Currant Buns and Pop Guns - The Big Bang

[Atla]

Proof isn't proof if it only "works" some of the time...

Good point Atla; nor is it dependent on anyone being 'TRULY OPEN'.

...and even then it's based on lies

Age isn't a liar; he should warrant our sympathy, because he is clearly not all there. But if this is simply a therapy for people with obvious psychological, emotional and social problems, are we all nuts?

She's a pathological liar (an automated narcissistic defence mechanism) in addition to being autistic and having a God syndrome and having a messiah syndrome. That's why I study her sometimes, I'm slightly curious how this combination works.

[Age]

Proof isn't proof if it only "works" some of the time, and even then it's based on lies

Is LYING the ONLY thing you can TALK ABOUT and ACCUSE me of here?

Do you NOT get BORED of this?

Of course it's boring that you can't stop lying

Okay if this is what you ASSUME and BELIEVE, then that is PERFECTLY FINE with me.

To "atla", I can NOT stop LYING, which is OBVIOUSLY NOT a LIE in and of itself, correct "atla"?

[Age]

Proof isn't proof if it only "works" some of the time...

Good point Atla; nor is it dependent on anyone being 'TRULY OPEN'.

But absolutely NOTHING can be PROVEN to 'you', "uwot", correct?

Or, can there IN FACT be some things that CAN BE PROVEN?

...and even then it's based on lies

Age isn't a liar; he should warrant our sympathy, because he is clearly not all there. But if this is simply a therapy for people with obvious psychological, emotional and social problems, are we all nuts?

LOOK "uwot" you come here CLAIMING that the Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING.

I suggest that if you are NOT ABLE TO bakc up and support YOUR CLAIMS, BEFORE you even EXPRESS them, then do NOT EXPRESS your CLAIMS AT ALL.

[uwot]

Age isn't a liar.

She's a pathological liar (an automated narcissistic defence mechanism) in addition to being autistic and having a God syndrome and having a messiah syndrome. That's why I study her sometimes, I'm slightly curious how this combination works.

Well, psychology isn't my field, so I won't argue with that

[Age]

Proof isn't proof if it only "works" some of the time...

Good point Atla; nor is it dependent on anyone being 'TRULY OPEN'.

...and even then it's based on lies

Age isn't a liar; he should warrant our sympathy, because he is clearly not all there. But if this is simply a therapy for people with obvious psychological, emotional and social problems, are we all nuts?

She's a pathological liar (an automated narcissistic defence mechanism) in addition to being autistic and having a God syndrome and having a messiah syndrome. That's why I study her sometimes, I'm slightly curious how this combination works.

What a COINCIDENCE. EVERY one you "study" just HAPPENS TO HAVE what you USED TO HAVE.

You, just like "veritas aequitas", ONLY SEE in "others" what you two ONCE BOTH had. And, for ANY one else to NOTICE this, then all they have to do is READ the ACTUAL WORDS that BOTH of you USE.

[Atla]

Good point Atla; nor is it dependent on anyone being 'TRULY OPEN'.
Age isn't a liar; he should warrant our sympathy, because he is clearly not all there. But if this is simply a therapy for people with obvious psychological, emotional and social problems, are we all nuts?

She's a pathological liar (an automated narcissistic defence mechanism) in addition to being autistic and having a God syndrome and having a messiah syndrome. That's why I study her sometimes, I'm slightly curious how this combination works.

What a COINCIDENCE. EVERY one you "study" just HAPPENS TO HAVE what you USED TO HAVE.

You, just like "veritas aequitas", ONLY SEE in "others" what you two ONCE BOTH had. And, for ANY one else to NOTICE this, then all they have to do is READ the ACTUAL WORDS that BOTH of you USE.

If I had them then I wouldn't need to study them.

[uwot]

But absolutely NOTHING can be PROVEN to 'you', "uwot", correct?

What you write strongly suggests that you are too stupid to understand what I have made plain many times. I don't expect you to grasp it this time either, but hope springs eternal. Here it is again slowly: the mere existence of a sensation: a thought, a vision, a sound, a smell, a feeling, a taste, is proof that sensation exists. Do you understand that bit?

