Does The Universe Have a Purpose?

[G.T.]

Knowing what something is does nothing to inform the purpose of its creation, nor does it even make the positive case that is HAS a purpose.

Very......basic.

Correct. You've stated beliefs. Made a positive case for them, though?

Not to me. Maybe someone thats irrational. Sure.

1. we know space and time had a beginning
2. we know that space and time were created from nothing.
3. we know that the creation of space and time followed the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation.
4. we know that the SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe without reaching thermal equilibrium.
5. we know the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.
6. we know that intelligence arose according to the laws of nature.
7. we know that consciousness/intelligence is the most complex thing the universe has created.
8. we know that we live in a logical universe.
9. we know that the universe is governed by laws.
10. we know that every effect had a cause.
11. we know that everything happened for a reason.
12. we know that means everything has a purpose.
13. we know from our own experiences that we create things for a reason to serve a purpose.
14. we know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.
15. I believe that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”
16. And that the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence.
17. And that the reason it was created was because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

For the purpose of brevity, which you sorely lack, Im not even going to and dont even have to show the number of false claims you just made, but instead, show you where shit clearly hit the fan.

"I believe" is not how you appeal to an objectively sound premise.

Its basically a qualifier, "i believe" means "im about to bring subjectivity into the fold and carry the argument forward as though this didnt happen.


Let alone are all of your "we knows" facts, let alone do they not each follow from each other as a matter of necessity.

Jesus fuckin christ youre tediously stupid

I used I believe because I knew you couldn't handle the alternative.

That's my case though.

I wish you actually had one.

I dont claim to know things that I dont and then assert them as fact. Just because you are comfortable with that, doesnt mean that others should be equally fast and loose with what they'd determine is an absolute truth.

Not knowing something must make you eminently qualified to criticize those that do.

Cross examining claims isnt something that should be mocked, its how to eliminate your ego and bias.

 

[ding]

The question has never been can you argue against what I believe.

The question has always been whether or not you can provide an argument for what you believe the answer is.

And the answer to that question is no.

I dont care what your views are regarding my "beliefs."
Things I know, Im comfortable with.

Things I dont know, Im comfortable to admit.

Errors in simple reasoning are easy to poi t out when theyre made.

You stating the universe has a purpose, without speaking to its creator let alone proving there is one, is a leap of logical. Not a formally proven fact. It was easy to demonstrate, and so I did. Using a toilet as an analogy was an easy way to relate to dingggg, lol

What beliefs? As near as I can tell your only beliefs are ding shouldn't have any.

I habe beliefs, ding-dong.

I also know certain things. The two I dont hold as being the same, like you do.

Knowledge, in my definition, has to be justified as well as absolutely true.

I have knowledge of my own existence, for example, but I dont have the hubris to think that I could prove my existence to an external mind from my own.

Cool story.

Here's the basis for my belief that the purpose of the universe is to create intelligence.

1. we know space and time had a beginning
2. we know that space and time were created from nothing.
3. we know that the creation of space and time followed the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation.
4. we know that the SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe without reaching thermal equilibrium.
5. we know the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.
6. we know that intelligence arose according to the laws of nature.
7. we know that consciousness/intelligence is the most complex thing the universe has created.
8. we know that we live in a logical universe.
9. we know that the universe is governed by laws.
10. we know that every effect had a cause.
11. we know that everything happened for a reason.
12. we know that means everything has a purpose.
13. we know from our own experiences that we create things for a reason to serve a purpose.
14. we know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.
15. I believe that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”
16. And that the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence.
17. And that the reason it was created was because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

 

[ding]

1. we know space and time had a beginning
2. we know that space and time were created from nothing.
3. we know that the creation of space and time followed the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation.
4. we know that the SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe without reaching thermal equilibrium.
5. we know the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.
6. we know that intelligence arose according to the laws of nature.
7. we know that consciousness/intelligence is the most complex thing the universe has created.
8. we know that we live in a logical universe.
9. we know that the universe is governed by laws.
10. we know that every effect had a cause.
11. we know that everything happened for a reason.
12. we know that means everything has a purpose.
13. we know from our own experiences that we create things for a reason to serve a purpose.
14. we know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.
15. I believe that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”
16. And that the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence.
17. And that the reason it was created was because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

For the purpose of brevity, which you sorely lack, Im not even going to and dont even have to show the number of false claims you just made, but instead, show you where shit clearly hit the fan.

