Supporting Evidences and References are Critical

[Age]

Do you know what an 'tsunami' is?

Yes, WHY?

Do you know when and where the next tsunami will happen on Earth?

HOW MANY TIMES do I have to answer this question for you?

[TimeSeeker]

Yes, WHY?

Do you know when and where the next tsunami will happen on Earth?

HOW MANY TIMES do I have to answer this question for you?

So the answer is no?

[TimeSeeker]

So you know what happens in the future and we don't.

Yes, I do, and yes you do not.

That means you know something that we don't.

Yes, you are correct here.

You asked: Do you know where and when the next 100 natural disasters on Earth will take place?
I answered: No.

Do you know what an 'tsunami' is?

Yes, WHY?

So you know what happens in the future, but you don't know when the next tsunami will take place on Earth?

I guess this means you only know some things about the future.
But you don't know everything that happens in the future.

[Age]

So you know what happens in the future and we don't.

Yes, I do, and yes you do not.

That means you know something that we don't.

Yes, you are correct here.

You asked: Do you know where and when the next 100 natural disasters on Earth will take place?
I answered: No.

Do you know what an 'tsunami' is?

Yes, WHY?

So you know what happens in the future, but you don't know when the next tsunami will take place on Earth?

I guess this means you only know some things about the future.
But you don't know everything that happens in the future.

WHY did you repeat one of your own previous posts, of which I have already responded to?

[TimeSeeker]

WHY did you repeat one of your own previous posts, of which I have already responded to?

You didn't respond to it. You forgot to tell me when and where the tsunami will happen.

[Age]

WHY did you repeat one of your own previous posts, of which I have already responded to?

You didn't respond to it. You forgot to tell me when and where the tsunami will happen.

I DID respond to the post in question. Once again read back BEFORE you write things that are NOT true.

[TimeSeeker]

I DID respond to the post in question. Once again read back BEFORE you write things that are NOT true.

You are lying.

You never responded to the tsunami question. This is the first time I asked it.

[Age]

I DID respond to the post in question. Once again read back BEFORE you write things that are NOT true.

You are lying.

You never responded to the tsunami question. This is the first time I asked it.

What is wrong with you?

One minute you agree and accept that I did respond, then you just now edited that response to this.

It appears that you agreed, then re-read and then disagreed.

You are MISSING what is happening AGAIN.

You repeated one of your own posts, which if you re-read that original ONE and my following response, then you will SEE that I have in fact responded to it.

Besides the fact that I have ALREADY responded to a tsunami question, which WAS: Do you know what an tsunami is? THAT was NOT the post that I was talking about, and so the one that was in question here.

[TimeSeeker]

You repeated one of your own posts

No I didn't. I changed one word between the original and what you BELIEVED was a duplicate post.

I guess you didn't read properly.

[Age]

You repeated one of your own posts

No I didn't. I changed one word between the original and what you BELIEVED was a duplicate post.

I guess you didn't read properly.

You would have to be a fool to even imagine that I would read it AGAIN.

Do you have any SUPPORTING EVIDENCE here for that one word change, if you are telling the truth here. I could NOT be bothered looking for it, especially since I have already responded to that post.

Also, WHY would a human being repost the exact same already responded to post, now with a one word change in it, AND THEN write some thing like, "I guess you didn't read properly".

Why would you even assume or think that I would re-read that post again?

By the way I do NOT believe it was a duplicate post. I have always been OPEN to it being some thing different. You have expressed that it is NOT a duplicate post, and I really do NOT care either way if it is or not. So, I certainly did NOT and will NOT believe that it is a duplicate post.

[TimeSeeker]

You repeated one of your own posts

No I didn't. I changed one word between the original and what you BELIEVED was a duplicate post.

I guess you didn't read properly.

You would have to be a fool to even imagine that I would read it AGAIN.

Do you have any SUPPORTING EVIDENCE here for that one word change, if you are telling the truth here. I could NOT be bothered looking for it, especially since I have already responded to that post.

Also, WHY would a human being repost the exact same already responded to post, now with a one word change in it, AND THEN write some thing like, "I guess you didn't read properly".

Why would you even assume or think that I would re-read that post again?

By the way I do NOT believe it was a duplicate post. I have always been OPEN to it being some thing different. You have expressed that it is NOT a duplicate post, and I really do NOT care either way if it is or not. So, I certainly did NOT and will NOT believe that it is a duplicate post.

And you still don't know when the next tsunami will happen...

[commonsense]

The discourse has become personal by this time. Almost 40 posts ago, TimeSeeker referenced Wikipedia and youtube. Since then, there have been no other references, notwithstanding these are not philosophy references. There have been no a priori statements submitted as supporting evidence. Ironic, isn't it, when you review VA's OP.

[TimeSeeker]

The discourse has become personal by this time. Almost 40 posts ago, TimeSeeker referenced Wikipedia and youtube. Since then, there have been no other references, notwithstanding these are not philosophy references. There have been no a priori statements submitted as supporting evidence. Ironic, isn't it, when you review VA's OP.

I only quote Wikipedia for the purposes of concept/language synchronization

Since philosophy is predominantly a silly word game, I think it's appropriate. The language of Wikipedia is far more accessible and broadly adopted than esoteric philosophy references.

[surreptitious57]

The future can never be experienced only the present or eternal NOW. And when the future is apparently experienced
it is no longer the future. So everything you experience can only happen in the NOW from your perspective [ this does
not falsify Special Relativity because anybody elses NOW could simply be happening at a different time to your NOW ]

[TimeSeeker]

The future can never be experienced only the present or eternal NOW. And when the future is apparently experienced
it is no longer the future. So everything you experience can only happen in the NOW from your perspective [ this does
not falsify Special Relativity because anybody elses NOW could simply be happening at a different time to your NOW ]

Semantics?

The future can be anticipated (prediction) - I am looking forward to the beautiful sunset tomorrow;
or envisioned and brought about (control) - I am looking forward to making breakfast tomorrow.