Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

[Age]

The solution, and thus resolution, to this 'ISSUE' has been MY MAIN MESSAGE throughout this forum.

But, in the days of when this is being written, has ANY 'one' of 'you' even SEEN 'this MESSAGE' YET, let alone be able to SAY EXACTLY what 'it' IS?

If ANY 'one' of you can, then you NOW HAVE what is necessary in order to gain True understanding.

You haven't communicated any message yet that makes sense.

Here is the PERFECT and PRIME EXAMPLE of just how SIGNIFICANT my message IS, which can be CLEARLY SEEN when read properly and correctly, but is COMPLETELY LOST by most if not all adult human beings in the days of when this is being written.

Sadly and unfortunately because of the Truly amazing capabilities of the human brain it can all to easily and all to quickly learn 'things', which then are actually detrimental to itself. In other words the human brain is able to obtain knowledge all to to simply, which it then uses to fool and deceive its own self.

By the way, you FORGOT to add the words, 'to you' at the end of YOUR CLAIM. Or, do you really BELIEVE that you can or are speaking for EVERY one?

You babble about being open and asking clarifying questions, but many people are already doing that, everyone knows that being open and asking clarifying questions doesn't solve most disagreements.

So, to 'you', 'I' "babble" about BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. You make it sound like there is something WRONG about BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, or that BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS would NEVER WORK in gaining understanding of each other, "yourselves".

You ALSO 'try to' make the CLAIM that "many people" are already BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. Have you EVER considered that these alleged "many people" are ACTUALLY NOT being Truly OPEN and/or are NOT asking ENOUGH CLARIFYING QUESTIONS?

Also, there are only 'disagreements' IF 'one' is NOT LOOKING AT, and so is NOT SEEING, thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

EVERY, so called, "disagreement" can be VERY EASILY SOLVED, almost instantaneously. But this can only be PROVEN to be True IF and WHEN you bring some so called "disagreements" out in the OPEN for 'us' to LOOK AT and SEE. Just making CLAIMS without providing ANY examples is NOT helping your cause here.

Nor does it lead to special knowledge about 'God' or 'Reality'.

LOL "atla" you speak as though you have even 'tried it'.

You "atla" have not even done it YET.

I suggest just trying 'it' BEFORE you make CLAIMS about 'it'.

Only someone who is severely mentally retarded/disordered could possibly believe that.

There is a WHOLE LOT of Truth in what you say here. That is: IF ANY wants to LOOK AT and DISCUSS this PROPERLY and CORRECTLY.

Remember it is 'I' who does NOT 'believe' ANY thing. And, as I KEEP pointing out, it is only 'you', adult human beings, who 'believe' things. And it is this BELIEF that is STOPPING 'you', adult human beings, from ACTUALLY SEEING and KNOWING what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS.

For example, 'you', "atla", BELIEVE that BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS will NEVER work in gaining understanding and in sorting out disagreements. Which to 'us' NOW is a completely and utterly mentally retarded AND disordered way to LOOK AT and SEE things.

Because the message has been COMPLETELY LOST on 'you', "atla". I will REPEAT it for you ONCE MORE. While you BELIEVE some thing, then you, OBVIOUSLY, are NOT 'BEING OPEN'.

Even the MOST SIMPLEST of messages can be MISSED and do get LOST by those who are FOOLING and DECEIVING "themselves". Even when it is WRITTEN PLAINLY and CLEARLY in FRONT OF THEM. As EVIDENCED and PROVEN, once again, here.

To PROVE this EVEN FURTHER, I will now ask "atla" what does the word 'God' refer to and actually mean, what does the word 'Reality' actually mean, and what do the words 'special knowledge' in their own sentence actually mean, to them.

What will become CLEARLY SEEN is their INABILITY and COMPLETE FAILURE.

This INABILITY and COMPLETE FAILURE is due to the FACT that they ARE deceiving and fooling their OWN 'self'. Which is due to the one and very SIMPLE FACT that they BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS will NEVER lead to discovering and learning more nor anew knowledge about 'God' or 'Reality', themselves.

I will leave "atla's" response, or non response, to BACK UP and SUPPORT what I say AND CLAIM here.

You "atla", after all, have been PROVING to be a PRIME TEST SUBJECT in PROVING my CLAIMS about how the Mind ACTUALLY the brain ACTUALLY works and just how quickly, simply, and easily the human brain can FOOL and DECEIVE itself, 'you'. So thank you "atla". Please carry on EXACTLY how 'you' have been here.

[Age]

You haven't communicated any message yet that makes sense.

If my VERY SIMPLE message in this thread about how the one who made the opening post can NOT prove that there was an 'origin' and could NOT prove that their CLAIM that Everything/Something came from Absolutely Nothing does NOT make sense, to 'you', then okay.

Also, if my VERY SIMPLE message in this forum about how if one Truly WANTS to gain True understanding of "another", then ALL they REALLY NEED to do is just ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS from a Truly OPEN perspective does NOT make sense, to 'you', then okay.

And, if my other VERY SIMPLE message in this forum about how if one Truly WANTS to just discover and/or learn what thee ACTUAL Truths in Life ARE, then all they REALLY NEED to do is just be Honest, OPEN, and seriously Want to change, for the better also does NOT make sense, to 'you', then this is okay as well.

HOW and WHY these Truly VERY SIMPLE MESSAGES do NOT make sense, to 'you', is ALREADY KNOWN and ALREADY WELL UNDERSTOOD, by 'me'. This is DIRECTLY related AND because of just how thee Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK. Both in UNISON, or in OPPOSITION, of each other, as the case may be.

[Atla]

TYPICAL, this 'lying' thing is the 'only' thing that you can say and talk about. YET, you can NEVER provide ANY evidence for. I, however, have THEE evidence that I NEVER lied. But, the burden of proof is NOT on 'me' but rather is ON 'you'.

Also, being only able to accuse me of lying PROVES that there is NOT one actual thing in what I say that you can counter.

By the way, I have NOT 'lied' anywhere in my writings, which can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN True, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what 'you' can do.

You are so FEARFUL of providing ANY actual examples of where I have SUPPOSEDLY 'lied', because of what this would ACTUALLY PROVE, this has made you, here, a completely INCAPABLE human being.

