Can you prove solipsism true?

[Skepdick]

So what if I interpret their position as a loss? I’m not saying I agree just showing them the conclusions of their position. “Exactly” doesn’t really answer anything to my “so what”.

So what?

If anything it just negates your initial “so what” because it indicates there wasn’t anything behind it.

Does it?

So there's something behind your "so what", but nothing behind mine? Sure seems you value your "so what" more than you value mine.

You end up defeating yourself.

You seem to be pre-supposing some sort of value system. Are you saying self-defeat is inherently non-valuable or something?

An it is impossible to be a nihilism since you have to value it.

Sure seems like recognizing nihilism as inherently true is sufficient. No need to value it any more than there's a need to value the fact that Earth orbits the Sun.

You are also not really attacking another position by saying “so what” if you don’t hold any actual positions. Your criticism is just empty. In short you were defeated before the game even started.

So what? It sure sounds like you value "defeating" people.

OK. You win. So what?

It’s why nihilism isn’t undefeatable, it defeats itself.

Self-defeat is a meaningless notion. To use your own phraseology - it makes no practical difference to a nihilist whether nihilism "defeats itself" or not.

Because there's nothing inherently valuable in "winning" or "defeating" others.

There's nothing inherently valuable in "being right"

So I’ll say, where are you going with this?

Nowhere. I am just pointing out that because nihilism is fundamentally true philosophy, and the usual mind and language games played in a setting of "winning" or "losing" arguments is inherently a worthless activity.

Philosophy is only valuable if you choose to value it.

[Age]

A lot of what you just said is meaningless noise so I'm gonna pick out the ACTUAL points here:

I note that you did NOT say what the 'it' word refers to, exactly, which you CLAIM you REFUTED.

But the ULTIMATE 'thing' talks about, and which can be PROVED True is Oneness.

Oneness of?

The one and ONLY One, OBVIOUSLY.

Also I have a suspicion of what that oneness means and I'm pretty sure you don't get it. From what I was told oneness isn't "one", "dual", or "Both" or "neither" but rather a subtle truth. It doesn't literally mean oneness, though Buddhism was always a bit tricky like that.

But no, you can't prove oneness true. All you're doing is just asserting it so.

So, you NEVER ASK FOR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, while ALSO NEVER CHALLENGING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', BUT you FORM the OPINION, CONCLUSION, AND BELIEF of some 'thing' ANYWAY. Oh, and by the way, proving Oneness was NEVER the issue here. I just ANSWERED the CLARIFYING QUESTION you ASKED me. Which is some 'thing' that you appear to NOT want to do "yourself".

I ALSO NOTICE you completely AND utterly BYPASSED the POINT ABOUT you NEVER informing 'us' of what the 'it' word IS/WAS, which you CLAIM you REFUTED.

Absolutely ANY one could say absolutely ANY 'thing'. BUT, if they can back up and support what they SAY and CLAIM with ACTUAL PROOF, then that is ANOTHER 'thing'.

I told you proof is for mathematics,

YES, you TOLD me 'this'.

I ALSO INFORMED you that if you can NOT back up and support YOUR WORDS and CLAIMS, then that is ANOTHER 'thing'.

What do you base your CLAIM here on that 'proof is for mathematics'?

And, do you ALWAYS BELIEVES 'things' WITHOUT ANY PROOF AT ALL?

in real life we have evidence.

In the ONLY Life I have PROOF. Which, by the way, I USE.

Using evidence we make a best guess about what is going on and sometimes it goes well and sometimes no, it's a never ending process of refinement.

But A 'refinement' to 'what', EXACTLY?

The CONCLUSION that you can NEVER KNOW what IS ACTUALLY TRUE or NOT?

You and him say the "I" is an illusion

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here we have ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of just what happens to one who bases their WHOLE KNOWLEDGE of and on some 'thing', solely on a TINY SNIPPET, of the WHOLE and BIG Picture.

'you' CLAIM that 'I' SAY that the 'I' is an illusion. So, now that we KNOW that you do NOT USE 'proof', what ACTUAL 'evidence' could you be USING for this ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY ABSURD, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect CONCLUSION of YOURS here?

but Buddhism doesn't say this, not truly.

Would you like to INFORM the readers here WHY you INTRODUCED the 'buddhism' word here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

When asked if there was a self the Buddha was silent because it didn't matter for enlightenment. Though what they mean by illusion is a permanent and unchanging self, like a soul (which was in contrast to Hinduism which says the opposite).

Okay. But, so what? As some would say.

See, I ALREADY KNOW HOW to OBTAIN 'certainty'. So, 'certainty' and 'absolute certainty' here IS POSSIBLE.

But, OF COURSE, if you BELIEVE otherwise, then 'it' could NEVER BE, correct?

