Currant Buns and Pop Guns - The Big Bang

[uwot]

LOL the sun revolving around the earth can STILL be 'observed'. So, it could be 'argued', that the 'data' still supports the INTERPRETATION, and the BELIEF, that the sun revolves around the earth.

Yes it does. But:

The 'data' WILL ALWAYS REMAIN THE SAME.

The Sun appearing to travel across the sky will remain the same for as long as the Earth keeps spinning. So yes, that piece of data will remain the same and if that's all the information you have, then the Sun revolving around the Earth is a perfectly reasonable conjecture. However, technology has provided new data; as happened with the telescope in the 17th century, and more recently with space exploration, and we now know that the Sun does not orbit the Earth.
It used to be believed that the universe was infinite and static, as you insist, until in the 1920s technology showed that distant galaxies are red shifted. We can only see as far as current technology allows, so we can only see about 46 billion light years in any direction. What is beyond that, we do not know, possibly infinity, but what we know for certain is that at least the bit of the universe that we can see is expanding. Ironically, it is you that is clinging onto an obsolete conjecture.

[Age]

LOL the sun revolving around the earth can STILL be 'observed'. So, it could be 'argued', that the 'data' still supports the INTERPRETATION, and the BELIEF, that the sun revolves around the earth.

Yes it does. But:

The 'data' WILL ALWAYS REMAIN THE SAME.

The Sun appearing to travel across the sky will remain the same for as long as the Earth keeps spinning. So yes, that piece of data will remain the same and if that's all the information you have, then the Sun revolving around the Earth is a perfectly reasonable conjecture.

If conjecturing up some thing that is completely False, Wrong, AND Incorrect is 'perfectly reasonable' to you, then this explains WHY conjecturing up that the Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING seems 'perfectly reasonable' to you as well.

Although you do NOT YET have ALL the information you still feel it is 'perfectly reasonable' or 'perfectly acceptable' to just conjecture up some thing that could be completely False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, correct?

Your absolute and FULL Honesty here will be much appreciated like ALWAYS.

However, technology has provided new data; as happened with the telescope in the 17th century, and more recently with space exploration, and we now know that the Sun does not orbit the Earth.
It used to be believed that the universe was infinite and static, as you insist,

LOL WHEN and WHERE have I EVER INSISTED that the Universe is 'static'?

You REALLY DO let YOUR ASSUMPTIONS or BELIEFS get in the way of discovering and learning what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

until in the 1920s technology showed that distant galaxies are red shifted.

Which, contrary to what you BELIEVE is true, does NOT, and NEVER could, mean that the Universe, Itself, IS EXPANDING.

Just like the sun appearing to move across the sky does NOT, and NEVER could, mean that the sun revolves around the earth.

We can only see as far as current technology allows, so we can only see about 46 billion light years in any direction. What is beyond that, we do not know, possibly infinity, but what we know for certain is that at least the bit of the universe that we can see is expanding.

You STILL will NOT LOOK AT what I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT to you here. Just like the ones who BELIEVES the sun revolves around the earth would NOT LOOK AT, NOR LISTEN TO, what was been SAID and POINTED OUT to them.

Ironically, it is you that is clinging onto an obsolete conjecture.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, you ASSUME some thing is true, accept and BELIEVE that it is true WITHOUT EVER CLARIFYING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, FIRST.

I have NEVER CLUNG to an 'obsolete conjecture' and I have NEVER even THOUGHT that the 'obsolete conjecture', which you are referring to here, was ever true, right, nor correct.

So, YET AGAIN, your ASSUMPTION, BELIEF, or CONJECTURE here is absolutely and TOTALLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

How MANY MORE TIMES are you going to be PROVEN Wrong BEFORE you STOP MAKING UP these ABSURD and RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTIONS?

AGAIN, I suggest you OBTAIN and GAIN CLARIFICATION, FIRST, BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY ASSUMPTION AT ALL.

That way you will NOT be SO Wrong as OFTEN as you ARE here.