Now provide the examples of where you BELIEVE I have 'lied', or just continue on with your OWN ILLUSION here.

Accusing "others" of 'lying' but NEVER providing ANY actual 'thing' is just PROOF of YOUR INABILITIES.

Now let 'us' SEE 'you' PUT UP, at least ONCE, or 'you' KNOW what to do.

You already got caught in the lie, now you're merely lying about lying about lying and pretend it's the other person.

You have made a CLAIM "atla". But when pressed to present ANY thing to support that CLAIM you have FAILED COMPLETELY. As PROVEN and SHOWN above.

I HAVE NOT LIED. As PROVEN and SHOWN above.

Just ADMIT it, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can counter in what I say, EXCEPT TO SAY; "You lied", which OBVIOUSLY have FAILED to YET PROVE. But we still WAIT to SEE if you CAN.

You wrote about how people should do what you say, for reunification to happen, and now you keep lying about it. Of course the readers have known for years that you are dishonest, so nothing new.

[Atla]

Here is the PERFECT and PRIME EXAMPLE of just how SIGNIFICANT my message IS, which can be CLEARLY SEEN when read properly and correctly, but is COMPLETELY LOST by most if not all adult human beings in the days of when this is being written.

Sadly and unfortunately because of the Truly amazing capabilities of the human brain it can all to easily and all to quickly learn 'things', which then are actually detrimental to itself. In other words the human brain is able to obtain knowledge all to to simply, which it then uses to fool and deceive its own self.

By the way, you FORGOT to add the words, 'to you' at the end of YOUR CLAIM. Or, do you really BELIEVE that you can or are speaking for EVERY one?

Yes, you haven't gotten your 'message' across to anyone on this forum. That's not because people are stupid, it's because you have no valid message.

LOL "atla" you speak as though you have even 'tried it'.

You "atla" have not even done it YET.

I suggest just trying 'it' BEFORE you make CLAIMS about 'it'.

Of course I have tried it multiple times, many people try such things, I already told you this. Don't make wrong assumptions about me / don't lie about me.

So, to 'you', 'I' "babble" about BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. You make it sound like there is something WRONG about BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, or that BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS would NEVER WORK in gaining understanding of each other, "yourselves".

You ALSO 'try to' make the CLAIM that "many people" are already BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. Have you EVER considered that these alleged "many people" are ACTUALLY NOT being Truly OPEN and/or are NOT asking ENOUGH CLARIFYING QUESTIONS?

Also, there are only 'disagreements' IF 'one' is NOT LOOKING AT, and so is NOT SEEING, thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

EVERY, so called, "disagreement" can be VERY EASILY SOLVED, almost instantaneously. But this can only be PROVEN to be True IF and WHEN you bring some so called "disagreements" out in the OPEN for 'us' to LOOK AT and SEE. Just making CLAIMS without providing ANY examples is NOT helping your cause here.

There is a WHOLE LOT of Truth in what you say here. That is: IF ANY wants to LOOK AT and DISCUSS this PROPERLY and CORRECTLY.

Remember it is 'I' who does NOT 'believe' ANY thing. And, as I KEEP pointing out, it is only 'you', adult human beings, who 'believe' things. And it is this BELIEF that is STOPPING 'you', adult human beings, from ACTUALLY SEEING and KNOWING what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS.

For example, 'you', "atla", BELIEVE that BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS will NEVER work in gaining understanding and in sorting out disagreements. Which to 'us' NOW is a completely and utterly mentally retarded AND disordered way to LOOK AT and SEE things.

Because the message has been COMPLETELY LOST on 'you', "atla". I will REPEAT it for you ONCE MORE. While you BELIEVE some thing, then you, OBVIOUSLY, are NOT 'BEING OPEN'.

Even the MOST SIMPLEST of messages can be MISSED and do get LOST by those who are FOOLING and DECEIVING "themselves". Even when it is WRITTEN PLAINLY and CLEARLY in FRONT OF THEM. As EVIDENCED and PROVEN, once again, here.

To PROVE this EVEN FURTHER, I will now ask "atla" what does the word 'God' refer to and actually mean, what does the word 'Reality' actually mean, and what do the words 'special knowledge' in their own sentence actually mean, to them.

What will become CLEARLY SEEN is their INABILITY and COMPLETE FAILURE.

This INABILITY and COMPLETE FAILURE is due to the FACT that they ARE deceiving and fooling their OWN 'self'. Which is due to the one and very SIMPLE FACT that they BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS will NEVER lead to discovering and learning more nor anew knowledge about 'God' or 'Reality', themselves.

I will leave "atla's" response, or non response, to BACK UP and SUPPORT what I say AND CLAIM here.

You "atla", after all, have been PROVING to be a PRIME TEST SUBJECT in PROVING my CLAIMS about how the Mind ACTUALLY the brain ACTUALLY works and just how quickly, simply, and easily the human brain can FOOL and DECEIVE itself, 'you'. So thank you "atla". Please carry on EXACTLY how 'you' have been here.

If my VERY SIMPLE message in this thread about how the one who made the opening post can NOT prove that there was an 'origin' and could NOT prove that their CLAIM that Everything/Something came from Absolutely Nothing does NOT make sense, to 'you', then okay.

Also, if my VERY SIMPLE message in this forum about how if one Truly WANTS to gain True understanding of "another", then ALL they REALLY NEED to do is just ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS from a Truly OPEN perspective does NOT make sense, to 'you', then okay.

And, if my other VERY SIMPLE message in this forum about how if one Truly WANTS to just discover and/or learn what thee ACTUAL Truths in Life ARE, then all they REALLY NEED to do is just be Honest, OPEN, and seriously Want to change, for the better also does NOT make sense, to 'you', then this is okay as well.

HOW and WHY these Truly VERY SIMPLE MESSAGES do NOT make sense, to 'you', is ALREADY KNOWN and ALREADY WELL UNDERSTOOD, by 'me'. This is DIRECTLY related AND because of just how thee Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK. Both in UNISON, or in OPPOSITION, of each other, as the case may be.

