God is a giant ball of energy, which can convert portions of itself into adams, and use the remainder of that energy to do anything with those adams he wants. He converted a small portion into 5 dimensions. The first being heaven, 2 hell, 3 earth, 4, and 5 being parralell dimensions in the universe, where satan created greys, and reptillians. In the 3rd dimension, you cannot travel faster than the speed of light, so they would come here in the 4th, then switch to 3rd, causing them to appear to us. In the bible, it says a serpent tempted adam and eve to sin, but not a snake, which was interpreted. Maybe, maybe not, it was a reptillian, who tempted them. The 3rd dimension is ran by God, but satan can do things there, the 4th, and 5th by satan, but God can do things there. Satan had reptillians on earth, and mars, and dinosaurs lived alongside them. When God got pissed off about origional sin, ke kicked the reptillians off earth, and created the 3rd dimension, and put adam, and eve on earth. At the end of the world, satan will convert earth to the 5th dimension, and the reptillians will enslave the remaining humans who jesus did not take to heaven. Satan can convert adams to things, but cannot create adams, and is not more powerfull then God. There is an entire world history, using this theory that I came up with, but what do you think of this theory?

People who discuss their visions into other dimensions do no acknowledge the existance of the first and second, they see holy visions, but refuse to refer to them as related to God.

Definitely doesn't make more sense than the big bang theory, but it great material if you ever want to start a cult.

Although the idea that nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause doesn't make very much sense to me, I still doubt that your idea is going to get much positive feedback since you used "adams" instead of "atoms".

Its a cruel world that judges your ideas based on your grammar.

Dimensions aren't places.

So you want to dismiss the big bang, because it seems irrational that the beginning particles existed ex nihilo, yet you just want to presuppose that god existed ex nihilo? How convenient.

As for your theory, you may need to check yourself into a psych ward. Btw IT'S "ATOMS," NOT "ADAMS."

This theory, and the vast ammount of empirical data to support it. leaves me baffeled. I shall now convert to this religion. All hail God-ergy.

/sarcasm

I am not made up of trillons of some ran dom boy name either. Lulz, adams.

The big bang makes sense. Your theory makes none.

The guy is clearly a troll.

With that being said...


Although the idea that nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause doesn't make very much sense to me,.

Science doesn't say that, so...

God is a giant ball of energy, which can convert portions of itself into adams.

lolwut.

Science doesn't say that, so...

Effect needs cause. Cause cannot be in the effect.

Effect needs cause. Cause cannot be in the effect.

Who says the Universe is the effect of something?

Who says the Universe is the effect of something?

Do you mean the universe, or the Big Bang? Because I mean the Big Bang. I don't disregard the possibility that the universe has always been, but since everything is expanding, that just indicates movement from a central point for me.

Definitely doesn't make more sense than the big bang theory, but it great material if you ever want to start a cult.

New Arrival wins the thread.

Its a cruel world that judges your ideas based on your grammar.

That's not a small issue. Whose opinion would you consider more valid on this issue? A physicist; somebody who went to university and has a relevant degree, whose job is to study this, or some guy on the internet who thinks that matter is made up of 'adams'?

Also, your 'theory' isn't a theory at all. It's a hypothesis.

Effect needs cause. Cause cannot be in the effect.

1. What does that have to do with the fact that Science doesn't limit its inquiry to be beginnings to the Big Bang (i.e. Science doesn't say as you erroenously implied, that "nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause ").


2. You can say the same for theistic explanations.


3. I'm still waiting for my evolution thread. :)

Although the idea that nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause doesn't make very much sense to me

You should look into M-Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory) (M stands for madness)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory)They are brewing some very interesting theories about the before and what is beyond.
They don't really go into it in the wiki articles, look around, you'll find something.

When people get the outlines for these ultimate ideas, it is not how most people imagine the scientific exploration should be. It is more of a poetic and intuitive process. Then they see if they can make these beautiful ideas more substantial.


Maybe we shouldn't just brand the OP as a troll, or mentally inferior. Instead we should give him/her constructive criticism and encourage him/her to expand upon the ideas and make them clearer.

1. What does that have to do with the fact that Science doesn't limit its inquiry to be beginnings to the Big Bang (i.e. Science doesn't say as you erroenously implied, that "nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause ").


