Reincarnation

[Atla]

WHAT DOES 'pretty much' even MEAN here.

Either what I SAY and CLAIM IS REFUTED, ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY, OR, 'it' IS NOT.

This was profoundly stupid even by your standards. Humans can't absolutely and completely refute any metaphysical claim.
But as long as you present no evidence for your invisible being claims, we can consider your claims to be refuted.

WELL CONSIDERING 'I' CAN PROVE OTHERWISE, this then MEANS that what you SAY and CLAIM IS REFUTED, right?

No, learn human language. You have to present your proof first, and it has to be valid.

[Age]

I've shown that you are the one who believes.

LOL
LOL
LOL

WHEN and WHERE have 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, EVERY SHOWN ANY such 'thing' as 'this' here?

'you' REALLY MAKE 'me' LAUGH "atla".

And, for the readers here, what WILL OCCUR, AGAIN, is that 'this CLAIM' here now will NEVER be backed up NOR supported with ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' AT ALL.

'This one' LITERALLY BELIEVES what 'it' STATES and CLAIMS is SO TRUE that 'it' can NOT even SEE that a LOT of what 'it' STATES and CLAIMS is true here is ACTUALLY ALL of 'its' OWN MAKING, and exists SOLELY in the IMAGINATION WITHIN 'that body'.

Prove your claims about creation and evolution, if you are able.

I DEFINITELY WILL, AFTER 'you' PROVIDE 'us' WITH what 'my' ACTUAL CLAIMS about 'creation and evolution' ARE, EXACTLY.

Doing 'this' WILL SHOW 'us' that 'you' do have SOME COMPREHENSION of what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING here.

So, 'we' now WAIT for 'you', ONCE AGAIN, "atla".

Do 'you' even KNOW WHAT 'my CLAIMS' ARE about 'creation and evolution'?

We will WAIT, to SEE.

Stop evading, you said

There is NO OTHER way than 'this way', and WHAT HAPPENS and OCCURS 'this way' IS; 'matter', BECAUSE OF 'space' is ABLE to move about ABSOLUTELY FREELY, and when 'matter' IS MOVING ABOUT 'it' IS INTER-ACTING with itself, and coming together with itself, CAUSING the CREATION of new/er 'things' ALL the time. That IS; thee One 'Thing' here KNOWN AS the Universe, Itself, is just CONTINUALLY CHANGING in shape and form ALWAYS, and in ALL WAYS, some might say or suggest. This CONTINUAL CHANGE, which 'creates' EVERY 'thing' is just 'evolution', itself, by the way. The One Everything IS just CREATING, through EVOLUTION, ALL of the 'things', which are KNOWN, or thought ABOUT, by 'you', human beings.

By the way, it IS the 'friction' CAUSED by 'matter' INTERACTING with itself, which OCCURS BECAUSE of 'space' remember, which is WHAT CAUSES or CREATES 'energy', itself. The friction caused by matter 'bumping' into itself, which HAPPENS ETERNALLY, is WHY 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another'.

EVERY action CAUSES a reaction, and it is, literally, this never-beginning and never-ending One REACTION that IS CREATION, Itself. HOW EVERY 'thing' EXISTS IS BECAUSE this is HOW EVERY 'thing' IS CREATED, through a never-ending EVOLUTIONARY process.

Now, WHY does 'you', and the Universe, EXIST, IS to bear witness to WHAT I AM Creating HERE-NOW. AND BECAUSE there just could NOT be ANY OTHER WAY, as, partly, EXPLAINED above here.

Prove your above beliefs, if you are able.

1. I do NOT have ANY BELIEFS here. So, this then MEANS there is absolutely NOTHING here for 'me' 'to prove'.

2. I am NOT 'evading' NOTHING AT ALL. I JUST SAID that I DEFINITELY WILL 'prove my claims about creation and evolution', AFTER 'you' PROVIDE 'us' WITH what 'my' ACTUAL CLAIMS about 'creation and evolution' ARE, EXACTLY.

Now that 'you' have NOT provided EXACTLY 'what' 'my' ACTUAL CLAIMS ABOUT 'creation and evolution' ARE, EXACTLY, BUT have, INSTEAD, CHOSEN to just QUOTE a part of the ACTUAL WORDS that I HAVE USED previously, I have CHOSEN to STILL prove my claims about creation and evolution.