See, it's an unbelievably simple fact of life, that while being open and asking clarifying questions does usually lead to a better understanding of "another", it cannot lead to perfect understanding, because you can't 100% transmit your thoughts in language, and everyone thinks differently, so they may not be able to understand certain things that you are able to understand and vica versa. But most importantly, people usually disagree about many things, even if they understand just fine what the other person means.

It's a fact, not a belief, that someone who doesn't understand these things about disagreements, can be seen as severly mentally retarded/disordered. Your ability to read others seems to be that of 2 years old's. You are merely deceiving yourself by believeing that this is a belief of others, and that you are proving something here other than your own wrong belief.

[Age]

You already got caught in the lie, now you're merely lying about lying about lying and pretend it's the other person.

You have made a CLAIM "atla". But when pressed to present ANY thing to support that CLAIM you have FAILED COMPLETELY. As PROVEN and SHOWN above.

I HAVE NOT LIED. As PROVEN and SHOWN above.

Just ADMIT it, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can counter in what I say, EXCEPT TO SAY; "You lied", which OBVIOUSLY have FAILED to YET PROVE. But we still WAIT to SEE if you CAN.

You wrote about how people should do what you say, for reunification to happen, and now you keep lying about it.

I keep SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY "lying" about 'what' EXACTLY? What does the 'it' refer to in your statement here?

If the 'it' here refers to 'reunification' to happen, then WHERE and WHEN have I SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY "lied".

If you have the courage to, then just provide 'that' what you BELIEVE I have "lied" EXACTLY. Until you do, there is NOTHING for 'us' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Also, I NEVER wrote about what people "should" do, as though it is some thing about what I WANT people to do. As I keep STATING 'you', and ANY one else, is COMPLETELY FREE to do ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that they like. But, what I wrote about was; IF ANY one Truly WANTS some particular thing, which I have discussed, then I suggest that they do a particular thing, that is just be OPEN. The "should" is ONLY in relation to IF THEY Truly WANT some 'thing'. It is NOT a "should" in relation to what I WANT.

Of course the readers have known for years that you are dishonest, so nothing new.

Name ONE reader besides 'you', "atla", and then I can ask that person WHERE EXACTLY I have SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY "lied", because you OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of providing ABSOLUTELY ANY thing at all here.

LOOK "atla" what can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN is you wrote and CLAIMED:

So you wrote about reunification, and then lied that you didn't wite about any reunification.

Now, either SHOW 'us', readers, WHERE, EXACTLY, I have SUPPOSEDLY "lied" and WHAT, EXACTLY, I have "lied" and thus what led you to this TOTALLY and OBVIOUSLY absurd AND ridiculous CLAIM here, or just ACCEPT you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL, except for you OWN distorted BELIEFS.

And, ONCE AGAIN, you have FALLEN one of the oldest fallacies, that is; What you SEE and BELIEVE is true you BELIEVE applies to EVERY one else as well.

Your NEW CLAIM here is just as ABSURD and as RIDICULOUS as your other CLAIM here. As can be just SO EASILY and SO SIMPLY PROVEN to be ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY True.

[Atla]

You have made a CLAIM "atla". But when pressed to present ANY thing to support that CLAIM you have FAILED COMPLETELY. As PROVEN and SHOWN above.

I HAVE NOT LIED. As PROVEN and SHOWN above.

Just ADMIT it, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can counter in what I say, EXCEPT TO SAY; "You lied", which OBVIOUSLY have FAILED to YET PROVE. But we still WAIT to SEE if you CAN.

You wrote about how people should do what you say, for reunification to happen, and now you keep lying about it.

I keep SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY "lying" about 'what' EXACTLY? What does the 'it' refer to in your statement here?

If the 'it' here refers to 'reunification' to happen, then WHERE and WHEN have I SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY "lied".

If you have the courage to, then just provide 'that' what you BELIEVE I have "lied" EXACTLY. Until you do, there is NOTHING for 'us' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Also, I NEVER wrote about what people "should" do, as though it is some thing about what I WANT people to do. As I keep STATING 'you', and ANY one else, is COMPLETELY FREE to do ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that they like. But, what I wrote about was; IF ANY one Truly WANTS some particular thing, which I have discussed, then I suggest that they do a particular thing, that is just be OPEN. The "should" is ONLY in relation to IF THEY Truly WANT some 'thing'. It is NOT a "should" in relation to what I WANT.

Of course the readers have known for years that you are dishonest, so nothing new.

Name ONE reader besides 'you', "atla", and then I can ask that person WHERE EXACTLY I have SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY "lied", because you OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of providing ABSOLUTELY ANY thing at all here.

LOOK "atla" what can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN is you wrote and CLAIMED:

So you wrote about reunification, and then lied that you didn't wite about any reunification.

Now, either SHOW 'us', readers, WHERE, EXACTLY, I have SUPPOSEDLY "lied" and WHAT, EXACTLY, I have "lied" and thus what led you to this TOTALLY and OBVIOUSLY absurd AND ridiculous CLAIM here, or just ACCEPT you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL, except for you OWN distorted BELIEFS.

And, ONCE AGAIN, you have FALLEN one of the oldest fallacies, that is; What you SEE and BELIEVE is true you BELIEVE applies to EVERY one else as well.

Your NEW CLAIM here is just as ABSURD and as RIDICULOUS as your other CLAIM here. As can be just SO EASILY and SO SIMPLY PROVEN to be ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY True.

you wrote:

See, IF, and when, 'you', adult human beings START DOING what I SUGGEST, then the VERY OPPOSITE of what you CLAIM here is what WILL HAPPEN and OCCUR. That is; Unity, or better still, and better worded, REUNIFICATION WILL BEGIN.

[Age]

Here is the PERFECT and PRIME EXAMPLE of just how SIGNIFICANT my message IS, which can be CLEARLY SEEN when read properly and correctly, but is COMPLETELY LOST by most if not all adult human beings in the days of when this is being written.

Sadly and unfortunately because of the Truly amazing capabilities of the human brain it can all to easily and all to quickly learn 'things', which then are actually detrimental to itself. In other words the human brain is able to obtain knowledge all to to simply, which it then uses to fool and deceive its own self.

