Supporting Evidences and References are Critical

[Age]

Me, on the other hand have made the attempts to provide evidences and reasonable arguments.

You are RIGHT, in that you have 'made an ATTEMPT', all right. Not a very good one at all, I might add. But at least you 'made an attempt' at TRYING TO justify, your own BELIEFS.

Age: "Not a very good one at all"
That is your personal opinion.

Of course it IS. That has been My whole point ALL along.

My OPINION is based solely upon my INTERPRETATION, of WHAT it is that you are saying. JUST LIKE your OPINIONS, of WHAT it is that is being said in the quran, is based SOLELY upon your INTERPRETATION.

You view and see evil, within those words. I do NOT.
WHY?
Because we INTERPRET different.
WHY?
Because we VIEW things differently.
WHY?
Because you have a ONE-SIDED VIEW of things, whereas, I do NOT.
WHY?
Because you have BELIEFS, and, BELIEVE that you are Right and Correct, whereas, I do NOT. Although I do KNOW what IS True, Right, and Correct.
WHY?
Because I KNOW how to VIEW things properly and correctly, in order to gain a thorough and True perspective of ALL things, whereas, you do NOT know how to VIEW things properly and correctly.
WHY?
Because you, unknowingly, only LOOK for confirmation of your already held BIASES and BELIEFS, whereas, I do NOT have BELIEFS. Therefore, I have nothing to be biased about, or in other words, I have nothing that I could have biases based upon.

It is more likely you lack the knowledge base to understand those points I have raised.

If that is what you BELIEVE, then so be it. That is completely fine with me, as you are free to choose to BELIEVE whatever you like, and on absolutely any thing you like.

Do you have any actual and real evidence to base your MORE LIKELY opinion on?

From my perspective, those points that you have raised, and what you are so very hard TRYING TO get across in those raised points, IS extremely easy to understand, as they are glaringly OBVIOUS to SEE. But what you are TRYING TO point and raise is NOT understandable, if they are LOOKED at thoroughly, properly, and correctly.

But at least you 'made an attempt' at TRYING TO justify, your own BELIEFS.

This point seem to be your ace card, but it is a stupid point.

This is a "Stupid" point in regards to what way exactly.

The default is every one who make a point in such a forum must justify their beliefs which basically can only be their own.[/quote]

That could well be TRUE, that is; people MUST (try to) "justify" their BELIEFS. And, if this is the case, then that is fine with me also.

However, I do not have any BELIEFS, so obviously I do not have to justify my points, which obviously do NOT need justifying anyway. Obviously, to me, they already speak for themselves.

In practice, it is always the case, i.e. when scientists or any one present their hypothesis they have to justify their own BELIEFS until it is convincing enough to be agreed by others.

Are you suggesting that ALL 'hypothesis' are CORRECT, and just a BELIEF, which just need others to be convinced of?

If you read what you wrote again you might understand what I SEE in it.

By the way, in "practice", I do things a bit differently. That is;
1. I do NOT have BELIEFS.
2. I do NOT look at what could be the case.
3. I do NOT make up hypothesis.
4. Instead, I look at, and SEE (understand), what IS already True, Right, and Correct.

There is NOTHING hard nor complicated about Life, and the Universe, Itself. In fact seeing and understanding the Truth of things is very simple and easy indeed. So, there is NO need to hypothesis/assume/guess what is True, Right, and Correct. These things can and be, and are, already SEEN and KNOWN, by some. You just have to discover and/or learn how to look and see correctly to understand this. In other words you just NEED to change the way view things. HOW you VIEWS things means you either already SEE the big and whole picture of ALL things, or you are still TRYING TO find answers/answer questions.

When readers look back over ALL my discussions, they will SEE just how many actual questions, from "others", I have answered, and, how many actual questions "others" have answered from me.

[Age]

This is an interesting predicament.

You said you have knowledge.
You also said you don't have any beliefs.

But knowledge is justified true belief.

Are you absolutely 100% sure that 'knowledge' is justified true belief?

If you are not, then great. But you are coming across as though you are. To me this statement appears to be presented and proposed as being absolutely True, Right, and Correct.

If, however, you are absolutely 100% sure that the statement; ' knowledge is justified true belief' IS True, Right, and Correct, then that is fine also, as you are free to BELIEVE whatever you like.

But can you back up and support your BELIEF here?

Justified True Belief [JTB] is not absolute knowledge [nb: Gettier's] rather it is objective knowledge that is sufficiently credible, practical and useful, e.g. enabled humans to land on the moon safely.

