Faith and reason

[Atla]

Well this is obviously, irrefutably, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

And, let us not forget that this one is probably imagining some other False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect assumption here.

No, it is obviously true, correct.

So, to this one, you human beings have a limited imagination.

I wonder what this one absolute belief here is based upon, exactly?

It this belief solely based upon the size of the human brain, alone?

You are obviously wrong, you have no argument.

I do not need an argument for this here.

As what the Truth is, exactly, is speaking for Itself here.

And the Truth is that the mind is a part of the brain. You were challenged to prove otherwise and completely failed to no one's surprise.

[Age]

Then that will be the duty of our children.

What I meant was that at any given moment, we don't know if our assumptions are ones to move forward with or at some point in the future, we will realize we need to replace/eliminate them.

However, if you stop assuming things, then you would not have to worry about Truly insignificant things like, 'Are our assumptions ones to move forward, nor, if we will need to replace/eliminate them?'

See, so simple and easy, really.

So, we do the best we can with our assumptions and beliefs.

Only if you want to carry on having things, which you do not even know if they are true or not.

Carrying them forward until they seem necessary to replace or they continue to seem to work, be right.

Talk about a prime example of absolute insanity here,
'Let us keep carrying our assumptions forward, well at least until we discover and find out that they needed replacing anyway.'

this holds for secular and religious people, everyong. All of us making assumptions that seem to work (and some likely do work) and moving forward until they no longer seem to to us. We have many ways of avoiding noticing if they are working or not, of course.

Now here is another perfect example of how and why it took these human beings so very, very long to 'catch up'.

And that's my quasi pragmatist view of what's going on.

But exhorting everyone to prove their beliefs is true as if it would be irrational to have a belief or assumption without being able to prove it is not reasonable.

So, this one now actually believes that it is completely rational to have and hold onto a 'belief' or an 'assumption' about something being true, for example, without have absolutely no proof at all that that belief/assumption is even actually true at all.

Talk about trying to justify having a Truly twisted and distorted belief and/or assumption.

What is even more bizarre here is that some people come to a philosophy forum and expect others do not exhort them to back up and support their beliefs and claims here.

It is like they expect others to just accept what they are saying and claiming, and worse still expect others to just believe them.

None of us can prove all our assumptions.

So, if none of you human beings can, supposedly, not even prove your assumptions, then, once again, why do you even have and keep your assumptions, in the beginning?

Again, it is like these people, back in these really 'olden days', just expect everyone else to just accept and believe what they just assume to be true is actually true and to not even question nor challenge them over their assumptions here.

Which is just absolutely Truly absolutely bizarre, especially considering that this is a philosophy forum of all places.

There is an ad hoc aspect to getting by.

This one is now saying and claiming that 'assuming things' to be true, when obviously they may well not be at all, is 'a way' of just 'getting by' in Life.

Which further explains and shows why these people, back then, were so slow in 'catching up'.

Again, you can assume a premise if you want to start a proof but in the end, you have to either prove it, or it has to be evident.

One person's sense of what is evident is another person's sense of what is false. And we will always use assumptions in our analysis of our assumptions.

I didn't assume anything in OP. It would be nice of you if you could find and mention it to me so we can work around it.

You seem to think assumptions are only in the direct meaning of the words. There are implicit assumptions in the semantics of the words, in your sense that you have done correct deductive work, in your sense that language relates to reality and how it does that, in your assumption/sense that reality is intelligible, in your sense that the past directly relates to the present (iow you can make general rules about what must be through time), in your sense that you interpreted the Bible correctly and that one can do this, in your own memory of the steps you took when working this out. I am sure there are more.

We all assume things about ourselves, the universe, memory, the relationship between language and reality, our processes of reasoning, and so on.

1. you do not all assume things.

2. no matter how many of you assume things, obviously you do not have to.

And if we use those same assumptions in the process of analyzying our assumptions, it begs the question of whether the assumptions are correct since the analyzing tools and assumptions are based on the very assumptions the process is trying to analyze.

I don't mean, at all, this disproves your process. My point is that we all assume things we cannot prove. That is what it is to be alive and in situ and not somehow omniscient.

It is like this keeps arguing and thus fighting for 'to not assuming' things.

[Age]

Then that will be the duty of our children.

