[1271] I could do with your...assistance

[bluevitriol]

Nov 4, 2013 20:03:45 GMT Kuraimizu said:

I see myself as a scientist, and I can't understand why Kat did that.
Why would you spend weeks growing Bone and muscle to make a Robot
when you could do the same job with aluminum Polymers and ceramic in a day.

I mean really this all seems a complete waste of time.
why grow the parts individually then assemble them?
Second It's living tissue, so it has to be nourished and cleansed
of waste by-products So you need a circulatory system acting in line with
a full life support system.

If she wanted to go the biological route why not become a geneticist?
Learn how to program DNA from scratch, such that you could grow an animal
or plant with any shape and features you could think of as being beneficial.

She Grew the Bone and Muscles? must have used a bio-scaffold of some kind.
this came out from left field. this is such a plot hole.

From a scientific point of view; I believe that she is growing these items bio-mechanically... possibly using the same techniques of the Seed Bismuth. This would indeed make the robots see her as a Godlike being or Creator. Also, if it is bio-mechanical, it probably only needs lubricant to keep the wear down on moving joints, etc, and powered by a Golem heart; or in this case, an external power supply.

I think Paz is either going to be impressed or scared that Kat is playing God.

[Kuraimizu]

Nov 5, 2013 3:43:43 GMT fishtie said:

It's possible that speed is not Kat's objective point.  Her current methods may have advantages in longevity, flexibility, or adaptability that outweigh the initial inefficiency.  That's why certain lifeforms favor small number/long development cycles for their young.

yes but there is a distinct difference between Biological organisms that can reproduce,
And must be capable of various tasks, and adaption to unique situations.
and Bio-hybrid Golems or robots that are powered electrically or ethericly.
A Golem is designed to perform a specific task, and Function heavily decides form.
Second Mass production is severely hampered by a slow production method.
instead of taking weeks to grow, it would be much more efficient to create a 3d printer
that could control assembly on an atomic and Molecular scale.

Nov 5, 2013 9:07:24 GMT bluevitriol said:

From a scientific point of view; I believe that she is growing these items bio-mechanically... possibly using the same techniques of the Seed Bismuth. This would indeed make the robots see her as a Godlike being or Creator. Also, if it is bio-mechanical, it probably only needs lubricant to keep the wear down on moving joints, etc, and powered by a Golem heart; or in this case, an external power supply.

I think Paz is either going to be impressed or scared that Kat is playing God.

It isn't playing god unless your creations have the ability to easily reproduce
Learn, adapt, and better them selves. everything else is science.

Besides A God by definition would have to know all knowledge of the universe.
He, She, or It, would need to understand Quantum mechanics and physics and how
such laws and Particles interact, to apply to Atomic physics, which apply to Molecular and macro
Physics and Chemistry, which apply to biology and the Biological base-4 Machine language of DNA and RNA
Genetics, And how Chemistry applies to Crystalline and Amorphous molecular Structures,
and how Alloys of Metal/Metal Metal/non-metal and Non-metal/non-metal have different effects on light,
chemical interactions as catalysts, and in the different structural properties of Crystals,
amorphous Solids, Polymers, or Gels, work together in unique combinations in both Biology, Food and in
design applications such as architecture, Tools, and textiles, and in how to manufacture and design
almost any possible creation from scratch if need be.

A God would have to be a Physicist, Chemist/Pharmacist/Chemical-Engineer, Biologist, Physician/Surgeon/Veterinarian,
Psychologist/Anthropologist, Artist/Painter/Sculptor, Carpenter, [Black/Gold/Silver]Smith/Clock-maker,
Astronomer/Navigator, Farmer, Geneticist/Computer Programmer/Roboticist, Electrician/Electrical-Engineer,
Shepherd/Animal Husbandry/Breed Domestication, Architect/Structural-Engineer, Inventor/Designer, Father/Mother,
The list goes on and on.

Science isn't about " Playing " God, It's about Learning enough to become a God
it's about following in God's footsteps and becoming like He/She/It is.
Science is about learning to control the world around us and how the Universe Works.

[zimmyzims]

Nov 4, 2013 20:03:45 GMT Kuraimizu said:

I see myself as a scientist, and I can't understand why Kat did that.
Why would you spend weeks growing Bone and muscle to make a Robot
when you could do the same job with aluminum Polymers and ceramic in a day.