No you don't, you just believe yourself certain and that's the most dangerous form of belief.

I found BELIEVING that "another" HAS A BELIEF, when they do NOT, a VERY, VERY ABSURD and ILLOGICAL BELIEF to HAVE, and HOLD.

As for the ACTUAL DANGER that DOING SO POSES, we will just have to WAIT, TO SEE.

But I do NOT rely on just 'evidence'. I rely ON and USE ACTUAL 'proof', INSTEAD.

Asked and answered.

Honestly this is just noise.

OF COURSE it IS, TO you.

Which PROVES MY POINT ABOUT HOW one who BELIEVES (in) some 'thing' IS NOT AT ALL OPEN, in ANY way, to absolutely ANY 'thing', which OPPOSES that BELIEF.

Thus, MORE and FURTHER, IRREFUTABLE, PROOF I HAVE just PRESENTED to 'you', readers, here.

Yelling that folks just don't get "The truth", and yet you have no actual arguments for it.

This one here IS, ONCE AGAIN, PROVING ANOTHER CLAIM of mine. That is; they WILL ASSUME 'things' BEFORE they even BEGIN to SEEK OUT CLARITY FIRST. Thus the reason WHY they were/are SO Wrong, SO OFTEN.

Like...using words like proof, ultimate, know, and certain.

Do you NOT like those words.

Do they OPPOSE YOUR BELIEF that 'these things' could NOT POSSIBLY EXIST, IN 'your world'?

Honestly this just sounds like fear, fear of not knowing, not being certain,

OKAY, if 'those words' MAKE 'it' SEEM like 'I' FEAR absolutely ANY 'thing' here, then that IS what SEEMS LIKE, TO you.

demanding proof as though it's some solid sort of support for yourself.

WHERE have I EVER 'demanded' proof? OF COURSE I HAVE ASKED you FOR SOME. BUT if you HAVE NONE, then so be it. I WOULD NEVER EVER 'demand' ANY 'thing' FROM ANY one.

Like...I just feel bad for you, because it's almost like some pathological need to have THE ANSWER, when really no one truly has it.

So, to you, absolutely NO one has THE ANSWER, right?

Are you EVEN AWARE that SAYING and CLAIMING 'this' is ALSO CLAIMING TO HAVE 'THE ANSWER'?

Science doesn't claim to, it just does it's best with what it has so far. And to be frank, that's a way better track record than any other system out there. It's not perfect or complete, but it doesn't need to be, it's good enough.

So-called 'good enough' for 'what', EXACTLY?

For the questions it can't answer, like ethics, well that's what philosophy is for.

BUT, TO you, there IS NO ANSWER, right?

Honestly though, I came to this forum to discuss philosophy and instead I get nutbars who think repeating the same thing over and over makes it true.

you WILL FIND 'them' in MANY PARTS OF Life, and NOT just on this one tiny little 'philosophy forum'.

You might want to check a spirituality forum, not a philosophy one.

Here we have ANOTHER who has NOT YET backed up NOR support just ONE of 'its' CLAIMS, RAN AWAY FROM ANY and EVERY CHALLENGE, would NOT OPENLY and Honestly just ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ASKED, all the while just LOOKING AT and 'trying to' ATTACK the "other".

By the way, do you have A REASON WHY you will NOT ADD my name when 'you' quote 'me'?

you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT ANSWER last time, just MAYBE you MIGHT 'this time'. We will WAIT, and SEE.

[Iwannaplato]

For someone to take comfort from the idea that everyone else is just a figment of their imagination says more about them, i think, than the nature of reality.

Sure, but I think that's a very rare individual. Extremely rare.

[Darkneos]

A lot of what you just said is meaningless noise so I'm gonna pick out the ACTUAL points here:

I note that you did NOT say what the 'it' word refers to, exactly, which you CLAIM you REFUTED.

But the ULTIMATE 'thing' talks about, and which can be PROVED True is Oneness.

Oneness of?

The one and ONLY One, OBVIOUSLY.

Also I have a suspicion of what that oneness means and I'm pretty sure you don't get it. From what I was told oneness isn't "one", "dual", or "Both" or "neither" but rather a subtle truth. It doesn't literally mean oneness, though Buddhism was always a bit tricky like that.

But no, you can't prove oneness true. All you're doing is just asserting it so.

So, you NEVER ASK FOR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, while ALSO NEVER CHALLENGING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', BUT you FORM the OPINION, CONCLUSION, AND BELIEF of some 'thing' ANYWAY. Oh, and by the way, proving Oneness was NEVER the issue here. I just ANSWERED the CLARIFYING QUESTION you ASKED me. Which is some 'thing' that you appear to NOT want to do "yourself".

