God?

[RainmanTime]

Re: Gentlemen\'s Bets, and how they go...

If it's a gentleman's wager, then it's a matter of honour, and nothing as vulgar as money is entered into it. Do you want a gentleman's wager?

Your pedantics don't look good on you. I quite clearly spelled-out the protocol. If you cannot or do not wish to accept them, then there is no bet. Simple as that.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Seems like you've had a few, though.

Actually, no. When I wrote what I did, I was sober. It was only afterwards that myself and my friend Azkaban went out for some cocktails.

Care to re-post what you have, but in a less triumphantly patronising tone?

No. Actually I think the tone was just right for you. It certainly suits you better than your pedantical style.

But what I have read seems to be pretty muddled.

Not at all muddled. Why don't you start with the "easy" one? Are you still not going to correct your statement on work? I'll give you another clue: There is no evidence that supports any sort of "law of conservation of work", which you seem to imply. In fact, the example you are using is clear evidence for why there is no such conservation law.

Your tactics become even more obvious once you are backed into a corner. Have a nice day!

RMT

 

[trollface]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

So you really are that arrogant and condecending in real life? Okay, I'll repsond to the less objectionable parts of your post, those I can make sense of.

MmmmmmKay?

FWIW, the reason Mr. M'kay says this is to show that he's an obnoxious pratt. Using it in conversation doesn't make you look clever.

Want to say anything with respect to what you've typed here, especially with regard to the mathematical definitions of Work, and, ohhhh, maybe also the definition of Heat?

Okay, there is no mathematical definition of "work", and I made no reference to "heat" whatsoever. The definition of "work" in physics, however, is a force acting on an object which causes displacement.

So now you presume to be able to define the boundaries of Creation?

Why do you presume to tell me that only you can define the word? Or that you have been told personally by God how He defines the word?

By drawing your boundary to only the final act of the snowflake's creation, you are excluding other energetic elements that permit and lead-up to that final event.

And by defining your criteria so broadly, and being reliant on your logical fallacies that you are so proud of, you make your arguments both impossible to discuss, as well as entirely useless for the purposes of proving anything to anybody.

That is because of the ultimate interconnecteness of all energetic processes in the universe. This means, the fundamental basis for current theories of entropy, which use this in their definition, are based on an incorrect assumption.

The second Law of Thermodynamics, and the definition of enropy that accompanies it applies to any system or susbsytem where no matter or heat can get in or out. Other forms of energy can be gained or lost. You're right, however, that the true definition of entropy doesn't work beyond that, which is particlaly why your use of it in throughout this thread (and your application of the Second Law) has been wrong. You're also right saying that outside of the precise definition of "entropy" there are the "entropy analogues", which are all different from each other. In fact, this is what I said to you several posts ago.

So, other than to disprove a lot of the bad science you've been spouting in this thread, I'm not really sure what your point here is.

You say you programmed your computer to do something, and then you deny that you had any hand in the computers creation?

That's not exactly what I said, no.

I said that the peices of music my computer created would have been created by my computer.

For when you do, and you ignore the Energy and Entropy effects that went into you creating the programme, and some factory creating the alarm clock, you are NOT accounting for part of the energetic effects that lead to the final result. That is a no-no, and you would receive major points off in any of my engineering courses for leaving energy terms out of your system analysis.

So, long story short, there is no such thing as a closed-loop system?

The hell you did. That's pretty much a stinking pile of BS. What you did is change my words.

I never claimed the Bible thing was what you were saying, I showed it as an illustration of exactly the same reasoning. But I can certainly tell that you've never done any study of logic at all, as you'd have recognised the example as what I introduced it as - an old classic.

And, again, from this point on I simply don't have the energy to wade through your torrent of bad attitude. I really don't care what the rest of your post says, as you make it so unpleasent to read that it's simply not worth the effort.

So well done on the effective communication there.

 

[CAT]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

I haven't seen anyone ramble and stagger this badly since I saw FOX TV's "When Drunks Get Breathalyzed!" /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Trollie, the only thing I'm impressed by is your G-d-given gift for unparalleled ineptitude. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[trollface]

Re: Gentlemen\'s Bets, and how they go...

