US Oligarchs Find Common Ground In Circumventing Law

[maskedmelon]

Just today residents of SCOTUS bridged ideologic divides in unanimously refusing to rule on the questions of religious liberty and the right to healthcare: is religious zealotry justified in discrimination of harlotry?

Returning the case to lower courts, Justices directed their Padawns to take another look as there might be another way according to indications by the program's namesake, POTUS Barrack Hussein Obama.

Source (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0Y71LF)

[Pokesan]

religious liberty in this instance means punishing women for having sex

[Daywolf]

Obamacare is a failure, it punishes everyone, will be struck down next year with a clap of thunder and collapse to a smoking ruin. Even libtards are admitting it'll eventually collapse under it's own weight. Told ya so :/

[Swish]

Obamacare is a failure, it punishes everyone, will be struck down next year with a clap of thunder and collapse to a smoking ruin. Even libtards are admitting it'll eventually collapse under it's own weight. Told ya so :/

Yep, noble intentions but the bill for 360 million people is far too high.

We're struggling with the NHS here, and the pressure put on it by the fresh off the boats/truck migrants all coming in with 101 problems. That'll go soon.

[maskedmelon]

religious liberty in this instance means punishing women for having sex

Nature already does this. It's called pregnancy. Looks like women are getting the shaft either way =/

[Blitzers]

Nature already does this. It's called pregnancy. Looks like women are getting the shaft either way =/

Oh the plight of the female species, since we as a culture have killed God can we please kill nature now too?

[maerilith]

Oh the plight of the female species, since we as a culture have killed God can we please kill nature now too?

[x] killed nature
[x] totally redefined nature
[x] totally loves nature

[Blitzers]

After billions of years of sticking penis' in their vaginas, women still cannot grasp the concept of what causes pregnancy. Lawlz

[Pokesan]

Nature already does this. It's called pregnancy. Looks like women are getting the shaft either way =/

should man be just as cruel as nature?

[Daywolf]

should man be just as cruel as nature?
Nature can't hold a candle to man's limitless cruelty nor his insanity (https://youtu.be/LLCF7vPanrY).
...or that of governments.

[Ahldagor]

Court can't make a legitimate ruling with only 8 members. They'll rehear the case when there's 9, but until then a lower court ruling remain the law of the land.

[maskedmelon]

should man be just as cruel as nature?

It is man's sacred duty to best nature. What nature does well, man must do better. What nature does poorly, man must do worse. Only by outperforming nature at every turn can man know progress.

Nature is lazy, adopting strategies that are good enough. Its selectivity is non-existent. It cares not how well something is done, only that it is done.

The burden of excellence falls to the fickle creature that is man, trapped in the maddening dissonance of enlightenment and primitive inclination. It is in that dissonance, steeped in the estuary of self-righteousness where the chilling waters of reason meet the warm sea of emotion that man finds purpose

May ever man know his rightful place as master of the institution nature has furnished of its own apathy.

[Blitzers]

It is man's sacred duty to best nature. What nature does well, man must do better. What nature does poorly, man must do worse. Only by outperforming nature at every turn can man know progress.

Nature is lazy, adopting strategies that are good enough. Its selectivity is non-existent. It cares not how well something is done, only that it is done.

The burden of excellence falls to the fickle creature that is man, trapped in the maddening dissonance of enlightenment and primitive inclination. It is in that dissonance, steeped in the estuary of self-righteousness where the chilling waters of reason meet the warm sea of emotion that man finds purpose

May ever man know his rightful place as master of the institution nature has furnished of its own apathy.

^^ if that's not just some heaping pile of bullshit, then I dunno what is. Please tell me your trolling and not going all esoteric on us, right?

[Blitzers]

Always liked this quote.

God creates dinosaurs, God kills dinosaurs, God creates man, man kills God, man brings back dinosaurs.

[maskedmelon]

^^ if that's not just some heaping pile of bullshit, then I dunno what is. Please tell me your trolling and not going all esoteric on us, right?

I am only acknowledging the hideous amalgamation of divergent ambitions by which man's nature is defined. We are all mad.

[Blitzers]

Nature is lazy, adopting strategies that are good enough. Its selectivity is non-existent. It cares not how well something is done, only that it is done.

Nature is lazy? In what context are you referring? What are you comparing nature to in order to attribute laziness as a trait? Or are you speaking of the nature of man?

