[Discussion] What if Infinity Tsukuyomi was Possible in real life?

[V h o]

Actually it not moot at all. The definition of "evidence" from the dictionary:

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Lol your nitpicking knows no bounds and you're repeating the same irrelevant stuff again. As long as they(religions) had some evidence or proof of their origins then your point is moot. You made the assumption that religion had no proof and now I tell you their proof and you want to start an argument of the credibility of the evidence while my point is on the existence.

 

[MAN OF SIN]

Lol your nitpicking knows no bounds and you're repeating the same irrelevant stuff again. As long as they(religions) had some evidence or proof of their origins then your point is moot. You made the assumption that religion had no proof and now I tell you their proof and you want to start an argument of the credibility of the evidence while my point is on the existence.

Lol Since the stories in the bible were proven to be not true, then by definition its not evidence. Why can't you understand that? I'm right, you're wrong. There was no evidence to those gods existing.

 

[V h o]

Lol Since the stories in the bible were proven to be not true, then by definition its not evidence. Why can't you understand that? I'm right, you're wrong. There was no evidence to those gods existing.

Lel you said they no evidence or proof in their religion, they believe and have proof of their religion. That's my point, you can only prove that wrong if you prove that they (religions) don't believe their own proof. You're saying that the evidence is not reliable is moot, as in it is not related to my topic such that my point was on religions having proof and believing it themselves. Rather science/others agrees or not is moot.

At this point, you are arguing for the sake of arguing while still repeating the same irrelevant garbage that was dismissed ages ago.

 

[MAN OF SIN]

Lel you said they no evidence or proof in their religion, they believe and have proof of their religion. That's my point, you can only prove that wrong if you prove that they (religions) don't believe their own proof. You're saying that the evidence is not reliable is moot, as in it is not related to my topic such that my point was on religions having proof and believing it themselves. Rather science/others agrees or not is moot.

At this point, you are arguing for the sake of arguing while still repeating the same irrelevant garbage that was dismissed ages ago.

Dude, the dictionary just took a shit on your argument. If it isn't true it isn't evidence/proof. Deal with it.

Why are still repeating the same crap?

 

[V h o]

Dude, the dictionary just took a shit on your argument. If it isn't true it isn't evidence/proof. Deal with it.

Why are still repeating the same crap?

Because you still refuse/unable to prove me wrong. They have evidence and believe in it, rather science or others agrees or not is moot. Your initial claim is that they (religions) had no proof, now you are arguing over semantics of the term "evidence" instead of proving that those religions had no form of proof or that they themselves(religions) do not believe their own proof.

Which is why you are nitpicking.

 

[MAN OF SIN]

Because you still refuse/unable to prove me wrong. They have evidence and believe in it, rather science or others agrees or not is moot. Your initial claim is that they (religions) had no proof, now you are arguing over semantics of the term "evidence" instead of proving that those religions had no form of proof or that they themselves(religions) do not believe their own proof.

Which is why you are nitpicking.

They have didn't any proof. Someone just told them that and they choose to believe it. It's that simple.

 

[V h o]

They have didn't any proof. Someone just told them that and they choose to believe it. It's that simple.

Still not disproving that is exists.

Not seeing why this so hard for you to understand. It exists, their proof/reasoning exists.

 

[MAN OF SIN]

Still not disproving that is exists.

Not seeing why this so hard for you to understand. It exists, their proof/reasoning exists.

You must be registered for see links

 

[V h o]

You must be registered for see links

Point was on rather or not it exists, and so far you're not proving that it doesn't which was your claim, while I have proven that is exists.

Secondly my claim doesn't assume anything is true or false(that their evidence is true/false), therefore the argument from ignorance doesn't categorize my point. My point is on the existence of the evidence/reasoning.

At this point, you're grasping for straws since you can't disprove the existence of their evidence/reasoning.

 

[MAN OF SIN]

Point was on rather or not it exists, and so far you're not proving that it doesn't which was your claim, while I have proven that is exists.

Secondly my claim doesn't assume anything is true or false(that their evidence is true/false), therefore the argument from ignorance doesn't categorize my point. My point is on the existence of the evidence/reasoning.

At this point, you're grasping for straws since you can't disprove the existence of their evidence/reasoning.

It doesn't exist. Someone just made a claim with nothing to back it up.

 

[V h o]

It doesn't exist. Someone just made a claim with nothing to back it up.

Which is why it exists. People follow that claim, I don't care if it's true or not but it is there. Until you disprove the existence of x religion's holy book my point is true.

 

[MAN OF SIN]

Which is why it exists. People follow that claim, I don't care if it's true or not but it is there. Until you disprove the existence of x religion's holy book my point is true.

So a mere claim with nothing to back it up is considered proof?...Since when? Courts most certainly don't.

 

[V h o]

So a mere claim with nothing to back it up is considered proof?...Since when? Courts most certainly don't.

Must I repeat myself the claim/evidence exists. I don't care if it is right, wrong, or utter BS. Point is religion(s) had/have evidence/reasoning supporting their origin.

Now if you want to argue if the evidence is true then sure. However my point is on its existence alone.

 

[MAN OF SIN]

Must I repeat myself the claim/evidence exists. I don't care if it is right, wrong, or utter BS. Point is religion(s) had/have evidence/reasoning supporting their origin.

Now if you want to argue if the evidence is true then sure. However my point is on its existence alone.

No, it's just a claim. Proof/evidence is when something backs it up. That's how it is in courts(they often say "do you have proof to your claim?"). They are separate things.

 

[V h o]

No, it's just a claim. Proof/evidence is when something backs it up. That's how it is in courts(they often say "do you have proof to your claim?"). They are separate things.

And evidence proves something right or wrong, I'm just proving existence of origin.

For example, in a court case involving a murder. I would just be proving the murder happened not who did the action.

 

[MAN OF SIN]

And evidence proves something right or wrong, I'm just proving existence of origin.

For example, in a court case involving a murder. I would just be proving the murder happened not who did the action.

Wasn't saying that there wasn't a origin for worshipping those gods. Just that there wasn't anything saying that they truly exist.

 

[Cornson]

And there a scientist whit the Personality of Madara trying to activate IT. Would you go against? Would you like?

Whit out the "Turing into Zetsu Bullshit"

it would still kill the intire human population in around a week, so I would be against it.

What goes does it that everyone is trapping (mentally) in their own "heaven" (even if time feels different there and you could have a intire lifespan of 80+ years in the dream world) when in real life every single human is dead before the day 10 on the infinity tsukuyomi...

you would have wiped out humanity...

(the perfect heaven for all 7.1 billion people is not a good enough trade the the hundreds of billion humans that would have been born in the future)

(if we managed to not wipe ourselves off the face of the earth ofcause)

 

[Darkdro]

I disagree . Living in a dream is a bad idea since your desire never came in Reality .

You will never how People you want the most will be gone forever.

Your Freedom will be restricted to your dreams you cannot live with it others and share with them.

It will be just big illusion tasting success in reality is way more different than dreaming it you will know the pain and Endurance from this.

This basically makes us Humans we simply don't accept reality as facts and go for fictional and Myth to hide our fear that is Death . People don't accept this word because dying is also part of our life cycle and fear it .

Agree. But those who don't have freedom, or are in great despair, would beg for it to happen. Also "People" don't accept the world for
Because of there own awful experience.
+rep

it would still kill the intire human population in around a week, so I would be against it.

What goes does it that everyone is trapping (mentally) in their own "heaven" (even if time feels different there and you could have a intire lifespan of 80+ years in the dream world) when in real life every single human is dead before the day 10 on the infinity tsukuyomi...

you would have wiped out humanity...

(the perfect heaven for all 7.1 billion people is not a good enough trade the the hundreds of billion humans that would have been born in the future)

(if we managed to not wipe ourselves off the face of the earth ofcause)

Am confuse on how humans will die in 10 days? Because of IT?

 

[shelke]

It would solve the general dichotomous angle on ideologies, eradicating inequality, race religion ... most people should be subjected to it.