By the way, you FORGOT to add the words, 'to you' at the end of YOUR CLAIM. Or, do you really BELIEVE that you can or are speaking for EVERY one?

Yes, you haven't gotten your 'message' across to anyone on this forum.

I have NOT got 'what' MESSAGE across to ABSOLUTELY ANY one on this forum?

Also, if, as you just CLAIMED here, that; you are ABLE to KNOW and SPEAK FOR EVERY one, then let us talk about some one who is ACTUALLY BELIEVING that they are thee One, just like God, Itself. You, "atla", are SHOWING SIGNS that you ACTUALLY BELIEVE such a thing here.

That's not because people are stupid, it's because you have no valid message.[/quote]

Whether the message is 'valid or not' can only be determined AFTER what the ACTUALLY message IS KNOWN.

Remember you do NOT KNOW what the ACTUAL message IS YET.

LOL "atla" you speak as though you have even 'tried it'.

You "atla" have not even done it YET.

I suggest just trying 'it' BEFORE you make CLAIMS about 'it'.

Of course I have tried it multiple times, many people try such things, I already told you this. Don't make wrong assumptions about me / don't lie about me.[/quote]

But I have NOT made ANY assumptions about 'you' here, NOR have I lied about 'you' here.

You OBVIOUSLY have NOT 'tried' being Truly OPEN at all. If you were, then you could CLEARLY SEE just how SIMPLE and EASY it IS to Truly understand "another", by just being Truly OPEN.

So, to 'you', 'I' "babble" about BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. You make it sound like there is something WRONG about BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, or that BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS would NEVER WORK in gaining understanding of each other, "yourselves".

You ALSO 'try to' make the CLAIM that "many people" are already BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. Have you EVER considered that these alleged "many people" are ACTUALLY NOT being Truly OPEN and/or are NOT asking ENOUGH CLARIFYING QUESTIONS?

Also, there are only 'disagreements' IF 'one' is NOT LOOKING AT, and so is NOT SEEING, thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

EVERY, so called, "disagreement" can be VERY EASILY SOLVED, almost instantaneously. But this can only be PROVEN to be True IF and WHEN you bring some so called "disagreements" out in the OPEN for 'us' to LOOK AT and SEE. Just making CLAIMS without providing ANY examples is NOT helping your cause here.

There is a WHOLE LOT of Truth in what you say here. That is: IF ANY wants to LOOK AT and DISCUSS this PROPERLY and CORRECTLY.

Remember it is 'I' who does NOT 'believe' ANY thing. And, as I KEEP pointing out, it is only 'you', adult human beings, who 'believe' things. And it is this BELIEF that is STOPPING 'you', adult human beings, from ACTUALLY SEEING and KNOWING what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS.

For example, 'you', "atla", BELIEVE that BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS will NEVER work in gaining understanding and in sorting out disagreements. Which to 'us' NOW is a completely and utterly mentally retarded AND disordered way to LOOK AT and SEE things.

Because the message has been COMPLETELY LOST on 'you', "atla". I will REPEAT it for you ONCE MORE. While you BELIEVE some thing, then you, OBVIOUSLY, are NOT 'BEING OPEN'.

Even the MOST SIMPLEST of messages can be MISSED and do get LOST by those who are FOOLING and DECEIVING "themselves". Even when it is WRITTEN PLAINLY and CLEARLY in FRONT OF THEM. As EVIDENCED and PROVEN, once again, here.

To PROVE this EVEN FURTHER, I will now ask "atla" what does the word 'God' refer to and actually mean, what does the word 'Reality' actually mean, and what do the words 'special knowledge' in their own sentence actually mean, to them.

What will become CLEARLY SEEN is their INABILITY and COMPLETE FAILURE.

This INABILITY and COMPLETE FAILURE is due to the FACT that they ARE deceiving and fooling their OWN 'self'. Which is due to the one and very SIMPLE FACT that they BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS will NEVER lead to discovering and learning more nor anew knowledge about 'God' or 'Reality', themselves.

I will leave "atla's" response, or non response, to BACK UP and SUPPORT what I say AND CLAIM here.

You "atla", after all, have been PROVING to be a PRIME TEST SUBJECT in PROVING my CLAIMS about how the Mind ACTUALLY the brain ACTUALLY works and just how quickly, simply, and easily the human brain can FOOL and DECEIVE itself, 'you'. So thank you "atla". Please carry on EXACTLY how 'you' have been here.

If my VERY SIMPLE message in this thread about how the one who made the opening post can NOT prove that there was an 'origin' and could NOT prove that their CLAIM that Everything/Something came from Absolutely Nothing does NOT make sense, to 'you', then okay.

Also, if my VERY SIMPLE message in this forum about how if one Truly WANTS to gain True understanding of "another", then ALL they REALLY NEED to do is just ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS from a Truly OPEN perspective does NOT make sense, to 'you', then okay.

And, if my other VERY SIMPLE message in this forum about how if one Truly WANTS to just discover and/or learn what thee ACTUAL Truths in Life ARE, then all they REALLY NEED to do is just be Honest, OPEN, and seriously Want to change, for the better also does NOT make sense, to 'you', then this is okay as well.

HOW and WHY these Truly VERY SIMPLE MESSAGES do NOT make sense, to 'you', is ALREADY KNOWN and ALREADY WELL UNDERSTOOD, by 'me'. This is DIRECTLY related AND because of just how thee Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK. Both in UNISON, or in OPPOSITION, of each other, as the case may be.

See, it's an unbelievably simple fact of life, that while being open and asking clarifying questions does usually lead to a better understanding of "another", it cannot lead to perfect understanding, because you can't 100% transmit your thoughts in language, and everyone thinks differently, so they may not be able to understand certain things that you are able to understand and vica versa.

Firstly, and LOL, WHY did you bring the 'perfect' word into this, now? The Honest and Truthful ANSWER is OBVIOUS.

Second, so we BOTH AGREE that a better understanding is gained from just BEING OPEN and ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, and that this is just a SIMPLE FACT of Life.

Third, what do you mean by " 'perfect' understanding"?

Fourth, if you can NOT 100% transmit your thoughts in language, then what other means do you transfer those thoughts, besides language?

