Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[evolution]

But there is NO actual proof that the Universe is expanding continuously from all points simultaneously.

If you think that, then you cannot answer your question.

What actual question are you referring to here?

By the way, you appear to be just like those who claim that there is "evidence" that the Universe is expanding.

What you, and them, call "evidence" for an expanding Universe will be found to be EVIDENCE (and proof?) for some thing else.

But only when you refrain from seeing those results/findings as being evidence for an expanding Universe will you then be able to become MORE OPEN, and only then will you be able to SEE what those findings/results actually are evidence for.

If you are to so easily dismiss the findings of science you have left yourself no evidence upon which your question can even be asked, let alone answered.

Again, what 'question' are you actually referring to?

Also, I have NEVER "dismissed the findings of science".

In fact I will use the ACTUAL findings of science to SHOW and REVEAL what 'it' is that those findings are ACTUAL EVIDENCE FOR, and PROOF OF.

See, what you and those others who claim the findings of science is evidence for an expanding Universe have all be led astray from just three words. These three words have been affecting 'you', human beings, for thousands upon thousands of years, and have mislead you to LOOK AT and SEE things from a Truly WRONG and INCORRECT perspective.

This will become MUCH CLEARER when understanding just how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK.

[evolution]

If you think that, then you cannot answer your question.
If you are to so easily dismiss the findings of science you have left yourself no evidence upon which your question can even be asked, let alone answered.

He likes to just make stuff up and does not care about reason and evidence.

LOL And what actual 'thing' are you making and basing this ASSUMPTION and CLAIM on, EXACTLY?

I could ask you to PROVIDE thee ACTUAL EVIDENCE that thee Universe is expanding. But because you are completely and utterly incapable of doing this, I will not ask you to.

But he does like to preach his nonsense, which is a common thing for people who make things up and do not care about evidence.

Again LOL. The ease that it is to make 'you', human beings, MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, which are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY FALSE and WRONG, never surprises me. But the ease at which I can do this is because of KNOWING EXACTLY how thee Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK.

Are you brave enough to LOOK INTO your claims, and discuss them?

If yes, then what 'stuff' EXACTLY do you CLAIM I have made up?

But if no, then why are you NOT brave enough to LOOK INTO your claims, and discuss them?

Just saying, "He likes to make stuff up", says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY. And, saying, "[He] does not care about reason and evidence" might just a perfect self-projection and self-reflection if you do NOT provide ANY actual EXAMPLE, REASON and/nor EVIDENCE for your claim here.

So;
What 'stuff' do I, supposedly and allegedly, "make up"?
What 'nonsense' do I, supposedly and allegedly, "preach"? And,
What 'evidence' do I, supposedly and allegedly, "care about"?

We will just have to wait and SEE what 'you' are REALLY capable of "jack d ripper"?

[evolution]

He likes to just make stuff up and does not care about reason and evidence. But he does like to preach his nonsense, which is a common thing for people who make things up and do not care about evidence.

Indeed it would be frustrating were it not just so empty headed.
Make you wonder why hes bothering to ask the question if he's not willing to consider the problem based on the facts.

WHAT QUESTION, and WHO did I ask IT to?

Also, what are the, supposed, FACTS, and what is the ACTUAL 'PROBLEM', based on the facts?

There is great deal of EMPTY TALK here, with NO actual substance.

Let the readers SEE if you are even CAPABLE of backing up and supporting what you say and CLAIM here?

If all he has is fantasies he ought to be qite capable of answering the question from his imagination.

AGAIN, there is that QUESTION word.

He could then have a Winchell's Doughnought "Bear Claw" shaped Universe with chocolate sprinkles!!!

That would be an EXPANDING "Winchell's Doughnought "Bear Claw" shaped Universe with chocolate sprinkles", correct?

Because, to YOU, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that the Universe could not be expanding, correct?

I remember a time when 'you', human beings, also BELIEVED WHOLEHEARTEDLY that the earth was in the center of the Universe, and that was the Universe that began, by a Creator. These human beings also BELIEVED this to be WHOLEHEARTEDLY true, right, and correct BECAUSE this was what was written in a book, AND, there was "EVIDENCE" for this.

In this way of BELIEVING 'that', what is written in a book, HAS NOT CHANGED one little bit over thousands upon thousands of years. The human beings, in the days of when this is being written, were just as BLIND as those hundreds and thousands of years before them.

ONLY when one has LEARNED just how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK, WHY human beings were like that becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR.