What I meant was that at any given moment, we don't know if our assumptions are ones to move forward with or at some point in the future, we will realize we need to replace/eliminate them. So, we do the best we can with our assumptions and beliefs. Carrying them forward until they seem necessary to replace or they continue to seem to work, be right. this holds for secular and religious people, everyong. All of us making assumptions that seem to work (and some likely do work) and moving forward until they no longer seem to to us. We have many ways of avoiding noticing if they are working or not, of course. And that's my quasi pragmatist view of what's going on.

Yes, that is how we proceed.

But exhorting everyone to prove their beliefs is true as if it would be irrational to have a belief or assumption without being able to prove it is not reasonable. None of us can prove all our assumptions. There is an ad hoc aspect to getting by.

If reality is intelligible and coherent then everything can be proven otherwise we are going to have problems with the assumptions we make.

Reality, Itself, is, really, intelligible.

one just needs to first discover, or to first learn, the how-to needed to look at, and see, things, exactly, how they are.

Which, again, is, really, a very Truly simple and easy process.

But, the 'very way' one is able to look at, and see, things, for what they, exactly, are is the 'very same way' that is needed to first learn, or first discover, the how-to needed to find and solve all of the answers, and problems, in Life.

So, until one just starts doing, again, what is, by the way, Truly 'natural' for you human beings, you will not find, nor discover, what 'it' is that you need to be doing, to find, and see, what 'it' is, that you were all once seeking and looking for here.

Again, you can assume a premise if you want to start a proof but in the end, you have to either prove it, or it has to be evident.

One person's sense of what is evident is another person's sense of what is false. And we will always use assumptions in our analysis of our assumptions.

Can you deny that you exist? Can you deny that change exists?

Absolutely any one of you adult human beings can 'deny' absolutely anything, including what you asked can be denied here. But no one can, actually, refute some things.

Like, for example, it cannot be refuted that 'I' exists, just like it cannot be refuted that 'change' exists.

However, in saying this, it does sometimes appear, and/or somewhat feel like, that it could be refuted that 'beliefs' can be changed.

I didn't assume anything in OP. It would be nice of you if you could find and mention it to me so we can work around it.

You seem to think assumptions are only in the direct meaning of the words. There are implicit assumptions in the semantics of the words,

What do you mean?

in your sense that you have done correct deductive work,

Unless otherwise is shown I have done correct deductive work.

in your sense that language relates to reality and how it does that,

Language seems functional when it comes to explaining things. If reality is intelligible and coherent then the language can explain it as well.

in your assumption/sense that reality is intelligible,

It seems so. We cannot know for sure until we find the truth or formulation that describes reality well.

in your sense that the past directly relates to the present (iow you can make general rules about what must be through time),

What do you mean?

in your sense that you interpreted the Bible correctly and that one can do this,

Yes, I interpret the Bible literally.

This is one Truly very simple and easy way to then deny some thing.

in your own memory of the steps you took when working this out.

It seems that my memory works well, otherwise we could not communicate.

Believing that one's own memory 'works well' is an example of how that one has not actually 'delved' into "its" own 'self' very much at all.

[Age]

No, it is obviously true, correct.

So, to this one, you human beings have a limited imagination.

I wonder what this one absolute belief here is based upon, exactly?

It this belief solely based upon the size of the human brain, alone?

You are obviously wrong, you have no argument.

I do not need an argument for this here.

As what the Truth is, exactly, is speaking for Itself here.

And the Truth is that the mind is a part of the brain.

Which part of the brain?

You were challenged to prove otherwise and completely failed to no one's surprise.

Really?

If yes, then where and when was 'this', exactly?

Where for example have I ever been challenged to prove that 'the mind', whatever that is, is not a part of the brain?

Also, if you, really, would now like to claim that 'the mind' is 'a part of the brain', then 'we' look forward to your explanation of 'what part' of 'the brain' is 'the mind', exactly.

Until then 'we' could wonder, 'How does the one here known as "atla" even define, and mean by, 'the mind', exactly?'

[Atla]

So, to this one, you human beings have a limited imagination.

I wonder what this one absolute belief here is based upon, exactly?

It this belief solely based upon the size of the human brain, alone?



I do not need an argument for this here.

As what the Truth is, exactly, is speaking for Itself here.

And the Truth is that the mind is a part of the brain.

Which part of the brain?

You were challenged to prove otherwise and completely failed to no one's surprise.

Really?

If yes, then where and when was 'this', exactly?

Where for example have I ever been challenged to prove that 'the mind', whatever that is, is not a part of the brain?

Also, if you, really, would now like to claim that 'the mind' is 'a part of the brain', then 'we' look forward to your explanation of 'what part' of 'the brain' is 'the mind', exactly.

