We have been here before

[bahman]

To know that time is a physical thing. I found this link for you: https://www.space.com/17661-theory-gene ... ivity.html

That link is just to a "theory".
ALL theories are yet to be falsified or verified true.
Therefore, I could NOT possible KNOW that 'time' is a physical thing in that link you so kindly provided for me.

Thank you anyway.

No, it is not just theory. It points to several experiments too, such as gravitational lens, gravitational wave, etc.

[surreptitious57]

When the Universe dies and if there is nothing left ONLY empty space then the CONCEPT of time will become entirely meaningless
Because there will be nothing physical left that will be able to experience it anymore since everything within it will also have died

When you say When the Universe dies ... do you say this as though it is an irrefutable fact ?

The word Universe in that sentence means local cosmic expansion and the word dies means maximum entropy
And so it could therefore be rewritten as When local cosmic expansion reaches a state of maximum entropy

Is it an irrefutable fact that this will actually happen ? There are two possible answers to this question :
Because it is a future event that has yet to happen then it cannot be a fact [ never mind an irrefutable one ] no matter how inevitable it may be

Because local cosmic expansion is only a finite phenomenon then it will definitely happen - although not for an incredibly long time that is
many orders of magnitude greater than its current age [ fourteen billion years ] which is virtually nothing relative to its potential life span

The simplest explanatory answer however that I would give to the question is this :
Current knowledge with regard to the eventual deaths of stars and black holes and proton decay and both the expansion and temperature of the Universe indicate that heat death will definitely occur at some very distant point in the future - but it will not become an actual fact till it does

[surreptitious57]

Now the only one who can clarify if this is a contradiction or not is surreptitious57 by them explaining what they meant by what they said

I think that time is not a physical thing but is simply the measurement of change that occurs with regard to motion
For it is not an actual phenomenon that has to be observed and which exists but is just a concept and nothing else

[surreptitious57]

But are forces physical things ?

If yes then time and space are obviously not physical things

I would say that force is not a physical thing in and of itself but is an effect that is exerted upon physical things
So gravitational and electrical and magnetic forces cannot be physically seen but their effects can be measured

[Age]

When the Universe dies and if there is nothing left ONLY empty space then the CONCEPT of time will become entirely meaningless
Because there will be nothing physical left that will be able to experience it anymore since everything within it will also have died

When you say When the Universe dies ... do you say this as though it is an irrefutable fact ?

The word Universe in that sentence means local cosmic expansion and the word dies means maximum entropy
And so it could therefore be rewritten as When local cosmic expansion reaches a state of maximum entropy

Is it an irrefutable fact that this will actually happen ? There are two possible answers to this question :
Because it is a future event that has yet to happen then it cannot be a fact [ never mind an irrefutable one ] no matter how inevitable it may be

Because local cosmic expansion is only a finite phenomenon then it will definitely happen - although not for an incredibly long time that is
many orders of magnitude greater than its current age [ fourteen billion years ] which is virtually nothing relative to its potential life span

The simplest explanatory answer however that I would give to the question is this :
Current knowledge with regard to the eventual deaths of stars and black holes and proton decay and both the expansion and temperature of the Universe indicate that heat death will definitely occur at some very distant point in the future - but it will not become an actual fact till it does

Yet you do have another definition for the word 'Universe', which I had forgotten, if I am correct, and that is that Universe is infinite and eternal, correct?

If this is not correct, then do you have another definition for the word 'Universe' other than local cosmic expansion?

By the way is local cosmic expansion an irrefutable fact?

[Age]

...walls of text...

Clearly as I indicated;

Objects are physical things.
Only physical things can move.

s/t=speed is a ratio which describes any such physical thing.

It is a made up ratio which has nothing to do with what is actually true, right, and correct.

Your whining and squealing is much ado about nothing.[/quote]

But you believe your whining and squealing has to do with some thing, correct?

Well this does not explain to much at all. But if that is all you got, then that is all you have got.

There is nothing to explain when it comes to primordial reciprocity. It is subject/context invariant.

If you can not explain anymore, then so be it.

I am listening, but this is also NOT saying any thing at all, to me.

No no... sound. As in: music, for example.

Yes, yes.

No.
I stand alone.
Absolutely EVERY thing is RELATIVE to the observer.
Unless you can prove otherwise.

The observer is relative to everything.

This is true in the sense that 'I' am Everything, and thus thee Observer. So, literally, Everything is relative to thee Observer.

But whether this is what 'you' were referring to or not can only be known by what you share, and explain.

Do you "believe" that your own personal, individual experience of life is somehow not reflected in the whole? Do you believe beings who can 'see' the whole, somehow can not see the degree(s) to which each being is reflected in the whole?

How many times have I told you I do not believe any thing?

Are you capable of understanding and accepting this?

How could a 'physical thing' not be physical?

That there is even such a 'thing' as a 'physical thing' is an assumption which relies on mundane sensory perceptions and apparatuses. It relates to the same problem of the tree of knowledge: "believing" a thing to be certain while being wrong, means one is eventually dead wrong. That there is anything that constitutes a 'physical thing' is one such assumption rooted in belief: it can be known that what people believe are 'physical things' are actually just configurations of motion in relation to one another.

So, do you believe there are no physical things?

It's a matter of seeing creation from the bottom-up (real sector) or top-down (ethereal sector) as any/all belief-based ignorance(s) are temporary.

Remember it is 'you', "nothing", which believes, and it is 'I', which does not believe.

Are 'atoms', to you, physical?

Also, what is motion, (or in motion) if it is not physical?

No.

Motion is the starting-point: the universe. We live in a universe of motion, hence my accolades to the poster who came to it by themselves.

Change, itself, is motion, action.

But considering you believe that atoms are not physical things, what do you believe it is that you observe in motion?

Obviously you believe there is NO physical Universe, so what is it you believe is in motion?

In case you were unaware of what contradiction I was talking about...

I was already aware of the contradiction you believed to exist.

s/t=speed

You "believed" this equation (and my use of it) does not implicitly rely on there being an object/subject to which it applies, as is the case with any such practical expression. Instead: because there is an underlying agenda to undermine for the sake of undermining, the "mind's eye" only searches for ways to accomplish this.

There is no contradiction, as was no contradiction (which you created by "believing" in). Then, you started whining and squealing:

But that is EXACTLY NOT the contradiction I was talking about. So, everything you have said here is completely irrelevant and was so completely unnecessary.

You just did what 'you', human beings, do when I say things.

etc.

Again, you are living up to that name as you really are saying nothing.

I was pointing out that you are under some sort of illusion that just because you right things like: "There is no contradiction", then that somehow makes it true. As I have SHOWN, you make up some ASSUMPTION, jump to the conclusion that YOUR ASSUMPTION is true and right, and then you, very sadly, start BELIEVING your very own ASSUMED CONCLUSIONS are actually the Truth of things.

