Anaiya Arnold

Knutz Scorpio wrote: Kinda hard to give advice for something that has happened to a friend of a friend in the past, but if it happened to me I'd try to AR them all for using a TPV not on the LL approved viewer list. Not that AR's ever worked for me, and my avatar is made up of freebies, but it would bother me to be around others that so lacked in creativity and effort to make their own unique look. I don't think there is any rule against using a TPV not on the TPV directory so the AR needs to be worded to make it clear that the TPV concerned violates the TPV policy (rather than merely is not in the TPV directory) if this route is taken. The best response I can suggest to this kind of situation is to take pics, use the inspect on any copied prims to show the creator name and get a pic of this (make sure that "show UI" is selected in your pic options so that the inspect thing with the creator name is in the pic), and then using your own prim made by the real creator, get the name of the real creator (of the original content that you legitimately bought) and get all this information to them. The creator can lodge a DMCA take down thingie with LL, and if you give them the pics with the outright evidence of their content with someone else listed as creator, along with the name/s of any avatars and pics of them wearing the copied items, then the creator may be able to use this to lodge a DMCA notification to get the content removed by LL. That's about the limit of what you can do so far as I know.

That's interesting. I never really pay attention to where other avatar's heads are moving, but now you've said it like that, I've seen my own avatar's head move about when I move the mouse. I'm going to be a bit more observant about other avatars heads now. You've aroused my curiosity.

It can be problematic when different languages are involved. In real life it would probably be obvious from your body language that you did not understand what you had been told. I think that this landowner has had problems with people arguing about the dress code before and this could get tiresome and make them more hasty and inclined to think someone is setting out to muck them, even when it's a perfectly innocent case of misunderstanding. You could try to explain this to the landowner and be clear that you accept you shoud have read the notecards more quickly but because you were caught up in your friend being about to have her birthday you did not read the notecards immediately. They might rescind the ban if you are very clear that you accept that they have every right to set a dress code and never intended to cause annoyance. Sometimes these things happen and it's possible the landowner would feel differently about things if you explained them. Remember that in SL a lot of communicative information is absent and it can be very easy to get the wrong idea about why someone is not responding immediately to a note card reminder about the rules. I do know that at least some people have 'tried it on" with the Titantic and argued back about the dress code so this might explain why the landowner would get the wrong idea when someone appears to be ignoring their notecard reminder about the rules. It's the landowner's perogative to decide who may be present, and if ultimately you cannot work this out, you can go off and sulk over it but this will make no difference to the landowner, or you can carry on enjoying all the other places in SL that you are not banned from, and again this will make no difference to the landowner, but it might make a difference to you.

Before the marketplace was the marketplace it was called XStreet and was not owned or run by LL. LL bought XStreet and reworked it into marketplace supposedly to improve it. Many were disappointed to see the wishlist taken away by LL when took over and changed XStreet to marketplace. Often people mistake LL's features for bugs; this is the reverse. We all thought the wishlist was a feature, but LL has deemed it a bug and fixed it for us. Thanks LL.

I represent scenario two. I have very low sales of mostly low value items. I paid for my first year of subscription am in my second, have enough to pay when I come up for newel, have cashed out once already and will cash out again soon. I'm not putting money in and am cashing out and I have low sales volumes of mostly low value items. If LL is counting on scenario 2, I'm not convinved that's overly smart of them. Accounts like mine are a nice little bonus, but no replacement for sim holders.

Oh wow. This raises a couple of questions. Which landowners? Which merchants? I'm both and they never asked me. I agree that this feels like Linden talk for "the stats do not look good but if we say that's why we won't release them, then we might as well release them".