Is it NOT natures intent to bring forth life? Is it NOT natures purpose to survive? What is nature's role in selecting winners and losers? What would Darwin say?

At what point in the evolutionary process are "we" no longer apart of nature? If we all evolved from a single celled organism is man part of nature?

Is a Beaver that builds a dam Lazy? Is the act of building the dam even considered nature? If that beaver had the intellectual ability and physical aptitude to build a dam with cement would he chose to, and would that be considered natural?

If a man builds a dam why is it not considered natural? Is the man and beaver's purpose for building the dam much different?

I am only acknowledging the hideous amalgamation of divergent ambitions by which man's nature is defined. We are all mad.

I don't understand your point here? So because we have differing ambitions trying to unify people you construe as being hideous, because it is in opposition to man's natural state?

Stalin and the Russian Army had far different ambitions during WWII but found a reason to ally with the U.S. and England to survive.

I'm the 1st person to say "forced amalgamation" is hideous, but the attempt to persuade others to join your cause even if they have different ambitions can always enlighten a man's senses.

Anyways please clarify your position if I have missed the mark here.

[maskedmelon]

Nature is lazy? In what context are you referring? What are you comparing nature to in order to attribute laziness as a trait? Or are you speaking of the nature of man?

Is it NOT natures intent to bring forth life? Is it NOT natures purpose to survive? What is nature's role in selecting winners and losers? What would Darwin say?

At what point in the evolutionary process are "we" no longer apart of nature? If we all evolved from a single celled organism is man part of nature?

Is a Beaver that builds a dam Lazy? Is the act of building the dam even considered nature? If that beaver had the intellectual ability and physical aptitude to build a dam with cement would he chose to, and would that be considered natural?

If a man builds a dam why is it not considered natural? Is the man and beaver's purpose for building the dam much different?



I don't understand your point here? So because we have differing ambitions trying to unify people you construe as being hideous, because it is in opposition to man's natural state?

Stalin and the Russian Army had far different ambitions during WWII but found a reason to ally with the U.S. and England to survive.

I'm the 1st person to say "forced amalgamation" is hideous, but the attempt to persuade others to join your cause even if they have different ambitions can always enlighten a man's senses.

Anyways please clarify your position if I have missed the mark here.

Nature seeks equilibrium, which combats excellence. It only ever does what must be done, nothing more. Progress is only ever realized out of necessity and then only to the bare minimum.

Beavers build dams because they are semi-aquatic creatures. They alter the environment to give them a competitive advantage and flooding an area by piling a bunch of chewed up wood in a stream affords sufficient advantage, so that is where it stops.

It should also be noted that the beaver is a prime example of bastardization due to the wanton sloth of nature. It is a giant rat that lives in the water. It has adapted to a very particular environment by the happenstance of genetic variation. Is it better than all other wood-eating aquatic rats at being a wood-eating aquatic rat? Sure, but not because it is ideally suited to its environment. Rather it was better suited than alternatives which were not well suited at all since they have not survived.

If the standard for excellence is simply finishing, it is without significant relevance and no different from mediocrity.

Despite his frequent disdain for it, man enjoys the unique capacity to question and defy carnal impulse by which nature operates.

[Blitzers]

Nature seeks equilibrium, which combats excellence. It only ever does what must be done, nothing more. Progress is only ever realized out of necessity and then only to the bare minimum.

Beavers build dams because they are semi-aquatic creatures. They alter the environment to give them a competitive advantage and flooding an area by piling a bunch of chewed up wood in a stream affords sufficient advantage, so that is where it stops.

It should also be noted that the beaver is a prime example of bastardization due to the wanton sloth of nature. It is a giant rat that lives in the water. It has adapted to a very particular environment by the happenstance of genetic variation. Is it better than all other wood-eating aquatic rats at being a wood-eating aquatic rat? Sure, but not because it is ideally suited to its environment. Rather it was better suited than alternatives which were not well suited at all since they have not survived.

If the standard for excellence is simply finishing, it is without significant relevance and no different from mediocrity.

Despite his frequent disdain for it, man enjoys the unique capacity to question and defy carnal impulse by which nature operates.


Is it not in the nature of man to question and defy? If so, then isn't that natural within man?

Isn't it arrogant of man to think he knows what nature wants, needs, and how it operates. Once again is man apart of nature?

