Good engineering exists.

FTL slipstreaming device.

Supernatural should refer to super nature, such as Stars and Solstices.

'Someone's belief' is not correct grammar, especially for someone believing. 'It's my belief'- nor 'I have a belief', make sense; rather 'I believe', or 'have belief'. You can say, 'I believe in', but believe must be understood as the determiner of 'in' and what comes after. There is a slight pause. If you say it without pausing, it shows that you misunderstand the nature of believing or having belief. In the case of belief, there is no 'a belief'. If I have a belief, how does that represent something I'm believing and not something I believe in.

I know(enough information), thus I believe(in the universe). It is belief that! — Varde

hi. Thanks for the response. Have a good day, or rather derp derf herpa flurf or whatever the fuck your eyes read.

You travel star to star, and at each you turn and remap yourself. As we move(walk, run, etc) at less than light-speed, inevitably the super nature around us forces us into random event horizon.

It's impossible to meet edges. you'll always have day/night cycle to some degree, out of solar systems, is just on route to a point. If you goto a star billions of light-years away you'll see Sol as a star exactly the same range. Stars block out a cubic center and instate random event horizon.

So what... You can reach the 'edge' of the universe instead of inevitably returning to the original point? I presume it's some great spherical nature, and what you presume is a cube of space i.e. you reach edges.

Animal brains are mapped differently than sentient animals, so even if they have neurons/mirror neurons, their use is dissimilar to the degree of sentience. Therefore they do not think about right or wrong, they just be, rightly or wrongly.

Does an animal stop before it kills its prey and reconsider 'should I do this?', no, it doesn't have mirror neurons firing at necessary time consistencies.

Therefore, unless tamed or trained animals do not understand what's good, and do not have morality(i.e. free of moral burden).

Agent Smith, formally and foremost, I seen your latest thread went well. Congratulations... I have also noticed that space is not unbound from 'what is' and seems to fold back on itself. There are no vast open space, where no stars exist, they all seem to be evenly scattered throughout.

I imagine that space is expanding because of prospected counter force of super spacial phenom, like a gestalt.

well, space isn't, and neither are solar systems. Perhaps you refer to it's becoming upon it's death, and it's relativity now.

That's wrong my friend. Even space here is finite. It's a temporary state, our kind of space is null of energy, and thus very cold. I believe you think of space in a different dimensionality that is not of energy, but rather a lack of matter, which is more counter effect of sublime free energy mechanics; well, produced and can be produced in infinite supply- perhaps, I'm not sure of, but no 'space' is infinite.

The Universe is definitely finite, infinity requires a universal-continuum of which in the universe there are temporary continuums, known as solar systems.

Basically the whole universe needs to be as seemingly symmetrical as a solar system when in fact it's all 'coming off wrongly' and temporary solar systems are emerging at the edges. Further, solar systems are assymetrical, but harmonious in a way that simulates perfect symmetry.

I.e. the planets tilt and draw fall under an assymetrical category, when spin alone would fall under a symmetrical category; it can't go on forever, it will sooner wobble out- or explode.

I would say that words are a gestalt, to compliment ordinary sign and symbology and propel us into a more futuristic state of being.

I would agree with you- on the face they are images.

When we talk vocally in word it is a reminder of those lines that we had written in school(a a a, b b b...) and our connection to that rotary in the present- it is still an image but a very subliminal one.

There is also a sound aspect to words, the chomping of normal thought frequencies and the placidity of silence in a worded mind; which can be beneficent but my no means should it overtake sign and symbology (it had already but it can be reversed; I'm not saying get rid of words but at least understand their gestalt usage).

My work was very rough, albeit, more than just what and why enquires, but oh well- too late now- guess it's your go.

Understanding perfect math, which is different from ordinary math, yet you will call me insane so, no, I won't show you this math. A clue is;
.
Think about how you look at something and it is from 1 side; so the something you look at more than 1 in total. As you can see, to me, the something is 1, it's personal way! Yet in an impersonal situation everything is always above 1.
If you can name something that doesn't have more than 1 features then I lose, it's just that when a person exists and had.any features- his being is all of this. To call him 1 is a insult, to think 1 in mind isn't.

Yes, nice quote; it outlines understanding of wisdom- he also promotes that it's beneficent with professionally cut examples.

Philosophy is importantrl, especially at the beginning of man. Philosophers should be in the field of experts, and the wisdom they share to changes the world, more than anyone else.

beautiful agent Smith, just beautiful. Really cleared things up for me...

thanks Al.