Phil Deakins wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: Creator means intelligent creator to you but merely creator to me. This naturally means that if you say creator you absolutely definately do not mean intelligent creator, but when I say creator it can only mean intelligent creator, and this is true no matter if I state clearly and plainly that I do not assign intelligence as a necessary characteristic of "creator". Also, if you say "the answer to your question is that an intelligent designer created it" this absolutely does not mean "the answer to your quesiton is that an intelligent designer created it" and I am misinterpreting, grabbing the wrong end of the stick and just being argumentative if I do not know that. It's absolutely not the case that you miscommunicated whatever you meant when you plainly and unambiguously stated "the answer to your question is that an intelligent designer created it", but at worst may have been less than clear in a way that would make my misunderstanding somewhat understandable. Aha.....tell us another cool story Phil. The only cool story I have is one that I've told you a number of times. I don't have the assumption that you insist I do have. There aren't many people who would argue against that - because there aren't many people who are so clever that they believe they know better than me what I actually think and assume. But you're different, of course Specify this assumption you claim I think you have in this cool story of your's Phil.

Phil Deakins wrote: The start of that was different to the start of this side issue, because the english only had one meaning, which they chose to ignore. In the case of this side issue here, my first post was worded in a way that caused something to be understood that isn't true. But it reminded me of the old RA thread because, it doesn't matter how many times I write that I don't hold a particular assumption, it isn't believed, because someone thinks they know better than me about what I think and assume - based on a poorly worded post. It really is a very stupid thing to keep on about. Tell us another cool story Phil, Since you'd very obviously like (or perhaps desperately need) to have the last words though.....here's some of your's you prepared earlier. "I'd already told her that the way she is using the word "creator" means an intelligent one, such as God, and she keeps on saying that I assume that to be the case. I don't. She really is just being argumentative for the sake of it - and getting nowhere."

Creator means intelligent creator to you but merely creator to me. This naturally means that if you say creator you absolutely definately do not mean intelligent creator, but when I say creator it can only mean intelligent creator, and this is true no matter if I state clearly and plainly that I do not assign intelligence as a necessary characteristic of "creator". Also, if you say "the answer to your question is that an intelligent designer created it" this absolutely does not mean "the answer to your quesiton is that an intelligent designer created it" and I am misinterpreting, grabbing the wrong end of the stick and just being argumentative if I do not know that. It's absolutely not the case that you miscommunicated whatever you meant when you plainly and unambiguously stated "the answer to your question is that an intelligent designer created it", but at worst may have been less than clear in a way that would make my misunderstanding somewhat understandable. Aha.....tell us another cool story Phil.

I have an item that persistently shows up on the first page of my top seller sort order. Over a hundred items have sold more recently. Over a hundred items have sold as much or more, over any time period one chooses to assign, both by volume and by linden value. Several items have higher ratings, and over a hundred have ratings no lower. I can be very certain of these facts because I have over a hundred items that have sold at least once but the item concerned, that has shown up persistently on the first page when I sort by best seller, and often on the first 1-2 pages of relevence for months and months, has never, ever sold a single time. Not one sale, not once. It's there on the first page of my top seller sort order right now. In fact it's gone up in order. It used to be mostly toward the middle or bottom of the page but it's on the first line now.

You are joking? Someone wants less than 8 whole entire US dollars to do custom computer coding for you? You can't be serious?! Why when I was a youngling, we'd have treked three days through snow without food and only melted yellow snow for water, just to get our hands on barely over 7 US dollars. What is wrong with the youth of today and why are they always on my lawn?

Phil Deakins wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: Stop trying to bully me out of this discussion. I have as much right to participate as you. [...] Stop trying to bully me into silence. I've as much right to participate as anyone else. Which part of "So don't you think it would be better if you joined in the actual discussion instead of going off at people?" don't you understand? You quoted me saying that. It's an encouragement to join in with the thread's discussion and stop going off at people. It's a pity you chose to ignore it. Nobody is trying to bully you out of the thread's discussion, and you have every right to join in with it. In fact you have every right to continue posting as you're doing, but it's silly. So, as I also said in the post you quoted, please join in with the discussion if you have anything to say and stop the silliness. Do you really think these antics are more face saving than just accepting you made a boo-boo and moving on from that?