I quite clearly spelled-out the protocol.

So, you don't want a gentleman's wager, then? I'm not making up what a "gentleman's wager" is, it's an old term. Maybe you've not heard of it.

As it goes, round this neck of the woods, neither side gets control over anything, both sides negotiate for what they feel is fair and adequate. That's the only fair way where neither party can complain afterwards.

I've made my offer, and Roel's made his. What's your counter-offer?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

So you really are that arrogant and condecending in real life?

Only to those who cross my path that are calling out for that "special attention".

You seem to be screaming for it.

FWIW, the reason Mr. M'kay says this is to show that he's an obnoxious pratt. Using it in conversation doesn't make you look clever.

But it sure makes for some good humor. Do you really take yourself this seriously in real life?

The definition of "work" in physics, however, is a force acting on an object which causes displacement.

Very good. Give Trolly a gold star. So, having clarified this, then you would also agree that you were wrong when you said:

The paddles would lose no efficiency because they would still be moving water backwards - still doing the same amount of work, however that work would not be being translated into forwards motion of the steamer because my hand would be preventing it.

I know you didn't mention heat. But that was just my little clue as to how you would correct your incorrect statement.

Why do you presume to tell me that only you can define the word?

Since Energy is required to manifest physical Creation, yes I would. Since the premise of my discussions in this thread deal with Energy and how it relates to Creation, then it is imperative to address all sources of Energy that go into manifesting any Creation.

And by defining your criteria so broadly, and being reliant on your logical fallacies that you are so proud of, you make your arguments both impossible to discuss, as well as entirely useless for the purposes of proving anything to anybody.

So now it's my problem that you have a limited capability to integrate concepts across the entire spectrum of universal Energy? Once again I must point out: If you are even going to attempt to provide evidence for God, one must address the "all encompassing" issue that is God.

So, other than to disprove a lot of the bad science you've been spouting in this thread, I'm not really sure what your point here is.

You know exactly what my point is, and your tactic that attempts to avoid my point by pretending to prove me wrong will not work. The point again: To consider any Creation, one must consider all Energy that went into that Creation.

I said that the peices of music my computer created would have been created by my computer.

Somehow, you employing circular logic in your language does not further your argument that circular logic is useless, now does it?

So, long story short, there is no such thing as a closed-loop system?

That would be the "glass half empty" view of it. The alternate (and just as viable view) would be that there is NOTHING BUT closed-loop systems. Which is precisely what my friend OvrLrd and I have been trying to relate to you. Don't forget: Everything boils down to 0 or 1. Your "long story short" statement would be viewed the zer0 perspective. Mine would be the 1. Interesting how there can be two, seemingly different, "correct" views, dependent upon nothing more than one's Point Of View?

And, again, from this point on I simply don't have the energy to wade through your torrent of bad attitude. I really don't care what the rest of your post says, as you make it so unpleasent to read that it's simply not worth the effort.

I am getting better at this, aren't I? I've been taking lessons from CAT! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif However, you say this as if you believe your tone and attitude makes for intriguing "can't put it down" reading. (YAWN!) Oh, excuse me, I had better go get a cup of coffee.

I've made my offer, and Roel's made his. What's your counter-offer?

You have my conditions for a counter-offer. If you cannot accept them, and the inherent balance that they provide to any bet, then I guess there will be no bet. You see, I don't engage in bets that I am not sure I will win.

RMT

 

[trollface]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

But it sure makes for some good humor.

Incessantly quoting a catch-phrase from a 7 year old TV programme is "good humour" round your neck of the woods, is it? Wow, the Saturday nights must be just a-jumpin'.

So, having clarified this, then you would also agree that you were wrong when you said:[...]

The paddles displce water. Stop the steamer moving and the paddles still displace water.

Since Energy is required to manifest physical Creation, yes I would.

Sorry, how does that make you the only person who can interpret God's definition of "creation" again? I must have missed that bit of your working.

The point again: To consider any Creation, one must consider all Energy that went into that Creation.

So you are disavowing all the dodgy physics you've expressed unto this point?