Fifth, OBVIOUSLY, EVERY one thinks DIFFERENTLY. This is just PURE OBVIOUS, correct?

Six, IF 'you' or 'they' were Truly BEING OPEN and you were Truly CURIOUS to Truly understand "another", then you WOULD be asking ALL the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS 'needed' until 'you' Truly did FULLY understand the "other".

Seven, what do you CLAIM is some CERTAIN 'thing' that "another" would NOT be able to Truly understand about 'you'?

I 100% guarantee I could Truly understand EVERY thing about 'you', "atla". That is, of course, OBVIOUSLY only if you were being Truly Honest and OPEN.

But most importantly, people usually disagree about many things, even if they understand just fine what the other person means.

WHY is 'you' people disagreeing, supposedly, "most important".

OF COURSE, ALL adult human beings, in the days of when this is being written, disagree among themselves. This can be CLEARLY OBSERVED.

Also, understanding what another person 'means' has absolutely NOTHING to do with Truly understanding the "other", them 'self.

It's a fact, not a belief, that someone who doesn't understand these things about disagreements, can be seen as severly mentally retarded/disordered.

Who are 'you', "atla", proposing does NOT understand "these things" about 'disagreements'?

Your ability to read others seems to be that of 2 years old's.

Okay.

You are FREE to express YOUR VIEWS. And, the MORE YOU DO, then that is Truly PERFECTLY FINE and OKAY with 'me'.

You are merely deceiving yourself by believeing that this is a belief of others,

But I was NOT and am NOT BELIEVING ANY such thing.

In fact, I had NEVER even thought such a thing, that is; until you wrote what you have here.

By the way, I do NOT even KNOW what this "this" is, which YOU wrote here about 'it' "is a belief of others".

Will 'you' CLARIFY'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

and that you are proving something here other than your own wrong belief.

What is 'it', which you CLAIM I 'proving'?

And, what is "my own belief", which you CLAIM is 'wrong'?

[Age]

You wrote about how people should do what you say, for reunification to happen, and now you keep lying about it.

I keep SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY "lying" about 'what' EXACTLY? What does the 'it' refer to in your statement here?

If the 'it' here refers to 'reunification' to happen, then WHERE and WHEN have I SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY "lied".

If you have the courage to, then just provide 'that' what you BELIEVE I have "lied" EXACTLY. Until you do, there is NOTHING for 'us' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Also, I NEVER wrote about what people "should" do, as though it is some thing about what I WANT people to do. As I keep STATING 'you', and ANY one else, is COMPLETELY FREE to do ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that they like. But, what I wrote about was; IF ANY one Truly WANTS some particular thing, which I have discussed, then I suggest that they do a particular thing, that is just be OPEN. The "should" is ONLY in relation to IF THEY Truly WANT some 'thing'. It is NOT a "should" in relation to what I WANT.

Of course the readers have known for years that you are dishonest, so nothing new.

Name ONE reader besides 'you', "atla", and then I can ask that person WHERE EXACTLY I have SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY "lied", because you OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of providing ABSOLUTELY ANY thing at all here.

LOOK "atla" what can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN is you wrote and CLAIMED:

So you wrote about reunification, and then lied that you didn't wite about any reunification.

Now, either SHOW 'us', readers, WHERE, EXACTLY, I have SUPPOSEDLY "lied" and WHAT, EXACTLY, I have "lied" and thus what led you to this TOTALLY and OBVIOUSLY absurd AND ridiculous CLAIM here, or just ACCEPT you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL, except for you OWN distorted BELIEFS.

And, ONCE AGAIN, you have FALLEN one of the oldest fallacies, that is; What you SEE and BELIEVE is true you BELIEVE applies to EVERY one else as well.

Your NEW CLAIM here is just as ABSURD and as RIDICULOUS as your other CLAIM here. As can be just SO EASILY and SO SIMPLY PROVEN to be ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY True.

you wrote:

See, IF, and when, 'you', adult human beings START DOING what I SUGGEST, then the VERY OPPOSITE of what you CLAIM here is what WILL HAPPEN and OCCUR. That is; Unity, or better still, and better worded, REUNIFICATION WILL BEGIN.

Yes this is one of those times when you are RIGHT. That is; I did write this.

And what can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN now is that I have NOT 'lied'.

[Atla]

Six, IF 'you' or 'they' were Truly BEING OPEN and you were Truly CURIOUS to Truly understand "another", then you WOULD be asking ALL the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS 'needed' until 'you' Truly did FULLY understand the "other".

...

I 100% guarantee I could Truly understand EVERY thing about 'you', "atla". That is, of course, OBVIOUSLY only if you were being Truly Honest and OPEN.

As I explained, that's what a 2-year-old might think, or an adult with severe mental retardation/disorder (and megalomania). The truth is that you don't know how humans work, and you don't even know how you work. Your 'message' is delusional nonsense.

[Age]

Six, IF 'you' or 'they' were Truly BEING OPEN and you were Truly CURIOUS to Truly understand "another", then you WOULD be asking ALL the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS 'needed' until 'you' Truly did FULLY understand the "other".

...

I 100% guarantee I could Truly understand EVERY thing about 'you', "atla". That is, of course, OBVIOUSLY only if you were being Truly Honest and OPEN.

As I explained, that's what a 2-year-old might think, or an adult with severe mental retardation/disorder (and megalomania).

But I ALREADY KNOW this.

And, the ONLY WAY you could PROVE 'me' WRONG is by 'you' continuing to REMAIN CLOSED and DISHONEST like you have continually been so far.

See, who AND what 'you' Truly ARE is ALREADY KNOWN, by 'me'. And the difference between the 'I' and the 'you' is 'you' are NOT YET CAPABLE of EXPLAINING who AND what the 'you' IS, EXACTLY.

The truth is that you don't know how humans work, and you don't even know how you work.

This is just YOUR VIEW and CLAIM, which based solely upon your OWN ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Also, are you 100% SURE that your CLAIM here is True?

Your 'message' is delusional nonsense.

'What message'?

Have you REALLY forgotten what you STATED and CLAIMED here previously?

