Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:11 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 5:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 5:24 am

Once again, I will point out that this one makes further accusations and claims, but when I ask it to provide any clarification at all about what it says and writes here, then it will provide absolutely nothing at all.

I have not lied anywhere here, I am not delusional anywhere here, nor have I misused language at all here. But, if you want to believe and claim otherwise, then you provide clear examples of where you believe I have?

More lies. It was made clear to you that creation and evolution don't mean general change.

you just said what you believe is true. NO one has discussed this here. And, what you believe is true is not necessarily True at all.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 5:30 am You know this too.

Now 'here' is one of the primest examples of lying and attempting to deceive.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 5:30 am You deliberately continue to use these words anyway in order to smuggle your metaphysical baggage into the picture, doing which you then deny again (lie again) but also affirm elsewhere, as you are are even far too stupid to avoid writing down such contradictions.

If absolutely any one of you human beings would like to 'discuss' this with me, then please by all means come forward, and let us discuss. Doing so in a public forum like this I would find very vitalizing.

Knowing I can back up and support what I say and claim with actual irrefutable proof, leaves me in a position I desire here.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 5:30 am Well guess what, some people do notice what you're doing. Also, zero proof again for your overall claim, so you lie about proving it too.

All this one can do with my words is just say and claim 'the author' is lying.

Never once has this one provided any actual contradiction, counter, nor refutation for what I have said and claimed. But, it continually tries to discredit 'the author'

This one here known as "atla" is a prime example of those who tried to discredit the one who was just trying to inform 'the others' that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and not the other way around like all of them believed was true.

Once again, would absolutely any one like to have a 'discussion' here?

Creation and evolution aren't synonyms for change. Evolution is a certain kind of change, creation usually means intentional creation but even if it's not intentional, it still isn't a synonym for change. Why did you think such a transparent trick would work? You smuggling in some kind of intention and call it proof?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:11 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 5:30 am
More lies. It was made clear to you that creation and evolution don't mean general change.

you just said what you believe is true. NO one has discussed this here. And, what you believe is true is not necessarily True at all.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 5:30 am You know this too.

Now 'here' is one of the primest examples of lying and attempting to deceive.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 5:30 am You deliberately continue to use these words anyway in order to smuggle your metaphysical baggage into the picture, doing which you then deny again (lie again) but also affirm elsewhere, as you are are even far too stupid to avoid writing down such contradictions.

If absolutely any one of you human beings would like to 'discuss' this with me, then please by all means come forward, and let us discuss. Doing so in a public forum like this I would find very vitalizing.

Knowing I can back up and support what I say and claim with actual irrefutable proof, leaves me in a position I desire here.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 5:30 am Well guess what, some people do notice what you're doing. Also, zero proof again for your overall claim, so you lie about proving it too.

All this one can do with my words is just say and claim 'the author' is lying.

Never once has this one provided any actual contradiction, counter, nor refutation for what I have said and claimed. But, it continually tries to discredit 'the author'

This one here known as "atla" is a prime example of those who tried to discredit the one who was just trying to inform 'the others' that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and not the other way around like all of them believed was true.

Once again, would absolutely any one like to have a 'discussion' here?

Creation and evolution aren't synonyms for change. Evolution is a certain kind of change, creation usually means intentional creation but even if it's not intentional, it still isn't a synonym for change. Why did you think such a transparent trick would work? You smuggling in some kind of intention and call it proof?

But you, still, have not yet comprehended nor understood what I have actually said, and meant.

you are, still, just presuming and believing things, which are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, which have led you astray and leading you further and further astray.

Every action has a reaction.

Every reaction is a new creation.

Every new creation evolves.

Every evolving creation interacts with other creations.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter', and a distance between and around matter. This distance is 'space'.

The action of when matter interacts with itself causes a reaction, and thus a new creation.

This always occurring action/reaction process is how all things/the Universe, Itself, evolves, and how the Universe, Itself, is creating Itself.

The evolving-creation process that the Universe, Itself, is in is eternal.

No one, yet, has been able to counter nor refute this. So, 'the wait', continues.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:32 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:11 am

you just said what you believe is true. NO one has discussed this here. And, what you believe is true is not necessarily True at all.



Now 'here' is one of the primest examples of lying and attempting to deceive.


If absolutely any one of you human beings would like to 'discuss' this with me, then please by all means come forward, and let us discuss. Doing so in a public forum like this I would find very vitalizing.

Knowing I can back up and support what I say and claim with actual irrefutable proof, leaves me in a position I desire here.


All this one can do with my words is just say and claim 'the author' is lying.

Never once has this one provided any actual contradiction, counter, nor refutation for what I have said and claimed. But, it continually tries to discredit 'the author'

This one here known as "atla" is a prime example of those who tried to discredit the one who was just trying to inform 'the others' that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and not the other way around like all of them believed was true.

