"age" verses "quirk"

[Age]

Proof absolutely always outweighs any evidence at all.

Yep, there's absolutely no proof, or evidence, the universe is eternal.

LOL

Here is, another, prime example of what happens to a human being when they believe some thing is true.

They are, literally, closed off from learning more.

It is from beliefs and assumptions why these human beings, back in those olden days, took so, so very long to learn, and thus uncover, what the actual Truth of Life, and things, were all along, exactly.

The, irrefutable, 'proof' of what is absolutely actually True here is HERE for all to 'look at' and 'see'. But, when one is doing exactly what "henry quirk" is doing, and showing, here, then they are not able to learn, comprehend, understand, and 'see' what the actual Truth is.

The very reason why it took human beings, back then, so long to learn, comprehend, understand, and 'see' that it is actually the earth revolving around the sun, and not the other way around, is because of, exactly, what the human being known as "henry quirk" is showing and doing here.

This one actually believes, absolutely, that there is absolutely no proof at all, throughout all of the Universe's entire existence, that the Universe is eternal.

And, this one is so absolutely closed that it actually believes, absolutely, that there is no proof, nor even any evidence at all, throughout the WHOLE Universe, Itself, for the Universe being eternal. The most amusing part of this is that this one actually believes that it 'knows' what the actual Truth is, exactly, HERE.

This one is so 'full of' "itself" and so 'self-delusion' that it actually believes that if it does not yet 'know' some thing, then forever more no one else could 'know' it.

[Age]

you did not answer the 'actual question' posed, and asked to you above here.

I did answer. Ask me again and I'll answer again.

LOL you did not answer the actual question I posed, and asked, you above here "henry quirk".

And, this is an irrefutable proof, which if absolutely any one sought out I could and would provide.

Are you able to prove that you answered the actual question above that I posed, and asked you "henry quirk"?

If yes, then provide what you believe is the 'actual proof'.

If you do not, then just remember what is at stake here.

[henry quirk]

you did not answer the actual question I posed

Yes I did. Ask me again and I'll answer again.

[henry quirk]

There's absolutely no proof, or evidence, the universe is eternal.

[Age]

There's absolutely no proof, or evidence, the universe is eternal.

Why do you believe that this is absolutely true?

Do you have any evidence for this, let alone proof?

If yes, then will you provide it?

If no, then why not? (What are you afraid of, exactly?)

But if yes, then great. I am interested in 'seeing' what you, actually, have.

[Age]

There's absolutely no proof, or evidence, the universe is eternal.

Why do you believe that there is 'evidence' that the Universe began?

And, will you provide what you believe is 'evidence' for a beginning and/or expanding Universe?

If no, then why not?

If yes, then great. I am interested in 'seeing' what you, actually, have.

[Age]

you did not answer the actual question I posed

Yes I did.

Notice how I already responded to this, with 'the below', in bold. And, notice that this one did not provide absolutely any thing at all. Obviously, because this one has absolutely no proof at all that it, actually, did answer the above question, in question.

LOL you did not answer the actual question I posed, and asked, you above here "henry quirk".

And, this is an irrefutable fact, which if absolutely any one sought out I could and would provide 'the proof' of.

Are you able to prove that you answered the actual question above that I posed, and asked you "henry quirk"?

If yes, then provide what you believe is the 'actual proof'.

If you do not, then just remember what is at stake here.

[henry quirk]

Why do you believe that this is...true?

All the available evidence suggests -- strongly -- the universe began. There's no evidence suggesting the universe is eternal.

Do you have any evidence for this?

You obviously have access to the net: do your own homework.

[henry quirk]

LOL you did not answer the actual question I posed, and asked, you above here "henry quirk".

I did answer. Ask me again and I'll answer again.

[Age]

Why do you believe that this is...true?

All the available evidence suggests -- strongly -- the universe began. There's no evidence suggesting the universe is eternal.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Again, 'this one' speaks as though it has already been made privy to all knowledge and information.

Also, 'this one' appears to be completely blind to the Fact that what is just called 'evidence' for some thing might well not be 'actual proof' for 'that thing', at all. And, that 'the evidence' did not 'fit' with what is, and always was, actually True, Accurate, and Correct.

Also, if you would like to include here what you think or believe is the so-called 'evidence' for the Universe beginning, then I can, and will, show how and why 'the interpretation' of 'that evidence' is for a beginning Universe

Do you have any evidence for this?

You obviously have access to the net: do your own homework.

Once again, here is another one who does not back up and support its very own belief, and claim.

