Creation

Hi Dr

Dr writes: do you understand the difference between a 2D object and a 3D object?

Sometimes I wonder.

If you came to me and wanted me to build you a house. My first question would be, "do you have a design" If you said yes I would ask to see it. If you said no I would ask did you want me to design one. If you said yes I would ask a lot of questions about what your vision of your home would be. Single or Two story, how large, how many baths, bed rooms, cars in garage and a lot of other questions.

If I did my normal thing I would be drawing a blue print all the time we were talking. After a couple of hours I would print out a floor plan for you on a piece of paper for you to look over for a few days and make changes you would like. You would then return and we would make the changes you wanted to make. I would make recommendation due to my experience and what the local code laws require. I would print out another blueprint for you to take and go over with your wife (if you have one and she is not in the conversation).

When you came back in a few days I would ask for any new changes that would be desired. I would make those changes and add those changes to the plans.

I would then take you on a tour around the outside of the house explaining the exterior of the home to you. I would have added different things in the yard we had not talked about but were there just for discussion.

I would take you a tour of the inside of you house and it would be just like you walking through a completed projects. All the while I would be asking for slight changes or things you might want to add to your home. We would enter the front door and enter the formal living room then going through the formal dinning room and then into the kitchen area exiting into the great room with its vaulted ceiling From there we could enter the alcove between the garage and master bedroom. We could go into the garage and view it and the laundry room just inside the garage to the left. We could then enter the alcove and enter the master bedroom and on the left of the master bedroom would be a private office and den.
Going through the master bedroom there would be an alcove with entrance to the 16' x 24' master bathroom and an entrance to the 24' x24' walk in closet. From there we would go back to the great room and on the right would be the entrance to Grannys room and private bath. To the left in the great room would be the entrance to th hallway to the 3 bedrooms and their private baths. We would come back into the great room and enter the foyer and on the right would be an Office and library where meeting could take place. We would then exit the tour.

If you desired I could print you a blueprint Or I could burn the tour on a cd for you to take with you provided we had already sign contracts for me to build the house for you.

BTW if you wanted me to I could take any of the cabinets I had put in the drawing open it and spin it around letting you look at it just as you could look at the real thing in a showroom.

The blue prints I printed out is classified as a 2D object as we do not consider that the paper which they are printed on has a thickness which is depth. The paper would be 17" x 27" and have a thickness of .066". If you ask me where the center of that object was I would tell you it was located at 8.5" x 13.5" x .033"

The blueprint is classified as a 2D picture.
The tour is considered a 3D presentation.

I realize this is a lengthy answer to the question asked but I wanted to make sure you understood that I have worked with 3D presentations since 1989 and I hope that satisfies you question.

God Bless,

great so the next time someone is talking about the 2D surface of a balloon you won't drag the topic off with bullshit about the 3D balloon as a whole?

This is false and I just answered one example of it yesterday where you misrepresented me as saying Catholics are not Christians. I did not say anything like that yesterday.

I didn't say you SAID it yesterday, I said I ANSWERED it yesterday.

If you can point to such a post, I will publicly proclaim that you are correct. But I suspect you have me confused with Jar.

In Message 342 you were referring to me when you wrote

NN writes: ...the things you say about Catholics.

The first time I answered you Phat removed my post, so I answered you again yesterday (turns out it was actually the day before) in Message 387 with the very lengthy list of the unchristian practices of Roman Catholicism.

But I think of you as misrepresenting me all the time. There are a couple of recent examples where you characterize me as calling people "Nazis," which is a serious misrepresentation of what I've been trying to get across in the phrase "LIBERAL NAZIS." Liberals have an ideology that is opposite to that of Nazis but recently they misrepresent people as being themselves Nazis who supposedly violate their liberal ideology, attacking people on the basis of these misrepresentations in the same domineering bullying threatening marginalizing character-assassinating way, using today's Liberal/Leftist Politically Correct arsenal of offenses such as "racism" and "anti-Semitism" and "homophobia" and the like WRONGLY, FALSELY, and now there are organizations such as Antifa that use violence to enforce their lying accusations against innocent people, just like the Brown Shirts did. That's what a LIBERAL Nazi is. Go ahead and complain about THAT if you want, but it's an entirely different thing than "Nazi" and I stand by Liberal Nazi, it's a perfect description of what has been going on for years now and you are one of them.

