Why I believe the universe is round.

[Bit]

@Bit

You made a thread in the Philosophy & Debates section, and you asked for others' opinions on your theory. You cannot ask them to leave if you don't like what they are saying about your theory.

Keywords Philosophy & Debates. There's a different way you go about most philosophical arguments, hence the title. If I wanted people to try and tell me all the reasons why they thought it was wrong in illogical manner, and derail my conversation in an attempt to prove the other wrong, I'm sure I would of put that in the title.

I'm not made of time, and I wanted to discuss this with someone of similar mindset. Ride it some more kiddo, he loves it.

I can and did ask him to leave, he refused, how mature.

 

[Cann!bal]

Keywords Philosophy & Debates. There's a different way you go about most philosophical arguments, hence the title. If I wanted people to try and tell me all the reasons why they thought it was wrong in illogical manner, and derail my conversation in an attempt to prove the other wrong, I'm sure I would of put that in the title.

I'm not made of time, and I wanted to discuss this with someone of similar mindset. Ride it some more kiddo, he loves it.

I can and did ask him to leave, he refused, how mature.

That's faulty. Philosophical discussions involve the principle of telling the adversary why they're wrong. They're quite similar to debates.

You cannot put an idea out there and prohibit criticism. This is precisely how Nazi Germany and the Church in the dark ages operated. However, instead of asking the critics to leave, they imprisoned or killed them.

You're the one insulting people.

 

[Sector]

Let's stay on the topic at hand, gentlemen. I viewed this thread in order to observe a debate and take in other ideas about the given topic. I definitely did not come here to view a debate about what a debate truly is.

Cann!bal, you may delete this post upon your viewing (seeing as how it is off-topic).

I hope you also agree with my reports and delete the previous posts for being off-topic.

 

[Bit]

That's faulty. Philosophical discussions involve the principle of telling the adversary why they're wrong. They're quite similar to debates.

You cannot put an idea out there and prohibit criticism. This is precisely how Nazi Germany and the Church in the dark ages operated. However, instead of asking the critics to leave, they imprisoned or killed them.

You're the one insulting people.

You're not telling me why I'm wrong, you're just trying to say all the reasons why this argument could potentially be wrong and pushing yours on the viewers of this thread, thus hindering this discussion, that's the opposite of why we're even here, maybe not you though. It's all theoretical, I believe in keeping things simple. I'm following the patterns, because history does indeed repeat itself. I trust myself and my simplicity and ability to fill in the blanks, more often than not simplifying something is the easiest way to figure it out because you are then able to rebuild it from it's simplest form, it's looking for missing links essentially. You're using nature to figure itself out, get it? It's even the way detectives work, because it's most efficient.

Thank you for helping me to further strengthen my argument.

 

[Cann!bal]

You're not telling me why I'm wrong, you're just trying to say all the reasons why this argument could potentially be wrong and pushing yours on the viewers of this thread, thus hindering this discussion, that's the opposite of why we're even here, maybe not you though. It's all theoretical, I believe in keeping things simple. I'm following the patterns, because history does indeed repeat itself. I trust myself and my simplicity and ability to fill in the blanks, more often than not simplifying something is the easiest way to figure it out because you are then able to rebuild it from it's simplest form, it's looking for missing links essentially. You're using nature to figure itself out, get it? It's even the way detectives work, because it's most efficient.

Thank you for helping me to further strengthen my argument.

I fail to see your manifestation. I'm telling you why you're potentially wrong, because we're discussing a theory, something that has yet to proven or disproved. It's my only option to do it potential-wise. In philosophic discussions there are also theories, hence potential wrongs are also included.

I've already addressed this point. It's unwise to jump to conclusions and believe the entirety because of a universal pattern you think you've deciphered.

 

[Bit]

I fail to see your manifestation. I'm telling you why you're potentially wrong, because we're discussing a theory, something that has yet to proven or disproved. It's my only option to do it potential-wise. In philosophic discussions there are also theories, hence potential wrongs are also included.

I've already addressed this point. It's unwise to jump to conclusions and believe the entirety because of a universal pattern you think you've deciphered.

You use such condescending wording, why?

 

[Executioner]

You're making an equivocation fallacy. A theory and a scientific theory differ greatly. For example; Evolution, a demonstrable fact, however, as of now still remains a scientific theory.

Like I previously stated, the circular pattern argument puts up a small fight. You're just making an assumption based off what we see, precisely like how we presumed the Earth was the center of the universe, then jumping to a conclusion and believing it entirely.

I want to go back in this post you made, and I see how flawed the whole theory states but it's possible that scientists are putting the evolution theory aside to welcome more theories that may be possible, and of course more extensive research, but on how he explained it in the book, it's definitely worth reading.

But as for the universal body, isn't it too obvious that everything is ellptical and spherical? That's visible..., it has a reason why it was like that and the answer leads outside of the universe.


You cant argue whats outside of the universe since no one has seen or traveled way beyond that, you have to travel 9x10^99999999999 light years away or more just to beat the speed of light and see what kind of a universe we are living in, and now on topic on my theory, it maybe possible that there's a force battling in each side of this universe or maybe that this unverse we speak of is just a speck in another big galaxy that is inside a universe along it would be a multiverse of different bodies infinite through beyond unknown.

 

[Cann!bal]

I want to go back in this post you made, and I see how flawed the whole theory states but it's possible that scientists are putting the evolution theory aside to welcome more theories that may be possible, and of course more extensive research, but on how he explained it in the book, it's definitely worth reading.

But as for the universal body, isn't it too obvious that everything is ellptical and spherical? That's visible..., it has a reason why it was like that and the answer leads outside of the universe.

You cant argue whats outside of the universe since no one has seen or traveled way beyond that, you have to travel 9x10^99999999999 light years away or more just to beat the speed of light and see what kind of a universe we are living in, and now on topic on my theory, it maybe possible that there's a force battling in each side of this universe or maybe that this unverse we speak of is just a speck in another big galaxy that is inside a universe along it would be a multiverse of different bodies infinite through beyond unknown.

Evolution is a fact. The scientific theory has been proven. It remains a theory rather than law for its contradiction with religious doctrine; that being creationism, which is rampant in religious countries. There's overwhelming evidence and it's already been accepted as fact by numerous renown science organizations. If Evolution was of error, several branches of science, such as biology would collapse entirely. It's fact.

It's unwise to jump to conclusions.

 

[Bit]

Evolution is a fact. The scientific theory has been proven. It remains a theory rather than law for its contradiction with religious doctrine; that being creationism, which is rampant in religious countries. There's overwhelming evidence and it's already been accepted as fact by numerous renown science organizations. If Evolution was of error, several branches of science, such as biology would collapse entirely. It's fact.

It's unwise to jump to conclusions.

Still didn't answer my question.

 

[Cann!bal]

Still didn't answer my question.

I didn't answer it because it's irrelevant and stupid.

I normally talk like this. I'm not using some thesaurus to sound intelligent.