I ALSO NOTICE you completely AND utterly BYPASSED the POINT ABOUT you NEVER informing 'us' of what the 'it' word IS/WAS, which you CLAIM you REFUTED.

Absolutely ANY one could say absolutely ANY 'thing'. BUT, if they can back up and support what they SAY and CLAIM with ACTUAL PROOF, then that is ANOTHER 'thing'.

I told you proof is for mathematics,

YES, you TOLD me 'this'.

I ALSO INFORMED you that if you can NOT back up and support YOUR WORDS and CLAIMS, then that is ANOTHER 'thing'.

What do you base your CLAIM here on that 'proof is for mathematics'?

And, do you ALWAYS BELIEVES 'things' WITHOUT ANY PROOF AT ALL?

in real life we have evidence.

In the ONLY Life I have PROOF. Which, by the way, I USE.

Using evidence we make a best guess about what is going on and sometimes it goes well and sometimes no, it's a never ending process of refinement.

But A 'refinement' to 'what', EXACTLY?

The CONCLUSION that you can NEVER KNOW what IS ACTUALLY TRUE or NOT?

You and him say the "I" is an illusion

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here we have ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of just what happens to one who bases their WHOLE KNOWLEDGE of and on some 'thing', solely on a TINY SNIPPET, of the WHOLE and BIG Picture.

'you' CLAIM that 'I' SAY that the 'I' is an illusion. So, now that we KNOW that you do NOT USE 'proof', what ACTUAL 'evidence' could you be USING for this ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY ABSURD, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect CONCLUSION of YOURS here?

but Buddhism doesn't say this, not truly.

Would you like to INFORM the readers here WHY you INTRODUCED the 'buddhism' word here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

When asked if there was a self the Buddha was silent because it didn't matter for enlightenment. Though what they mean by illusion is a permanent and unchanging self, like a soul (which was in contrast to Hinduism which says the opposite).

Okay. But, so what? As some would say.

See, I ALREADY KNOW HOW to OBTAIN 'certainty'. So, 'certainty' and 'absolute certainty' here IS POSSIBLE.

But, OF COURSE, if you BELIEVE otherwise, then 'it' could NEVER BE, correct?

No you don't, you just believe yourself certain and that's the most dangerous form of belief.

I found BELIEVING that "another" HAS A BELIEF, when they do NOT, a VERY, VERY ABSURD and ILLOGICAL BELIEF to HAVE, and HOLD.

As for the ACTUAL DANGER that DOING SO POSES, we will just have to WAIT, TO SEE.

But I do NOT rely on just 'evidence'. I rely ON and USE ACTUAL 'proof', INSTEAD.

Asked and answered.

Honestly this is just noise.

OF COURSE it IS, TO you.

Which PROVES MY POINT ABOUT HOW one who BELIEVES (in) some 'thing' IS NOT AT ALL OPEN, in ANY way, to absolutely ANY 'thing', which OPPOSES that BELIEF.

Thus, MORE and FURTHER, IRREFUTABLE, PROOF I HAVE just PRESENTED to 'you', readers, here.

Yelling that folks just don't get "The truth", and yet you have no actual arguments for it.

This one here IS, ONCE AGAIN, PROVING ANOTHER CLAIM of mine. That is; they WILL ASSUME 'things' BEFORE they even BEGIN to SEEK OUT CLARITY FIRST. Thus the reason WHY they were/are SO Wrong, SO OFTEN.

Like...using words like proof, ultimate, know, and certain.

Do you NOT like those words.

Do they OPPOSE YOUR BELIEF that 'these things' could NOT POSSIBLY EXIST, IN 'your world'?

Honestly this just sounds like fear, fear of not knowing, not being certain,

OKAY, if 'those words' MAKE 'it' SEEM like 'I' FEAR absolutely ANY 'thing' here, then that IS what SEEMS LIKE, TO you.

demanding proof as though it's some solid sort of support for yourself.

WHERE have I EVER 'demanded' proof? OF COURSE I HAVE ASKED you FOR SOME. BUT if you HAVE NONE, then so be it. I WOULD NEVER EVER 'demand' ANY 'thing' FROM ANY one.

Like...I just feel bad for you, because it's almost like some pathological need to have THE ANSWER, when really no one truly has it.

So, to you, absolutely NO one has THE ANSWER, right?

Are you EVEN AWARE that SAYING and CLAIMING 'this' is ALSO CLAIMING TO HAVE 'THE ANSWER'?

Science doesn't claim to, it just does it's best with what it has so far. And to be frank, that's a way better track record than any other system out there. It's not perfect or complete, but it doesn't need to be, it's good enough.

So-called 'good enough' for 'what', EXACTLY?

