7th

-Previous discussions.

...999.0 + 1 = ...000.0 = 0 0 - 1 = -1 ergo ...999.0 = -1 Each human that is born into modern-society is forced to walk down a path already paved. We have constructed the chain of events below to explain exactly what this path contains and where it will lead humanity in the near future. 1. You are born as a pure minded human; no academia and essentially untouched by society. 2. You are taught through your guardians how to live amongst a society which they consider to be reality and you learn how to recognise your environment. Their knowledge is tenaciously biased through education practices: school, college, university -- and media: television, newspapers, books, and so on. Resulting in a completely pro-state initial outlook on existence. 3. Once you are old enough to attend school you are forced by either: your guardians, the fear of being isolated from society or the government to do so (or not do so). There are only two choices of schooling/not schooling, those that involve “God” and those that involve “No God.” 6. After time you no longer have an open ‘pure-mind’ instead a ‘one-quart’ imagination and common sense. Through the teachings of God / No God you begin to lose grasp of what is real, and consider the pro-state reality as complete-actuality. As you proceed further through education, or no education your belief in the state (religion or no religion) views becomes stronger, under the false impression that they are your own, and that you have freedom of belief. 7. Once you are ready and have reached the end of schooling you are inclined to help the state unknowingly; writing books, becoming an actor, destroying nature for advancement (for the state) and other pro-state areas. Your imagination and common sense undergoes conversion into either: complete advancement for the state, complete control and sedation (to yourself and others through moral religious teachings) for the state, or part of state society increasing income for the state (in the middle, don’t care but aware; unknowingly agnostic). 8. Resulting in delusion and human senselessness. You no longer have your natural instincts to protect the planet (your mother) you live on and you don’t notice the damage you do to her – not to mention not caring. If you’re siding with “God” then you are morally bound to pleasing “God” and you do not do anything to break free from the system as you do not recognise it. If you are bound by “No God” then you only care for advancement or betterment of self, for you don’t feel the need to please anyone but the state unknowingly, or knowing but through fear or fame. Conclusions: 1. Destruction of Nature 2. Depletion of Resource 3. Literally Dumb-Thinking 4. Slowly Destroying Humanity 5. Creating a Hell-Like Earth The human mind is cubic. Therefore God/No God is ONE QUART 1. God/No God 2. ????/???? 3. ????/???? 4. ????/???? You start at 4/4, and you are educated to 1/4. So you are offically dumber than you were at age 1. 2. Wisdom Good/Bad 3. Imagination Real/Fiction 4. Common Sense Survial/Love ALL REMOVED The Jews (and those who come from the Mesopotamian tradition in general, really) are the greatest example of the unitary lie that put belief in dichotomous (cubic) creation to death. One may note that the same people who created writing (what allowed them to put word above truth) also created god (what allowed them to put one above four) and also created the state (what allowed them to put experts/teachers/science/adults above nature/humanity/children).

How old is your son by the way?

Don't tell me all of a sudden Steven Hawkins isn't a great scientist because he divided by zero.