[Blitzers]

Nature destroys itself with tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, warming, cooling, and floods even fall and winter could be construed as destructive to nature. Nature also replenishes itself with New life and growth. So if nature does this then why shouldn't man? Is it only the randomness and lack of conscience that we give nature a pass? The Atom bomb developed by man with what nature provided man devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years later ground zero in both city's are beautiful memorials dominated with flowers and plant life. Both man and nature co-oped the destruction and both man and nature co-oped the replenishment. Why do we expect any different from man when we either are apart of nature, or if we're not we definitely learned from it?

[Pokesan]

beavers building dams for feeding is exactly analogous to man building dams to fuel the engine of global capitalism

[Blitzers]

So if "man" is apart of nature then all that man does should be considered natural right? If man is not apart of nature then where did man come from? He obviously didn't evolve from a single celled organism otherwise we'd deem man part of nature and all that he does natural. So where did man come from? Or better yet, who CREATED "Man"

[maskedmelon]

Is it not in the nature of man to question and defy? If so, then isn't that natural within man?

Isn't it arrogant of man to think he knows what nature wants, needs, and how it operates. Once again is man apart of nature?

What is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole just as what is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the part.

The difference between man and nature is man's sentience and his ability to reason. If nature also possesses those qualities then it is either malevolent or impotent.

[Blitzers]

What is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole just as what is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the part.

The difference between man and nature is man's sentience and his ability to reason. If nature also possesses those qualities then it is either malevolent or impotent.

If man's seperation from nature is the ability to reason and perceive, then where did these abilities derive from? It's not like one day nature said "ok evolutionary process the next cycle will be a mouse and we will give it the ability of perception and reason." These traits must have been present within the most basic micro-organism from the start in order for them to develop over millions of years. Environmental Adaptation wouldn't have caused that. If these traits did exist from the smallest microbe then all activity engaged by man is a natural occurrence and is working as intended by nature. What about plant life? Seems like it got dicked in the ability to perceive and reason.

Option 1. Man evolved from nature which from its earliest microbe had the ability to perceive and reason in an infantile capacity unidentifiable by science, and all of "Man's" activity is Natural and coincides with Nature's intent.

Option 2. Man didn't evolve from nature but was granted the ability of perception and reason by a creator. Activity engaged by man is seperate from Nature and may or may not be beneficial to nature depending on the free will and ambitions "Man" possesses.

[maskedmelon]

No it is a benefit of an enlarged neocortex resulting from weakened jaw muscles due to a genetic muscular disorder shared by all modern humans, except for those with microcephaly who suffer from severely diminished mental capacity due to smaller brains.

[maskedmelon]

That doesn't preclude the possibility of a creator though. It is possible, we just have no way of knowing. If there is one though it is either malevolent or impotent. I suppose it could be apathetic or dead too. It is most certainly not benevolent and omnipotent.

[Blitzers]

No it is a benefit of an enlarged neocortex resulting from weakened jaw muscles due to a genetic muscular disorder shared by all modern humans, except for those with microcephaly who suffer from severely diminished mental capacity due to smaller brains.

Nice deflect.

I am just engaging in a freelance philosophical exercise. There is no hidden agenda behind my inquiry. I just want to understand.

Is man apart of nature?
Yes or No

[Blitzers]

That doesn't preclude the possibility of a creator though. It is possible, we just have no way of knowing. If there is one though it is either malevolent or impotent. I suppose it could be apathetic or dead too. It is most certainly not benevolent and omnipotent.

Wouldn't a creator have to be "all things" not just the ones you suggest?

[maskedmelon]

Nice deflect.

I am just engaging in a freelance philosophical exercise. There is no hidden agenda behind my inquiry. I just want to understand.

Is man apart of nature?
Yes or No

Yes , but as I have said, what is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole and what is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the part.

Are we unable to differentiate between trees and leaves or guidance systems and missiles because they are parts and wholes?

[maskedmelon]

Wouldn't a creator have to be "all things" not just the ones you suggest?

That is an interesting thought. I don't know. I suppose the appropriate response would be

"No, because that'd be a paradox"

To which the reply would be,

"Well then the universe is a paradox."

[Nihilist_santa]

Wouldn't a creator have to be "all things" not just the ones you suggest?

No. Is Rogean all things p99? The creator imo is separate from the creation. You cant apply the same rules to the creator. Pantheist will disagree but who cares what they think since its all "one" and you just get recycled with no lasting repercussions.