Somehow, you employing circular logic in your language does not further your argument that circular logic is useless, now does it?

I think you need to do some reading up on logic.

The alternate (and just as viable view) would be that there is NOTHING BUT closed-loop systems.

So...are you saying that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be applied to everything, or to nothing?

However, you say this as if you believe your tone and attitude makes for intriguing "can't put it down" reading. (YAWN!) Oh, excuse me, I had better go get a cup of coffee.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you're not interested, expend your energy elsewhere.

You have my conditions for a counter-offer. If you cannot accept them, and the inherent balance that they provide to any bet, then I guess there will be no bet. You see, I don't engage in bets that I am not sure I will win.

Right, because equality and negotiation are such unfair concepts, aren't they? Give me a break. Don't be soft, I'm not about to blindly accpet a bet where the terms could be anything. Exactly how stupid do you think I am?

I'm saying that any bet should be amenable to both parties. Why are you trying to wiggle out of it?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

The paddles displce water. Stop the steamer moving and the paddles still displace water.

That part is true. But that was not your original statement, now was it? Now you are even twisting your own words? Your words were:

The paddles would lose no efficiency because they would still be moving water backwards - still doing the same amount of work

Now how are you going to expect people to believe what you say if you can't get the details right? Your example is not an isentropic process. You cannot make the statement that it is doing the same amount of work unless you expound on the details of the process and demonstrate there is zero heat transfer.

"the work done by a system depends not only on the initial and final states but also on the intermediate states, that is, on the details of the process." (Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 2nd Edition, Page 363).

So you are disavowing all the dodgy physics you've expressed unto this point?

And who is expressing dodgy physics in this case? If I used this statement of yours to ascertain your understanding of physics, I'd have to come to the conclusion that you do not understand the First Law of Thermodynamics (which involves both work & heat). And if you don't know how to apply the 1st law, what would make me believe you understand the 2nd law enough to apply it?

Don't be soft, I'm not about to blindly accpet a bet where the terms could be anything.

Stop. There you go twisting my words again. Is this a short-term memory thing with you, or is it the devious intent that I suspect? Here's my words, to remind you:

If you set the parameters, I set the wager. If you set the wager, I set the parameters.

I'm saying that any bet should be amenable to both parties. Why are you trying to wiggle out of it?

IBID.

RMT

 

[trollface]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

But that was not your original statement, now was it?

No, my original statement was that a paddle steamer with 2 paddles would be more efficient than one with just the one.

Your example is not an isentropic process. You cannot make the statement that it is doing the same amount of work unless you expound on the details of the process and demonstrate there is zero heat transfer.

Actually, as it's my example, it can be whatever I say it is. But, fine, say it does a different amount of work, if it makes you happy.

And who is expressing dodgy physics in this case? If I used this statement of yours to ascertain your understanding of physics, I'd have to come to the conclusion that you do not understand the First Law of Thermodynamics (which involves both work & heat). And if you don't know how to apply the 1st law, what would make me believe you understand the 2nd law enough to apply it?

And this is a nice way to finegle your way out of answering any of the more pertinent questions about yourself, is it? You do have a habit of that, second only to Chronohistorian.

Here's my words, to remind you:

What do you think I'm getting confused. I am not going to accept a bet where you can make the parameters anything you want. If you want to make a counter-offer to mine, then do so and stop tarting about. If not, say you don't accept the bet and be done with it. My patience has grown incredibly thin after your peacock display earlier.

 

[CAT]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Trollie, you continue to drift aimlessly in a sea of delusions and willful ignorance while desperately clinging to your over-active libido to give a false sense of buoyancy to your sinking mind...

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

No, my original statement was that a paddle steamer with 2 paddles would be more efficient than one with just the one.

Pedantics.

Actually, as it's my example, it can be whatever I say it is. But, fine, say it does a different amount of work, if it makes you happy.

Actually what would make me happy is you admitting that you were wrong, which you have yet to do. I seem to recall you expounding upon how you are the type of person who will readily admit when they are wrong, and correct themselves. My, but it has been like pulling teeth you get you to even THIS point. "It speaks to your honour."