This is highlighting my earlier point: you are 'collapsed' in on yourself "Believing" your own assumptions are that of others. It's the same as the original sin: Adam blames Eve for his own nature. Cain tills from his own soil etc. I was just pointing it out to you, but you're still collapsed going in circles spewing oink.

Are you ever going to understand that it is 'I' who does NOT believe, and it is 'you', "nothing", who believes, and is therefore 'you' who is the BELIEVER?

By the way, "What can not be falsified invariably dwells in the domain of possibly true", may in fact be thee Truth, in and of Itself. But, just as True is the fact that just about all of what you human beings think and say CAN BE Falsified or proven True, anyway. See, thee Truth of things can be recognized, SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD almost instantly, that is once you discover or learn how to do it.

Like the Mark of Cain: the accuser is the accused. Instantly recognizable.

Are you able to elaborate on what this is actually meant to mean?

Also, for example, even your BELIEF that "There is no contradiction", or, "There was a contradiction (now) resolved" statements or propositions could have been Falsified or proven True almost immediately, and still can, instead of dwelling in the domain of (the never ending) possibly true syndrome.

Mirror.

What is this in reference to exactly?

Are you saying that you do not know what I am actually talking about and referring to?

If not, then why did you write mirror?

Even just the thought of that kind of living of never knowing and being stuck in that domain sounds just so depressing and down.

See: Islam.

But you are the one who said they are stuck in it.

Are you SERIOUSLY this stupid or blind?...

...whining and squealing...

Is this all you can do here?

There is NO problem whatsoever ANYWHERE.

Are you sure?

Only the problems that 'you' make, obviously.

The DIFFERENCE between 'you' and 'I' IS, 'I' can provide evidence for ALL of MY CLAIMS, whereas 'you' have ALREADY SHOWN that you can NOT provide ANY evidence at all for your CLAIMS, which I have asked you to provide evidence for.

I'm not interested in any of your claims: the being whence they come is problematic. If this weren't true, I'd genuinely be interested in what you had to say, but have none given the fascist pig nature of 'you!' 'you!' 'you!' which, again, invariably proves itself true over and over and over again.

This says and shows a lot about 'you'.

And, seriously are you REALLY saying, "don't bother with people demanding evidence"? Have you REALLY NOT been reading what I WRITE?
I WANT 'you', people, to DEMAND evidence from ME for absolutely EVERY little or big thing I CLAIM.

I already did this: stop whining and squealing, stick to ten points or less, and drop the 'you!' 'you!' 'you!'.

You failed.

Will you prove that you have already demanded evidence, from me?

Are you full of yourself, then?

Can you not understand what that means?

It was already explained to you.

What was already explained to me. I think you have, once again, completely and utterly MISSED the point.

The usage is the same as your own 'it' viz. 'put it to work'.

Wrong.

Certainly not when you separate them.

Did you forget it was 'you' who separated them.

And, even if you left them as one, they are not things in which other things could exist (nor be) in, obviously.

Time and space are themselves not "things" and never were implied to be. The implication was/is they are inseparable.

How quick you forget, you said space and time are observable, and therefore things, which are implied to be physical.

You really do like to change your view and perception of things, as we progress in discussion.

You are also the one who separated the things, which you said were observable, but which you now say are not even physical and not even separable.

It's a stupid question(s) - what is yang? What is yin?

You firs said those words here in this thread, so what is 'yang' and what is 'yin', which it is 'you', 'nothing", that talks about them and writes about them

They are not any 'thing', thus to form a question beginning 'what' is an ignorant question.

To write about some thing, as though it is some thing, in order to 'try to' explain some thing else, but, which is really not any 'thing' at all, sounds like a really rather silly and foolish thing to do, from the beginning.

This is just more evidence and proof, which you are providing, that you really are incapable of backing up and supporting absolutely any claim you have made here.

Using words as though you are supporting your claims, but then when challenged further you reply with, "They are not any 'thing'", anyway, says more about who is truly ignorant here.

Believer vs. unbeliever

What has those two words, which is how 'you' behave, have to do with what I just wrote here?

Belief-based-ignorance and knowledge-negating-belief

This is what you have said numerous times already, but have shown you are completely incapable of explaining what it actually means and how it applies to any actual thing.

alpha/omega

Is this meant to actually mean any thing?

beginning/end

But there is NO beginning as there was NO end, to the One and only.

I can do the same, instantly, with one picture:

Are you even aware that have to be able to back up and support your claims, instead of just claiming things.

What you are doing is exactly like a believer believing some thing to be true, but not at all being able to back up and support what they say and believe in with absolutely any evidence nor proof at all.

For your information, contrary to your belief, that picture, without explanation, does NOT prove, NOR is evidence, for any thing at all, to me.

Ignorant questions.

And an absolutely ignorant answer.

A question is asked to learn and understand more. So, questions are not ignorant. But, answers, for example like yours, can surely show how ignorant one is.

Think:
Space and Time
Rhythm and Tempo
Likeness and Image
Female and Male
Eve and Adam
Magnetism and Electricity
etc.

I can think absolutely any thing, but it is 'your' answer of what is 'space' and what is 'time' that I am asking for.

I already have a view. I am trying to ascertain your view of these things, obviously.

But you appear to be completely incapable of explaining thing and elaborating on what you believe is true.

What (if anything) lies at/as the primordial reciprocity?
Some single 'thing'? 'What is space/time...' is ignorant.

This does not make sense to me.

There is unity, and...

You forgot to finish your sentence, because as it stands, to me, you are, once again, saying nothing at all.

...there is anything/everything less than.

Are you able to explain what this could actually mean?

This is why in Islam they say "Allahu Akbar!" (ie. god is greater) but catastrophically: it captures the ignorance of the admonishment of Genesis 2:17 to (and by way of) which the "believer" is succumb. That is the final "reversal" the Muslim "believer" will witness upon death: that "Allahu Akbar" is their own signed death warrant. It is by design, and can be seen/known as a designed element, designed for a purpose.

Your complete racist and hatred views shine once more.

Why does it appear you at 'least try to' explain things when it evolves "others" and your obviously hatred of and for "others". but you are completely incapable of explain other non hatred of "others" claims?

It is both: beautiful and tragic at the same time.

What is both beautiful and tragic.

All I can see here are you misguided and misinformed wrong views of "others" and their views.

If the firmament of your mind is so structured.

There is NO such thing as a 'your' "mind" existing.

If you continue to write things the way that you did and do, then obviously you believe that 'you' are better and more superior to some "others".

The assumption is on your end - you are reacting to a problem you created, but treating me as its source. It's the same as any fascist pig.

You were 'trying' so hard to make out you were more superior to "another" or "others" because you supposedly know some thing already, which they do not.

Yet you appear to have no understanding of how knowledge is obtained and collected.

