the rest of your comment is full of assumptive truths about what Truth can certainly NOT be

Where did I make a claim that something is false? I gave an argument. There are no statements of "this or that is false" in any absolute sense, at least not that I did intentionally. If I did it unintentionally, please let me know with specific examples. You also have named some of my arguments "flawed" without providing examples. That is meaningless to me.

In any argument there must be some assumption of truth, some premise. If we eliminate all premises we can't say anything at all. I tried to be explicit, at least to some extent, that my argument was based on premises, even if I didn't go through and list them all. I did however link to the first part of the report of my investigation which gives the evidence to support the statements I did make.

what are certainly defeater flaws of anything construing organized belief systems

I am talking about what my investigation said about the systems we have, and who created them. I have looked into the ORIGINS of these systems. The focus was not intended to be on any possible system, but rather the ones that are prominent in our society. Once you dig in, you see that they were all constructed by the same entity, a single body that controls everything.

Please read my report for the actual evidence I am offering that supports that statement.

the laws of logic

Logic has nothing to do with Truth (AKA That which Is AKA Reality). Logic is a self-consistent language. It can make statements that are logically "true," but are based on premises that are not proven. Thus any conclusion derived from a logical process is at best unproven as a part of the larger Truth, and at worst, provably incorrect, with hidden premises, faulty premises, or faulty logic (usually one of the first two).

If you believe that I have stated faulty premises, not stated premises I should have (hidden premises that prove the conclusions incorrect or reasonably call them into question), or even made logical errors, I suggest you elaborate that belief with explicit examples. It will make conversation much easier.

Then why bother positing about the impossibilities of anyone ever possessing an intellectually responsible belief system that corresponds to metaphysical reality?

What?

If you think that's what I did, I'm not sure you understood what I was saying (or I just really don't get what you are saying).

Did you read the entire conversation or are you just responding to the first part?

the rest of your comment is full of assumptive truths about what Truth can certainly NOT be

Where did I make a claim that something is false? I gave an argument. There are no statements of "this or that is false" in any absolute sense, at least not that I did intentionally. If I did it unintentionally, please let me know with specific examples. You also have named some of my arguments "flawed" without providing examples. That is meaningless to me.

In any argument there must be some assumption of truth, some premise. If we eliminate all premises we can't say anything at all. I tried to be explicit, at least to some extent, that my argument was based on premises, even if I didn't go through and list them all. I did however link to the first part of the report of my investigation which gives the evidence to support the statements I did make.

what are certainly defeater flaws of anything construing organized belief systems

I am talking about what my investigation said about the systems we have, and who created them. I have looked into the ORIGINS of these systems. The focus was not intended to be on any possible system, but rather the ones that are prominent in our society. Once you dig in, you see that they were all constructed by the same entity, a single body that controls everything.

Please read my report for the actual evidence I am offering that supports that statement.

the laws of logic

Logic has nothing to do with Truth (AKA That which Is AKA Reality). Logic is a self-consistent language. It can make statements that are logically "true," but are based on premises that are not proven. Thus any conclusion derived from a logical process is at best unproven as a part of the larger Truth, and at worst, provably incorrect, with hidden premises, faulty premises, or faulty logic (usually one of the first two).

If you believe that I have stated faulty premises, not stated premises I should have (hidden premises that prove the conclusions incorrect), or even made logical errors, I suggest you elaborate that belief with explicit examples. It will make conversation much easier.

Then why bother positing about the impossibilities of anyone ever possessing an intellectually responsible belief system that corresponds to metaphysical reality?

What?

If you think that's what I did, I'm not sure you understood what I was saying (or I just really don't get what you are saying).

Did you read the entire conversation or are you just responding to the first part?

the rest of your comment is full of assumptive truths about what Truth can certainly NOT be

Where did I make a claim that something is false? I gave an argument. There are no statements of "this or that is false" in any absolute sense, at least not that I did intentionally. If I did it unintentionally, please let me know with specific examples. You also have named some of my arguments "flawed" without providing examples. That is meaningless to me.

