"age" verses "quirk"

[henry quirk]

how could absolutely any proof exist, for you, that the Universe is not expanding?.

Well, let's see if proof moves me: offer some.

[Age]

how could absolutely any proof exist, for you, that the Universe is not expanding?.

Well, let's see if proof moves me: offer some.

LOL This one, as well, has not yet comprehended and understood that while it believes some thing is true, like it does here, then it is not open to 'proof' that counters its belief.

As it has, and will continue, to prove this absolutely, and irrefutably, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Also, notice how it would not just be open and honest, once more.

This is, again, because if it was, then it would have to contradict, or counter and be inconsistent with, its beliefs and claims here.

Furthermore, if even 'proof', itself, will not 'move it', as this one just claimed, then this shows, and proves, just how absolutely closed one will be while they are maintaining a belief.

[henry quirk]

So, no proof: I wasn't holdin' my breath.

[Age]

So, no proof: I wasn't holdin' my breath.

LOL

Once more this one has just proved, irrefutably again, what I have been saying, and claiming, here.

Why are you so certain that there is no proof that the Universe did not begin "henry quirk"?

The answer, by the way, is very simple and very easy for you to express here, considering how many times that I have given it, to you, here.

[henry quirk]

Why are you so certain that there is no proof that the Universe did not begin "henry quirk"?

Mostly reason and common sense (which, in context, is mostly being parsimonious).


Why are you so certain there is proof the universe did not begin?

[Age]

Why are you so certain that there is no proof that the Universe did not begin "henry quirk"?

Mostly reason and common sense (which, in context, is mostly being parsimonious).

Will you explain how 'reason' and 'common sense', themselves, somehow make you 'so certain' that there is NO 'proof' that the Universe did not begin?

Also, are you aware at all that you would be one of the ones who believed, absolutely, that the sun revolved around the earth, would have been one of the ones who were 'so certain' that there is NO 'proof' otherwise, and when questioned about 'your certainty' would have 'tried to', also, claim some thing like, 'Mostly because of 'reason' and 'common sense'.

Which, in all honesty, when 'looked back upon' is absolutely hilarious to watch, and observe, 'play out' here, like this is.

Why are you so certain there is proof the universe did not begin?

LOL Because the 'proof' exists.

As I have, already, informed you of.

[henry quirk]

Will you explain how 'reason' and 'common sense', themselves, somehow make you 'so certain' that there is NO 'proof' that the Universe did not begin?

I examine the evidence (there is none), exercise parsimonious common sense (nuthin' from nuthin' leaves nuthin [you gotta have sumthin' if you wanna be with me]), reasonably conclude: no evidence, no proof.

are you aware at all that you would be one of the ones who believed, absolutely, that the sun revolved around the earth

I suspect had you lived before Aristarchus (the first recorded to suggest heliocentrism) you too might have accepted the Sun revolved around Earth.

Because the 'proof' exists. As I have, already, informed you of.

Please, show me your proof.

[accelafine]

Will you explain how 'reason' and 'common sense', themselves, somehow make you 'so certain' that there is NO 'proof' that the Universe did not begin?

I examine the evidence (there is none), exercise parsimonious common sense (nuthin' from nuthin' leaves nuthin [you gotta have sumthin' if you wanna be with me]), reasonably conclude: no evidence, no proof.

are you aware at all that you would be one of the ones who believed, absolutely, that the sun revolved around the earth

I suspect had you lived before Aristarchus (the first recorded to suggest heliocentrism) you too might have accepted the Sun revolved around Earth.

Because the 'proof' exists. As I have, already, informed you of.

Please, show me your proof.

Who said you can't get something from nothing? They are just words. It doesn't even mean anything.

[attofishpi]

You can get blood out of a stone, well, a rock - look what happened with the 3rd rock from the Sun.

[accelafine]

It's a ridiculous thing to say anyway. If there was ever 'nothing' (as envisaged by our puny human brains) then the fact that we are talking about this would kind of indicate that 'something' did 'indeed' come from 'ntohing' (unless of course we ARE 'nothing'). The alternative is that there was never a 'nothing' in the first place. Duh!

[henry quirk]

Let's review, children...

Brother Age asked Will you explain how 'reason' and 'common sense', themselves, somehow make you 'so certain' that there is NO 'proof' that the Universe did not begin?