NO assumption, NO problem, NO treating you as a source. Just LOOKING AT and SEEING 'you', "nothing", for who and what 'you' ARE, which, by the way, you are actually totally unaware of, YET.

I don't give it a name, I just leave it (...)

Once again, completely and utterly incapable of explaining any thing at all, when asked for.

This is just a 'paradox', that is; A seemingly contradiction, but which on further investigation expresses a truth. And, some say; 'Life is a paradox'.

Some say it, some know it. Whence any contradiction-paradox?[/quote]

Once again, this says nothing at all.

As I said; the last step in understanding is REALIZING ...

Could REALIZING be 'wisdom'?

Realizing the-two-are-one is wisdom: chokmah.
You start with understanding: binah.

But, if there is NO two, then there is ONLY One.

Is there two?

If yes, then what are those two?

binah = elohim (reciprocity of bestowal and reception)
chokmah = yhvh (unison)
kether = "I am that I am" (in-dwelling vessel for two beings to become one)

It appears that you can read "others" writings, and repeat them, but are completely incapable of explaining those writings "yourself".

Where is the wisdom in "believer vs. unbeliever"?
Where is the wisdom in their reconciliation?

These appear to be questions you are asking 'yourself" here. Are you even able to explain or answer your own questions that 'you' ask "yourself"?

You tell me?

OF COURSE through working together, and through 'logical reasoning' together, the words that create thee One True Picture of Life, exposing and expressing thee Truth of ALL-THERE-IS could be created.

But this will NEVER happen if there is a "i am right" and "you are wrong" attitude in people discussing.

You're not looking for answers, you're looking for ways to compare what you believe to know against what I claim/propose.

I do NOT believe any such thing.

I KNOW what I KNOW, and as 'you' say I am comparing if your claims are in line with and aligned with mine. They are, to some extent, but because you appear to never explain what it is that you are saying and claiming, then I can never find out what it is exactly that you are claiming and/or proposing.

Thee Truth may be we both want to explain and express the EXACT SAME thing, but if you will NOT be OPEN and Honest with me, and just answer my clarifying questions, then I nor we will ever find out.

The Canaanite "us vs. them" attitude is invariably embedded in the way you see the world. Hence the constant 'you! 'you!' 'you!'

But 'you' could NOT be any more further WRONG. If one is to LOOK over what I have written so far about "us verses them" attitudes, and discovers what I KNOW about thee 'I' and the 'you', then how WRONG 'you' are will be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD.

Also, are you aware that 'you' wrote about an "us verses them" attitude because I use the 'you' word, yet here 'you' are using the same word because 'you' are LOOKING AT and SEEING 'me' as some thing, which, by the way, could not be further from thee Truth of things.

Your constant LOOKING AT 'me' and "others" (especially in islam) has created a Truly "us" verses "them" attitude in 'you'.

All the power to you.

So, once again, you write words, I ask what do they mean, you provide absolutely nothing.

You really do live up to your username here of "nothing".

You're throwing a tantrum again believing someone else is doing what you are doing.

What is IT 'you' now BELIEVE 'I' am doing?

If you weren't such a 'you!' 'you!' 'you!' thinker you would not find division/separation where there is none,
thus attempt to insert such division where there ought to be none.

And, if 'you' were an Honest and OPEN person, then 'you' would NOT continually 'try to' turn things around from what it is that 'you' have done and 'try' and put the attention on to 'me', personally, instead.

In case you are still unaware it is 'you' who LOOKS AT the person, and NOT the writings nor behaviors.

Words are not everything - images have a likeness. If you can't follow the words properly to see the real likeness that is there, rather than an invented image that is not there (but suits your attacks against me) that is your problem, and not mine.

It is OBVIOUS, well to the readers anyway, that I am LOOKING AT your words, and what 'you' have said. Whereas, 'you' continually 'try to' LOOK AT and SEE 'me', as the "fascist pig" or some thing else.

Some say, some know, some merely believe to know. Whence accusation comes trial: is the accuser the accused? Whoever began the string of accusations stands to lose if/when 'true'. Who threw the first accusation, and regarding what, in our interaction(s)? Do you know?

I have absolutely NO know.

I KNOW what 'you' are 'trying to' say, which is: The reason WHY the "world" is in the mess it is, is because of people like 'me', and 'mohammed', which you have already judged to be wrong and evil "persons", and if every one was like 'you', then the "world" would be a much better place now.

However, 'you', unfortunately, have proven that you are NOT able to explain nor prove how this is even remotely true, let alone being even close to thee Truth of things.

They are taken to be equivalent - being ignorant includes not yet learned.

Only a Truly ignorant one would even think such a thing, let alone saying it out aloud.

They are not - they are believed to be by others. You have to start in binah before moving to chokmah.

You have to also start being Honest, that is; if you REALLY want to SEE thee actual Truth of things.

whining and squealing

This is all you appear to be able to say when the OBVIOUS Truth of what 'you' do is POINTED OUT, to 'you' and "others".

Of what?

That was meant to be 'Or'.

Sorry for the confusion.

Now, are you able to do what I asked you if you could do?

It doesn't matter what 'words' I use, you are already projecting a likeness to them that reflects your own enmity rather than anything else.

So, to you, I am projecting a likeness to the words and/or the symbols you use. Is this for ALL the words and/or symbols your use?

If no, then to which ones exactly?

Also, can you please define how 'you' use the word 'enmity' because, from my perspective, 'you' could NOT be more WRONG, even if you wanted to be.

You misunderstood the response. I don't know why you keep trying to drag 'laughter' into this.

Okay, what exactly did I misunderstand exactly in your response?

You are still whining and squealing over much ado about nothing.

Once again, when the OBVIOUS is POINTED OUT to 'you' and the readers, then the whining and squealing, literally, comes back.

No - that would be silly.

Well that is exactly what you appear to be doing.

I understand you believe this to be true.

Well you are OBVIOUSLY completely WRONG and have completely misunderstood, once again.

I understand it is because you have already been called for doing the same, thus are drawing from the same accusation.

Provide ANY examples of this, if you can. Then we have some thing to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS. Until then, once again, a claim, which is yet to be seen if it can be proven true, with actual evidence.

It is one of the reasons I do not take anything you say seriously: fascist pig.

Once again, calling some one a "fascist pig". This is a prime example of concentrating on the 'you' and calling 'them' a name.

If you take some one seriously or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on if what one is actually saying is true or not, which is the most important thing.

If even I begged you to stop with the 'you!' 'you!' 'you!', clearly, you are absolutely incapable.

If 'you' say some thing, then I will point it out. It is a part of logical reasoning.

Thus, I'd be a fool to take you seriously - you can not yourself concentrate on strictly ideas, rather than people.

You can believe whatever you want to believe. The proof is here to LOOK AT and SEE, which the readers can do if they so please.

Then who is actually concentrating on ideas, and writings, and who is concentrating on the "other", and calling them names like "fascist pig", as if that is some thing that could even be taken seriously.