And this is a nice way to finegle your way out of answering any of the more pertinent questions about yourself, is it?

And by now, I would think you can see that I am doing nothing more than what you do to people who you wish to "debate" with. You go searching for minute details that someone states, and you harp on them. This creates the illusion that the other person doesn't know what they are talking about, and also the illusion that you are of superior knowledge. So yes, debating can be subject to a great many illusions, as I am sure you are aware.

And yet, even though I was mimicking you, I did approach it slightly differently than you do. When I found your error in stating a principle of work, I pointed you to it. I permitted you to correct yourself. I even gave you some hints about how you were in error. But instead, you insisted on trying to keep up the charade....that dancing you think you do so well. You could have avoided a great deal of pain (and the emergence of my "attitude" that you hate so much) if you would have simply corrected your error when I first pointed it out.

You do have a habit of that, second only to Chronohistorian.

And you have some less-than-desireable habits yourself, as is now in evidence. As long as you are more interested in "winning a debate" with pedantics and tactics, rather than real substance, I reserve the right expose your twisting of words in whatever way I deem necessary.

I am not going to accept a bet where you can make the parameters anything you want.

Stop. Your chronic habit of twisting words is only going to cause you to have to dance faster. Never did I state that I wanted to make the parameters anything I want. In fact, I will acquiesce that you set the parameters of what we were betting on. Per the protocol that I have put forward, I would then expect to be the one who sets the wager. This is why I asked what your total net worth was. You, OTOH, only mentioned "a fiver", without so much as denoting a standard of currency, nor any potential multiplier (i.e. x10, x100, x1000, etc.) So am I just left to assume:

1) "Fiver" would be equivalent to a US 5 dollar note.
2) The multipler, since not expressed, would be whatever I wish it to be? (Let's start at 1,000,000, shall we?)

I have no problem renouncing any bet that is not amenable to both parties. However, when you first mentioned a bet, and I responded to that action, you seemed to wish to set both the parameters of that bet, and its financial value. Now, that would not be very amenable to me.

Perhaps the difficulty you have with some people is directly (or indirectly) related to the difficulties you pose to others? That would be even more evidence that "everything is closed-loop". Or, in more classic terms "What goes around, comes around."

RMT

 

[creedo299]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Rain-A-mundo, Rain-A-mundo, a'gast, it is thus, Rain-a-mundo!

The question does belie the answer, would Rainman look better in knickers, accompanied with a man's wig, ruffled shirt and a false beauty mark.

These accouterments, accompanies by raised heeled shoes, where the virtues of savoir-faire, genteelness and the ability to open coach doors, for the lovely damsels, is near the edge of his evening repertoires.

For chance of courtesie's sake, where verbiages is clairmont to stations of vacillations contigual of ladie's wants where violins do play, so does the caviler, Rain-A-mundo, does lower his cape of courage, to the cause.

This vacillation in respects to the feminine gland were courage take the place of insults to rooms never filled on times when a careless insinuation,... would dare, rule, men who pout!

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

The POWER exists and we can not measure it in any way except how it "manipulates" our universe by very specific laws--at every level of existence (mental, spiritual, physical). The Grand Unified Theory, in order to TRULY "be" THE grand theory MUST address all these areas. It must "explain" all phenomena--even and ESPECIALLY that which is "esoteric", supernatural, invisible or "incalculable".

Not surprisingly, I agree. But to me, this just seems like simple logic. And this is precisely why I reject Trollface's complaints that "what you are describing constitutes everything, and is therefore of no real value in proving anything" (that was a paraphrase, by the way, since I am too tired to look up his precise words...close enough). And it is once again why I claim that the "linear logic" by which it appears Trollface (and so many others, to be fair) set the tone of their beliefs can serve no purpose in an attempt to explain "all", and to show that "all" is an integrated, intelligent form which exhibits itself to us via Energy.

We may be no closer to "proving or disproving" God, but we have discussed it and "emoted" over it. We have, somewhat, explored the parameters (some far more than others). Touche' to you all. Anyone care to take a vote?

