OUGHT from IS is Possible

[Age]

Those who insist things are real when the thing is an illusion are termed delusional.

• Delusion;
  Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact:
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/delusion

Not all those who suffer from being delusion are schizos.

Okay, then how do you define the word 'schizo'? You do after all like to label and call some human beings 'schizos'. What are you basing the word 'schizo' off of exactly? If not all those who suffer from being delusional are 'schizos', then who are those exactly that you call 'schizos"?

Also, are 'you', yourself, somewhat delusional? You do after all have a fixed belief, which is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual facts. (Whether your fixed belief is a true or is a false belief, contrary to your belief, has yes to be proven, and thus actually decided.)

Note;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

Note; I asked 'YOU', how do 'YOU' define the word 'schizo'?

Is a wikipedia explanation how you REALLY define your words, and the word 'schizo'?

Show me where have I persistently believed in anything that is illusory as real?

Have I said any thing like this?

If yes, then WHERE.

You believe God is real, without any sound justifications.

Are you a TOTAL IDIOT? I have told you enough times now, I do NOT believe any such thing.

I have proven the theists' God is a mental illusion driven by the existential crisis.

And I keep asking you - Besides you, who else have you proven this to?

[surreptitious57]

If some thing was entirely physical then that means that there would not be any thing invisible such as space for example

Space is not empty so it cannot be defined as invisible and anyway I always class it as physical because it actually exists

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay, then how do you define the word 'schizo'? You do after all like to label and call some human beings 'schizos'. What are you basing the word 'schizo' off of exactly? If not all those who suffer from being delusional are 'schizos', then who are those exactly that you call 'schizos"?

Also, are 'you', yourself, somewhat delusional? You do after all have a fixed belief, which is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual facts. (Whether your fixed belief is a true or is a false belief, contrary to your belief, has yes to be proven, and thus actually decided.)

Note;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

Note; I asked 'YOU', how do 'YOU' define the word 'schizo'?

Is a wikipedia explanation how you REALLY define your words, and the word 'schizo'?

My definition is the same as Wiki.

You believe God is real, without any sound justifications.

Are you a TOTAL IDIOT? I have told you enough times now, I do NOT believe any such thing.

Note your own definition of God here;
viewtopic.php?p=424905#p424905
which imply you claim God is real.
If not, are you saying your God is false?

And I keep asking you - Besides you, who else have you proven this to?

There are few agreement to my argument because I have not published it to the world yet.

What is critical in this case is, there is no convincing counter to my argument from anyone or you in particular.

If you are so sure there are weaknesses in my argument, then show them to me.

[Age]

If some thing was entirely physical then that means that there would not be any thing invisible such as space for example

Space is not empty

Who said it was?

I certainly have NOT.

Also, IF space is empty or not, then that has absolutely no real bearing on what I have said here now.

so it cannot be defined as invisible

Why just because some thing is not empty that it then can not be defined as invisible?

Can you not think of any thing that is invisible, which is not empty?

Every where you LOOK in the Universe is there nothing that you can not see with the physical eyes? Is absolutely EVERY thing visible to those physical eyes?

I only ask this IF from that body it is able to see things from the physical eyes, which is some thing that I have wondered for a while now, but is of no real importance here AND has NO bearing on any thing at all.

and anyway I always class it as physical because it actually exists

I do not actually really care how and what you always class some thing as being.

If, however, you proposed that you had the answers to things, then I would VERY MUCH care how and what you always classed things as being, and I would also be listening to you profusely, so that I could LEARN what you KNOW. But until you propose any such thing, then what and how you always class things is of no real importance, is it?

Also, WHY have you made the ASSUMPTION and jumped to some sort of conclusion that because I use the 'invisible' word that that then automatically defers to the non-physical, which then also means that it could NOT exist?

Do you really think that if some thing is NOT physical then it could NOT exist?

To you, is it only the physical that CAN exist?

To you, if some thing is existing, then does that meant that it HAS TO BE physical?