With due respect, I never once said space and/or time "move" and/or are in motion. This is your own "belief" that you are fixated to (as you have been since the beginning) as it would invariably serve to undermine me. The problem is: I never said it. If you are interpreting s/t=speed as "space and time move" the problem is on your end: enmity is blinding.

You wrote; "space/time (as: speed) = observable".

If saying, "space/time (as: speed) = observable", does not mean that space/time does not move, or is not in motion, then what does it mean?

Will you explain what that means instead?

You won't be able to miss it, even if you tried.

Okay, if you say so.

This really is very secretive. Why is it so?

[Age]

Yes so true, we would NOT want you to waste your time here in this forum, especially considering you never even planned to tell us what this secret ckiit is anyway on here.

By the way, and just curious, what are you here in this forum for anyway?

The forum was used to construct some elements of ckiit: people like yourself contribute to it by allowing me to derive basic algorithms defining contentions due such things as fascist pig nature.

Lol okay.

The whiners and the squealers will be very problematic when ckiit goes live, so finding the root pathologies which begets whiney-squealey is needed.

If you like to know more about root pathologies, which begets certain behaviors, then just ask I can fill 'you' in with what they are exactly, as well as EXPLAIN in great and full detail any thing else about 'you', and 'your human behaviors', that you would like to learn and KNOW.

Your own contributions are thus appreciated.

That is great, as I have implied previously, I hope I am of great assistance to, and for, you.

Besides telling us that you are going to launch some secret thing next year and that that secret thing will have the full release on another platform, the only other thing that I have really gotten from you is that you do not like mohammed, but you do like muslim woman.

Muhammad is an idol.

And so to is ckiit an idol, to 'you', by the sounds of it.

Idols are psychological constructs, thus not real.

Okay if you say so.

Considering, to you, there is nothing that is physical, there sounds like there is absolutely nothing that is actually real, anyway.

Islam is idolatrous by way of ensconcing the conduct of a polygamous pedophile genocidal warlord and elevating it to the "highest standard" of living.

Are you aware that 'you' only exist because you have come from your family members who were, what you call, "pedophiles", "polygamous", and who your family members also elevated to the "highest standard" of living.

This elevated to the, so called, "highest standard" of living, is exactly what you are doing with your idolized ckiit. It is, after all, the "highest standard" for living, in your eyes, true?

In reality, the opposite is true: Islam is the "lowest standard" of living, and the first person that has to pay for that ignorance is the "believing" woman. CKIIT is thus dedicated to the same, and will be when live.

So, 'you', and 'you' alone, with the idolized 'ckiit' are going to save ALL islamic women from the evil clutches of islam, itself.

What about ALL the other women of the world, let alone ALL the other children or people? In your view do they not need saving or helping?

[nothing]

It is a made up ratio which has nothing to do with what is actually true, right, and correct.

It's not a ratio, it is a relationship.

But you believe your whining and squealing has to do with some thing, correct?

You're asking the wrong person - it is a question you need to ask yourself.

If you can not explain anymore, then so be it.

Believing there is anymore to explain betrays the need for primordial reciprocity to be subject/context invariant.

This is true in the sense that 'I' am Everything, and thus thee Observer. So, literally, Everything is relative to thee Observer.

But whether this is what 'you' were referring to or not can only be known by what you share, and explain.

You have it the wrong way around: "I" is nothing, with everything in relation to. Believing "I" to be "Everything" is equivalent to believing to be something one is not. In this case: anything at all.

How many times have I told you I do not believe any thing?

Are you capable of understanding and accepting this?

What you "tell me" and what is true, are opposites.
You are incapable of understanding this,
the same the reason I don't even bother to try.

So, do you believe there are no physical things?

No.

Remember it is 'you', "nothing", which believes, and it is 'I', which does not believe.

You have it backwards - fascist pig entails projecting one's own nature onto another.
It would certainly take a believer to believe their own internal state is that of another.

But considering you believe that atoms are not physical things, what do you believe it is that you observe in motion?

Obviously you believe there is NO physical Universe, so what is it you believe is in motion?

No, I do not believe there is "NO physical Universe".

But that is EXACTLY NOT the contradiction I was talking about. So, everything you have said here is completely irrelevant and was so completely unnecessary.

The contradiction you are talking about does not, neither never existed, exist except relative to yourself.
I can not address imaginary contradictions, only clarify why there never was one.

Again, you are living up to that name as you really are saying nothing.

Saying nothing is much better than believing to be "Everything" and being dead wrong.

Are you ever going to understand that it is 'I' who does NOT believe, and it is 'you', "nothing", who believes, and is therefore 'you' who is the BELIEVER?

You have it backwards.

Are you able to elaborate on what this is actually meant to mean?

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=28045

What is this in reference to exactly?

Are you saying that you do not know what I am actually talking about and referring to?

If not, then why did you write mirror?

It is what you need to look at: a mirror.

But you are the one who said they are stuck in it.

Hence: CKIIT is designed to liberate the idolators in/of.

Is this all you can do here?

You are asking the wrong person again.

Only the problems that 'you' make, obviously.

I acknowledge problems already in existence.
Denying problems exist would require belief.
The denial entails substituting the reality for a belief-based one.
Such denial is an indication of delusion which is the same as Islam.

This says and shows a lot about 'you'.

I am nothing - it would take a believer to believe otherwise.
Whereas you believe yourself to be "Everything",
I know myself to be nothing.

There difference is between belief and knowledge.
Before you try to invert: it is already predicted.

Will you prove that you have already demanded evidence, from me?

No, because I never demanded evidence from you in the first place.
As already indicated: I am not interested in what you say, knowing
you clearly insane. I only engage to further understand insane people
and upon what grounds they (believe to) stand.

It helps my work, and will help others as well.

Can you not understand what that means?

I can and do. We may disagree on what the meaning is, but again,
your perspective is not of any interest to me whatsoever.

What was already explained to me. I think you have, once again, completely and utterly MISSED the point.

You, not me.

Did you forget it was 'you' who separated them.

And, even if you left them as one, they are not things in which other things could exist (nor be) in, obviously.

I know you tend to believe only what lends itself to your complex, but
I treated them as separate in consideration for the people who believe they are separate.
This, again, was already explained, but you selectively ignore.

Space and time are not "things" period.

How quick you forget, you said space and time are observable, and therefore things, which are implied to be physical.

I did not say space and time are observable,
am unsure as to how you came to believe I did,
and not caring enough to know how.

You really do like to change your view and perception of things, as we progress in discussion.

This is not a discussion, from my end it is me studying your insanity. Results are being used to temper CKIIT.

You are also the one who separated the things, which you said were observable, but which you now say are not even physical and not even separable.

That is what happens when you polarize against people 'you!' 'you! 'you!' -
you begin only seeing what feeds the enmity in order to sustain/justify it.