Once again, would absolutely any one like to have a 'discussion' here?

Creation and evolution aren't synonyms for change. Evolution is a certain kind of change, creation usually means intentional creation but even if it's not intentional, it still isn't a synonym for change. Why did you think such a transparent trick would work? You smuggling in some kind of intention and call it proof?

But you, still, have not yet comprehended nor understood what I have actually said, and meant.

you are, still, just presuming and believing things, which are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, which have led you astray and leading you further and further astray.

Every action has a reaction.

Every reaction is a new creation.

Every new creation evolves.

Every evolving creation interacts with other creations.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter', and a distance between and around matter. This distance is 'space'.

The action of when matter interacts with itself causes a reaction, and thus a new creation.

This always occurring action/reaction process is how all things/the Universe, Itself, evolves, and how the Universe, Itself, is creating Itself.

The evolving-creation process that the Universe, Itself, is in is eternal.

No one, yet, has been able to counter nor refute this. So, 'the wait', continues.

You have to prove that the universe does this with some kind of intent, or at least explain that it's infinite luck. You have to prove your claim.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:43 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:32 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:23 am
Creation and evolution aren't synonyms for change. Evolution is a certain kind of change, creation usually means intentional creation but even if it's not intentional, it still isn't a synonym for change. Why did you think such a transparent trick would work? You smuggling in some kind of intention and call it proof?

But you, still, have not yet comprehended nor understood what I have actually said, and meant.

you are, still, just presuming and believing things, which are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, which have led you astray and leading you further and further astray.

Every action has a reaction.

Every reaction is a new creation.

Every new creation evolves.

Every evolving creation interacts with other creations.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter', and a distance between and around matter. This distance is 'space'.

The action of when matter interacts with itself causes a reaction, and thus a new creation.

This always occurring action/reaction process is how all things/the Universe, Itself, evolves, and how the Universe, Itself, is creating Itself.

The evolving-creation process that the Universe, Itself, is in is eternal.

No one, yet, has been able to counter nor refute this. So, 'the wait', continues.

You have to prove that the universe does this with some kind of intent, or at least it's infinite luck.

'I', supposedly, have to prove, to 'you', that the Universe, Itself, does 'what', exactly, with some kind of intent?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:43 am You have to prove your claim.

What part of 'my claim', exactly, has not yet been proven, to 'you'?

Are you not yet aware that, for example, every action causes a reaction? What 'proof' do you need, from 'me', before you will agree with and accept this claim?

Or, if this is not 'the part' that you are referring to here, then, once again, I suggest you be more specific in what 'it' is that you claim to be wanting here.

To me, every part of the below has already been proved True. So, what part has not yet been proved True, to 'you'?
Every action has a reaction.

Every reaction is a new creation.

Every new creation evolves.

Every evolving creation interacts with other creations.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter', and a distance between and around matter. This distance is 'space'.

The action of when matter interacts with itself causes a reaction, and thus a new creation.

This always occurring action/reaction process is how all things/the Universe, Itself, evolves, and how the Universe, Itself, is creating Itself.

The evolving-creation process that the Universe, Itself, is in is eternal.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:51 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:43 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:32 am

But you, still, have not yet comprehended nor understood what I have actually said, and meant.

you are, still, just presuming and believing things, which are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, which have led you astray and leading you further and further astray.

Every action has a reaction.

Every reaction is a new creation.

Every new creation evolves.

Every evolving creation interacts with other creations.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter', and a distance between and around matter. This distance is 'space'.

The action of when matter interacts with itself causes a reaction, and thus a new creation.

This always occurring action/reaction process is how all things/the Universe, Itself, evolves, and how the Universe, Itself, is creating Itself.

The evolving-creation process that the Universe, Itself, is in is eternal.

No one, yet, has been able to counter nor refute this. So, 'the wait', continues.

You have to prove that the universe does this with some kind of intent, or at least it's infinite luck.

'I', supposedly, have to prove, to 'you', that the Universe, Itself, does 'what', exactly, with some kind of intent?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:43 am You have to prove your claim.

What part of 'my claim', exactly, has not yet been proven, to 'you'?

Are you not yet aware that, for example, every action causes a reaction? What 'proof' do you need, from 'me', before you will agree with and accept this claim?

Or, if this is not 'the part' that you are referring to here, then, once again, I suggest you be more specific in what 'it' is that you claim to be wanting here.

To me, every part of the below has already been proved True. So, what part has not yet been proved True, to 'you'?
Every action has a reaction.

Every reaction is a new creation.

Every new creation evolves.

Every evolving creation interacts with other creations.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter', and a distance between and around matter. This distance is 'space'.

The action of when matter interacts with itself causes a reaction, and thus a new creation.