PudgyPaddy wrote: Peoples emotions have nothing to add to the decision. Of course peoples' emotions are completely irrelevant to any business. Especially customer's emotions, and most especially the emotional response customers have to a provider or its products. I mean if customer emotions mattered, big companies would use and substantially rely on well recognized brands, which they would spend squillions of dollars advertising and marketing in an attempt to get potential customers to form an emotionally charged identification with their product or product range, through their brand. Whole multi million dollar campaigns might be made or dropped on the basis of peoples' emotional responses to say Micheal Jackson or some Madonna music video, even if the product is a soft drink which has squat all to do with either of these people. World famous, international fast food chains could be built on slick marketing consisting of little more than some slightly creepy cartoon characters, playgrounds in every restaurant, golden arches, and a craptastic plastic toy in every smiley happy funtime meal,with the toy itself also being heavily branded, often even movie merchandizing. And of course such movie merchandizing, based on the premise that peoples' emotional connection to some media would spur them to buy inane and pointless crap would actually exist, to the point where the most crappy thing no one in the world wants would become an instant hot seller simply by sticking the face of a fictional boy-wizard on it. It's not as though the emotions of customers are like a mega super squillion dollar world wide industry or anything....

That's one cute little chick.:matte-motes-grin:

I think 'aside" means a branching tangent. It's right next to the core of the issue discussed, in its immediate vicinty so to speak, but not actually at the core. To the side of the core of the discussion or subject in other words. Or at least that's what it suggests to me. It's a discussion point or tangent at the side of the thing being discussed, so strongly related but not necessarily directly pertinent. As for your aside, there is a "popular wisdom" that 90% of all communication is non-verbal. I'm not sure where it comes from (it pops up often) or if it's entirely accurate (that seems a possible over estimation to me) but the core point that non-verbal aspects are really important to communication is certainly true, and it's possible that that rather than one or other, both his ability to communicate clearly and your interpretive ability were influenced by the eye-contact obstruction. I do know that our brains are usually capable of "filling in blanks" and "translating errors" so that if you listen to an audio recording in which some sounds have been removed or "swapped out" apparently most people will still accurately interpret it (as compared to computers which I understand are difficult to 'teach" speech interpretation to precisely because of these imperfections that our brains handle relatively easily). It's entirely possible since this talent for "fixing" what we are hearing to make sense of it, on-the-fly, evolved predominately in a context of face to face interactions, and that because in our culture this is the predominate means of communication for most of us, that your brain's ability to fill the gaps in or make sense from slightly garbled speech is enhanced by having usual face to face interaction, including clear eye contact. Perhaps the eye contact "primes" your brain (or our brains) to trigger enhanced interpretive skills kind like a pavlovian response. Equally how clearly we speak might also be influenced at a brain level by clear eye contact. When my step son looks at me when he speaks, he tends to speak more clearly, and I've noticed this quite a bit with children.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: It sounded like ba ba ba to me, although I was completely off on what I thought the woman in the video was saying. I think I might have been influenced by reading your post because I thought she looked like she was saying la la, but apparently it was ga ga (while the actual audio was ba ba, which I possibly got right only because after reading your post I expected to hear ba ba). What is important is that you hear something a difference between when you see the speaker's lips and you don't. I clearly heard "ba ba" with my eyes closes and something more akin to "tha tha" when watching her lips. I do recall when young, noticing that I could "hear" the words of the church hymns more clearly if I was reading them in the hymn book. I didn't pay enough attention at the time, or I might have realized I really was hearing the words differently. Yeah, I heard ba ba with my eyes open and closed, but I suspect this was because I already expected to hear ba ba. I'm not sure if the volume being turned off when I first went to the page might have influenced what I heard as well because I saw the lips moving with no sound initially, so this might produce a different effect than if I had first perceived the sound and video simultaneously. I do think that when I read along my internal mind adds to what I am hearing and influences how I perceive what I hear. When I read I generally tend to have a "narration" voice in my mind that is definately not my voice*, and I think this probably influences my perception of what I am hearing if I read along to someone talking. When I was a child I used to have few of those records that came with books that you read along with (you'd play the record and turn the page at a certain sound so you could read along) and it was always a slightly different experience to read along while the record played, rather than to just listen. ETA *well it is "my" voice in that it comes from my mind, but it's definately not what my voice sounds like when I speak.

