Maybe your scientific viewpoint differs from mine. Explain. What ideas are you referring to?

 

That's because YOUR viewpoint is self-centered and changes to fit whatever you want something to be.

You can't disbelieve in basic science. I'm not talking about physics or quantum physics here.

He's a funny guy. Your signature is very true by the way. You know that's not something I'm going to say to you very often.

 

Allow me to re-iterate: It's not my viewpoint. It's how things fucking work.

 

More opinion. Explain it to me like I'm a six year old.

 

Why not include quantum theory? Would yoiu be forced to throw everything you belive into question? Perhaps your "facts" mean less than your want them to.

 

It's not an opinion.

They're not MY facts. We're not talking about theories here.

Everything is connected. That's all existence is, is the tiniest particles reacting with each other. There is not a single part of existence seperated from the laws of the Universe. Nothing is random. Nothing is meaningless. That's basic science.

As for us: If you know anything about sociology, you understand that since we don't live in a vacuum, everybody has meaning and everybody has a place. Everybody is affected by something or someone and everybody will affect something or someone. Our societies are like spider-webs. Then you go further and look at how we're connected to and affect/are affected by the animals, weather, surroundings around us, and the way that's affected by what's around it, and you see that nothing is meaningless or not connected.

This isn't opinion. This is how things work when you don't exist in a vacuum.

 

It's opinion.

 

Not in the least bit. Sorry.

 

No, I'm sorry. It is.

 

No. It isn't.

 

PISS ANT (baller16) do you have a degree in physics? Do you have a degree in socioligy?

You sure pop off on a lot of subjects you have no clue about.



Get a life and research your facts first PISS ANT

 

This is sociology 101 stuff. I also never mentioned anything about physics. If you'd like to go ahead and prove me wrong then do so but you're not going to because this is common-sense type shit that is common knowledge and universally accepted.

 

So once again I ask what degree you hold that makes you the expert?

 

I don't need to be an expert. I would only need to be an expert if it were my own assertion and not common knowledge.

 

Actually, baller, you did bring up physics. So what makes you so sure that your answers mean anything?

 

They're not my answers. They're basic scientific facts, in two fields of science.

 

Well now, why was antiballer banned?

-S-

 

"Who's to say I am not a unicorn?"

"You are not a unicorn."

"Prove I am not a unicorn."

"You have the features, genetic makeup, thoughts, and traits of a human being. You are not a unicorn."

"Those are all just 'answers,' who is to say they mean anything? I'm still a unicorn."

"Are you just going to answer every fact I state with the phrase that it "could be" meaningless? When the meaningfulness of something is entirely subjective yet has nothing to do with facts which are objective?"

"Yes, pretty much. Will that make me sound deep?"

"No, not really. But go for it."

"Ok, wish me luck...By the way!"

"What...?"

"Did you know this moment does not even exist?"

"Then how are you in it?"

"It is a memory, created by our psychological architecture."

"Yes, that all sounds very presumptuos, what evidence do you have that this is all a memory?"

"I have none."

"Then why do you insist on insisting upon the idea?"

"Because it makes me feel very philosophical."

"Really? I was under the impression that the blatant thoughtlessness of the relativist movement had withered away in the early 20th century."

"Remnants remain."

"And you are one of those remnants?"

"Yes, yes I am."

"Lovely. Do you know why the relativist movement withered away?"

"Why?"

"Because after awhile, even the most obtuse of people began to recognize that asking a question of proof while ignoring all proof was simply a self sustaining circle of endless inquiry."

"What do you mean? I am deep, not that deep."

"I mean that I say, 'prove I am here.' And everyone responds, 'we all saw you walk into this room, we all hear you speak, we all felt you brush by us, you are here.' If I then ignore their simple answer and say, 'you could all be figments of my imagination, that is no proof.' Then I have only ignored the answer to my own inquiry and begun another to take its place. Now not only must they prove I am here, they must prove they are not figments of my imagination. If they then say, 'here is your proof, we are doing things of our own accord, we are doing things when you are not even conscious, you have no control over us, we exist apart from you.' I respond, 'how do you know you are doing these things apart from me? Perhaps I am only imagining you as imagining that.' Now they must prove that I exist, that they are not figments of my imagination, and that my imagination is not tricking me. Now the thing can go on and on for as long as you want, but so long as you slap away all proof, you will never have an answer and then you will somehow claim that there is no answer, when, in reality, there is a very simple answer; you have simply ignored it in order to sound intellectual. Relativism exists merely as a tool of the very stupid to ask a very large amount of very silly questions and think themselves very smart in doing so. This is why it was taken seriously for so short a time."

"Oh...well I'm going to do it anyway. After all, can you prove the meaningfulness of what you just said?"

"..."

"Ha! I didn' think so. Relativism wins again!"

"What is a win?"

"It is a victory."

"How can you prove your victory is not just a creation of your psychological architecture in order to comfort your non-existent imagination?"

"..."

 

Me, I intend to live forever, I will be there at the end of time, watching the stars explode and the planets burn.

 

Find you a nice little restaurant at the end of the Universe, eh?

-S-