[Age]

But absolutely NOTHING can be PROVEN to 'you', "uwot", correct?

What you write strongly suggests that you are too stupid to understand what I have made plain many times. I don't expect you to grasp it this time either, but hope springs eternal. Here it is again slowly: the mere existence of a sensation: a thought, a vision, a sound, a smell, a feeling, a taste, is proof that sensation exists. Do you understand that bit?

LOL Do you NOT UNDERSTAND just what a CLARIFY QUESTION IS, EXACTLY?

LOOK AT the ACTUAL QUESTION I POSED, and put forward, to you.

Now, either you are ABLE TO just ANSWER that ACTUAL QUESTION, or you are NOT. So far, you are PROVING that you are NOT.

Here, I will re-write it AGAIN for you.

CAN ANY thing be PROVEN to 'you', "uwot"?

In case you are STILL UNAWARE this is a 'yes' or a 'no' CLARIFYING QUESTION. Just like the other one WAS and STILL IS.

Does this HELP 'you', "uwot"?

[Age]

Also "uwot" are you AWARE that what you ask me about in regards to if I understood that bit?, could COUNTER or CONTRADICT your CLAIM that it was, "a good point" in relation to the, "Proof isn't proof if it only "works" some of the time..." CLAIM.

Oh, and by the way, is all of this just more attempts at DEFLECTING AWAY from the Fact that you have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL of absolutely ANY SUBSTANCE AT ALL in relation to your ASSUMPTION and CLAIM that the WHOLE Universe BEGAN, from absolutely NOTHING AT ALL, and IS EXPANDING and GROWING?

[uwot]

CAN ANY thing be PROVEN to 'you', "uwot"?

In case you are STILL UNAWARE this is a 'yes' or a 'no' CLARIFYING QUESTION. Just like the other one WAS and STILL IS.

Well Age, as I said:

What you write strongly suggests that you are too stupid to understand what I have made plain many times. I don't expect you to grasp it this time either, but hope springs eternal. Here it is again slowly: the mere existence of a sensation: a thought, a vision, a sound, a smell, a feeling, a taste, is proof that sensation exists. Do you understand that bit?

To anyone with an IQ in double digits, that would be a yes.

Does this HELP 'you', "uwot"?

I'm not the one who needs help.

[Age]

CAN ANY thing be PROVEN to 'you', "uwot"?

In case you are STILL UNAWARE this is a 'yes' or a 'no' CLARIFYING QUESTION. Just like the other one WAS and STILL IS.

Well Age, as I said:

What you write strongly suggests that you are too stupid to understand what I have made plain many times. I don't expect you to grasp it this time either, but hope springs eternal. Here it is again slowly: the mere existence of a sensation: a thought, a vision, a sound, a smell, a feeling, a taste, is proof that sensation exists. Do you understand that bit?

To anyone with an IQ in double digits, that would be a yes.

Does this HELP 'you', "uwot"?

I'm not the one who needs help.

ANY one with True and FULL INTELLIGENCE would have just SEEN the QUESTION for what it Truly WAS and Truly IS and would have just ANSWERED, 'Yes' or 'No' WITHOUT spending and wasting time writing ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY WORDS, in an ATTEMPT to 'try to' make the "other one" look STUPID

Wete you NOT AWARE that just writing 'Yes' or 'No' is FAR QUICKER, SIMPLER, and EASIER than writing what you DID?

[uwot]

ANY one with True and FULL INTELLIGENCE would have just SEEN the QUESTION for what it Truly WAS and Truly IS and would have just ANSWERED, 'Yes' or 'No' WITHOUT spending and wasting time writing ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY WORDS, in an ATTEMPT to 'try to' make the "other one" look STUPID

If you don't understand this:

...the mere existence of a sensation: a thought, a vision, a sound, a smell, a feeling, a taste, is proof that sensation exists.

you are stupid.

