Creation Story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Why are you focusing on the physical aspects of the analogy as opposed to the concept? It doesn’t have to be a road for the same thing to apply.

Suppose you are in a plane flying in a loop in the sky, how many times can you complete the loop assuming you never have to stop?

Suppose you are in a boat making a loop on a lake, how many times can you complete the loop assuming you never have to stop?

Heck, suppose you are the moon rotating around the earth, how many times can you complete a rotation around the earth assuming you never have to stop.


The idea of something traveling around a loop is not restricted to the physical, it is a concept. It is quite literally the concept of a loop, and thus far you’ve given no actual reason for why time cannot work that way.

so if time cannot work as a loop, why specifically not?

---

I'm focusing on the physical aspects because as all your examples show, they all have to be examples of something physical. We understand loops as a physical thing. If I said your happiness is in a loop that makes no ****in sense, a loop is a physical thing. If I said democracy is a loop, wtf does that mean?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

I'm focusing on the physical aspects because as all your examples show, they all have to be examples of something physical. We understand loops as a physical thing. If I said your happiness is in a loop that makes no ****in sense, a loop is a physical thing. If I said democracy is a loop, wtf does that mean?

---

Well first, neither happiness nor democracy are linear as you’re claiming time to be, so right off the bat your comparison makes no sense.

But beyond that, democracy and happiness are concepts just like numbers are. You said numbers and time were different, but now happiness and time are the same? In that case, so too are numbers.

You’re changing what you think time is or is not like to keep from admitting it’s possible.

If time is linear then like all lines, it’s possible for the line to be a circle. If time is not linear, you have no point. If happiness is linear then explain how lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Well first, neither happiness nor democracy are linear as you’re claiming time to be, so right off the bat your comparison makes no sense.

But beyond that, democracy and happiness are concepts just like numbers are. You said numbers and time were different, but now happiness and time are the same? In that case, so too are numbers.

You’re changing what you think time is or is not like to keep from admitting it’s possible.

If time is linear then like all lines, it’s possible for the line to be a circle. If time is not linear, you have no point. If happiness is linear then explain how lol

---

Bro, I dont think you yourself even understand what the hell you're saying. Earlier you said moving in circular fashion could be non physical, then proceeded to give me physical examples like a boat on a lake and the moon.

That makes no sense.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Bro, I dont think you yourself even understand what the hell you're saying. Earlier you said moving in circular fashion could be non physical, then proceeded to give me physical examples like a boat on a lake and the moon.

That makes no sense.

---

I have you examples that did not involve asphalt since that was what you mentioned. But I gave you an example in the other thread: thoughts can become looped.

Is a thought physical?

Also, for those keeping score, we can now add “analogy” to “loop” under “concepts Nasty does not understand” lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I have you examples that did not involve asphalt since that was what you mentioned. But I gave you an example in the other thread: thoughts can become looped.

Is a thought physical?

---

Omg.

So when someone says I'm on cloud 9, their brain is up in a cloud miles from the earth? lol, my god valade, how are you saying this ****? Thoughts on a loop are not an example of something non physical being in a loop just as being on cloud 9 is not an example of something non physical being further up in the atmosphere.

What the hell valade!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Omg.

So when someone says I'm on cloud 9, their brain is up in a cloud miles from the earth? lol, my god valade, how are you saying this ****? Thoughts on a loop are not an example of something non physical being in a loop just as being on cloud 9 is not an example of something non physical being further up in the atmosphere.

What the hell valade!

---

No, the thought is not physical, so why would you think a thought if a cloud means that it is a literal cloud?

Here is a good explanation for what I’m referring to:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop


A strange loop most certainly does not have to be physical.

I don’t know how else to say this: loops are not only possible for physical things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

No, the thought is not physical, so why would you think a thought if a cloud means that it is a literal cloud?

Here is a good explanation for what I’m referring to:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop


A strange loop most certainly does not have to be physical.