"I believe" is not how you appeal to an objectively sound premise.

Its basically a qualifier, "i believe" means "im about to bring subjectivity into the fold and carry the argument forward as though this didnt happen.


Let alone are all of your "we knows" facts, let alone do they not each follow from each other as a matter of necessity.

Jesus fuckin christ youre tediously stupid

I used I believe because I knew you couldn't handle the alternative.

That's my case though.

I wish you actually had one.

I dont claim to know things that I dont and then assert them as fact. Just because you are comfortable with that, doesnt mean that others should be equally fast and loose with what they'd determine is an absolute truth.

Not knowing something must make you eminently qualified to criticize those that do.

Cross examining claims isnt something that should be mocked, its how to eliminate your ego and bias.

No, ego and bias are eliminated by dying to self.

 

[G.T.]

The question has never been can you argue against what I believe.

The question has always been whether or not you can provide an argument for what you believe the answer is.

And the answer to that question is no.

I dont care what your views are regarding my "beliefs."
Things I know, Im comfortable with.

Things I dont know, Im comfortable to admit.

Errors in simple reasoning are easy to poi t out when theyre made.

You stating the universe has a purpose, without speaking to its creator let alone proving there is one, is a leap of logical. Not a formally proven fact. It was easy to demonstrate, and so I did. Using a toilet as an analogy was an easy way to relate to dingggg, lol

What beliefs? As near as I can tell your only beliefs are ding shouldn't have any.

I habe beliefs, ding-dong.

I also know certain things. The two I dont hold as being the same, like you do.

Knowledge, in my definition, has to be justified as well as absolutely true.

I have knowledge of my own existence, for example, but I dont have the hubris to think that I could prove my existence to an external mind from my own.

Cool story.

Here's the basis for my belief that the purpose of the universe is to create intelligence.

1. we know space and time had a beginning
2. we know that space and time were created from nothing.
3. we know that the creation of space and time followed the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation.
4. we know that the SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe without reaching thermal equilibrium.
5. we know the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.
6. we know that intelligence arose according to the laws of nature.
7. we know that consciousness/intelligence is the most complex thing the universe has created.
8. we know that we live in a logical universe.
9. we know that the universe is governed by laws.
10. we know that every effect had a cause.
11. we know that everything happened for a reason.
12. we know that means everything has a purpose.
13. we know from our own experiences that we create things for a reason to serve a purpose.
14. we know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.
15. I believe that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”
16. And that the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence.
17. And that the reason it was created was because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

You dont have to sonny clark yourself, I already pointed out where I saw the error in you establishing your belief as fact.

Its fine if you persist in said belief, it really doesnt do anything for me except reaffirm for the 8millionth time that youre a poor reasoner.

 

[G.T.]

For the purpose of brevity, which you sorely lack, Im not even going to and dont even have to show the number of false claims you just made, but instead, show you where shit clearly hit the fan.

"I believe" is not how you appeal to an objectively sound premise.

Its basically a qualifier, "i believe" means "im about to bring subjectivity into the fold and carry the argument forward as though this didnt happen.


Let alone are all of your "we knows" facts, let alone do they not each follow from each other as a matter of necessity.

Jesus fuckin christ youre tediously stupid

I used I believe because I knew you couldn't handle the alternative.

That's my case though.

I wish you actually had one.

I dont claim to know things that I dont and then assert them as fact. Just because you are comfortable with that, doesnt mean that others should be equally fast and loose with what they'd determine is an absolute truth.