Are you saying here that 'justified true belief' is what enabled humans to land on the moon, safely?

If so, then although you are completely unconscious and unaware of it, there is actually far more Truth to this then you could even imagine, at the moment anyway.

[TimeSeeker]

Are you absolutely 100% sure that 'knowledge' is justified true belief?

No. I am not. I don't have any knowledge. But you believe you have knowledge so maybe you can tell us what knowledge is?

Here, do you mean 'knowledge', from YOUR perspective, or 'knowledge' from OTHER perspectives?

Neither. I mean it from YOUR perspective. I am simply mirroring your use of the word.

[Veritas Aequitas]

By the way, in "practice", I do things a bit differently. That is;
1. I do NOT have BELIEFS.
2. I do NOT look at what could be the case.
3. I do NOT make up hypothesis.
4. Instead, I look at, and SEE (understand), what IS already True, Right, and Correct.

Point 1-4 are your BELIEFS thus counter your point 1.

There is NOTHING hard nor complicated about Life, and the Universe, Itself. In fact seeing and understanding the Truth of things is very simple and easy indeed. So, there is NO need to hypothesis/assume/guess what is True, Right, and Correct. These things can and be, and are, already SEEN and KNOWN, by some. You just have to discover and/or learn how to look and see correctly to understand this. In other words you just NEED to change the way view things. HOW you VIEWS things means you either already SEE the big and whole picture of ALL things, or you are still TRYING TO find answers/answer questions.

When readers look back over ALL my discussions, they will SEE just how many actual questions, from "others", I have answered, and, how many actual questions "others" have answered from me.

How can you assert,
"NOTHING hard nor complicated about Life"
when we have not fully understood how the brain with its 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors [synapse] work.
Note the hard problem of consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_prob ... sciousness

I suspect your claim is that of Spiritual Enlightenment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(spiritual)
where one is fully aware of the TRUTH thus the truth of everything.

Otherwise you are talking nonsense until you can provide references that are similar to your thoughts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you absolutely 100% sure that 'knowledge' is justified true belief?

If you are not, then great. But you are coming across as though you are. To me this statement appears to be presented and proposed as being absolutely True, Right, and Correct.

If, however, you are absolutely 100% sure that the statement; ' knowledge is justified true belief' IS True, Right, and Correct, then that is fine also, as you are free to BELIEVE whatever you like.

But can you back up and support your BELIEF here?

Justified True Belief [JTB] is not absolute knowledge [nb: Gettier's] rather it is objective knowledge that is sufficiently credible, practical and useful, e.g. enabled humans to land on the moon safely.

Are you saying here that 'justified true belief' is what enabled humans to land on the moon, safely?

If so, then although you are completely unconscious and unaware of it, there is actually far more Truth to this then you could even imagine, at the moment anyway.

Note the Landing on the Moon Project rely extensively in scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge is 'justified true belief' [JTB].

[TimeSeeker]

Note the Landing on the Moon Project rely extensively in scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge is 'justified true belief' [JTB].

JTB definition is fatally flawed.

According to it the following fits the criterion for knowledge: Tomorrow humanity may or may not become extinct.

It is justified: Evidence demonstrates that species go extinct.
It is true.
I believe it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the Landing on the Moon Project rely extensively in scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge is 'justified true belief' [JTB].

JTB definition is fatally flawed.

According to it the following fits the criterion for knowledge: Tomorrow humanity may or may not become extinct.

It is justified: Evidence demonstrates that species go extinct.
It is true.
I believe it.

The above is not JTB per se, it is merely a speculation, prediction and guess extrapolated from various JTBs.

[TimeSeeker]

The above is not JTB per se, it is merely a speculation, prediction and guess extrapolated from various JTBs.

Read it again. It is not speculation. It is a truism.

From the law of the excluded middle (p ∧ ¬p) is always true.

Humanity MAY or MAY NOT be extinct.

It meets the JTB bar.

[Age]

Are you absolutely 100% sure that 'knowledge' is justified true belief?

No. I am not. I don't have any knowledge.

If you do NOT have ANY knowledge, then is it really possible to have any of a percentage of knowledge? As this is what you were trying to suggest that you have previously, when you said that you are a gambler. You were saying that you are NEVER absolutely (100%) certain about any thing but you are, percentage wise, certain to an extent of some things, is this right?

And, when you say and state that 'knowledge is justified true beliefs', which you now state that you are NOT 100% absolutely sure of this, then what are we to make of you having BELIEFS, which you agree with, but you NOT having any 'knowledge', which you say 'knowledge' is justified true belief IS?