[evolution]

Indeed it would be frustrating were it not just so empty headed.
Make you wonder why hes bothering to ask the question if he's not willing to consider the problem based on the facts.

If I wanted to spend my time thinking about mental illness, I would have majored in psychology.

Some one asked a question about the Universe and the shape of It. Do not forget that it was 'you', "jack d ripper", who said that an "acceptable answer would be like the shape of a dog. More specifically, a pit bull. The reasons are obvious."

Some are now thinking very strongly about 'mental illness'.

Oh, and by the way, did you ever get around to explaining how and why the, alleged, "reasons" are, supposedly, "obvious"?

You were picked up a couple of times about this, but you seemed to have completely disregarded providing any explanations. Or, I have MISSED it. But if it is the latter you would make this KNOWN correct? But if it is the former, then you will ALSO 'try to' 'deflect' away, AGAIN.

If all he has is fantasies he ought to be qite capable of answering the question from his imagination. He could then have a Winchell's Doughnought "Bear Claw" shaped Universe with chocolate sprinkles!!!

That is from your imagination and not his. If you left out the part about it being specifically Winchell's, and then thought of that universe merging with a universe in the shape of a cup of coffee, then you would have something. Not something as good as a universe in the shape of a pit bull (obviously!), but still one worth considering. I think you have the right kind of thinking for speculation about the shape of the universe.

Certainly, your ideas about the shape of the universe are more interesting than most.

If you think or believe that 'infinity' could have a 'shape', then are you still under the illusion that that shape would be the shape of a, so called, "pit bull". Or, does this "shape" only apply to a limited and bounded area?

[Sculptor1]

Indeed it would be frustrating were it not just so empty headed.
Make you wonder why hes bothering to ask the question if he's not willing to consider the problem based on the facts.

If I wanted to spend my time thinking about mental illness, I would have majored in psychology.

If all he has is fantasies he ought to be qite capable of answering the question from his imagination. He could then have a Winchell's Doughnought "Bear Claw" shaped Universe with chocolate sprinkles!!!

That is from your imagination and not his. If you left out the part about it being specifically Winchell's, and then thought of that universe merging with a universe in the shape of a cup of coffee, then you would have something. Not something as good as a universe in the shape of a pit bull (obviously!), but still one worth considering. I think you have the right kind of thinking for speculation about the shape of the universe.

Certainly, your ideas about the shape of the universe are more interesting than most.

Aside from what I said earlier. There is no possible POV from which to examine the shape of the universe since any observer has to be a part of the universe rather than apart from it.

[Sculptor1]

If you think that, then you cannot answer your question.

What actual question are you referring to here?

Have you forgotten already??
LOL

By the way, you appear to be just like those who claim that there is "evidence" that the Universe is expanding.

What you, and them, call "evidence" for an expanding Universe will be found to be EVIDENCE (and proof?) for some thing else.

But only when you refrain from seeing those results/findings as being evidence for an expanding Universe will you then be able to become MORE OPEN, and only then will you be able to SEE what those findings/results actually are evidence for.

If you are to so easily dismiss the findings of science you have left yourself no evidence upon which your question can even be asked, let alone answered.

Again, what 'question' are you actually referring to?

Also, I have NEVER "dismissed the findings of science".

In fact I will use the ACTUAL findings of science to SHOW and REVEAL what 'it' is that those findings are ACTUAL EVIDENCE FOR, and PROOF OF.

See, what you and those others who claim the findings of science is evidence for an expanding Universe have all be led astray from just three words. These three words have been affecting 'you', human beings, for thousands upon thousands of years, and have mislead you to LOOK AT and SEE things from a Truly WRONG and INCORRECT perspective.

This will become MUCH CLEARER when understanding just how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK.

Do you have attention deficit?

[evolution]

What actual question are you referring to here?

Have you forgotten already??
LOL

Now how did I KNOW you WOULD respond with something like this?

I have YET to recall a time when you have ACTUALLY CLARIFIED a question I have posed to you.

By the way, you appear to be just like those who claim that there is "evidence" that the Universe is expanding.

What you, and them, call "evidence" for an expanding Universe will be found to be EVIDENCE (and proof?) for some thing else.

But only when you refrain from seeing those results/findings as being evidence for an expanding Universe will you then be able to become MORE OPEN, and only then will you be able to SEE what those findings/results actually are evidence for.



Again, what 'question' are you actually referring to?

Also, I have NEVER "dismissed the findings of science".

In fact I will use the ACTUAL findings of science to SHOW and REVEAL what 'it' is that those findings are ACTUAL EVIDENCE FOR, and PROOF OF.