For the questions it can't answer, like ethics, well that's what philosophy is for.

BUT, TO you, there IS NO ANSWER, right?

Honestly though, I came to this forum to discuss philosophy and instead I get nutbars who think repeating the same thing over and over makes it true.

you WILL FIND 'them' in MANY PARTS OF Life, and NOT just on this one tiny little 'philosophy forum'.

You might want to check a spirituality forum, not a philosophy one.

Here we have ANOTHER who has NOT YET backed up NOR support just ONE of 'its' CLAIMS, RAN AWAY FROM ANY and EVERY CHALLENGE, would NOT OPENLY and Honestly just ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ASKED, all the while just LOOKING AT and 'trying to' ATTACK the "other".

By the way, do you have A REASON WHY you will NOT ADD my name when 'you' quote 'me'?

you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT ANSWER last time, just MAYBE you MIGHT 'this time'. We will WAIT, and SEE.

Still didn’t answer any question. Like I said “oneness of”? Just oneness doesn’t say anything. This is what I mean by you don’t get it. Oneness isn’t oneness, at least according to the philosophies I read. It’s more advanced than that. Not that I believe it to be the case but at least they can argue their point and I can respect that.

I also find it dazzling how someone can write so much and end up saying nothing. You really are insane.

Well also scared too. This really just reads like fear.

[Age]

A lot of what you just said is meaningless noise so I'm gonna pick out the ACTUAL points here:



Oneness of?

The one and ONLY One, OBVIOUSLY.

Also I have a suspicion of what that oneness means and I'm pretty sure you don't get it. From what I was told oneness isn't "one", "dual", or "Both" or "neither" but rather a subtle truth. It doesn't literally mean oneness, though Buddhism was always a bit tricky like that.

But no, you can't prove oneness true. All you're doing is just asserting it so.

So, you NEVER ASK FOR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, while ALSO NEVER CHALLENGING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', BUT you FORM the OPINION, CONCLUSION, AND BELIEF of some 'thing' ANYWAY. Oh, and by the way, proving Oneness was NEVER the issue here. I just ANSWERED the CLARIFYING QUESTION you ASKED me. Which is some 'thing' that you appear to NOT want to do "yourself".

I ALSO NOTICE you completely AND utterly BYPASSED the POINT ABOUT you NEVER informing 'us' of what the 'it' word IS/WAS, which you CLAIM you REFUTED.

I told you proof is for mathematics,

YES, you TOLD me 'this'.

I ALSO INFORMED you that if you can NOT back up and support YOUR WORDS and CLAIMS, then that is ANOTHER 'thing'.

What do you base your CLAIM here on that 'proof is for mathematics'?

And, do you ALWAYS BELIEVES 'things' WITHOUT ANY PROOF AT ALL?

in real life we have evidence.

In the ONLY Life I have PROOF. Which, by the way, I USE.

Using evidence we make a best guess about what is going on and sometimes it goes well and sometimes no, it's a never ending process of refinement.

But A 'refinement' to 'what', EXACTLY?

The CONCLUSION that you can NEVER KNOW what IS ACTUALLY TRUE or NOT?

You and him say the "I" is an illusion

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here we have ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of just what happens to one who bases their WHOLE KNOWLEDGE of and on some 'thing', solely on a TINY SNIPPET, of the WHOLE and BIG Picture.

'you' CLAIM that 'I' SAY that the 'I' is an illusion. So, now that we KNOW that you do NOT USE 'proof', what ACTUAL 'evidence' could you be USING for this ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY ABSURD, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect CONCLUSION of YOURS here?

but Buddhism doesn't say this, not truly.

Would you like to INFORM the readers here WHY you INTRODUCED the 'buddhism' word here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

When asked if there was a self the Buddha was silent because it didn't matter for enlightenment. Though what they mean by illusion is a permanent and unchanging self, like a soul (which was in contrast to Hinduism which says the opposite).

Okay. But, so what? As some would say.

No you don't, you just believe yourself certain and that's the most dangerous form of belief.

I found BELIEVING that "another" HAS A BELIEF, when they do NOT, a VERY, VERY ABSURD and ILLOGICAL BELIEF to HAVE, and HOLD.

As for the ACTUAL DANGER that DOING SO POSES, we will just have to WAIT, TO SEE.

Asked and answered.

Honestly this is just noise.

OF COURSE it IS, TO you.

Which PROVES MY POINT ABOUT HOW one who BELIEVES (in) some 'thing' IS NOT AT ALL OPEN, in ANY way, to absolutely ANY 'thing', which OPPOSES that BELIEF.

Thus, MORE and FURTHER, IRREFUTABLE, PROOF I HAVE just PRESENTED to 'you', readers, here.

Yelling that folks just don't get "The truth", and yet you have no actual arguments for it.

This one here IS, ONCE AGAIN, PROVING ANOTHER CLAIM of mine. That is; they WILL ASSUME 'things' BEFORE they even BEGIN to SEEK OUT CLARITY FIRST. Thus the reason WHY they were/are SO Wrong, SO OFTEN.

Like...using words like proof, ultimate, know, and certain.

Do you NOT like those words.

Do they OPPOSE YOUR BELIEF that 'these things' could NOT POSSIBLY EXIST, IN 'your world'?

Honestly this just sounds like fear, fear of not knowing, not being certain,

OKAY, if 'those words' MAKE 'it' SEEM like 'I' FEAR absolutely ANY 'thing' here, then that IS what SEEMS LIKE, TO you.

demanding proof as though it's some solid sort of support for yourself.

WHERE have I EVER 'demanded' proof? OF COURSE I HAVE ASKED you FOR SOME. BUT if you HAVE NONE, then so be it. I WOULD NEVER EVER 'demand' ANY 'thing' FROM ANY one.

Like...I just feel bad for you, because it's almost like some pathological need to have THE ANSWER, when really no one truly has it.

So, to you, absolutely NO one has THE ANSWER, right?

Are you EVEN AWARE that SAYING and CLAIMING 'this' is ALSO CLAIMING TO HAVE 'THE ANSWER'?

Science doesn't claim to, it just does it's best with what it has so far. And to be frank, that's a way better track record than any other system out there. It's not perfect or complete, but it doesn't need to be, it's good enough.

So-called 'good enough' for 'what', EXACTLY?

For the questions it can't answer, like ethics, well that's what philosophy is for.

BUT, TO you, there IS NO ANSWER, right?

Honestly though, I came to this forum to discuss philosophy and instead I get nutbars who think repeating the same thing over and over makes it true.

you WILL FIND 'them' in MANY PARTS OF Life, and NOT just on this one tiny little 'philosophy forum'.

You might want to check a spirituality forum, not a philosophy one.

Here we have ANOTHER who has NOT YET backed up NOR support just ONE of 'its' CLAIMS, RAN AWAY FROM ANY and EVERY CHALLENGE, would NOT OPENLY and Honestly just ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ASKED, all the while just LOOKING AT and 'trying to' ATTACK the "other".

By the way, do you have A REASON WHY you will NOT ADD my name when 'you' quote 'me'?

you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT ANSWER last time, just MAYBE you MIGHT 'this time'. We will WAIT, and SEE.

Still didn’t answer any question. Like I said “oneness of”?

Yes I DID. I SAID and POINTED OUT that there is ONLY One 'Thing'. So there, OBVIOUSLY, could NOT be ANY 'thing' ELSE, which 'Oneness' could be OF.

Now what are these ALLEGED OTHER questions you, SUPPOSEDLY, asked, which I SUPPOSEDLY did NOT answer.

Also, absolutely ANY 'thing' here about 'Oneness' is just YOUR ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTING AWAY FROM what I was POINTING OUT and SHOWING earlier.

Furthermore, WHO has NOT been ANSWERING the QUESTIONS ASKED here, can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN here.

Just oneness doesn’t say anything.

WHO CARES?

Oneness was NEVER EVEN UP FOR DISCUSSION.

I JUST ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.

This is what I mean by you don’t get it. Oneness isn’t oneness, at least according to the philosophies I read. It’s more advanced than that. Not that I believe it to be the case but at least they can argue their point and I can respect that.

I had NOT EVEN BEGUN to argue ANY 'thing' here. I was just POINTING OUT SOME 'things' and JUST ASKING you SOME VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD CLARIFYING QUESTIONS so that I could obtain a BETTER UNDERSTANDING of WHERE you are COMING FROM, EXACTLY.

I also find it dazzling how someone can write so much and end up saying nothing. You really are insane.

Okay if that is what you SSE, READ, and have ALREADY CONCLUDED IS TRUE, then ALL IS WELL and GOOD. Well to me anyway.

Well also scared too. This really just reads like fear.

AGAIN, if this is what you READ and SEE, then this is PERFECTLY FINE WITH me.

If there is ANY truth AT ALL to 'it', then that is ANOTHER MATTER, and some 'thing' which WILL COME-TO-LIGHT later on.

[Darkneos]

The one and ONLY One, OBVIOUSLY.



So, you NEVER ASK FOR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, while ALSO NEVER CHALLENGING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', BUT you FORM the OPINION, CONCLUSION, AND BELIEF of some 'thing' ANYWAY. Oh, and by the way, proving Oneness was NEVER the issue here. I just ANSWERED the CLARIFYING QUESTION you ASKED me. Which is some 'thing' that you appear to NOT want to do "yourself".