Until then 'we' could wonder, 'How does the one here known as "atla" even define, and mean by, 'the mind', exactly?'

A few months ago. You even asked the same questions I think. Did medication erase your memory?

[bahman]

But that is from the second premise.

To me logically necessary only means that it exists in all possible worlds.

To you how many possible 'worlds' are there?

First I have to correct my sentence. A possible should be added.

From Wiki: A possible world is a complete and consistent way the world is or could have been.

From Oxford reference: A possible world is here considered to be a complete state of affairs or one in which every proposition under consideration has a definite truth value.

How many possible worlds are there? Who knows!? There are set causally unrelated worlds.

[bahman]

What I meant was that at any given moment, we don't know if our assumptions are ones to move forward with or at some point in the future, we will realize we need to replace/eliminate them. So, we do the best we can with our assumptions and beliefs. Carrying them forward until they seem necessary to replace or they continue to seem to work, be right. this holds for secular and religious people, everyong. All of us making assumptions that seem to work (and some likely do work) and moving forward until they no longer seem to to us. We have many ways of avoiding noticing if they are working or not, of course. And that's my quasi pragmatist view of what's going on.

Yes, that is how we proceed.

But exhorting everyone to prove their beliefs is true as if it would be irrational to have a belief or assumption without being able to prove it is not reasonable. None of us can prove all our assumptions. There is an ad hoc aspect to getting by.

If reality is intelligible and coherent then everything can be proven otherwise we are going to have problems with the assumptions we make.

Reality, Itself, is, really, intelligible.

one just needs to first discover, or to first learn, the how-to needed to look at, and see, things, exactly, how they are.

Which, again, is, really, a very Truly simple and easy process.

But, the 'very way' one is able to look at, and see, things, for what they, exactly, are is the 'very same way' that is needed to first learn, or first discover, the how-to needed to find and solve all of the answers, and problems, in Life.

So, until one just starts doing, again, what is, by the way, Truly 'natural' for you human beings, you will not find, nor discover, what 'it' is that you need to be doing, to find, and see, what 'it' is, that you were all once seeking and looking for here.

You cannot be sure unless you know the whole truth that can explain reality well.

[Iwannaplato]

If reality is intelligible and coherent then everything can be proven otherwise we are going to have problems with the assumptions we make.

1) those are assumptions: intelligible and coherent. 2) No, I don't assume we can prove everything that is true. There could be things we lack and perhaps will always lack the ability to perceive or even deduce, given limitations in our minds for conceiving of things, senses for experiencing, technology to enhance the first two in the list. And then, in the present, there may be all sorts of things we cannot prove. (and by the way, requiring proof is too much, I think. We can do proofs in math and symbolic logic, but dealing with empirical issues, we don't get proof, but we can get very strong evidence. But further at this time, and we are always at this time, there are things that are true that we cannot demonstrate well with a lot of evidence. And I see no reason to assume this won't continue to be the case. But if you can somehow prove that anything true can be proven, let's see.

Can you deny that you exist? Can you deny that change exists?

Many philosophers have argued the latter, that change exists. And if it's a block universe, well, they may well be right. As for denying that I exist, we'd have to figure out what that means, both I and exist for starters. But let's say I could deny that those two things exist...that doesn't IN ANY WAY counter the fact that we have assumptions, all of us. Even if those are good ones. I say, if. I'm not sure why you are bringing up assumptions that I did not mention.

I didn't assume anything in OP. It would be nice of you if you could find and mention it to me so we can work around it.

You seem to think assumptions are only in the direct meaning of the words. There are implicit assumptions in the semantics of the words,

What do you mean?That your sense of what the words mean, the scope of those meanings and the connection to the things they refer to (that might be worded differently depending on your ontology and philosophy of language)

in your sense that you have done correct deductive work,

Unless otherwise is shown I have done correct deductive work.

No, that's not how that works. It's not 'I am right unless someone else can prove me wrong.'

in your sense that language relates to reality and how it does that,

Language seems functional when it comes to explaining things.

The word 'seems' ought to be a hint that you are assuming things.

If reality is intelligible and coherent then the language can explain it as well.

Well there you go, a couple of ifs right from the start. And which language and which user of language? (even if you are right) And then how do you demonstrate this without language?

in your assumption/sense that reality is intelligible,

It seems so. We cannot know for sure until we find the truth or formulation that describes reality well.