See, what you and those others who claim the findings of science is evidence for an expanding Universe have all be led astray from just three words. These three words have been affecting 'you', human beings, for thousands upon thousands of years, and have mislead you to LOOK AT and SEE things from a Truly WRONG and INCORRECT perspective.

This will become MUCH CLEARER when understanding just how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK.

Do you have attention deficit?

ONCE AGAIN, absolutely NO CLARIFICATION at all.

I found that when most people do NOT CLARIFY, then they do this because IF THEY DID, honestly, then they would HAVE TO contradict what they have said/written previously.

And 'you', "sculptor1", are a PRIME EXAMPLE of one of these 'people'.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here, and PROVEN, is you talk about "questions", but do NOT clarify what ACTUAL 'questions' you are referring to.

So, WHY do 'you' do NOT answer the 'question'?

Are 'you' just completely and utterly INCAPABLE of answering the 'question'?

[evolution]

If I wanted to spend my time thinking about mental illness, I would have majored in psychology.




That is from your imagination and not his. If you left out the part about it being specifically Winchell's, and then thought of that universe merging with a universe in the shape of a cup of coffee, then you would have something. Not something as good as a universe in the shape of a pit bull (obviously!), but still one worth considering. I think you have the right kind of thinking for speculation about the shape of the universe.

Certainly, your ideas about the shape of the universe are more interesting than most.

Aside from what I said earlier. There is no possible POV from which to examine the shape of the universe since any observer has to be a part of the universe rather than apart from it.

LOL "no possible POV".

You are joking, right?

[Steve3007]

Winchell's Doughnought

I'm all in favour of leaving superfluous unpronounced letters in words like doughnut/donut, to needle our American cousins, but I think "doughnought" is going too far.

[Sculptor1]

Have you forgotten already??
LOL

Now how did I KNOW you WOULD respond with something like this?

I have YET to recall a time when you have ACTUALLY CLARIFIED a question I have posed to you.

Do you have attention deficit?

ONCE AGAIN, absolutely NO CLARIFICATION at all.

I found that when most people do NOT CLARIFY, then they do this because IF THEY DID, honestly, then they would HAVE TO contradict what they have said/written previously.

And 'you', "sculptor1", are a PRIME EXAMPLE of one of these 'people'.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here, and PROVEN, is you talk about "questions", but do NOT clarify what ACTUAL 'questions' you are referring to.

So, WHY do 'you' do NOT answer the 'question'?

Are 'you' just completely and utterly INCAPABLE of answering the 'question'?

Look at the thread heading!!!
ROLF

[Sculptor1]

Aside from what I said earlier. There is no possible POV from which to examine the shape of the universe since any observer has to be a part of the universe rather than apart from it.

LOL "no possible POV".

You are joking, right?

#
No, you can read I assume?
Tell me you POV, please!
You've already dismissed any evidence you could possibly possess to answer this question.
So, go on, I'm curious. Where is your POV.

[Sculptor1]

Winchell's Doughnought

I'm all in favour of leaving superfluous unpronounced letters in words like doughnut/donut, to needle our American cousins, but I think "doughnought" is going too far.

I hoped someone would notice.

I've seen it spelled in a variety of ways.
The original spelling, is a portmanteau of Dough and Nought, since donuts (ugh!) were originally zeros made of dough.
So whilst I'd agree that there is superfluousness here, the spelling is a good one.
No matter how much I appreciate conciseness, I can't bring myself to use "Donut"

[Sculptor1]

.... PS.

And since the Universe is such a big place I think donut is not enough. Doughnought seems to have a grandness that hints at the magnitude of the universe.
donut
donought
doughnut
doughnought.
What ever way you want to spell them, they are great.

[Jack D Ripper]

.... PS.

And since the Universe is such a big place I think donut is not enough. Doughnought seems to have a grandness that hints at the magnitude of the universe.
donut
donought
doughnut
doughnought.
What ever way you want to spell them, they are great.

Yes, I see you have an appreciation for the aesthetics of the answer.

[Sculptor1]

.... PS.

And since the Universe is such a big place I think donut is not enough. Doughnought seems to have a grandness that hints at the magnitude of the universe.
donut
donought
doughnut
doughnought.
What ever way you want to spell them, they are great.

Yes, I see you have an appreciation for the aesthetics of the answer.

Yes. a Torus is a very interesting shape in physics, and oofering it has the shape of the universe is as valid as any thing our friend evolution has to offer.