[uwot]

Although you do NOT YET have ALL the information you still feel it is 'perfectly reasonable' or 'perfectly acceptable' to just conjecture up some thing that could be completely False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, correct?

Yep.

LOL WHEN and WHERE have I EVER INSISTED that the Universe is 'static'?

In two sentences time.

Which, contrary to what you BELIEVE is true, does NOT, and NEVER could, mean that the Universe, Itself, IS EXPANDING.

There she blows.

[Age]

Although you do NOT YET have ALL the information you still feel it is 'perfectly reasonable' or 'perfectly acceptable' to just conjecture up some thing that could be completely False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, correct?

Yep.

So, do NOT be to surprised when your BEGINNING and EXPANDING Universe THEORY falls by the wayside. Just like the 'flat earth', 'geocentric', and 'created Universe' THEORIES ALL fell by the wayside and DIED.

As I have previously INFORMED you I do NOT do 'theories', and so I much prefer to ONLY LOOK AT and DISCUSS what IS IRREFUTABLY True INSTEAD. That way, unlike you, I can back up and support EVERY thing I say and CLAIM here.

LOL WHEN and WHERE have I EVER INSISTED that the Universe is 'static'?

In two sentences time.

Which, contrary to what you BELIEVE is true, does NOT, and NEVER could, mean that the Universe, Itself, IS EXPANDING.

There she blows.

And there is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of DISTORTED THINKING at its BEST. Your CLAIM here, ONCE MORE, based upon further False and Wrong INFORMATION, ASSUMPTIONS, or BELIEFS.

Just so you become AWARE, what I said there, is NOT INSISTING the Universe is 'static'. In fact I CLAIM the opposite.

But you would NEVER KNOW THIS because you do NOT SEEK CLARIFICATION. You prefer to just MAKE ASSUMPTIONS and JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, INSTEAD.

Which fits in PERFECTLY with your thinking or BELIEF that you find it 'perfectly acceptable and reasonable' to just conjure up, or ASSUME, things without having ALL of the information FIRST.

[uwot]

...do NOT be to surprised when your BEGINNING and EXPANDING Universe THEORY falls by the wayside.

Age, you are talking to someone who accepts that, however unlikely it seems, Georges Berkeley might have been right and the entire universe is an idea in the mind of god.

As I have previously INFORMED you I do NOT do 'theories', and so I much prefer to ONLY LOOK AT and DISCUSS what IS IRREFUTABLY True INSTEAD.

The only thing that is irrefutably true is that there is thinking going on.

That way, unlike you, I can back up and support EVERY thing I say and CLAIM here.

You can't even prove you exist. As Descartes pointed out, perhaps I am hallucinating, or dreaming, or being deceived by a malevolent demon.

Just so you become AWARE, what I said there, is NOT INSISTING the Universe is 'static'. In fact I CLAIM the opposite.

That does surprise me. You have been adamant that the universe is not expanding.

But you would NEVER KNOW THIS because you do NOT SEEK CLARIFICATION.

Well I have tried.

You prefer to just MAKE ASSUMPTIONS and JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, INSTEAD.
Which fits in PERFECTLY with your thinking or BELIEF that you find it 'perfectly acceptable and reasonable' to just conjure up, or ASSUME, things without having ALL of the information FIRST.

It's hypothesising rather than assuming and not much of it is me hypothesising, rather I am trying to present some well established ideas in mainstream science in ways that will help some people understand them. The problem that all scientists have is that they cannot know that they have all the information; it is the nature of investigation that you don't know what you will find until you find it. In addition, any collection of observations can be interpreted in different ways. It is conceivable that you really are a conduit for some celestial intelligence; an alternative explanation might be that you are batshit insane. Who can tell? All theories are underdetermined.
Anyway, I wrote about the philosophy of science for the magazine https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia You could read that and then view these again in that light. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

[Age]

...do NOT be to surprised when your BEGINNING and EXPANDING Universe THEORY falls by the wayside.

Age, you are talking to someone who accepts that, however unlikely it seems, Georges Berkeley might have been right and the entire universe is an idea in the mind of god.

WHY do now propose that that one "might have been right"?