Also, notice how this 'one' NEVER actually provides AN actual example of what I have, supposedly, said, and then NEVER explains WHY 'that' is false or wrong. They just state that "I am delusional" or that "I have lied".

[Atla]

Six, IF 'you' or 'they' were Truly BEING OPEN and you were Truly CURIOUS to Truly understand "another", then you WOULD be asking ALL the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS 'needed' until 'you' Truly did FULLY understand the "other".

...

I 100% guarantee I could Truly understand EVERY thing about 'you', "atla". That is, of course, OBVIOUSLY only if you were being Truly Honest and OPEN.

As I explained, that's what a 2-year-old might think, or an adult with severe mental retardation/disorder (and megalomania).

But I ALREADY KNOW this.

And, the ONLY WAY you could PROVE 'me' WRONG is by 'you' continuing to REMAIN CLOSED and DISHONEST like you have continually been so far.

See, who AND what 'you' Truly ARE is ALREADY KNOWN, by 'me'. And the difference between the 'I' and the 'you' is 'you' are NOT YET CAPABLE of EXPLAINING who AND what the 'you' IS, EXACTLY.

The truth is that you don't know how humans work, and you don't even know how you work.

This is just YOUR VIEW and CLAIM, which based solely upon your OWN ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Also, are you 100% SURE that your CLAIM here is True?

Your 'message' is delusional nonsense.

'What message'?

Have you REALLY forgotten what you STATED and CLAIMED here previously?

Also, notice how this 'one' NEVER actually provides AN actual example of what I have, supposedly, said, and then NEVER explains WHY 'that' is false or wrong. They just state that "I am delusional" or that "I have lied".

Ask 100 people and at least 98 will tell you that no matter how open everyone is, there are people they can't understand. They also know better than you what the 'you' is, they know that the 'you' isn't the problem here. So what you 'already know' is a delusion.

People don't try to prove this to you because almost everyone learns this in early childhood, and just assumes that there's no way you don't know this. People don't just assume straight away that your brain isn't working, first they assume that you're normal.

[Scott Mayers]

....

I just spent 2 hours typing a response and it got lost because my session timed out.

Fuck it.

That's frustrating. I discovered that you CAN keep it active by checking the box when you sign in to stay signed in. It took me a long time to notice this. Just formally sign out if you don't want your browser to keep it open in the background or clear the cookies at the time at the end of your session.

[Scott Mayers]

This does NOT, and I will repeat, DOES NOT 'show' ANY such thing. And, this is just PURE ILLUSION to think or believe that 'that' is SHOWN by 'thought alone' .... 'pure reasoning'. You are just SEEING 'that' what is NOT THERE.

IF you REALLY want to 'show' EXACTLY HOW, supposedly, 'Something CAN come from Absolutely Nothing', then just SHOW, logically and/or empirically, just how Absolutely ANY thing CAN come from Absolutely Nothing.

What you have ACTUALLY DONE is just TWIST and DISTORT words in a way, which makes you think or believe "shows" what it is that you ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

Logic is itself inferred from experience or it would have no use. Thus it is 'empirically' determined THAT logic exists as a reality, not some artificial construct to us. From the perspective of Totality, logical generalizations are a subset of patterned worlds. That is, they begin with the nature of patterns as existing where they do, and any 'logic' is then itself an induced 'pattern' about patterns itself.

The 'mechanisms' of nature (physics) are identical to some universal patterns that define some general logic about space, time, matter, and energy. So the Nature of our particular universe itself has to have some coinciding set of patterns that can are uniform and what defines the 'laws of physics'. But whether people CAN determine the "reasoning of Nature", we can be sure that there IS a 'reason'.

I DID show how you can find meaning to Totality if you begin from literally nothing. I don't believe in Gods and so as an athiest, I reason that any reality has to be founded on 'absolutely nothing' or 'absolutely everything AND nothing'. Both extremes point to 'nothing' as existing regardless. The only other set of possibilities are "special" finite atomic elements and laws that together describe only PARTICULAR worlds. This CAN be the case in our world but if so, it begs why one particular SELECT SET (ie, "special set") would be the ONLY reality regarding Totality. There has to be more than this Universe or we require asking why we are so 'special'.

Now religions are just inferences by people's emotive interpretation of something assumed 'special' to our reality based precisely on the belief that Absolutely Anything could not occur due to Absolutely Nothing. Thus, they give a finite SPECIAL name to Totality based on what they figured is 'ideally' FAIR, that has a 'special' reason for our particular existence rather some other. This 'fairness' to them is where the popular foundation of today's major religions assign a 'special VALUE' of "goodness" to Totality. And "God" is this meaning AT LEAST in common to those interpreting our Universe as Absolutely Unique.

I expanded on the point of 'special' here in the way some might assume the 'logic' of some particular game with rules represent a unique set of rules and unique LIMITED outcomes. These are the basic reasons that I first recognized that I have to broaden the class of all things to Totality as the label that encompasses ALL 'special' subset possibilities or many worlds, to which would permit CLOSURE when collectively defining Totality WITHOUT "SPECIAL" status assumed. Note how you do not like 'assuming'? To NOT assume anything is identical to presuming nothing 'special' as some prior root of any existence. This also works if you assume absolutely nothing FALSE to Absolutely Anything. So what has to be CERTAIN is that at least Absolutely Nothing exists.

Ignore the term, 'origin', as this only keeps reminding you or others that TIME itself has meaning for Absolutely Nothing. If time is apriori assumed, then it assures that this concept, whatever it could mean, would contain Absolutely Nothing and why you cannot interpret this as being able to exist in absence of Absolutely Something.

The point here is that Totality HAS to have some genetic foundation, of which 'origin' or 'genesis' are not applicable in meaning except as a type of ultimate dependency in absolutely nothing, not ANYTHING nor EVERYTHING.

Totality, from our perspective inside it, then is defaulted as an Absolute Something to us only because we are 'products' of something and cannot deny our own place in it. However, we cannot impose upon what Totality might be by demanding OURS has to be specially infinite nor finite because 'finite' concepts also beg boundaries exist. [Note that in an infinite sea of things, there is ALWAYS something 'finite' within it, thus begging that something finite is foundational. This would beg that there is no such thing as "nothing" with MORE bias to ASSUMING 'space' along with 'time' as apriori.