And you misrepresented me as calling people "Nazis" rather than Liberal Nazis in two places recently, in Message 349

NN writes: Weren't folks being called Nazis?

and in Message 385

NN writes: How would you characterize calling somebody a Nazi because they believe that calling for the razing and destroying of the houses of Jews is anti-Semitic? Perhaps you are defending the indefensible.

And this second one was particularly egregious because I had already said I thought Luther was biblically way out of line when he proposed punishments of the Jews. That's a DOUBLE misrepresentation of me.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

yet he will. The universe exists in 3 dimensions. I CANT believes that it was designed by the Great Architect. Thus, he cannot understand how you can be talking about a blueprint and declare that there is no such thing as a 3D video along with it. He would argue that we can observe the 3 dimensions now...and cannot understand that at one time it was all a 2-dimensional blueprint that had nothing to do with describing a 3-dimensional reality.

I don't think he is being obstructionist. He imagines/believes in creation through the mind of another. You are asking him to imagine it as your mind understands it.

He insists that you consider that reality is not a product of your own or any other human imagination, but rather through the eyes of a "Great Architect". Thus the point of contention.

Thus, he cannot understand how you can be talking about a blueprint and declare that there is no such thing as a 3D video along with it

so your contention is that he's incapable of abstract thought

I don't think he is being obstructionist

whenever people talk about a 2D object and he goes off blathering about a 3D one he is being obstructionist.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Hi Dr.

Dr writes: great so the next time someone is talking about the 2D surface of a balloon you won't drag the topic off with bullshit about the 3D balloon as a whole?

I believe a balloon that is laying on a table is a 2D object.
When you put air in the balloon it becomes a 3D object.
When I am looking at a car I believe I am looking at a 3D object.

When you are anyone says the air filled balloons exterior surface is a good analogy to represent the universe you are pushing a bad analogy.

I live inside the universe, do you?

I find the raisin cake on a lot of scientific websites but no balloon analogies.

But in the future I will refrain from commenting on the balloon.

God Bless,

I believe a balloon that is laying on a table is a 2D object.

we're not talking about the balloon, we're talking about the surface of the balloon. When i say "the surface of a sphere" I'm not talking about the sphere. This is why people accuse you of not arguing in good faith, you're substituting the topic at hand with one of your own.

I would take you a tour of the inside of you house and it would be just like you walking through a completed projects.

At first I thought you were talking about an imaginative verbal tour of something that doesn't yet exist, asking the buyer to visualize it, but then it seems you must be talking about something like a video tour you put together?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In Message 342 you were referring to me when you wrote NN writes: ...the things you say about Catholics.

Faith, you are not telling the truth. Here is a more full quote of my actual comment from that message.

NoNukes writes: I haven't pointed out any mere "slip-ups", and I haven't even bothered to debate the things you say about Catholics.

In short, I did not say anything about your claims about Catholics whatsoever. Is that a mistake on your part. Well, what you just did was quote half of my statement in an attempt to claim that I challenged you on whether Catholics are Christians. That distortion appears to me to be deliberate.

As for the difference between Nazi's and Liberal Nazi's, the distinction in how offensive those things might be is all in your head.

Epithet removed... If I am suspended for it, so be it.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I believe a balloon that is laying on a table is a 2D object.

You believe that. But is it true? Are there, in fact, any real 2D objects you can point to? Even an uninflated balloon has a thickness, width, and length. A sheet of single-ply tissue paper is three dimensional. A line drawn on a sheet of paper is actually three dimensional. In fact, there are no 2D objects. But we are able to envision those objects by ignoring their actual third dimension at least for the purposes of discussion.

