Where was God on 9/11?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^thanku.

bardock your starting to sound like zeal.
and really, seeing as you are so intelligent n all bardock, try and give me one single uniform unbiased reason for why candy is sweet? that and no other view wud be the actual/real reason and all others wud be interpretations BASED of itt. go on im waiting.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thank you for agreeing with me.

When a question has no answer; what’s the difference between an incomplete answer to a bogus question and a complete answer to a bogus question? I have already told you that the question was silly. I am not going to quibble over the answer to a silly question. I guess I didn’t make that clear.

And if you had made the same conclusion that inimalist had made I would have agreed with you. However, just because someone else gives you the benefit of doubt or believe you are right, does not mean I can draw that same conclusion. I need more proof that you are following me, and as soon as you resort to insults, I become convinced that you are lost.

Is your self esteem so low that you have to have the people around you lower then you?

I hope you forgive me for not considering your opinion on that.

You are giving a silly answer to a justified question. You refuse to accept that it is justified and you might be right, but your silly answer to it is without a doubt silly.

Besides my self esteem is quite alright, there are just a lot of idiots around (you, leonheart) and in fact it doesn't make me feel better, it makes me feel worse in fact, but I have to face the matter of fact.

I should be done for now though, I think I showed more than enough what an embarrassing idiot you are, if you don't accept it now you won't ever, but everyone reading this thread will have a laugh at your expense. And before you ask, yes, that makes me feel extremely good.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Candy has sugar in it. Sugar has a specific shape that can be detected by the taste buds assigned to "sweet" on our tongue, which then in turn sends a signal of something sweet having entered our mouth to our brain. Satisfied?

You are giving a silly answer to a justified question. You refuse to accept that it is justified and you might be right, but your silly answer to it is without a doubt silly.

Besides my self esteem is quite alright, there are just a lot of idiots around (you, leonheart) and in fact it doesn't make me feel better, it makes me feel worse in fact, but I have to face the matter of fact.

I should be done for now though, I think I showed more than enough what an embarrassing idiot you are, if you don't accept it now you won't ever, but everyone reading this thread will have a laugh at your expense. And before you ask, yes, that makes me feel extremely good.

So, everyone else, except you, are idiots, and the only reason for your posts are on this thread is to embarrassing me?
You need professional help. 🤪

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, everyone else, except you, are idiots, and the only reason for your posts are on this thread is to embarrassing me?
You need professional help. 🤪

Originally posted by leonheartmm
bardock your starting to sound like zeal.

Lulz. Pwned.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Neither of those things I said. You are on a roll today, aren't you?

Of course you didn't say either of them. That would defeat your own purpose.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Of course you didn't say either of them. That would defeat your own purpose.

Probably. I guess I believe you.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Probably. I guess I believe you.

hysterical

Originally posted by Bardock42
Candy has sugar in it. Sugar has a specific shape that can be detected by the taste buds assigned to "sweet" on our tongue, which then in turn sends a signal of something sweet having entered our mouth to our brain. Satisfied?

or, the candy company which is run by money hungry capitalists asked their developers to create flavours appealing to the customer and the company machined, programmed by these people ended up creating the product which you define as sweet.

so, which one of the above two reasons is the right one and which one is the wrong one and why?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
or, the candy company which is run by money hungry capitalists asked their developers to create flavours appealing to the customer and the company machined, programmed by these people ended up creating the product which you define as sweet.

so, which one of the above two reasons is the right one and which one is the wrong one and why?

^oh but it is. it is the right question to my answer. its just "another answer". how about this then," candy normally containes fructose which has been seen to provide a distinct response when subjected to the taste buds at the back of human tongues and this response has been named sweet in the english language. hence candies are sweet"

so again, tell me, which is the right definition, yours or my first one, or my second one?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^oh but it is. it is the right question to my answer. its just "another answer". how about this then," candy normally containes fructose which has been seen to provide a distinct response when subjected to the taste buds at the back of human tongues and this response has been named sweet in the english language. hence candies are sweet"

so again, tell me, which is the right definition, yours or my first one, or my second one?

Mine and your second one are the same just rephrased. So those.

no, they are not. they talk about different aspects of the same thing. there are many sugars but much fewer fructose. also, the idea of sweet and the back of the tongue shud be noted. anyhow, why do u say that they are correct?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no, they are not. they talk about different aspects of the same thing. there are many sugars but much fewer fructose. also, the idea of sweet and the back of the tongue shud be noted. anyhow, why do u say that they are correct?

The message is the same, some part with more detail. You asked whether they are correct, not whether they describe every aspect of reality related to the question.

Because I accepted things that can be validated by scientific study as fact or close to that.

Are you going to make a point anytime?

^but i asked you to give one statement that alone was the complete universal truth from which all other statements emanated due to the perpective of the people who saw the said basic factual truth.

the point is, any truth that we think is true is infact a product of the perspective we look the situation as. whether a statement gives sociological/chemical/statistical/psychological/physical/emotional/philosophical or any other types of causes is irrelevant. neither one of them is the TRUE reason for why sumthing happened or is the way it is. they all just depend on perspective, and hence our perception of what CAUSED the event{"WHY IT HAPPENS/ED} depends on perspective. in reality there is no real factual REASON, for why sumthing happened. there are only our points of view and how we attribute certain aspects of certain situations as corellations to the affect they have , of which, we also, only see a small part based on our perspective.

which is why sum1 can just as easilu blame the death of a loved one on the intention of a murderer, or the choice of the person to move to the place where he got murdered on the first place, or the advent of gunpowder. none of them wrong, but none of them all emcompassing either.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^but i asked you to give one statement that alone was the complete universal truth from which all other statements emanated due to the perpective of the people who saw the said basic factual truth.

the point is, any truth that we think is true is infact a product of the perspective we look the situation as. whether a statement gives sociological/chemical/statistical/psychological/physical/emotional/philosophical or any other types of causes is irrelevant. neither one of them is the TRUE reason for why sumthing happened or is the way it is. they all just depend on perspective, and hence our perception of what CAUSED the event{"WHY IT HAPPENS/ED} depends on perspective. in reality there is no real factual REASON, for why sumthing happened. there are only our points of view and how we attribute certain aspects of certain situations as corellations to the affect they have , of which, we also, only see a small part based on our perspective.

which is why sum1 can just as easilu blame the death of a loved one on the intention of a murderer, or the choice of the person to move to the place where he got murdered on the first place, or the advent of gunpowder. none of them wrong, but none of them all emcompassing either.

^i did, and thats why i gave the reply 😄

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^i did, and thats why i gave the reply 😄

^no, but the above is

*point of clarification

If what you were saying, Shaky, was the same thing I put, I can't even begin to imagine what you and Bardock are arguing over.

You agree that asking the metaphysical "why" is unanswerable due to it not even being a real question, and clearly so does Bardock...

Unless I am missing something... Is Bardock saying that the causal "why" is the same as the metaphysical "why"?