Now, the Fact the this one provides nothing, very conveniently for it, means that there is absolutely nothing here for which I can show and prove why 'it' is Wrong, faulty, Inaccurate, or Incorrect.

The are things this one could very easily say and claim is so-called 'evidence' for the Universe beginning, but this would be like this one saying and claiming that observing the sun revolving around the earth is 'evidence' that the sun revolves around the earth. This one could also say and claim, therefore, there is 'evidence' for the sun revolving around the earth, all the available 'evidence' suggests -- strongly -- the sun revolves around the earth, and/or there is no 'evidence' suggesting that the earth revolves around the sun. But, again, what is 'interpreted' as 'evidence' for some thing may well be absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Now, until 'this one' provides absolutely any thing here 'we', literally, have absolutely nothing to 'look at', 'see', and 'discuss' here.

I am not going to 'look for' what you believe exists.

If you believe 'evidence' exists, and want to claim that 'evidence' does exist, somewhere, but do not want to prove that there is 'evidence' existing, then do not be surprised when I prove that there never was any 'proof' for what you claim there is 'evidence' for.

By the way, there is actual 'proof' for the Universe being eternal, while any perceived 'evidence' for the contrary is all because of Wrong misinterpretations.

See ,'red shift' is what actually helps in 'proving' that the Universe is eternal. 'Red shift', itself, certainly does not 'prove' that the Universe began.

And, if absolutely any one would like to 'take me up' on this, as some might say, then please do.

[Age]

LOL you did not answer the actual question I posed, and asked, you above here "henry quirk".

I did answer. Ask me again and I'll answer again.

you did not answer the actual question. As not just 'the evidence' helps in proving this, but 'the proof' itself proves this irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

[henry quirk]

'this one' speaks as though it has already been made privy to all knowledge and information.

Of course I don't.

'the evidence' did not 'fit' with what is, and always was, actually True, Accurate, and Correct.

And what is True, Accurate, and Correct? And how does the current evidence not fit?

here is another one who does not back up and support its very own belief, and claim.

Not so.

By the way, there is actual 'proof' for the Universe being eternal

That's not true.

red shift' is what actually helps in 'proving' that the Universe is eternal. 'Red shift', itself, certainly does not 'prove' that the Universe began.

I've offered no, and made no claims about having, proof.

Redshift is indeed evidence that the universe had a beginning. The redshift of galaxies indicates that the universe is expanding, suggesting that if we could wind time backwards, everything in the universe would have been in one place, supporting the concept of a starting point or a "first cause" for the universe.

[henry quirk]

you did not answer the actual question.

I did so. And you don't don't have a jot of evidence to show otherwise.

[henry quirk]

cuz, obviously, somebody needs to know...

https://prowritingaid.com/proof-vs-evidence

[Age]

'this one' speaks as though it has already been made privy to all knowledge and information.

Of course I don't.

How do you think 'your words'; There's no evidence suggesting the universe is eternal. come across, to others, exactly?

How do you know that there is not someone who has not just 'the evidence', but also 'the actual proof', that the Universe is, in fact, eternal, and is just what is sometimes called 'sitting on it', for another day, or for the 'right time'?

If you do not know this, then, obviously, you can not Accurately claim; 'There is no evidence suggesting the Universe is eternal'.

Again, unless of course you are trying to claim that you have already been made aware of all knowledge and information.

But, if you are not trying to claim this, then you will have re-phrase 'your claim' here that there is no evidence suggesting that the Universe is eternal.

'the evidence' did not 'fit' with what is, and always was, actually True, Accurate, and Correct.

And what is True, Accurate, and Correct?

In regards to 'what', exactly?

If it is in regards to whether the Universe is eternal, or not, then what is True, Accurate, and Correct is that the Universe, Itself, is eternal.

And, again, if absolutely any one would like to discuss this, and/or challenge me over this claim, then by all means let 'us' proceed.

And how does the current evidence not fit?

LOL 'What evidence'?

I asked you if you had 'any evidence' before. But, you, obviously, tried to 'deflect' and made up some excuse about me, obviously, having access to the internet, and that I go and find 'the evidence' "myself.

Which, by the way, was a very common form of trying to deflect when one just did not actually know how to just back up and support their current beliefs and views.

Which, also, was Truly funny to watch and observe especially considering it was the exact same one who were claiming that 'the evidence' 'was there'.

LOL It was like those who claimed that God does exist, and when asked for 'what evidence' or better still 'what proof' they had for their claim they would say 'it is in the literature' and 'you will see it if you look properly'. These people were so blinded by their own beliefs that they did not even realize that they have never even actually considered just questioning what they have read or heard, previously.

here is another one who does not back up and support its very own belief, and claim.

