[Luke 22:35-38]

Yeah I quoted it, I forgot about it.

[Luke 22:35-38]

I'm not. First off rainbows are not holograms. Second that doesn't explain why the moon is or what evidence you have that the moon is a hologram. And third, I jumped in this thread late and missed that.

When you have more than whining about semantics, presupposing your model, and now inexplicably claiming you 'missed' a post that you quoted, maybe your claim that you're not wasting time will mean something. Until then, shut up.

Wait, I get warnings left and right, but this is OK? Asking for an explanation is a legitimate question, especially when claiming that a celestial body is just a hologram. Arriving at that as a conclusion must be easily explained.

I've plenty of experience of Luke. He never asks for an explanation, he just demands we repeat ourselves. Five seconds later he'll be asking the exact same question with no acknowledgement as to the answer. He's already admitted that he didn't even read a post he directly quoted.
As I've said, I don't accept anarchist's model, though I expect his evidence will be the universal standard: it explains observations.

I forgot that I've already read it. This new platform kinda threw me off.

[JRowe]

But don't you do the same with your model? Presupposing it?

No, you just consistently ignore the evidence despite the fact I have lost count of how many times I've explained it to you. Exactly as you have in this thread, you forget anything you're told five seconds after and whine that a question wasn't answered. How are you not just a tremendous waste of time? You're incapable of learning a thing.

When explaining what is contained within a model, it is necessary to presuppose it: else how are you to explain it? When trying to poke holes in an explanation, you cannot simply presuppose your model and thus presuppose that the explanation is false, you have to mount an actual argument.
When trying to compare models and how one is better than another, then presupposition should be avoided.

Do you understand the difference between those two situations? the discussion in this thread is the former kind.
Let's see how long it takes for you to completely forget this basic fact of logic yet again.

[Luke 22:35-38]

But don't you do the same with your model? Presupposing it?

No, you just consistently ignore the evidence despite the fact I have lost count of how many times I've explained it to you. Exactly as you have in this thread, you forget anything you're told five seconds after and whine that a question wasn't answered. How are you not just a tremendous waste of time? You're incapable of learning a thing.

When explaining what is contained within a model, it is necessary to presuppose it: else how are you to explain it? When trying to poke holes in an explanation, you cannot simply presuppose your model and thus presuppose that the explanation is false, you have to mount an actual argument.
When trying to compare models and how one is better than another, then presupposition should be avoided.

Do you understand the difference between those two situations? the discussion in this thread is the former kind.
Let's see how long it takes for you to completely forget this basic fact of logic yet again.

This is going off topic. Before you interjected with your model I was talking to anarchist about whether the moon was a hologram. Now you have two choices:

1. Let anarchist and I continue on whether the moon is a hologram

2. You take it upon yourself to prove or at least give evidence that the moon is a hologram.

[JRowe]

Before you interjected with your model

*Before you directly attacked my model.

You take it upon yourself to prove or at least give evidence that the moon is a hologram.

Yet another example of you utterly ignoring my posts. Anarchist, don't bother with this guy, he'll just waste your time as he's demonstrated several times in this thread already (and we're only on the second page). He's not interested in answers, he's interested in acting smart and asking questions expecting to not get an answer: and when he inevitably does, he ignores it. Just your typical RE timewaster, too arrogant to honestly consider FET.