In any argument there must be some assumption of truth, some premise. If we eliminate all premises we can't say anything at all. I tried to be explicit, at least to some extent, that my argument was based on premises, even if I didn't go through and list them all. I did however link to the first part of the report of my investigation which gives the evidence to support the statements I did make.

what are certainly defeater flaws of anything construing organized belief systems

I am talking about what my investigation said about the systems we have, and who created them. I have looked into the ORIGINS of these systems. The focus was not intended to be on any possible system, but rather the ones that are prominent in our society. Once you dig in, you see that they were all constructed by the same entity, a single body that controls everything.

Please read my report for the actual evidence I am offering that supports that statement.

the laws of logic

Logic has nothing to do with Truth (AKA That which Is AKA Reality). Logic is a self-consistent language. It can make statements that are logically "true," but are based on premises that are not proven. Thus any conclusion derived from a logical process is at best unproven as a part of the larger Truth, and at worst, provably incorrect, with hidden premises, faulty premises, or faulty logic (usually one of the first two).

If you believe that I have stated faulty or hidden premises, or even logical errors, I suggest you elaborate that belief with explicit examples. It will make conversation much easier.

Then why bother positing about the impossibilities of anyone ever possessing an intellectually responsible belief system that corresponds to metaphysical reality?

What?

If you think that's what I did, I'm not sure you understood what I was saying (or I just really don't get what you are saying).

Did you read the entire conversation or are you just responding to the first part?

the rest of your comment is full of assumptive truths about what Truth can certainly NOT be

Where did I make a claim that something is false? I gave an argument. There are no statements of "this or that is false" in any absolute sense, at least not that I did intentionally. If I did it unintentionally, please let me know with specific examples. You also have named some of my arguments "flawed" without providing examples. That is meaningless to me.

In any argument there must be some assumption of truth, some premise. If we eliminate all premises we can't say anything at all. I tried to be explicit, at least to some extent, that my argument was based on premises, even if I didn't go through and list them all. I did however link to the first part of the report of my investigation which gives the evidence to support the statements I did make.

what are certainly defeater flaws of anything construing organized belief systems

I am talking about what my investigation said about the systems we have, and who created them. I have looked into the ORIGINS of these systems. The focus was not intended to be on any possible system, but rather the ones that are prominent in our society. Once you dig in, you see that they were all constructed by the same entity, a single body that controls everything.

Please read my report for the actual evidence I am offering that supports that statement.

the laws of logic

Logic has nothing to do with Truth (AKA That which Is AKA Reality). Logic is a self-consistent language. It can make statements that are logically "true," but are based on premises that are not proven. Thus any conclusion derived from a logical process is at best unproven as a part of the larger Truth, and at worst, provably incorrect, with hidden premises, faulty premises, or faulty logic (usually one of the first two).

If you believe that I have made false premises, I suggest you elaborate that belief with explicit examples. It will make conversation much easier.

Then why bother positing about the impossibilities of anyone ever possessing an intellectually responsible belief system that corresponds to metaphysical reality?

What?

If you think that's what I did, I'm not sure you understood what I was saying (or I just really don't get what you are saying).

Did you read the entire conversation or are you just responding to the first part?

the rest of your comment is full of assumptive truths about what Truth can certainly NOT be

Where did I make a claim that something is false? I gave an argument. There are no statements of "this or that is false" in any absolute sense, at least not that I did intentionally. If I did it unintentionally, please let me know with specific examples. You also have named some of my arguments "flawed" without providing examples. That is meaningless to me.

In any argument there must be some assumption of truth, some premise. If we eliminate all premises we can't say anything at all. I tried to be explicit, at least to some extent, that my argument was based on premises, even if I didn't go through and list them all. I did however link to the first part of the report of my investigation which gives the evidence to support the statements I did make.

what are certainly defeater flaws of anything construing organized belief systems

I am talking about what my investigation said about the systems we have, and who created them. I have looked into the ORIGINS of these systems. The focus was not intended to be on any possible system, but rather the ones that are prominent in our society. Once you dig in, you see that they were all constructed by the same entity, a single body that controls everything.

Please read my report for the actual evidence I am offering that supports that statement.

the laws of logic

Logic has nothing to do with "Truth" (AKA That which Is AKA Reality). Logic is a self-consistent language. It can make statements that are logically "true," but are based on premises that are not proven. Thus any conclusion derived from a logical process is at best unproven as a part of the larger Truth, and at worst, provably incorrect, with hidden premises, faulty premises, or faulty logic (usually one of the first two).