[Age]

ANY one with True and FULL INTELLIGENCE would have just SEEN the QUESTION for what it Truly WAS and Truly IS and would have just ANSWERED, 'Yes' or 'No' WITHOUT spending and wasting time writing ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY WORDS, in an ATTEMPT to 'try to' make the "other one" look STUPID

If you don't understand this:

...the mere existence of a sensation: a thought, a vision, a sound, a smell, a feeling, a taste, is proof that sensation exists.

you are stupid.

You wrote this AFTER what WAS being discussed. And, I UNDERSTOOD what you wrote here the very instant I saw it. That discussion, by the way, HAD ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH.

I also UNDERSTAND that what you wrote here, CONTRADICTS what you have PREVIOUSLY written.

Were you AWARE of this? Do you UNDERSTAND this?

ALSO, you just seem to be 'trying to' DEFLECT MORE and MORE now.

You started this thread with views and/or BELIEFS that you have so far been completely UNABLE to substantiate. If you do NOT want to ADMIT and ACCEPT this, then so be it. But all of this OTHER STUFF is completely UNNECESSARY.

[uwot]

...the mere existence of a sensation: a thought, a vision, a sound, a smell, a feeling, a taste, is proof that sensation exists.

I UNDERSTOOD what you wrote here the very instant I saw it.

Good, so you won't be making any more silly claims to know THE TRUTH.

what you wrote here, CONTRADICTS what you have PREVIOUSLY written.

I've been pretty consistent. Here's me making the point you now understand 8 years ago:

Philosophy tries to find the truth but the only thing is actually HAS found is that there is NO truth whatsoever!

Well, Parmenides pointed out that there isn't nothing; more to the point, something definitely exists. Descartes upped the ante by proving that experience exists. It's not a lot, I grant you, but it isn't quite no truth whatsoever.

You started this thread with views and/or BELIEFS that you have so far been completely UNABLE to substantiate.

This thread is not based on my views or beliefs, it is based on mainstream scientific hypotheses drawn from the observable data which I present here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU

[Age]

...the mere existence of a sensation: a thought, a vision, a sound, a smell, a feeling, a taste, is proof that sensation exists.

I UNDERSTOOD what you wrote here the very instant I saw it.

Good, so you won't be making any more silly claims to know THE TRUTH.

ONLY IF you do NOT make ANY more silly CLAIMS, which you can NOT back up and support, okay?

By the way I CAN back up and support the CLAIMS I make with IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

what you wrote here, CONTRADICTS what you have PREVIOUSLY written.

I've been pretty consistent.

LOL
LOL
LOL

You are joking here, right?

Here's me making the point you now understand 8 years ago:

Philosophy tries to find the truth but the only thing is actually HAS found is that there is NO truth whatsoever!

Well, Parmenides pointed out that there isn't nothing; more to the point, something definitely exists. Descartes upped the ante by proving that experience exists. It's not a lot, I grant you, but it isn't quite no truth whatsoever.

SO WHAT?

A LOT of 'you', human beings, have said a LOT of things.

You started this thread with views and/or BELIEFS that you have so far been completely UNABLE to substantiate.

This thread is not based on my views or beliefs, it is based on mainstream scientific hypotheses drawn from the observable data which I present here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU

YES WE KNOW. BUT, those views and/or BELIEFS have so far been completely UNABLE to be substantiated.

And, this is BECAUSE those views and BELIEFS can NOT backed up NOR supported.

This is BECAUSE the Universe did NOT BEGIN and could NOT EXPAND, like SOME of 'you' think and BELIEVE.

As I keep TELLING you, but which you appear to be completely UNABLE to HEAR, COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND, those hypotheses, theories, assumptions, and guesses are being made from Wrong INTERPRETATIONS of the ACTUAL observable 'data'.

As I am ABLE TO PROVE IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct, and as so-called "mainstream scientific hypotheses" HAVE BEEN and CONTINUALLY ARE being PROVED False, Wrong, OR Incorrect CONTINUALLY.

This "beginning and expanding Universe" is just ANOTHER which ALREADY HAS been PROVED False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. Some of 'you', in the days when this was being written, were just NOT YET ABLE to SEE and RECOGNIZE this Fact,

This is because of the way those ones were LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' here.