybe, you had some actual examples that could have and/or would have 'shown' 'my perspective' to be False, and Wrong, itself. So, I then asked you, or 'challenged' you, to provide some examples. you obviously have not. Which just further proves 'my perspective' was actually True, and Right, all along.

Which now leads me to repeat, I suggest that if you human beings do not yet have actual proof for your beliefs and/or claims, first, then do not present your beliefs, nor claims, here, especially in a publicly open philosophy forum.

Now, 'you' claiming that it is 'I' who has, 'absolutely no real thinking ability', is very funny and hilarious to watch and observe 'play out', here.

And, witnessing 'this assumption', of yours, which you also believe is absolutely true, leading 'you' to 'see', and to conclude, 'the reason' why 'absolutely no one engages, with me', is just 'another perfect example' of some of what 'I' have been saying, and claiming, here, and which is also proving, irrefutably, 'those claims'.

If separateness exists in concept so does oneness, you shot yourself in the foot with that one.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 10:45 pm I should learn from the others and disregard you.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 11:14 pm

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 10:45 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 9:59 pm

Come on "darkneos" you presented the what you call 'slam dunk claim' that there are lots of 'separated chains with starts'. Now either prove 'it', or move along.

Also, just because 'separation' exists in 'concept only' does not necessarily mean that 'Oneness does as well.

Where is 'this belief' and 'claim', of 'yours', here, now, coming from, exactly?


Only the absolute pathetic, or the ones with absolutely nothing, 'try to' make ridiculing remarks, and do not stay focused on 'words' alone.

Now, you presented 'your claim', here. I could see, very clearly, why those words were False and Wrong, from 'my perspective', However, just maybe, you had some actual examples that could have and/or would have 'shown' 'my perspective' to be False, and Wrong, itself. So, I then asked you, or 'challenged' you, to provide some examples. you obviously have not. Which just further proves 'my perspective' was actually True, and Right, all along.

Which now leads me to repeat, I suggest that if you human beings do not yet have actual proof for your beliefs and/or claims, first, then do not present your beliefs, nor claims, here, especially in a publicly open philosophy forum.

Now, 'you' claiming that it is 'I' who has, 'absolutely no real thinking ability', is very funny and hilarious to watch and observe 'play out', here.

And, witnessing 'this assumption', of yours, which you also believe is absolutely true, leading 'you' to 'see', and to conclude, 'the reason' why 'absolutely no one engages, with me', is just 'another perfect example' of some of what 'I' have been saying, and claiming, here, and which is also proving, irrefutably, 'those claims'.

If separateness exists in concept so does oneness, you shot yourself in the foot with that one.

LOL I never said it did not.

you are so absolutely completely 'off the mark', here.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 10:45 pm I should learn from the others and disregard you.

LOL

And, the more of 'you' who do 'this', then the more proof 'I' am actually obtaining.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:02 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 11:14 pm

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 10:45 pm

If separateness exists in concept so does oneness, you shot yourself in the foot with that one.

LOL I never said it did not.

you are so absolutely completely 'off the mark', here.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 10:45 pm I should learn from the others and disregard you.

LOL

And, the more of 'you' who do 'this', then the more proof 'I' am actually obtaining.

Lol you literally did

Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:02 am "Also, just because 'separation' exists in 'concept only' does not necessarily mean that 'Oneness does as well. "

I'm done, everyone's right to disregard you...

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:39 am

Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:02 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 11:14 pm

LOL I never said it did not.

you are so absolutely completely 'off the mark', here.


LOL

And, the more of 'you' who do 'this', then the more proof 'I' am actually obtaining.

Lol you literally did

I did not, as the proof is written, here, literally.

Now, if you, really, want to claim that I said 'it', then provide 'the link' to 'my actual written words' that said what you say and claim, here.

But, what you will prove for me, once again, and irrefutably, you will not provide absolutely any thing.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:02 am "Also, just because 'separation' exists in 'concept only' does not necessarily mean that 'Oneness does as well. "

I'm done, everyone's right to disregard you...

And, once more, what 'we' have, here, is 'another one' who can not read, and comprehend, here.

Once more 'these people', back when this was being written, would assume some thing, first, then believe their 'own assumptions are true', while completely and utterly missing, and/or misunderstanding, what is actually being said, and meant.

And, once again, if absolutely any one would like to be presented with the 'irrefutable proof', then let 'us' have 'a discussion'.

'This one', like others, here, when I question and/or challenge them, has just proved, once more, that it,

1. Has not been able to provide just one single example that could back up and support 'their claim'.

2. Has completely and utterly missed, misunderstood, or misinterpreted what I have actually said, and meant. And, once again, this is because 'these people', in those 'olden days', would assume and/or believe things, first, before they would even begin to consider to seek out and obtain actual clarification.

Which, again, is why 'these people' took so, so very long to 'catch up', and comprehend.

