In my belief system, all facts are factual, and thats a fact. I arrive at these facts, and because facts are always true, my belief system is always the truth. Unproven facts that I believe are still facts because I believe them with my infalliable belief system, and that proves them.

Today's fact: Hotter wetter water is better water than cooler harder water for making tea. See, it's true...

You can't use your infallible belief system to show that your infallible belief system is infallible, because that would be circular and illogical.

So, what makes your infallible belief system infallible, exactly?

Wrong. Here are the rules:


Any of your facts that are in direct conflict with my facts are lies
Any of your facts that are not in direct conflict with my facts are possible lies
Any of your facts that happen to be in agreement with my facts are true by association only


Since I prefer ice tea to hot tea, your statement about tea is a lie!

Wrong. Here are the rules:


Any of your facts that are in direct conflict with my facts are lies
Any of your facts that are not in direct with conflict with my facts are possible lies
Any of your facts that happen to be in agreement with my facts are true by association only


Since I prefer ice tea to hot tea, your statement about tea is a lie!

Well let it go cold then!

You can't use your infallible belief system to show that your infallible belief system is infallible, because that would be circular and illogical.

So, what makes your infallible belief system infallible, exactly?

Well I only use factual facts, the and belief exractor incorperates them into the system.

As an oracle of the ages, facts I speak of may not have yet come to pass, so although perhaps not fact at this moment in time, it will be sometime given 1 probability in infinity, in an infinate number of universes, and itme. So will occur eventually!

In my belief system, all facts are factual, and thats a fact. I arrive at these facts, and because facts are always true, my belief system is always the truth. Unproven facts that I believe are still facts because I believe them with my infalliable belief system, and that proves them.

Today's fact: Hotter wetter water is better water than cooler harder water for making tea. See, it's true...
and this explains why you are an atheist I take it

Today's fact : God doesn't exist and anyone who says otherwise is making it up simply on account of them having said he exists.

Snazzy, eh?

or here's a better one:

Today's fact: All knowable things can be materially reduced, even those things we don't know yet. The evidence for this is that if there was anything that cannot be materially reduced, empiricism would have revealed it by now.

Or another :

Today's fact - Religion is the major catalyst for conflict in the world. The reason for this is because I can find numerous news articles about islamic human bombs

Or another popular one : Science stands as distinct from philosophy because it can deliver the facts directly

God exists= +1
God not existing = -1

No God not existing = (-1) - (-1) = +1

+1 = God existing

God exists= +1
God not existing = -1

No God not existing = (-1) - (-1) = +1

+1 = God existing

Brilliant

Today's fact : The language of mathematics is so pure that we can use it to contextualize spoken language (never mind literacy comes with its own context dependent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negatives) issues of rhetoric)

-1 and +1 are wrong, for the sides are not equiprobable. A common error of agnosticism.

Belief cults, religions, and churches: organized irrationality.

Belief: invisibility disorder.

Which I guess leads us to ...

Today's fact : Persons who believe in god are insane. This is established because there are examples of clinically insane persons who claim to believe in god.

My message in this thread is that with enough Pseudo-psycho-technodrivel, you can say just about anything. None of my ideas or cliams were real - they just show how easily people make horseshit look like an arguement.

Which I guess leads us to ...

Today's fact : Persons who believe in god are insane. This is established because there are examples of clinically insane persons who claim to believe in god.

Not true, as you well know; they are often perfectly normal people but with some thinking errors, easily going for the idea of being looked after on Earth and having a reward in the afterlife, plus they heard it a lot and grooved on it.


True: God is insane as portrayed. But they don't care about this, for He makka da rules.

My message in this thread is that with enough Pseudo-psycho-technodrivel, you can say just about anything.

None of my ideas or cliams were real - they just show how easily people make horseshit look like an arguement.

If it was your intention to apply principles that can't be applied to atheism, you failed ... since it has plenty of horse shit looking arguments

Not true, as you well know; they are often perfectly normal people but with some thinking errors, easily going for the idea of being looked after on Earth and having a reward in the afterlife, plus they heard it a lot and grooved on it.
Today's fact : People take to the worship of god have thinking problems because they are attracted to the notion of having a powerful benefactor. This is unlike persons attracted to atheistic science, since it has a clearly dismal track record for benefiting life on the planet



True: God is insane as portrayed. But they don't care about this, for He makka da rules.
Today's fact : God is insane because we don't make the rules

This is getting better by the post ...
:o

-1 and +1 are wrong, for the sides are not equiprobable. A common error of agnosticism.

