The Moon and Design

Originally posted by apathist
Huh. Fences only have one side. I didn't know that.

What a stupid deliberate misreading of what I said. Really, if you loose an argument, learn to bow out with grace instead of pulling cheney.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What a stupid deliberate misreading of what I said. Really, if you loose an argument, learn to bow out with grace instead of pulling cheney.

Let me know when I lose an argument. Or 'loose' as they say in South Africa.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We are examining what is meant by causation as it is far from clear in each context.
An event that produces a universe, must necessarily exist in some greater context and I see no reason why it would not follow the same basic wording and ideas.

Which is what I've been saying. If our universe had a beginning, it follows that something existed before our universe began. Since time and space are properties of our universe, they didn't exist before. But something did. Some sort of potentiality, that must include something analogous to time and space. When I say it, it's gibberish, but when you say it, it's gospel.

I need to point out that that is just your, (apparently deliberate) misreading of what I am saying.
You've specifically said "conservation IS causation, and have made similar statements many times. You are wrong. Laws of physics do not cause anything.

You have a hard time admitting error.

Originally posted by chaney3
Let me know when I lose an argument. Or 'loose' as they say in South Africa.

Until you actually win one, you can take that as a given.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What a stupid deliberate misreading of what I said.

I asked if you deny that a physical boundary has two sides. You said yes.

Where and what did I misread?

If you didn't mean what you actually said, then correct yourself and move on. I mean, no big deal, we all fail to express ourselves adequately from time to time.

Originally posted by apathist
I asked if you deny that a physical boundary has two sides. You said yes.

Where and what did I misread?

You are being disingenuous.

The context of the 'yes'. It quite obviously wasn't in response to the question you are claiming it was in response to, and it was part of a sentence which you omitted.

Here is what was actually said, which you carefully edited to try to make out I said something completely different:

Originally posted by apathist
Would you deny that a physical boundary has two sides? We aren't talking about math. We're talking about space and time.
Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, we are talking about spacetime, and not objects in spacetime.
Think of the surface of the earth. You can go east and west endlessly, but it remains finite in extent.
Further, you can go south, only as far as the south pole and no further. The south pole forms a 'boundary' or a better word would be 'limit'. There is nothing more south than the south pole. This clearly violates your claim. I think a single exception is sufficient to prove the generalisation to be false.
The universe has no spatial boundaries as far as we know. It may be infinite, or it may be finite. Space is like longitude - going around the equator.
Time may have a minimum, a point where time began. If so, it could be called a boundary, but there would be no 'other side' and there would be no before. It would be like the south pole. This is true by definition.

For you to get from the above exchange the claim that I think fences don't have two sides is ridiculous. So I ask again, why are you so desperate to misinterpret my posts? What religious belief of yours is having its toes stepped on?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Feel free to explain it. Otherwise I will maintain that you didn't understand it either and are just being rude because you don't like the implications.

Lol.
I don't care of the implications.

Sensitive much?
I was just pointing out that it was your view, not the view of everyone. Not rude at all

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Lol.
I don't care of the implications.

Sensitive much?
I was just pointing out that it was your view, not the view of everyone. Not rude at all

If it is not the view of everyone, then surely someone can explain it? No? Clearly you can't, so you are not in the 'everyone' group, you are with me.

But you chose to side with 'everyone' because you just felt the need to say something negative to me. If I am 'sensitive' then what are you? Jumping into a thread just to attack someone for no reason whatsoever?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are being disingenuous.

The context of the 'yes'. It quite obviously wasn't in response to the question you are claiming it was in response to, and it was part of a sentence which you omitted....

Ah. So you weren't answering my question when you followed that question with the word 'yes'. Unless I'm still mistaken somehow.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If it is not the view of everyone, then surely someone can explain it? No? Clearly you can't, so you are not in the 'everyone' group, you are with me.

But you chose to side with 'everyone' because you just felt the need to say something negative to me. If I am 'sensitive' then what are you? Jumping into a thread just to attack someone for no reason whatsoever?

That's not how I see it. I read the thread. Thought you were bullying people around as usual, and made a comment.

I have no desire whatsoever to go back and 'explain it' for you.

Talking with you is like pulling teeth. You seem to have no 'give' at all ,like an automaton. Like a robot.

That's not an insult , but you'll prolly take it as one if past performance is anything to go by

Originally posted by twhitehead...
The context of the 'yes'. It quite obviously wasn't in response to the question you are claiming it was in response to, and it was part of a sentence which you omitted.

Thanks for clarifying. Hope you didn't hurt yourself.

Originally posted by apathist
Ah. So you weren't answering my question when you followed that question with the word 'yes'. Unless I'm still mistaken somehow.

I was not answering that question, as should be reasonably clear from the context. And if the sentence it was in wasn't enough, there were several more paragraphs laying out my position.

But even if I did answer with the word 'yes', would you honestly interpret that to mean that I believe that all boundaries have only one side? Seriously? I honestly don't think you are that stupid, which leads me to believe you are being disingenuous.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
That's not how I see it. I read the thread. Thought you were bullying people around as usual, and made a comment.

Exactly what I thought. You thought you saw bullying, then jumped in without thinking.

I have no desire whatsoever to go back and 'explain it' for you.
Obviously. Because you can't. Because you never bothered to read it in the first place. In fact, you are guilty of the very bullying you thought you were trying to stop.

Originally posted by twhitehead
...
Time may have a minimum, a point where time began. If so, it could be called a boundary, but there would be no 'other side' and there would be no before. ...

If that is your position, then why in the other thread did you say:

An event that produces a universe, must necessarily exist in some greater context and I see no reason why it would not follow the same basic wording and ideas.

If there is 'no other side' as you say, then how could there be 'some greater context' with the potential to spawn a universe?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But even if I did answer with the word 'yes', would you honestly interpret that to mean that I believe that all boundaries have only one side? Seriously? I honestly don't think you are that stupid, which leads me to believe you are being disingenuous.

Or 3 sides maybe. Or n sides. Or zero sides for all I know. I have read about boundary theory and how complicated and diverse it gets. It doesn't pay to make assumptions with you.
Reveal Hidden Content