It sounded like ba ba ba to me, although I was completely off on what I thought the woman in the video was saying. I think I might have been influenced by reading your post because I thought she looked like she was saying la la, but apparently it was ga ga (while the actual audio was ba ba, which I possibly got right only because after reading your post I expected to hear ba ba).

Phil Deakins wrote: Anaiya. Please stop ranting at me. You are the one who keeps saying that I "assume a creator", and now you've added that I use the title of the thread in two opposite ways. They are both wrong and it's just ranting. I noticed that you started on someone else now too. I haven't been rude to you, unless you consider me not replying to the bulk of your posts as rude. I'm sorry that you've been getting it wrong, but I can't help that. I've done my best to tell you how you've been getting it wrong, and I can do no more. So don't you think it would be better if you joined in the actual discussion instead of going off at people? The bit of my first post that you quoted is what I would call clutching at straws. In the first sentence, I stated "something", followed by "your intelligent creator" - that was written to Porky, who suggested an intelligent creator. The second sentence was merely winding up the first. The whole thing together did not indicate that I "assume a creator". Whether I do or not hasn't been indicated in this thread. It may get indicated later, but it hasn't been indicated yet. So please take a step back, forget about putting assumptions and words into my mouth, and simply add to the discussion if you have anything to say. All this "you said" and "you assume" stuff has nothing to do with the discussion, and it's distracting for everyone who is actually taking part in the discussion. You don't have to keep insisting that what you understood about what I wrote must be true because it's what you'd understood. Just forget it. ETA: I can understand how you first arrived at what you think is my assumption, but when I tell you it isn't, the thing to do is simply forget what you thought and carry on from there. Keeping on insisting that I have an assumption when I keep saying I haven't is a bit silly, don't you think? You said that only you know what you think. Don't you think that only I know what assumptions I have? Stop trying to bully me out of this discussion. I have as much right to participate as you. You have been very rude. You have repeatedly accused me of being argumentative for the sake of it which is unfair, unrealistic and very rude and disrespectful. If you are frustated that is not my fault and is no reflection on me, so you should just stop making nasty and unfair accusations at me. You even took the time to tell someone else that you had already told me what I mean when I type the word creator. So according to you, you know what you mean, and what I mean, but I don't even know what I mean myself. That's polite and respectful in your world is it? Now you're even accusing me of ranting because apparently you post replies, but if I do exactly the same, that's ranting. and "going off" at people. You fill your posts with accusations that I am just being argumentative, insist that you know better than me what I meant, lie about what you posted earlier so you can persistently accuse me of interjecting a creator (and tell me what I mean by that), and in your view, that's my problem not your's? That's not just rude and disrespectful, it's decidedly odd. First you claimed to me that you never posited a creator. Then you claimed you meant something else by a creator, but that I did not (no matter what I say I meant), then you told maddy that even if you did posit a creator, you made it clear at every point that this was not necessarily an intelligent someone but could be a something or event. Now you are trying to pretend that your absolute statement that the answer to porky's question, an answer to the effect that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, does not posit an intelligent creator. At this point it looks to me like there is nothing too outrageous or absurd that you would not argue it just to avoid admitting you made a boo-boo and taking responsibility for that. Or in other words it looks like when you accuse me of just being argumentative, you are indulging in the nasty and dishonest tactic of accusing "the other person" of what you know you're up to. That last sentence that you are trying to explain away with a tissue thin and frankly absurd "explanation" does not say "so you porky think there is a creator", or anything that fits into your current explanation/excuse. It states emphatically that "in answer to your question" (or in other words your answer to porky's question), and then goes on to assert an intelligent creator did it. I have no idea why you think you can twist your way out of that one. As for your ETA, if you had done that at the outset, this branch of discussion would probably have ended. It is you who told me what I mean despite my counter-claim, and then even went on later and told Charlotte that you'd already me what I meant by the word creator. Note you did not tell Charlotte what I mean, but that you'd already told me what I meant. So here we have yet another example of you accusing me of doing what you are up to. Stop trying to bully me into silence. I've as much right to participate as anyone else.