ENOUGH PROOF, so far, about 'my' claims about 'creation and evolution', IS WRITTEN in that 'quoted part of mine', which 'you', "atla", have, very kindly, PROVIDED here for 'us' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Now, if absolutely ANY one thinks or BELIEVES that there is NOT 'enough proof' in that little snippet in that 'quoted part' that 'creation AND evolution' EXIST, then PLEASE do NOT HOLD BACK FROM QUESTIONING and/or CHALLENGING 'me' here.

[Age]

I wasn't talking about that, and neither were you originally. You just changed the topic.

LOL here "atla"

If I WAS to even ASK 'you', 'What does the 'that' word here even REFER TO, EXACTLY, which 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, was NOT talking ABOUT, then considering the Fact that 'you' COULD NOT ANSWER 'this QUESTION, Honestly, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION "your" 'self' here ONCE AGAIN, this means that 'you' WOULD NOT. As 'you' WILL, ONCE AGAIN, PROVE 'me' ABSOLUTELY Right AND Correct here.

ALSO, I CAME to TALK ABOUT 'that' BECAUSE 'that' ENTERED INTO the ANSWER I WAS PROVIDING to the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED TO 'me'.

AND, when 'you' said the 'originally' word here, WHEN are 'you' REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

Not my fault if you are incapable of communicating in language.

ABSOLUTELY NO one EVER SAID that MY, supposed and alleged, INCAPABILITY OF COMMUNICATING IN LANGUAGE, was EVER 'your fault'.

The ACTUAL FAULT of WHY I can NOT communicate properly and/or FULLY WITH 'you', human beings, LAYS SOLELY WITH 'me'. Which IS WHY I am to LEARN HOW TO communicate BETTER WITH 'you' human beings.

We other humans can understand context just fine.

REALLY?

So, 'you' ALL UNDERSTAND 'context' in ALL of 'your' speech AND ALL of 'your' writings JUST FINE. Okay. 'you' REALLY CAN LEARN something NEW EVERY day, as some SAY, and CLAIM.

By the way, can 'you', "atla", and EVERY "OTHER" human REALLY understand 'context', just fine, ALL of the time or just SOME of the time?

BECAUSE if 'it' it the former, then there is NOT even much 'evidence' of 'this' AT ALL, let alone ANY ACTUAL PROOF, which I CAN SEE or HAVE OBSERVED, anyway.

[Atla]

1. I do NOT have ANY BELIEFS here. So, this then MEANS there is absolutely NOTHING here for 'me' 'to prove'.

2. I am NOT 'evading' NOTHING AT ALL. I JUST SAID that I DEFINITELY WILL 'prove my claims about creation and evolution', AFTER 'you' PROVIDE 'us' WITH what 'my' ACTUAL CLAIMS about 'creation and evolution' ARE, EXACTLY.

Now that 'you' have NOT provided EXACTLY 'what' 'my' ACTUAL CLAIMS ABOUT 'creation and evolution' ARE, EXACTLY, BUT have, INSTEAD, CHOSEN to just QUOTE a part of the ACTUAL WORDS that I HAVE USED previously, I have CHOSEN to STILL prove my claims about creation and evolution.

ENOUGH PROOF, so far, about 'my' claims about 'creation and evolution', IS WRITTEN in that 'quoted part of mine', which 'you', "atla", have, very kindly, PROVIDED here for 'us' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Now, if absolutely ANY one thinks or BELIEVES that there is NOT 'enough proof' in that little snippet in that 'quoted part' that 'creation AND evolution' EXIST, then PLEASE do NOT HOLD BACK FROM QUESTIONING and/or CHALLENGING 'me' here.

There isn't a single sentence in your snippet that is consistent with modern physics. The friction part was exceptionally bad.
And even if we put all that aside, there is still no reason to think that evolution will go on. Or that humans were created for some reason. Or that humans will continue to create.

I don't even care about the physics part, I know you have no idea about physics, and are fully incapable of proving your fantasies. All I ask you to do is, prove that there is some creation/evolution going on with a higher purpose, and prove that it will go on.