Are you now saying that you really do NOT have any 'beliefs', or, that you do NOT have any 'justified true beliefs'?

To me, it seems funny, to have and hold beliefs but to also not have nor hold any justified true beliefs. I think most people would prefer to have and hold justified true beliefs rather than just beliefs that could be, or may possibly be, WRONG.

You do get my point here right, if, as you say, 'knowledge' IS justified true belief, and you also 'do not have any knowledge', then that would mean that you do not have any justified true beliefs, is this what you are trying to suggest and say here?

But you believe you have knowledge so maybe you can tell us what knowledge is?

1. But I do NOT have a BELIEF, therefore I do NOT believe any thing.
2. You have already informed us what 'knowledge' is, when you told us that 'knowledge' is justified true belief. So that is what 'knowledge' is.
3. And, according to you, down below, you already KNOW what MY perspective of the word 'knowledge' IS. So, why would you WANT me to tell you again?
4. How about you tell us what I mean when I use the word 'knowledge' here, from MY perspective. That is some thing that I would really love to see.

Here, do you mean 'knowledge', from YOUR perspective, or 'knowledge' from OTHER perspectives?

Neither. I mean it from YOUR perspective.

Here, are you suggesting that you aleady KNOW what meaning I give to the word 'knowledge', from MY perspective.

If so, I would like to KNOW how you obtained that, dare I say it, "knowledge". Would you care to share that insight with the readers here. While you are at it would you care to also show WHAT EXACTLY is the meaning I give the word 'knowledge', from MY perspective?

I am simply mirroring your use of the word.

WHERE and WHEN did I give MY definition/meaning for the word 'knowledge', and, WHAT is THAT definition/meaning, which you say you are mirroring.

I certainly do NOT recall ever saying nor using the word 'knowledge' from the perspective of 'knowledge' being justified true belief, which is what you say it is. Is that the "mirroring" of MY use of the word 'knowledge' that you are talking about here?

But maybe you can remind me, and maybe others, WHERE I used the word 'knowledge' that way, if I did?

[TimeSeeker]

Are you absolutely 100% sure that 'knowledge' is justified true belief?

No. I am not. I don't have any knowledge.

If you do NOT have ANY knowledge, then is it really possible to have any of a percentage of knowledge? As this is what you were trying to suggest that you have previously, when you said that you are a gambler. You were saying that you are NEVER absolutely (100%) certain about any thing but you are, percentage wise, certain to an extent of some things, is this right?

And, when you say and state that 'knowledge is justified true beliefs', which you now state that you are NOT 100% absolutely sure of this, then what are we to make of you having BELIEFS, which you agree with, but you NOT having any 'knowledge', which you say 'knowledge' is justified true belief IS?

Are you now saying that you really do NOT have any 'beliefs', or, that you do NOT have any 'justified true beliefs'?

To me, it seems funny, to have and hold beliefs but to also not have nor hold any justified true beliefs. I think most people would prefer to have and hold justified true beliefs rather than just beliefs that could be, or may possibly be, WRONG.

You do get my point here right, if, as you say, 'knowledge' IS justified true belief, and you also 'do not have any knowledge', then that would mean that you do not have any justified true beliefs, is this what you are trying to suggest and say here?

But you believe you have knowledge so maybe you can tell us what knowledge is?

1. But I do NOT have a BELIEF, therefore I do NOT believe any thing.
2. You have already informed us what 'knowledge' is, when you told us that 'knowledge' is justified true belief. So that is what 'knowledge' is.
3. And, according to you, down below, you already KNOW what MY perspective of the word 'knowledge' IS. So, why would you WANT me to tell you again?
4. How about you tell us what I mean when I use the word 'knowledge' here, from MY perspective. That is some thing that I would really love to see.

Here, do you mean 'knowledge', from YOUR perspective, or 'knowledge' from OTHER perspectives?

Neither. I mean it from YOUR perspective.

Here, are you suggesting that you aleady KNOW what meaning I give to the word 'knowledge', from MY perspective.

If so, I would like to KNOW how you obtained that, dare I say it, "knowledge". Would you care to share that insight with the readers here. While you are at it would you care to also show WHAT EXACTLY is the meaning I give the word 'knowledge', from MY perspective?

I am simply mirroring your use of the word.

WHERE and WHEN did I give MY definition/meaning for the word 'knowledge', and, WHAT is THAT definition/meaning, which you say you are mirroring.