If you believe that I have made false premises, I suggest you elaborate that belief with explicit examples. It will make conversation much easier.

Then why bother positing about the impossibilities of anyone ever possessing an intellectually responsible belief system that corresponds to metaphysical reality?

What?

If you think that's what I did, I'm not sure you understood what I was saying (or I just really don't get what you are saying).

Did you read the entire conversation or are you just responding to the first part?

the rest of your comment is full of assumptive truths about what Truth can certainly NOT be

Where did I make a claim that something is false? I gave an argument. There are no statements of "this or that is false" in there. You also have named some of my arguments "flawed" without providing examples. That is meaningless to me.

In any argument there must be some assumption of truth, some premise. If we eliminate all premises we can't say anything at all. I tried to be explicit, at least to some extent, that my argument was based on premises, even if I didn't go through and list them all. I did however link to the first part of the report of my investigation which gives the evidence to support the statements I did make.

what are certainly defeater flaws of anything construing organized belief systems

I am talking about what my investigation said about the systems we have, and who created them. I have looked into the ORIGINS of these systems. The focus was not intended to be on any possible system, but rather the ones that are prominent in our society. Once you dig in, you see that they were all constructed by the same entity, a single body that controls everything.

Please read my report for the actual evidence I am offering that supports that statement.

the laws of logic

Logic has nothing to do with "Truth" (AKA That which Is AKA Reality). Logic is a self-consistent language. It can make statements that are logically "true," but are based on premises that are not proven. Thus any conclusion derived from a logical process is at best unproven as a part of the larger Truth, and at worst, provably incorrect, with hidden premises, faulty premises, or faulty logic (usually one of the first two).

If you believe that I have made false premises, I suggest you elaborate that belief with explicit examples. It will make conversation much easier.

Then why bother positing about the impossibilities of anyone ever possessing an intellectually responsible belief system that corresponds to metaphysical reality?

What?

If you think that's what I did, I'm not sure you understood what I was saying (or I just really don't get what you are saying).

Did you read the entire conversation or are you just responding to the first part?

the rest of your comment is full of assumptive truths about what Truth can certainly NOT be

Where did I make a claim that something is false? I gave an argument. There are no statements of "this or that is false" in there. You also have named some of my arguments "flawed" without providing examples. That is meaningless to me.

In any argument there must be some assumption of truth, some premise. If we eliminate all premises we can't say anything at all. I tried to be explicit, at least to some extent, that my argument was based on premises, even if I didn't go through and list them all. I did however link to the first part of the report of my investigation which gives the evidence to support the statements I did make.

what are certainly defeater flaws of anything construing organized belief systems

I am talking about what my investigation said about the systems we have, and who created them. I have looked into the ORIGINS of these systems. The focus was not intended to be on any possible system, but rather the ones that are prominent in our society. Once you dig in, you see that they were all constructed by the same entity, a single body that controls everything.

Please read my report for the actual evidence I am offering that supports that statement.

the laws of logic

Logic has nothing to do with "Truth" (AKA That which Is AKA Reality). Logic is a self-consistent language. It can make statements that are logically "true," but are based on premises that are not proven. Thus any conclusion derived from a logical process is at best unproven as a part of the larger Truth, and at worst, provably incorrect, with hidden premises, faulty premises, or faulty logic (usually one of the first two).

If you believe that I have made false premises, I suggest you elaborate that belief explicitly. It will make conversation much easier.

Then why bother positing about the impossibilities of anyone ever possessing an intellectually responsible belief system that corresponds to metaphysical reality?

What?

If you think that's what I did, I'm not sure you understood what I was saying (or I just really don't get what you are saying).

Did you read the entire conversation or are you just responding to the first part?

the rest of your comment is full of assumptive truths about what Truth can certainly NOT be

Where did I make a claim that something is false? I gave an argument. There are no statements of "this or that is false" in there. You also have named some of my arguments "flawed" without providing examples. That is meaningless to me.