[Age]

WHAT DOES 'pretty much' even MEAN here.

Either what I SAY and CLAIM IS REFUTED, ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY, OR, 'it' IS NOT.

This was profoundly stupid even by your standards. Humans can't absolutely and completely refute any metaphysical claim.

What does 'metaphysical' even MEAN, or REFER TO, to 'you', "atla", EXACTLY?

But as long as you present no evidence for your invisible being claims, we can consider your claims to be refuted.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one CLAIMS absolutely ANY 'thing', up UNTIL 'they' PRESENT 'evidence'', for 'their CLAIMS, 'you', and some IMAGINED "others", can consider those claims' to be REFUTED, right?

Now, 'you' are just INVITING 'me' to PRESENT NO evidence here that there are INVISIBLE parts to the 'human being'. SEE, the LONGER 'you' CLAIM that MY CLAIM IS REFUTED, the FAR BETTER 'this' IS FOR me.

WELL CONSIDERING 'I' CAN PROVE OTHERWISE, this then MEANS that what you SAY and CLAIM IS REFUTED, right?

No, learn human language. You have to present your proof first, and it has to be valid.

BUT, 'you' SAID, and CLAIMED, in 'human language':

'Your claim about the invisible 'being part' was pretty much refuted, as are your usual claims about some universal "I".'

Unless you can prove otherwise.

In WHAT 'language' does 'this' NOT mean;
my claim about the invisible 'being part' was pretty much refuted, as are my OTHER claims about thee universal 'I',Unless you can prove otherwise.? If NOT the 'human language'?

For those who do NOT YET KNOW 'those ACTUAL words', WRITTEN by "atla", ACTUALLY MEAN, 'they' MEAN that "atla" WILL WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE that 'my claim' about there existing 'invisible being parts' WITHIN the human body WAS 'pretty much refuted', UNLESS I CAN PROVE OTHERWISE.


Now, considering the Fact that I CAN PROVE otherwise, 'this' MEANS that "atla's" CLAIM IS ACTUALLY REFUTED, COMPLETELY.

[Atla]

WHAT DOES 'pretty much' even MEAN here.

Either what I SAY and CLAIM IS REFUTED, ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY, OR, 'it' IS NOT.

This was profoundly stupid even by your standards. Humans can't absolutely and completely refute any metaphysical claim.

What does 'metaphysical' even MEAN, or REFER TO, to 'you', "atla", EXACTLY?

But as long as you present no evidence for your invisible being claims, we can consider your claims to be refuted.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one CLAIMS absolutely ANY 'thing', up UNTIL 'they' PRESENT 'evidence'', for 'their CLAIMS, 'you', and some IMAGINED "others", can consider those claims' to be REFUTED, right?

Now, 'you' are just INVITING 'me' to PRESENT NO evidence here that there are INVISIBLE parts to the 'human being'. SEE, the LONGER 'you' CLAIM that MY CLAIM IS REFUTED, the FAR BETTER 'this' IS FOR me.

WELL CONSIDERING 'I' CAN PROVE OTHERWISE, this then MEANS that what you SAY and CLAIM IS REFUTED, right?

No, learn human language. You have to present your proof first, and it has to be valid.

BUT, 'you' SAID, and CLAIMED, in 'human language':

'Your claim about the invisible 'being part' was pretty much refuted, as are your usual claims about some universal "I".'

Unless you can prove otherwise.

In WHAT 'language' does 'this' NOT mean;
my claim about the invisible 'being part' was pretty much refuted, as are my OTHER claims about thee universal 'I',Unless you can prove otherwise.? If NOT the 'human language'?

For those who do NOT YET KNOW 'those ACTUAL words', WRITTEN by "atla", ACTUALLY MEAN, 'they' MEAN that "atla" WILL WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE that 'my claim' about there existing 'invisible being parts' WITHIN the human body WAS 'pretty much refuted', UNLESS I CAN PROVE OTHERWISE.


Now, considering the Fact that I CAN PROVE otherwise, 'this' MEANS that "atla's" CLAIM IS ACTUALLY REFUTED, COMPLETELY.

Claiming that you can prove them, doesn't mean that you actually can. You won't even deceive 5-year-olds with this.