You're on the offensive, which implies you're attempting to suppress. You're not discussing, you're attacking; there is a difference. Theism/Religion(partly): God Atheism/Science(partly): No God Here is my campain picture. Religion forces imagination in one direction, giving people the weight of beleif throughout their whole life; whilst arguing with atheism, who constantly promote the idea of their religion, "no-God". Science alters imagination into advancement. Officially making progress off of human nature, through illusion and deciet. Through laws and strict approaches. What If I was correct about time being God? Eh? What if you spent your whole life in your lab making progress through the universe whilst slowly destroying the earth, only to find out I was correct. It's fine wanting advancement when you need it, but when you don't it is time to stop. Divine Judgement used to decide which kings kept the throne, and which criminals were sent to death. Through battle, the last one standing was said to be God's chosen victor, and the loser was judged as guilty. I don't see how this relates to a "man in the skies" or "spagetti monster," it's completely relative to time, and that is all. We may interpret that differently but that is our opinion, and it's probably not true. We don't need tags of Atheism. Science would say, "If you don't believe in God, then you ARE an atheist." To which I would reply, "No, I'm human, don't tag me with anything. I don't even care for you stupid God/No God games." On terms of time being "God," I mean by definition. The omnipotent for all creation is 'Time', without the wisdom of 'Time', nothing would have began and nothing would have produced motion (which are both in times image, or parts of time). That's enough proof to allow me to continue with my campain of spreading this -- it's not fair that you force adulthood upon people, removing all freedom of imagination, or suppressing and killing it, so it's worthless and less pleasurable. You destroy humans, and split them into "Religious" and "Not-Religious". I'm sorry, I won't let you continue. Science looks into space, and forces children to look in the same direction by telling them laws as if they were fact, even placing percentages of probability on them; when really they are just a theory, and my theory is that, it is bollocks. You can't say that: 1. There is no UP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT, FRONT, BACK 2. Natural symmetry accounts for nothing. 3. Nothing created the universe. When we CAN: 1. Look UP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT, FORWARDS, BACKWARDS 2. Have TOP, BOTTOM, LEFT, RIGHT, FRONT, BACK [1 + 2]a. Even if they are just opposites. E.g: B + T, L + R, F +B 3. Even the world follows the same principle as us, (only sciences laws are claiming it doesn't) 4. Nothing can't create something. We know that from life. Nothing comes from... nothing. Something can only come from something. Basic logic here. A few people who agree with me. J F Kenedy, Nelson Mandella, Ghandi, Guy Fawlkes, Lincoln, + More.

Well it's more than just saying, "God did it." It means that people can have substance to their beliefs, not just blind-faith.

Of course it makes sense. You just don't want it to.

You did win. You went in, got the oil as planned and then granted them freedom, but secretly controlling their oil resource.

Aight I suppose. I'll do some research, sorry for being on the offensive :3. Just a bit tired, been computing all day. I'll look for ways to prove it, give me a few days.

All you've done is focus on P=NP nothing more. You haven't touched the 'theory', but rather pick out little parts of it. That's not science.

After dividing by zero multiple times I have gained knowledge on some possible truths about the universe and existence. I'm aware that the road we're taking is sin however it's not enough sin to induce hell. Our human-given role is to protect the earth we live on and the nature that comforts us -- we shouldn't be the species that abolishes resource and makes animals extinct, we should be doing the opposite. We've gained enough knowledge to create technology that can help us with this cause, we have reached the pinacle almost and soon it's time to stop sinning and give a bit back. We all sin daily by killing the planet for us when we are meant to save the planet for nature. Humanity and nature can live forever if we abide by these rules, if we protect the necessities of life, the only means of destruction is through an occurance such as a meteor hitting the planet or other apocalypse type disasters. We can see the nihilistic effects our current society has; diseases, climate change, homosexuality, war, weapons of mass destruction and more. All should be controlled and stablized to protect existence. Homosexuals should not be removed, they are created by the education that teaches 'one' and the current sinful ways, and therefore 'one' should be removed and society should be changed to prevent it from eventually wiping our species, which for nature would be a good thing. Think of it as a nature defense mechanism, we are destroying it, and nature and time are doing all they can to prevent it. We have natural healing mechanisms in our body, and so does the universe. Until Steven Hawkins recently did it publically, I haven't divided by zero clearly in public. I'm guessing you take the bible as a fairy-tale and each of the words for their literal meaning; I don't and I interpret it correctly, I even spot the mistakes which appeared through translation. It explains opposite creation and the chain of events that occured through the chaos of creation -- it even predicts what will happen in the future, we are in the times of revelations, which is scary. I'm not posting this here, so you don't need to believe a word I say. I wasn't going to reply to you but I thought it would be rude. This is what you took from it. 99% of the world had no choice in this 'sacrifice'. Going to the moon is unimportant compared to saving the planet and nature. If you believe different then that is entirely up to you, and therefore isn't an achievement for mankind, but rather an achievement for people who hold your beliefs. What exactly did we gain from it? I'm pretty sure that most of the knowledge we did gain is kept from us and studied within major science companies. Just like the LHC, we still haven't heard much of their findings and it cost billions, which could have just easilly have been spent on saving third world countries or improving the nature we destroyed to make previous products. Over and over you spill this... drivel. It's getting annoying. I may speak with a different style than you, my aims might be different, but I am not glorifying myself. I'm a strong-believer, I guess. And again. I try to spread peace. I look up to people like Ghandi, Buddah, Mother Teresa, Newton, Einstien -- all these influential people that I would like to be. I doesn't mean I'm faking now does it. Think about what you're doing for a second, you're trying to suppress someone for being influential, by showing how much of an evil cretin you are. Try being less offesnive, you seem extremely mad about something that had the opposite intentions. Just keep your views to yourself, I can't be bothered to talk to people like you.