Seems--->assumption.

in your sense that the past directly relates to the present (iow you can make general rules about what must be through time),

What do you mean?

Many of your conclusions are timeless. Maybe some were true, but aren't now.

in your sense that you interpreted the Bible correctly and that one can do this,

Yes, I interpret the Bible literally.

1) there's a real question about whether there is a hard line between literal and metaphorical. Our sense of the world is very metaphorical, given that we interpret via primate brains with particular senses and adapted the motor cortex when creating language. But beyond that, it doesn't matter if you interpret it literally, your sense that your interpretation is correct is potentially false. You are assuming things about language, your abilities, your memory of whatever steps in the process via which you arrived at your interpretation and so on.

in your own memory of the steps you took when working this out.

It seems that my memory works well, otherwise we could not communicate.

Seems again.

We make assumptions or we received assumptions when we were born and we work with them. All of us. We can't prove they are all true, because in fact we would have to use those assumptions to justify whatever processes we would use to demonstrate our assumptions are true.

[Age]

And the Truth is that the mind is a part of the brain.

Which part of the brain?

You were challenged to prove otherwise and completely failed to no one's surprise.

Really?

If yes, then where and when was 'this', exactly?

Where for example have I ever been challenged to prove that 'the mind', whatever that is, is not a part of the brain?

Also, if you, really, would now like to claim that 'the mind' is 'a part of the brain', then 'we' look forward to your explanation of 'what part' of 'the brain' is 'the mind', exactly.

Until then 'we' could wonder, 'How does the one here known as "atla" even define, and mean by, 'the mind', exactly?'

A few months ago. You even asked the same questions I think. Did medication erase your memory?

See, here is another example of when these people are asked to provide 'things', exactly, they make up things to try to detract or deflect.

This one claims that I was challenged to prove some 'thing', but when challenged on 'what' and 'where' that 'thing' is supposed to be, exactly, instead of just providing the 'actual clarity', it claims more 'things', which if asked to provide clarity for, would, obviously, not do this either. As could be very easily and simply proved irrefutably True, again.

That is; if one could even be bothered to, again.

[Atla]

Which part of the brain?



Really?

If yes, then where and when was 'this', exactly?

Where for example have I ever been challenged to prove that 'the mind', whatever that is, is not a part of the brain?

Also, if you, really, would now like to claim that 'the mind' is 'a part of the brain', then 'we' look forward to your explanation of 'what part' of 'the brain' is 'the mind', exactly.

Until then 'we' could wonder, 'How does the one here known as "atla" even define, and mean by, 'the mind', exactly?'

A few months ago. You even asked the same questions I think. Did medication erase your memory?

See, here is another example of when these people are asked to provide 'things', exactly, they make up things to try to detract or deflect.

This one claims that I was challenged to prove some 'thing', but when challenged on 'what' and 'where' that 'thing' is supposed to be, exactly, instead of just providing the 'actual clarity', it claims more 'things', which if asked to provide clarity for, would, obviously, not do this either. As could be very easily and simply proved irrefutably True, again.

That is; if one could even be bothered to, again.

When was roughly the first time you saw the nick "Atla"? Don't look it up just say what you remember.

[Iwannaplato]

Here's what you did: you restated opinions you have stated time after time
Here's what you didn't do: actually engage with my posts. You did not engage with any of the assumptions I had pointed out were implicit in Bahman's conclusions. You did not demonstrate how to prove those assumptions.

You did not in any way show how you reached all the conclusions about me and the universe in your post without assuming anything. Most of the assumptions I pointed out are implicit in your post also. But you made no effort to work with that in any way.

So, you used my post as an excuse to use a number of pejoratives and make abstract statements.

So, you are still, at the time this is being written, just making noises and restating his positions.

All ego.

[Age]

To me logically necessary only means that it exists in all possible worlds.

To you how many possible 'worlds' are there?

First I have to correct my sentence. A possible should be added.

So, just 'one possible world' right?

If yes, or if no, then how many 'possible words' are there, to you?

From Wiki: A possible world is a complete and consistent way the world is or could have been.[/quote]

Maybe if 'we' start with you explaining what the words 'the world' means and/or is referring to, to you, exactly, first?

Then 'we' could look at how it is an impossibility, or not, for there to be any other 'world' than the one and only one existing 'now'.

From Oxford reference: A possible world is here considered to be a complete state of affairs or one in which every proposition under consideration has a definite truth value.

I do not know what this means. Do you?

if yes, then will you explain or elaborate here?

If no, then why not?

How many possible worlds are there?

This all depends on what the word 'world' means and/or refers to, exactly?

See, for example, 'the world' that you adult human beings are 'creating' here could be in another way, if you adults just changed 'your ways'. Or, 'the world' could refer to the Universe, Itself, and every and all things under consideration, for example. Of which, obviously, there could not possibly any 'other world'.

Who knows!? There are set causally unrelated worlds.

How do you know that there are so-called 'set causally unrelated worlds'?

[Age]

Yes, that is how we proceed.


If reality is intelligible and coherent then everything can be proven otherwise we are going to have problems with the assumptions we make.

Reality, Itself, is, really, intelligible.

one just needs to first discover, or to first learn, the how-to needed to look at, and see, things, exactly, how they are.

Which, again, is, really, a very Truly simple and easy process.

But, the 'very way' one is able to look at, and see, things, for what they, exactly, are is the 'very same way' that is needed to first learn, or first discover, the how-to needed to find and solve all of the answers, and problems, in Life.

So, until one just starts doing, again, what is, by the way, Truly 'natural' for you human beings, you will not find, nor discover, what 'it' is that you need to be doing, to find, and see, what 'it' is, that you were all once seeking and looking for here.

You cannot be sure unless you know the whole truth that can explain reality well.

But I already know, the so-called 'whole truth', which can and does explain 'Reality', really, well, and really very simply and easily, as well.

[Age]

If reality is intelligible and coherent then everything can be proven otherwise we are going to have problems with the assumptions we make.

1) those are assumptions: intelligible and coherent.

Of course they are assumptions. This can be clearly seen and proved True by the use of the 'if' word there.

2) No, I don't assume we can prove everything that is true.

But, as 'we' all here already know, if you do not yet know that 'we' can prove everything that is true, then you are assuming you 'we' can, right?

And, if you do not assume, nor know, 'we' can prove everything that is true, then what are you doing here with 'this claim'?

There could be things we lack and perhaps will always lack the ability to perceive or even deduce, given limitations in our minds for conceiving of things, senses for experiencing, technology to enhance the first two in the list.

Here was another one who thought or believed that 'it' had "its" own 'mind', and that "its" own 'mind' was limited, in some way.

There is, and was, no wonder why these people, back then, could not just 'move forward, and along'.

And then, in the present, there may be all sorts of things we cannot prove.

And, there may well be many sorts of things that 'we' can prove, correct?

(and by the way, requiring proof is too much, I think. We can do proofs in math and symbolic logic, but dealing with empirical issues, we don't get proof, but we can get very strong evidence.

So, the heat of the sun interacting with the senses of 'that human body' is not 'proof' that the sun may well be fairly warm, but instead the sensations felt directly on 'that human body', from the sun, is just either very weak, or very strong, 'evidence', only, or anywhere in between, that the sun may well be fairly warm, relative to the usual surroundings of what 'that body' usually exists within.

But further at this time, and we are always at this time, there are things that are true that we cannot demonstrate well with a lot of evidence.

So, in 'those times', then how do you know, for sure, that 'those things' are actually true, exactly?

And I see no reason to assume this won't continue to be the case. But if you can somehow prove that anything true can be proven, let's see.

So, this one now appears to presume or believe that things that are said and/or claimed to be true, but 'they', in 'those times' cannot demonstrate so-called 'well with a lot of evidence', while also claiming that dealing with empirical issues or things, that 'they' also do not get proof.

I now wonder if this believes that 'we' are always at 'this time' is true, or not?

For surely when these writings are being written 'we' are not always at 'this time' when 'we' are reading these writings.

Oh, and by the way, you human beings at 'any time' in the future, or in the past, or in 'the pre-sent', to you human beings when this is being written, you can never, really, demonstrate, irrefutably, some thing with just 'evidence' along. you can only, really, demonstrate, irrefutably, with actual 'proof' alone.

Can you deny that you exist? Can you deny that change exists?

Many philosophers have argued the latter, that change exists. And if it's a block universe, well, they may well be right.

There is only One Universe, and which could not be in any other way, at any given 'time', by the way, and which is always in a state of constant-change.

As for denying that I exist, we'd have to figure out what that means, both I and exist for starters.

Well obviously in the days when this was being written you human beings had not yet figured out who nor what the 'I' means, exactly. But, surely even 'you' "iwannoplato" had already figured out what 'exist' means, by 'now', right?

But let's say I could deny that those two things exist...that doesn't IN ANY WAY counter the fact that we have assumptions, all of us.