Belief cults, religions, and churches: organized irrationality.

Belief: invisibility disorder.
There is more to the -1 and the +1 than meets the eye. The rule of 8 in the prime number line . Yeah buddies , you would not think God would not have his own escape root would yeah. Yeah you take pairings of the 6n line starting with -1 and +1 and multiply the pairings and you will always get an 8 by reduction math. Try it you will be amazed. The funny thing is the layering of the reduced 8s are congruent . Webs of deceit is what I call them . Yeah and the rest just fall through the cracks

Today's fact : People take to the worship of god have thinking problems because they are attracted to the notion of having a powerful benefactor. This is unlike persons attracted to atheistic science, since it has a clearly dismal track record for benefiting life on the planet

Yes, unlike, for not only has science contributed to just about every aspect of our lives, but it has erased all the footholds formerly attributed to 'God', causing that notion to shrink away to nothing and then vanish altogether, but for those with thinking problems and/or greed, for belief has no assistant or fact at all, as does atheism have science for its grounding.

Can't build a pyramid upside down, starting at the top in thin air and then trying to add layers and layers of fabricated structure in an attempt to shore it up.

Yes, unlike, for not only has science contributed to just about every aspect of our lives, but it has erased all the footholds formerly attributed to 'God', causing that notion to shrink away to nothing and then vanish altogether, but for those with thinking problems and/or greed, for belief has no assistant or fact at all, as does atheism have science for its grounding.

Can't build a pyramid upside down, starting at the top in thin air and then trying to add layers and layers of fabricated structure in an attempt to shore it up.

what you talking about . sure you can . Build it in space or use a sky hook. You know what a sky hook is don't you. All builder have one . We keep then in the tool bin with the toe nails. You know what Toe Nails are don't ya ? Go ask a carpenter they will tell you. All carpenters have toe nails and sky hooks . How do you think we build anyway? Toe Nails and sky hooks

It is called bracing and fabricating is a good way to go. Prefab the layers is way faster than just stick framing it from scratch . Bring the sky hook with you when we get started

We would first hook the All-Seeing-Eye and put it at the top of the pyramid, leaving it without any grounded support.

We would first hook the All-Seeing-Eye and put it at the top of the pyramid, leaving it without any grounded support.

I know you guys are like that. Here I support you and all you want to do is throw me to the lions . Spidy is being elected anyway so I can retire soon .

Yes, unlike, for not only has science contributed to just about every aspect of our lives, but it has erased all the footholds formerly attributed to 'God', causing that notion to shrink away to nothing and then vanish altogether, but for those with thinking problems and/or greed, for belief has no assistant or fact at all, as does atheism have science for its grounding.
So you've changed your mind and now advocate that atheists also have thinking problems since they too are attracted to coming under the umbrella of a benefactor?


Can't build a pyramid upside down, starting at the top in thin air and then trying to add layers and layers of fabricated structure in an attempt to shore it up.
foiled again!!

http://larryfire.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/screen-shot-2010-09-11-at-10-53-26-pm.png

We would first hook the All-Seeing-Eye and put it at the top of the pyramid, leaving it without any grounded support.
Today's fact - Despite being omnipotent, god is incapable of building an upside pyramid in the air. For more details see attached diagram

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/76249/76249,1191188204,1/stock-photo-a-red-yellow-and-blue-triangular-hot-air-balloon-launching-at-sunrise-5767888.jpg

You can't use your infallible belief system to show that your infallible belief system is infallible, because that would be circular and illogical.
Philosophy time...

Why does circular imply illogical, and why does illogical imply "can't do that"?

Philosophy time...

Why does circular imply illogical, and why does illogical imply "can't do that"?

I don't think a paradox can be used to independently prove itself, though I could be wrong on that. But I think James is saying it would need independent verification.

A belief system may be circular without being paradoxical, and true (or at least useful) without being provable.

So you've changed your mind and now advocate that atheists also have thinking problems since they too are attracted to coming under the umbrella of a benefactor?