[Age]

1. I do NOT have ANY BELIEFS here. So, this then MEANS there is absolutely NOTHING here for 'me' 'to prove'.

2. I am NOT 'evading' NOTHING AT ALL. I JUST SAID that I DEFINITELY WILL 'prove my claims about creation and evolution', AFTER 'you' PROVIDE 'us' WITH what 'my' ACTUAL CLAIMS about 'creation and evolution' ARE, EXACTLY.

Now that 'you' have NOT provided EXACTLY 'what' 'my' ACTUAL CLAIMS ABOUT 'creation and evolution' ARE, EXACTLY, BUT have, INSTEAD, CHOSEN to just QUOTE a part of the ACTUAL WORDS that I HAVE USED previously, I have CHOSEN to STILL prove my claims about creation and evolution.

ENOUGH PROOF, so far, about 'my' claims about 'creation and evolution', IS WRITTEN in that 'quoted part of mine', which 'you', "atla", have, very kindly, PROVIDED here for 'us' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Now, if absolutely ANY one thinks or BELIEVES that there is NOT 'enough proof' in that little snippet in that 'quoted part' that 'creation AND evolution' EXIST, then PLEASE do NOT HOLD BACK FROM QUESTIONING and/or CHALLENGING 'me' here.

There isn't a single sentence in your snippet that is consistent with modern physics.

A LOT of the people who DO so-called 'modern' (relative to 'your' days "atla") 'physics' think or BELIEVE that the Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING.

Which, on its OWN, SHOWS and PROVES just HOW WORTHLESS and USELESS so-called 'modern physics' REALLY WAS, BACK THEN.

The friction part was exceptionally bad.

JUST SAYING 'things', and MAKING CLAIMS, like:
There isn't a single sentence in your snippet that is consistent with modern physics.
The friction part was exceptionally bad.

IS REALLY NOT SAYING ANY 'thing' AT ALL.

There are NO examples, NO reasons WHY, absolutely NOTHING to RELATE TO, NO CORRECTION, NO EXPLANATIONS, in fact NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY.

EXPLAIN WHY the 'friction part' was, SUPPOSEDLY, 'exceptionally bad'. Do NOT just CLAIM 'it' is. EXPLAIN WHY 'it' is.

Otherwise, I could just SAY and CLAIM, like 'you' DO, 'What you SAY and CLAIM is 'exceptionally bad' "atla", OR, 'There is NOT a single sentence in what 'you' write that is consistent with the 'modern way of thinking or BELIEVING', and then just WALK AWAY, like 'you' DO "atla".

And even if we put all that aside,

LOL 'ALL 'that' asisde'. 'you' have NOT put UP ANY ACTUAL 'thing' YET "atla".

What 'you' CONTINUALLY FAIL to SEE and RECOGNIZE here is that WITHIN 'you', "atla", there is a DEEP SEEDED BELIEF that 'age' could NOT KNOW what "age" is TALKING ABOUT here. SO, 'i' am just going to NOT BELIEVE ANY 'thing' "age" SAYS, and just 'try to' DISCREDIT as much as 'i' can.

there is still no reason to think that evolution will go on.

And is this view or BELIEF of 'YOURS' consistent WITH the so-called 'modern physics' of the day when this is being written?

Or that humans were created for some reason.

Did I EVER say, here, that humans were created for some reason?

If yes, then WHERE, and WHAT did I SAY, EXACTLY?

Or that humans will continue to create.

OBVIOUSLY, as long as 'you', human beings, ARE EXISTING 'you' WILL 'create'.

What 'you' 'create', however, is NOT necessarily 'good', exactly like IN the days when this is being written.

I don't even care about the physics part,

I do NOT even KNOW what 'physics part' 'you' are ALLUDING here, let alone CARING ABOUT 'you' NOT even caring about some 'physics part'

I know you have no idea about physics, and are fully incapable of proving your fantasies.

AND, as I just SAID ABOVE, 'you' have now just PROVED IRREFUTABLY True, FOR me.

All I ask you to do is, prove that there is some creation/evolution going on with a higher purpose, and prove that it will go on.

WHY have 'you' GONE OFF on ANOTHER TANGENT and INCLUDED the 'prove' some 'thing' going on now WITH 'A HIGHER PURPOSE' part?