I mean really this all seems a complete waste of time.
why grow the parts individually then assemble them?
Second It's living tissue, so it has to be nourished and cleansed
of waste by-products So you need a circulatory system acting in line with
a full life support system.

If she wanted to go the biological route why not become a geneticist?
Learn how to program DNA from scratch, such that you could grow an animal
or plant with any shape and features you could think of as being beneficial.

She Grew the Bone and Muscles? must have used a bio-scaffold of some kind.
this came out from left field. this is such a plot hole.

"Why" is outside the domain of science... ?

Also:

It isn't playing god unless your creations have the ability to easily reproduce
Learn, adapt, and better them selves. everything else is science.

Who ever said it is easy?

[Kuraimizu]

Nov 5, 2013 12:22:53 GMT zimmyzims said:

Also:

It isn't playing god unless your creations have the ability to easily reproduce
Learn, adapt, and better them selves. everything else is science.

Who ever said it is easy?

I did. Evolution as experienced on earth is for Lazy Gods.
you start life sit back and wait for intelligent thinking life to evolve.
Then you show up and say "Hello, I'm God."

also base4 DNA RNA, Don't even get me started.
Sure it takes a long time, and leaves plenty of room to make tweaks and adjustments.
there are so many things wrong with it.
Sure it's a better machine language than the binary we use for our computers and robots.
but seriously it has so many flaws, too many genetic diseases and anomalies.
And why is there no Pallet Chromosome? A pallet for pigment and other frequent
evolutionary advantages would have streamlined the whole scenario.
In my opinion, base-6 or Base-8 DNA RNA would have been a much better decision
to use for the evolution of life.

but really I'm just arguing about design.

[quinkgirl]

This... this thread is beginning to make my head spin.

[Kuraimizu]

My friends sometimes get headaches when the conversations get too deep.
What's fun is trying to envision a 4th or 5th dimensional object or axis grid.
the brain either Hurts from the incompatibility
or in my case the memory just dumps when the render fails.

[Georgie L]

Nov 4, 2013 8:34:58 GMT maxptc said:

I want to know how all the dates they had before this went. Is Kat just having an off day or is Paz use to this by now?

I think this might be her first proper date and up until then they've been hanging out, so she's doing what is expected from media instead of going with the flow and being herself.

[Kuraimizu]

Nov 5, 2013 19:17:28 GMT Georgie L said:

I think this might be her first proper date and up until then they've been hanging out, so she's doing what is expected from media instead of going with the flow and being herself.

Who doesn't get nervous the first date?

[GK Sierra]

Nov 5, 2013 20:27:38 GMT Kuraimizu said:

Nov 5, 2013 19:17:28 GMT Georgie L said:

I think this might be her first proper date and up until then they've been hanging out, so she's doing what is expected from media instead of going with the flow and being herself.

Who doesn't get nervous the first date?

Jon Hamm.

[temnoc]

Someone here mentioned Kat trying too hard before and then Annie stepping in and getting her to just be herself, and now that I think about it, it might make sense for Paz to get weirded out tomorrow. Then Kat, frustrated and confused, goes to Annie and asks for advice, which is how the truth eventually comes out (no pun intended).

[Daedalus]

Nov 5, 2013 16:58:49 GMT Kuraimizu said:

My friends sometimes get headaches when the conversations get too deep.
What's fun is trying to envision a 4th or 5th dimensional object or axis grid.
the brain either Hurts from the incompatibility
or in my case the memory just dumps when the render fails.

It's pretty easy to imagine 4D objects: you can see them as a set of sequential 3D traces along 3-spaces perpendicular to the w-axis. Kind of similar to an extension of integrals into 4-space. As we live in a universe where we are familiar with our experiential time, we can substitute that as a pseudodimension representing w and see a 4-shape as a set of overlapping 3-shapes: imagine a changing hologram but overlaying all the frames while intellectually recognizing that they have totally separate, non-overlapping coordinate direction that we are unable to comprehend as anything but an overlap.

For example, a 4D cone would look like a set of 3D spheres centered around the origin with expanding radius, if we are moving along the w-axis along its central line perpendicular to the base (which is itself a sphere).

5D objects are able to be visualized in the same way, but it takes a lot more effort to support two separate time dimensions in your imagination.

[Kuraimizu]

Nov 6, 2013 1:41:03 GMT Daedalus said:

It's pretty easy to imagine 4D objects: you can see them as a set of sequential 3D traces along 3-spaces perpendicular to the w-axis. Kind of similar to an extension of integrals into 4-space. As we live in a universe where we are familiar with our experiential time, we can substitute that as a pseudodimension representing w and see a 4-shape as a set of overlapping 3-shapes: imagine a changing hologram but overlaying all the frames while intellectually recognizing that they have totally separate, non-overlapping coordinate direction that we are unable to comprehend as anything but an overlap.

For example, a 4D cone would look like a set of 3D spheres centered around the origin with expanding radius, if we are moving along the w-axis along its central line perpendicular to the base (which is itself a sphere).

5D objects are able to be visualized in the same way, but it takes a lot more effort to support two separate time dimensions in your imagination.

The theory is simple the actual rendering is not.
and any image a human mind can envision isn't the actual shape
it's a 3d shadow of the intended object.
as for the 4 and 5 hypercubes the individual faces and cells that make them up
don't overlap, they interlock.
Lines interlock at the corner of squares
squares interlock at the edges of cubes
Cubes interlock at the faces of hyper4cs
Hyper4cs interlock at the cells of Hyper5cs

and if you look at the unfolded version of each
cube and hypercube, you'll notice that with each level
it's only one dimension more complex than the previous.

the hard part is how to envision the actual Axis from which
to draw a matrix grid, seeing as all axis must be 90 degrees
from all others they intersect. the human mind always
folds, flattens, or warps the image to match the 3 dimensions
our brains can actually handle.

That is the crux of the problem. the Human mind at best
can only produce a 3 dimensional shadow, and modern computers
can only display in 2 dimensions, seeing as the 3d that is used
with modern screens is nothing more than a 2d illusion on a screen
and split between both eyes by a polarized filter.

[Daedalus]

Nov 6, 2013 2:08:55 GMT Kuraimizu said:

Nov 6, 2013 1:41:03 GMT Daedalus said:

It's pretty easy to imagine 4D objects: you can see them as a set of sequential 3D traces along 3-spaces perpendicular to the w-axis. Kind of similar to an extension of integrals into 4-space. As we live in a universe where we are familiar with our experiential time, we can substitute that as a pseudodimension representing w and see a 4-shape as a set of overlapping 3-shapes: imagine a changing hologram but overlaying all the frames while intellectually recognizing that they have totally separate, non-overlapping coordinate direction that we are unable to comprehend as anything but an overlap.

For example, a 4D cone would look like a set of 3D spheres centered around the origin with expanding radius, if we are moving along the w-axis along its central line perpendicular to the base (which is itself a sphere).

5D objects are able to be visualized in the same way, but it takes a lot more effort to support two separate time dimensions in your imagination.

The theory is simple the actual rendering is not.
and any image a human mind can envision isn't the actual shape
it's a 3d shadow of the intended object.
as for the 4 and 5 hypercubes the individual faces and cells that make them up
don't overlap, they interlock.
Lines interlock at the corner of squares
squares interlock at the edges of cubes
Cubes interlock at the faces of hyper4cs
Hyper4cs interlock at the cells of Hyper5cs

and if you look at the unfolded version of each
cube and hypercube, you'll notice that with each level
it's only one dimension more complex than the previous.

the hard part is how to envision the actual Axis from which
to draw a matrix grid, seeing as all axis must be 90 degrees
from all others they intersect. the human mind always
folds, flattens, or warps the image to match the 3 dimensions
our brains can actually handle.

That is the crux of the problem. the Human mind at best
can only produce a 3 dimensional shadow, and modern computers
can only display in 2 dimensions, seeing as the 3d that is used
with modern screens is nothing more than a 2d illusion on a screen
and split between both eyes by a polarized filter.

Of course. A (N+1)cube has (N)cubes for its faces, just as a 'normal' cube has '2D-cubes' (read: squares) for its sides and all are perpendicular to one another, following the unit bases (basises?); that's trivial to prove, and it kind of is the definition of said cubes. Furthermore, we did not evolve to be able to do complex renderings of 4 and 5D shapes in our head. Plus, our universe only has a construction of non-time dimensions such that we can make three mutually perpendicular bases of our space (and if you find the other 7 that string theory posits, claim your Nobel: it's possibly THE unsolved problem of string theory, along with how to make it empirical rather than theoretical). No matter its sophistication, a computer will never be able to display any of these as more than a 'illusion' in 3D at maximum (like a hologram), because the universe will not permit it. Furthermore, vision is a 2D construct itself (no matter what we see), so whatever 3D object we see stems entirely from imagination, spatial reasoning, and depth perception. A 3D display will be no better, by that definition, than a 2D one.

[judgedeadd]

I've overreacted. I'm sorry.

[maxptc]

[Kuraimizu]

Nov 6, 2013 2:59:03 GMT Daedalus said:

Of course. A (N+1)cube has (N)cubes for its faces, just as a 'normal' cube has '2D-cubes' (read: squares) for its sides and all are perpendicular to one another, following the unit bases (basises?); that's trivial to prove, and it kind of is the definition of said cubes. Furthermore, we did not evolve to be able to do complex renderings of 4 and 5D shapes in our head. Plus, our universe only has a construction of non-time dimensions such that we can make three mutually perpendicular bases of our space (and if you find the other 7 that string theory posits, claim your Nobel: it's possibly THE unsolved problem of string theory, along with how to make it empirical rather than theoretical). No matter its sophistication, a computer will never be able to display any of these as more than a 'illusion' in 3D at maximum (like a hologram), because the universe will not permit it. Furthermore, vision is a 2D construct itself (no matter what we see), so whatever 3D object we see stems entirely from imagination, spatial reasoning, and depth perception. A 3D display will be no better, by that definition, than a 2D one.

Very good reasoning, I completely forgot that fact about eyes. Thank you for reminding me,
my 3d Field of view is a hallucination caused by optical differences.

with your mention of string theory and the missing 7 dimensions.
I actually have that figured out in my theory of gravity.
there are 11 total different dimensions or brane types
divided in two groups of 5 and 6 branes.
the First group is the Matrix dimensions, 3 Spacial, 2 Temporal
the other 6 brane types actually make up the matter in the universe.

[Daedalus]

Nov 6, 2013 17:02:26 GMT Kuraimizu said:

Nov 6, 2013 2:59:03 GMT Daedalus said:

Of course. A (N+1)cube has (N)cubes for its faces, just as a 'normal' cube has '2D-cubes' (read: squares) for its sides and all are perpendicular to one another, following the unit bases (basises?); that's trivial to prove, and it kind of is the definition of said cubes. Furthermore, we did not evolve to be able to do complex renderings of 4 and 5D shapes in our head. Plus, our universe only has a construction of non-time dimensions such that we can make three mutually perpendicular bases of our space (and if you find the other 7 that string theory posits, claim your Nobel: it's possibly THE unsolved problem of string theory, along with how to make it empirical rather than theoretical). No matter its sophistication, a computer will never be able to display any of these as more than a 'illusion' in 3D at maximum (like a hologram), because the universe will not permit it. Furthermore, vision is a 2D construct itself (no matter what we see), so whatever 3D object we see stems entirely from imagination, spatial reasoning, and depth perception. A 3D display will be no better, by that definition, than a 2D one.

Very good reasoning, I completely forgot that fact about eyes. Thank you for reminding me,
my 3d Field of view is a hallucination caused by optical differences.

with your mention of string theory and the missing 7 dimensions.
I actually have that figured out in my theory of gravity.
there are 11 total different dimensions or brane types
divided in two groups of 5 and 6 branes.
the First group is the Matrix dimensions, 3 Spacial, 2 Temporal
the other 6 brane types actually make up the matter in the universe.

Though naturally I remain skeptical until I see your reasoning, PLEASE send me a copy of this theory if you ever write it out, as I am really interested now.

[Lightice]

Nov 6, 2013 6:19:49 GMT maxptc said:

It's not unheard of, actually.

[quinkgirl]

Nov 6, 2013 18:52:25 GMT Lightice said:

Nov 6, 2013 6:19:49 GMT maxptc said:

It's not unheard of, actually.

I'm glad. I remember reading the Evil Genius series a few years ago and having no idea what the hell was happening at times, though. There was some complicated vocab. Great series, by the way. Everyone should read it

[warrl]

Nov 6, 2013 1:41:03 GMT Daedalus said:

For example, a 4D cone would look like a set of 3D spheres centered around the origin with expanding radius, if we are moving along the w-axis along its central line perpendicular to the base (which is itself a sphere).

To make a rough approximation of a 4D cone, hook a cheap roundish "rubber" balloon (the sort that come in bags of 25 at a party store or in the toy section of a grocery store) up to an air tank and inflate it until it bursts. Its progress from when it has enough air in it to be sort-of-spherical, until just before it pops, is roughly a 4D cone.

[Daedalus]

Nov 7, 2013 2:28:00 GMT warrl said:

Nov 6, 2013 1:41:03 GMT Daedalus said:

For example, a 4D cone would look like a set of 3D spheres centered around the origin with expanding radius, if we are moving along the w-axis along its central line perpendicular to the base (which is itself a sphere).

To make a rough approximation of a 4D cone, hook a cheap roundish "rubber" balloon (the sort that come in bags of 25 at a party store or in the toy section of a grocery store) up to an air tank and inflate it until it bursts. Its progress from when it has enough air in it to be sort-of-spherical, until just before it pops, is roughly a 4D cone.

Well phrased.

[zimmyzims]

Nov 5, 2013 13:08:44 GMT Kuraimizu said:

Nov 5, 2013 12:22:53 GMT zimmyzims said:

Also:
Who ever said it is easy?

I did. Evolution as experienced on earth is for Lazy Gods.
you start life sit back and wait for intelligent thinking life to evolve.
Then you show up and say "Hello, I'm God."

also base4 DNA RNA, Don't even get me started.
Sure it takes a long time, and leaves plenty of room to make tweaks and adjustments.
there are so many things wrong with it.
Sure it's a better machine language than the binary we use for our computers and robots.
but seriously it has so many flaws, too many genetic diseases and anomalies.
And why is there no Pallet Chromosome? A pallet for pigment and other frequent
evolutionary advantages would have streamlined the whole scenario.
In my opinion, base-6 or Base-8 DNA RNA would have been a much better decision
to use for the evolution of life.

but really I'm just arguing about design.

So, basically, you're saying that the real God, if there is, is a lazy one. Then how come playing a lazy God is not playing God, when that is playing the real God?

[quinkgirl]

Nov 7, 2013 13:09:15 GMT zimmyzims said:

Nov 5, 2013 13:08:44 GMT Kuraimizu said:

I did. Evolution as experienced on earth is for Lazy Gods.
you start life sit back and wait for intelligent thinking life to evolve.
Then you show up and say "Hello, I'm God."

also base4 DNA RNA, Don't even get me started.
Sure it takes a long time, and leaves plenty of room to make tweaks and adjustments.
there are so many things wrong with it.
Sure it's a better machine language than the binary we use for our computers and robots.
but seriously it has so many flaws, too many genetic diseases and anomalies.
And why is there no Pallet Chromosome? A pallet for pigment and other frequent
evolutionary advantages would have streamlined the whole scenario.
In my opinion, base-6 or Base-8 DNA RNA would have been a much better decision
to use for the evolution of life.

but really I'm just arguing about design.

So, basically, you're saying that the real God, if there is, is a lazy one. Then how come playing a lazy God is not playing God, when that is playing the real God?

What the heck is going on here?
How do we know if god is lazy? He could be plotting or something? ...Or if he exists at all?
And if we're talking about Coyote, I'm pretty sure he can be defined as lazy.

[Kuraimizu]

Nov 7, 2013 13:09:15 GMT zimmyzims said:

So, basically, you're saying that the real God, if there is, is a lazy one. Then how come playing a lazy God is not playing God, when that is playing the real God?

Nov 7, 2013 16:01:20 GMT quinkgirl said:

What the heck is going on here?
How do we know if god is lazy? He could be plotting or something? ...Or if he exists at all?
And if we're talking about Coyote, I'm pretty sure he can be defined as lazy.

Evolution is the easiest way to create biodiversity in the ecosystem of a planet.
You guide the evolution with the addition of disease, natural disasters, famine
drought, and ice ages.

the only other option would be to design each species from scratch
growing them in artificial wombs,
and implanting them into the ecosystem of target planet.

The second option requires a lot more work and effort.
Evolution just needs a few well placed mass-extinctions

[zimmyzims]

Nov 7, 2013 18:04:49 GMT Kuraimizu said:

Nov 7, 2013 13:09:15 GMT zimmyzims said:

So, basically, you're saying that the real God, if there is, is a lazy one. Then how come playing a lazy God is not playing God, when that is playing the real God?

Nov 7, 2013 16:01:20 GMT quinkgirl said:

What the heck is going on here?
How do we know if god is lazy? He could be plotting or something? ...Or if he exists at all?
And if we're talking about Coyote, I'm pretty sure he can be defined as lazy.

Evolution is the easiest way to create biodiversity in the ecosystem of a planet.
You guide the evolution with the addition of disease, natural disasters, famine
drought, and ice ages.

the only other option would be to design each species from scratch
growing them in artificial wombs,
and implanting them into the ecosystem of target planet.

The second option requires a lot more work and effort.
Evolution just needs a few well placed mass-extinctions

However, how about answering my question?

[GK Sierra]

Nov 7, 2013 18:04:49 GMT Kuraimizu said:

Nov 7, 2013 13:09:15 GMT zimmyzims said:

So, basically, you're saying that the real God, if there is, is a lazy one. Then how come playing a lazy God is not playing God, when that is playing the real God?

Nov 7, 2013 16:01:20 GMT quinkgirl said:

What the heck is going on here?
How do we know if god is lazy? He could be plotting or something? ...Or if he exists at all?
And if we're talking about Coyote, I'm pretty sure he can be defined as lazy.

Evolution is the easiest way to create biodiversity in the ecosystem of a planet.
You guide the evolution with the addition of disease, natural disasters, famine
drought, and ice ages.

the only other option would be to design each species from scratch
growing them in artificial wombs,
and implanting them into the ecosystem of target planet.

The second option requires a lot more work and effort.
Evolution just needs a few well placed mass-extinctions

The easiest way for biodiversity to be created on a planet assuming the existence of an all-powerful being is to simply create different animals. Magic them into existence, like the universe was allegedly magic'd into existence. God wouldn't need to grow anything, he'd just snap his celestial fingers.

Thankfully, there is not a shred of convincing evidence for such a terrifyingly powerful and capricious being.

The phrase "playing god" was invented by small-minded people and clergy to muzzle man's potential.

[Kuraimizu]

Nov 7, 2013 18:11:56 GMT zimmyzims said:

Nov 7, 2013 13:09:15 GMT zimmyzims said:

So, basically, you're saying that the real God, if there is, is a lazy one. Then how come playing a lazy God is not playing God, when that is playing the real God?

However, how about answering my question?

personally I would have to say, some areas of creation seem lazy,
while other parts seem detailed and more planned.
Scheduled effort might be the best way of describing it.
After all you work your butt off for the important parts of your Career/Job,
enjoy some leisure, and Hobbies, And do some housekeeping, and yardwork.
the rest of the time you are napping sleeping or tending to family matters,
or spending time with the kids.

I would see God doing something similar, it's important to pay attention to the overall view,
Teach and Guide your children that are willing to listen, Give knowledge and understanding
to the curious ones, Let them be creative, and make mistakes. Tend the things that need some care
and for things that don't really matter all that much let nature take it's own course.

Nov 7, 2013 20:02:04 GMT GK Sierra said:

The easiest way for biodiversity to be created on a planet assuming the existence of an all-powerful being is to simply create different animals. Magic them into existence, like the universe was allegedly magic'd into existence. God wouldn't need to grow anything, he'd just snap his celestial fingers.

Thankfully, there is not a shred of convincing evidence for such a terrifyingly powerful and capricious being.
The phrase "playing god" was invented by small-minded people and clergy to muzzle man's potential.

The Universe has Laws, I assume a God of Order and reason would follow any laws he himself has made.
Things can't just be magically there. However there is no rule against bringing it from another location,
or from making it on-site from available materials.

Break a twig from a tree, rearrange the Electrons, Neutrons, and protons, to make a Worm to feed a bird.
or perhaps a ring to gift to someone. maybe picking up a log and turning it into a computer.
Nothing was suddenly there, all that was done was recompiling some matter.

[The Anarch]

Nov 7, 2013 23:46:54 GMT Kuraimizu said:

The Universe has Laws, I assume a God of Order and reason would follow any laws he himself has made.

Just like human lawmakers!

[Kuraimizu]

Nov 8, 2013 0:41:55 GMT The Anarch said:

Nov 7, 2013 23:46:54 GMT Kuraimizu said:

The Universe has Laws, I assume a God of Order and reason would follow any laws he himself has made.

Just like human lawmakers!

So you are making the claim that a God of Order and Reason,
[Which I used in my statement] is as Corrupt as mortal greedy politicians?

Under what do you base your Claim that,
God or The Gods, are Corrupt?

[The Anarch]

Nov 8, 2013 0:48:24 GMT Kuraimizu said:

Nov 8, 2013 0:41:55 GMT The Anarch said:

Just like human lawmakers!

So you are making the claim that a God of Order and Reason,
[Which I used in my statement] is as Corrupt as mortal greedy politicians?

Order and reason are not mutually exclusive with corrupt and greedy.