I certainly do NOT recall ever saying nor using the word 'knowledge' from the perspective of 'knowledge' being justified true belief, which is what you say it is. Is that the "mirroring" of MY use of the word 'knowledge' that you are talking about here?

But maybe you can remind me, and maybe others, WHERE I used the word 'knowledge' that way, if I did?

So much waffle.

Lets focus on you for a while. I don't want to be selfish and steal all the spotlight here.

Lets talk about the tings YOU say.

You said you have knowledge. Tell us what you mean by that.

[Age]

By the way, in "practice", I do things a bit differently. That is;
1. I do NOT have BELIEFS.
2. I do NOT look at what could be the case.
3. I do NOT make up hypothesis.
4. Instead, I look at, and SEE (understand), what IS already True, Right, and Correct.

Point 1-4 are your BELIEFS thus counter your point 1.

If that is what you so BELIEVE.

I have asked you before to expose what you BELIEVE my BELIEFS are, so that the readers can SEE what you are imagining.

You have yet done this so that we can look into them in greater detail.

Obviously I can NOT write down what MY BELIEFS are because I do NOT have any.

There is NOTHING hard nor complicated about Life, and the Universe, Itself. In fact seeing and understanding the Truth of things is very simple and easy indeed. So, there is NO need to hypothesis/assume/guess what is True, Right, and Correct. These things can and be, and are, already SEEN and KNOWN, by some. You just have to discover and/or learn how to look and see correctly to understand this. In other words you just NEED to change the way view things. HOW you VIEWS things means you either already SEE the big and whole picture of ALL things, or you are still TRYING TO find answers/answer questions.

When readers look back over ALL my discussions, they will SEE just how many actual questions, from "others", I have answered, and, how many actual questions "others" have answered from me.

How can you assert,
"NOTHING hard nor complicated about Life"

Very easily.

Did you see, and notice, how easily I just did it?

Seeing and noticing the Truth, or not, in what I assert here can also be very easily and simply seen and noticed, that is; once you know-HOW to distinguish between actual Real objective Truth, from perceived subjective truth. But first you would need to discover and/or learn HOW to look at things properly and correctly.

when we have not fully understood how the brain with its 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors [synapse] work.

You mean; when YOU have not fully understood how the brain ... works.

You can NOT successfully and accurately speak for ME. You can only truly speak for YOU, that is; your self.

Note the hard problem of consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_prob ... sciousness

But there is NO hard problem here at all. From the way I look at it and see it that is a very simple and easily problem to solve, and thus answer.

The only reason that YOU think/believe that it is a hard problem is because of the way the brain LOOKS at, and thus SEES, it.

I suspect your claim is that of Spiritual Enlightenment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(spiritual)
where one is fully aware of the TRUTH thus the truth of everything.

Gaining enlightenment and/or being fully aware of ALL things is very quick, simple and easy to obtain, and do. Again, that is once you discover and/or learn HOW.

Otherwise you are talking nonsense until you can provide references that are similar to your thoughts.

But what if there are no, or not many, similar thoughts to MINE, just yet?

After all obviously when the Truth that the earth revolves around the sun, (if that is the Truth), was first thought up and was being expressed there was no other similar thoughts that could be referenced, nor provided. Did that, and does that still, make that "Truth" nonsense.

On your "logic" if an idea/thought/view is being expressed and there are no other ideas/thoughts/views that are similar, and thus can not be referenced, then that idea/thought/view, to YOU, MUST BE nonsense, that is until references that are similar ideas/thoughts/views are provided. Is this about RIGHT?

If so, then that, to Me, appears to be a very shallow, narrow, and distorted way to LOOK at, and thus end up SEEING, things.

[Age]

Justified True Belief [JTB] is not absolute knowledge [nb: Gettier's] rather it is objective knowledge that is sufficiently credible, practical and useful, e.g. enabled humans to land on the moon safely.

Are you saying here that 'justified true belief' is what enabled humans to land on the moon, safely?

If so, then although you are completely unconscious and unaware of it, there is actually far more Truth to this then you could even imagine, at the moment anyway.

Note the Landing on the Moon Project rely extensively in scientific knowledge.

Okay I will note that you said, "the Landing on the Moon Project rely extensively in scientific knowledge." But I would have said 'relied' instead of 'rely'. Unless of course the Landing on the Moon Project is still in operation. Is it?

Scientific knowledge is 'justified true belief' [JTB].

Did you also want me to note that you said this also?

Also, If scientific knowledge is NOT absolute knowledge, as you say it is not, then what is 'absolute knowledge' exactly?