1. Can ANY one prove to "another" what the "other" BELIEVES are just FANTASIES?

2. I suggest 'you' LEARN how TO READ, and COMPREHEND, ONLY 'the ACTUAL WORDS' BEFORE 'you'. OBVIOUSLY IF 'you' DID, then 'you' would NOT GO OFF on SO MANY DIFFERENT, UNSPOKEN, and UNWRITTEN TANGENTS.

3. I suggest 'you' do NOT GO OFF on ANY TANGENTS, AT ALL AND, do NOT ADD ANY TANGENTS, like 'you' CLEARLY DO here.

4. SAYING 'things' like; 'I KNOW you have absolutely NO idea AT ALL about 'physics' (or absolutely ANY 'thing' else)' IS SHOWING and PROVING just how LITTLE 'you' REALLY KNOW.

5. I suggest that if 'you' WANT TO CLAIM that what "another" SAYS or CLAIMS is 'exceptionally bad' or NOT 'consistent with some OTHER 'thing', THEN you SHOW and EXPLAIN WHY. Otherwise, what 'you' ARE SHOWING and PROVING IS just how 'exceptionally bad' 'you' REALLY ARE and how 'inconsistent' 'you' REALLY ARE, in relation to 'the art of philosophy and/or of BECOMING WISER'.

[Age]

This was profoundly stupid even by your standards. Humans can't absolutely and completely refute any metaphysical claim.

What does 'metaphysical' even MEAN, or REFER TO, to 'you', "atla", EXACTLY?

But as long as you present no evidence for your invisible being claims, we can consider your claims to be refuted.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one CLAIMS absolutely ANY 'thing', up UNTIL 'they' PRESENT 'evidence'', for 'their CLAIMS, 'you', and some IMAGINED "others", can consider those claims' to be REFUTED, right?

Now, 'you' are just INVITING 'me' to PRESENT NO evidence here that there are INVISIBLE parts to the 'human being'. SEE, the LONGER 'you' CLAIM that MY CLAIM IS REFUTED, the FAR BETTER 'this' IS FOR me.

No, learn human language. You have to present your proof first, and it has to be valid.

BUT, 'you' SAID, and CLAIMED, in 'human language':

'Your claim about the invisible 'being part' was pretty much refuted, as are your usual claims about some universal "I".'

Unless you can prove otherwise.

In WHAT 'language' does 'this' NOT mean;
my claim about the invisible 'being part' was pretty much refuted, as are my OTHER claims about thee universal 'I',Unless you can prove otherwise.? If NOT the 'human language'?

For those who do NOT YET KNOW 'those ACTUAL words', WRITTEN by "atla", ACTUALLY MEAN, 'they' MEAN that "atla" WILL WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE that 'my claim' about there existing 'invisible being parts' WITHIN the human body WAS 'pretty much refuted', UNLESS I CAN PROVE OTHERWISE.


Now, considering the Fact that I CAN PROVE otherwise, 'this' MEANS that "atla's" CLAIM IS ACTUALLY REFUTED, COMPLETELY.

Claiming that you can prove them, doesn't mean that you actually can. You won't even deceive 5-year-olds with this.

And, CLAIMING or BELIEVING that I can NOT, is ONLY deceiving 'you' ALONE.

[Atla]

1. I do NOT have ANY BELIEFS here. So, this then MEANS there is absolutely NOTHING here for 'me' 'to prove'.

2. I am NOT 'evading' NOTHING AT ALL. I JUST SAID that I DEFINITELY WILL 'prove my claims about creation and evolution', AFTER 'you' PROVIDE 'us' WITH what 'my' ACTUAL CLAIMS about 'creation and evolution' ARE, EXACTLY.

Now that 'you' have NOT provided EXACTLY 'what' 'my' ACTUAL CLAIMS ABOUT 'creation and evolution' ARE, EXACTLY, BUT have, INSTEAD, CHOSEN to just QUOTE a part of the ACTUAL WORDS that I HAVE USED previously, I have CHOSEN to STILL prove my claims about creation and evolution.