It seems you do jump around a lot and just accept whatever 'theory' or idea at the time as being what is true and right.

To me that idea or theory is just as OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect as the OTHER ABSURD and RIDICULOUS idea or theory that the WHOLE Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING IS.

As I have previously INFORMED you I do NOT do 'theories', and so I much prefer to ONLY LOOK AT and DISCUSS what IS IRREFUTABLY True INSTEAD.

The only thing that is irrefutably true is that there is thinking going on.

AND this is HOW and WHY I can BACK UP and SUPPORT the CLAIMS I make here, which, as I keep INFORMING you, ARE IRREFUTABLE.

That way, unlike you, I can back up and support EVERY thing I say and CLAIM here.

You can't even prove you exist. As Descartes pointed out, perhaps I am hallucinating, or dreaming, or being deceived by a malevolent demon.

When one DISCOVERS WHO and WHAT the 'you' IS, EXACTLY, then CONTRARY to what you SAY and BELIEVE here can BE DONE.

Just so you become AWARE, what I said there, is NOT INSISTING the Universe is 'static'. In fact I CLAIM the opposite.

That does surprise me. You have been adamant that the universe is not expanding.

YES I HAVE.

And the VERY REASON WHY you are surprised is because you have NOT previously made absolutely ANY attempt to CLARIFY and UNDERSTAND what is ACTUALLY MEANT by that statement. Instead you just kept CONTINUALLY MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, while continually JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS. Which, ONCE AGAIN, have been TOTALLY Wrong, while ALSO being TOTALLY ABSURD. But which I have left you with them. This is because I am NOT here to convince you of absolutely ANY thing.

But you would NEVER KNOW THIS because you do NOT SEEK CLARIFICATION.

Well I have tried.

LOL

SEEING THROUGH your FAKE ATTEMPT has been VERY EASY.

What has been BLOCKING you, as I have been continually TELLING you are those Wrong ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS of yours. And, as I ALSO KEEP INFORMING you UNTIL you RID "yourself" of 'rhose' BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, and STOP making further BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, then you will NEVER GAIN CLARIFICATION.

SEE, I have NO absolutely 'need' whatsoever to EXPLAIN what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and Correct. As I SAY, I just WAIT for those who are Truly SERIOUS in Wanting to learn MORE or ANEW, and those ones DO. NOT just 'try'.

You prefer to just MAKE ASSUMPTIONS and JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, INSTEAD.
Which fits in PERFECTLY with your thinking or BELIEF that you find it 'perfectly acceptable and reasonable' to just conjure up, or ASSUME, things without having ALL of the information FIRST.

It's hypothesising rather than assuming and not much of it is me hypothesising, rather I am trying to present some well established ideas in mainstream science in ways that will help some people understand them.

I KNOW what you ARE DOING.

I AM JUST helping you to Correct the 'things', which you SAY and CLAIM here that are False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. I do this in My WAY that will help 'you', indivually AND collectively, so that the SAME MISTAKES will NOT be made, in the future.

Now, what is the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between 'hypothesizing' and 'aasuming', to you?

Also, you USE the words "well established ideas in mainstream science" as though this gives some "weight' to what those 'ideas', which are, essentially, JUST 'theories' anyway,and AO do NOT necessarily have ANY CONNECTION AT ALL with what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

Teaching people, what ends up being False, Wrong, or Incorrect information anyway, I found REALLY SLOWS DOWN the process of True LEARNING and UNDERSTANDING.

Also, what REAL PURPOSE would there be in helping some people understand what is or could be just False, Wrong, or Incorrect information anyway?

The problem that all scientists have is that they cannot know that they have all the information; it is the nature of investigation that you don't know what you will find until you find it.

BUT WHEN you have FOUND 'it', like I HAVE, THEN you COULD, and WOULD BE ABLE TO, back up and support EVERY thing about 'it'.

If one can NOT back up and support THEIR CLAIMS, the I suggest they take ANOTHER and REALLY GOOD LOOK AT what 'it' IA, EXACTLY, what they are SEEING, and SAYING.