I explained I examine the *evidence (there is none), exercise parsimonious common sense (**nuthin' from **nuthin' leaves **nuthin [you gotta have sumthin' if you wanna be with me]), reasonably conclude: no evidence, no proof.

*for a universe that did not begin, that is eternal

**no evidence

I hope that clears it up.

Now, here's & for you scamps (you each get two cookies and one glass of milk).

-----

The alternative is that there was never a 'nothing' in the first place. Duh!

Duh! indeed. The universe, the one and only universe, began, but there was someone before it. So there never was nada.

[accelafine]

You can't hide basic stupidity and complete ignorance of a subject with smart-arsery.

And when you know 'nada', the best course of action is to just poke a 'someone' into the hole...(even if there isn't a 'hole' to poke them into).

[Age]

Will you explain how 'reason' and 'common sense', themselves, somehow make you 'so certain' that there is NO 'proof' that the Universe did not begin?

I examine the evidence (there is none),

If there is none, then how can you, supposedly, examine 'it', exactly?

And, why, exactly, do you believe, absolutely, that there is absolutely none?

exercise parsimonious common sense (nuthin' from nuthin' leaves nuthin [you gotta have sumthin' if you wanna be with me]), reasonably conclude: no evidence, no proof.

And here is, exactly, why people like this one were so very, very slow and absolutely incapable of learning.

This one would actually also be absolutely believing that there is absolute no evidence, nor any proof at all, that the earth revolved around the sun if and while it was, still, believing that the sun revolves around the earth.

are you aware at all that you would be one of the ones who believed, absolutely, that the sun revolved around the earth

I suspect had you lived before Aristarchus (the first recorded to suggest heliocentrism) you too might have accepted the Sun revolved around Earth.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'Accepting' some thing is ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT from 'believing' some thing.

And, if 'i' was around in those 'olden days', then 'i' would have been 'accepting' that there was a group of human beings who were 'believing' that the sun revolved around the earth, and that this might not be actually True at all.

Because the 'proof' exists. As I have, already, informed you of.

Please, show me your proof.

But, as I have asked you to clarify before, to you there is no proof that the Universe is eternal, correct?

[Age]

Let's review, children...

Brother Age asked Will you explain how 'reason' and 'common sense', themselves, somehow make you 'so certain' that there is NO 'proof' that the Universe did not begin?

I explained I examine the *evidence (there is none), exercise parsimonious common sense (**nuthin' from **nuthin' leaves **nuthin [you gotta have sumthin' if you wanna be with me]), reasonably conclude: no evidence, no proof.

*for a universe that did not begin, that is eternal

**no evidence

I hope that clears it up.

Once again, this one, actually, believes, absolutely, that if it, personally, has not become aware of some knowledge, or information, then that knowledge, or information, does not exist.

Which could not be a more closed view and perspective of things here.

It is like "henry quirk" actually believes, wholeheartedly, that 'it' is at the center of the whole Universe here, and that whatever 'it' does, or does not, 'know' or been 'made aware of', then absolutely no one else could 'know', or have 'been made of' any differently.

Now, here's & for you scamps (you each get two cookies and one glass of milk).

-----

The alternative is that there was never a 'nothing' in the first place. Duh!

Duh! indeed. The universe, the one and only universe, began, but there was someone before it. So there never was nada.

LOL
LOL
LOL

A 'person', 'before, the Universe/big bang.

This human being, actually, believes, absolutely, that 'those of its ilk', that is; 'a person', is at 'the center', or was 'the Creator' of the whole Universe, Itself.

This one actually believes that 'people', or at least one male gendered 'person', actually existed before the big bang, or the Universe, Itself.

Although it is seemingly impossible that there were actual adult human beings, once upon a time, who actually used to believe such a thing, 'they' did actually exist. As the one here known as "henry quirk" is living 'proof' of this.

But, then again, people in the 'olden days' used to believe that the earth was flat, that the earth revolved around the sun, the Universe is expanding, and that they each had their own personal minds, as well.

[henry quirk]

If there is none, then how can you, supposedly, examine 'it', exactly?

You really are an autist, aren't you.

And, why, exactly, do you believe, absolutely, that there is absolutely none?

Answered.

But, as I have asked you to clarify before, to you there is no proof that the Universe is eternal, correct?

Answered.