@kellyjay saidYou make two plucked-out-of-thin-air assertions here, neither of which you have ever got anywhere near substantiating. How many more plucked-out-of-thin-air assertions are built upon this foundation?
When we see things that are dependent upon each other existing, we know what made that possible had to transcend time. Since they can’t have come into being independently in some sequence of events without both being there simultaneously.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYour protest may be premature. You could have asked "what does that mean", but the default response to anything not understood appears to be "you're lying" or "that's nonsense." All you accomplish by saying "unmitigated nonsense" is to give the troll twins an opportunity to pile on.
Unmitigated nonsense.
@kilroy70 saidI have invited KellyJay to substantiate his assertions.
Your protest may be premature. You could have asked "what does that mean", but the default response to anything not understood appears to be "you're lying" or "that's nonsense." All you accomplish by saying "unmitigated nonsense" is to give the troll twins an opportunity to pile on.
@kilroy70 saidAssumption 1: When we see things that are dependent upon each other existing, we know what made that possible had to transcend time.
You said to KJ, "You make two plucked-out-of-thin-air assertions here"
I invite you to explain what those assertions were.
Assumption 2: Since they can’t have come into being independently in some sequence of events without both being there simultaneously.
Quoted from KellyJay's post.
Imagine that someone who had never seen a board game being played is watching two chess players. KJ's assumptions are like saying that just because one chess player's move responds to his opponent's move, and the observer can't see the connection between the first move and the second one, therefore something transcendent is required to explain this. It's humbug.
@kellyjay saidHow were my comments a hit and run?
Another hit and run?
I made a post to which there was no reply. How do you know I wasn't sitting in the car with the engine still running?
A hit and run thread is when the creator makes the initial OP and is then too cowardly to return to the thread to deal with responses.
282d
@kilroy70 saidUnmitigated nonsense.
Your protest may be premature. You could have asked "what does that mean", but the default response to anything not understood appears to be "you're lying" or "that's nonsense." All you accomplish by saying "unmitigated nonsense" is to give the troll twins an opportunity to pile on.
282d
@moonbus saidIf you don't know the game moving the pieces isn't meaningful, if life is meaningless then doing this that or the other thing is no more important than doing it one way or another. Seeing things dependent upon each other for their existence means for them to exist the other must also be there, so sequentially they had to arrive at the same time.
Assumption 1: When we see things that are dependent upon each other existing, we know what made that possible had to transcend time.
Assumption 2: Since they can’t have come into being independently in some sequence of events without both being there simultaneously.
Quoted from KellyJay's post.
Imagine that someone who had never seen a board game being played is wat ...[text shortened]... move and the second one, therefore something transcendent is required to explain this. It's humbug.
@moonbus saidIf I was that "someone who had never seen a board game being played" and was "watching two chess players", I would not assume there was no meaningful connection between moves and responses.
Assumption 1: When we see things that are dependent upon each other existing, we know what made that possible had to transcend time.
Assumption 2: Since they can’t have come into being independently in some sequence of events without both being there simultaneously.
Quoted from KellyJay's post.
Imagine that someone who had never seen a board game being played is wat ...[text shortened]... move and the second one, therefore something transcendent is required to explain this. It's humbug.
For your example to work I would have to be completely unaware of the existence of the two chess players.
@moonbus saidTime is linear and moves in only one direction. It doesn't back up to allow for a second or third cause and effect event appearing to coexist with a previous one.
Assumption 1: When we see things that are dependent upon each other existing, we know what made that possible had to transcend time.
Assumption 2: Since they can’t have come into being independently in some sequence of events without both being there simultaneously.
Quoted from KellyJay's post.
Imagine that someone who had never seen a board game being played is wat ...[text shortened]... move and the second one, therefore something transcendent is required to explain this. It's humbug.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidWhat's happening here? Did a brawl break out in some other thread, spill out onto the street and into this thread? Guess I'll just have to wait until you cowboys are done brawling or take your fight to another thread... or sober up.
How were my comments a hit and run?
I made a post to which there was no reply. How do you know I wasn't sitting in the car with the engine still running?
A hit and run thread is when the creator makes the initial OP and is then too cowardly to return to the thread to deal with responses.
@kilroy70 saidGhost of a Duke is talking to you, about you and what you’ve said in this thread.
What's happening here? Did a brawl break out in some other thread, spill out onto the street and into this thread? Guess I'll just have to wait until you cowboys are done brawling or take your fight to another thread... or sober up.
281d
@divegeester saidPoppycock
Ghost of a Duke is talking to you, about you and what you’ve said in this thread.