In addition, any collection of observations can be interpreted in different ways.

I KNOW. This is what I have been continually INFORMING you of.

It is conceivable that you really are a conduit for some celestial intelligence; an alternative explanation might be that you are batshit insane. Who can tell? All theories are underdetermined.

ONCE AGAIN, WHY MAKE UP ANOTHER 'theory' here?


WHY NOT JUST LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, ONLY, what IS IRREFUTABLY True and Right, INSTEAD, like I like to do?

Anyway, I wrote about the philosophy of science for the magazine

You REALLY do like to promote YOUR OWN writings and STORIES, correct?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia You could read that and then view these again in that light. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

Yes I might.

[uwot]

... Georges Berkeley might have been right and the entire universe is an idea in the mind of god.

WHY do now propose that that one "might have been right"?

Well Age, it's for the simple reason that Berkeley might have been right.

It seems you do jump around a lot and just accept whatever 'theory' or idea at the time as being what is true and right.

Age, do you really not have enough marbles to appreciate that there is a difference between 'might be right' and 'is right'? For people who are not bonkers or stupid, it is no great intellectual strain to entertain more than one hypothesis at a time.

To me that idea or theory is just as OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect as the OTHER ABSURD and RIDICULOUS idea or theory that the WHOLE Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING IS.

That is just your point of view. If it were obviously false, wrong and incorrect, it wouldn't trouble you to explain why. Short of stamping your foot and insisting that you know because you are Age, you will not be able to.

It is conceivable that you really are a conduit for some celestial intelligence; an alternative explanation might be that you are batshit insane. Who can tell? All theories are underdetermined.

ONCE AGAIN, WHY MAKE UP ANOTHER 'theory' here?
WHY NOT JUST LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, ONLY, what IS IRREFUTABLY True and Right, INSTEAD, like I like to do?

Well of the two options:
1. You are a conduit for some celestial intelligence
2. You are batshit insane
which is "IRREFUTABLY True and Right"?

You REALLY do like to promote YOUR OWN writings and STORIES, correct?

Correct. Hey kids, read these: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/P ... d_Brancheshttps://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996 https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia and watch these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

[Age]

... Georges Berkeley might have been right and the entire universe is an idea in the mind of god.

WHY do now propose that that one "might have been right"?

Well Age, it's for the simple reason that Berkeley might have been right.

Do you have ANY other ACTUAL reason other that that ABSURD and RIDICULOUS CLAIM 'might' "just be right' other than 'it might just be'?

Oh, and by the way, it could NEVER be Right.

It seems you do jump around a lot and just accept whatever 'theory' or idea at the time as being what is true and right.

Age, do you really not have enough marbles to appreciate that there is a difference between 'might be right' and 'is right'?

Yes. But WHEN you LEARN or DISCOVER what is IRREFUTABLY Right, then you ALSO KNOW what can NOT be Right.

Where you AWARE of this previously "uwot"?

For people who are not bonkers or stupid, it is no great intellectual strain to entertain more than one hypothesis at a time.

To me, those who entertain and thus WASTE their time on 'hypothesises', ARE what you would call 'bonkers'. But, please feel FREE to continue entertaining AS MANY 'hypothesises' and 'theories' you so wish to "uwot".

To me that idea or theory is just as OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect as the OTHER ABSURD and RIDICULOUS idea or theory that the WHOLE Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING IS.

That is just your point of view.

But as I keep INFORMING you I can back up and support this view.

This is because this view, unlike your view, IS IRREFUTABLE

If it were obviously false, wrong and incorrect, it wouldn't trouble you to explain why.

How many times do you have to be TOLD and INFORMED that WHILE some one is BELIEVING some 'thing' is true that, it is then, LITERALLY, IMPOSSIBLE to SHOW or IN FORM them of ANY thing contrary to that BELIEF, BEFORE you will COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND this IRREFUTABLE and VERY SIMPLE Fact?

UNTIL YOU DO, you will NOt UNDERSTAND the reason WHY I am having so-called 'trouble' explaing 'why' to just SOME of you.