2. You can say the same for theistic explanations.



3. I'm still waiting for my evolution thread. :)

1-Science doesn't allow the idea of supernatural, which limits possibilities and inquiries. When I say that there was a cause for existence outside of existence (existence as in everything physical not just mankind's existence), it counts as supernatural, which science does not accept. There are fringe sciences people don't accept, at times for biased reasons, and that alone leaves thousands of inquiries untouched. Why was the universe in an energy density? Where did the energy originate from? A physical cause? Where is its origin? The only non-theist answers I see for this are infinity, and the other the theory of everything. I just take my side of the propositions and don't feel the lesser for not wanting everyone to be in the same group.

2-Not every theistic explanation can be lumped together. Beliefs that are restricted to time and space aren't the same as beliefs that are substantiated outside of time and space. To think that you want to just throw it into one pile without disambiguating, analyzing, for you probably and criticizing them one by one makes me wonder why you used such a short sentence.

3- I gave you a teaser thread 5 days ago go find it. No, here: http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2174067

You should look into M-Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory) (M stands for madness)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory)They are brewing some very interesting theories about the before and what is beyond.
They don't really go into it in the wiki articles, look around, you'll find something.

When people get the outlines for these ultimate ideas, it is not how most people imagine the scientific exploration should be. It is more of a poetic and intuitive process. Then they see if they can make these beautiful ideas more substantial.


Maybe we shouldn't just brand the OP as a troll, or mentally inferior. Instead we should give him/her constructive criticism and encourage him/her to expand upon the ideas and make them clearer.

Now that incorporates the idea of the other dimensions, and in my simple opinion, why can't we accept that strict observational methods will never completely get all the information we want, that there could be a cause in a dimension that we cannot accurately or readily detect because we think of everything in terms of time and space?

That's not a small issue. Whose opinion would you consider more valid on this issue? A physicist; somebody who went to university and has a relevant degree, whose job is to study this, or some guy on the internet who thinks that matter is made up of 'adams'?

You know I did point the typo out first, I was just tying to be polite.
Besides a just becuase you have a degree and a name doesn't make you "special" or "important". That being said, validity needs to be defined before I can answer the question.

1-Science doesn't allow the idea of supernatural, which limits possibilities and inquiries. When I say that there was a cause for existence outside of existence (existence as in everything physical not just mankind's existence), it counts as supernatural, which science does not accept. There are fringe sciences people don't accept, at times for biased reasons, and that alone leaves thousands of inquiries untouched. Why was the universe in an energy density? Where did the energy originate from? A physical cause? Where is its origin? The only non-theist answers I see for this are infinity, and the other the theory of everything. I just take my side of the propositions and don't feel the lesser for not wanting everyone to be in the same group.

Again, what does any of that have to do with what I said? Absolutely nothing. "Science limits possible answers to the natural" is not an answer or proper response to my point. It reeks of someone wanting to attack Science if for no other reason than to ignore the fact that he misrepresented what Science says.

Again Science does not say "nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause".



2-Not every theistic explanation can be lumped together. Beliefs that are restricted to time and space aren't the same as beliefs that are substantiated outside of time and space. To think that you want to just throw it into one pile without disambiguating, analyzing, for you probably and criticizing them one by one makes me wonder why you used such a short sentence.

Your complaint might carry some weight if you hadn't done worse yourself by implying Science says "nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause", when it does not.

That being said, my point was not to "lump all theistic explanations together" but to point how that very objection of yours is not limited to Scientific explantions.


3- I gave you a teaser thread 5 days ago go find it. No, here: http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2174067

You can spare me the teasers then.

Obviously a troll. and a stupid troll at that. "Adams", come on man are you retarded or something?

Obviously a troll. and a stupid troll at that. "Adams", come on man are you retarded or something?

Look at his other threads.

Again, what does any of that have to do with what I said? Absolutely nothing. "Science limits possible answers to the natural" is not an answer or proper response to my point. It reeks of someone wanting to attack Science if for no other reason than to ignore the fact that he misrepresented what Science says.

Again Science does not say "nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause".




Your complaint might carry some weight if you hadn't done worse yourself by implying Science says "nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause", when it does not.

That being said, my point was not to "lump all theistic explanations together" but to point how that very objection of yours is not limited to Scientific explanations.

You have illiteracy or comprehension problems or something becuase you can't read anything people say without deciding that it has nothing to do with your answer, even when it does, such as mine. I'll repeat everything I have already stated even more explicitly for you so you can try to piss all over it again: Science doesn't recognize the supernatural. Nothing physical or natural in the universe could have created the universe inside of itself, therefore it had to be un-natural, or supernatural. Since science doesn't accept that, it says that the universe happened for no reason by default. But I am sure you won't be able to stop yourself from hitting reply before you ever read this.
Since you have basically done nothing but said "nuh-uh" why don't you just go on and tell everyone what science says?