Phil Deakins wrote: I believe I'm right in saying that, when I've mentioned creation in my posts, I've always made it clear that the creator was a someone or something - even merely an event - and never just a someone. Anaiya keeps on using the word "creator" as though it's a someone, and that I assume to be a someone, which I haven't done in these posts. She writes very lenthy posts, mostly about how I assume a creator - a someone - and she simply ignores it every time I tell her that I haven't assumed that. I call that being argumentative for the sake of it. I believe you are not right about that. Here's a quote of your's I prepared earlier: "The only conclusion that can be drawn is that something created existance (space, matter and time) - your intelligent designer. So, to answer your question, an intelligent designer created the universe."

Phil Deakins wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Hey, I don't think she is arguing with you, just pointing out how what you said does imply you are saying creator. Take number 1 from your reply above, " I said that the universe had to be created by someone or something. I did not [say] the universe had to have a "creator". I don't know why you keep on about it." So if the universe had to be created by someone or something, wouldn't that mean that that something or someone would be referred to as a creator? I'd already told her that the way she is using the word "creator" means an intelligent one, such as God, and she keeps on saying that I assume that to be the case. I don't. She really is just being argumentative for the sake of it - and getting nowhere. Who are you to tell me what I am thinking? It is me not you who knows what I am thinking. I find your conduct outrageous.

Phil Deakins wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: Now you are claiming you are not assuming or suggesting a creator. The following is a quote from your earlier post. Note the word in bold. The conclusion must be that something created it, and before that happened, no space, time and matter existed. Then, of course, we ask, how come that creator existed? You posited not merely "something" existing, but specifically described it as a creator. Sorry. There was a snippet in your lengthy post that merited a response. The bit of mine that you quoted doesn't suggest that I "assume a creator". It asks a question AND the word "creator" that I used (that you bolded) specifically refers to the "something" that I mentioned in the previous sentence. So, although the word "creator" is usually used to mean an intelligent creator, such as God, in the case you quoted, it specifically, and obviously, means a "something" - non-intelligent. As I said earlier, you are just arguing for the sake of it, and not even trying to discuss or debate the actual topic. So from now, I will ignore your posts, as they are wholly argumentative and contain nothing in the way of genuine discussion on the topic. Ok? The question assumes a creator, just as the question "when did you stop beating your wife" assumes beating of a wife has occured. Why is it that when you use the word creator it does not mean creator but it does when I do? But if that's not enough evidence for you, see the latest quote I dug out. Allow me to reiterate it for your benefit: "So, to answer your question, an intelligent designer created the universe." So your creator is also intelligent and designs. It's good you started your post with the word sorry. I think you certainly owe me an apology after your rude and disrespectful behaviour. Who are you to completely contradict yourself then accuse me of just being argumentative? What a nerve. And now you are doing it again. Frankly, I think you are just too immature to have this kind of discussion civilly.