And, HOW far from absolute knowledge is scientific knowledge? Do you have a percentages for this figure also?

[Age]

No. I am not. I don't have any knowledge.

If you do NOT have ANY knowledge, then is it really possible to have any of a percentage of knowledge? As this is what you were trying to suggest that you have previously, when you said that you are a gambler. You were saying that you are NEVER absolutely (100%) certain about any thing but you are, percentage wise, certain to an extent of some things, is this right?

And, when you say and state that 'knowledge is justified true beliefs', which you now state that you are NOT 100% absolutely sure of this, then what are we to make of you having BELIEFS, which you agree with, but you NOT having any 'knowledge', which you say 'knowledge' is justified true belief IS?

Are you now saying that you really do NOT have any 'beliefs', or, that you do NOT have any 'justified true beliefs'?

To me, it seems funny, to have and hold beliefs but to also not have nor hold any justified true beliefs. I think most people would prefer to have and hold justified true beliefs rather than just beliefs that could be, or may possibly be, WRONG.

You do get my point here right, if, as you say, 'knowledge' IS justified true belief, and you also 'do not have any knowledge', then that would mean that you do not have any justified true beliefs, is this what you are trying to suggest and say here?

But you believe you have knowledge so maybe you can tell us what knowledge is?

1. But I do NOT have a BELIEF, therefore I do NOT believe any thing.
2. You have already informed us what 'knowledge' is, when you told us that 'knowledge' is justified true belief. So that is what 'knowledge' is.
3. And, according to you, down below, you already KNOW what MY perspective of the word 'knowledge' IS. So, why would you WANT me to tell you again?
4. How about you tell us what I mean when I use the word 'knowledge' here, from MY perspective. That is some thing that I would really love to see.

Neither. I mean it from YOUR perspective.

Here, are you suggesting that you aleady KNOW what meaning I give to the word 'knowledge', from MY perspective.

If so, I would like to KNOW how you obtained that, dare I say it, "knowledge". Would you care to share that insight with the readers here. While you are at it would you care to also show WHAT EXACTLY is the meaning I give the word 'knowledge', from MY perspective?

I am simply mirroring your use of the word.

WHERE and WHEN did I give MY definition/meaning for the word 'knowledge', and, WHAT is THAT definition/meaning, which you say you are mirroring.

I certainly do NOT recall ever saying nor using the word 'knowledge' from the perspective of 'knowledge' being justified true belief, which is what you say it is. Is that the "mirroring" of MY use of the word 'knowledge' that you are talking about here?

But maybe you can remind me, and maybe others, WHERE I used the word 'knowledge' that way, if I did?

So much waffle.

That is one way of just dismissing what I have said and NOT responding to any of it.

But the readers can SEE past this for themselves.

Also, how much of it is YOUR waffle?

You did NOT exactly quote it correctly at all, so that is WHY it looks, and reads, like it does.

Lets focus on you for a while.

If you like.

Are you fearful of some thing, or just embarrassed, or some thing else?

I don't want to be selfish and steal all the spotlight here.

WHY?

Some thing to be afraid of, or shy of, or some thing else?

Lets talk about the tings YOU say.

Again, that is if you really want to.

Let us do that.

You said you have knowledge.

In context to WHAT exactly?

If you want the Truth, then you have to clarify what it is that you are SEEKING.

Tell us what you mean by that.

What I mean when I say, "I have knowledge" is NOT what you think/believe I mean.

One, of many, of the things you insisted above was that what YOU mean by the use of the word 'knowledge' was what I MEAN, from MY perspective. Yet you are completely and utterly incapable of providing ANY actual evidence that you have absolutely any idea at all regarding what MY perspective is, and you are backing this up again now. Considering you have NOT responded to ANY of MY clarifying questions at all, then it seems rather obnoxious of you to expect Me to clarify to you what I mean when I say one thing. Especially considering what you have written down so far.

How about you clarifying up some of your completely contradictory wording first, then I will decide what I will do.

If you SAY that what you mean by 'knowledge' is what I mean, from MY perspective, then you would and should OBVIOUSLY already KNOW what I mean.

If you did not claim to KNOW some thing as ridiculous as this, then I would have already explained what I mean.

Also, I will TRY TO fix the way you provided OUR quotes, so it does NOT look so much like WAFFLE.

[TimeSeeker]

No. I am not. I don't have any knowledge.