I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding from you about what it is that I am actually saying here. Or, maybe you do not really want to understand what I am really saying, and just want to share what you always "see" and how you class those things?

[Age]

Note;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

Note; I asked 'YOU', how do 'YOU' define the word 'schizo'?

Is a wikipedia explanation how you REALLY define your words, and the word 'schizo'?

My definition is the same as Wiki.

Okay, so if and when the wikipedia definition changes, then does that mean so does yours?

Also, does this mean that you had NO definitions BEFORE wikipedia came into existence?

And, if your definition is the same as wikipedia, then what happens when definitions change in wikipedia, and you are unaware of those changes? Do you keep the old definition or are you just left in limbo?

I do NOT want to read your words, and then go to wikipedia to find out how 'you', "veritas aequitas", are defining the words you use here, and respond from wikipedia's definition, which you are unaware has changed since the last time you looked, and so I have got it all WRONG. So, better you inform me now if you keep the old definition or if you are limbo or if you also change WHEN wikipedia does?

You believe God is real, without any sound justifications.

Are you a TOTAL IDIOT? I have told you enough times now, I do NOT believe any such thing.

Note your own definition of God here;
viewtopic.php?p=424905#p424905
which imply you claim God is real.
If not, are you saying your God is false?

Have you EVER heard me previously say; I do NOT believe any thing?

If no, then now you have.
If yes, then how could you be so STUPID to make the claim that you have here, which started; "You believe ..."?

And I keep asking you - Besides you, who else have you proven this to?

There are few agreement to my argument because I have not published it to the world yet.

Did you SEE and READ my clarifying question?

If yes, then WHY answer the way you did?
If no, then I asked: Who else have you proven this to? which means WHO? How many and What is/are their name/s?

Also, do you believe that IF you published your so called "argument" "to the world" then that there would be many that you have proven your "argument" to?

If yes, then could you be somewhat delusional?

What is critical in this case is, there is no convincing counter to my argument from anyone or you in particular.

lol Why 'me' in particular?

Also, as I previously said, You are completely and utterly CLOSED to absolutely any thing other than your own BELIEFS. And because of this you are also a PRIME example of the power of the belief-system.

If you are so sure there are weaknesses in my argument, then show them to me.

Did you forget, or purposely ignored, my request that IF you are serious about me SHOWING the weaknesses in your so called "argument", then just SHOW me in very specific simple point form what your actual "argument" IS.

Whether you do this or not will SHOW how serious you are about exposing yourself and exposing your weaknesses.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note; I asked 'YOU', how do 'YOU' define the word 'schizo'?

Is a wikipedia explanation how you REALLY define your words, and the word 'schizo'?

My definition is the same as Wiki.

Okay, so if and when the wikipedia definition changes, then does that mean so does yours?

Also, does this mean that you had NO definitions BEFORE wikipedia came into existence?

And, if your definition is the same as wikipedia, then what happens when definitions change in wikipedia, and you are unaware of those changes? Do you keep the old definition or are you just left in limbo?

I do NOT want to read your words, and then go to wikipedia to find out how 'you', "veritas aequitas", are defining the words you use here, and respond from wikipedia's definition, which you are unaware has changed since the last time you looked, and so I have got it all WRONG. So, better you inform me now if you keep the old definition or if you are limbo or if you also change WHEN wikipedia does?

Wiki is only for general reference.
The more accurate definition should be from the DSM-V and other recognized authorities.
If the DSM or wiki changes their definition, I will not use their definition as examples if they do not support my intended purposes.

Are you a TOTAL IDIOT? I have told you enough times now, I do NOT believe any such thing.

Note your own definition of God here;
viewtopic.php?p=424905#p424905
which imply you claim God is real.
If not, are you saying your God is false?

Have you EVER heard me previously say; I do NOT believe any thing?

If no, then now you have.
If yes, then how could you be so STUPID to make the claim that you have here, which started; "You believe ..."?