I'm with ya, Zerub. We've played out a process and, like it or not, this process has resulted in exchange of Energy and information within the universal Massive SpaceTime matrix. How that exchange of Energy and information has affected all sectors of the matrix is not for us to know. Yet it serves a purpose. If no other purpose than having lots of fun thinking and sparring about things that are not a part of most people's everyday thoughts. In the sense that such discussions encourage uniqueness and variety, they are part of the fabric of our evolving, closed-loop sentience.

RMT

 

[trollface]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Pedantics.

Your criticism was pedantic.

Actually what would make me happy is you admitting that you were wrong, which you have yet to do.

Because I don't beleive I was wrong. I've conceeded that the steamer need not necessarily do the same work - now you have to conceed that it might.

And by now, I would think you can see that I am doing nothing more than what you do to people who you wish to "debate" with.

Oh, well, if this is your "me" impression, I think I'll have to imitate you. I'll be nasty, patronizing and ignore anything and everything that is getting a little tricky.

And you have some less-than-desireable habits yourself, as is now in evidence.

I thought you wanted me to start taking pot-shots? Isn't this "fun" for you? I mean, look, it only took a few posts, and we've all but abandoned the subject at hand in favour of sniping at each other. Isn't this what you wanted? Or is it the case that you get just as annoyed as I do when personal insults start coming in to the mix, so you get nastier, so I get nastier, so you get nastier...and the conversation becomes entirely pointless? Conter-productive, even.

But, hey, you're too much od a fun guy with too much of a sense of humour to have a reasonable and rational discussion, you've told me so yourself. So let's keep on with the petty name-calling and we can start another thread for if we want to discuss God, mmmmmmmKay?

1) "Fiver" would be equivalent to a US 5 dollar note.

I'm English. Pounds, not dollars. A "fiver" is a five poud note.

2) The multipler, since not expressed, would be whatever I wish it to be? (Let's start at 1,000,000, shall we?)

No multiplier, the term is not slang for anything to do with fives, but for a five pound note.

However, when you first mentioned a bet, and I responded to that action, you seemed to wish to set both the parameters of that bet, and its financial value. Now, that would not be very amenable to me.

I offered a fiver as a suggestion - personally I'd rather have it a gentleman's bet. But if you want to make a counter-offer, then (as I believe I have said), stop tarting about and make one. What is the point of all this finny-fannying about you're doing?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Your criticism was pedantic.

Does that put me on par with the great Trollface?

Because I don't beleive I was wrong.

Mmmmmm Hmmmm. I see. Tell me about your childhood. There may be a connection here.

I've conceeded that the steamer need not necessarily do the same work - now you have to conceed that it might.

"Might"...such strong words. No, I would not concede that it would, or even might, unless you told me you've developed a frictionless drive mechanism or other such devices that would make it likely that it "might". In reality, the possibility that it "might" do the same work are vanishingly small. Whereas the probability that it would generate and dissipate excess heat are closer to 1.0. So, it would seem my thinking is not: (a) As sloppy as you would like for others to believe and (b) As sloppy as yours, at least in this case.

I thought you wanted me to start taking pot-shots? Isn't this "fun" for you?

Great fun. Loads of fun. In fact, I never knew just how much fun you were having playing the games you do, until I tried it myself! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

and the conversation becomes entirely pointless? Conter-productive, even.

And yet you persist. I believe a poster on this board once told me, and Zerubabbel, and others, that if you don't like it, you don't need to reply. Yet you continue even though you have made it clear this is not fun for you. Is this, potentially, more evidence of your inner struggle?

What is the point of all this finny-fannying about you're doing?

I explained what I was doing very clearly in my last post. Perhaps not on this specific issue, but I clearly explained what I was doing. This might be more evidence to suggest you have some difficulty in seeing and integrating the "bigger picture".

And that is PRECISELY the issue at hand when it comes to seeing and understanding the evidence for the existence of a Creator. So we might say we've come full-circle...or...dare I say it? We've closed the loop! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

RMT

 

[trollface]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Is this, potentially, more evidence of your inner struggle?