Not knowing something must make you eminently qualified to criticize those that do.

Cross examining claims isnt something that should be mocked, its how to eliminate your ego and bias.

No, ego and bias are eliminated by dying to self.

lol dying to self

 

[ding]

1. we know space and time had a beginning
2. we know that space and time were created from nothing.
3. we know that the creation of space and time followed the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation.
4. we know that the SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe without reaching thermal equilibrium.
5. we know the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.
6. we know that intelligence arose according to the laws of nature.
7. we know that consciousness/intelligence is the most complex thing the universe has created.
8. we know that we live in a logical universe.
9. we know that the universe is governed by laws.
10. we know that every effect had a cause.
11. we know that everything happened for a reason.
12. we know that means everything has a purpose.
13. we know from our own experiences that we create things for a reason to serve a purpose.
14. we know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.
15. I believe that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”
16. And that the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence.
17. And that the reason it was created was because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

For the purpose of brevity, which you sorely lack, Im not even going to and dont even have to show the number of false claims you just made, but instead, show you where shit clearly hit the fan.

"I believe" is not how you appeal to an objectively sound premise.

Its basically a qualifier, "i believe" means "im about to bring subjectivity into the fold and carry the argument forward as though this didnt happen.


Let alone are all of your "we knows" facts, let alone do they not each follow from each other as a matter of necessity.

Jesus fuckin christ youre tediously stupid

I used I believe because I knew you couldn't handle the alternative.

That's my case though.

I wish you actually had one.

I dont claim to know things that I dont and then assert them as fact. Just because you are comfortable with that, doesnt mean that others should be equally fast and loose with what they'd determine is an absolute truth.

Not knowing something must make you eminently qualified to criticize those that do.

Cross examining claims isnt something that should be mocked, its how to eliminate your ego and bias.

I agree that cross examining claims isn't something to be mocked. I have already done that. What you are doing is more akin to critical theory though. Critical theory is the practice of criticizing what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You are confusing critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what you do believe to test its validity. I've done that. That's why my argument is so tight and driving you nuts.

 

[ding]

I used I believe because I knew you couldn't handle the alternative.

That's my case though.

I wish you actually had one.

I dont claim to know things that I dont and then assert them as fact. Just because you are comfortable with that, doesnt mean that others should be equally fast and loose with what they'd determine is an absolute truth.

Not knowing something must make you eminently qualified to criticize those that do.

Cross examining claims isnt something that should be mocked, its how to eliminate your ego and bias.

No, ego and bias are eliminated by dying to self.

lol dying to self

100%. You should try it.

It leads to not having a preference for an outcome and seeing objective truth. It's the only way.

 

[ding]

The question has never been can you argue against what I believe.

The question has always been whether or not you can provide an argument for what you believe the answer is.

And the answer to that question is no.

I dont care what your views are regarding my "beliefs."
Things I know, Im comfortable with.

Things I dont know, Im comfortable to admit.

Errors in simple reasoning are easy to poi t out when theyre made.

You stating the universe has a purpose, without speaking to its creator let alone proving there is one, is a leap of logical. Not a formally proven fact. It was easy to demonstrate, and so I did. Using a toilet as an analogy was an easy way to relate to dingggg, lol

What beliefs? As near as I can tell your only beliefs are ding shouldn't have any.

I habe beliefs, ding-dong.

I also know certain things. The two I dont hold as being the same, like you do.

Knowledge, in my definition, has to be justified as well as absolutely true.

I have knowledge of my own existence, for example, but I dont have the hubris to think that I could prove my existence to an external mind from my own.

Cool story.

Here's the basis for my belief that the purpose of the universe is to create intelligence.