BOTH of those ABSURD ideas or theories CAN BE and WILL BE PROVED False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

But, WHILE 'you', human beings, ARE BELIEVING that the Universe BEGAN, for example, then 'you' WILL, literally, NOT be ANY wiser.

Short of stamping your foot and insisting that you know because you are Age, you will not be able to.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, you have MADE ANOTHER COMPLETELY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect ASSUMPTION.

AND, because you BELIEVE it to be true, you are NOT OPEN to ANY thing contrary.

It is conceivable that you really are a conduit for some celestial intelligence; an alternative explanation might be that you are batshit insane. Who can tell? All theories are underdetermined.

ONCE AGAIN, WHY MAKE UP ANOTHER 'theory' here?
WHY NOT JUST LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, ONLY, what IS IRREFUTABLY True and Right, INSTEAD, like I like to do?

Well of the two options:
1. You are a conduit for some celestial intelligence
2. You are batshit insane
which is "IRREFUTABLY True and Right"?

Here you provide us with ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED you REALLY ARE.

WHY do ONLY those two choices exist for you?

AND, WHY, to you, does one of them HAVE TO BE True and Right?

You REALLY do like to promote YOUR OWN writings and STORIES, correct?

Correct. Hey kids, read these: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/P ... d_Brancheshttps://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996 https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia and watch these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

Read and watch them to LEARN WHY human beings TOOK SO LONG TO SEE and DISCOVER what IS, ACTUALLY, IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

The above readings and viewings are GREAT EXAMPLES of WHY some human beings take SO LONG to rid "themselves" of completely RIDICULOUS and ABSURD ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, like, for example; the earth is at the center of the Universe; the earth is flat, and, last but NOT least, the Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING.

[uwot]

Do you have ANY other ACTUAL reason other that that ABSURD and RIDICULOUS CLAIM 'might' "just be right' other than 'it might just be'?

Well, there is the fact that it is entirely consistent with the evidence. And then there's ontological parsimony; Ockham's razor if you will. Mind you, Berkeley did multiply entities beyond necessity by a factor of two. God is not essential, all that definitely exists is your experience.

Oh, and by the way, it could NEVER be Right.

Yes it could.

BOTH of those ABSURD ideas or theories CAN BE and WILL BE PROVED False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

No they won't, because mercifully you don't realise that you are currently bleeding to death, a victim of a senseless drive-by shooting in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Your real name is Melissa Jakes and you have precisely 23 seconds of life left. Fortunately for you, Melissa, your oxygen starved brain will stretch those 23 seconds into something that feels like a lifetime. As a guardian angel, my role in your dying moments is to give a sense of purpose to your diminishing cerebral faculties. God could save you, but he can be a bit of a twat sometimes, so you will have to spend the next 23 seconds of eternity as Age. It's going to be tough, but it will pass.
Meanwhile, uwot has this message:

Hey kids, read these: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/P ... d_Brancheshttps://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996 https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia and watch these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

[FlashDangerpants]

No they won't, because mercifully you don't realise that you are currently bleeding to death, a victim of a senseless drive-by shooting in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Your real name is Melissa Jakes and you have precisely 23 seconds of life left. Fortunately for you, Melissa, your oxygen starved brain will stretch those 23 seconds into something that feels like a lifetime. As a guardian angel, my role in your dying moments is to give a sense of purpose to your diminishing cerebral faculties. God could save you, but he can be a bit of a twat sometimes, so you will have to spend the next 23 seconds of eternity as Age. It's going to be tough, but it will pass.

I am genuinely terrified now. I used to think that getting shot was bad, but now there is the possiblitiy that after getting shot I might have to expereinece an entire lifetime of Ken.







I don't know how to cope with this risk.

[uwot]

I don't know how to cope with this risk.

Ah, you don't remember the car crash. Don't worry Maisie.

[Age]

Do you have ANY other ACTUAL reason other that that ABSURD and RIDICULOUS CLAIM 'might' "just be right' other than 'it might just be'?