As I said above, I thought that you might have something of use to contribute. As it is, I'm in far too much pain and have far too much that actually is constructive to do to bother with this nonsense. If your intention was to stop me reading your posts, then well done - mission accomplished.

 

[CAT]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Ahhh yes finally the subject! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

GEOMETRY! is the blueprint of Creation and the genesis of all form. This ancient science explores and explains the energy patterns that create and unify all things and reveals the precise way that the energy of Creation organizes itself. On every scale, every natural pattern of growth or movement conforms inevitably to geometric shapes, the 5 platonic structures - the tetrahedron, hexahedron, octahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron:

Within these platonic structures the Fibonacci sequence (a numerical series found in the natural world, that has always existed) is generated by adding the previous two numbers in the list together to form the next and so on and so on. (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55...). Divide any number in the Fibonacci sequence by the one before it, for example 55/34, or 21/13, and the answer is always close to 1.61803. This is known as the Golden Ratio/Mean spiral which is reflected though nature in the form of geometry. Geometry is the very basis of our reality, and hence we live in a coherent world governed by unseen laws.

All types of crystals, natural and cultured... The cornea of our eye... The hexagonal geometry of snow flakes, pine cones, flower petals... Diamond crystals... Nautilus shells, Creatures exhibiting logarithmic spiral patterns: e.g. snails and various shell fish... Birds and flying insects, exhibiting clear Golden Mean proportions in bodies & wings... The way in which lightning forms branches... The way in which rivers branch... The geometric molecular and atomic patterns that all solid metals exhibit... The way in which a tree branches and spans out so that all its branches receive sunlight... The molecules of (DNA) - the foundation and guiding mechanism of all living organisms... The star we spin around... The galaxy we spiral within... The air we breathe, and all life forms as we know them emerge out of timeless geometric codes. Viewing and contemplating these codes allow us to gaze directly at the lines on the face of deep wisdom and offers up a glimpse into the subtle structure of awareness, the inner workings of the Universe and the Mind of G-d.

The understanding of geometry as an underlying part of our existence is nothing new! However far back in human history we choose to look these patterns were present even before the dawn of human consciousness. When our primordial parents opened their eyes, nature was the first teacher! The platonic structures were there to be discovered. As far back as the Mystery schools, we as a species were taught that there are five perfect 3-dimensional forms - The tetrahedron, hexahedron, octahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron - and are the foundation of everything in the physical world. The entire Periodic Table of Elements - literally everything in the physical world - is based on these same five forms! In fact, throughout modern Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, these same geometric patterns of creation are continually being discovered, but often without the greater context of the spiritual understanding...

We live in the 3rd dimension, or the Plane of Manifestation. The Golden Mean is an intra-dimensional doorway though which matter emerges into manifest 3-D reality. For example, when a star is born it follows specific number sequences or universal rules, the same rules of life in the expansion process... Than we see the light!

Thus the Golden Mean is the "fingerprint" of creation. When we re-create this moving and always expanding sequence, we have in effect - the exact movement of creation in the expansion process.

The Great Pyramid deals with the effect of geometrical shapes on life functions and of the design shape that interact with earths energy fields, to produce special pre-calculated effects on a biological system...

 

[trollface]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

As I said above, I thought that you might have something of use to contribute. As it is, I'm in far too much pain and have far too much that actually is constructive to do to bother with this nonsense. If your intention was to stop me reading your posts, then well done - mission accomplished.

You and I have had this "discussion" many times in the past... and I mean WAY more times than just on this forum. I'm sorry you are in pain, but maybe you'd wish to seriously look at where all pain originates? You might want to look within. And I was only half-joking when I asked about your childhood. As far as my count in our discussions on this forum, you have exhibited a fear of attaching the words "stupid" and "wrong" to yourself or your actions. Such a fear that they cause you to dance around (in pain, perhaps) when confronted with the potential of these terms applying to you.

Face it: We all do "stupid" things, and we all end up being "wrong" at times. In fact, I was stupid to think I could change you, and wrong in expending my energy to get you to look inside yourself.

I now await your response, as we know a troll always needs the last word.

RMT

 

[creedo299]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

That the nature of mankind was so complex, that God had to hire outside contractors.