1. we know space and time had a beginning
2. we know that space and time were created from nothing.
3. we know that the creation of space and time followed the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation.
4. we know that the SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe without reaching thermal equilibrium.
5. we know the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.
6. we know that intelligence arose according to the laws of nature.
7. we know that consciousness/intelligence is the most complex thing the universe has created.
8. we know that we live in a logical universe.
9. we know that the universe is governed by laws.
10. we know that every effect had a cause.
11. we know that everything happened for a reason.
12. we know that means everything has a purpose.
13. we know from our own experiences that we create things for a reason to serve a purpose.
14. we know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.
15. I believe that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”
16. And that the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence.
17. And that the reason it was created was because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

You dont have to sonny clark yourself, I already pointed out where I saw the error in you establishing your belief as fact.

Its fine if you persist in said belief, it really doesnt do anything for me except reaffirm for the 8millionth time that youre a poor reasoner.

^ dunning effect

 

[G.T.]

For the purpose of brevity, which you sorely lack, Im not even going to and dont even have to show the number of false claims you just made, but instead, show you where shit clearly hit the fan.

"I believe" is not how you appeal to an objectively sound premise.

Its basically a qualifier, "i believe" means "im about to bring subjectivity into the fold and carry the argument forward as though this didnt happen.


Let alone are all of your "we knows" facts, let alone do they not each follow from each other as a matter of necessity.

Jesus fuckin christ youre tediously stupid

I used I believe because I knew you couldn't handle the alternative.

That's my case though.

I wish you actually had one.

I dont claim to know things that I dont and then assert them as fact. Just because you are comfortable with that, doesnt mean that others should be equally fast and loose with what they'd determine is an absolute truth.

Not knowing something must make you eminently qualified to criticize those that do.

Cross examining claims isnt something that should be mocked, its how to eliminate your ego and bias.

I agree that cross examining claims isn't something to be mocked. I have already done that. What you are doing is more akin to critical theory though. Critical theory is the practice of criticizing what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You are confusing critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what you do believe to test its validity. I've done that. That's why my argument is so tight and driving you nuts.

You made a lot of assumptions in this post, and thats cool bro. Your toy boxes you make are boring, to me. My daughter is more rational than you are. You make logical syllogisms based on "beliefs," and any intro to logic courses would have taught you the error in that process, yet, you still DID practice it. Thats critical retardation. I mean, you said the fucking UNIVERSE is logical, and cant even respect it in personal practice.

Ding, youve been came on, again. Its so tedious, too. ewwey!

 

[ding]

I used I believe because I knew you couldn't handle the alternative.

That's my case though.

I wish you actually had one.

I dont claim to know things that I dont and then assert them as fact. Just because you are comfortable with that, doesnt mean that others should be equally fast and loose with what they'd determine is an absolute truth.

Not knowing something must make you eminently qualified to criticize those that do.

Cross examining claims isnt something that should be mocked, its how to eliminate your ego and bias.

I agree that cross examining claims isn't something to be mocked. I have already done that. What you are doing is more akin to critical theory though. Critical theory is the practice of criticizing what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You are confusing critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what you do believe to test its validity. I've done that. That's why my argument is so tight and driving you nuts.

You made a lot of assumptions in this post, and thats cool bro. Your toy boxes you make are boring, to me. My daughter is more rational than you are. You make logical syllogisms based on "beliefs," and any intro to logic courses would have taught you the error in that process, yet, you still DID practice it. Thats critical retardation. I mean, you said the fucking UNIVERSE is logical, and cant even respect it in personal practice.

Ding, youve been came on, again. Its so tedious, too. ewwey!

What assumptions do you think I made, GT?

 

[ding]

You can always tell when GT gets his feeling hurt by how he lashes out.

 

[G.T.]

I dont claim to know things that I dont and then assert them as fact. Just because you are comfortable with that, doesnt mean that others should be equally fast and loose with what they'd determine is an absolute truth.

Not knowing something must make you eminently qualified to criticize those that do.

Cross examining claims isnt something that should be mocked, its how to eliminate your ego and bias.

No, ego and bias are eliminated by dying to self.

lol dying to self

100%. You should try it.

It leads to not having a preference for an outcome and seeing objective truth. It's the only way.