ENOUGH PROOF, so far, about 'my' claims about 'creation and evolution', IS WRITTEN in that 'quoted part of mine', which 'you', "atla", have, very kindly, PROVIDED here for 'us' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Now, if absolutely ANY one thinks or BELIEVES that there is NOT 'enough proof' in that little snippet in that 'quoted part' that 'creation AND evolution' EXIST, then PLEASE do NOT HOLD BACK FROM QUESTIONING and/or CHALLENGING 'me' here.

There isn't a single sentence in your snippet that is consistent with modern physics.

A LOT of the people who DO so-called 'modern' (relative to 'your' days "atla") 'physics' think or BELIEVE that the Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING.

Which, on its OWN, SHOWS and PROVES just HOW WORTHLESS and USELESS so-called 'modern physics' REALLY WAS, BACK THEN.

The friction part was exceptionally bad.

JUST SAYING 'things', and MAKING CLAIMS, like:
There isn't a single sentence in your snippet that is consistent with modern physics.
The friction part was exceptionally bad.

IS REALLY NOT SAYING ANY 'thing' AT ALL.

There are NO examples, NO reasons WHY, absolutely NOTHING to RELATE TO, NO CORRECTION, NO EXPLANATIONS, in fact NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY.

EXPLAIN WHY the 'friction part' was, SUPPOSEDLY, 'exceptionally bad'. Do NOT just CLAIM 'it' is. EXPLAIN WHY 'it' is.

Otherwise, I could just SAY and CLAIM, like 'you' DO, 'What you SAY and CLAIM is 'exceptionally bad' "atla", OR, 'There is NOT a single sentence in what 'you' write that is consistent with the 'modern way of thinking or BELIEVING', and then just WALK AWAY, like 'you' DO "atla".

And even if we put all that aside,

LOL 'ALL 'that' asisde'. 'you' have NOT put UP ANY ACTUAL 'thing' YET "atla".

What 'you' CONTINUALLY FAIL to SEE and RECOGNIZE here is that WITHIN 'you', "atla", there is a DEEP SEEDED BELIEF that 'age' could NOT KNOW what "age" is TALKING ABOUT here. SO, 'i' am just going to NOT BELIEVE ANY 'thing' "age" SAYS, and just 'try to' DISCREDIT as much as 'i' can.

there is still no reason to think that evolution will go on.

And is this view or BELIEF of 'YOURS' consistent WITH the so-called 'modern physics' of the day when this is being written?

Or that humans were created for some reason.

Did I EVER say, here, that humans were created for some reason?

If yes, then WHERE, and WHAT did I SAY, EXACTLY?

Or that humans will continue to create.

OBVIOUSLY, as long as 'you', human beings, ARE EXISTING 'you' WILL 'create'.

What 'you' 'create', however, is NOT necessarily 'good', exactly like IN the days when this is being written.

I don't even care about the physics part,

I do NOT even KNOW what 'physics part' 'you' are ALLUDING here, let alone CARING ABOUT 'you' NOT even caring about some 'physics part'

I know you have no idea about physics, and are fully incapable of proving your fantasies.

AND, as I just SAID ABOVE, 'you' have now just PROVED IRREFUTABLY True, FOR me.

All I ask you to do is, prove that there is some creation/evolution going on with a higher purpose, and prove that it will go on.

WHY have 'you' GONE OFF on ANOTHER TANGENT and INCLUDED the 'prove' some 'thing' going on now WITH 'A HIGHER PURPOSE' part?

1. Can ANY one prove to "another" what the "other" BELIEVES are just FANTASIES?

2. I suggest 'you' LEARN how TO READ, and COMPREHEND, ONLY 'the ACTUAL WORDS' BEFORE 'you'. OBVIOUSLY IF 'you' DID, then 'you' would NOT GO OFF on SO MANY DIFFERENT, UNSPOKEN, and UNWRITTEN TANGENTS.

3. I suggest 'you' do NOT GO OFF on ANY TANGENTS, AT ALL AND, do NOT ADD ANY TANGENTS, like 'you' CLEARLY DO here.

4. SAYING 'things' like; 'I KNOW you have absolutely NO idea AT ALL about 'physics' (or absolutely ANY 'thing' else)' IS SHOWING and PROVING just how LITTLE 'you' REALLY KNOW.