[Daywolf]

I suppose it could be apathetic or dead too. It is most certainly not benevolent and omnipotent.we just have no way of knowing. I rearranged that for you so that the paragraph stops conflicting :)
Something to ponder: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/newsweek/science_of_god/scienceofgod.htm
A couple points of the 2pg article I disagree with, and the last summery paragraph I'd strike out, but overall a good article for a link here. It's a long read, could spur further investigation, read at your convenience.

For Science!

[Blitzers]

Yes , but as I have said, what is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole and what is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the part.

Are we unable to differentiate between trees and leaves or guidance systems and missiles because they are parts and wholes?

What's self evident is the leaves are made by the tree and are apart of the tree. Missiles are not made by the guidance system and neither the guidance system made by the missile.

But if man is made by nature, nature must exhibit every aspect of man even if that aspect is unidentifiable by modern science.

[maskedmelon]

I rearranged that for you so that the paragraph stops conflicting :)
Something to ponder: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/newsweek/science_of_god/scienceofgod.htm
A couple points of the 2pg article I disagree with, and the last summery paragraph I'd strike out, but overall a good article for a link here. It's a long read, could spur further investigation, read at your convenience.

For Science!

I'll take a look at it ^^

However, the fact that we cannot be certain of the existence of a creator does not prohibit us from making inferences about its nature if it did exist.

For example, suppose it is 4:34 on Thursday and we are at a party. The party began at 4:30. We have no idea whether or not all invitees are in attendance, but we know that those who are not are most certainly late ;)

[Blitzers]

No. Is Rogean all things p99? The creator imo is separate from the creation. You cant apply the same rules to the creator. Pantheist will disagree but who cares what they think since its all "one" and you just get recycled with no lasting repercussions.

Rogean is not a creator, Rogean is a replicator. Just like man could clone or replicate itself. No such thing as man in the context as creator. Man alters, fabricates, and assembles. Only the idea is created, the final product is merely assembled.

[Daywolf]

I'll take a look at it ^^

However, the fact that we cannot be certain of the existence of a creator does not prohibit us from making inferences about its nature if it did exist.

For example, suppose it is 4:34 on Thursday and we are at a party. The party began at 4:30. We have no idea whether or not all invitees are in attendance, but we know that those who are not are most certainly late ;)
Or they are there but we are just too preoccupied with something to notice. Lots of times I've had those moments where someone or something that I thought wasn't there actually was there all along, the realization hit me by surprise.

Our senses are pretty funky, I really-really-really wish I could even look into the sky and see the whole UV spectrum at night, or feel the literal waves of the universe roll over me. I know it's there and active, a big part of my life knowing it or not, I search it often, but... :(
At least my faith says it's there. Still can't touch it or show it to you directly w/o need for the same faith, but it's there. Even our concept of pictures are limited, so much more going on there we can't see of the sky, that a camera can only show grey ghosts of.

And not just the big stuff that mesmerizes me, like mega black holes and magnetars and such, but even to the tiny world we can see nothing of, yet is active in our lives. That world is a huge mystery the way it works, especially in the realm of quantum physics. I'm blown away the more and more I learn of it over the years, just astounding. When I was born, we had no idea the Universe was so huge and also so small. And I think we have hardly even scratched the surface of our reality, we are so very small.

My personal interpretation? We are in a hatchery. Too much or too little we just don't develop as we should, individually. If the hen pecks the shell open we die. Certainly we are meant to search things out and develop, just look how complex everything is from the biggest to the smallest of things in our universe. Those things always there but we just didn't know how to look (and still don't fully), which is not simply by sight. And then individually we move on, just as like the first law of thermodynamics.

[Daywolf]

And anyway, if I could prove things to you/them without a shadow of a doubt by presentation (or if someone else could for that matter), would you follow me? Would you drink my kool-aid? hehehe Then would you lay down next to me and wait for the quick end? hehe in light of the insanity of man which I am a part of and wrestle with. It's probably good no one could prove things to you/me/us/them as likely we would follow them to our doom ;) But I have enough for me, and also to respect life and keep my sanity as it stands.

Would they give me 100 trillion dollars for the truth? Would it still be truth then? Is 100 trillion even worth anything? It's probably the smart thing to do, and just then unravel the mysteries on our part by effort rather than by direct and obvious intervention seen by all. I think maybe a matter of our developing character. Fun ride so far though :) makes me look forward to the next 100 trillion years.