No, just what it says. Science benefits all, and it is not a being, anyway. I see that science works, and that it explains where now even angles fear to tread.

And a new science process is coming out that will cure the degradation of the DNA shoe-string ends that occur when it splits during cell division, so there is my afterlife, as long as I still remember to look both ways when crossing the street.



foiled again!!

No good, for it was built from the ground up, or it was before they turned it upside down.


A pyramid, even for floating an idea, with its result at the top of the heap, must have a basis, or bases beneath.

Today's fact - Despite being omnipotent, god is incapable of building an upside pyramid in the air. For more details see attached diagram

God is incapable of existing, so there's no O-O-O, just X-X-X on the TOE.

Problems with the verification theory of Atheism. (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2707547&postcount=1)

I'm so glad philosophy can give us the information to make informed decisions.

Idea of the day:

The 4 Forces pyramid…

The electric and the magnetic forces transition each into the other, as a self-renewing electromagnetic wave that can go on at light speed toward ‘forever’. These points are like as east and west blending into each other on the globe. The opposing forces of weak and strong are of changeability vs. stability—they are as different as north and south. Gravity arises from the blend of all the forces together. The strong and weak opposition perhaps shows the separation of the forces once thought to be able to be unified.

No, just what it says. Science benefits all, and it is not a being, anyway. I see that science works, and that it explains where now even angles fear to tread.
So seeking benefit (regardless who where or what its from) is a sign of cripple mindedness?
yes or no?




And a new science process is coming out that will cure the degradation of the DNA shoe-string ends that occur when it splits during cell division, so there is my afterlife, as long as I still remember to look both ways when crossing the street.
:rolleyes:
if you want to marry post dated cheques with empiricism, save it for the pseudo science forum, k?





No good, for it was built from the ground up, or it was before they turned it upside down.


A pyramid, even for floating an idea, with its result at the top of the heap, must have a basis, or bases beneath.

Do you still want to continue with this or do you want to admit that you haven't thought very carefully about it?

http://static-p4.fotolia.com/jpg/00/14/59/53/400_F_14595394_tyOlN7C7NaoubmH0ZPgq7zacKyFV0OXj.jp g

God is incapable of existing, so there's no O-O-O, just X-X-X on the TOE.
Today's thought : Even though there is absolutely no scientific consensus on what the TOE entails (or even if it exists, for that matter), I can still call upon my infallible belief system to not permit god any part of it.

Do you still want to continue with this or do you want to admit that you haven't thought very carefully about it?

http://static-p4.fotolia.com/jpg/00/14/59/53/400_F_14595394_tyOlN7C7NaoubmH0ZPgq7zacKyFV0OXj.jp g
Right. :rolleyes:

Right. :rolleyes:
oh c'mon.
Underwater?
Zero gravity?

Seriously, you rigorous atheistic scientific types aren't doing much to protect the super-rational science-does-it character that you spend to much time extolling the glories of.

Underwater?
Still the same problems of "supporting" the increasing mass as you build downwards.


Zero gravity?
In zero g there is no "up or "down" therefore the question becomes moot.

None of your "examples" so far answer the original statement.

Still the same problems of "supporting" the increasing mass as you build downwards.
hmmm.

another tuffy?

http://chem.sci.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp/v12n1/Perez_Benitez8013/PolifacilCEJFigure4.JPG







In zero g there is no "up or "down" therefore the question becomes moot.
In weightless or reduced weight environments there is no up or down?

What are you talking about?


None of your "examples" so far answer the original statement.
Don't be daft.

I'm pretty sure a high school science class could make an upside down pyramid in water with drinking straws.

For some reason though you think an omnipotent god couldn't

:shrug:

In weightless or reduced weight environments there is no up or down?
In zero g "up" and "down" are purely arbitrary conventions. "Down" is the direction in gravity pulls. No gravity = no down.


I'm pretty sure a high school science class could make an upside down pyramid in water with drinking straws.
That would be a tetrahedron not a pyramid.

In my infallible belief system there is no requirement that anything at all has to be believed, or even believable.

So, everything works out pretty well. And if you believe that, you'll believe this: there is no such thing as belief.

See?

