|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2017 11:43:36 GMT
Are you suggesting the existence of lower ones?
*Sigh* as already suggested, Erjen there are no 'higher' or 'lower' dimensions in mathematics such as string theory, just different aspects of reality, more or less complex. Did you not read the quote from last time?
And I have no need to 'suggest' the existence of such dimensions as height, depth etc (aassuming that these are what you think of as 'lower') since these are readily perceived.
Found that unambiguous god yet? Look, if I'm annoying you, there's no reason for you to hang around. There are certainly any number of gay-themed websites where you can go. Now, are you saying that 2D isn't lower than 3D, but only further than 3D? 2D is a step beyond the limitations of 3D? 2D is a natural progression from 3D? Is any of that fair to say? I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2017 11:56:54 GMT
Homophobia doesn't exist. It's a political term used to vilify those who developed normally and are repelled by the filthy perversion of homosexuality. Is that why you almost killed yourself, over your own filthy, homosexual perversions? I never had any homosexual perversions. I never wanted any either.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2017 12:04:10 GMT
I never had any homosexual perversions. I never wanted any either. So you are a self-loathing homosexual then? No, but if you think I am, shouldn't you be having pity for me, instead of treating me like a "traitor to the cause?"
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 27, 2017 13:17:15 GMT
Look, if I'm annoying you, there's no reason for you to hang around. If you ever annoy me then I will be sure and let you know. Although constant evasion of a repeated demand can certainly be irritating, can't it? Thank you for the recommendation. It appears your familiarity with gay-themed websites is greater than mine.
I am saying that different dimensions just reflect different aspects of reality. As a reading of the site I linked to earlier ought to have made clear.
This idea of 'natural progressions' is your own, Erjen.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2017 17:45:43 GMT
I rather doubt that statement, sir. You seem to be implying that Dimension 3 is not a more advanced dimension than Dimension 2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 21:36:26 GMT
I rather doubt that statement, sir. You seem to be implying that Dimension 3 is not a more advanced dimension than Dimension 2. If that's what he is implying then he is quite correct. Saying Dimension 3 is more advanced than Dimension 2 is like saying going left is more advanced than going forwards.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 28, 2017 6:58:12 GMT
I rather doubt that statement, sir. You seem to be implying that Dimension 3 is not a more advanced dimension than Dimension 2. If that's what he is implying then he is quite correct. Saying Dimension 3 is more advanced than Dimension 2 is like saying going left is more advanced than going forwards. I disagree.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 28, 2017 8:46:54 GMT
If that's what he is implying then he is quite correct. Saying Dimension 3 is more advanced than Dimension 2 is like saying going left is more advanced than going forwards. I disagree. As always, you are entitled to your opinions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 11:11:31 GMT
If that's what he is implying then he is quite correct. Saying Dimension 3 is more advanced than Dimension 2 is like saying going left is more advanced than going forwards. I disagree. Everyone has the right to be wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 13:35:34 GMT
Everyone has the right to be wrong. I don't often like to look at things as just black and white, as in right or wrong, however, where ejack is concerned, he pretty much misses the mark in most aspects of his outlook. I'm sure there must be occasions on which he has been correct on a matter of fact. But it so, I can't remember it offhand. I gotta say, claiming that up is "more advanced" then left is a new low even for him. What is it even supposed to mean to say that one direction is more advanced than another? I'm genuinely baffled as to how a person can think that directions have levels of advancement to them.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jun 29, 2017 3:34:14 GMT
... I thought this thread was going to be about alcoholism.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 29, 2017 7:17:34 GMT
... I thought this thread was going to be about alcoholism. Don't think, Slimy Sam. Your little brain isn't sufficiently evolved for that. Let Cinemachinery do the thinking.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 29, 2017 7:30:16 GMT
As always, you are entitled to your opinions. Can you fit the entirety of 3D object into a 2D plane without changing the 3D object in any way? It's a yes or no question, but feel free to expound.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 29, 2017 7:32:45 GMT
Hey, sociopath, I didn't claim that up is more advanced than left.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 29, 2017 8:32:44 GMT
As always, you are entitled to your opinions. Can you fit the entirety of 3D object into a 2D plane without changing the 3D object in any way? It's a yes or no question, but feel free to expound. No.