If you do NOT have ANY knowledge, then is it really possible to have any of a percentage of knowledge? As this is what you were trying to suggest that you have previously, when you said that you are a gambler. You were saying that you are NEVER absolutely (100%) certain about any thing but you are, percentage wise, certain to an extent of some things, is this right?

And, when you say and state that 'knowledge is justified true beliefs', which you now state that you are NOT 100% absolutely sure of this, then what are we to make of you having BELIEFS, which you agree with, but you NOT having any 'knowledge', which you say 'knowledge' is justified true belief IS?

Are you now saying that you really do NOT have any 'beliefs', or, that you do NOT have any 'justified true beliefs'?

To me, it seems funny, to have and hold beliefs but to also not have nor hold any justified true beliefs. I think most people would prefer to have and hold justified true beliefs rather than just beliefs that could be, or may possibly be, WRONG.

You do get my point here right, if, as you say, 'knowledge' IS justified true belief, and you also 'do not have any knowledge', then that would mean that you do not have any justified true beliefs, is this what you are trying to suggest and say here?

But you believe you have knowledge so maybe you can tell us what knowledge is?

1. But I do NOT have a BELIEF, therefore I do NOT believe any thing.
2. You have already informed us what 'knowledge' is, when you told us that 'knowledge' is justified true belief. So that is what 'knowledge' is.
3. And, according to you, down below, you already KNOW what MY perspective of the word 'knowledge' IS. So, why would you WANT me to tell you again?
4. How about you tell us what I mean when I use the word 'knowledge' here, from MY perspective. That is some thing that I would really love to see.

Neither. I mean it from YOUR perspective.

Here, are you suggesting that you aleady KNOW what meaning I give to the word 'knowledge', from MY perspective.

If so, I would like to KNOW how you obtained that, dare I say it, "knowledge". Would you care to share that insight with the readers here. While you are at it would you care to also show WHAT EXACTLY is the meaning I give the word 'knowledge', from MY perspective?

I am simply mirroring your use of the word.

WHERE and WHEN did I give MY definition/meaning for the word 'knowledge', and, WHAT is THAT definition/meaning, which you say you are mirroring.

I certainly do NOT recall ever saying nor using the word 'knowledge' from the perspective of 'knowledge' being justified true belief, which is what you say it is. Is that the "mirroring" of MY use of the word 'knowledge' that you are talking about here?

But maybe you can remind me, and maybe others, WHERE I used the word 'knowledge' that way, if I did?

So much waffle.

That is one way of just dismissing what I have said and NOT responding to any of it.

But the readers can SEE past this for themselves.

Also, how much of it is YOUR waffle?

You did NOT exactly quote it correctly at all, so that is WHY it looks, and reads, like it does.

Lets focus on you for a while.

If you like.

Are you fearful of some thing, or just embarrassed, or some thing else?

I don't want to be selfish and steal all the spotlight here.

WHY?

Some thing to be afraid of, or shy of, or some thing else?

Lets talk about the tings YOU say.

Again, that is if you really want to.

Let us do that.

You said you have knowledge.

In context to WHAT exactly?

If you want the Truth, then you have to clarify what it is that you are SEEKING.

Tell us what you mean by that.

What I mean when I say, "I have knowledge" is NOT what you think/believe I mean.

One, of many, of the things you insisted above was that what YOU mean by the use of the word 'knowledge' was what I MEAN, from MY perspective. Yet you are completely and utterly incapable of providing ANY actual evidence that you have absolutely any idea at all regarding what MY perspective is, and you are backing this up again now. Considering you have NOT responded to ANY of MY clarifying questions at all, then it seems rather obnoxious of you to expect Me to clarify to you what I mean when I say one thing. Especially considering what you have written down so far.

How about you clarifying up some of your completely contradictory wording first, then I will decide what I will do.

If you SAY that what you mean by 'knowledge' is what I mean, from MY perspective, then you would and should OBVIOUSLY already KNOW what I mean.

If you did not claim to KNOW some thing as ridiculous as this, then I would have already explained what I mean.

Also, I will TRY TO fix the way you provided OUR quotes, so it does NOT look so much like WAFFLE.

I come with no pre-suppositions or expectations. I seek nothing but to hear your perspective and maybe learn something new.

What do you know?

I don't even believe in Truth (with capital T). Yet you are using that word. Maybe you have found it?

[TimeSeeker]

If you want the Truth, then you have to clarify what it is that you are SEEKING.

Come to think of it. I know exactly what I am seeking.

How did you (somebody with knowledge) solve the Münchhausen trilemma?
How did you solve the problem of criterion?
And lastly: What is time and how does it work?