This always occurring action/reaction process is how all things/the Universe, Itself, evolves, and how the Universe, Itself, is creating Itself.

The evolving-creation process that the Universe, Itself, is in is eternal.

Again, you have to prove that the universe does this with some kind of intent, or at least explain that it's infinite luck or magic.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:53 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:51 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:43 am
You have to prove that the universe does this with some kind of intent, or at least it's infinite luck.

'I', supposedly, have to prove, to 'you', that the Universe, Itself, does 'what', exactly, with some kind of intent?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:43 am You have to prove your claim.

What part of 'my claim', exactly, has not yet been proven, to 'you'?

Are you not yet aware that, for example, every action causes a reaction? What 'proof' do you need, from 'me', before you will agree with and accept this claim?

Or, if this is not 'the part' that you are referring to here, then, once again, I suggest you be more specific in what 'it' is that you claim to be wanting here.

To me, every part of the below has already been proved True. So, what part has not yet been proved True, to 'you'?
Every action has a reaction.

Every reaction is a new creation.

Every new creation evolves.

Every evolving creation interacts with other creations.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter', and a distance between and around matter. This distance is 'space'.

The action of when matter interacts with itself causes a reaction, and thus a new creation.

This always occurring action/reaction process is how all things/the Universe, Itself, evolves, and how the Universe, Itself, is creating Itself.

The evolving-creation process that the Universe, Itself, is in is eternal.

Again, you have to prove that the universe does this with some kind of intent, or at least explain that it's infinite luck or magic.

It is like it is an absolutely IMPOSSIBILITY for this one to just answer a clarifying question, and clarify.

Can this one not comprehend and understand what A QUESTION is, when clarification is being asked for?

Let 'us' SEE if you can comprehend and understand the following clarifying question posed, and asked 'to you', for clarification.

1. What is the Universe DOING, (with some kind of intent), "atla", which, supposedly, 'I' have to prove, to 'you'?

2. When you have answered and clarified this question, then I will move on to the next clarifying questions I am waiting to ask you.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:08 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:53 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:51 am

'I', supposedly, have to prove, to 'you', that the Universe, Itself, does 'what', exactly, with some kind of intent?


What part of 'my claim', exactly, has not yet been proven, to 'you'?

Are you not yet aware that, for example, every action causes a reaction? What 'proof' do you need, from 'me', before you will agree with and accept this claim?

Or, if this is not 'the part' that you are referring to here, then, once again, I suggest you be more specific in what 'it' is that you claim to be wanting here.

To me, every part of the below has already been proved True. So, what part has not yet been proved True, to 'you'?
Every action has a reaction.

Every reaction is a new creation.

Every new creation evolves.

Every evolving creation interacts with other creations.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter', and a distance between and around matter. This distance is 'space'.

The action of when matter interacts with itself causes a reaction, and thus a new creation.

This always occurring action/reaction process is how all things/the Universe, Itself, evolves, and how the Universe, Itself, is creating Itself.

The evolving-creation process that the Universe, Itself, is in is eternal.

Again, you have to prove that the universe does this with some kind of intent, or at least explain that it's infinite luck or magic.

It is like it is an absolutely IMPOSSIBILITY for this one to just answer a clarifying question, and clarify.

Can this one not comprehend and understand what A QUESTION is, when clarification is being asked for?

Let 'us' SEE if you can comprehend and understand the following clarifying question posed, and asked 'to you', for clarification.

1. What is the Universe DOING, (with some kind of intent), "atla", which, supposedly, 'I' have to prove, to 'you'?

2. When you have answered and clarified this question, then I will move on to the next clarifying questions I am waiting to ask you.

Evolving. Which was clarified to you like 5 times in this topic already.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:14 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:08 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:53 am
Again, you have to prove that the universe does this with some kind of intent, or at least explain that it's infinite luck or magic.

It is like it is an absolutely IMPOSSIBILITY for this one to just answer a clarifying question, and clarify.

Can this one not comprehend and understand what A QUESTION is, when clarification is being asked for?

Let 'us' SEE if you can comprehend and understand the following clarifying question posed, and asked 'to you', for clarification.

1. What is the Universe DOING, (with some kind of intent), "atla", which, supposedly, 'I' have to prove, to 'you'?

2. When you have answered and clarified this question, then I will move on to the next clarifying questions I am waiting to ask you.

Evolving. Which was clarified to you like 5 times in this topic already.

This was never clarified ONCE, since I have been asking you to. Why would you want to make such a False claim here, now, when absolutely anyone can just look back and 'see' what the actual Truth is here, now?

Anyway, so you are claiming that I have to prove that the Universe is evolving, with some kind of intent, or at least explain that the eternal evolution of the Universe, Itself, is so-called 'infinite luck' or 'magic', right?

If no, then what are you claiming here, exactly?