Well, there is the fact that it is entirely consistent with the evidence. And then there's ontological parsimony; Ockham's razor if you will. Mind you, Berkeley did multiply entities beyond necessity by a factor of two. God is not essential, all that definitely exists is your experience.

LOL the 'evidence' word AGAIN.

The movement of the sun relative to an observer on earth might be 'evidence' to and for one with a pre-existing INTERPRETATION or BELIEF that the sun revolves around the earth.

However, that movement of the sun is NOT ACTUAL 'evidence' that the sun ACTUALLY revolves around the earth. This is because the sun does NOT ACTUALLY revolve around the earth. So there, LITERALLY, could NEVER be ANY ACTUAL 'evidence' AT ALL for the CLAIM that the sun revolves around the earth.

Just like there could NEVER be ANY ACTUAL 'evidence' that the Universe BEGAN or IS EXPANDING. This is because the Universe did NOT ACTUALLY BEGIN NOR IS EXPANDING.

Oh, and by the way, it could NEVER be Right.

Yes it could.

NOT IF, and WHEN, you learn or discover what IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and Correct here.

If some thing has also ALREADY been PROVED False, Wrong, or Incorrect, then it could NEVER be Right.

AND, contrary to what you BELIEVE is true, and as I just SHOWED and PROVED above, if some thing NEVER could exist, then there could also NEVER be ANY ACTUAL 'evidence' for "it".

Just like, as I have been continually SAYING and POINTING OUT, there is NO ACTUAL 'evidence' for a BEGINNING nor for an EXPANDING Universe, and this is because a BEGINNING and EXPANDING Universe NEVER existed as well has ALREADY been PROVED to be NOT True, anyway.

Some people just take longer than "others" to SEE and RECOGNIZE PROOF or what IS IRREFUTABLY True.

However, and as I have been continuously SAYING, the ONLY so-called 'evidence' that "exists" for a BEGINNING and EXPANDING Universe is the so-called "evidence" made up and created by those who already BELIEVE the Universe BEGAN and/or IS EXPANDING, or by those who are MISINTERPRETING the ACTUAL 'data'.

BOTH of those ABSURD ideas or theories CAN BE and WILL BE PROVED False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

No they won't, because mercifully you don't realise that you are currently bleeding to death, a victim of a senseless drive-by shooting in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Your real name is Melissa Jakes and you have precisely 23 seconds of life left.

NONE of this matters as I have ALREADY DONE IT.

Some of 'you' just take longer to SEE and RECOGNIZE thee Truth. As PROVED True throughout your human history.

Fortunately for you, Melissa, your oxygen starved brain will stretch those 23 seconds into something that feels like a lifetime. As a guardian angel, my role in your dying moments is to give a sense of purpose to your diminishing cerebral faculties. God could save you, but he can be a bit of a twat sometimes, so you will have to spend the next 23 seconds of eternity as Age. It's going to be tough, but it will pass.
Meanwhile, uwot has this message:

Again NONE of this matters as thee Truth prevails.

Hey kids, read these: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/P ... d_Brancheshttps://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996 https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia and watch these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

And just like "uwot" is doing here, religious "folks" have done the SAME when they WANT you to only read and accept ONLY what they say and write.


As has ALREADY been SHOWN by those religious ones who WANTED EVERY one to accept and BELIEVE that the sun REALLY does revolve around the earth.

Contrary to what popular or mainstream BELIEFS INSIST and TELL you they are NOT ALWAYS true and correct. If rarely at all.

The Universe did NOT BEGIN, and IS NOT EXPANDING, EXACTLY like the sun does NOT revolve around the earth. There WAS, and NEVER will be, ANY ACTUAL 'evidence' for either, no matter how much wants to BELIEVE there is.

Although some people like to SEE or BELIEVE that these are what is ACTUALLY TRUE, thee ACTUAL Truth IS ALWAYS being REVEALED, EXACTLY as I am SHOWING, and PROVING.