Science doesn't recognize the supernatural. Nothing physical or natural in the universe could have created the universe inside of itself, therefore it had to be un-natural, or supernatural. Since science doesn't accept that, it says that the universe happened for no reason by default.

... Or it says that the universe has always existed - a natural explanation which isn't the idiotic mischaracterisation you made

... Or it simply remains silent on the issue - again not the idiotic mischaracterization you made.

So, again, the fact that "Science doesn't recognize the supernatural" has nothing to do with what I said because it doesn't magically substantiate your ridiculous mischaracterization. It can do that (i.e. not recognize the supernatural) and still not be what you charectirized it as.

... why don't you just go on and tell everyone what science says?

You want to know why I don't do what you should have done since the beginning since it was you who made the initial claim and thus you who incurred the burden of proof? I wonder why...

The OP is the worst case of trollcunt I have seen in a long time.

I will state this ABSOLUTE FACT:

Nothing stated in the OP is backed by any evidence whatsoever. Even if I were to admit into evidence church teaching, it would fall short! This thread is storytime with fuckhead and nothing more.

... Or it says that the universe has always existed - a natural explanation which isn't the idiotic mischaracterisation you made

... Or it simply remains silent on the issue - again not the idiotic mischaracterization you made.

So, again, the fact that "Science doesn't recognize the supernatural" has nothing to do with what I said because it doesn't magically substantiate your ridiculous mischaracterization. It can do that (i.e. not recognize the supernatural) and still not be what you charectirized it as.



You want to know why I don't do what you should have done since the beginning since it was you who made the initial claim and thus you who incurred the burden of proof? I wonder why...

So you want to criticize everyone and call it a refute, but offer no counterargument?

But I will point out that you, I, and a few others already established that the possibility that the universe has always existed. Read the thread again. I didn't contest the science in that (although all matter always existing brings in more questions), because it is better than the Big bag theory, which is where I began my disagreement. Science of the Big Bang theory does say that the extremely compacted matter (everything) at some finite point in time (dimension) expanded (work from no work) into complete homogeneous spaciousness (order for no reason) based on physical laws that couldn't have existed outside of the universe that didn't exist yet, and a cosmological theory that needs the universe to have always exited to be true, which shouldn't even fit for the Big Bang for obvious reasons.

I "characterized" it as what is was. Science in general is not what I am questioning, I am merely stating its truth as well, it disregards the supernatural. Don't mistake me. Are you telling me science does accept the supernatural? I said it doesn't, you say that I am skewing characterization, I really don't see it, nor do I think it is idiotic to say that science disregards it. Where the hell do you buy your dictionaries?

All that aside, you won't offer this horrible "burden of proof". Isn't TOTSE about ideas and data? Its not like someone is waiting for you to post something so they can hit reply, quote, and try to destroy it just becuase they don't like your ideas. Come on now you can do better than that I know you can. You need to stop acting like this is a game of Risk or checkers.

Or you could just use up the words "idiotic" and "mischaracterized" again.

So you want to criticize everyone and call it a refute, but offer no counterargument?

My counter argument is preciesly to point out how you've yet to prove what you said...

But I will point out that you, I, and a few others already established that the possibility that the universe has always existed. Read the thread again.

I understand that quite well; it is exactly because of this reason that I find is so idiotic that you would pigeon hole Science's supposed explanation as "nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause doesn't make very much sense to me" when not only is that wrong, but there are multiple other possible explanations which you conveniently failed to provide.

Science of the Big Bang theory does say that the extremely compacted matter (everything) at some finite point in time (dimension) expanded (work from no work) into complete homogeneous spaciousness (order for no reason) based on physical laws that couldn't have existed outside of the universe that didn't exist yet, and a cosmological theory that needs the universe to have always exited to be true, which shouldn't even fit for the Big Bang for obvious reasons.

Utter failure.

1. You were implying what you said was Science's explanations from the first beginnings. That is not true. There is Science before the Big Bang. Science doesn't stop (or begin) and the Big Bang.

2. You said "nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause doesn't make very much sense to me" yet you already contradict that by showing that "something" did in fact happen to "something"!

Space and time (i.e. "Something") expanded (did "something").


3. You claim Science says it's for no reason when that is also wrong; that's preciesly what Science is trying to answer. Science doesn't say "no reason", Science says "We are investigating possible reasons".

You're, yet again, misrepresenting the scientific position.