You firs said those words here in this thread, so what is 'yang' and what is 'yin', which it is 'you', 'nothing", that talks about them and writes about them

The yin-yang is a symbol.

To write about some thing, as though it is some thing, in order to 'try to' explain some thing else, but, which is really not any 'thing' at all, sounds like a really rather silly and foolish thing to do, from the beginning.

Why do you do it then?

This is just more evidence and proof, which you are providing, that you really are incapable of backing up and supporting absolutely any claim you have made here.

Your projections are certainly evidence and proof of something.

[/quote]Using words as though you are supporting your claims, but then when challenged further you reply with, "They are not any 'thing'", anyway, says more about who is truly ignorant here.[/quote]

I would not ever support a claim to anyone who is, by default, incapable of confronting it.
I know that would be a waste of time.

What has those two words, which is how 'you' behave, have to do with what I just wrote here?

Islam divides the world on the basis of "believer vs. unbeliever"
and has for 1400 years - hundreds of millions are dead.
CKIIT reconciles this division which Islam perpetuates.

This is what you have said numerous times already, but have shown you are completely incapable of explaining what it actually means and how it applies to any actual thing.

Not incapable, just unwilling - especially to someone like you who is completely incapable of understanding it.

Is this meant to actually mean any thing?

In the broader context (of which you are invariably ignorant of): literally everything (and nothing).

But there is NO beginning as there was NO end, to the One and only.

Every moment is a valid beginning/end. As indicated: you will not understand.

Are you even aware that have to be able to back up and support your claims, instead of just claiming things.

It depends on the (formality of) the context.

What you are doing is exactly like a believer believing some thing to be true, but not at all being able to back up and support what they say and believe in with absolutely any evidence nor proof at all.

Who is asking for it? Nobody I know of.

For your information, contrary to your belief, that picture, without explanation, does NOT prove, NOR is evidence, for any thing at all, to me.

It was not intended to - I know not to try to prove anything to an insane person.

And an absolutely ignorant answer.

A question is asked to learn and understand more. So, questions are not ignorant. But, answers, for example like yours, can surely show how ignorant one is.

The question is only as good as the one addressing it.
Some questions are ignorant if/when the questioner is ignorant.
In this case, the question was ignorant because
the questioner is ignorant.

I can think absolutely any thing, but it is 'your' answer of what is 'space' and what is 'time' that I am asking for.

I already have a view. I am trying to ascertain your view of these things, obviously.

But you appear to be completely incapable of explaining thing and elaborating on what you believe is true.

The endeavor is inevitably tainted with your enmity and general loathing of/for humanity.
There is a difference between "incapable" and "not stupid enough to bother".

This does not make sense to me.

Sorry.

You forgot to finish your sentence, because as it stands, to me, you are, once again, saying nothing at all.

I am able to split my sentences to accord with the flow of your inquiries.
You don't take notice to this, because you focus word-by-word
searching for anything that feeds the enmity. You miss the whole
which has a strange irony to it - nonetheless, I learn from it.

Are you able to explain what this could actually mean?

Yes.

Your complete racist and hatred views shine once more.

Your accusation confirms my designation of fascist pig.

Islam is not a race - it is an ideological 'state' comprised of many races.
Islam is itself rooted in hatred viz. "us vs. them" viz. "believer vs. unbeliever".

Very substantial revealing (!).

Why does it appear you at 'least try to' explain things when it evolves "others" and your obviously hatred of and for "others". but you are completely incapable of explain other non hatred of "others" claims?

Your accusations of "hatred" confirm once again: you are a fascist pig.

If you continue to play the "hatred" card, I will continue to exploit it to no end.

What is both beautiful and tragic.

All I can see here are you misguided and misinformed wrong views of "others" and their views.

The shouting of "Allahu Akbar!" is a seal indicating one is certainly ignorant of the admonishment of Genesis 2:17,
thus any/all such individuals are certainly ignorant of any possible all-knowing god.

I thus don't care about the "views" of others unless they point towards truth - I care more about what is true and/or not true.

There is NO such thing as a 'your' "mind" existing.

If you so choose to believe.

If you continue to write things the way that you did and do,
then obviously you believe that 'you' are better and more superior to some "others".

Please do not scapegoat your own pathology onto me.

You were 'trying' so hard to make out you were more superior to "another" or "others" because you supposedly know some thing already, which they do not.

No such effort was made - if the firmament of your mind interprets it that way, the comparison is yours.

Yet you appear to have no understanding of how knowledge is obtained and collected.

I try
I test
I falsify
Truth-by-Way-of-Negation

NO assumption, NO problem, NO treating you as a source. Just LOOKING AT and SEEING 'you', "nothing", for who and what 'you' ARE, which, by the way, you are actually totally unaware of, YET.

Are you obsessed with me? If so: it is the same as idol worship. Love or hate, attachment is attachment.

Once again, completely and utterly incapable of explaining any thing at all, when asked for.

Unwilling, not incapable.

Once again, this says nothing at all.

The name says it all, remember?

But, if there is NO two, then there is ONLY One.

Is there two?

If yes, then what are those two?

alpha and omega

Trying both: TO (alpha) and NOT (omega) to BELIEVE
Testing both: TRUE/FALSE
etc.

You have to subject each belief to it's own inverse. Eg.

+A: Islam is a religion of peace.
-A: Islam is a religion of perpetual conflict.
Which is more true?

If for some reason one is incapable of doing this,
they are certainly anti-Christ.

It appears that you can read "others" writings, and repeat them, but are completely incapable of explaining those writings "yourself".

Certainly not incapable - I was not even asked to.

These appear to be questions you are asking 'yourself" here. Are you even able to explain or answer your own questions that 'you' ask "yourself"?

I was not asking myself - they were meant to inspire thought.

OF COURSE through working together, and through 'logical reasoning' together, the words that create thee One True Picture of Life, exposing and expressing thee Truth of ALL-THERE-IS could be created.

But this will NEVER happen if there is a "i am right" and "you are wrong" attitude in people discussing.

Any confusion would take a believer to believe themselves to be right if/when they are wrong.
See: Islam. The "believers" religiously do this.

I do NOT believe any such thing.

Your believing or not believing has no bearing on whether or not it exists.

I KNOW what I KNOW, and as 'you' say I am comparing if your claims are in line with and aligned with mine. They are, to some extent, but because you appear to never explain what it is that you are saying and claiming, then I can never find out what it is exactly that you are claiming and/or proposing.

Your finding out what/how I see is not in any interest of mine that you should know.

Thee Truth may be we both want to explain and express the EXACT SAME thing, but if you will NOT be OPEN and Honest with me, and just answer my clarifying questions, then I nor we will ever find out.

You are not open and honest with/about yourself - why should you expect others to be with you?
You clearly believe you are, but that is the impasse I have no patience to circumnavigate.