You are the stupid one actually.
A stupid person can claim anything he wants to but that is not necessary the truth, like 'I do not have any beliefs'. This is one the most stupid statement I have ever come across from an ordinary person, unless you want to claim you are mentally ill.

The term 'believe' and belief are very common terms.
The general definition of believe is this;
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/believe

What you have stated as a definition of God is a belief and believing.

What you are avoiding is your psychology and how it is driving the beliefs you are having.

[Age]

My definition is the same as Wiki.

Okay, so if and when the wikipedia definition changes, then does that mean so does yours?

Also, does this mean that you had NO definitions BEFORE wikipedia came into existence?

And, if your definition is the same as wikipedia, then what happens when definitions change in wikipedia, and you are unaware of those changes? Do you keep the old definition or are you just left in limbo?

I do NOT want to read your words, and then go to wikipedia to find out how 'you', "veritas aequitas", are defining the words you use here, and respond from wikipedia's definition, which you are unaware has changed since the last time you looked, and so I have got it all WRONG. So, better you inform me now if you keep the old definition or if you are limbo or if you also change WHEN wikipedia does?

Wiki is only for general reference.

But hang on, you clearly stated: "MY definition is the SAME as wiki."

The more accurate definition should be from the DSM-V and other recognized authorities.
If the DSM or wiki changes their definition, I will not use their definition as examples if they do not support my intended purposes.

So what are you saying NOW?

What IS 'your' intended purpose?

I said to YOU: Note; I asked 'YOU', how do 'YOU' define the word 'schizo'?

In case you can not understand this, I am still asking 'you'; How do 'YOU', veritas aequitas', define the word 'schizo'?

This means I want to KNOW 'your' most accurate definition for the word 'schizo'. The reason WHY I want to KNOW this is because you have a tendency to call people, with views which are different than yours are, "schizos".

Note your own definition of God here;
viewtopic.php?p=424905#p424905
which imply you claim God is real.
If not, are you saying your God is false?

Have you EVER heard me previously say; I do NOT believe any thing?

If no, then now you have.
If yes, then how could you be so STUPID to make the claim that you have here, which started; "You believe ..."?

You are the stupid one actually.

Okay, fair enough.

A stupid person can claim anything he wants to but that is not necessary the truth, like 'I do not have any beliefs'.

Is this also like a person can claim any thing that they want but it is not necessarily the truth, like "God is an impossibility to be real"?

This is one the most stupid statement I have ever come across from an ordinary person, unless you want to claim you are mentally ill.

You can perceive 'me' to be the most stupid and most mentally ill one that has ever existed if you like.

My claim still STANDS.

The term 'believe' and belief are very common terms.

I do NOT care if they are the MOST commonly used terms. That has NOTHING to do with any thing here.

The general definition of believe is this;
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/believe

What you have stated as a definition of God is a belief and believing.

Is that how it APPEARS to you? Or, is that how it is the absolute sense?

Do you BELIEVE you KNOW what the truth is here?

What you are avoiding is your psychology and how it is driving the beliefs you are having.

Can you PROVE that I believe any thing?

If yes, then go right ahead and do it.

Also, how does one avoid their OWN psychology?

Are you at all able to explain this in any way, shape, or form?

If yes, then go right ahead.

I would LOVE to learn and KNOW how 'you' can avoid 'your' psychology.

Maybe first you might like to explain how you and your psychology are separate things, if they are?

I am really excited now to see how you explain what you have said so far.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay, so if and when the wikipedia definition changes, then does that mean so does yours?

Also, does this mean that you had NO definitions BEFORE wikipedia came into existence?

And, if your definition is the same as wikipedia, then what happens when definitions change in wikipedia, and you are unaware of those changes? Do you keep the old definition or are you just left in limbo?

I do NOT want to read your words, and then go to wikipedia to find out how 'you', "veritas aequitas", are defining the words you use here, and respond from wikipedia's definition, which you are unaware has changed since the last time you looked, and so I have got it all WRONG. So, better you inform me now if you keep the old definition or if you are limbo or if you also change WHEN wikipedia does?