Phil Deakins wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: You are assuming nothing comes from nothing because that is your observation within this universe. But it is baseless to assume that if nothing comes from nothing within the limitations of this universe, that this same thing must be true externally to our universe. That nothing comes from nothing may have only become a fact at time T where time T is the exact moment the universe became extant. And further it may be the case that nothing comes from nothing applies nowhere but within our universe.but where is the evidence for that? That's correct - because this thread is about the universe - read the title. It is " How did the universe come into existence?" See it now? It doesn't say "How did the universes come into existance?", does it? How many times do I have to point that out before you finally catch on? So, at the risk of getting too boring, I'll say it again - nothing comes from nothing, without it being created by a someone or something. We can't talk about what is external to this universe, except in pure fantasy or mathematical terms, so it's pointless even mentioning it (and the mathematics way is pure imagination). In all probility there is no "external" to the universe other than nothingness/Null. One more thing. How many times do I have to say that I have not assumed a creator in any of my posts before you understand what it means and stop writing that I have that assumption? To put it another way, how long do you intend barking up the wrong tree? Or do you think that, if you repeat something enough times, it will magically become true? There is no magic, I'm afraid lol The rest of your lengthy post is meaningless, so I'll leave it there. Yes the thread is about how the universe came to be, not about the limitations that exist within it. I cannot turn the tempature on a baked cake up to 180 degrees celius by turning a knob on the cake, but not discussing such a temperature adjustment makes it very difficult to describe how to bake the cake, or how a cake came to be. You're not even making sense. According to you the title is both how did the universe come into existence and not how did the universe come into existence. I don't know how many times you have to point out that the thread of the title is both how did the universe come into existence and not how did the universe come into existence. I don't think I'll believe that no matter how many times you repeat such nonsense. The title of the thread is in fact how did the universe come into existence and nothing whatsoever evidences that it necessarily came into existence through processes that are possible within it. Your comment about me catching on is just more rudeness and disrespect on your part. Why do you feel a need to do that? If we cannot talk or speculate about what might have existed before the universe or external to it then we simply cannot discuss the answer to this question, anymore than we describe how a cake came into being without describing processes that are outside the limitations of the baked cake. It does not matter how many times you now claim you have not assumed a creator because the post history is all still there. Since I've gotten bored of your other quote in which I bolded the word creator for you and since the fact that you did in fact cite a creator is not enough evidence for you that you did in fact cite a creator, perhaps the following quote where you describe this creator of yours as intelligent will put an end to these utterly false and dishonest denials on your part: "The only conclusion that can be drawn is that something created existance (space, matter and time) - your intelligent designer. So, to answer your question, an intelligent designer created the universe." So, there is it, right from the horses (your) mouth (or post). You not only cited a creator but you specifically described it as intelligent. First post, page 6, your words. Nothing you can say can convince me that you did not posit a creator and in fact now I've investigated further, a creator with intelligence. No matter how many times you say it. I can read after all.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote: Its amazing how much -FAITH- it takes to hold up an atheist pov. A new born baby is an atheist. No. A newborn is at best agnostic - find me one newborn that will speak out as it pops out and state that there is no divine. They have, at best, no opinoin; making them agnostic. An atheist declares a stance - opposition to the divine. More likely, if the newborn could elaborate, it would see the divine in its mother or itself or the bond therein - given how behavoir shapes up at that age. But it would certainly not have the elaborate position of denying any divine concept and insiting there is no life, only chemical reactions. No. Agnostics have beliefs about unknowability. For instance that there is a diety or greater force but that it is unknowable. Or that whether or not there is a greater being is unknowable and that if there is one its nature would be unknowable. Those are theistic beliefs. From a strictly linguistic point of view, prefacing a word with "a" signifies absence (not to be confused for prefacing a word with "anti"), so a strict atheist has no theistic beliefs. Few adults qualify as most at least will have heard of one theistic belief they disbelieve so it might make pragmatic sense to include those adults that do not have a postive theistic belief, and hold some theistic disbeliefs. People who are certain there is no god or deity would probably be better described as antitheistic. Agnosticism as a word arose as a describer of a very religious school of thought with very definate beliefs about the existence of a greater being or force that has the specific trait of being unknowable to humans. They had religious rites and practices, so it's really not an apt word for describing people who do not believe in deities or gods and do not practice religious rites. Evidently you seem to misunderstand the word religion which does not refer to any old belief generally, otherwise we'd call your belief that your mother is your mother, a religion. It's also not just for beliefs we don't have proof of but which pertain to the supernatural, otherwise we'd have to call a young child's belief in the tooth fairy a religion and that's just silly. It takes more than a single belief to call something a religion. Believing Santa is real is not a religion, believing that the Greek pantheon of gods is not real, is not a religion. Why you'd want such trivial things as a single belief that something or other does not exist to be a religion I don't know. Do you undervalue religion so strongly?