[maerilith]

http://i.imgur.com/LmVDrPN.png

[Daywolf]

[/img]

http://i.imgur.com/SeFy8xb.gif

[Blitzers]

Damn, SPAMWOLF killing the thread once again with riot in his head. Oh well

[maskedmelon]

What's self evident is the leaves are made by the tree and are apart of the tree. Missiles are not made by the guidance system and neither the guidance system made by the missile.


Why then does the tree not exhibit every characteristic of the leaves if the leaves are made by he tree and creations must reflect every aspect of their creators as you argue?


But if man is made by nature, nature must exhibit every aspect of man even if that aspect is unidentifiable by modern science.

Nihilist Santa already addressed this, but you appear to be operating with a different definition of the the word "create". What is your reasoning here? Why must nature exhibit every aspect of man?

[maskedmelon]

Or they are there but we are just too preoccupied with something to notice. Lots of times I've had those moments where someone or something that I thought wasn't there actually was there all along, the realization hit me by surprise.


I am specifically referring to the nature of people who are actually not there, whether we as attendees know or do not know that they are not there. If they actually are not there (whether we see them or not, or are even aware of them at all) then they are late.

If we are looking for a specific person and do not see them then I agree, they could be anywhere. Whether we see them or not has no bearing on their lateness if they truly are not there though.


Our senses are pretty funky, I really-really-really wish I could even look into the sky and see the whole UV spectrum at night, or feel the literal waves of the universe roll over me. I know it's there and active, a big part of my life knowing it or not, I search it often, but... :(
At least my faith says it's there. Still can't touch it or show it to you directly w/o need for the same faith, but it's there. Even our concept of pictures are limited, so much more going on there we can't see of the sky, that a camera can only show grey ghosts of.

And not just the big stuff that mesmerizes me, like mega black holes and magnetars and such, but even to the tiny world we can see nothing of, yet is active in our lives. That world is a huge mystery the way it works, especially in the realm of quantum physics. I'm blown away the more and more I learn of it over the years, just astounding. When I was born, we had no idea the Universe was so huge and also so small. And I think we have hardly even scratched the surface of our reality, we are so very small.

My personal interpretation? We are in a hatchery. Too much or too little we just don't develop as we should, individually. If the hen pecks the shell open we die. Certainly we are meant to search things out and develop, just look how complex everything is from the biggest to the smallest of things in our universe. Those things always there but we just didn't know how to look (and still don't fully), which is not simply by sight. And then individually we move on, just as like the first law of thermodynamics.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that there is no creator, just that we have no way of knowing. That does not prevent us from inferring things about its nature though if it does exist. I said if it does exist it is malevolent, impotent or apathetic and not both benevolent and omnipotent for a reason. If it we're benevolent why does it allow suffering? It must either be incapable of doing anything or unwilling to do anything or perhaps it has another reason. If it has another reason though and is omnipotent, then why not alter that other reason such that it is no longer a reason? If it is benevolent then it would do so.

While perhaps less inspiring and certainly less promising, the universe is all the more amazing if the product of random chance. Play a lottery or flip a coin, then go take a look at the life around you and what it is capable of. Then go learn of cellular biology, chemistry and physics and quantum mechanics too, and all the processes by which our world is governed. It is mind blowing (as you've already agreed with ^^) Until you attribute it to an omnipotent source. Then it is not so miraculous, not at all. Why so slow, why so inefficient, why at all?

[Blitzers]

Why then does the tree not exhibit every characteristic of the leaves if the leaves are made by he tree and creations must reflect every aspect of their creators as you argue?

I never said the tree was the creator nor did I say the tree must exhibit every aspect of the leaves. Maybe the tree does reflect every aspect of the leaves they just are unidentifiable to modern science. Hell can we clone a tree from a leaf? I dunno really haven't looked into it.



Nihilist Santa already addressed this, but you appear to be operating with a different definition of the the word "create". What is your reasoning here? Why must nature exhibit every aspect of man?

If you you believe man evolved from Nature then everything man is must have been present within nature. Or are we of the belief that evolution can harvest these traits without a source? I'm not saying it's right or wrong. All I'm saying is if logic and reason exist within man. Somewhere within the process of evolution a chemical combination assembled logic and reason, and if nature assembled this then all that man does should be considered natural and working as intended by nature. Nature destroys nature, Nature destroys man, man destroys man, man destroys nature. Seems consistent with me why we bitching about man just doing what nature intends.