Don't mistake me. Are you telling me science does accept the supernatural? I said it doesn't, you say that I am skewing characterization, I really don't see it, nor do I think it is idiotic to say that science disregards it. Where the hell do you buy your dictionaries?

I am not saying that, try reading what I said. I said that the fact that it doesn't speak of the supernatural does not have anything to do with the point being argued - which is how you mischaracterized the Scientific explanation.

In other words: The fact that Science doesn't speak of the supernatural does not mean Science says what you claim it does.

All that aside, you won't offer this horrible "burden of proof". Isn't TOTSE about ideas and data?

It's your burden of proof, genius. You made the claim first. I merely questioned it.

Or you could just use up the words "idiotic" and "mischaracterized" again.

Those words being thrown around is pretty much inevitable given your posts.

My counter argument is preciesly to point out how you've yet to prove what you said...



I understand that quite well; it is exactly because of this reason that I find is so idiotic that you would pigeon hole Science's supposed explanation as "nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause doesn't make very much sense to me" when not only is that wrong, but there are multiple other possible explanations which you conveniently failed to provide. I did not mean science in general, I mean the science in the big bang theory. I would gladly stand by and let you provide the other explanations which you as well have failed to provide (as if either of us has to) but that doesn't take away from the BBT and its holes.



Utter failure.

1. You were implying what you said was Science's explanations from the first beginnings. That is not true. There is Science before the Big Bang. Science doesn't stop (or begin) and the Big Bang.

2. You said "nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause doesn't make very much sense to me" yet you already contradict that by showing that "something" did in fact happen to "something"!

Space and time (i.e. "Something") expanded (did "something").


3. You claim Science says it's for no reason when that is also wrong; that's preciesly what Science is trying to answer. Science doesn't say "no reason", Science says "We are investigating possible reasons".

You're, yet again, misrepresenting the scientific position.

Rust, what? Is "science doesn't stop (or begin) and the big bang" a typo or did you say it like that on purpose? And something happened to something, yes if you take it in a different theory or perspective, but according to the BBT it (something from something expansion) wasn't from outside supernatural cause nor from the as yet in that theory non-existent universe, the BBT says it was caused (the density giving way) for no reason -something from "something" ("something"=no reason). And yet is believed in all certainty to be cosmologically accurate to say so.



I am not saying that, try reading what I said. I said that the fact that it doesn't speak of the supernatural does not have anything to do with the point being argued - which is how you mischaracterized the Scientific explanation.
The point being argued as in the OP or as in the big bang came from nothing? Because if it is the latter then yes the exclusion of the Supernatural is the characterization of the explanation. -Damn it looks like Dr. Seuss took an acid trip.

In other words: The fact that Science doesn't speak of the supernatural does not mean Science says what you claim it does.



It's your burden of proof, genius. You made the claim first. I merely questioned it.
I supported my claim, all I needed was for you to support yours. You had in your first post just a contradiction without counterargument. All the ad hominems and and tone responses in the world won't substantiate what people want them to without proper counterargument. As in they need to do more than say "nu-uh asshat"

Although the idea that nothing happened to nothing and for no reason it exploded into everything without any cause doesn't make very much sense to me, I still doubt that your idea is going to get much positive feedback since you used "adams" instead of "atoms".

Its a cruel world that judges your ideas based on your grammar.

You are stupid. It's science time.

BIG BANG BASICS

Alright now. The first thing to understand is that nothing blew up. I am not saying that the way you are. I am saying that what you think the Big Bang is never, ever was and no one thinks that.

The Big Bang created space. You must think about that. Things need space to blow up; they cannot simply explode inside nothingness (see! Your gut was right). However, due to Einsteinian physics, we have proven that space and time are linked to the point of unison. This creates an interesting situation: The Big Bang not only created space but also time.

This has a couple effects. Namely, this means that now nothing really could've blown up. Not only was their no dimension within which to explode, there was no time for the explosion to occur in. This also means there was no before the Big Bang, as "before" is an informal demarcation of time. It would be even more futile than measuring height in a 2D world; that unit measures something that simply did not exist. Even the phrase "did not exist" is a little confounding because "did" is also in reference to time.

Instead, it is better to think of the Big Bang as That Which Caused to Happen, to get a little philosophical. There was no bang at all; in fact, all the Big Bang theory states is basically a summary of known physics so far applied to the origin of the universe in that both time and space became concurrently due to their entwined nature. That's all it really is and all it really says. There is some nitty gritty stuff, but the practical information is what I just told you.