In zero g "up" and "down" are purely arbitrary conventions. "Down" is the direction in gravity pulls. No gravity = no down.
the only arbitrary convention here is your insistence that up and down be defined purely as relative to gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_direction





That would be a tetrahedron not a pyramid.
even if they filled in the spaces?

the only arbitrary convention here is your insistence that up and down be defined purely as relative to gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_direction
Keep trying:

In zero g "up" and "down" are purely arbitrary conventions

In zero g there is no "up or "down" therefore the question becomes moot.
Or even from your own link:

One common definition of up and down uses gravity and the planet Earth as a frame of reference


even if they filled in the spaces?
It depends. Would you define a plastic straw tetrahedron as a pyramid? I thought they were large structures made out of stone blocks. You'll have to ask SciWriter what he meant by "pyramid".

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv6/austintorn/MakeArt4cwkWP_Page_1672.jpg

God, winning at Tic-Tac-Toe.

So seeking benefit (regardless who where or what its from) is a sign of cripple mindedness?
yes or no?

No, healthy mind; information and its benefits can be useful.


Ungrounded ideas of the imagination just float away into evaporation.

Idea pyramids have grounding, and then the top means something.

I'm pretty sure a high school science class could make an upside down pyramid in water with drinking straws.
That would be a tetrahedron not a pyramid.

More to the point, it would be supported by the water.


the only arbitrary convention here is your insistence that up and down be defined purely as relative to gravity.

Yes! Anyone can build a pyramid from up to down if we just say that "up" is toward the ground, and "down" is toward the sky!
Brilliant!

:bravo:

In zero g "up" and "down" are purely arbitrary conventions. "Down" is the direction in gravity pulls. No gravity = no down.



Directions are based on spatial dimensions more than they are based on gravity.

Keep trying:


Or even from your own link:
Notice how it begins with the word "one"?




It depends. Would you define a plastic straw tetrahedron as a pyramid? I thought they were large structures made out of stone blocks.
stone blocks?

If that's the case I guess it would make pyramids unique in the sense that it is the only shape designated by building materials.

Out of curiosity, what special term would you use to designate a pyramid made out of polystyrene or pearlite?


You'll have to ask SciWriter what he meant by "pyramid".
Why?
I would have thought standard definitions would be sufficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_%28geometry%29

I mean if I started talking about building cubes what would make you suddenly think I was talking about specific building materials like ice or mortar or whatever?

More to the point, it would be supported by the water.
actually it would be supported by the particle tension, much like a floating pyramid is supported by the particle tension of the air




Yes! Anyone can build a pyramid from up to down if we just say that "up" is toward the ground, and "down" is toward the sky!
Brilliant!

:bravo:
the simple truth is that even a high school science class is capable of building an upside down floating pyramid where down is the ground and up is the sky ... what to speak of on omnipotent personality

No, healthy mind; information and its benefits can be useful.
then its not clear why you asserted theists are cripple minded simply because they seek a benefactor.

actually it would be supported by the particle tension, much like a floating pyramid is supported by the particle tension of the air
You're even worse at physics than you are at logic.

Perhaps you missed the word "unsupported" in the post that started this ludicrous sidetrack?

You're even worse at physics than you are at logic.

Perhaps you missed the word "unsupported" in the post that started this ludicrous sidetrack?
ludicrous certainly is the word for it .. especially if one insists on using the word "unsupported" to the degree of particle tension in an atmosphere
:shrug:

Dude, it's not "particle tension".
And yes, "unsupported" means "unsupported". Duh.

Dude, it's not "particle tension".
Its not the potential difference between particles?


And yes, "unsupported" means "unsupported". Duh.
can you even have up or down in such an unsupported environment?
:o

For that matter, can you even have an "unsupported environment", period?

For that matter, can you even have an "unsupported environment", period?

For an atheist, the environment is unsupported; in fact, according to an atheist, it does not need support, it just is, already.

Directions are based on spatial dimensions more than they are based on gravity.
And?


Notice how it begins with the word "one"?
Correct. And your point?


stone blocks?
If that's the case I guess it would make pyramids unique in the sense that it is the only shape designated by building materials.
So what are pyramids built from?


Out of curiosity, what special term would you use to designate a pyramid made out of polystyrene or pearlite?
It's a pyramidal structure, but it isn't a pyramid.


Why?
I would have thought standard definitions would be sufficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_%28geometry%29
I note that SciWiter used the word pyramid, not "geometric pyramid"... :rolleyes:
Like I said, ask him.

And?


Correct. And your point?
there are other ways to use "up" and "down" ... but then I guess its typical of an atheist to insist on narrow definitions for terms in order to lend authority to their argument .. part of the whole "my infallible belief system" I guess ....



So what are pyramids built from?
anything
The word "pyramid" doesn't denote building requirements



It's a pyramidal structure, but it isn't a pyramid.


I note that SciWiter used the word pyramid, not "geometric pyramid"... :rolleyes:
Like I said, ask him.
so this isn't a pyramid?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUVB1H8gjvw5-239XdCyF1IAeZWRe5TlxUc7UEVZFGi2Lu8nOX

:o

Tell me, if stone blocks are the essential requirement for pyramids, how do artificial stone rocks fit into the picture?

And while we are on the subject, what essential building materials does a cube require, as opposed to a cuboid shape?

there are other ways to use "up" and "down"
I have already said that "up" and "down" are arbitrary conventions.


anything
The word "pyramid" doesn't denote building requirements
Right. And the pyramids in Egypt aren't pyramids.


so this isn't a pyramid?
Correct, it's not. It's a replica ziggarut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat).

I have already said that "up" and "down" are arbitrary conventions.
and I already said that denoting it as purely dependent on gravity is also part of the same deal



Right. And the pyramids in Egypt aren't pyramids.
No
They are not the seminal category for pyramid if that's what you mean.

Much like an ice cube is not the seminal category for a cube.

IOW much like all Egyptian pyramids are pyramids, all pyramids are not Egyptian pyramids
Similarly much like all ice cubes are cubes, all cubes are not ice cubes




Correct, it's not. It's a replica ziggarut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat).
which, lo and behold, are a subcategory of step pyramids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_pyramid)

Still waiting for you to tell me what essential building materials a cube requires in order to distinguish itself from a cuboid shape ... although I am tending to think we have just covered another ineffable and inexplicable component of your infallible belief system ... namely an inability to entertain holistic categories (when it suits your purposes of course)

and I already said that denoting it as purely dependent on gravity is also part of the same deal
Which was what I said at the very start... :rolleyes:


No
IOW much like all Egyptian pyramids are pyramids, all pyramids are not Egyptian pyramids
Hence my repetition of "Ask SciWiter what he meant".
If you paid for a trip "to see the pyramids" what would your expectations be? Would you be satisfied with a bus journey of five minutes to look at plastic-straw constructed miniatures?

For an atheist, the environment is unsupported; in fact, according to an atheist, it does not need support, it just is, already.
Then I guess they have no means to bring terms "up" or "down" to bear in any meaningful fashion.

It was a red herring from the word go.
:bugeye:

Which was what I said at the very start... :rolleyes:
for your edification (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2709428&postcount=39), this is what you said at the start ....

In zero g "up" and "down" are purely arbitrary conventions. "Down" is the direction in gravity pulls. No gravity = no down.

IOW far from designating gravity as but one of several ways to allocate the direction up or down, you were saying it was the only way.



Hence my repetition of "Ask SciWiter what he meant".
he was talking about pyramids purely as a design/architectural problem



If you paid for a trip "to see the pyramids" what would your expectations be? Would you be satisfied with a bus journey of five minutes to look at plastic-straw constructed miniatures?
If someone posted this (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2706607&postcount=19) .....

Yes, unlike, for not only has science contributed to just about every aspect of our lives, but it has erased all the footholds formerly attributed to 'God', causing that notion to shrink away to nothing and then vanish altogether, but for those with thinking problems and/or greed, for belief has no assistant or fact at all, as does atheism have science for its grounding.

Can't build a pyramid upside down, starting at the top in thin air and then trying to add layers and layers of fabricated structure in an attempt to shore it up.


.... you think they are talking about a trip to Egypt or something?
:o

btw, still waiting for you to tell me what essential building materials a cube requires in order to distinguish itself from a cuboid shape ... although I am tending to think we have just covered another ineffable and inexplicable component of your infallible belief system ... namely an inability to entertain holistic categories (when it suits your purposes of course)

for your edification (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2709428&postcount=39), this is what you said at the start ....
If only you'd looked two posts above:

In zero g there is no "up or "down" therefore the question becomes moot.
Or maybe even read my sentence that you have just quoted:

In zero g "up" and "down" are purely arbitrary conventions.


