31 May 17
Originally posted by apathistYou seem to be having great difficulty with two very basic concepts:
If there is 'no other side' as you say, then how could there be 'some greater context' with the potential to spawn a universe?
1. If I say something is not necessarily so, I am NOT saying it is DEFINITELY NOT so.
You have made that error several times. In fact the other thread was started because you apparently made that error.
2. I have often made multiple arguments addressing different possibilities (and made it clear where possible that I am doing so).
Yet you seem unable to handle that and assume that one argument excludes all other possibilities.
IF there is a greater context, then in that greater context, we can assume that any 'causation' going on is roughly described in similar terms to those used withing the universe (or why call it 'causation' ? )
But I have also argued that the 'greater context' is not a given. I have NOT claimed it does not exist.
I DO claim that if time is finite and a property of the universe then there is NECESSARILY no before and even if there IS a greater context, that would not be 'before' and any 'spawing' of universes would instantaneously (in the greater context) spawn our whole universe past present and future as a whole. It would not be a sub timeline inside the greater context.
So we have at least three possible scenarios:
1. continuous universal time in which multiple universes spawn grow old etc.
2. finite time but inside a 'greater context' with its own timeline.
3. finite time and no greater context.
Next time you don't understand, ask rather than jumping to wild conclusions.
31 May 17
Originally posted by apathistYou have many times over the last couple of day completely misrepresented what I have said. You even started a thread misrepresenting what you quoted in its OP!
It does [b]seem as if you don't try very hard to honestly communicate - you'd rather just pontificate. If someone doesn't understand what you said (for whatever reason) or disagrees with you, tw becomes mr nasty! All pompous and disrespectful. [/b]
And you notably didn't acknowledge your mistake or even acknowledge the many responses.
Yes I get offended when you say 'you said this' when I didn't. And yes I will get disrespectful when you do that.
Cheney has done exactly the same thing in this thread regularly claiming I have expressed views that I have not and attributing things to me that are wholly untrue.
I am happy to disagree and don't mind being misunderstood, but telling me I said something I didn't and deliberately misquoting me, is not something I tolerate.
31 May 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou made two statements which seem to contradict each other. Maybe you address that in you post, or maybe you don't - it's hard to tell buried as it is in your whining and fussing. If you care to re-post actual on-topic points without all your bull, I'll respond.
[b]You seem to be having great difficulty with two very basic concepts:
...
You're the one having great difficulty.
31 May 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadSweet brother.
Exactly what I thought. You thought you saw bullying, then jumped in without thinking.
[b]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.[/b]
Peace be with you.
01 Jun 17
Originally posted by apathistList those two statements an I'll try to address any contradictions.
You made two statements which seem to contradict each other.
If you care to re-post actual on-topic points without all your bull, I'll respond.
You're the one having great difficulty.
Seriously, you are being a dick.
You claimed I said 'yes' to a question that I never said 'yes' to. You then drew a stupid conclusion from the supposed 'yes' I never gave.
When I pointed out that you had misread the post, instead of going back and reading it, you went pack and carefully edited it to make it look like I had said yes.
I then quoted the whole thing in full and explained what the 'yes' meant.
You never actually bothered to read my actual post and understand what I was saying.
And now you call my explanation 'bull'? And suggest I repost it yet again?
You have no real interest in rational discussion.
01 Jun 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadAlmost nothing in this thread constitutes rational discussion, so this fits the topic quite nicely.
List those two statements an I'll try to address any contradictions.
[b]If you care to re-post actual on-topic points without all your bull, I'll respond.
You're the one having great difficulty.
Seriously, you are being a dick.
You claimed I said 'yes' to a question that I never said 'yes' to. You then drew a stupid conclusion from the supposed ...[text shortened]... on 'bull'? And suggest I repost it yet again?
You have no real interest in rational discussion.[/b]
01 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI did read it. The whole thing.
Not unexpected. No apology. No admission of guilt. Just an attempt to make it look like its just me being violent in some way.
Next time you enter a thread, have the decency to read it before making rude comments.
Or did you miss that?
edit: 'violent' ? what the hell? I thought it was me who was screwing with the language.