Vegan food is nice; try vegan Donner kebab.

It isn't always unethical to eat meat, it's unethical to be cruel to animals, and then eat meat.

If provided with no alternative to gaining the meat-product other than killing an animal, I'd say, it was unethical for the universe to begin, that is unless killing animals is acceptable, then it's just a matter of farm life quality and killing method.

Ha, classic Banno. Post very inartistic and quaint, but then to resolve the art, he tosses in a bit of unmeld clay- some illusion...

Morality is a universal-equalibrium, of typically consortia, who majestically judge each other; it is the super-frequency (ref. Sea) that is acceptable in the consort.

Sentience, or mental roaming, allows one to judge themselves. Sentient species often create laws, and laws make sense because of morality. For example: Morality is the reason(ref. Super frequency) we do not support killing in the civilized world.

To kill is an act that is commonly detested, because it causes pain to the victim; we do not kill because it is agreed upon and enforced that it would be less productive and unethical, and how we reach an agreement is through our sense of morality. Consortia preserved to the present day because past elements were moral, and in effort to continue this pattern, we amend our lifestyles to fit the consort. Considering all beings and their way of life, it befits that we do not kill each other, so that we can continue to exist as members of the consort; it's not a random thought- it's rooted in logic- technically we ought not kill- not killing isn't a question of morality but an answer to a former question: how do we do good?

I know... Thus, I believe.

Knowing is a time lapse event and not passive agility.

I believe X is true, because it is proven to be true. I know X is true at the moment I discover proof.

What's the point in knowing X is true again afterward?

After knowing something, it's then a belief in it's validity, because...

Not a matter of knowing deeply. Know is a verb/time lapse, believe is a verb/passivity. Know/Believe are are two ends and work together.

I've known this in the past, it's why I share the belief.

I know this now... It's validity is all around us.

I don't accidentally know in the passive sense anything.

There is no stock of knowledge, just parts/fragments of memories that stick in the belief spring.

There is stocking belief...

I know X thus it's in my belief X, falsify it and it is no longer in my belief. True/False?

It then broadens to what's beneficent(on terms of what is belief X consisting of, what is true knowledge?).

Ha! And what part of my post wasn't 'being'. *Winks*

Very good. I completely agree. This was more of the response I was expecting...

Bar the usual TPF soap opera occurrence, this thread has been a victory- I am wiser than I was.

To think outside the box, we must add another box?

1. You think normally inside a box. You ponder abstractly outside a box, and then make theories in the box.

2. To think outside the box, we need an ordinance.

Tesseracts, C3, C4, are not box environment but are technically more complex box-type environments.

Ordinances are like a VIP jet with three ordinance fighter jets nearby in formation, or a satellite.

1. We have an ordinance, classically another box shape.

2. Here is a model for thinking outside the box, and because this model is consistent it supports intelligent design, but super-partially, as mirror of out of a box thinking.

I could knuckle possibility to the mirrored process of out of box thinking.

Though this support is super partial, and doesn't prove anything, intelligent design is a credible hypothesis and shouldn't be ruled out, we all may concave under it's zeal.

To reiterate, to ponder and have abstract theories about what happened before the universe requires thinking in a box alone, however thinking about what happened before the universe, and not just pondering, requires, hypothetically, a external environment for thought, a new box perpendicular to the original. That's where God is, that's where intelligent design is. I measured it as a consistent model, and said it supports intelligent design super partially.

They may have mirror neurons but are different cerebrally which means they'll fire differently.

Someone said to me 'Beliefs cannot be proven/disproven. Hume argues.'

Summary:

I disagree people can believe in a thing if it is made 'crystal clear' that it is wrong, lest they specifically follow the belief in wrongness(not the same belief).

I would like to highlight how I said belief is a spring occuring around the sin (ethereal within) of man.

I may be wrong by a margin in my original post but what was not in margin of error...

If we stop pursuing knowledge, we succumb to believing in what we know, at least. This means belief isn't always bad, it is a natural mechanism that has use other than to delude each other.

Precision and good wit may result in beautiful art! A man with a good stroke may have a greater advantage in this department than a man with a common stroke(stroke is a reference to ones gesture with a tool).

I don't understand the idea that beauty is only subjective, beauty can be judged.

You can say that X person is more professionally created than Y person. You can say X art is greater than Y art, but you can't say it's not art to either. Is X artist more precise and wittier in his painting than Y artist? Is the human eye he drew more humane than hers?

Is there a context where delusion isn't bad?

Perhaps this is the context I point to...

Otherwise I'll agree, delusion IS bad.

No.

It is delegated to them through sentient beings, such as by taming or training.

Morality is cerebral equality first ascribed to newborns prior to any other data. Good is anything considered equal and evil is unequal where morality is concerned. Cerebral equality takes sentience which is mental roaming, animals are technically different than man as they experience pre-sentience. If we are sentient then we can judge 'what is/isn't', thus finding what is equal, cerebrally. Sentience- a measure of all things in the universe; sentient beings must quarry themselves to pay for the luxury of mind in economical equinox. Evil is opposite to good integrally but in an opposed Boolean manner is solipsism, which is what succumbing to evil deeds is like.

Hell should be mentally and physically straining, more so than it is torturing, in all but some(and therefore only in special) cases. You should always feel like a normal man and not like a demon thus punishment needs to be made neutral with reward.

He felt like a star the whole time, as he was pushed further and further into decrepit dimensions of pain, he was stabbed in the back at every surprising occasion"- Prometheus.

Why?

Hell would be more professional and we would fear it less for unruly reasons such as severity, instead, it would be like missing the good life, rather than being opposite.

I think belief is like a spring encircling the sin(ethereal within) of man. We don't have choice to believe(turn belief off), but rather the opposite, we can do, not to believe(run command not believe from believe). If we stop denying our locale in the life matrix, we have to believe in what we have got. If anything, science is changing our beliefs.

We deny our current model and re-imagine the way of the world almost every day unless some of us have reached a settling down point.

I believe in what I know.

If I say I don't believe in what I know, and I say I know what I know- it still leaves a gap about my knowing.

Belief, as said before, is menial strength.

If it's constantly springing around us the most I can do is deny, but it'll only reshape what I believe when I rest.

"This girl was so hot, it was like seeing red for the first time" - completely understandable, given we had both experienced it.

"Like red, is the colour purple-crimson." - locked in, understood.

"I am like a fly at a time where I am down depressed, desperately looking for positivity through about hundred eyes" - reasonable, suggests artistic likeness, it's nothing major to be fussed about.

We are similar and the same sometimes. This allows us to draw connections between each other, call it special relations, a type of family gene. I can say I am like a fly, because it has similarities (eyes, legs, mind, etc) and we are the same (living, breathing, homeostasis, etc).

Problem arises when we consider evil to be opposite integrally to good when it's more Boolean opposed.

Good is harmony pertained between matching and mismatching behaviours.

Humankind and animals live together, therefore not all human or animal personalities are acceptable. In black and white, humans are hot, terrifying creatures who might come across as too violent to an amount of things(bar animals who accept friendly violence).

Good is an automatic behavioural norm adjusted depending on natural selection; behavioural norms can theoretically vary.

Evil are the beahviours out of the realm of good or expiring normal behaviours.

Morality and immorality suggests this.

Morality and immorality exhibits imbalance and balance in my opinion having read the word here a total of 1,897,875 times.

What I wondered is how is balance and imbalance achieved concerning behaviour and Eureka! I thought of behavioural norms.

Mankind is NOT the only populus, considering both alive and dead things. It meddles with other things so it's persona is tested, must appease it's luxuries, and quarry burdens.

It cannot at any time abuse what it's got or it at least will think negative thoughts.

On negative thoughts we move onto forgiveness of evil which lies in mental and physical handicaps.

A bubble exists where things are similar and same. I and the fly are similar, but also dissimilar; sometimes we are the same, but at other times we are not.

I and the fly are

like — Nagel

another at times where we are similar and same- which, is all the time within the bubble from a bubbled perspective.

We are both life- but let's not assume we know what life is, let's give it definition...

An analogy: a creator looks at all his creation as his creation, all individuals of his creation are thus, like, but from their perspective, it is how they are similar and same in a bubble(simple, really).

There are things we aren't like(are there?)- at all. They are not part of this universe.

I can think outside the box, and thinking consistently with logic, another box appears. Since there are people in this box, assume there are people in that box.

One of those people created the universe(probably some poorly put together illusion that'nt nearly as big as it seems).

I don't know- right- but I do believe.

Thank you, good night.

The technicality of the universe begets that something simpler came first. If we are talking about beginnings- nothings becoming something's, why does nothing auto become the universe? Isn't there more probable states? And thus, intelligent design is a mere stepping stone; one that's probably required to make sense of this junk verse.

You need to know the parts to a car and it's plan(math), before you can build it and make it move(philosophy, when thought of).