(August 7, 2016 at 5:37 am)m0nk3y Wrote: [...]
You won't accept a new theory,

Without evidence - you don't have a theory. Any moron can make up outlandish nonsense. What is your evidence for anything you claim? 

(August 7, 2016 at 5:37 am)m0nk3y Wrote: [...]
you won't allow your virtuosity to imagine an correlating semantic.

LOL... "allowing virtuosity to imagine an correlating semantic" is not a thing. You just strung together some "smart-sounding" words in a meaningless cluster - this may work on dumb people, but if that's who you came here to look for - you'll be disappointed.

I'll try explain it three times in three sentences.

We are, in the image of, the universe.

The nature of the universe, is the same as, the nature of a human; both a totality of things.

To think, we need a universe and a heart and mind. The heart and mind work together, as well as with others; and this is because they are both a totality.

How is this falsifiable?

If it's not testable, it's not science. It's just a bunch of assertions.

(August 7, 2016 at 5:50 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(August 7, 2016 at 5:37 am)m0nk3y Wrote: [...]
You won't accept a new theory,

Without evidence - you don't have a theory. Any moron can make up outlandish nonsense. What is your evidence for anything you claim? 

(August 7, 2016 at 5:37 am)m0nk3y Wrote: [...]
you won't allow your virtuosity to imagine an correlating semantic.

LOL... "allowing virtuosity to imagine an correlating semantic" is not a thing. You just strung together some "smart-sounding" words in a meaningless cluster - this may work on dumb people, but if that's who you came here to look for - you'll be disappointed.

(August 7, 2016 at 5:54 am)m0nk3y Wrote: I'll try explain it three times in three sentences.

We are, in the image of, the universe.

The nature of the universe, is the same as, the nature of a human; both a totality of things.

To think, we need a universe and a heart and mind. The heart and mind work together, as well as with others; and this is because they are both a totality.

Rik is that you?

This is the science section after all, not the philosphy section. If you're not bringing us science, you've misjudged. If you don't know what science is, you best go learn.

(August 7, 2016 at 5:55 am)robvalue Wrote: How is this falsifiable?

If it's not testable, it's not science. It's just a bunch of assertions.

It also claims sensory is greater than words, and should, and is, used moreover word to communicate. 

With the same scientific method, but sense and not word based. There are grounds for agreement over the subject of a direct relation to the [entire] universe, and we can test it with our senses.

(August 7, 2016 at 5:54 am)m0nk3y Wrote: I'll try explain it three times in three sentences.

We are, in the image of, the universe.

The nature of the universe, is the same as, the nature of a human; both a totality of things.

To think, we need a universe and a heart and mind. The heart and mind work together, as well as with others; and this is because they are both a totality.

But...even if you had any evidence (which you don't), what's you're point? What does this prove? Why would it matter?

(August 7, 2016 at 5:54 am)m0nk3y Wrote: I'll try explain it three times in three sentences.

We are, in the image of, the universe.

No, we're not. It's an idiotic, unsubstantiated assertion.

(August 7, 2016 at 5:54 am)m0nk3y Wrote: The nature of the universe, is the same as, the nature of a human; both a totality of things.

As I already told you - anything and everything can be described as "a totality of things". It's meaningless inconsequential drivel.

(August 7, 2016 at 5:54 am)m0nk3y Wrote: To think, we need a universe and a heart and mind. The heart and mind work together, as well as with others; and this is because they are both a totality.

LOL... All this is masturbatory bullsh*t. Do you have a point at all? Or do you just intend to spew incoherent gibberish, like a teenager on his first acid trip?

Say, are you by chance a brainwashed member of a cult? Is it the one, that rhymes with "Shmare Shmrishna"?

(August 6, 2016 at 10:52 pm)Losty Wrote: GBD has always been one of us

I know. [emoji6] I meant, one of us sad folks who have read this terrible OP that we can NEVER unread, lol.