But 'you' could NOT be any more further WRONG. If one is to LOOK over what I have written so far about "us verses them" attitudes, and discovers what I KNOW about thee 'I' and the 'you', then how WRONG 'you' are will be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD.

I am not interested in what you believe to know.
It is what has made you upside-down such that you would conflate self with other.

Also, are you aware that 'you' wrote about an "us verses them" attitude because I use the 'you' word, yet here 'you' are using the same word because 'you' are LOOKING AT and SEEING 'me' as some thing, which, by the way, could not be further from thee Truth of things.

I don't religiously obsess over 'you' as a person as you do me. I care about ideas moreover the person making them, especially if I can not even see the person I am talking to.

Your constant LOOKING AT 'me' and "others" (especially in islam) has created a Truly "us" verses "them" attitude in 'you'.

Please stop trying to blame the division of Islam on me - I did not create the believer vs. unbeliever division, and would not develop a practical theorem that solves the "believer vs. unbeliever" conflict if I wishes for such a division to be perpetuated.

There is no "us" and "them", there is only "us" and "us" - the Muslims need to be given the truth about Islam.
What it is, what it is not.

alpha/omega

It's a shame you can not piece things together after you have ripped them apart.

So, once again, you write words, I ask what do they mean, you provide absolutely nothing.

You really do live up to your username here of "nothing".

If one is nothing,
What does one stand to lose but nothing? Moreover,
what does one stand to gain but anything and everything?

I like win-win situations. Much better than believing to be Everything and being upside-down wrong.

What is IT 'you' now BELIEVE 'I' am doing?

Projecting your own nature onto others as if belonging to them, instead of yourself.
Such a practice is precisely the nature of fascist pigs.

And, if 'you' were an Honest and OPEN person, then 'you' would NOT continually 'try to' turn things around from what it is that 'you' have done and 'try' and put the attention on to 'me', personally, instead.

This is exactly what you earlier attempted to do with me - you're drawing from your own nature.

In case you are still unaware it is 'you' who LOOKS AT the person, and NOT the writings nor behaviors.

I discard both if/when I know their limitation(s), for knowing them already. Much else to focus on.

It is OBVIOUS, well to the readers anyway, that I am LOOKING AT your words, and what 'you' have said. Whereas, 'you' continually 'try to' LOOK AT and SEE 'me', as the "fascist pig" or some thing else.

You speak for the readers?
You speak for others?
Don't fascist pigs do that?
Speak on behalf of others?

I have absolutely NO know.

Incoherent.

I KNOW what 'you' are 'trying to' say, which is: The reason WHY the "world" is in the mess it is, is because of people like 'me', and 'mohammed', which you have already judged to be wrong and evil "persons", and if every one was like 'you', then the "world" would be a much better place now.

You are dead wrong - this has nothing to do with "people". I don't worship "people" as you do (ie. yourself).

However, 'you', unfortunately, have proven that you are NOT able to explain nor prove how this is even remotely true, let alone being even close to thee Truth of things.

I can't prove something I never claimed - you are attempting to impose your own wishful imagination of what I am "trying to say".

Only a Truly ignorant one would even think such a thing, let alone saying it out aloud.

Does capitalizing words make them Definitely True?

Ignorance means one knows not.

You have to also start being Honest, that is; if you REALLY want to SEE thee actual Truth of things.

You should take your own advice here.

This is all you appear to be able to say when the OBVIOUS Truth of what 'you' do is POINTED OUT, to 'you' and "others".

I only say it when you are whining and squealing like a pig. They are related in that way only.

That was meant to be 'Or'.

Sorry for the confusion.

Now, are you able to do what I asked you if you could do?

Certainly yes, but unwilling.

So, to you, I am projecting a likeness to the words and/or the symbols you use. Is this for ALL the words and/or symbols your use?

The words/symbols are irrelevant.

Also, can you please define how 'you' use the word 'enmity' because, from my perspective, 'you' could NOT be more WRONG, even if you wanted to be.

Your perspective is not reality (thank God).

Well that is exactly what you appear to be doing.

Appearances can be deceiving, no?

Once again, calling some one a "fascist pig". This is a prime example of concentrating on the 'you' and calling 'them' a name.

Are you attempting to drag me down to your own level by accusing me of the same you are guilty of? If so, it would be interesting as it affects the finding of CKIIT.

You can believe whatever you want to believe. The proof is here to LOOK AT and SEE, which the readers can do if they so please.

I don't think they care. I've already received private correspondence not to even bother with you. The advice was sound, however I indicated I would continue as I wish to continue learning about your pathology of accusing others of what you were/are guilty of. That you would then attempt to invert and throw back my way is interesting to me, and invariably valuable for the development of CKIIT. Invariably there is an element of the Judeo-Islamic pathology of Canaanite mentality present.

If saying, "space/time (as: speed) = observable", does not mean that space/time does not move, or is not in motion, then what does it mean?

Will you explain what that means instead?

I will not, beyond it requires understanding that implicit in the relationship is a subject/object. I am not confident you can understand this.

Okay, if you say so.

This really is very secretive. Why is it so?

You're asking the wrong person (again).

[nothing]

If you like to know more about root pathologies, which begets certain behaviors, then just ask I can fill 'you' in with what they are exactly, as well as EXPLAIN in great and full detail any thing else about 'you', and 'your human behaviors', that you would like to learn and KNOW.

No, thank you.

That is great, as I have implied previously, I hope I am of great assistance to, and for, you.

Yes, thank you.

And so to is ckiit an idol, to 'you', by the sounds of it.

Lol come on now, stop trying to point fingers - it is pathetic.

CKIIT is not responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions: Muhammad's Islam is
and it would take a believer to believe otherwise.

Okay if you say so.

Considering, to you, there is nothing that is physical, there sounds like there is absolutely nothing that is actually real, anyway.

The shahada requires a necessarily false testimony and subsequent construction of a graven image in the psychology of the Muhammadan: a violation of two of ten commandments. Thus, Islam is certainly not observant to any possible monotheistic god.

Physical and real are not synonymous.

Are you aware that 'you' only exist because you have come from your family members who were, what you call, "pedophiles", "polygamous", and who your family members also elevated to the "highest standard" of living.

Are you trying to scapegoat the animal nature of Muhammad onto my family? Lol.

This elevated to the, so called, "highest standard" of living, is exactly what you are doing with your idolized ckiit. It is, after all, the "highest standard" for living, in your eyes, true?

No - CKIIT is an internal orientation system that individuals can use privately according to need. It has no need to claim anything of itself: it is designed to be infallible regardless of context: such that any/all fallibility will be drawn out of the being before CKIIT can ever be falsified, thus if/when CKIIT accomplishes what is needed, it can be discarded as no longer needed (though would still work).

You will be able to buy the book if you want to know how it works (to borrow your obnoxious emphasis).

So, 'you', and 'you' alone, with the idolized 'ckiit' are going to save ALL islamic women from the evil clutches of islam, itself.

It's not about saving Islamic women, it is simply a matter of giving the Muslims the truth: something they never once had before.

What about ALL the other women of the world, let alone ALL the other children or people? In your view do they not need saving or helping?

The scope of CKIIT is Judaism/Christianity/Islam, not others. However, the efficacy of CKIIT is not context variant - I only chose this to cue to others that CKIIT has no interest in matters outside of this context. Once "believer vs. unbeliever" is solved, CKIIT will no longer be needed.

[Age]

It is a made up ratio which has nothing to do with what is actually true, right, and correct.

It's not a ratio, it is a relationship..

Well you were the one who called it a ratio. I was just following on from what you said, and wrote.

But you believe your whining and squealing has to do with some thing, correct?

You're asking the wrong person - it is a question you need to ask yourself..

If you say so.

If you can not explain anymore, then so be it.

Believing there is anymore to explain betrays the need for primordial reciprocity to be subject/context invariant.

If you say so, but remember, it is 'you' who believes. Not 'I'.

This is true in the sense that 'I' am Everything, and thus thee Observer. So, literally, Everything is relative to thee Observer.

But whether this is what 'you' were referring to or not can only be known by what you share, and explain.

You have it the wrong way around: "I" is nothing, with everything in relation to. Believing "I" to be "Everything" is equivalent to believing to be something one is not. In this case: anything at all.

If that is what you believe is true, then it must be so, for 'you'.

You also having trouble with recall. I do not believe.

How many times have I told you I do not believe any thing?

Are you capable of understanding and accepting this?

What you "tell me" and what is true, are opposites.

Is that an actual proven fact, or just what you believe is true?

They may in fact be the same, but only because you believe they are opposite, then this could be why you are only capable of seeing some things? Do you have any actual thing, besides your own beliefs, to back up your own assumption here?

You are incapable of understanding this,
the same the reason I don't even bother to try.

But I completely understand that this is what you believe is true, and I also completely understand that you have not yet provide any actual proof this is. I also understand that the only thing you are basing this on is your very on assumptions and beliefs, and nothing else.

So, do you believe there are no physical things?

No.

Well this completely contradicts what you have previously written.

Remember it is 'you', "nothing", which believes, and it is 'I', which does not believe.

You have it backwards - fascist pig entails projecting one's own nature onto another.

So, is calling "another" a "fascist pig" a perfect example of one projecting their own nature onto "another"?

Also, and by the way, there is NO 'one's own nature', as though each individual is naturally different than any other. .

It would certainly take a believer to believe their own internal state is that of another.

Remember, 'you' are the only one believing things here.

By the way, is this continual LOOKING AT "others" and talking like you are here, how this ckiit thing works.

But considering you believe that atoms are not physical things, what do you believe it is that you observe in motion?

Obviously you believe there is NO physical Universe, so what is it you believe is in motion?

No, I do not believe there is "NO physical Universe".

Okay, thank you for clarifying this. But, I am now just not sure what to make of this, as it contradicts your previous propositions about there not be physical things.

But I may have everything you have said all completely mixed up and misconstrued.

But that is EXACTLY NOT the contradiction I was talking about. So, everything you have said here is completely irrelevant and was so completely unnecessary.

The contradiction you are talking about does not, neither never existed, exist except relative to yourself.
I can not address imaginary contradictions, only clarify why there never was one.

You obviously still have NO idea what the contradiction is that I was talking about. This is because you either believe that there was no contradiction, which is what you have believed and have insisted is true from the outset of talking about this contradiction, or, you just have absolutely no interest in finding out what the contradiction is that I have been talking about, or it is for BOTH of these reasons. I KNOW what is clearly obvious, to me.

Again, you are living up to that name as you really are saying nothing.

Saying nothing is much better than believing to be "Everything" and being dead wrong.

You still continually believing that I believe these things here SHOWS and reveals just how absolutely ignorant, oblivious, and totally ignorantto the actual Truth of things you really ARE.

Are you ever going to understand that it is 'I' who does NOT believe, and it is 'you', "nothing", who believes, and is therefore 'you' who is the BELIEVER?

You have it backwards.

Prove it. Do not just keep saying it.

Are you able to elaborate on what this is actually meant to mean?

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=28045

So, that is a resounding NO.

What is this in reference to exactly?

Are you saying that you do not know what I am actually talking about and referring to?

If not, then why did you write mirror?

It is what you need to look at: a mirror.

Okay. I looked at a mirror. What was the supposed need for that exactly?

But you are the one who said they are stuck in it.

Hence: CKIIT is designed to liberate the idolators in/of.

Okay. Not long now correct?

Is this all you can do here?

You are asking the wrong person again.

Okay. So, you do not even know this and therefore is another thing that you are completely incapable of clarifying or explaining.

Only the problems that 'you' make, obviously.

I acknowledge problems already in existence.
Denying problems exist would require belief.
The denial entails substituting the reality for a belief-based one.
Such denial is an indication of delusion which is the same as Islam.

Obviously you completely missed what I have actually and written once again. By the way, I am not sure how you keep missing what I write, it is obviously here in front of you, in black and white, clear as any thing.

I OBVIOUSLY NEVER denied problems exist. In fact I said problems exist. I said they are just of your own making?

This says and shows a lot about 'you'.

I am nothing - it would take a believer to believe otherwise.
Whereas you believe yourself to be "Everything",
I know myself to be nothing.

Okay great. Are you now able to explain EXACTLY how 'I' could actually be nothing, let alone actually be able to explain how 'I' am actually nothing really?

There difference is between belief and knowledge.

This, unlike you, I have already explained.

Before you try to invert: it is already predicted.[/quote]

Well that is another completely WRONG assumption of yours.

[

[surreptitious57]

When you say When the Universe dies ... do you say this as though it is an irrefutable fact ?

The word Universe in that sentence means local cosmic expansion and the word dies means maximum entropy
And so it could therefore be rewritten as When local cosmic expansion reaches a state of maximum entropy

Yet you do have another definition for the word Universe and that is that Universe is infinite and eternal correct ?
If this is not correct then do you have another definition for the word Universe other than local cosmic expansion ?

By the way is local cosmic expansion an irrefutable fact ?

When I use the word Universe it has one of two possible meanings which are

All that exists and has ever existed and will ever exist and so is absolutely everything both known and unknown
Local cosmic expansion which is the specific period from the Big Bang to now that is either observable or known

Local cosmic expansion is an irrefutable fact because it is happening right now

[nothing]

Well you were the one who called it a ratio. I was just following on from what you said, and wrote.

Expressed in terms of mathematics, it is a ratio. <-*descriptive
What it actually refers to: multiplicative reciprocal. <-*explanatory

You aren't following what I write, you are following what you want to see
as it serves the impetus of your own enmity and loathing.