5. I suggest that if 'you' WANT TO CLAIM that what "another" SAYS or CLAIMS is 'exceptionally bad' or NOT 'consistent with some OTHER 'thing', THEN you SHOW and EXPLAIN WHY. Otherwise, what 'you' ARE SHOWING and PROVING IS just how 'exceptionally bad' 'you' REALLY ARE and how 'inconsistent' 'you' REALLY ARE, in relation to 'the art of philosophy and/or of BECOMING WISER'.

After like 5 years you still haven't presented any proof. Therefore your claims have been thoroughly refuted, as everyone already knows here.

[Age]

There isn't a single sentence in your snippet that is consistent with modern physics.

A LOT of the people who DO so-called 'modern' (relative to 'your' days "atla") 'physics' think or BELIEVE that the Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING.

Which, on its OWN, SHOWS and PROVES just HOW WORTHLESS and USELESS so-called 'modern physics' REALLY WAS, BACK THEN.

The friction part was exceptionally bad.

JUST SAYING 'things', and MAKING CLAIMS, like:
There isn't a single sentence in your snippet that is consistent with modern physics.
The friction part was exceptionally bad.

IS REALLY NOT SAYING ANY 'thing' AT ALL.

There are NO examples, NO reasons WHY, absolutely NOTHING to RELATE TO, NO CORRECTION, NO EXPLANATIONS, in fact NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY.

EXPLAIN WHY the 'friction part' was, SUPPOSEDLY, 'exceptionally bad'. Do NOT just CLAIM 'it' is. EXPLAIN WHY 'it' is.

Otherwise, I could just SAY and CLAIM, like 'you' DO, 'What you SAY and CLAIM is 'exceptionally bad' "atla", OR, 'There is NOT a single sentence in what 'you' write that is consistent with the 'modern way of thinking or BELIEVING', and then just WALK AWAY, like 'you' DO "atla".

And even if we put all that aside,

LOL 'ALL 'that' asisde'. 'you' have NOT put UP ANY ACTUAL 'thing' YET "atla".

What 'you' CONTINUALLY FAIL to SEE and RECOGNIZE here is that WITHIN 'you', "atla", there is a DEEP SEEDED BELIEF that 'age' could NOT KNOW what "age" is TALKING ABOUT here. SO, 'i' am just going to NOT BELIEVE ANY 'thing' "age" SAYS, and just 'try to' DISCREDIT as much as 'i' can.

there is still no reason to think that evolution will go on.

And is this view or BELIEF of 'YOURS' consistent WITH the so-called 'modern physics' of the day when this is being written?

Or that humans were created for some reason.

Did I EVER say, here, that humans were created for some reason?

If yes, then WHERE, and WHAT did I SAY, EXACTLY?

Or that humans will continue to create.

OBVIOUSLY, as long as 'you', human beings, ARE EXISTING 'you' WILL 'create'.

What 'you' 'create', however, is NOT necessarily 'good', exactly like IN the days when this is being written.

I don't even care about the physics part,

I do NOT even KNOW what 'physics part' 'you' are ALLUDING here, let alone CARING ABOUT 'you' NOT even caring about some 'physics part'

I know you have no idea about physics, and are fully incapable of proving your fantasies.

AND, as I just SAID ABOVE, 'you' have now just PROVED IRREFUTABLY True, FOR me.

All I ask you to do is, prove that there is some creation/evolution going on with a higher purpose, and prove that it will go on.

WHY have 'you' GONE OFF on ANOTHER TANGENT and INCLUDED the 'prove' some 'thing' going on now WITH 'A HIGHER PURPOSE' part?

1. Can ANY one prove to "another" what the "other" BELIEVES are just FANTASIES?

2. I suggest 'you' LEARN how TO READ, and COMPREHEND, ONLY 'the ACTUAL WORDS' BEFORE 'you'. OBVIOUSLY IF 'you' DID, then 'you' would NOT GO OFF on SO MANY DIFFERENT, UNSPOKEN, and UNWRITTEN TANGENTS.

3. I suggest 'you' do NOT GO OFF on ANY TANGENTS, AT ALL AND, do NOT ADD ANY TANGENTS, like 'you' CLEARLY DO here.

4. SAYING 'things' like; 'I KNOW you have absolutely NO idea AT ALL about 'physics' (or absolutely ANY 'thing' else)' IS SHOWING and PROVING just how LITTLE 'you' REALLY KNOW.