But, if yes, then;

1. If we take the word 'magic' here to mean or refer to happening or occurring above, beyond, or not, 'natural', then we can rule out 'magic'. If, however, we take the word 'magic' here to just mean or refer to happening or occurring what is 'mysterious', and that what is happening and occurring here is, still, 'mysterious' to you "atla", then the 'magic' word can remain here, well for you anyway. So, how are you defining the 'magic' word here "atla"?

2. So-called 'infinite luck' might well be, exactly, what is happening and occurring here in regards to the Universe, Itself, and Its eternally evolving situation, which It is in HERE-NOW. However,

3. When, and if, 'you' come to learn, understand, and know 'Self', and thus can also answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly and Correctly, then 'you' will know if there is 'intent' or if 'this' is just 'infinite luck', as you call it.

4. Now, that the Universe, Itself, is evolving is being proved True right NOW, HERE. If you, still, cannot 'see' 'the proof', then how could 'I' make 'you' 'see' 'this', 'for you'?

'I' can only 'show' 'you' 'things'. 'I' cannot make 'you' 'see' 'things'.

'The proof' that the Universe is evolving is HERE for ALL to 'look at' and 'see'. So, just explain 'what proof' 'you need', then 'I' can and will 'point you' in the 'Right direction'.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:40 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:14 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:08 am

It is like it is an absolutely IMPOSSIBILITY for this one to just answer a clarifying question, and clarify.

Can this one not comprehend and understand what A QUESTION is, when clarification is being asked for?

Let 'us' SEE if you can comprehend and understand the following clarifying question posed, and asked 'to you', for clarification.

1. What is the Universe DOING, (with some kind of intent), "atla", which, supposedly, 'I' have to prove, to 'you'?

2. When you have answered and clarified this question, then I will move on to the next clarifying questions I am waiting to ask you.

Evolving. Which was clarified to you like 5 times in this topic already.

This was never clarified ONCE, since I have been asking you to. Why would you want to make such a False claim here, now, when absolutely anyone can just look back and 'see' what the actual Truth is here, now?

Anyway, so you are claiming that I have to prove that the Universe is evolving, with some kind of intent, or at least explain that the eternal evolution of the Universe, Itself, is so-called 'infinite luck' or 'magic', right?

If no, then what are you claiming here, exactly?

But, if yes, then;

1. If we take the word 'magic' here to mean or refer to happening or occurring above, beyond, or not, 'natural', then we can rule out 'magic'. If, however, we take the word 'magic' here to just mean or refer to happening or occurring what is 'mysterious', and that what is happening and occurring here is, still, 'mysterious' to you "atla", then the 'magic' word can remain here, well for you anyway. So, how are you defining the 'magic' word here "atla"?

2. So-called 'infinite luck' might well be, exactly, what is happening and occurring here in regards to the Universe, Itself, and Its eternally evolving situation, which It is in HERE-NOW. However,

3. When, and if, 'you' come to learn, understand, and know 'Self', and thus can also answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly and Correctly, then 'you' will know if there is 'intent' or if 'this' is just 'infinite luck', as you call it.

4. Now, that the Universe, Itself, is evolving is being proved True right NOW, HERE. If you, still, cannot 'see' 'the proof', then how could 'I' make 'you' 'see' 'this', 'for you'?

'I' can only 'show' 'you' 'things'. 'I' cannot make 'you' 'see' 'things'.

'The proof' that the Universe is evolving is HERE for ALL to 'look at' and 'see'. So, just explain 'what proof' 'you need', then 'I' can and will 'point you' in the 'Right direction'.

Okay so I was right again, it's some kind of intent of the (universal) 'Self'.

Why make so much fuss about it? Just prove your mind claim and show that it has intent, and I won't have to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:40 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:14 am

Evolving. Which was clarified to you like 5 times in this topic already.

This was never clarified ONCE, since I have been asking you to. Why would you want to make such a False claim here, now, when absolutely anyone can just look back and 'see' what the actual Truth is here, now?

Anyway, so you are claiming that I have to prove that the Universe is evolving, with some kind of intent, or at least explain that the eternal evolution of the Universe, Itself, is so-called 'infinite luck' or 'magic', right?

If no, then what are you claiming here, exactly?

But, if yes, then;

1. If we take the word 'magic' here to mean or refer to happening or occurring above, beyond, or not, 'natural', then we can rule out 'magic'. If, however, we take the word 'magic' here to just mean or refer to happening or occurring what is 'mysterious', and that what is happening and occurring here is, still, 'mysterious' to you "atla", then the 'magic' word can remain here, well for you anyway. So, how are you defining the 'magic' word here "atla"?

