Re: "age" verses "quirk"
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:53 pm
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
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.
LOL
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?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 2:13 pmMostly reason and common sense (which, in context, is mostly being parsimonious).
LOL Because the 'proof' exists.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 2:13 pm Why are you so certain there is proof 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.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 suspect had you lived before Aristarchus (the first recorded to suggest heliocentrism) you too might have accepted the Sun revolved around Earth.are you aware at all that you would be one of the ones who believed, absolutely, that the sun revolved around the earth
Please, show me your proof.Because the 'proof' exists. As I have, already, informed you of.
Who said you can't get something from nothing? They are just words. It doesn't even mean anything.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 1:54 amI 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.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 suspect had you lived before Aristarchus (the first recorded to suggest heliocentrism) you too might have accepted the Sun revolved around Earth.are you aware at all that you would be one of the ones who believed, absolutely, that the sun revolved around the earth
Please, show me your proof.Because the 'proof' exists. As I have, already, informed you of.
Duh! indeed. The universe, the one and only universe, began, but there was someone before it. So there never was nada.The alternative is that there was never a 'nothing' in the first place. Duh!
If there is none, then how can you, supposedly, examine 'it', exactly?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 1:54 amI examine the evidence (there is none),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?
And here is, exactly, why people like this one were so very, very slow and absolutely incapable of learning.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 1:54 am 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.
LOLhenry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 1:54 amI suspect had you lived before Aristarchus (the first recorded to suggest heliocentrism) you too might have accepted the Sun revolved around Earth.are you aware at all that you would be one of the ones who believed, absolutely, that the sun revolved around the earth
But, as I have asked you to clarify before, to you there is no proof that the Universe is eternal, correct?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 1:54 amPlease, show me your proof.Because the 'proof' exists. As I have, already, informed you of.
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.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 10:02 pm 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.
LOLhenry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 10:02 pm Now, here's&
for you scamps (you each get two cookies and one glass of milk).
-----
Duh! indeed. The universe, the one and only universe, began, but there was someone before it. So there never was nada.The alternative is that there was never a 'nothing' in the first place. Duh!
You really are an autist, aren't you.If there is none, then how can you, supposedly, examine 'it', exactly?
Answered.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?