[Age]

No they won't, because mercifully you don't realise that you are currently bleeding to death, a victim of a senseless drive-by shooting in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Your real name is Melissa Jakes and you have precisely 23 seconds of life left. Fortunately for you, Melissa, your oxygen starved brain will stretch those 23 seconds into something that feels like a lifetime. As a guardian angel, my role in your dying moments is to give a sense of purpose to your diminishing cerebral faculties. God could save you, but he can be a bit of a twat sometimes, so you will have to spend the next 23 seconds of eternity as Age. It's going to be tough, but it will pass.

I am genuinely terrified now. I used to think that getting shot was bad, but now there is the possiblitiy that after getting shot I might have to expereinece an entire lifetime of Ken.







I don't know how to cope with this risk.

Instead of 'trying to' CRITICIZE 'the writer' how about you 'try to' CRITIQUE 'the writings' INSTEAD?

If you find some thing FLAWED, INCONSISTENT, CONTRARY or just plain old false, wrong, or incorrect in 'my writings', the WHY NOT just HIGHLIGHT them so "others" can SEE them and then EXPLAIN WHY you find them the way you do. That way you will NOT appear as the WEAK and USELESS person you ARE portraying "yourself" here as, now.

Now, if it is "too hard" for you to list ALL of the FLAWS, et cetera in my writings, then how about you START with just ONE. That way you will NOT appear as AFRAID and WEAK as you are here now.

[FlashDangerpants]

Instead of 'trying to' CRITICIZE 'the writer' how about you 'try to' CRITIQUE 'the writings' INSTEAD?

Because I saw what you wrote about magnetism. After years of your tripe about how easy it is to seeeee thhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee truth of things, your only actual attempt to tell one of these truths instead of tell us how amazing you are for knowing them all.... was shit stupid and boring all at once.

That way you will NOT appear as the WEAK and USELESS person you ARE portraying "yourself" here as, now.

Even your taunts are weak and uninteresting, they provide no inspiration for a counter, I'm too bored right now to even accuse you of having the contents of a diseased weasel's rectal cavity for a brain or whatever. It's not worth doing, this is boring, you are boring me.

[Age]

Instead of 'trying to' CRITICIZE 'the writer' how about you 'try to' CRITIQUE 'the writings' INSTEAD?

Because I saw what you wrote about magnetism. After years of your tripe about how easy it is to seeeee thhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee truth of things, your only actual attempt to tell one of these truths instead of tell us how amazing you are for knowing them all....

I have NEVER ONCE mentioned absolutely ANY thing about 'me' being 'amazing". And ANY PERCEPTION of this has been of your OWN MAKING.

was shit stupid and boring all at once.

LOL So I ASKED you about WHY you do NOT CRITIQUE my writings, and ALL you can come up with is, "was stupid shit and boring all at once". Which reaffirms just how Truly WEAK and USELESS you REALLY ARE.

You can NOT refute NOR counter absolutely ANY thing I have SAID and CLAIMED here, so all you could do is resort to your USELESS CLAIMS and EXCUSES.

This IS a 'philosophy forum', so if you can NOT counter NOR argue against what another SAYS or CLAIMS, then just maybe you SHOULD be somewhere ELSE.

That way you will NOT appear as the WEAK and USELESS person you ARE portraying "yourself" here as, now.

Even your taunts are weak and uninteresting, they provide no inspiration for a counter, I'm too bored right now to even accuse you of having the contents of a diseased weasel's rectal cavity for a brain or whatever. It's not worth doing, this is boring, you are boring me.

SO GO AWAY, and STOP talking ABOUT'me', to "others". This only SHOWS and REVEALS just how Truly WEAK and SCARED you REALLY ARE.

If you are too USELESS to ARGUE WITH me DIRECTLY, then you are WEAKER than you first appeared here.

You like to talk ABOUT "others" but are too SCARED to talk WITH them.

LISTEN, MY CLAIMS ARE IRREFUTABLE, and your USELESSNESS in PROVING otherwise is PROVING this True.

And, ONCE AGAIN, your ONLY ABILITY to ATTEMPT to RIDICULE or PUT the 'me' DOWN does NOT go UNNOTICED.