IOW far from designating gravity as but one of several ways to allocate the direction up or down, you were saying it was the only way.
Not at all. Where did I say it was the only way?


he was talking about pyramids purely as a design/architectural problem
Okay. According to you at least.

To me me when someone says "pyramid" I assume (until they indicate otherwise) that they mean a pyramid.

Plus, of course, his subsequent line "and then trying to add layers and layers of fabricated structure in an attempt to shore it up" does rather indicate that making it out of straws and then filling it up is not what was intended.


btw, still waiting for you to tell me what essential building materials a cube requires in order to distinguish itself from a cuboid shape ... although I am tending to think we have just covered another ineffable and inexplicable component of your infallible belief system ... namely an inability to entertain holistic categories (when it suits your purposes of course)
Ah, diversion attempts. What fun.

If only you'd looked two posts above:

Or maybe even read my sentence that you have just quoted:



Not at all. Where did I say it was the only way?
nowhere did you say that applying direction in terms of gravity is an arbitrary consideration.

IOW what you are failing to entertain is that there are ways to apply directions even in zero g



Okay. According to you at least.

To me me when someone says "pyramid" I assume (until they indicate otherwise) that they mean a pyramid.
so do I.
I mean if someone starts talking about cubes in terms of their construction, I don't think about ice cubes or rubiks cubes or whatever


Plus, of course, his subsequent line "and then trying to add layers and layers of fabricated structure in an attempt to shore it up" does rather indicate that making it out of straws and then filling it up is not what was intended.
Why would making subsequent layers of fabricated structure out of filled up frameworks defy the design brief?



Ah, diversion attempts. What fun.
I just thought that since you having such a ball with playing off pyramids as the Egyptian variety (and not even the Mesopotamian variety) you could also pull the party trick with other 3D shapes.

So tell me, what building materials\design brief does a cube require in order to distinguish itself from a cuboid structure, since you have similarly clear ideas about how a pyramid distinguishes itself from a pyramidal structure.

/grabs popcorn

Yes, good fun, but I'm not telling, for I already told how an idea pyramid must have support for its form and its top, especially if some all-seeing-eye of 'God' is placed there.

I saw the Sphinx, too. Its glance was fixed on something else. It was the glance of a being who thinks in centuries and millenniums. I did not exist and could not exist for it, for it was the face of eternity.

And yet…

Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter’d visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp’d on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock’d them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:

“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”

Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

— Percy Shelley

Yes, good fun, but I'm not telling, for I already told how an idea pyramid must have support for its form and its top, especially if some all-seeing-eye of 'God' is placed there.

and I already explained how a high school science class can do it without too much sweat
;)

nowhere did you say that applying direction in terms of gravity is an arbitrary consideration.
Ah, so because I didn't say it directly (despite having previously stated that up and down are arbitrary), I must have meant the opposite.
Regardless: how, by convention, practice and whatever else is "up" differentiated from "down"?


IOW what you are failing to entertain is that there are ways to apply directions even in zero g
Other than arbitrarily?


So tell me, what building materials\design brief does a cube require in order to distinguish itself from a cuboid structure, since you have similarly clear ideas about how a pyramid distinguishes itself from a pyramidal structure.
Again a diversion.
Cube doesn't have a general meaning separate from its geometrical one. Pyramid, on the other hand...

and I already explained how a high school science class can do it without too much sweat
;)

It didn't lead to 'God' on top.


In the Egyptian pyramid there were 4000 year-old iron weapons that did not rust, looking as new as the day they were forged. I held glass that bent without breaking. I drank from a vase that poured water without end. I filled an entire tub from it and bathed away all my dirt and dust. A compass needle went around and never stopped. I ate a cake but I still had it. I saw the starry skies through solid rock walls. I entered a room that had no door. There was light within the room but no flame or openings. I looked into a grain of sand and saw eternity.

IOW what you are failing to entertain is that there are ways to apply directions even in zero g

Other than arbitrarily?

When a cosmonaut goes out for a space walk, this is in zero g, but it's kind of important where up, down, left, right and such is ... if he wants to get back to his mother ship that is ...