This has been BIG BANG BASICS. Science time is over. Hopefully, everyone is a little less dumb.

EDIT: Keep in mind this is basics. Rust has been covering the Big Bang theory in much more detail than this, so keep up the good fight, guy.

And no, Rudeboy, he doesn't have to support his claim; the scientific process says that the extraordinary claim requires proof to upset the known. You are proposing something ("The Big Bang is false, etc.") and thus you are the one who needs to prove that, not him. It isn't science to point at something and go, "SHOW ME HOW THIS WORKS OR IT DOESN'T." It is if you say, "I have a floating car," and Rust says, "Really? Demonstrate this for me."

You are stupid. It's science time.

BIG BANG BASICS

Alright now. The first thing to understand is that nothing blew up. I am not saying that the way you are. I am saying that what you think the Big Bang is never, ever was and no one thinks that.

The Big Bang created space. You must think about that. Things need space to blow up; they cannot simply explode inside nothingness (see! Your gut was right). However, due to Einsteinian physics, we have proven that space and time are linked to the point of unison. This creates an interesting situation: The Big Bang not only created space but also time.

This has a couple effects. Namely, this means that now nothing really could've blown up. Not only was their no dimension within which to explode, there was no time for the explosion to occur in. This also means there was no before the Big Bang, as "before" is an informal demarcation of time. It would be even more futile than measuring height in a 2D world; that unit measures something that simply did not exist. Even the phrase "did not exist" is a little confounding because "did" is also in reference to time.

Instead, it is better to think of the Big Bang as That Which Caused to Happen, to get a little philosophical. There was no bang at all; in fact, all the Big Bang theory states is basically a summary of known physics so far applied to the origin of the universe in that both time and space became concurrently due to their entwined nature. That's all it really is and all it really says. There is some nitty gritty stuff, but the practical information is what I just told you.

This has been BIG BANG BASICS. Science time is over. Hopefully, everyone is a little less dumb.

EDIT: Keep in mind this is basics. Rust has been covering the Big Bang theory in much more detail than this, so keep up the good fight, guy.

And no, Rudeboy, he doesn't have to support his claim; the scientific process says that the extraordinary claim requires proof to upset the known. You are proposing something ("The Big Bang is false, etc.") and thus you are the one who needs to prove that, not him. It isn't science to point at something and go, "SHOW ME HOW THIS WORKS OR IT DOESN'T." It is if you say, "I have a floating car," and Rust says, "Really? Demonstrate this for me."

Hey you got a little...a little something brown on your nose...
'
I said that it did, then Rust said "nu-uh" and ended with "so..." then I said why in the simplest form "effect needs cause", then he went of and started his damn quote wars, and here we are. The universe may not be infinite, but these arguments can be. Easily.


But let me get to you. You are saying that the big bang created the four spatial dimensions then, am I correct in this assumption? What about the dimensions that we are not readily able to comprehend or observe without additional assistance? Are you giving spacial dimensions including time, and additional space as in "dark matter" physicality? The BBT does not give space physical attributes. Physical things expand. Does time expand? And on that note, homogeneous and isotropic things tend to not expand, but according to the big bang theory, the universe is both homogeneous and isotropic, and expands.

The Normal BBT says everything was in a tight hot coiled ball. Where exactly was this tight hot coiled ball if all space existed in it? This is why the Big Bang is a hypothesis. They can be wrong you know.

And you want to bring philosophy into it -I have no problem with that, but it just seems as though that defeats the entire purpose of having the hard nosed skeptical method outlook.

My entire point from the second I made my first post was that the current scientific thought process is that the Big Bang theory is the only theory that the majority will accept, and in doing so creates a narrow single mindedness for a theory that has plenty of holes in it (and I'm not talking about black holes) in its simplest form. I am against any decision to choose to accept only one idea on the basis that 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong. That incorporates science and religion. It is necessary to criticize everything but through deduction and refute, not mindless urge to do so.

Lets keep at it.

I did not mean science in general, I mean the science in the big bang theory. I would gladly stand by and let you provide the other explanations which you as well have failed to provide (as if either of us has to) but that doesn't take away from the BBT and its holes.

I'm not talking about Science in general, either. Try to keep up.

I'm talking about how your ridiculous parody does not represent what Science says both because it's disastrously wrong and doesn't paint the full picture.