2. So-called 'infinite luck' might well be, exactly, what is happening and occurring here in regards to the Universe, Itself, and Its eternally evolving situation, which It is in HERE-NOW. However,

3. When, and if, 'you' come to learn, understand, and know 'Self', and thus can also answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly and Correctly, then 'you' will know if there is 'intent' or if 'this' is just 'infinite luck', as you call it.

4. Now, that the Universe, Itself, is evolving is being proved True right NOW, HERE. If you, still, cannot 'see' 'the proof', then how could 'I' make 'you' 'see' 'this', 'for you'?

'I' can only 'show' 'you' 'things'. 'I' cannot make 'you' 'see' 'things'.

'The proof' that the Universe is evolving is HERE for ALL to 'look at' and 'see'. So, just explain 'what proof' 'you need', then 'I' can and will 'point you' in the 'Right direction'.

Okay so I was right again, it's some kind of intent of the (universal) 'Self'.

So, I say and write that 'infinite luck' may well be, exactly, what is happening and occurring, but you, however, conclude that 'you were right', and that it is some kind of 'intent' of the (universal) 'Self'.

This here, my friends, is a prime example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play.

From the outset this one has been presuming and believing that 'I' am saying and claiming 'things' here, about 'intent', which I obviously have not been, but yet this is all this one can focus on. So, what this one 'sees', and 'hears', in what I say and write here is about 'intent'.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:54 am Why make so much fuss about it?

Why do I, supposedly, make so much, so-called, 'fuss' about 'what', exactly?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:54 am Just prove your mind claim and show that it has intent, and I won't have to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

But I LOVE you 'viewing' 'me' as a 'delusional liar', and absolutely 'nothing more' than a 'delusional liar'

you doing so PROVES what I will be saying and claiming about how the Mind and the brain actually work, and how with the belief-system the brain will only 'see' and 'hear' what it wants to, which is also known as 'confirmation bias'.

you will be, once again, proving me irrefutably True here, so why would I want you to stop what you are doing here?

Also, and obviously, this thread is about 'creation-evolution', and not 'the Mind'. So, this is a different topic here, in case you had not noticed.

Furthermore, you were here demanding proof that the Universe, Itself, is evolving. I informed you that the proof is HERE, NOW, for all to 'look at' and 'see'. I then asked you another clarifying question, 'How could 'I' make 'you' 'see' 'the proof', 'for you'?'

But, instead of just answering and clarifying 'this', you, once again, went completely astray and off track, and 'now' are referring back to some other thread, of mine titled, 'The Mind'.

2 main patterns in Age's communication in his new assertive threads:

1
Age: makes a series of assertions
Someone else: questions or challenges one or more of the assertions
Age: re-asserts the assertions, perhaps in a new paraphrase
Result of pattern 1: Age does not justify his assertions

2
Age: makes a series of assertions
Someone else: questions or challenges one or more of the assertions
Age: request that they justify something either explicit or implicit in their question or challenge. Age justifying his assertions is contingent on other people justifying theirs first.
Result of pattern 2: Age does not justify his assertions, now 'because' the other person has not justified his or her (often supposed) claims.

End results of these patterns often used in combination:
a) Age never justified his OPs
b) Others either accept, for no good reason, a kind of burden of proof that Age never accepts himself, or they at some point just give up and justification never comes from Age.
c) Age includes in his responses condescending remarks about the individual, often including him or her with all or most others living at this time.
d) Age conflates assertion with justification

Possible options for Age:
1) drop the condescending remarks and focus on the topic
2) consider including justification from the state: for example, in this context, why all matter, not certain configurations of matter have intent and is creating. If we put a human body, in this case an author, in a blender and blend it, it has the same matter after blending as before. However it won't be writing any more novels. I don't mean that to be a glib example, I'm actually a panpsychist. However, there is no loss to the OP if Age himself justifies his assertions.
3) Since Age has claimed many times that he has come here to learn how to communicate better, he might then understand that generally people starting threads and making assertions bear and onus, the same kind of onus he expects others to bear, but considers himself exempt. It would be improved communication, with the people at the time this is being written, if he justified his assertions. The key controversial one for many at this time is the use of various word forms based on the root create.

These suggestions would improve the communication and viola, the OPs will be justified or better justified. Gain for all parties. Further, without the implicit and explicit insults, it is much more likely that the topic will be the topic.

Another way to reframe the disagreement is that both Atla and Age believe there is evolution.
Evolution entails change over time. Possibly including changes in function/cognition.
One change that Atla would likely believe in is that increasing local complexity of specific kinds in matter led to (evolved to) certain portions of matter in cohesive self-relation now had intent, a qualities lacking before these specific configurations.
Age is assertion that all matter has intention and, it seems, always has.
So, intention is not one of those things that via evolution arose in his schema.
Age xxplaining what has evolved and how he knows that rocks and chairs have intent and are creative, would add greatly to the OP and discussion.