So ....

LOOK, it is REALLY SIMPLE to SEE what is ACTUALLY going on here.

Your (0) 'Nothing exists absolutely', is ABSOLUTELY True. But this is just because the Universe, the way that It ACTUALLY ALWAYS IS, could NOT exist in any OTHER way. 'Nothing' DOES exist absolutely (or absolutely exists) BUT ONLY in 'places' BETWEEN physical things. This is just IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

Your (1) 'But if 'Nothing exists absolutely' is 'true', then that is ONE thing. This is a fact', is ALSO ABSOLUTELY True. But this is just because 'nothing' (or no thing) is, literally, just SOME (or ONE) thing. Obviously, 'nothing' FITS under the label of something. The word 'some' is literally defined as ONE 'thing' or ANY number of 'things' up to but NOT including ALL 'things' in ANY group of 'things'. So, 'nothing', itself, FITS in PERFECTLY under the label of Everything AND with the group known as Something. Nothing, itself, is something.

Your (2) "Since (1) is a fact, then it too has to be added and we have (3) facts," and your (3)Since (2) is a fact, .... although is PARTLY true the part about "has to be added" is just NOT true AT ALL.

You ONLY 'add' them together because you think or believe that doing so would help back up and support your already held beliefs. But, sadly AND unfortunately for you, doing that does NOT back up NOR support your currently held BELIEFS.

And Absolutely Nothing you have said, so far, could conclude that Absolutely Nothing exists as an 'origin'. To think or believe so is just a COMPLETE ILLUSION.

WHY 'you' want to BELIEVE, and INSIST, that IF there was an 'origin', then it would be Absolutely Nothing, is of your OWN making. But just because you BELIEVE this, this DOES NOT make 'it' Absolutely True.

What you have 'tried to' argue here is just a FALLACY. Your "reasoning" is faulty AND you have made 'wrong moves' in the attempt of making a sound and valid argument. As I have SHOWN and PROVEN your "argument" is invalid AND unsound.

...you appear to treat 'nothing' as NOT ABLE to be 'absolute' in principle. But if this is true in principle, then there is at least ONE thing, namely 'nothing', that CANNOT be real and thus NEGATE that it is also impossible that Absolutely Everything is true. That is, you are left to 'assume' that something SPECIAL is true of Totality. You'd also have to recognize that this 'special' concept would not be able to be Absolutely ONE because it would be no different than trying to describe all things using only one thing without 'nothing' nor any OTHER finite concept. This means you DENY any of these Absolutes (of Nothing, Something, and Everything) as having meaning and thus, Totality, itself could not be permitted to be 'defined' at all. This places Totality into the class of 'special' beings that is of SOME thing greater than one and less than infinity (or the 'continuity' of infinity inifinites). That is, you assume a FINITE ETERNAL BEING to reality as a whole. This would require a SPECIAL status, like a 'god' or 'gods', or a 'force' that always existed [StarWars-like] or some SPECIAL SET of things that is itself IRREDUCIBLLY COMPLEX!

This is why I was motivated to argue here. The process I used is indifferent to how Set theories define mathematical and logical thought based on only the 'empty set'. It defines 'order' as just the way various kinds of complex sets can be derived (ie, 'originating' or 'being caused by') the empty set in abstraction.

The process I used above presumes that even the abstractions themselves are real because they just represent the collection of ALL PARTICULAR possibilities that have a common form. This is the nature of listing things as 'facts' under the PRETENSE of Absolutely Nothing as postulated in the first fact I labeled, "(0) Absolutely Nothing exists".

The words REFER to the reality and the pattern I used by recognizing each 'law' as having a count of 'one fact', is recognizing the abstraction, form, or absolutes as real. Thus my logic (the process, not the particular argument) is sound of reasoning itself, AND valid. What you disagree with is to the PARTICULAR argument's use of (0) as a fact. THIS then just means that YOU, and not I, believe that Absolutely Nothing is itself NOT POSSIBLE with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY! So I can reverse the question back to you to ask HOW you inferred this without some SPECIAL BIAS?

PROOF complete for my intent so far.

NOT at all. The only thing PROVEN here is that you will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to 'try to' back up and support your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.

And, I will remind you that what you are 'intending' and 'trying' to do and achieve here will NEVER WORK.

Thus, your last sentence here asserts just the nature of your bias. You also CLOSE the door to allow anything that I could possibly say as PERMANENTLY UNABLE to prove to you anything different regardless of how much I could argue with you, correct?

And it works also for the religious if they wouldn't taboo questioning God as subject to be a subset of Totality as I defined it. [But I'm guessing it won't be welcome in general politically because it is "nihilistic" logically and scares people for what it implies as though it steals away all civilized functioning.]

Besides being scientifically, or 'empirically', IMPOSSIBLE for ANY thing to come from NO thing it is ALSO, 'logically' IMPOSSIBLE.

You may as well be religious, then. Science is not the arbitor of absolute truth because it is only dependent upon the observers' perspective and is 'special' to the biases of human activity. Induction without perfect consistent agreement of 100% is NEVER able to be MORE valid nor sound to the mechanisms of physics themselves, let alone to all possible worlds. So you are being double biased if you assume that science can ever POSSIBLY PROVE that anything PARTICULAR is IMPOSSIBLE with respect to the whole. It is 'tentative' and even in its methods assert that they can only speak on things that CAN in principle be 'falsifiable'. You are implying that you can DEDUCE that Absolutely Nothing is impossible with absolute closure (certainty) when science only INDUCES from patterns and measures things which CAN be 'falsifiable'.

You are left to argue something logical here that is NOT dependent upon science. You need an argument to demonstrate how it is impossible for Totality itself to be meaningful as defined or that it is somehow 'special' without resorting to anything religious or based upon some other bias.

Are you at least flexible to change your mind or are you sticking to your assertion that I am not POSSIBLY ABLE to prove anything? If so, we have to stop arguing. I heard you, and I'll have to accept your difference knowing that you'd NEVER possibly agree regardless of my efforts.

[Scott Mayers]

This shows how Something CAN come from Absolutely Nothing by our independent perspective of thought alone....pure reasoning.