Rust, what? Is "science doesn't stop (or begin) and the big bang" a typo or did you say it like that on purpose? And something happened to something, yes if you take it in a different theory or perspective, but according to the BBT it (something from something expansion) wasn't from outside supernatural cause nor from the as yet in that theory non-existent universe, the BBT says it was caused (the density giving way) for no reason -something from "something" ("something"=no reason). And yet is believed in all certainty to be cosmologically accurate to say so.


1. Yes, it's a typo. I'm sure you can figure it out that I meant "science doesn't stop (or begin) at the big bang". It's not that hard.

2. Wrong again, the Big Bang theory does not say it was for no reason. You are either ignorant of the theory or lying - which is why I keep saying you are misrepresenting it.


First of all, like I already explained to you Science does not say "no reason". That's precisely why Science exists, to find reasons! If you say that Science says, "for no reason" you are lying. Pure and simple. At worse Science would say "the reason is not known at this time but we're trying out best to find out". That's nothing close to the same.


Second of all, Science has proposed reasons. Research scientific cosmogonical theories/hypothesis. They exist. They might not have mountains of evidence supporting them, that's for sure, but they do in fact exist and thus it's entirely wrong and misrepresentative to sya that Science says "for no reason".



The point being argued as in the OP or as in the big bang came from nothing? Because if it is the latter then yes the exclusion of the Supernatural is the characterization of the explanation. -Damn it looks like Dr. Seuss took an acid trip.


The latter obviously and your comment refutes absolutely nothing I said. Does the fact that science exclude the supernatural suddenly make your ridiculous parody any less false? No.


I supported my claim, all I needed was for you to support yours. You had in your first post just a contradiction without counterargument. All the ad hominems and and tone responses in the world won't substantiate what people want them to without proper counterargument. As in they need to do more than say "nu-uh asshat"


How the hell did I contradict myself if all I supposedly said was "nu-uh asshat"? How the hell is "Science doesn't say that, so..." a contradiction? Please, do tell.

Again, my argument is to point out how you have not substantiated your claim that your parody accurately represents what science says. I only need to point out the flaws - whcih I have numerous times now - to substantiate waht I've said.

You do not get to demand from me evidence when you, the person who made the fucking claim in the first place, have provided none.

Nothing makes more sense then anything.

How does this make more sense than The Big Bang Theory?

Nothing makes more sense then anything.

"You can tell me "there is no reason" or "it came from nothing", but that doesn't make any sense and you haven't given me any reasons to believe that."


Either you believe nothing make sense, or you contradicted yourself.


At least make an effort to follow your own stupid beliefs.

I am not limited by your restrictions.

Anything can make more sense then anything, nothing can make more sense then nothing, nothing can make more sense then anything and anything can make more sense then nothing.

I can contradict myself and it can still make sense. "Making sense" is meaningless, too.

There's no reason to do anything, Rust.

In other words, you're a dishonest piece of shit. Congratulations.

In other words, you're a dishonest piece of shit. Congratulations.

Honesty is a figment of your imagination. Like truth, or logic, or reality, or God ...

Asshole.

Honesty is a figment of your imagination. Like truth, or logic, or reality, or God ...

Asshole.

More..."theys no answers to nuthin" Obbeshit, huh?

Bless your heart little fella.

Honesty is a figment of your imagination. Like truth, or logic, or reality, or God ...

No, actually, they aren't. Stupid hippies that think they are being clever or philosophical for saying that might want truth and logic to be figments of the imagination but, alas, reality, truth and logic don't bend to the will of useless pieces of shit. :)

If God exists, and is all powerful, all knowing, and omniscient, why the fuck does he even give Satan a second's notice.

Is he toying with humanity like some jackass kid stomping on an anthill, or maybe, just maybe, the Universe is run by a series of natural forces, namely Gravity, Electromagnetism and the Nuclear Forces.

I think the latter would make more sense to all.

And none of you Bible-thumpers better bring up the whole "What about before the Big Bang" bullshit. You bastards know that's a straw-man, and no Totsean, whether it be Kiko Sanchez or I, will spend a minute's time writing a rebuttal.

Lack of knowledge does not warrant you evidence. Not knowing how the hell those $5 got under your pillow does not prove the existence of the tooth fairy.

More..."theys no answers to nuthin" Obbeshit, huh?

Bless your heart little fella.

Hey cocksucker.

No, actually, they aren't. Stupid hippies that think they are being clever or philosophical for saying that might want truth and logic to be figments of the imagination but, alas, reality, truth and logic don't bend to the will of useless pieces of shit. :)

You're an insulting dick.

And actually, yes, they are all in your head. And everything in your head is real.

:eek:

You're an insulting dick.