I don’t know how else to say this: loops are not only possible for physical things.

---

"A strange loop is a CYCLICAL STRUCTURE..."

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

"A strange loop is a CYCLICAL STRUCTURE..."

---

He doesn’t mean a physical structure you dolt, he is referring to the structure of the loop itself, it is structured as a cycle.

Here is the part you didn’t post “what I mean by strange loop is, not a physical circuit but an abstract loop”

Your attempt to claim a strange loop must be physical is disingenuous as hell. They even give several examples of non-physical strange loops...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

He doesn’t mean a physical structure you dolt, he is referring to the structure of the loop itself, it is structured as a cycle.

Here is the part you didn’t post “what I mean by strange loop is, not a physical circuit but an abstract loop”

Your attempt to claim a strange loop must be physical is disingenuous as hell. They even give several examples of non-physical strange loops...

---

No, I am showing you the only reason the word loop is being used is because it gives us a physical representation of what is taking place. Such as thoughts being stuck in a loop. It's not an actual loop, it just helps you understand what's happening using physical analogy.

Speaking of dolts..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

No, I am showing you the only reason the word loop is being used is because it gives us a physical representation of what is taking place. Such as thoughts being stuck in a loop. It's not an actual loop.

Speaking of dolts..

---

Except there are things that are loops that are not physical. The link gives several examples.

The physical representation of a loop is so you can see how something that can’t be seen is a loop.

But it is still behaving as a loop.

Wait... you seriously, honest to goodness don’t believe a loop is possible for something non-physical? I should not have used dolt, it’s not a strong enough word to describe the ignorance and stupidity of that belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Except there are things that are loops that are not physical. The link gives several examples.

The physical representation of a loop is so you can see how something that can’t be seen is a loop.

But it is still behaving as a loop.

Wait... you seriously, honest to goodness don’t believe a loop is possible for something non-physical? I should not have used dolt, it’s not a strong enough word to describe the ignorance and stupidity of that belief.

---

Ok, can you break down any of those examples for me?

Let's talk about it..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Ok, can you break down any of those examples for me?

Let's talk about it..

---

Unfortunately I have to go to bed so we will ha e to discuss it tomorrow. But in the meantime, consider that your asking me to break down scientifically known concepts. I am not proving these, they are already proven, so the idea that they won’t be true if I fail to explain them in a satisfactorily way for you is misguided. Just something to keep in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Essentially, Fan is arguing against my deductive reasoning, and the only argument you could offer is some wacky spaced out idea that let's just change all the rules and call it natural.

Ok, go for it. Knock yourself out. What the hell can I say about that? lol

If you could offer some possibility of an explanation that could possibly render my deductive reasoning moot, that would help drive your point home. Cuz as of right now, it's just meaningless.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Essentially, Fan is pointing out, not arguing, that we do not know anything about the first cause.

He's too tired and frustrated to try to knock some sense into you. He's already explained why your "deductiive reasoning" doesn't work here and he knows he's wasting time and keystrokes to explain it again.

So he won't. Instead, he'll let Valade enjoy arguing with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fanofclendennon

Essentially, Fan is pointing out, not arguing, that we do not know anything about the first cause.

He's too tired and frustrated to try to knock some sense into you. He's already explained why your "deductiive reasoning" doesn't work here and he knows he's wasting time and keystrokes to explain it again.

So he won't. Instead, he'll let Valade enjoy arguing with you.

---

Sure, I dont mean argue like a heated argument, just that you are making a point. Your point has been noted so I'll reword my stance.

My deductive reasoning works with "nature as we know it". Nature as we know it breaks down in one way or the other, it doesnt allow for self creation. First cause under context of nature as we know it points to supernatural event.

I think my assumption is fair for the same reason I think it's fair to assume lions weren't herbivores, but I'll give you that, it is still indeed an assumption which I am applying.

We don't KNOW that in regards to first cause. Whatever the **** that means...



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk