Delano

Troy when people say technically you are right. They are implying that you are wrong in the other part of your argument or statement. you are equating my disageeeing with you as my being wrong. i am using standard definitions. So your use of valid is technically wrong although it is correct in your mind. i am being stringent. you can use logic or numbers to make a point . However if you're bending it like Wreckum, I am going to call it.

Troy Vanilla ice cream is the best. And if you can't see that you are being illogical and unreasonable. Is that clearer to You. There's a difference amongst the following opinions beliefs arguments. I can have an opinion that is wrong but I cant see why it is wrong.

Troy that's funny. it's been going on for a bit. Its interesting not to be involved for a change. You and Pioneer are more fixed. Cynique is less fixed but will considereal other views. Mel us pretty open until the ither conversant stops either thinking or listening. But it is entertaining.

Troy how can an opinion be invalid? Pioneer has a valid conclusion. which can't be validated. But that doesn't invalidate it.

@Troy read this since you are confusing a valid and true conclusion. Premise: all horses are brown Premise: X is a horse Conclusion: from premise 1 and 2 follows that X is brown However, suppose that X in fact isn't brown, but white (meaning that either X isn't a horse - premise 2 is false -, or not all horses are brown - premise 1 is false). The reasoning leading to the conclusion is logically valid, it's a valid reasoning, but the conclusion is not true, because we started with false premises

Even though I don't agree his argument is reasonable. Man that was a really powerful eclipse.

i dont agree with his conclusion that its a person. yet i think it is a reasonable and logical conclusion. based on his analogy.

Pioneer says someone, which was implies a person. However I don't see the creator as a person. Although that is a reasonable assumption for Pioneer to make. at least it is from my perspective.

Yes I said that but where did i mention the creator as a person

@Cynique what part of my post implied a creator was a person?

You are mixing belief and logic. Troy it is both reasonable and logical to assume either position. They are both valid arguments. However neither is provable. My position is that numbers were created not discovered. Which would make all mathematically based or proved science a belief system. i used to believe we had free will. Now i think it operates maybe 25% of the time or less. And only in situations where a real choice exists. This is due to some things i have found in the psychic realm. My current belief is that we are following a script. Which means we don't have free will. However we wrote the script. Since we are here to learn. The easiest way of seeing this is look at both your frustrations and what gives you the most joy. Since they are probably the same, just poles apart. So we are gods. And we are all connected. The sum total of all positive expression would be a Creator. And the counterbalancing force of negativity is the destroyer. And the individual sustains both those energies internally. Brahma The Creator Shiva The Destroyer Vishnu The Sustainer. Yes but i have a real difficulty agreeing with Pioneer. For a whole hosts of reasons.

i cant believe this but I am going to disagree with you Troy. What?! @Pioneer1 that statement is illogical. If it is true then who created the "Someone" that Troy you are confusing truth and validity. Pioneer made a conclusion or rather an inference that follows his statement. I don't know if Pioneer said this or not. So if I am repeating your statement my apologies Pioneer. if something is created then it has a creator. You could argue whether the Universe was created. You could also argue that nature isn't manufactured in a factory. However something created ipso facto has a creator. That's definitional. Troy if you are going to use Mathematics, Philosophy or Logic. You may want to be a bit more rigorous in how you frame your argument.

Yas'm mister boss man

Pioneer I may have been wrong on both counts. In underestimating you and overestimating Mel Cynique and Troy.

Troy can you state the implications of your post.

Pioneer I am from the Bronx and I live in Australia . I could use the American spelling.

Yes Troy that's why I thanked him . Although i don't see that as very different. In terms of the end product. Well we could exist in our galaxy. And share the universe.

Pioneer can you explain how something created to be an image. Is different than image. You are still a representation of the universe. Thanks for the clarification Pioneer.

Pioneer in all seriousness. You may need to find a way to handle this frustration. Or it will eat you. Normally I would give you a hard time. Not on this one.

Pioneer I don't know whether you are overestimating your reasoning or underestimating other people's reasoning.

I am not certain how your two statements are different.

Wednesday Thursday Friday.

Pioneer maybe its your personality not your colour.

Pioneer you're funny. And the world you live in is A mazing. However in your world you are correct. However it sounds just as restrictive as the one you rail against. From my perspective. Abstract/Expansive vs Concrete/Dogmatic. Anytime there is agreement with Pioneer I am bit uneasy .

Pioneer you and i rarely agree. It is unlikely that you will have information that I have been searching for my whole life. I am more interested in how things are related or connected.