And actually, yes, they are all in your head. And everything in your head is real.

As usual, you're wrong.

You see reality doesn't give a shit about the incredibly stupid things you say while trying to sound profound on the Internet. And apparently neither do you, aside from when you post on My God... since you consistently depend on, hope to use, and finally successfully use reality, truth and logic, or systems that require these objective concepts, in your everyday life (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2165586).

Apparently your "profound" solipsists beliefs are chucked out the window the minute you need a fix.

Funny shit. I can't believed I had you on ignore some time ago. :D

You're an insulting dick.


Hey cocksucker

You're [a]... dick.

...

As usual, you're wrong.

You see reality doesn't give a shit about the incredibly stupid things you say while trying to sound profound on the Internet. And apparently neither do you, aside from when you post on My God... since you consistently depend on, hope to use, and finally successfully use reality, truth and logic, or systems that require these objective concepts, your everyday life.

Of course reality doesn't give a shit. I didn't think it would.

And sure I use all that shit in everyday life. So what? My "everyday life" is still all in my head.

Apparently your "profound" solipsists beliefs are chucked out the window the minute you need a fix.

Funny shit. I can't believed I had you on ignore some time ago. :D

How is it chucked out? Are solipsists unable to interact with that outside world they cannot know isn't their mind? I don't think so.

Am I a solipsist? I wouldn't call myself one, I would say I have similar beliefs.

I can believe you had me on ignore, because you are a fucking asshole.

Hey triple H, you here to be a dick too?

Hey triple H, you here to be a dick too?

I don't even remember subscribing to this thread.

Of course reality doesn't give a shit. I didn't think it would.

We are in agreement then: Reality doesn't give a shit about your pseudo-intellectual attempts to sound profound on the internet.

And sure I use all that shit in everyday life. So what? My "everyday life" is still all in my head.

The "so what" should be evident to anyone that's not a complete fucking moron:

You use things that necessitate there be logic, truth and reality thus contradicting your statements. You can talk a lot of shit, but don't actually follow anything you say. You're a dishonest.

How is it chucked out? Are solipsists unable to interact with that outside world they cannot know isn't their mind? I don't think so.

It's chucked out because they do not apply the reasoning they use for their solipsists beliefs when it's covenient to them.

It's like someone who puts a blindfold on. Can they interect with the object they don't see? Sure. They should just fail often precisely because they cannot see. You, on the other hand, are a douchebag who boasts of his blindfold when he wants to sound philosophical but in reality has poked holes in it to be able to function normally.


I can believe you had me on ignore, because you are a fucking asshole.


What a meaningless statement.

We are in agreement then: Reality doesn't give a shit about your pseudo-intellectual attempts to sound profound on the internet.



The "so what" should be evident to anyone that's not a complete fucking moron:

You use things that necessitate there be logic, truth and reality thus contradicting your statements. You can talk a lot of shit, but don't actually follow anything you say. You're a dishonest.



It's chucked out because they do not apply the reasoning they use for their solipsists beliefs when it's covenient to them.

It's like someone who puts a blindfold on. Can they interect with the object they don't see? Sure. They should just fail often precisely because they cannot see. You, on the other hand, are a douchebag who boasts of his blindfold when he wants to sound philosophical but in reality has poked holes in it to be able to function normally.



What a meaningless statement.

What a meaningless post!

How do I not follow what I say? Do I say that if something is imaginary, I should not be able to interact with it? No. Reality is imaginary. How do I not "follow" that?

And are you saying that normally, solipsists are unable to function? I don't think so. But you might as well tell me what you mean by "functioning normally".

I may not know what is the truth. This isn't preventing me from doing anything I like to in my everyday life. Why do you think it would?

And why do you care?

What a meaningless post!

Precisely. That's what your incredibly stupid argument nets us: nothing but meaningless bullshit.

How do I not follow what I say?Since you claim reality is a figment of your imagination then maybe you should imagine yourself actually reading what I've said and not asking these dumb questions, because I already explained this:

"You use things that necessitate there be logic, truth and reality thus contradicting your statements. You can talk a lot of shit, but don't actually follow anything you say. You're a dishonest."

You don't follow what you say because what you say is that there is no truth, reality etc. yet you use systems which require that there be truth, reality, etc.


And are you saying that normally, solipsists are unable to function? Again, what the fuck are you reading?


"It's like someone who puts a blindfold on. Can they interect with the object they don't see? Sure. They should just fail often precisely because they cannot see."

At no point in time did I say the cannot function.