5. I suggest that if 'you' WANT TO CLAIM that what "another" SAYS or CLAIMS is 'exceptionally bad' or NOT 'consistent with some OTHER 'thing', THEN you SHOW and EXPLAIN WHY. Otherwise, what 'you' ARE SHOWING and PROVING IS just how 'exceptionally bad' 'you' REALLY ARE and how 'inconsistent' 'you' REALLY ARE, in relation to 'the art of philosophy and/or of BECOMING WISER'.

After like 5 years you still haven't presented any proof.

AND, this is BECAUSE NO PROOF EXISTS for 'those' who BELIEVE OTHERWISE.

Which IS EXACTLY 'you' "atla".

Also, have 'you' PROVED 'your' CLAIMS here?

In fact, my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed, and ASKED TO 'you' have 'you' ACTUALLY even ANSWERED, in the years 'you' and 'I' have been responding?

Therefore your claims have been thoroughly refuted, as everyone already knows here.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, to 'you', just BECAUSE I have NOT presented ANY proof, 'this' then MEANS, to 'you', that 'my CLAIMS' have been THOROUGHLY REFUTED.

Which the ABSURDITY and STUPIDITY OF speaks FOR itself, and ON its OWN.

Also, to CLAIM that EVERY one KNOWS 'this' IS BEYOND ABSURDITY.

[Atla]

AND, this is BECAUSE NO PROOF EXISTS for 'those' who BELIEVE OTHERWISE.

Here you admit with your own words that you have no proof, as proof has nothing to do with belief. You are the believer here.

[Age]

AND, this is BECAUSE NO PROOF EXISTS for 'those' who BELIEVE OTHERWISE.

Here you admit with your own words that you have no proof, as proof has nothing to do with belief. You are the believer here.

LOL OKAY 'this' MUST BE TRUE, right "atla"?

Also, 'you' ARE AGAIN PROVING that 'you' are NOT READING and COMPREHENDING the ACTUAL WORDS WRITTEN and SAID NOR what IS ACTUALLY MEANT.

Which, for some one, who CLAIMS TO UNDERSTAND 'context' appears RATHER CONTRADICTORY, to say the least.

[Harbal]

Okay. But what 'consciousness' and 'Consciousness' IS, EXACTLY, is ALREADY KNOWN, in case ANY one is interested.

I'm sure a great many people are interested, and I am certainly one of them, along with the Nobel Committee, no doubt.

Please tell us.

[Atla]

AND, this is BECAUSE NO PROOF EXISTS for 'those' who BELIEVE OTHERWISE.

Here you admit with your own words that you have no proof, as proof has nothing to do with belief. You are the believer here.

LOL OKAY 'this' MUST BE TRUE, right "atla"?

Also, 'you' ARE AGAIN PROVING that 'you' are NOT READING and COMPREHENDING the ACTUAL WORDS WRITTEN and SAID NOR what IS ACTUALLY MEANT.

Which, for some one, who CLAIMS TO UNDERSTAND 'context' appears RATHER CONTRADICTORY, to say the least.

I don't think anyone here fully understands your comments. For example they mostly lack context in a way which we don't have time to learn.

Again, proof is proof, those who believe otherwise will have to change their beliefs, if they aren't stupid. That's what proofs are for.

[Atla]

Okay. But what 'consciousness' and 'Consciousness' IS, EXACTLY, is ALREADY KNOWN, in case ANY one is interested.

I'm sure a great many people are interested, and I am certainly one of them, along with the Nobel Committee, no doubt.

Please tell us.

Consciousness was actually solved ages ago, by the Eastern philosophy of nondualism. By "solved" I mean that it's the Occam's razor solution to the philosophy of mind. I think nondualism is most clearly expressed in Zen buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. Just listen to Alan Watts videos for a year, and the penny will drop eventually.

It's funny that there literally isn't a single philosophical position available in Western philosophy, that would be the same as Eastern nondualism. Not even panpsychism or neutral monism. There's always one or more made-up duality, no matter how covert, in these positions.