And, that you human beings having assumptions, does not IN ANY WAY counter that you do not have to have assumptions.

Even if those are good ones. I say, if. I'm not sure why you are bringing up assumptions that I did not mention.

I didn't assume anything in OP. It would be nice of you if you could find and mention it to me so we can work around it.

You seem to think assumptions are only in the direct meaning of the words. There are implicit assumptions in the semantics of the words,

What do you mean?That your sense of what the words mean, the scope of those meanings and the connection to the things they refer to (that might be worded differently depending on your ontology and philosophy of language)

in your sense that you have done correct deductive work,

Unless otherwise is shown I have done correct deductive work.

No, that's not how that works. It's not 'I am right unless someone else can prove me wrong.'

in your sense that language relates to reality and how it does that,

Language seems functional when it comes to explaining things.

The word 'seems' ought to be a hint that you are assuming things.

Not necessarily so at all.

For example, you 'seems' to be doing something, could well be an irrefutable Fact.

But, in the context "bahman" used that word, then that 'seems' word is obviously an assumption, right "bahman"?

If reality is intelligible and coherent then the language can explain it as well.

Well there you go, a couple of ifs right from the start. And which language and which user of language? (even if you are right) And then how do you demonstrate this without language?

in your assumption/sense that reality is intelligible,

It seems so. We cannot know for sure until we find the truth or formulation that describes reality well.

Seems--->assumption.

in your sense that the past directly relates to the present (iow you can make general rules about what must be through time),

What do you mean?

Many of your conclusions are timeless. Maybe some were true, but aren't now.

But are 'we' not always at 'this time', 'now'?

in your sense that you interpreted the Bible correctly and that one can do this,

Yes, I interpret the Bible literally.

1) there's a real question about whether there is a hard line between literal and metaphorical. Our sense of the world is very metaphorical, given that we interpret via primate brains with particular senses and adapted the motor cortex when creating language. [/quote]

And here we have the very reason why these people, back then, were so slow and why it took them so long to just 'catch up'.

But beyond that, it doesn't matter if you interpret it literally, your sense that your interpretation is correct is potentially false. You are assuming things about language, your abilities, your memory of whatever steps in the process via which you arrived at your interpretation and so on.

And, as long as you human beings keep assuming and/or believing things, then you will keep being prevented from moving along and up the evolutionary ladder of Life, Itself.

in your own memory of the steps you took when working this out.

It seems that my memory works well, otherwise we could not communicate.

Seems again.

We make assumptions or we received assumptions when we were born and we work with them. All of us.[/quote]

Here 'we' can see just how strong some believes and assumptions can be.

See, if those these human beings, back then, knew, deep down, that their own assumptions and beliefs could well be absolutely False or Wrong, they would still not let go of some of their assumptions and beliefs and so would keep presenting them as though they were absolutely True and Correct.

This one 'now' even appears to 'currently' believe, absolutely, that at birth absolutely every one makes, or receives assumptions (whatever this means), and that every one works with those made, or received, assumptions at birth.

I would like to see some examples of these, presumed and/or believed, assumptions which are made or received at birth, and which every one works with.

We can't prove they are all true, because in fact we would have to use those assumptions to justify whatever processes we would use to demonstrate our assumptions are true.

So, once again, why do you adult human beings persist with believing that you have to assume things, and thus keep having Truly unnecessary assumptions?

[Age]

A few months ago. You even asked the same questions I think. Did medication erase your memory?

See, here is another example of when these people are asked to provide 'things', exactly, they make up things to try to detract or deflect.

This one claims that I was challenged to prove some 'thing', but when challenged on 'what' and 'where' that 'thing' is supposed to be, exactly, instead of just providing the 'actual clarity', it claims more 'things', which if asked to provide clarity for, would, obviously, not do this either. As could be very easily and simply proved irrefutably True, again.

That is; if one could even be bothered to, again.

When was roughly the first time you saw the nick "Atla"? Don't look it up just say what you remember.

I am not asking you to just remember some thing 'out of the blue', as some might say here.

Look, you made the claim;
You were challenged to prove otherwise and completely failed to no one's surprise

Now, I will, once again, suggest that if absolutely anyone comes to a philosophy forum and wants to claim things, then it would, for them, best if they had actual proof of 'their claim' before they express 'their claim' in an open forum.

And, as I have already expressed previously, that way they would not come across as being so Wrong, so often.

Exactly like you are again here "atla"