I ALSO NOTICE you completely AND utterly BYPASSED the POINT ABOUT you NEVER informing 'us' of what the 'it' word IS/WAS, which you CLAIM you REFUTED.


YES, you TOLD me 'this'.

I ALSO INFORMED you that if you can NOT back up and support YOUR WORDS and CLAIMS, then that is ANOTHER 'thing'.

What do you base your CLAIM here on that 'proof is for mathematics'?

And, do you ALWAYS BELIEVES 'things' WITHOUT ANY PROOF AT ALL?


In the ONLY Life I have PROOF. Which, by the way, I USE.


But A 'refinement' to 'what', EXACTLY?

The CONCLUSION that you can NEVER KNOW what IS ACTUALLY TRUE or NOT?



LOL
LOL
LOL

Here we have ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of just what happens to one who bases their WHOLE KNOWLEDGE of and on some 'thing', solely on a TINY SNIPPET, of the WHOLE and BIG Picture.

'you' CLAIM that 'I' SAY that the 'I' is an illusion. So, now that we KNOW that you do NOT USE 'proof', what ACTUAL 'evidence' could you be USING for this ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY ABSURD, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect CONCLUSION of YOURS here?



Would you like to INFORM the readers here WHY you INTRODUCED the 'buddhism' word here?

If no, then WHY NOT?


Okay. But, so what? As some would say.


I found BELIEVING that "another" HAS A BELIEF, when they do NOT, a VERY, VERY ABSURD and ILLOGICAL BELIEF to HAVE, and HOLD.

As for the ACTUAL DANGER that DOING SO POSES, we will just have to WAIT, TO SEE.


OF COURSE it IS, TO you.

Which PROVES MY POINT ABOUT HOW one who BELIEVES (in) some 'thing' IS NOT AT ALL OPEN, in ANY way, to absolutely ANY 'thing', which OPPOSES that BELIEF.

Thus, MORE and FURTHER, IRREFUTABLE, PROOF I HAVE just PRESENTED to 'you', readers, here.


This one here IS, ONCE AGAIN, PROVING ANOTHER CLAIM of mine. That is; they WILL ASSUME 'things' BEFORE they even BEGIN to SEEK OUT CLARITY FIRST. Thus the reason WHY they were/are SO Wrong, SO OFTEN.



Do you NOT like those words.

Do they OPPOSE YOUR BELIEF that 'these things' could NOT POSSIBLY EXIST, IN 'your world'?



OKAY, if 'those words' MAKE 'it' SEEM like 'I' FEAR absolutely ANY 'thing' here, then that IS what SEEMS LIKE, TO you.


WHERE have I EVER 'demanded' proof? OF COURSE I HAVE ASKED you FOR SOME. BUT if you HAVE NONE, then so be it. I WOULD NEVER EVER 'demand' ANY 'thing' FROM ANY one.


So, to you, absolutely NO one has THE ANSWER, right?

Are you EVEN AWARE that SAYING and CLAIMING 'this' is ALSO CLAIMING TO HAVE 'THE ANSWER'?


So-called 'good enough' for 'what', EXACTLY?


BUT, TO you, there IS NO ANSWER, right?


you WILL FIND 'them' in MANY PARTS OF Life, and NOT just on this one tiny little 'philosophy forum'.


Here we have ANOTHER who has NOT YET backed up NOR support just ONE of 'its' CLAIMS, RAN AWAY FROM ANY and EVERY CHALLENGE, would NOT OPENLY and Honestly just ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ASKED, all the while just LOOKING AT and 'trying to' ATTACK the "other".

By the way, do you have A REASON WHY you will NOT ADD my name when 'you' quote 'me'?

you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT ANSWER last time, just MAYBE you MIGHT 'this time'. We will WAIT, and SEE.

Still didn’t answer any question. Like I said “oneness of”?

Yes I DID. I SAID and POINTED OUT that there is ONLY One 'Thing'. So there, OBVIOUSLY, could NOT be ANY 'thing' ELSE, which 'Oneness' could be OF.

Now what are these ALLEGED OTHER questions you, SUPPOSEDLY, asked, which I SUPPOSEDLY did NOT answer.

Also, absolutely ANY 'thing' here about 'Oneness' is just YOUR ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTING AWAY FROM what I was POINTING OUT and SHOWING earlier.

Furthermore, WHO has NOT been ANSWERING the QUESTIONS ASKED here, can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN here.

Just oneness doesn’t say anything.

WHO CARES?

Oneness was NEVER EVEN UP FOR DISCUSSION.

I JUST ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.

This is what I mean by you don’t get it. Oneness isn’t oneness, at least according to the philosophies I read. It’s more advanced than that. Not that I believe it to be the case but at least they can argue their point and I can respect that.