IOW words I think the former issue - what has in fact evolved, what changes have taken place over time - might help others understand why he considers 'intent' to not be one of those things. That it has always been here in all matter.

Then also how he knows there is intent in the category of combinations of matter generally classed as inanimate. And with examples or what he sees as the intent in certain clumps of matter not considered by many to be alive, let alone having intent.

This would make it clearer to people who are not yet convinced or even clear how intent would be used in relation to what they might call inanimate matter.as opposed to configurations of matter they consider animate.

If the intention is to communicate better, I think following these suggestions and the ones in my previous post would be very helpful.

Further, if we take all matter as having intent, it might be possible to see the disagreement about the scope of that word.

Intent with humans might include things like intending to invent a machine that has near zero friction, despite many moving parts, for a specific purpose. Or intent might include intending to soothe the suffering of someone who recently suffering the loss of a close friend.
For Age, perhaps the intent of the matter in a dust mote and the intent in the matter of one of the people I mentioned just now can both be described by the same word 'intent'.

But to other people there would be a qualitative difference and the human intent is of a quality different from, say, the momentum of the dust mote.

So, that an understanding could be found between Age and others based on differing use of the word intent. OK, you wouldn't use that word for the dust mote because of criteria X and Y not being met, whereas I would because......and so on.

This two could lead to at least a more clearly delineated discussion.

But if there is a line in the sand around who bears the onus, steps in the direction of better communication may not be reached.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:32 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:40 am

This was never clarified ONCE, since I have been asking you to. Why would you want to make such a False claim here, now, when absolutely anyone can just look back and 'see' what the actual Truth is here, now?

Anyway, so you are claiming that I have to prove that the Universe is evolving, with some kind of intent, or at least explain that the eternal evolution of the Universe, Itself, is so-called 'infinite luck' or 'magic', right?

If no, then what are you claiming here, exactly?

But, if yes, then;

1. If we take the word 'magic' here to mean or refer to happening or occurring above, beyond, or not, 'natural', then we can rule out 'magic'. If, however, we take the word 'magic' here to just mean or refer to happening or occurring what is 'mysterious', and that what is happening and occurring here is, still, 'mysterious' to you "atla", then the 'magic' word can remain here, well for you anyway. So, how are you defining the 'magic' word here "atla"?

2. So-called 'infinite luck' might well be, exactly, what is happening and occurring here in regards to the Universe, Itself, and Its eternally evolving situation, which It is in HERE-NOW. However,

3. When, and if, 'you' come to learn, understand, and know 'Self', and thus can also answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly and Correctly, then 'you' will know if there is 'intent' or if 'this' is just 'infinite luck', as you call it.

4. Now, that the Universe, Itself, is evolving is being proved True right NOW, HERE. If you, still, cannot 'see' 'the proof', then how could 'I' make 'you' 'see' 'this', 'for you'?

'I' can only 'show' 'you' 'things'. 'I' cannot make 'you' 'see' 'things'.

'The proof' that the Universe is evolving is HERE for ALL to 'look at' and 'see'. So, just explain 'what proof' 'you need', then 'I' can and will 'point you' in the 'Right direction'.

Okay so I was right again, it's some kind of intent of the (universal) 'Self'.

So, I say and write that 'infinite luck' may well be, exactly, what is happening and occurring, but you, however, conclude that 'you were right', and that it is some kind of 'intent' of the (universal) 'Self'.

This here, my friends, is a prime example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play.

From the outset this one has been presuming and believing that 'I' am saying and claiming 'things' here, about 'intent', which I obviously have not been, but yet this is all this one can focus on. So, what this one 'sees', and 'hears', in what I say and write here is about 'intent'.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:54 am Why make so much fuss about it?

Why do I, supposedly, make so much, so-called, 'fuss' about 'what', exactly?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:54 am Just prove your mind claim and show that it has intent, and I won't have to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

But I LOVE you 'viewing' 'me' as a 'delusional liar', and absolutely 'nothing more' than a 'delusional liar'

you doing so PROVES what I will be saying and claiming about how the Mind and the brain actually work, and how with the belief-system the brain will only 'see' and 'hear' what it wants to, which is also known as 'confirmation bias'.

you will be, once again, proving me irrefutably True here, so why would I want you to stop what you are doing here?

Also, and obviously, this thread is about 'creation-evolution', and not 'the Mind'. So, this is a different topic here, in case you had not noticed.

Furthermore, you were here demanding proof that the Universe, Itself, is evolving. I informed you that the proof is HERE, NOW, for all to 'look at' and 'see'. I then asked you another clarifying question, 'How could 'I' make 'you' 'see' 'the proof', 'for you'?'

But, instead of just answering and clarifying 'this', you, once again, went completely astray and off track, and 'now' are referring back to some other thread, of mine titled, 'The Mind'.

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

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:40 am 2 main patterns in Age's communication in his new assertive threads:

1
Age: makes a series of assertions
Someone else: questions or challenges one or more of the assertions

Have I been questioned over my assertions?

If yes, then when and where, exactly?

Have I been challenged over my assertions?

If yes, then when and where, exactly?

See, what I did here was actually challenge and question this one over its assertions here.

Notice the difference?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:40 am Age: remakes the assertions, perhaps in a new paraphrase
Result of pattern 1: Age does not justify his assertions

When I actually get questioned and/or challenged over my assertions, then 'we' 'will' 'see' 'what happens'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:40 am 2
Age: makes a series of assertions
Someone else: questions or challenges one or more of the assertions
Age: request that they justify something either explicit or implicit in their question or challenge
Result of pattern 2: Age does not jusify his assertions, now 'because' the other person has not justified his or her (often supposed) claims.

My assertions stand on their own. And, this is proved True until absolutely any one counters or refutes them.

Until then what 'we' see here, very clearly, is "iwannaplato", once again, 'judging' 'me', and instead of actually trying to refute, or just agree with, what I assert here "iwannaplato" will try to discredit 'me'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:40 am End results of these patterns often used in combination:
a) Age never justified his OPs

Now, if absolutely anyone would like to 'discuss' absolutely anything I have said, written, claimed, and/or asserted here, then by all means let us do this.

Also, if absolutely any one would like me to justify any thing that I have said, written, claimed, and/or asserted here, then by all means just express what 'it' is, exactly, that you would like 'justified'.

If this one believes that my opening post needs 'justifying', then because it obviously does not understand what I have actually said, and meant, then all it needed, or needs, to do is just ask me to 'justify', exactly, what it does not yet fathom, comprehend, and/nor understand there.

Obviously, to me what I have said and asserted does not need 'justifying' because to me it has already been 'justified' with actual proof. So, to me, there is absolutely nothing that needs 'justifying'. However, and again, if absolutely any one, including "iwannaplato" wants 'justification' for absolutely any thing, then just say what 'it' is, exactly, that you want 'justification' for.

Also, noted is that you have 'chosen' to stop 'ignoring' me, for the numerous time again.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:40 am b) Others either accept, for no good reason, a kind of burden of proof that Age never accepts himself, or they at some point just give up and justification never comes from Age.
c) Age includes in his responses condescending remarks about the individual, often including him or her with all or most others living at this time.
d) Age conflates assertion with justification

Once again, "iwannaplato" does nothing more than just 'judge me' here and goes on and on with more and further accusations and claims, which it has not yet 'justified'.

So, why do you believe that I conflate 'assertion' with 'justification' "iwannplato"?

See, the difference here, as well?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:40 am Possible options for Age:
1) drop the condescending remarks and focus on the topic

Where and when have I, supposedly, and allegedly made absolutely any condescending remarks here?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:40 am 2) consider including justification from the state: for exampe, in this context, why all matter, not certain configurations of matter have intent and is creating.

Obviously, this one has missed, or is just once again trying to deceive here, that I never brought the 'intent' word into this thread.

Obviously, "atla" introduced the 'intent' word, and did so to try to deflect and deceive and fool 'the readers' here. And, obviously it worked on one here, at least.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:40 am If we put a human body, in this case an author, in a blender and blend it, it has the same matter after bledning as before. However it won't be writing any more novels. I don't mean that to be a glib example, I'm actually a panpsychist. However, there is no loss to the OP if Age himself justifies his assertions.

Does absolutely any human being know what "iwannplato" NEEDS 'justified' here?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:40 am 3) Since Age has claimed many times that he has come here to learn how to communicate better, he might then understand that generally people starting threads and making assertions bear and onus, the same kind of onus he expects others to bear, but considers himself exempt.

Once again, this one, just like "atla", is reading my words from preconceptions, and so are just 'seeing' 'things' here that do not even exist. Again, this is just another example 'confirmation bias' at work here.

This one, like "atla", is also just trying to deflect, while at the same time just trying to discredit me.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:40 am It would be improved communication, with the people at the time this is being written, if he justified his assertions.

This one, still after all of this time, does not even know what I am doing here, yet.

Even though I have specifically 'spelled it out', as some might say, this one, still, cannot fathom, comprehend, and understand what I have said, and have actually meant. And this is just because it does not seek out clarification and justification. It just expects clarification and justification to come its way, when it wants, and needs, them.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:40 am The key controversial one for many at this time is the use of various word forms based on the root create.

These suggestions would improve the communication and viola, the OPs will be justified or better justified. Gain for all parties. Further, without the implicit and explicit insults, it is much more likely that the topic will be the topic.

Again, when and where is any so-called and alleged 'implicit and explicit insults' made by 'me'. Let us see if you can 'justify' your assertions here.