A preference for an outcome is directly exibited in thinking "I believe" belongs in a logical syllogism.

you just self owned.

 

[G.T.]

You can always tell when GT gets his feeling hurt by how he lashed out.

Youre an idiot, and its easy to do this to you.

The next predictable surprise is you begin making Nun-like repeats of dorky slogans that you find enlightening.

 

[G.T.]

I dont claim to know things that I dont and then assert them as fact. Just because you are comfortable with that, doesnt mean that others should be equally fast and loose with what they'd determine is an absolute truth.

Not knowing something must make you eminently qualified to criticize those that do.

Cross examining claims isnt something that should be mocked, its how to eliminate your ego and bias.

I agree that cross examining claims isn't something to be mocked. I have already done that. What you are doing is more akin to critical theory though. Critical theory is the practice of criticizing what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You are confusing critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what you do believe to test its validity. I've done that. That's why my argument is so tight and driving you nuts.

You made a lot of assumptions in this post, and thats cool bro. Your toy boxes you make are boring, to me. My daughter is more rational than you are. You make logical syllogisms based on "beliefs," and any intro to logic courses would have taught you the error in that process, yet, you still DID practice it. Thats critical retardation. I mean, you said the fucking UNIVERSE is logical, and cant even respect it in personal practice.

Ding, youve been came on, again. Its so tedious, too. ewwey!

What assumptions do you think I made, GT?

I dont think you made any, I know that you did. It might take you until youre 80 to figure out, and, thats cool, ding.

 

[ding]

Not knowing something must make you eminently qualified to criticize those that do.

Cross examining claims isnt something that should be mocked, its how to eliminate your ego and bias.

No, ego and bias are eliminated by dying to self.

lol dying to self

100%. You should try it.

It leads to not having a preference for an outcome and seeing objective truth. It's the only way.

A preference for an outcome is directly exibited in thinking "I believe" belongs in a logical syllogism.

you just self owned.

No, I don't believe so. It is possible to eliminate bias. I can't believe that anyone would believe it were impossible.

It seems to me the best way to eliminate bias is to have no concern for self.

Thus if you eliminate self, you eliminate bias and you can be objective.

It's not that complicated. Hard? Yes. Complicated? No.

But I guess this must mean you don't believe you can be objective which means you must believe you have been exhibiting bias in all of your posts.

 

[ding]

Not knowing something must make you eminently qualified to criticize those that do.

Cross examining claims isnt something that should be mocked, its how to eliminate your ego and bias.

I agree that cross examining claims isn't something to be mocked. I have already done that. What you are doing is more akin to critical theory though. Critical theory is the practice of criticizing what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You are confusing critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what you do believe to test its validity. I've done that. That's why my argument is so tight and driving you nuts.

You made a lot of assumptions in this post, and thats cool bro. Your toy boxes you make are boring, to me. My daughter is more rational than you are. You make logical syllogisms based on "beliefs," and any intro to logic courses would have taught you the error in that process, yet, you still DID practice it. Thats critical retardation. I mean, you said the fucking UNIVERSE is logical, and cant even respect it in personal practice.

Ding, youve been came on, again. Its so tedious, too. ewwey!

What assumptions do you think I made, GT?

I dont think you made any, I know that you did. It might take you until youre 80 to figure out, and, thats cool, ding.

That you can't list them provides the information I was seeking.

 

[ding]

You can always tell when GT gets his feeling hurt by how he lashed out.

Youre an idiot, and its easy to do this to you.

The next predictable surprise is you begin making Nun-like repeats of dorky slogans that you find enlightening.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[G.T.]

Cross examining claims isnt something that should be mocked, its how to eliminate your ego and bias.

I agree that cross examining claims isn't something to be mocked. I have already done that. What you are doing is more akin to critical theory though. Critical theory is the practice of criticizing what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You are confusing critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what you do believe to test its validity. I've done that. That's why my argument is so tight and driving you nuts.