All it means is it's quicker to use the process, than the product. So inevitably I believe that a black hole spins and pulls; it doesn't matter about why it spins or pulls if they are inevitably the foremost processes. That's what I mean by P = NP. Whatever the impulse was made from, I believe that's electric or 'antimatter'(which I believe is electric). It would also combine with my belief about humans being a mixture of black and white holes. Our soul or sceintifically speaking, 'energy', is in the image of a white hole, and our body or 'vessel' is in the image of black hole. So spinning around the black hole in the opposite direction is a identical white hole made from antimatter. This could be how hyperspace is made also. Without going too pseudo, please try an imagine nothing for a second, give yourself an empty canvass in your head. Now apply motion to that vision and what do you have? 'Spinning Nothing', a lot like a black hole. Next step is to imagine it turning into a funnel, a bit like a tornado (stupid example, but like it). Next remember the initial impulse, it should be travelling down towards the center, round the outskirts of the motion, getting nearer to the center -- then finally, bang! I have no evidence bar mental logic. "Pseudo-Evidence"

Because black holes do spin, and black holes do pull. That's what the ultimate processes are. Have you anything to contest a black hole spinning (especially the first one)? It's obvious it spins really, isn't it? It's not like it's rocket-sciecne.

Every planet spins, without the intial spin we would be static, aka no motion. The first blackhole definetly spinned otherwise we wouldn't be in a vacuum. Think of it like water going down a drain, accept pressure spinning around and causing a funnel like entropy, pulling everything around it inwards. After this entropy, the original impulse circles the center until finally hitting it, then BANG!. It's really simple. You can think of it as time being the sperm (the program), and gravity/blackhole being the egg. Nothing is not in-motion, even if it's a sign post, it's still moving due to the rotation of our planet. Our natural symmetry proves (if correct) that time (the progam) is composed of a cubic-nature (not law). Motion enters facing fowards, and spins around the center. So already in the first seconds of the universe we would have: 1. Inside 2. Outside 3. Frontside 4. Backside 5. Leftside 6. Rightside 7. Topside 8. Bottomside I don't believe in God. I believe in Time. God is poison in my opinion, to delude us from the truth. I know why this happened but I'll bring that up in the Religion section. That would mean that nowhere in the universe will abide by different nature, it will be the same everywhere. No matter what the nature, if there were species that had 3 eyes, they would still have the same cubic-nature. In my opinion. What can I do to provide evidence for this. 1. Look up 2. Look down 3. Look left 4. Look right 5. Look in front 6. Look behind 7. Look at your outside 8. Know your inside I understand science doesn't beleive in: up, down, etc etc. I do, it's against some of the (not 100% proven) laws, and therefore shouldnt be discriminated. Have you read The Grand Design yet? Edit: The Christian Cross explains the cubic nature of time. (I studied this for a long time)

Can we discuss the original post fully before we move on into tid bits, otherwise this whole thread will be based on "P=NP". I'll explain now why it has been used in context, however I assume you will give me some decent discussion on terms of the rest of the statement/hypothesis without simply saying, "no, it's nonsese". P = NP shows that it is quicker to use the process than it is the product, example being: (P = (x / x = y)) = NP.