Trinity of FE Proof

  • 147 Replies
  • 34925 Views
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #120 on: July 20, 2007, 11:13:11 AM »
well, what happens is whenever he can't argue his position anymore, he posts one last tirade, and leaves, claiming victory.

And bumps it after 4 months to 'convert nonbelievers'.

EDIT: (This thread, for example)
OMG!

Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #121 on: July 20, 2007, 11:14:31 AM »
hmmm.....and isnt he like the chief defender on FET?

?

Ferdinand Magellen

  • 651
  • REALLY now....
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #122 on: July 20, 2007, 11:25:28 AM »
Him and Tom are. But mostly him.
Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, it just makes you ignorant and disempowered.

Can you change reality by inventing new names for ordinary things?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #123 on: July 20, 2007, 02:49:35 PM »
well, what happens is whenever he can't argue his position anymore, he posts one last tirade, and leaves, claiming victory.

You agree that God cannot be a woman then? Another victory for FE!

?

Ferdinand Magellen

  • 651
  • REALLY now....
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #124 on: July 20, 2007, 02:53:34 PM »
What does god being a woman have to do with FE?
Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, it just makes you ignorant and disempowered.

Can you change reality by inventing new names for ordinary things?

?

nicolin

  • 196
  • Romania
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #125 on: July 20, 2007, 03:10:11 PM »
The dumbest thing that I've heard so far is related to discussions about the sex of god.
1. does Mr.G need sex? If not, then I presume that he is asexual. Or bi-sexual. Whatever meets your fancy.  ;D
2. if Mr.G does is indeed a 'man' , then I presume that, somewhere, sometime, there must (have been) be a 'woman'. Or is this an illogical assumption to make?
Curat murdar, Coane Fanica!

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #126 on: July 20, 2007, 03:12:18 PM »
The dumbest thing that I've heard so far is related to discussions about the sex of god.
1. does Mr.G need sex? If not, then I presume that he is asexual. Or bi-sexual. Whatever meets your fancy.  ;D
2. if Mr.G does is indeed a 'man' , then I presume that, somewhere, sometime, there must (have been) be a 'woman'. Or is this an illogical assumption to make?

Considering that most accepted definitions of God include some aspect of infinity or eternalness, it would be illogical to make any assumptions about Him.

?

nicolin

  • 196
  • Romania
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #127 on: July 20, 2007, 03:18:03 PM »
Sir, the word 'god' is a noun.
This is just a convention. ;)
Curat murdar, Coane Fanica!

?

Ferdinand Magellen

  • 651
  • REALLY now....
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #128 on: July 20, 2007, 03:18:26 PM »
But since he is infinite in power, it would make sense he could choose whatever form he appears in.
Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, it just makes you ignorant and disempowered.

Can you change reality by inventing new names for ordinary things?

?

nicolin

  • 196
  • Romania
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #129 on: July 20, 2007, 03:20:27 PM »
But since he is infinite in power, it would make sense he could choose whatever form he appears in.
True.
But, in his infinite wisdom and power, would it make sense that that he 'appears' only as a male?
Curat murdar, Coane Fanica!

?

Ferdinand Magellen

  • 651
  • REALLY now....
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #130 on: July 20, 2007, 03:22:11 PM »
Well, i don't think he "appears" at all. So thats a moot point lol
Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, it just makes you ignorant and disempowered.

Can you change reality by inventing new names for ordinary things?

?

nicolin

  • 196
  • Romania
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #131 on: July 20, 2007, 03:24:36 PM »
I dunno, but it just seems a little bit gay that Mr.G shows himself upon us as being THE man.
The only MAN.
If you know what I mean... ;D
Curat murdar, Coane Fanica!

Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #132 on: July 20, 2007, 11:23:25 PM »
"God" isnt anything, yet God is everything...and this being said...God is a chipmunk...a tree...a man...women...EVERYTHING! God is a part of everything, God is IN everything...but that is MY belief. And all of you are entitled to your own...so why argue over who is right because technically...we are all right because we are all right in what each and everyone of us hold true, although all ideas and thoughts about God are different, we are all right. which makes this thread about as pointless as the crusades.

Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #133 on: August 13, 2007, 02:30:30 PM »
hmmmmm... In my own humblest of humble opinions: God isn't actually real... Well I can't really say that for certain but from the evidence I've seen and read and heard etc etc. I haven't been lead to believe that there is indeed any god.