Call it arbitrary, but it is kind of important ...



Cube doesn't have a general meaning separate from its geometrical one. Pyramid, on the other hand...

http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/saudi_arabia/images/the-kaba-02-500.jpg

The Kaaba (Arabic: الكعبة‎ al-Kaʿbah IPA: [ʔælˈkæʕbɐ], English: The Cube)

When a cosmonaut goes out for a space walk, this is in zero g, but it's kind of important where up, down, left, right and such is ... if he wants to get back to his mother ship that is ...

Call it arbitrary, but it is kind of important ...
Yes, But his definitions of left etc depend on what he decides they are. Probably oriented around his own body.


The Kaaba (Arabic: الكعبة‎ al-Kaʿbah IPA: [ʔælˈkæʕbɐ], English: The Cube)
And that would spring to mind if some one said "cube" to you?

Yes, But his definitions of left etc depend on what he decides they are. Probably oriented around his own body.

Yes, and?



And that would spring to mind if some one said "cube" to you?

No, actually this:

http://sydney.diarystar.com.au/images/ice-cube-sydney-concert.jpg

Yes, and?
Which would make them arbitrary, no?


No, actually this:
http://sydney.diarystar.com.au/images/ice-cube-sydney-concert.jpg
Not a clue... :p

Which would make them arbitrary, no?

What point would you like to make by calling it "arbitrary"?
That there is no objective reality; that everything is relative; that everything is subjective; that nothing really matters; ...?



Not a clue...

Ice Cube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Cube)

What point would you like to make by calling it "arbitrary"?
I think we're going round in circles here. :p
The point was: in zero g how do you define something as being "upside down"?
Only by applying an arbitrary system...

And this is relevant for the OP "infallible belief system" how?

And this is relevant for the OP "infallible belief system" how?
It's a side track* - brought up by SCiWriter and hammered at by LightGigantic.

* A side track that probably covers more posts than the actual subject of the thread. But, meh, that's Sci. :D

Ah.

http://vote29.com/newmyblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cockfighting.jpg

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv6/austintorn/Beingpyramid-circleF.jpg

Space vs. Matter (opposition) and Past —> Future (transition)

via

Movement of Appearances

In my belief system, all facts are factual, and thats a fact. I arrive at these facts, and because facts are always true, my belief system is always the truth. Unproven facts that I believe are still facts because I believe them with my infalliable belief system, and that proves them.

Today's fact: Hotter wetter water is better water than cooler harder water for making tea. See, it's true...

Apparently your spelling isn't infall(i)able lol.

The runes upon the pyramid's tombs blend into life's tunes.

The runes upon the pyramid's tombs blend into life's tunes.

I made that pyramid, and it shows support for our 'being', how it can be derived from the simple motion of appearances through space.

UNGROUNDED BELIEFS UPHELD A naked belief hangs in the air, because it is but upheld by the owner of the belief. Much better to have a belief based on fact. A pyramid of fact stands on the ground and shows that a single top can be held in the air through support, but the single top can itself not stand on the ground without support—a lost cause.


THE ‘HOLD UP’ A belief is that construct that states we consider something as true; but considering and knowing are two different words. One implies holding something up as true, while the other stands on the ground as being true.

Apparently your spelling isn't infall(i)able lol.

Haha! No. My spelling's getting worse as I get older. Luckily, I don't believe I can spell, so it's ok! :rolleyes:

UNGROUNDED BELIEFS UPHELD A naked belief hangs in the air, because it is but upheld by the owner of the belief. Much better to have a belief based on fact. A pyramid of fact stands on the ground and shows that a single top can be held in the air through support, but the single top can itself not stand on the ground without support—a lost cause.


THE ‘HOLD UP’ A belief is that construct that states we consider something as true; but considering and knowing are two different words. One implies holding something up as true, while the other stands on the ground as being true.
will the irony never end?

will the irony never end?

Let's call an end to the ironing now and hang it up in the closet.

God exists= +1
God not existing = -1

No God not existing = (-1) - (-1) = +1

+1 = God existing

The reason I used -1 for God not existing is that pure space is not pure (quantum foam) which has the designation "0", So it seems logical to give something with existence of lower than this the value -1 (assuming God is not a quantum entity) :rolleyes: