Actually "Flattened spheres" are impossible, too; it is mathematically impossible to map a sphere to a plane without distortion. See, for example, http://math.rice.edu/~pcmi/sphere/gos5.html
To simplify, the poster may as well ask it of some self-contradiction, such as "can God create a married bachelor". On Apr 12, 6:41 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 Apr, 08:33, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Personally I thnk God is what makes for a decent living, but that is > > strictly a personal concept and not one I expect others to follow or > > believe. To me God is what makes life worth living and interesting. > > > Pat said in one of his earlier statement that God could not create a > > spherical cube and because he could not do that he was limited. > > Allan > > He can be limited in a number of ways given His self-definitions. If > He is One, as He has described Himself, He cannot be two. Nor would > He be able to recognise any 'other' as God, as any 'other' could only > be an extension and, thus, a subset of Himself. And no subset is > equal to the superset of which it is a subset. Nor could He > represent, in any one object, the entirety of Himself. An Omnipresent > God cannot create a Hell that is outside His Presence, as some > purport. An Omniscient God cannot NOT know everything. There are > many limitations and any logical fallacy cannot have a REAL example. > > I'm still not convinced that said proof actually proved what it > purported to prove. I wasn't left with a sense that a spherical cube > had been 'created' even mathematically. Both a sphere and a cube are > 3-D solids. One is defined by having 6 flat boundaries and the other > by one continuously curved boundary. The two definitions rule one > another out and I don't see a 3-D compromise available. Rounded cubes > are easy. Flattened spheres are easy. Spherical cube?...nah! It's > an oxymoron. It would be easier for God to produce proof of Ancient > Sumerian philately. Cuneiform clay-tablet postage stamps are, at > least, tangible...or WOULD be. > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:44 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I can take god as a convention for decent living Allan. > > > > On 5 Apr, 07:16, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I totally agree with you but unfortunately it is part of a God defining > > > > attribute. > > > > Allan > > > > > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 2:28 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Shape is only a convention in geometry, geometry itself conventional. > > > > > No need for god or Glasgow. > > > > > > On 1 Apr, 15:49, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > LMAO! That's a fine one gabby! > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 9:27 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I saw the picture, too, but didn't find it difficult to see the > > > > > > > objects as part of a 3D scenario. Join us over at Gravity, too, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > see what I mean. No strings attached. *laughing* > > > > > > > > On 1 Apr., 15:07, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 29 Mar, 16:44, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I would say most of mine was self inflicted! I also have found > > > that > > > > > > > > > hill. as for a spherical cube, it is more than possible, it is > > > > > proven! > > > > > > > > > > www.math.ias.edu/~arao/pubs/tiling.pdf<http://www.math.ias.edu/%7Earao/pubs/tiling.pdf> > > > <http://www.math.ias.edu/%7Earao/pubs/tiling.pdf> > > > > > > > > > I followed your directions of typing in the link and was able to > > > see > > > > > > > > the pdf file. The only picture it displays is a 2-D splay of > > > circles > > > > > > > > and rounded circular things inside a square. Hardly convincing, > > > as > > > > > > > > both a sphere and a cube are 3-D objects. > > > > > > > > > However, if I take up the argument and agree that the authors > > > have > > > > > > > > 'proven' that such a sphereical cube can exist, it demanded the > > > > > > > > existence of more than just 3 spatial dimensions, so, it would > > > mean > > > > > > > > that, if God CAN make a sphereical cube, He would have to do so > > > in a > > > > > > > > universe that has more dimensions than those recognised by the > > > > > > > > Standard Model or Quantum Mechanics, and THAT, my friends, lends > > > more > > > > > > > > credence to String Theory as being the truth of our universe. > > > So, If > > > > > > > > I give in and agree with the authors, then it only backs up MY > > > > > > > > proposition that String Theory is the truth. So...thanks for > > > that, > > > > > as > > > > > > > > it, if anything, lends credence to my own theories. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:47 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Actually Gabby I do not see how you arrive at the me myself > > > and > > > > > I? first of > > > > > > > > > > all I am not the one who originated the statement or concept > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > spherical-cube.. and I feel in reality it is not even > > > > > > > > > > worthy > > > of > > > > > > > > > > contemplation.. but it got stuck in my head anyway and an > > > > > answer arrived > > > > > > > > > > whether it was needed or not. I guess it is in my make up to > > > be a > > > > > > > > > > transcendentalist* so I am not surprised by an answer > > > > > > > > > > showing > > > up. > > > > > > > > > > *** > > > > > > > > > > The ME ME ME opera is reserved for self-centred people who > > > > > > > > > > do > > > not > > > > > care about > > > > > > > > > > the well being of others or society, only for themselves. > > > > > > > > > > If > > > you > > > > > feel that > > > > > > > > > > I am deceiving myself you actually are right in away > > > > > > > > > > because > > > I > > > > > have found a > > > > > > > > > > hill within me that allows me to deal with a traumatised > > > > > > > > > > life > > > > > some of it > > > > > > > > > > self inflicted some by others.. > > > > > > > > > > > well as for me.. I will continue inside my delusion of calm > > > and > > > > > peace were I > > > > > > > > > > do not have to deal with the raging anger within.. and yes > > > > > there are > > > > > > > > > > professional people who actually know all about me with > > > nothing > > > > > hidden. > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:35 AM, gabbydott < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ah! That's why you criticise the ME-ME-ME opera whereas > > > > > > > > > > > all > > > I > > > > > hear is > > > > > > > > > > > the me-myself-I. What you call playing on semantics is > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > I > > > > > see as > > > > > > > > > > > self-deception, which has a lot to do with reality. > > > Interesting > > > > > > > > > > > point. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > On 29 Mrz., 09:53, iam deheretic <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Can God create a spherical - cube? A foolish questions > > > that > > > > > is playing on > > > > > > > > > > > > semantics to try and create an illusionary point. Even a > > > > > foolish question > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes deserves an answer. As crazy as it sounds the > > > > > answer is > > > > > > > > > > > Yes..God > > > > > > > > > > > > can create a spherical-cube. lol it actually is not > > > > > difficult to do > > > > > > > > > > > > either.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think statements like that are needed to boost a > > > persons > > > > > ego (easing > > > > > > > > > > > God > > > > > > > > > > > > out) and have little to with reality.. It all has to do > > > with > > > > > how you view > > > > > > > > > > > > the subject. > > > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > ( > > > > > > > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > I_D Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > Google Groups > > > > > > > > > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > > > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > > > > > > > > > .com> > > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups .com> > > > > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups .com> > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > > > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > ( > > > > > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > I_D Allan- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > Groups > > > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > > > .com> > > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups .com> > > > > > . > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > > > -- > > > > ( > > > > ) > > > > I_D Allan > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > .com> > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > -- > > ( > > ) > > I_D Allan- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
