et-thoughts Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydog Posted November 17, 2012 I am not beholden to you to do things or not do things on any specific schedule. That I chose to respond to you before putting you on ignore is certainly my prerogative. I could just as easily have chosen not to, and that too would have been my prerogative. Neither of these actions would have gone against what I indicated to you that I would do. I have chosen to respond because I want to make clear to you the reason that your argument is completely irrational, illogical, and poorly formed. I know that none of this will sink in because you will choose to willfully ignore it, but it may be of some entertainment value to others reading the thread. Â The act of proving that something does not exist is just as impossible as proving a universal truth. In fact, both are impossible for exactly the same reason. Here is why: You would have to know every possible iteration of every possible point of reality both on the physical and quantum planes. In effect you would have to be omniscient and omnipresent. In case you are not taking my meaning yet, the act of determining that something has no possibility of existence, or the act of determining that something applies to every facet of existence could only be accomplished by a god. This is why, in the academic community, it is considered reasonable to posit the lack of existence of something for which there is no evidence until such time that evidence for said thing comes into play. Â Clearly you are not a god, but you claim godlike powers. This is endlessly entertaining to me. You can't even make me post or not post through your manipulative responses. How exactly could you comprehend the vast expanse of existence. Your words have no substance. Your claims have no foundation. Your arguments are bad and you should feel bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted November 17, 2012 Â Not necessarily. If a person has one half of an apple and one half of an orange they do not have on orange or apple. They still have two halfs, no matter how you count them. But then, I suppose they could pretend they hav one appange. And afterall, there is a lot of pretending here at Taobums. ........ My bad. Failing to clearly define terms. Appanges sound tasty. :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted November 17, 2012 Orapples too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Pretty cool, huh? You can switch at will between the algebraic/exponential realm and the trigonometric realm, solve in whichever is more tractable and then switch back again if you wish! Takes a little gungfu but... Its like a play on words, but with language as irrelevant. ok... universal truths: 1. all that is, has been, and will be again; the size, scope, span, duration, volume, and placement of infinity is in and of itself infinite. All that we experience past, present, and future are merely etchings on eternal space. A mere "moment" as the smallest infinitesimal measurement of time is composed of infinite "smallest infinitesimal measurements"; the smallest infinitesimal measurement of energy/matter is composed of infinite "smallest infinitesimal measurements" of matter/energy. ("Where" "It" "Exists" "Is" Relative "To" "Itself" as "Being" Existent and/or Nonexistent "in" "a" "temporary" "reference" "to" "Time" which can "seem" like an eternity and/or an infinitesimally small measurement of time depending on the perspective from within the infinite one might be observing "it".) 2. Free Will. 3. leeroy Jenkins wasn't here. Edited November 18, 2012 by Hot Nirvana Judo Trend Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted November 18, 2012 Whatever happened to that "Right now"? Surely it was here must a moment ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