Somehow though you are willing to accept that an uninflated balloon represents an abstraction that is a two dimensional surface in a three-dimensional universe, but you balk at everyone else's abstractions. Is that really reasonable? Is it fair? Or is it more of the footdragging required to avoid honest debate.

I simply cannot accept that people are actually as incapable as you portray yourself. If in fact, you are, then why should anyone debate with you. And if you are not, then why should anyone debate with you.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

ICANT writes: If the paper is 11 x 8.5 x .004 the center is located at 5.5 x 4.25 x .002 So yes the picture does have depth just not much.

That's the thickness of the paper, not the depth of the picture. The picture has no depth.

ICANT writes: The air and the inside surface of the balloon is all about the balloon that resembles the universe.

Nope. That isn't part of the analogy at all.

ICANT writes: But in the meanwhile I will tell you that you can not tell me what is outside of the universe.

I haven't said anything about the "outside of the universe". The outside of the balloon represents the whole universe. The surface of the balloon has no boundaries and the universe has no boundaries.

ICANT writes: Where is the material you referenced. You cited a bare link.

In Message 737 you made a claim that an unnamed astronomer doesn't like the balloon analogy. I gave you a link to an astronomer who does like the balloon analogy. You're in no position to be holding up the forum rules to me. At the very least, you need to provide a link to your astronomer before you get holier-than-me.

Phat writes: He insists that you consider that reality is not a product of your own or any other human imagination, but rather through the eyes of a "Great Architect".

That excuse only works if the "Great Architect" has His own mathematics that's completely different from ours.

In short, I did not say anything about your claims about Catholics whatsoever. Is that a mistake on your part. Well, what you just did was quote half of my statement in an attempt to claim that I challenged you on whether Catholics are Christians. That distortion appears to me to be deliberate.

There, you did it again, saying I talk about "whether Catholics are Christians." I DO NOT. You are missing it AGAIN>

NN, there is something seriously wrong with how you are reading this. I was talking about your merely saying

...THE THINGS YOU SAY ABOUT CATHOLICS...
...THE THINGS YOU SAY ABOUT CATHOLICS...
...THE THINGS YOU SAY ABOUT CATHOLICS...
...THE THINGS YOU SAY ABOUT CATHOLICS...

That is, you are misrepresenting me as talking about CATHOLICS, but I am NOT talking about CATHOLICS. I am talking about CATHOLICISM, not CATHOLICS.

You quoted it. It's right there in front of your eyes. ...THE THINGS YOU SAY ABOUT CATHOLICS...

The word I'm talking about is the word CATHOLICS.

I'm talking about CATHOLICISM, not CATHOLICS. You said I was talking about CATHOLICS. I am NOT. I am talking about CATHOLICISM, not CATHOLICS.

I didn't say anything about your making any comments on it, simply saying I'm talking about CATHOLICS as persons when I've taken pains to say that is NOT what I'm talking about is the problem.

I am NOT talking about "CATHOLICS." I am talking about the ideology, the system known as CATHOLICISM. I'm talking about the DOCTRINE, I'm talking about the OFFICE OF THE PAPACY, I am talking about the superstitious practices, I am NOT talking about CATHOLICS, Catholics are PERSONS. I am not talking about persons. I've knocked myself out trying to make this clear and you still aren't getting it. WHY NOT? Please go back and reread that post I wrote. That's what it is all about.

You do this to me a lot and it may be nothing but some weird kind of misreading like this, I don't know, but getting across the reality of what I'm saying seems like it should be easy to do and then it turns out it isn't. If you still don't get it and you are still accusing me of lying I will want to tear out all my hair and yours and everybody else's within reach.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

GDR writes: I realize this is rather wild speculation but here goes. I'm not at all sure why you say we can't move infinitely in our 3 spatial dimensions. Even if there were just 2 I could infinitely circle the globe either backward or forward. With 3, I have the additional possibility of getting airborne.