But that still not mean that the difference between the two dimensions is a 'natural progression' or a 'more advanced' reality, as you apparently think. (as in where you said "You seem to be implying that Dimension 3 is not a more advanced dimension than Dimension 2.")
I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 29, 2017 8:44:53 GMT
Can you fit the entirety of 3D object into a 2D plane without changing the 3D object in any way? It's a yes or no question, but feel free to expound. No.
But that still not mean that the difference between the two dimensions is a 'natural progression' or a 'more advanced' reality, as you apparently think. (as in where you said "You seem to be implying that Dimension 3 is not a more advanced dimension than Dimension 2.")
I hope that helps.
I'm implying that Dimension 2 easily fits into Dimension 3, but Dimension 3 won't fit into Dimension 2 without losing something in the process. You asked my why God doesn't make an unambiguous appearance in Dimension 3, and I'm attempting to answer your question as simply as possible. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 29, 2017 9:08:30 GMT
No.
But that still not mean that the difference between the two dimensions is a 'natural progression' or a 'more advanced' reality, as you apparently think. (as in where you said "You seem to be implying that Dimension 3 is not a more advanced dimension than Dimension 2.")
I hope that helps.
I'm implying that Dimension 2 easily fits into Dimension 3, but Dimension 3 won't fit into Dimension 2 without losing something in the process. Yes, and so what? A cup can cover an egg, does that make a cup something 'more' in the sense you mean? I guess that means that God doesn't either in dimensions 1 & 2. But then again, we are told that this god is 'everywhere'. But now it seems just not here or there. But since this god is, I am told "outside of time and space" that makes for some pretty special pleading for Him not being seen in any dimension at all, does it not? Unless He wants to come into our reality and potter about some in the middle east. Everywhere and nowhere. Certainly nothing one can point to at the moment. That's why credulity is so useful. Is that how it works?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 29, 2017 9:37:53 GMT
I'm implying that Dimension 2 easily fits into Dimension 3, but Dimension 3 won't fit into Dimension 2 without losing something in the process. Yes, and so what? A cup can cover an egg, does that make a cup something 'more' in the sense you mean? I guess that means that God doesn't either in dimensions 1 & 2. But then again, we are told that this god is 'everywhere'. But now it seems just not here or there. But since this god is, I am told "outside of time and space" that makes for some pretty special pleading for Him not being seen in any dimension at all, does it not? Unless He wants to come into our reality and potter about some in the middle east. Everywhere and nowhere. Certainly nothing one can point to at the moment. That's why credulity is so useful. Is that how it works? No, no, no, you're being deliberately thick. The problem isn't with God. The problem is that you want everything translated into 3D with the expectation that your standard sensory organs should be able to discern it as easily as anything that exists in 3D. The video I posted earlier (using as a metaphor the difference between 2D and 3D) explains it rather well.....if you care to try to understand it......which you don't.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 29, 2017 10:02:46 GMT
The problem is that you want everything translated into 3D with the expectation that your standard sensory organs should be able to discern it as easily as anything that exists in 3D. Oh I see, so a god is here but I just can't discern it. But how can one tell the difference between that sort of deity and no deity at all? Just show me an unambiguous god, as requested, and all your special pleading need not continue.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 29, 2017 17:02:26 GMT
The problem is that you want everything translated into 3D with the expectation that your standard sensory organs should be able to discern it as easily as anything that exists in 3D. Oh I see, so a god is here but I just can't discern it. But how can one tell the difference between that sort of deity and no deity at all? Just show me an unambiguous god, as requested, and all your special pleading need not continue. Special pleading?
|
|