Note Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is one whole argument demonstrating whatever proximate and ultimate that is concluded from Pure Reason is illusory, thus an illusion.
The two proximates illusions are TOTALITY, the soul and the ultimate illusion is GOD.

Thus from Kant's perspective, your theory [re TOTALITY] merely conclude with an illusion, i.e. not real - note 'what is real' below.

It either suggests you as not understanding or imposing some insanity on me deceptively for not getting that what is real is somehow equivalent to what is not real.

To Kant and my own view,
what is real is empirically possible and can be verified and justified within a credible framework and system of reality or knowledge [FSK].
The standard bearer of reality [truth, knowledge] is the scientific FSK, thus no other verification of reality can be more realistic than science.
If you disagree, then what FSK can represent reality more realistically than science [with its limitations]

I only care about your view MINUS speaking for Kant because I find some of your interpretations of his off to mine on merely what you quote and how you defy the general meaning behind 'transcendental idealism' and the other terms about philosophical classifications.

You are very confused about the interpretation of Kant and have your own view independent of either the 'realist' or the 'antirealist' philosophically.

If you have not studied Kant thoroughly, any judgment of your related to Kant is not credible.

Then stop raising him as an 'authority' over YOUR opinion and capacity to argue INDEPENDENT of his words. I've got his "Critique of Pure Reason" and you may give me a reason to finally read it. But it is not going to be relevant to argue second-hand interpretations when I'm not discussing "philosophers literature" here. If you are confident to the validity and soundness of what you interpret as sensible through him, you can reargue it using ONLY your own words.

Using terms that I cannot define myself creates trouble because terms like 'anti-realist' suggests someone is literally being 'unreal' or anti-real' and means colloqually, 'delusional'.

You need to get some bearings with Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism.

'Realists' and Realism is just a label by some philosophers who promptly initiated and unilaterally claimed 'what is reality' is independent of human conceptions. It does not mean what they [Philosophical Realists] claim as reality is realistic.

Those who oppose the above views of "what is reality" i.e. reality is not independent of human conceptions, are thus logically and conveniently labelled as 'Philosophical anti-realist'.

Thus you cannot take the terms Philosophical Realism and Philosophical anti-Realism literally but rather must be aware of the origin [etymology] of the terms.

Wikipedia: Transcendental Idealism wrote: Transcendental idealism is a doctrine founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century.
Kant's doctrine is found throughout his Critique of Pure Reason (1781).
Kant describes time and space as "empirically real" but transcendentally ideal.

This to me is absurdly unclear and appears as some post-hoc self-reflected recognition of something he noticed is contradicting in what he wrote in retrospect of failure to COMPLETELY CLOSE his views. What the hell does "transcendentally ideal" even mean?

Note again, Kant's book, is The Critique of Pure Reason, it is very severe and almost a condemnation of Pure Reason, which you are relying upon. [albeit Kant conceded there is one good use for it in another different perspective but not for reality sake].

You noted Kant is a Transcendental Idealist, but note at the same time Kant is also an Empirical Realist.

The Transcendental Idealist is, therefore, an Empirical Realist, and allows to Matter, as Appearance, a Reality which does not permit of being inferred, but is Immediately Perceived.

Transcendental Realism, on the other hand, inevitably falls into difficulties, and finds itself obliged to give way to Empirical Idealism, in that it regards the Objects of Outer Sense as something distinct from the Senses themselves, treating mere Appearances as Self-Subsistent Beings, existing outside us.
CPR 371

[It is not easy to grasp the above in its full context]

Since you oppose Kant [siding with Hegel and Plato in some way] you are then a Transcendental Realist and at the same time an Empirical Idealist.
That is your ultimate reality of 'absolute -nothing' is transcendentally real, i.e. derived from Pure Reason which is crude and easily influenced by psychological impulses.
What is ultimately real of empirical reality to you is correspondingly idealistic, i.e. absolute idealism. To Kant this 'so claimed reality' from PURE REASON is an illusion.

For me as an Empirical Realist [Kantian] there is no worry of 'solipsism' since we are leveraged on reality, i.e. empirical reality with an external world [not absolutely external].
An empirical realist recognized the reality of the external world but do not postulate anything else beyond that to Absolute-Nothing [yours], Totality [yours], The Absolute [Hegel] or God [theists].

I don't care about all of this. YOU are pushing me into labels that I prefer to define myself. I don't know what problem you have with MY view here accept that you assign Absolute Nothing as IMPOSSIBLE, which, like I just explained to Age (read it given it is relevant here), is that science cannot SPEAK on things that are 'absolute' for being tentative AND their reliance on induction.

It is NOT possible IN PRINCIPLE to directly demonstrate 'nothing' to you any more than ANY 'absolute' (nothing, something, everything) through science. Science helps us guess at the logic (mechanisms of physics) with a fair set of methods, but only cares to speak on what can be assumed FAITHFULLY by assuming the senses themselves as its POSTULATES without defining. It speaks about thing that we can do experiments on (minum the thought expermiments that are philosophical motivations only). I'm discussing a metaphysics and metalogic that derives "laws", "order", and the foundation of reality in its most general form.

SEE my response to Age above and how I argued that a bias exists when you assume something 'special' is all that we are permitted to assume. I hear you arguing in a way that keeps presuming reality as SUBJECT to our 'special' existence. Certainly if we do not exist to discuss this we cannot argue. But the point here is that I'm discussing issues about Totality apart from our NECESSITY. If you disagree, then you are being political: you presume a platform of conduct about people, not Nature apart from us and are basically dismissing my relevance on some practical grounds. If you assume that this is an issue about me being UNABLE to 'prove' to you something you taboo on principle, I cannot argue in any way that wouldn't involve a poll short of universal approval by ALL people. And I certainly lose by default.

[Scott Mayers]

I am not arguing with your pretentious superiority and 'non-human' existence. You are just acting with your 'special' status as being more absurd than the topic at hand. If you want to discuss your religious beliefs, lets do it elsewhere. I've defined "Totality" in a way that should be able to INCLUDE your 'god' and thus question any source of universal foundations as metaphysically every possible thing's 'existence'.