Modulous writes: Well exactly - the number of dimensions doesn't impact our capacity to move through them. Thus adding more time dimensions would not necessarily grant us more freedom to move through them than we do the one time dimension that we have.

Again I agree that this is wild speculation but even with two dimensions of time ,as the mathematics suggest we should have, we could go backwards and forwards reversing entropy and would mean that we could be eternal.

GDR writes: Well, not being a Biblical literalist I don't go along with the idea that this all started out that way. I do think though that there is a plan and it does ultimately wind up with a recreated world where sacrificial love is the norm.

Modulous writes: So God is just making do?

Not at all. If I am right it is part of the long term plan to create an eternal society of those whose hearts love sacrificially.

GDR writes: It's all of those things but it still does not answer the question of what if anything is behind it all.

Modulous writes: But it does. You just don't like that answer

It's not that I don't like the answer that you come up with, I just don't agree with it. Are you saying you can prove there is no god?

GDR writes: IMHO it is far more likely that intelligence would have an intelligent root as opposed to the chance combination of mindless particles that have combined together to bring about conscious intelligent beings with a sense of morality. I can't prove that as we know, but in my mind it is logical.

Modulous writes: But "more likely" and "more reasonable" have meaning. I'm not asking you to prove that intelligence was the root - but I am asking you to justify your stance on likelihood and reasonableness. Otherwise, it's just a feeling - however compelling that feeling is.

I'll go back to Paley's watch He was saying that when we find a watch that we can assume it was built with intelligence as an argument against evolution. I wouldn't use it that way as I am prepared to accept evolution as a natural process without divine intervention in the process. However where it becomes much more of a grey area is when we consider the question of why the evolutionary process came into being in the first place. If we then discover what process initiated evolution then we ask what process initiated that and it is turtles all the way down.

I am simply looking at the fact that we exist with intelligence, a sense of morality and with the desire to answer these questions that we have. Sure we can believe that it is all by chance from mindlessness without even asking why is there something instead of nothing.We can choose a mindful or a mindless origin of our world. You choose one and I choose the other, by belief, as we do not have empirical evidence that proves the issue one way or the other.

GDR writes: his world as we know it will to come to an end whether it is the sun burning, the big crunch, a nuclear holocaust or whatever. When all of sentient life is gone from the planet then there is no ultimate meaning.

Modulous writes: But is there a purpose to recreating the world in this way? Some purpose that transcends God? If not, then I don't see how it more meaning than the meaning we give things - just because some other entity also gives meaning doesn't mean our meaning is any greater or lesser.

If life as we know it is all there is then yes our lives can have meaning, but it is temporary. If sentient life were to cease then the meaning that we have in our lives now will cease. Ultimately it would all be meaningless. This of course doesn't prove anything. It may well be true.
However if this is a formative stage for a recreated world then our lives can have an ultimate meaning.

Modulous writes: Naturally (heh) - but we can put forward a defence. Simply saying 'I believe' doesn't get us anywhere.

We are both putting forward a defence, but it is about defending what we believe knowing that there is no absolute evidence for either of our positions. I do prefer to say the "I believe" to saying that this is how is, out of honesty.

...THE THINGS YOU SAY ABOUT CATHOLICS...

Your complaint is horse crap. You are parsing a refusal to discuss a topic into a statement about something. What my statement says is that I am not discussing your post about the subject at all. The context of the statement was that my remarks were about Protestants and their institutions.

And I did not make a new statement. I simply provided the text of my old statement in order to correct you and not to restate anything.

And to drag it even further, how does my statement translate to accusing you of saying anything about whether Catholics are Christians? Remember that that is your actual accusation. I'm not deleting this time. You are a complete idiot. Why the heck anyone here pretend that you are the least bit intelligent is beyond belief.

You can have the last word.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.