To 'them' if 'others' were saying, and/or showing, things, which 'they' did not consider nor believe could be true, then 'their' initial response was to just 'disregard', or 'ignore', 'the other'. Which, again, explains why 'these people' took so, so very long to 'catch up' in learning, and understanding.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:42 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:39 am

Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:02 am
Lol you literally did

I did not, as the proof is written, here, literally.

Now, if you, really, want to claim that I said 'it', then provide 'the link' to 'my actual written words' that said what you say and claim, here.

But, what you will prove for me, once again, and irrefutably, you will not provide absolutely any thing.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:02 am "Also, just because 'separation' exists in 'concept only' does not necessarily mean that 'Oneness does as well. "

I'm done, everyone's right to disregard you...

And, once more, what 'we' have, here, is 'another one' who can not read, and comprehend, here.

Once more 'these people', back when this was being written, would assume some thing, first, then believe their 'own assumptions are true', while completely and utterly missing, and/or misunderstanding, what is actually being said, and meant.

And, once again, if absolutely any one would like to be presented with the 'irrefutable proof', then let 'us' have 'a discussion'.

'This one', like others, here, when I question and/or challenge them, has just proved, once more, that it,

1. Has not been able to provide just one single example that could back up and support 'their claim'.

2. Has completely and utterly missed, misunderstood, or misinterpreted what I have actually said, and meant. And, once again, this is because 'these people', in those 'olden days', would assume and/or believe things, first, before they would even begin to consider to seek out and obtain actual clarification.

Which, again, is why 'these people' took so, so very long to 'catch up', and comprehend.

To 'them' if 'others' were saying, and/or showing, things, which 'they' did not consider nor believe could be true, then 'their' initial response was to just 'disregard', or 'ignore', 'the other'. Which, again, explains why 'these people' took so, so very long to 'catch up' in learning, and understanding.

Yeah I'm done, like I said even direct proof doesn't matter to you.

Other folks are right to ignore you, I'll take a page from them..

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:53 am

Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:42 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:39 am

I did not, as the proof is written, here, literally.

Now, if you, really, want to claim that I said 'it', then provide 'the link' to 'my actual written words' that said what you say and claim, here.

But, what you will prove for me, once again, and irrefutably, you will not provide absolutely any thing.


And, once more, what 'we' have, here, is 'another one' who can not read, and comprehend, here.

Once more 'these people', back when this was being written, would assume some thing, first, then believe their 'own assumptions are true', while completely and utterly missing, and/or misunderstanding, what is actually being said, and meant.

And, once again, if absolutely any one would like to be presented with the 'irrefutable proof', then let 'us' have 'a discussion'.

'This one', like others, here, when I question and/or challenge them, has just proved, once more, that it,

1. Has not been able to provide just one single example that could back up and support 'their claim'.

2. Has completely and utterly missed, misunderstood, or misinterpreted what I have actually said, and meant. And, once again, this is because 'these people', in those 'olden days', would assume and/or believe things, first, before they would even begin to consider to seek out and obtain actual clarification.

Which, again, is why 'these people' took so, so very long to 'catch up', and comprehend.

To 'them' if 'others' were saying, and/or showing, things, which 'they' did not consider nor believe could be true, then 'their' initial response was to just 'disregard', or 'ignore', 'the other'. Which, again, explains why 'these people' took so, so very long to 'catch up' in learning, and understanding.

Yeah I'm done, like I said even direct proof doesn't matter to you.

Other folks are right to ignore you, I'll take a page from them..

'you' really are a conniving and deceitful thing.

Look, you "darkneoe" made 'the claim'. 'There are lots of separate chains with lots of starts'.

Now, all I, essentially, did, here, was just asked you, nicely, to provide examples to 'your claim'.

you, obviously, provided absolutely none at all, thus rendering 'your claim' absolutely worthless and useless.

However, instead of being mature and just accepting this Fact, you, instead, have 'tried' your very hardest to claim that it is 'me' who will not acknowledge so-called 'direct proof'.

LOL you have not provide 'any proof' at all. And, the funniest part, here, is that it is 'you' who will not accept the 'direct proof' that 'staring at you', as some would say, and which 'I' have been providing, here.

Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 1:38 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:53 am

Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:42 am
Yeah I'm done, like I said even direct proof doesn't matter to you.

Other folks are right to ignore you, I'll take a page from them..

'you' really are a conniving and deceitful thing.

Look, you "darkneoe" made 'the claim'. 'There are lots of separate chains with lots of starts'.

Now, all I, essentially, did, here, was just asked you, nicely, to provide examples to 'your claim'.

you, obviously, provided absolutely none at all, thus rendering 'your claim' absolutely worthless and useless.

However, instead of being mature and just accepting this Fact, you, instead, have 'tried' your very hardest to claim that it is 'me' who will not acknowledge so-called 'direct proof'.

LOL you have not provide 'any proof' at all. And, the funniest part, here, is that it is 'you' who will not accept the 'direct proof' that 'staring at you', as some would say, and which 'I' have been providing, here.

No reasoning with the "insane", others were right (not to mention understand what I'm saying). You gave no proof at all.

I'm done, enjoy your ego boosting I guess...