I don’t care if it’s faulty or not, I am not here to discuss theology. You are free to claim it is faulty.
My only reason here is to point out specifically that those two statements are scientifically true and that you were wrong to try and correct him on that.
So again:
“If it was forever day… Plants would bake and everything would suck”
and
“Always night. Plants would never grow and everything would suck”
Do you accept these as true or not? Stop avoiding and answer yes or no.
The plant thing was just an analogy, and a faulty one. you only think it is about literal plants as a thing to hide your intellectual dishonesty behind. It is tiresome.
Yes, you avoiding answering the question is tiresome. Which just goes to show that you know you were wrong. Keep dodging all you want, it’s plain for everyone to see that it’s what you’re doing.
Everything you’ve been saying was old centuries ago. Continue to dodge the question, you know that you were wrong. Eret was scientifically correct and your ego can’t handle that. Let’s watch you dodge yet again.
Yes, truth is eternal like how “If it was forever day… plants would bake and everything would suck” and “Always night. Plants would never grow and everything would suck”. These two statements are true and have been true since eternity. But you can’t say that you accept that because your ego can’t handle it.
Then maybe your reply should have been about the analogy and why it’s incorrect rather than some smart aleck remark about the sun to try and instill some clever religious twist that the sunlight is a constant force of good.
So again, you avoid admitting that those two statements are true because you know they are but your ego can’t handle it.
The light gives life and warmth, but too much exposure can blind and burn.
The shade can provide relief, though one must be careful of what lurks in the shadows.
Friend or foe, you won’t know
until the scales have tipped and the old god claims your soul.
How am I running? I’ve been here the whole time on the same subject that you keep dodging.
The fact that you can’t admit that those two statements are true just goes to show you small you really are. Guess I’ll see you tomorrow for more of your dodging? You’ll see real quick I don’t run, we’ll be here… I’ll be repeating the same two statements and you’ll be refusing to acknowledge that they are true statements.
you are using that subject as a dodge away from yourself.
I explained to you what “light” really means. you PANICKED! Every word form you since then has been to distract from me pointing out that panic.
What are you afraid of? It is not like I don’t already know the things about you that you don’t want me to realize. I have dealt with more people like you than I care to admit. In fact, I could probably not even remember that last thousand as you just blur into one another after a point as there is no variation.
I know you will be here. you are trying to distract. your whole being is on the line here and you have nothing to lose by trying to save face, and my only motivation is to correct you and call out what you are doing. To whom are you trying to save face from? The funny part it is yourself. you are attacking me so you don’t get a lesser view of your inflated sense of self.
As CS Lewis said, Good philosophy only exists because bad philosophy must be answered.
Afraid of what? Assumptions? You know, for someone that likes to gloat about their philosophical prowess… you’d think that you’d do more than engage in simple ad hominem.
The two statements, do you deny that they are true? I will look for your answer when I do some morning grinding. Good night for now.
Second time you posted generally to the thread instead of as a reply to me so I wouldn’t notice you replied before you had a chance to log off. One time was bad enough, you are just doing it on purpose now.
Assumption is the basis of thought.
As for what you are afraid of, that is what I asked you. I already know the answer, but I want to hear you say it.