Wiki is only for general reference.

But hang on, you clearly stated: "MY definition is the SAME as wiki."

Yes, only for the intended purpose.

The more accurate definition should be from the DSM-V and other recognized authorities.
If the DSM or wiki changes their definition, I will not use their definition as examples if they do not support my intended purposes.

So what are you saying NOW?

What IS 'your' intended purpose?

I said to YOU: Note; I asked 'YOU', how do 'YOU' define the word 'schizo'?

In case you can not understand this, I am still asking 'you'; How do 'YOU', veritas aequitas', define the word 'schizo'?

This means I want to KNOW 'your' most accurate definition for the word 'schizo'. The reason WHY I want to KNOW this is because you have a tendency to call people, with views which are different than yours are, "schizos".

My earlier point was theists being delusional just as schizo [wiki] are delusional in their delusions.

The term 'believe' and belief are very common terms.

I do NOT care if they are the MOST commonly used terms. That has NOTHING to do with any thing here.

You can deny all you want.
This is like denying you are not breathing.

The general definition of believe is this;
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/believe

What you have stated as a definition of God is a belief and believing.

Is that how it APPEARS to you? Or, is that how it is the absolute sense?

Do you BELIEVE you KNOW what the truth is here?

I won't waste time arguing on this stupid point.

What you are avoiding is your psychology and how it is driving the beliefs you are having.

Can you PROVE that I believe any thing?

If yes, then go right ahead and do it.

What you presented in the definition is a belief, I won't waste time on that.

Also, how does one avoid their OWN psychology?

Are you at all able to explain this in any way, shape, or form?

If yes, then go right ahead.

I would LOVE to learn and KNOW how 'you' can avoid 'your' psychology.

Maybe first you might like to explain how you and your psychology are separate things, if they are?

I am really excited now to see how you explain what you have said so far.

Here is one exercise;

• 1. Try denying the existence of God as real,
  2. Reflect on how your mind is acting and the rising feelings thereupon,
  3. Practice mindfulness to deal with these feeling till they subside every time you reject God as real.
  4. Read up non-theistic views, especially those of Buddhism and other non-theistic Eastern Philosophies.
  5. Avoid the philosophies of militant [a]theist.
  6. Understand the psychology of evil and violence arising via theists.

The above is not exhaustive, thus you will need to add more refine strategies.

[Age]

Wiki is only for general reference.

But hang on, you clearly stated: "MY definition is the SAME as wiki."

Yes, only for the intended purpose.

The more accurate definition should be from the DSM-V and other recognized authorities.
If the DSM or wiki changes their definition, I will not use their definition as examples if they do not support my intended purposes.

So what are you now saying, this time ?

What IS 'your' intended purpose?

I said to YOU: Note; I asked 'YOU', how do 'YOU' define the word 'schizo'?

In case you can not understand this, I am still asking 'you'; How do 'YOU', veritas aequitas', define the word 'schizo'?

This means I want to KNOW 'your' most accurate definition for the word 'schizo'. The reason WHY I want to KNOW this is because you have a tendency to call people, with views which are different than yours are, "schizos".

My earlier point was theists being delusional just as schizo [wiki] are delusional in their delusions.

I do NOT care if they are the MOST commonly used terms. That has NOTHING to do with any thing here.

You can deny all you want.
This is like denying you are not breathing.

Do you KNOW the difference between 'caring' and 'denying'?

If yes, then can you see me using the 'denying' word anywhere here?

If no, then that means I NEVER used the 'denying' word here, which means that I am NOT denying any thing at all here.

Are you under some sort of illusion that I am denying some thing here?

If yes, then what do you think or believe I am denying?

You do NOT actually think nor believe that I am denying that the term 'believe' and 'belief' are very common terms, do you?

Is that how it APPEARS to you? Or, is that how it is the absolute sense?

Do you BELIEVE you KNOW what the truth is here?

I won't waste time arguing on this stupid point.

Most people usually do just 'give up' on recognition of them being wrong, but they rarely if ever admit this.

By the way there was NOTHING to argue here. You ONLY had to answer some clarifying questions.

Can you PROVE that I believe any thing?

If yes, then go right ahead and do it.

What you presented in the definition is a belief, I won't waste time on that.

Giving up again hey?

What I have presented anywhere is NOT a belief.

If you BELIEVE otherwise, prove it. But since you are 'giving up', then that could SHOW more of what is actually the Truth of things here.

Also, how does one avoid their OWN psychology?

Are you at all able to explain this in any way, shape, or form?

If yes, then go right ahead.

I would LOVE to learn and KNOW how 'you' can avoid 'your' psychology.

Maybe first you might like to explain how you and your psychology are separate things, if they are?

I am really excited now to see how you explain what you have said so far.

Here is one exercise;

• 1. Try denying the existence of God as real,
  2. Reflect on how your mind is acting and the rising feelings thereupon,
  3. Practice mindfulness to deal with these feeling till they subside every time you reject God as real.
  4. Read up non-theistic views, especially those of Buddhism and other non-theistic Eastern Philosophies.
  5. Avoid the philosophies of militant [a]theist.
  6. Understand the psychology of evil and violence arising via theists.

The above is not exhaustive, thus you will need to add more refine strategies.

Have I even said God is real?

The only one here who has insisted things as being True, Right, and Correct is you.

You BELIEVE that God is an impossibility to be real. You are also too afraid to expose your "arguments" in simple point form here for fear of having the obvious weaknesses exposed.

You say you have ALREADY proven that 'God is an impossibility to be real' so I am not sure WHY you are so scared and afraid to put your "argument" forward in its simplest form. If it has been already proven, then surely there is NOTHING to worry about nor fear.

By the way you did NOT give one shred of an explanation of how 'you' can avoid 'your' psychology. Do you also fear putting this forward, or REALLY is the Truth, you have absolutely no clue nor idea how to explain how 'you can avoid 'your' OWN psychology?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The rest of your post are garbage. I will deal with the following;

You BELIEVE that God is an impossibility to be real. You are also too afraid to expose your "arguments" in simple point form here for fear of having the obvious weaknesses exposed.

You say you have ALREADY proven that 'God is an impossibility to be real' so I am not sure WHY you are so scared and afraid to put your "argument" forward in its simplest form. If it has been already proven, then surely there is NOTHING to worry about nor fear.

Scare?
There is already a thread to deal with that, i.e.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812
To deal the point in detail here is off topic.

By the way you did NOT give one shred of an explanation of how 'you' can avoid 'your' psychology. Do you also fear putting this forward, or REALLY is the Truth, you have absolutely no clue nor idea how to explain how 'you can avoid 'your' OWN psychology?

I had stated the existential crisis, dilemma and cognitive dissonance is hardwired via the DNA in all humans.
At present [no knowledge and technology] there is no way any human can avoid that basis of the said psychology.

One of the most effective kindergarten approach to deal with that existential crisis is religion and a belief in God. The positive effect from theism is almost immediately.

Once upon a time I had relied on the theistic approach, more appropriately the pantheistic approach to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

At present I am using a range of non-theistic self-development techniques to manage and modulate the negative impulses from the existential crisis.

Your problem is you are ignorant of the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
You are a sham, you defined God in the link below with the implication, God is real,
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27450
then when questioned, deny you have beliefs, deny your implication God is real.

You are a spineless intellect coward!

[Age]

The rest of your post are garbage. I will deal with the following;

You BELIEVE that God is an impossibility to be real. You are also too afraid to expose your "arguments" in simple point form here for fear of having the obvious weaknesses exposed.

You say you have ALREADY proven that 'God is an impossibility to be real' so I am not sure WHY you are so scared and afraid to put your "argument" forward in its simplest form. If it has been already proven, then surely there is NOTHING to worry about nor fear.

Scare?
There is already a thread to deal with that, i.e.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812
To deal the point in detail here is off topic.