I had NOT EVEN BEGUN to argue ANY 'thing' here. I was just POINTING OUT SOME 'things' and JUST ASKING you SOME VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD CLARIFYING QUESTIONS so that I could obtain a BETTER UNDERSTANDING of WHERE you are COMING FROM, EXACTLY.

I also find it dazzling how someone can write so much and end up saying nothing. You really are insane.

Okay if that is what you SSE, READ, and have ALREADY CONCLUDED IS TRUE, then ALL IS WELL and GOOD. Well to me anyway.

Well also scared too. This really just reads like fear.

AGAIN, if this is what you READ and SEE, then this is PERFECTLY FINE WITH me.

If there is ANY truth AT ALL to 'it', then that is ANOTHER MATTER, and some 'thing' which WILL COME-TO-LIGHT later on.

There isn’t one thing, there are many things. You can see it if you have eyes.

This is just sad at this point.

[Age]

Still didn’t answer any question. Like I said “oneness of”?

Yes I DID. I SAID and POINTED OUT that there is ONLY One 'Thing'. So there, OBVIOUSLY, could NOT be ANY 'thing' ELSE, which 'Oneness' could be OF.

Now what are these ALLEGED OTHER questions you, SUPPOSEDLY, asked, which I SUPPOSEDLY did NOT answer.

Also, absolutely ANY 'thing' here about 'Oneness' is just YOUR ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTING AWAY FROM what I was POINTING OUT and SHOWING earlier.

Furthermore, WHO has NOT been ANSWERING the QUESTIONS ASKED here, can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN here.

Just oneness doesn’t say anything.

WHO CARES?

Oneness was NEVER EVEN UP FOR DISCUSSION.

I JUST ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.

This is what I mean by you don’t get it. Oneness isn’t oneness, at least according to the philosophies I read. It’s more advanced than that. Not that I believe it to be the case but at least they can argue their point and I can respect that.

I had NOT EVEN BEGUN to argue ANY 'thing' here. I was just POINTING OUT SOME 'things' and JUST ASKING you SOME VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD CLARIFYING QUESTIONS so that I could obtain a BETTER UNDERSTANDING of WHERE you are COMING FROM, EXACTLY.

I also find it dazzling how someone can write so much and end up saying nothing. You really are insane.

Okay if that is what you SSE, READ, and have ALREADY CONCLUDED IS TRUE, then ALL IS WELL and GOOD. Well to me anyway.

Well also scared too. This really just reads like fear.

AGAIN, if this is what you READ and SEE, then this is PERFECTLY FINE WITH me.

If there is ANY truth AT ALL to 'it', then that is ANOTHER MATTER, and some 'thing' which WILL COME-TO-LIGHT later on.

There isn’t one thing, there are many things. You can see it if you have eyes.

LOL

Here is a PRIME example of just how adult human beings USED to think, and BELIEVE was true. That is; that what they 'SAW' they BELIEVED was true, as well as BELIEVING EVERY one “else“ SHOULD ’SEE' and BELIEVE the EXACT SAME 'thing'.

They were VERY RARELY, if EVER, OPEN to the Fact that what they 'SAW', and BELIEVED true, may just NOT be.

Previous history, like when people BELIEVED that the sun, and the Universe, literally, 'revolved around them', one could have thought would have been a GREAT LESSON to NEVER ASSUME that what one 'SEES' and BELIEVES is true is ACTUALLY true. BUT, OBVIOUSLY, this LESSON was NOT LEARNED, especially by this one here, hitherto when this is being written, anyway.

This is just sad at this point.

'TRYING TO' make "the other" appear INFERIOR, as this one has just provided ANOTHER GREAT example of, was a VERY COMMON tactic USED BY ADULT human beings, especially if the male gender, back in the days when this was being written.

It WAS USED because "the claimer" usually had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER ELSE to FALL BACK ON and USE.

[Darkneos]

Yes I DID. I SAID and POINTED OUT that there is ONLY One 'Thing'. So there, OBVIOUSLY, could NOT be ANY 'thing' ELSE, which 'Oneness' could be OF.

Now what are these ALLEGED OTHER questions you, SUPPOSEDLY, asked, which I SUPPOSEDLY did NOT answer.

Also, absolutely ANY 'thing' here about 'Oneness' is just YOUR ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTING AWAY FROM what I was POINTING OUT and SHOWING earlier.

Furthermore, WHO has NOT been ANSWERING the QUESTIONS ASKED here, can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN here.



WHO CARES?

Oneness was NEVER EVEN UP FOR DISCUSSION.

I JUST ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.


I had NOT EVEN BEGUN to argue ANY 'thing' here. I was just POINTING OUT SOME 'things' and JUST ASKING you SOME VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD CLARIFYING QUESTIONS so that I could obtain a BETTER UNDERSTANDING of WHERE you are COMING FROM, EXACTLY.



Okay if that is what you SSE, READ, and have ALREADY CONCLUDED IS TRUE, then ALL IS WELL and GOOD. Well to me anyway.



AGAIN, if this is what you READ and SEE, then this is PERFECTLY FINE WITH me.

If there is ANY truth AT ALL to 'it', then that is ANOTHER MATTER, and some 'thing' which WILL COME-TO-LIGHT later on.

There isn’t one thing, there are many things. You can see it if you have eyes.

LOL

Here is a PRIME example of just how adult human beings USED to think, and BELIEVE was true. That is; that what they 'SAW' they BELIEVED was true, as well as BELIEVING EVERY one “else“ SHOULD ’SEE' and BELIEVE the EXACT SAME 'thing'.

They were VERY RARELY, if EVER, OPEN to the Fact that what they 'SAW', and BELIEVED true, may just NOT be.

Previous history, like when people BELIEVED that the sun, and the Universe, literally, 'revolved around them', one could have thought would have been a GREAT LESSON to NEVER ASSUME that what one 'SEES' and BELIEVES is true is ACTUALLY true. BUT, OBVIOUSLY, this LESSON was NOT LEARNED, especially by this one here, hitherto when this is being written, anyway.

This is just sad at this point.

'TRYING TO' make "the other" appear INFERIOR, as this one has just provided ANOTHER GREAT example of, was a VERY COMMON tactic USED BY ADULT human beings, especially if the male gender, back in the days when this was being written.

It WAS USED because "the claimer" usually had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER ELSE to FALL BACK ON and USE.

Still wrong.

Also you know what disproved the sun rotating around us? OBSERVATION! Weird right?

Just digging your own grave here. You're lucky there aren't really mods around though.

[Age]

There isn’t one thing, there are many things. You can see it if you have eyes.

LOL

Here is a PRIME example of just how adult human beings USED to think, and BELIEVE was true. That is; that what they 'SAW' they BELIEVED was true, as well as BELIEVING EVERY one “else“ SHOULD ’SEE' and BELIEVE the EXACT SAME 'thing'.

They were VERY RARELY, if EVER, OPEN to the Fact that what they 'SAW', and BELIEVED true, may just NOT be.

Previous history, like when people BELIEVED that the sun, and the Universe, literally, 'revolved around them', one could have thought would have been a GREAT LESSON to NEVER ASSUME that what one 'SEES' and BELIEVES is true is ACTUALLY true. BUT, OBVIOUSLY, this LESSON was NOT LEARNED, especially by this one here, hitherto when this is being written, anyway.

This is just sad at this point.

'TRYING TO' make "the other" appear INFERIOR, as this one has just provided ANOTHER GREAT example of, was a VERY COMMON tactic USED BY ADULT human beings, especially if the male gender, back in the days when this was being written.

It WAS USED because "the claimer" usually had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER ELSE to FALL BACK ON and USE.

Still wrong.

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY? Or, to just EVERY 'thing' I said?

Also you know what disproved the sun rotating around us? OBSERVATION! Weird right?

NOT 'weird' AT ALL.

What I FOUND 'weird' though is even when someone is EXPLAINING a NEWER or MORE COMPREHENSIVE version, there WERE, and ARE, STILL SOME people who BELIEVE and WANT to INSIST that the OLDER version IS the absolutely TRUER or RIGHTER version, while NEVER even STOPPING to just LOOK AT and
CONSIDER the OTHER version. Which IS EXACTLY what you ARE DOING, and SHOWING, here.

Just digging your own grave here.

Again, in regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

Have I even begun to ARGUE FOR ANY 'thing' here?

If you think or BELIEVE, 'yes', then what is 'that', EXACTLY?

You're lucky there aren't really mods around though.

WHY, what do you ASSUME or BELIEVE WOULD HAPPEN if there were?

[Darkneos]

What I FOUND 'weird' though is even when someone is EXPLAINING a NEWER or MORE COMPREHENSIVE version, there WERE, and ARE, STILL SOME people who BELIEVE and WANT to INSIST that the OLDER version IS the absolutely TRUER or RIGHTER version, while NEVER even STOPPING to just LOOK AT and
CONSIDER the OTHER version. Which IS EXACTLY what you ARE DOING, and SHOWING, here.

No, that's what you're doing. There are billions of people on the planet, obviously some are going to believe what they want despite the evidence to the contrary, just like you. Nothing I say is gonna get through.

I'm beginning to see why the smart people on here don't reply to you.