Also; I'm always confused as to why people debate about "God" as opposed to "a god" or "gods". There's no real reason why people (and yes, I do this too) should jump to the conclusion that, if there is indeed a god, then it's gonna be the christian god and not the Hindu gods or Allah or Yaweh or anything like that... After all, as religions go christianity's fairly new right?

Also, on the subject of Narcberry: obvious troll is obvious.
(nobody ACTUALLY believes women are inferior anymore... well... nobody worth listening to.)

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #134 on: August 13, 2007, 05:59:55 PM »
Here I will discuss three simple proofs of a flat earth. I chose three since if you need more you will never be convinced of truth. I chose simple since most people that believe in a round earth are idiots.

1. Global Warming
Assumptions
A. The sun's light contains ultra-violet light
B. Flat-earth'ists believe that warmth comes from beneath the earth, not above
C. Round-earth'ists believe that warmth comes from the sun
D. Greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere has been rising
E. There has been a climb in global temperatures

Proof
1. The ultra-violet light that is reflected back where it came is directly proportional to the amount of amount of greenhouse gasses.
2. As greenhouse gasses rise, the earth receives less of the suns ultraviolet light.
3. Our greenhouse gas concentrations are rising, our ultraviolet light consumption is falling, our temperature is rising.
4. Ultraviolet light is not the cause of temperature rise.
5. The upper atmosphere is blocking more and more sources of heat that are beneath it.
6. The source of heat from the sun is declining, the source of heat from beneath the atmosphere is rising.
7. Temperature rises are caused by heat beneath the atmosphere.
8. This is not consistant with round earth theory.
9. This is consistant with flat earth theory.

Infrared, not Ultraviolet.

2. Earths Curve
Assumptions
A. A surfaces curve is the sum of its parts

Proof
1. A small piece of ground can be perfectly flat.
2. The earth consists of billions of these flat surfaces.
3. The sum of billions of flat surfaces is a giant flat surface.
4. The earth is flat.

The Earth is not a perfect sphere.  Therefore this reasoning cannot be used.  A polygon with a million sides looks like a circle, but is circular in shape with flat sides.  That's like taking close up brain teasers to determine what they are:


3. Air Mass
This is a proof by contradiction.
Assumptions
A. The air consists of gasses with mass
B. The earth is a giant sphere that rotates

Proof
1. Our atmosphere is fluid and unattached to earth.
2. The atmosphere has mass and therefore momentum.
3. The atmosphere will remain motionless without a force acting upon it.
4. The earth provides a negligeable force on the atmosphere.
5. The atmosphere is not motionless (as in moving several hundred miles per hour westward).
6. Therefore some force acts on the entire atmosphere that it moves generally at the same speed as the earths surface.
7. There is no such force.
8. Therefore the earth cannot be rotating at such a speed.
9. This is a contradiction.


I am excited to hear any responses to my proofs. I will not, however, respond to any females in the community, unless they are acting on behalf of their husbands.

Edit: rearranged so that a cause-effect relationship is not implied. Many dont understand how proofs actually work.

Gravity?  And the atmospher does fly off.  The exosphere has enought kinetic energy to fly some molecules off.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #135 on: April 17, 2008, 08:22:25 PM »
The sun doesn't put out UV light?
A polygon with a million sides looks like a polygon, not a circle.
And the atmosphere has been loosing mass for billions of years? I wonder why our studies of pressures throughout the ages haven't shown this.


FE is true. RE is a lie.

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #136 on: April 17, 2008, 08:27:01 PM »
wait....this is a joke topic right?
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #137 on: April 19, 2008, 07:18:06 PM »
I can honestly say, narberry you've made an FE'er out of me. This is an awesome thread.
I turned my signatures off because they make threads hard to read. I can't even see this when I post, please tell me what I said here.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #138 on: April 19, 2008, 07:22:53 PM »
I can honestly say, narberry you've made an FE'er out of me. This is an awesome thread.

Thanks, I hope you can share your newfound light!

Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #139 on: May 21, 2008, 02:18:32 AM »
Apocalypse of the Six Faced Gods

When the heavens fall upon the earth
Manís leaders will mutter
Manís leaders will splutter
For the rain reign of embers
The gods did cause

Manís wisdom had faded
His eye degraded
For the land was sided six
Earth, fire, water a mix

Man ranted, shouted, bickered and whined
The land was round the land was mine
But the gods saw the truth
And called upon manís youth

But were fools, arrogant and childish
Believing the world to be dish
Gods burn them one and all
When the embers fall

So the gods descended
Maimed burned and rended
Rocks of flame fell from the sky
So that mans folly would die

But one child did stand alone
Discard his mobile phone
He would be no longer deceive
He was the first one the believe

The gods spared him and his brothers
And their wives, now mothers
Who would teach the cube to every cradle
And to every sane man able

Seek the truth and be spared
For apocalypse be prepared
The cube is truth the cube is true

See through the chaos and deception, seek the clarity of the cube.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #140 on: August 10, 2008, 11:22:26 PM »
wait....this is a joke topic right?

Only the RE parts.

Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #141 on: August 11, 2008, 12:03:47 PM »

A polygon with a million sides looks like a polygon, not a circle.

FE is true. RE is a lie.

A spherical polyhedron looks like a sphere. The more vertices, edges, and faces on the sphere provide for a more finely formed sphere.

Based on the FET; If you walk along the equater in one direction only, will you run into a mountainous ice wall? Is the mountainous range ("Ice Wall") higher than sea level along the entire perimeter of the Earth?
God is alive but Friedrich Nietzsche died on August 25, 1900.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #142 on: August 11, 2008, 10:01:09 PM »
Approaching infinity means non-infinite.
A sphere has faces of only 1 dimension, and an infinite number of them. A convex polyhedron with googolplex faces is absolutely not a sphere, even if visually indistinguishable. You may as well argue oxygen and nitrogen gas are the same because they look it.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #143 on: August 12, 2008, 01:07:04 AM »
If you walk along the equater in one direction only, will you run into a mountainous ice wall? Is the mountainous range ("Ice Wall") higher than sea level along the entire perimeter of the Earth?

The equator is a circle with radius 10,024 kilometres and centred on the north pole. Yes, the ice wall is higher than sea level for the entire perimeter.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Ansable

  • 6
  • Ex Conspiritor
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #144 on: August 14, 2008, 10:04:24 PM »
1. Your argument
Assumptions
A. Logic is a substitute for science
B. Logic need not be proven objectively
C. Science must be proven objectively

Proof
1. B and C are incongruent.
2. A equates B and C, which are not equal.  One of them must be false.

2. Global Warming:
Assumptions
A. FE'ers don't believe NASA (Or other climatological data) because it is skewed by the conspiracy.
B. RE'ers believe them.

Proof
1. FE'ers and RE'ers disagree, and this cannot be resolved by logic.

3. Earths Curve
Assumptions
A. A surfaces curve is the sum of its parts

Proof
1. A small piece of ground can be perfectly flat.
2. A small piece of ground can be all oddly shaped.
3. A small piece of ground can be imperceptibly curved.
4. I guess not all of the places in the ground are exactly the same.  Sampling method flawed.




4. Air Mass
Assumptions
A. The air consists of gasses with mass
B. The earth is a giant sphere that rotates

Proof
1. Our atmosphere is fluid and unattached to earth.
2. The atmosphere has mass and therefore momentum.
3. The atmosphere will remain motionless without a force acting upon it.
4. The atmosphere has the same speed as the earth, because the entire planet (Including the atmosphere) have been rotating since it collapsed into a ball (or disc)

This proof assumes that the earth was created piece by piece.  First god put the globe out there in space, put the atmosphere on, and then spun the earth like a basket ball on his divine finger.  No matter what you believe as to how it was created, the entire globe is spinning, including the atmosphere, and has been for quite some time.  It did not acquire an atmosphere all at one time, but as a large spinning clump for quite a number of years.

If you fill a spinning bow with water, the water will not instantly spin.  Bit if the sink, table, and faucet are spinning...

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #145 on: October 16, 2016, 05:30:21 PM »
I can honestly say, narberry you've made an FE'er out of me. This is an awesome thread.

Thanks Gulliver, it's converted a few people now.

Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #146 on: October 17, 2016, 11:34:08 AM »
This thread was resolved years ago, clearly in favor of RE.
Your disdain for women though, has not.

*

Denspressure

  • 1850
  • What do you, value?
Re: Trinity of FE Proof
« Reply #147 on: October 17, 2016, 05:49:20 PM »


Please don't necromance threads...
Watch me at: YouTube
Experience the past: Flickr
Support me on Patreon