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Its amazing how much -FAITH- it takes to hold up an atheist pov. A new born baby is an atheist.

Phil Deakins wrote: Anaiya. 1. I said that the universe had to be created by someone or something. I did not the universe had to have a "creator". I don't know why you keep on about it. 2. When I used the word "we", it meant mean all of us - we who have life. 3. I expected people to understand that "someone or something" does not mean a "creator" in the way that "creator" generally means. At one point, I even included an 'event' as being the means of creation. It's you who have got it all mixed up. It actually sounds like you're just being argumentative just for the sake of it. I'm sorry, but the rest of your post just seems garbled because you're going all over the place. But I'll quote the last bit and reply to that:- "Now you want to claim is that all you are saying is that the universe cannot have existed forever, which is in fact entirely different to saying "there must have been a creator";. So all you are doing is completely changing your argument." Anaiya. I did not say that there must have been a creator. Please go back and read my posts again because your memory of them is garbled. Since the universe hasn't existed forever, it must have been created - come into existance. That's what I've said all along, and that doesn't imply a "creator". You changing what I said doesn't mean that I said it. Everything is still there in the thread so you can see for yourself if you're so inclined. Actually you specifically used the word creator, so that's a non starter there. But even without that fact, creation is a process that entails a creator. It is a particular form of coming into being whereby a creator is a necessary component of the process. If X came into being by being created, then X has a creator. When you used the word we you made a statement that was factually wrong then. Speak for yourself rather than everyone else to avoid a repeating that kind of error. You seem to not understand that no matter if you call the creator someone or something, so long as you posit creation as the means of coming into being, you are necessarily positing a creator. This would be the case even if you had not specifially called the creator "creator" as in fact you did. See that bolded word there? The conclusion must be that something created it, and before that happened, no space, time and matter existed. Then, of course, we ask, how come that creator existed? To suggest I am just being argumentative for the sake of it is being grossly disrespectful. Your frustration at your inability to present your arguments as you intended to present them (which must be the case if you specifically stated "creator" but think you did not specifically state such a thing and now wish to claim your argument never even suggested a "creator") is no excuse for accusing me, nor reason for believing, that I am being argumentative for the sake of it. What a nasty, rude, arrogant and disrespectful thing to even think in the circumstances, much less have the nerve to actually type into your post. I am astounded at your lack of civility in making such a baseless accusation. If you cannot keep up, it does not follow from that that my post is garbled. Phil let me repost again for you a snippet from your earlier post. Once again, pay careful attention to the bolded word. The conclusion must be that something created it, and before that happened, no space, time and matter existed. Then, of course, we ask, how come that creator existed? See that word that is bolded? It's the word "creator" isn't it? And again, you cannot posit that creation occured, that something was created, without necessarily also positing a creator. If X was created, then X has a creator. If X did not have a creator, either X does not exist of X came into being via a process other than being created. Being created is to come into being via a process that entails a creator. Now you seem to think that being created and coming into being are synonomous. They are not. Being created is always a process of coming into being, certainly, but it's specifically those processes of coming into being that entail a creator. And even if this was not the case, in this instance, you specified a creator. Need I yet again repost your quote and bold the relevant word? Indeed everything is still there in the thread; that's where I got your quote where you specify a creator from...