You made a lot of assumptions in this post, and thats cool bro. Your toy boxes you make are boring, to me. My daughter is more rational than you are. You make logical syllogisms based on "beliefs," and any intro to logic courses would have taught you the error in that process, yet, you still DID practice it. Thats critical retardation. I mean, you said the fucking UNIVERSE is logical, and cant even respect it in personal practice.

Ding, youve been came on, again. Its so tedious, too. ewwey!

What assumptions do you think I made, GT?

I dont think you made any, I know that you did. It might take you until youre 80 to figure out, and, thats cool, ding.

That you can't list them provides the information I was seeking.

I dont play your pedantic neener games the way you like, ding. I see you do that enough with like 15 posters in this religion forum. They all trigger you and you become childish every time and start to sloganeer like a dufus.

"locus of control"
"satan would say this, marx would say that"
"cause and effect"
"predictable surprises"


You are just a petulant, whiny child when folks cross examine your gobbeldy gook, and thats always good by me.

When the slogans come out, its just frustration and inadequacy.

Trust me, I wish you were worth any of this time to kick ideas off of, but youre really not.

 

[ding]

I agree that cross examining claims isn't something to be mocked. I have already done that. What you are doing is more akin to critical theory though. Critical theory is the practice of criticizing what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You are confusing critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what you do believe to test its validity. I've done that. That's why my argument is so tight and driving you nuts.

You made a lot of assumptions in this post, and thats cool bro. Your toy boxes you make are boring, to me. My daughter is more rational than you are. You make logical syllogisms based on "beliefs," and any intro to logic courses would have taught you the error in that process, yet, you still DID practice it. Thats critical retardation. I mean, you said the fucking UNIVERSE is logical, and cant even respect it in personal practice.

Ding, youve been came on, again. Its so tedious, too. ewwey!

What assumptions do you think I made, GT?

I dont think you made any, I know that you did. It might take you until youre 80 to figure out, and, thats cool, ding.

That you can't list them provides the information I was seeking.

I dont play your pedantic neener games the way you like, ding. I see you do that enough with like 15 posters in this religion forum. They all trigger you and you become childish every time and start to sloganeer like a dufus.

"locus of control"
"satan would say this, marx would say that"
"cause and effect"
"predictable surprises"


You are just a petulant, whiny child when folks cross examine your gobbeldy gook, and thats always good by me.

When the slogans come out, its just frustration and inadequacy.

Trust me, I wish you were worth any of this time to kick ideas off of, but youre really not.

Your fascination with me says otherwise, GT.

 

[G.T.]

You made a lot of assumptions in this post, and thats cool bro. Your toy boxes you make are boring, to me. My daughter is more rational than you are. You make logical syllogisms based on "beliefs," and any intro to logic courses would have taught you the error in that process, yet, you still DID practice it. Thats critical retardation. I mean, you said the fucking UNIVERSE is logical, and cant even respect it in personal practice.

Ding, youve been came on, again. Its so tedious, too. ewwey!

What assumptions do you think I made, GT?

I dont think you made any, I know that you did. It might take you until youre 80 to figure out, and, thats cool, ding.

That you can't list them provides the information I was seeking.

I dont play your pedantic neener games the way you like, ding. I see you do that enough with like 15 posters in this religion forum. They all trigger you and you become childish every time and start to sloganeer like a dufus.

"locus of control"
"satan would say this, marx would say that"
"cause and effect"
"predictable surprises"


You are just a petulant, whiny child when folks cross examine your gobbeldy gook, and thats always good by me.

When the slogans come out, its just frustration and inadequacy.

Trust me, I wish you were worth any of this time to kick ideas off of, but youre really not.

Your fascination with me says otherwise, GT.

That's a lame tactic from 2005, dude. Take out a notebook, write down every neener dorky scapegoat like that one that you can think of......and cross them all out and start over.

You say the same fuggin shit to everyone. Youre the second participant in ALL these conversations, and claim theyre the ones fascinated. Never you!!

Sucha toolbox, ding. No grown man acts like that.