In any argument there must be some assumption of truth, some premise. If we eliminate all premises we can't say anything at all. I tried to be explicit, at least to some extent, that my argument was based on premises, even if I didn't go through and list them all. I did however link to the first part of the report of my investigation which gives the evidence to support the statements I did make.

what are certainly defeater flaws of anything construing organized belief systems

I am talking about what my investigation said about the systems we have, and who created them. I have looked into the ORIGINS of these systems. The focus was not intended to be on any possible system, but rather the ones that are prominent in our society. Once you dig in, you see that they were all constructed by the same entity, a single body that controls everything.

Please read my report for the actual evidence I am offering that supports that statement.

the laws of logic

Logic has nothing to do with "Truth" (AKA That which Is AKA Reality). Logic is a self-consistent language. It can make statements that are logically "true," but are based on premises that are not proven. Thus any conclusion derived from a logical process is at best unproven as a part of the larger Truth, and at worst, provably incorrect, with hidden premises, faulty premises, or faulty logic (usually one of the first two).

Then why bother positing about the impossibilities of anyone ever possessing an intellectually responsible belief system that corresponds to metaphysical reality?

What?

If you think that's what I did, I'm not sure you understood what I was saying (or I just really don't get what you are saying).

Did you read the entire conversation or are you just responding to the first part?

the rest of your comment is full of assumptive truths about what Truth can certainly NOT be

Where did I make a claim that something is false? I gave an argument. There are no statements of "this or that is false" in there.

In any argument there must be some assumption of truth, some premise. If we eliminate all premises we can't say anything at all. I tried to be explicit, at least to some extent, that my argument was based on premises, even if I didn't go through and list them all. I did however link to the first part of the report of my investigation which gives the evidence to support the statements I did make.

what are certainly defeater flaws of anything construing organized belief systems

I am talking about what my investigation said about the systems we have, and who created them. I have looked into the ORIGINS of these systems. The focus was not intended to be on any possible system, but rather the ones that are prominent in our society. Once you dig in, you see that they were all constructed by the same entity, a single body that controls everything.

Please read my report for the actual evidence I am offering that supports that statement.

the laws of logic

Logic has nothing to do with "Truth" (AKA That which Is AKA Reality). Logic is a self-consistent language. It can make statements that are logically "true," but are based on premises that are not proven. Thus any conclusion derived from a logical process is at best unproven as a part of the larger Truth, and at worst, provably incorrect, with hidden premises, faulty premises, or faulty logic (usually one of the first two).

Then why bother positing about the impossibilities of anyone ever possessing an intellectually responsible belief system that corresponds to metaphysical reality?

What?

If you think that's what I did, I'm not sure you understood what I was saying (or I just really don't get what you are saying).

Did you read the entire conversation or are you just responding to the first part?

the rest of your comment is full of assumptive truths about what Truth can certainly NOT be

Where did I make a claim that something is false? I gave an argument. There are no statements of "this or that is false" in there.

In any argument there must be some assumption of truth, some premise. If we eliminate all premises we can't say anything at all. I tried to be explicit, at least to some extent, that my argument was based on premises, even if I didn't go through and list them all. I did however link to the first part of the report of my investigation which gives the evidence to support the statements I did make.

what are certainly defeater flaws of anything construing organized belief systems

I am talking about what my investigation said about the systems we have, and who created them. I have looked into the ORIGINS of these systems. The focus was not intended to be on any possible system, but rather the ones that are prominent in our society. Once you dig in, you see that they were all constructed by the same entity, a single body that controls everything.

Please read my report for the actual evidence I am offering that supports that statement.

the laws of logic

Logic has nothing to do with "Truth" (AKA That which Is AKA Reality). Logic is a self-consistent language. It can make statements that are logically "true," but are based on premises that are not proven. Thus any conclusion derived from a logical process is at best unproven as a part of the larger Truth, and at worst, provably incorrect, with hidden premises or faulty logic (usually the former).

Then why bother positing about the impossibilities of anyone ever possessing an intellectually responsible belief system that corresponds to metaphysical reality?

What?

If you think that's what I did, I'm not sure you understood what I was saying (or I just really don't get what you are saying).

Did you read the entire conversation or are you just responding to the first part?