I said that we would expect them to fail often since they - if they actually believed what they said - do not believe in an objective reality.

Like I explained before, it is like putting on a blind fold and working in real life. Can you interact with the objects you cannot see? Yes. Will you always be successful? No. Similarly, we would expect you to fail at least some of the time as well. Why? Because you supposedly - if you are actually honest enough to follow what you claim - are claiming that everything makes just as much sense as everything else.

Thus: shooting yourself in the face makes as much sense as not shooting yourself in the face. Eating poison makes as much sense as not eating poison, et cetera. However, it seems you magically ( :rolleyes: ) manage to avoid eating a fist full of poison, or jumping off a cliff... Like I said, you are trying to sound profound on the internet, but in reality you abandon all the useless bullshit when you need to function.


And why do you care?Who says I do, and who gives a shit if did?

Precisely. That's what your stupid argument nets us: nothing but meaningless bullshit.

Since you claim reality is a figment of your imagination then maybe you should imagine yourself actually reading what I've said and not asking these dumb questions, because I already explained this:

"You use things that necessitate there be logic, truth and reality thus contradicting your statements. You can talk a lot of shit, but don't actually follow anything you say. You're a dishonest."

You don't follow what you say because what you say is that there is no truth, reality etc. yet you use systems which require that there be truth, reality, etc.

Again, what the fuck are you reading?


"It's like someone who puts a blindfold on. Can they interect with the object they don't see? Sure. They should just fail often precisely because they cannot see."

At no point in time did I say the cannot function.

I said that we would expect them to fail often since they - if they actually believed what they said - do not believe in an objective reality.

Like I explained before, it is like putting on a blind fold and working in real life. Can you interact with the objects you cannot see? Yes. Will you always be successful? No. Similarly, we would expect you to fail at least some of the time as well. Why? Because you supposedly - if you are actually honest enough to follow what you claim - are claiming that everything makes just as much sense as everything else.

Thus: shooting yourself in the face makes as much sense as not shooting yourself in the face. Eating poison makes as much sense as not eating poison, et cetera. However, it seems you magically ( :rolleyes: ) manage to avoid eating a fist full of poison, or jumping off a cliff... Like I said, you are trying to sound profound on the internet, but in reality you abandon all the useless bullshit when you need to function.

Who says I do, and who gives a shit if did?

^What a waste of time!

The "truths" of the system I use are like the rules of a game of tag. The rules are true within the game, but in reality the rules, the game, and 'truth' are all meaningless.

I don't know if a solipsist really would fail often, because I really don't know if there must be objective truths for them to fail at. Shooting yourself in the face does make as much sense as not doing so.

However, not knowing what to do isn't preventing the solipsist from doing something. They can choose to shoot themselves; they can choose to not. They can even refuse to think about their dilemma. How is this an inability to function?

And I'm gonna say you care rust. You care enough to bitch about how stupid I am being.

And nobody gives a shit.

Reading Obbe's posts is like reading The Sun when you can be reading The Independent.

^When do you ever read my posts? I thought you were done with My God.

The "truths" of the system I use are like the rules of a game of tag. The rules are true within the game, but in reality the rules, the game, and 'truth' are all meaningless.

You can't even follow your own festering pile of bullshit can you?

1. You didn't say "meaningless" initially; you said something completely different.

2. You cannot claim that the rules are true within the game but are meaningless outside precisely because your stupid argument nullifies that possibility.


Shooting yourself in the face does make as much sense as not doing so.Yet you conveniently do not do so? Why? Because you know full well that's not the case and are only saying that because you're a child who thinks he's being profound on the internet.

What's the difference between:

a. Saying that everything makes as much sense as everything else, yet acting as if that weren't true (by not eating a fist-full of poison or jumping off a bridge).

and

b. Saying that everything doesn't make as much sense as everything else, and acting as if that weren't true (by not eating a fist-full of poison or jumping off a bridge).

The saying part. That's it. Like I said since the beginning, you talk a lot of crap but you leave all that behind when it's convenient for you. You are full of shit.

However, not knowing what to do isn't preventing the solipsist from doing something. They can choose to shoot themselves; they can choose to not. They can even refuse to think about their dilemma. How is this an inability to function?Did I say they had an "inability to function'? No, I did not. I didn't say it the first time, and I didn't say it the second time after I explicitly explained to you I hadn't said it. So the question is, what the hell are you reading?

And I'm gonna say you care rust. You care enough to bitch about how stupid I am being.Which is to say, not much at all? Great.


And nobody gives a shit.Great, all the more reason why your question was useless.