And for me to read through 25 pages, and then respond in writings, which you will NEVER be able to understand anyway, is just not going to happen. Understand?

By the way you did NOT give one shred of an explanation of how 'you' can avoid 'your' psychology. Do you also fear putting this forward, or REALLY is the Truth, you have absolutely no clue nor idea how to explain how 'you can avoid 'your' OWN psychology?

I had stated the existential crisis, dilemma and cognitive dissonance is hardwired via the DNA in all humans.

And I have said:
You are WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG.

At present [no knowledge and technology] there is no way any human can avoid that basis of the said psychology.

One of the most effective kindergarten approach to deal with that existential crisis is religion and a belief in God. The positive effect from theism is almost immediately.

But there is NO actual 'existential crisis'.

For you to have an 'existential crisis' is only a delusion on your part, alone.

Once upon a time I had relied on the theistic approach, more appropriately the pantheistic approach to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

Do you recall telling us this MANY times already?

At present I am using a range of non-theistic self-development techniques to manage and modulate the negative impulses from the existential crisis.

So, you are using a range of techniques to manage what is essentially just a delusion anyway. Does it help you to keep informing us of this on a public forum?

Your problem is you are ignorant of the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

I do NOT have any so called "problem" because there is NO actual 'existential crisis' to begin with. Unless of course you make one up and see that one.

You are a sham, you defined God in the link below with the implication, God is real,
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27450
then when questioned, deny you have beliefs, deny your implication God is real.

Of course I deny I have beliefs. This is because I actually do NOT have any beliefs.

I, however, NEVER denied God is real. You just ASSUMED that that is what I was doing. This is because I wrote in a particular way to MAKE you ASSUME that. I do this to SHOW just how easily it is for you to get things SO WRONG when you make assumptions BEFORE asking clarifying questions.

I like to SHOW this so then 'you', human beings, may wake up to yourselves one day and start asking for clarification BEFORE you start making the insanely WRONG assumptions that you continually do.

You are a spineless intellect coward!

Fair enough.

I have been called other things in this forum, but each to their own.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I like to SHOW this so then 'you', human beings, may wake up to yourselves one day and start asking for clarification BEFORE you start making the insanely WRONG assumptions that you continually do.

This is blind and stupid arrogance of elitism, worst without arguments and justifications.
Are you from another planet?

[Age]

I like to SHOW this so then 'you', human beings, may wake up to yourselves one day and start asking for clarification BEFORE you start making the insanely WRONG assumptions that you continually do.

This is blind and stupid arrogance of elitism, worst without arguments and justifications.
Are you from another planet?

The correct and proper answer that question depends on who and/or what is the 'you' being referred to here?

[Age]

I like to SHOW this so then 'you', human beings, may wake up to yourselves one day and start asking for clarification BEFORE you start making the insanely WRONG assumptions that you continually do.

This is blind and stupid arrogance of elitism, worst without arguments and justifications.
Are you from another planet?

I will say this again;
I write in a particular way to MAKE you ASSUME things. I do this to SHOW just how easily it is for you to get things SO WRONG when you make assumptions BEFORE asking clarifying questions.

I like to SHOW this, so then 'you', human beings, may wake up to yourselves one day and start asking for clarification BEFORE you start making the insanely WRONG assumptions that you continually do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I like to SHOW this so then 'you', human beings, may wake up to yourselves one day and start asking for clarification BEFORE you start making the insanely WRONG assumptions that you continually do.

This is blind and stupid arrogance of elitism, worst without arguments and justifications.
Are you from another planet?

I will say this again;
I write in a particular way to MAKE you ASSUME things. I do this to SHOW just how easily it is for you to get things SO WRONG when you make assumptions BEFORE asking clarifying questions.

I like to SHOW this, so then 'you', human beings, may wake up to yourselves one day and start asking for clarification BEFORE you start making the insanely WRONG assumptions that you continually do.

Sense of grandeur, eh!
That is no different from a schizo who think others are insane except himself.