See, the difference here?

I ask you for the very 'things' that I seek to be 'justified', in your assertions, whereas "iwannaplato" will just say things here like, 'Age does not justify his assertions'.

Which, really, is not saying, justifying, nor proving anything at all. Again, you are just making accusations and claims 'about me', with no actual 'justification' at all being presented.

And, as some would say, the one who makes the assertion bears the onus.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Another way to reframe the disagreement is that both Atla and Age believe there is evolution.

you "iwannaplato" can reframe absolutely anything in any way, but this will not make your 'reframe' true nor right in any way.

Exactly like the way you have reframed things here is completely and utterly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, as well.

you could not be more Wrong and Incorrect here "iwannaplato".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Evolution entails change over time.

Well obviously. Change cannot happen in less than 'time'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Possibly including changes in function/cognition.
One change that Atla would likely believe in is that increasing local complexity of specific kinds in matter led to (evolved to) certain portions of matter in cohesive self-relation now had intent, a qualities lacking before these specific configurations.
Age is assertion that all matter has intention and, it seems, always has.

"iwannaplato" is even more deluded than I first saw and realized.

Now, "iwannplato" when have I used the 'intention' word and introduced it in my views in the opening post here?

"iwannaplato" does not even know my view of 'matter', which partly explains why "iwannaplato" believes what it does here and why it has made this another completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect accusation and assertion here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am
So, intention is not one of those things that via evolution arose in his schema.
Age xxplaining what has evolved and how he knows that rocks and chairs have intent and are creative, would add greatly to the OP and discussion.

This here is the primest example of how "atla" achieved what it wanted to do and set out to do. That is; trick, fool, and deceive others into thinking or believing that it was I who introduced and talked about 'intention' here.

"iwannplato" has, once again, been deceived, absolutely.

But, as I have alluded to earlier, "atla" is an expert at deceit and deception. And, as I have also alluded to, "atla" is an expert at deflecting and deception because "atla" has already tricked, fooled, and deceived "itself" through and by its own previously made up and held onto False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect assumptions and beliefs.

But "atla" is acting no different from all the other adult human beings who have been tricked, fooled, and deceived into believing False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect 'things', based on APE-thinking. "atla" and others just end up deflecting 'things' from the actual and irrefutable Truth of 'things'. And then ones like "iwannaplato" who do not think and see 'things', for and by "themselves", just get tricked, fooled, and deceived into and by 'the deflection'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am IOW words I think the former issue - what has in fact evolved, what changes have taken place over time - might help others understand why he considers 'intent' to not be one of those things. That it has always been here in all matter.

Then also how he knows there is intent in the category of combinations of matter generally classed as inanimate. And with examples or what he sees as the intent in certain clumps of matter not considered by many to be alive, let alone having intent.

This would make it clearer to people who are not yet convinced or even clear how intent would be used in relation to what they might call inanimate matter.as opposed to configurations of matter they consider animate.

If the intention is to communicate better, I think following these suggestions and the ones in my previous post would be very helpful.

Okay.

But I just found if and when one has a True 'intention' of Truly wanting to learn something, then they will do what is necessarily to obtain that information/knowledge, in their 'life time'.

But, then again, maybe this one still believes that 'I' am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better with human beings here, in this forum.

If so, then here is another prime example of why it is better to never assume 'things', and why it is always better to actually seek out and gain and obtain actual clarification, first.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Further, if we take all matter as having intent, it might be possible to see the disagreement about the scope of that word.

Why would absolutely any one want to 'take' 'all matter as having intent', especially when absolutely no one has even implied this, let alone said this absolutely anywhere here, in this thread?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Intent with humans might include things like intending to invent a machine that has near zero friction, despite many moving parts, for a specific purpose.

What can be seen here is just how quick, simple, and easy it was for "atla" to deceive and fool 'another', that is; "iwannaplato", into 'looking at' and 'talking about' 'intent'. This one cannot stop 'talking about' 'intent' here, now.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Or intent might include intending to soothe the suffering of someone who recently suffering the loss of a close friend.
For Age, perhaps the intent of the matter in a dust mote and the intent in the matter of one of the people I mentioned just now can both be described by the same word 'intent'.

But to other people there would be a qualitative difference and the human intent is of a quality different from, say, the momentum of the dust mote.

So, that an understanding could be found between Age and others based on differing use of the word intent. OK, you wouldn't use that word for the dust mote because of criteria X and Y not being met, whereas I would because......and so on.

This two could lead to at least a more clearly delineated discussion.

But if there is a line in the sand around who bears the onus, steps in the direction of better communication may not be reached.

So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

Could they both be trying to deflect here, for some reason?

Has one been misled, deceived, tricked, and/or fooled into talking about 'intent'? Which is obviously some thing that I was not talking about, at all.