If you say so, but remember, it is 'you' who believes. Not 'I'.

Do you know repeating something over and over does not make it true?
It is re-enforcing, but solidifies a delusion ultimately suffered by yourself.

If that is what you believe is true, then it must be so, for 'you'.

You also having trouble with recall. I do not believe.

It would take a believer to believe themselves not to believe.
You speak of Honesty, yet it is the very thing you lack.

Is that an actual proven fact, or just what you believe is true?

What is true need not be proven by anyone or anything such to make it so:
for the lunatic, there is no proof in existence to ever come to know
they are a lunatic..

They may in fact be the same, but only because you believe they are opposite, then this could be why you are only capable of seeing some things? Do you have any actual thing, besides your own beliefs, to back up your own assumption here?

The conflation of knowledge and (as) belief produces a unique signature which is
space/time theism/atheism invariant:
it tends towards inversion such that bodies are liable to be effectively orientated upside-down
due to their own belief that their own body is right-side-up. The belief is local, collapses locally,
and is a result of believing themselves to be something they are not.

CKIIT solves for the identities of the two Edenic trees viz. of Living, and of Good and Evil.
This allows one to perceive creation through the lens of an "unfallen" state such that:

the gematria of Genesis 1:1 (2701) minus three "fallen" bodies:
original Adam "I am" = 666
original Eve "I am" = 666
being "that" = 666
_______________________
=703 permuted (כמו האדם הראשון וחוה)
"(as) like the first man and Eve"

in conjunction with knowing the original sin, serves as a context-invariant "ground"
whence and with which to compare and contrast others according to the same "ground"
esp. Jews/Christians/Muslims ie. "Abrahamists". Thus, one who knows these things,
knows the "orientation" of any being according to the ground to which they themselves are bound.

The implications of this should be self-evident: those who are 'marked' shine like inverted light
but their light is darkness, and their darkness hates the light for exposing their true nature.

But I completely understand that this is what you believe is true, and I also completely understand that you have not yet provide any actual proof this is. I also understand that the only thing you are basing this on is your very on assumptions and beliefs, and nothing else.

I have nothing to prove to you - on the contrary, you prove much to me.

Well this completely contradicts what you have previously written.

What is true, is true regardless of what I or anyone else writes.

So, is calling "another" a "fascist pig" a perfect example of one projecting their own nature onto "another"?

Projection requires two elements:
i. conflation of self/other (due to: belief)
ii. enmity by way of comparison (due to the same)

I neither conflate myself with you, nor have enmity against you,
nor have any particular regard for you whatsoever. Like others,
I don't mind interaction of ideas, however I am able to discern
who is and is not a fascist pig - the underlying pathology is either
present, or not present, and carries with it a discernible 'mark'.

Also, and by the way, there is NO 'one's own nature', as though each individual is naturally different than any other.

One carries their own nature with themselves, as themselves, of themselves.

Pigs tend to whine and squeal.
Sheep tend to flock.
Goats tend to climb mountains.

Remember, 'you' are the only one believing things here.

Repetition is an effective means of indoctrination (and self-delusion)
however does not alter the reality, only the being in relation to.

By the way, is this continual LOOKING AT "others" and talking like you are here, how this ckiit thing works.

It is related to CKIIT, but certainly not CKIIT itself.

Okay, thank you for clarifying this. But, I am now just not sure what to make of this, as it contradicts your previous propositions about there not be physical things.

But I may have everything you have said all completely mixed up and misconstrued.

Belief leads to blame,
blame leads to enmity,
enmity leads to Cain.

You obviously still have NO idea what the contradiction is that I was talking about. This is because you either believe that there was no contradiction, which is what you have believed and have insisted is true from the outset of talking about this contradiction, or, you just have absolutely no interest in finding out what the contradiction is that I have been talking about, or it is for BOTH of these reasons. I KNOW what is clearly obvious, to me.

There is no contradiction to talk about, thus I have no interest in finding out what contradiction you believe to exist.
It is clearly obvious to me you are trying to holding onto something you believe can be used against me in some way.
As indicated: I don't care what contradiction you believe existed or exists.

You still continually believing that I believe these things here SHOWS and reveals just how absolutely ignorant, oblivious, and totally ignorantto the actual Truth of things you really ARE.

You till from your own soil and project your own nature.

Prove it. Do not just keep saying it.

I am - you do not know it.

So, that is a resounding NO.

The opposite is true (once again):
it is a resounding YES
as there is an entire thread about it.

Okay. I looked at a mirror. What was the supposed need for that exactly?

Clearly you did not.

Okay. So, you do not even know this and therefore is another thing that you are completely incapable of clarifying or explaining.

I know you are asking the wrong person the right question,
and I am unwilling to clarify or explain for reasons already given.

Obviously you completely missed what I have actually and written once again. By the way, I am not sure how you keep missing what I write, it is obviously here in front of you, in black and white, clear as any thing.

I already alluded to: I do not care for your perspective,
as it is egregiously distorted and re-enforced by a delusion
that I have no patience, time nor inclining to contest with.

Do you understand what negative will is? To will not?
I will not pay attention to something I already know the limitations of.

I OBVIOUSLY NEVER denied problems exist. In fact I said problems exist. I said they are just of your own making?

You trying to blame the problems of the world onto me is just a little bit sick.
The Canaanite scapegoating nature is like an illness bred into the degenerate mind.

Okay great. Are you now able to explain EXACTLY how 'I' could actually be nothing, let alone actually be able to explain how 'I' am actually nothing really?

Able, but not willing. Instead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02y_5k2O0Ew

This, unlike you, I have already explained.

You can not explain something to a person who is electing not to listen.

Well that is another completely WRONG assumption of yours.

This response is predicted (and intended to be drawn out).

[commonsense]

To me, it seems that there’s an interaction taking place between belief and reason.

I understand reason. What I don’t understand is how a believer seems to have it that belief is proof. After all, belief is based on blind faith. The stronger the belief is, the more firmly the believer holds onto a deeply trusted point of faith.

But it is exactly because belief does not depend on proof that it does not stand as proof. Anything without evidence cannot be evidence of anything. Belief requires no evidence, only faith. Because belief requires no evidence, only faith, it is treated as assumption by those who rely on reasoning or rationalism.

So how is it that believers believe they are reasonable or rationalists or thinkers?

[surreptitious57]

No one is going to believe something unless they actually think it is true . But the need to believe for some is stronger than the
need of any evidence for their belief anyway . Belief and evidence actually exist on the same spectrum albeit at opposite ends

[commonsense]

No one is going to believe something unless they actually think it is true . But the need to believe for some is stronger than the
need of any evidence for their belief anyway . Belief and evidence actually exist on the same spectrum albeit at opposite ends

The spectrum analogy is bang on. And, of course, the believer is certain that his belief is true.

Even so, I am still perplexed that a believer believes that belief is sufficient evidence of the truth of anything.