Not so.[/quote]

So, you claim 'the evidence' is 'there', but fail, absolutely, to provide it or even to just link 'us' to it.

All you can say is, You obviously have access to the net: do your own homework.

'This one' makes 'the claim', but then expects 'the burden of proof' is on 'the other'.

Which was, really, just a very common trait among the adult human being population, in the days when this was being written, anyway.

So, it is not like 'this one' is doing some thing just about all, if not all, did anyway.

Now, if you want to continue 'your claim' that 'the evidence' suggests that the Universe began, then, if you ever provide 'the, so-called, evidence', then I can and will show how it is 'the interpretation' if 'that evidence' is what has led you human beings to the very False and Wrong conclusion that the Universe began.

I, also, can and then will show and reveal the 'actual proof' of how the Universe, Itself, is actually eternal, and infinite. Of course, that is if one has enough curiosity and is interested enough to 'stay around' here, long enough.

By the way, there is actual 'proof' for the Universe being eternal

That's not true.

Now 'we' are 'back' to this one believing, and thus coming across as though, it has already been made aware of all knowledge and information.

you are, absolutely, CLOSED and BLIND here "henry quirk".

you are, exactly, like those who just kept on re-repeating, 'There is no evidence, or there is no proof, that the earth revolves around the sun'.

The only one you are, and they were, fooling, and deceiving, are "yourselves", only.

red shift' is what actually helps in 'proving' that the Universe is eternal. 'Red shift', itself, certainly does not 'prove' that the Universe began.

I've offered no, and made no claims about having, proof.

Of course not. Yet here you are, a human being believing that the Universe began.

Again, believing things were true, when they had absolutely no proof of at all for was a very common trait among the adult population, back in those very 'olden days', when this was being written.

Redshift is indeed evidence that the universe had a beginning.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This here is another prime example of how it is 'the interpretation' of 'data', which is what was fooling, and deceiving. those people, in those 'olden days'.

'The interpretation' of 'the observation', or of 'the data', of the sun revolving around the earth, is what led people to assume and believe the Wrong and False conclusion that the earth was in the center of the Universe. Just like it is 'the interpretation' of 'the observation', or of 'the data', of 'red shift', which is what led people to assume and believe the Wrong and False conclusion that the Universe, Itself, began.

Look "henry quirk" light reflection from the sun is indeed 'evidence' also that the sun revolves around the earth, as well. But, does the sun revolve around the earth, to you?

Once again, for the slow of learning here, 'evidence' of some thing never ever actually means that what is 'interpreted' as what 'the evidence' backs up or suggests is what is actually True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct.

Only 'proof', itself, shows, exactly, what is irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, only.

And, thus 'proof', itself, as I have been continually saying and pointing out here, will ALWAYS override any so-called 'evidence'.

Now, there is 'proof' that the Universe is eternal, and infinite. Although, obviously, quite a lot of the people, in the days when this was being written, had not been been made privy of this. Just like a lot of people not yet been made privy to the earth actually being what is revolving around the sun, in the 'olden days' prior to the 'olden days' when this was being written.

Also, let 'us' not forget that absolutely all knowledge and/or information had not yet been made consciously aware to any one at all. See, all knowledge or information is being learned, understood, and 'known' along 'the way'.

The redshift of galaxies indicates that the universe is expanding, suggesting that if we could wind time backwards, everything in the universe would have been in one place, supporting the concept of a starting point or a "first cause" for the universe.

Here is the 'prime example' of just how a 'misinterpretation' of things can lead people so, so far afield, and astray.

Just the words, 'In the beginning', have been, and still are, in the days when this is being written, being completely and utterly MISINTERPRETED.

Which has been, and what is, helping 'these people', back then, to assume and believe things, which are absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect here.

Now, the 'red shift of galaxies', itself, does not 'indicate' absolutely any thing at all what you said here. However, and obviously, 'THE MISINTERPRETATION', by some people, of what 'red shift' 'indicates' is what has been, and is, leading some of these people so far astray.

Would you like to discuss how it was 'THE MISINTERPRETATION' by some people of what the 'red shift of some galaxies' is what has led people like you to assume or believe that the Universe, Itself, began "henry quirk"?

Or, are you under some sort of belief or presumption that 'red shift' actually does 'indicate' that the Universe, Itself, began, and so are not open to the fact that 'red shift' could 'mean', or even just 'indicate', something else entirely, or even opposingly? a

A direct Truly open and honest answer by you here would help absolutely tremendously, here.