If we don't believe nature passed the ability to reason to man then where did it come from?

[maskedmelon]

Are you asking where logic came from or where man's aptitude for reason/logic come from?

We know not nearly enough about how the human brain works due to the inherent challenges and ethical limitations of interaction/observation. Reason is not much more than advanced pattern recognition though. It is an iterative process of chance directed by logic.

Push a ball down a hill and it will roll in its initial direction. Obstruct its path and it will change course. Such obstructions can by viewed as logic checks of an algorithm directing information through a system of pattern recognition. Microprocessors function similarly although not nearly on the same scale.

Now if you want to know where logic or information itself originates or resides, well that I have no idea. It's just there. Why? I don't know that either. Could it have been created? Sure. Could it have always been there? Sure. Could it be purple? Sure. Can we ascertain any of the above? Nope.

[maerilith]

Kind of beyond me why you guys reply to Dumbwoopy

[Blitzers]

Are you asking where logic came from or where man's aptitude for reason/logic come from?

We know not nearly enough about how the human brain works due to the inherent challenges and ethical limitations of interaction/observation. Reason is not much more than advanced pattern recognition though. It is an iterative process of chance directed by logic.

Push a ball down a hill and it will roll in its initial direction. Obstruct its path and it will change course. Such obstructions can by viewed as logic checks of an algorithm directing information through a system of pattern recognition. Microprocessors function similarly although not nearly on the same scale.

Now if you want to know where logic or information itself originates or resides, well that I have no idea. It's just there. Why? I don't know that either. Could it have been created? Sure. Could it have always been there? Sure. Could it be purple? Sure. Can we ascertain any of the above? Nope.

The ball follows the path of least resistance when it's met with force, no logic check needed just force and gravity just like water, but man can "choose" to stay the course if he is so inclined. Which is why I asked the question earlier of " If a Beaver had the intellectual capacity and physical ability to build a dam like man can build a dam, would he choose to?

I'm looking for a source, modern science seeks a source, if that source is nature itself then "Man" and all that man does is acceptable by the laws that nature since nature "created" it.

[Blitzers]

So here:

If 0 represents absolute nothing

And .00000000000001 represents the smallest microbe in nature

How do we get from 0 to .000000000000001 since 0 is absolute nothing

The Big Bang? Well then wouldnt the Big Bang have to be (X) or infinity? That still doesn't answer the question on how we get from 0 to (X) or even .000000000000001

So the only option is (X) or infinity always existed and only from (X) or infinity can .0000000000001 be possible.

A source must exist, without it existence is impossible.

[Blitzers]

so your entire walls of text boil down to the grade school revelation that the line between "natural" and "man-made" is just an arbitrary distinction drawn between things done by sentient consciousnesses, and not. Congrats.

Everything else you're trying to do with that profound insight here is postmodern as fuck -- are you doing dadaist performance art trolling (9/10 i replied), or did your high school girlfriend make you read Being and Nothingness before she would give up the pussy?

I think my revelation is:

Nature is not "Man's" source.

God is "Man's" source

[Blitzers]

Or maybe;

God created nature and from nature God assembled "man" and then God granted "man" the ability to be like God.

[Blitzers]

Either way God is ultimately the source.

[maskedmelon]

I think my revelation is:

Nature is not "Man's" source.

God is "Man's" source

So what's God's source?

[Blitzers]

So what's God's source?

God always existed he is his own source, since we can conclude that 0 is absolute and it is impossible to achieve any value from a constant of nothing.

[Blitzers]

And because God is all things, sentient and not, he can choose to be, do, say whatever he pleases at any given time.

[maskedmelon]

10/10, you got me ^^ FP.

[maerilith]

This thread is almost way to unhappy a lot of arguing going on, so please vote.

If this thread, forumquest, pressing the submit button, pvp, or me in general caused you any distress today. Please vote in this thread How unhappy are you? (http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243510) and let us know how unhappy you are.

Thanks, and forumquest safely,
your friendly teensyeeensytinybitunhappy girl :D

[Daywolf]

I am specifically referring to the nature of people who are actually not there, whether we as attendees know or do not know that they are not there. If they actually are not there (whether we see them or not, or are even aware of them at all) then they are late.

If we are looking for a specific person and do not see them then I agree, they could be anywhere. Whether we see them or not has no bearing on their lateness if they truly are not there though.



Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that there is no creator, just that we have no way of knowing. That does not prevent us from inferring things about its nature though if it does exist. I said if it does exist it is malevolent, impotent or apathetic and not both benevolent and omnipotent for a reason. If it we're benevolent why does it allow suffering? It must either be incapable of doing anything or unwilling to do anything or perhaps it has another reason. If it has another reason though and is omnipotent, then why not alter that other reason such that it is no longer a reason? If it is benevolent then it would do so.

While perhaps less inspiring and certainly less promising, the universe is all the more amazing if the product of random chance. Play a lottery or flip a coin, then go take a look at the life around you and what it is capable of. Then go learn of cellular biology, chemistry and physics and quantum mechanics too, and all the processes by which our world is governed. It is mind blowing (as you've already agreed with ^^) Until you attribute it to an omnipotent source. Then it is not so miraculous, not at all. Why so slow, why so inefficient, why at all?No, I don't take it that you are arguing "that there is no creator". I'm not sure about the "we" part though, that would also be an unknown. Collectively, sure, but I can't speak of individuals other than of myself.

But like I mentioned, collectively there could be problems. If someone had irrefutable proof, they could become a very dangerous individual. If God parted the sky and showed everyone what's up, that would be the end to civilization as we know it. It's game over and we stop striving, stop maturing, and rely on God to do every little thing for us.

Would you do that to your kids, keep them as kids forever? Or do you let them learn and mature? If you don't give your kids everything they want, they throw tantrums, get mad at you and blame you. Then you gotta try to correct that, or just let them go rotten. Your kids suffer, but it's not entirely a bad thing, and in time they mature and become the better for it. So you can't be there to tie their shoes, button their shirts, brush their teeth, these are things they need to learn to do on their own. Then one day hopefully they appreciate your resistance to doing those things for them well into their adulthood.

Some believe in aliens. That these aliens come from a far off galaxy etc. To do that, they would need to be unbelievably advanced. If so, and they are here, why do they let us suffer? If aliens parted the sky and showed everyone what's up, that would be the end to civilization as we know it. It's game over and we stop striving, stop maturing, and rely on aliens to do every little thing for us. :D

I'm not saying what you should believe, this or that, just that questions are good. As humans, it should be a question, that's healthy. I think that is part of the purpose to being human, and spurs growth and maturity. If anything I just advocate the questioning of things. Even questioning questions.

[maskedmelon]

No, I don't take it that you are arguing "that there is no creator". I'm not sure about the "we" part though, that would also be an unknown. Collectively, sure, but I can't speak of individuals other than of myself.

But like I mentioned, collectively there could be problems. If someone had irrefutable proof, they could become a very dangerous individual. If God parted the sky and showed everyone what's up, that would be the end to civilization as we know it. It's game over and we stop striving, stop maturing, and rely on God to do every little thing for us.

Would you do that to your kids, keep them as kids forever? Or do you let them learn and mature? If you don't give your kids everything they want, they throw tantrums, get mad at you and blame you. Then you gotta try to correct that, or just let them go rotten. Your kids suffer, but it's not entirely a bad thing, and in time they mature and become the better for it. So you can't be there to tie their shoes, button their shirts, brush their teeth, these are things they need to learn to do on their own. Then one day hopefully they appreciate your resistance to doing those things for them well into their adulthood.

Some believe in aliens. That these aliens come from a far off galaxy etc. To do that, they would need to be unbelievably advanced. If so, and they are here, why do they let us suffer? If aliens parted the sky and showed everyone what's up, that would be the end to civilization as we know it. It's game over and we stop striving, stop maturing, and rely on aliens to do every little thing for us. :D

I'm not saying what you should believe, this or that, just that questions are good. As humans, it should be a question, that's healthy. I think that is part of the purpose to being human, and spurs growth and maturity. If anything I just advocate the questioning of things. Even questioning questions.

I am glad you brought up the parenting analogy, that is what i alluded to when I referenced "some other reason." It is a great analogy if there is a creator and it is powerful, but not omnipotent. If a parent were omnipotent, why wouldn't they grant their child the ability to readily understand what they needed to do without constant direction and reprimand?

I like your embrace of skepticism, but I don't see what bearing that has on the definition of words. We can redefine words to fit our goals, but then we have no effective medium of communication. Late has a very clear meaning that we understand and if someone is not at an event when it is scheduled to begin, then they are late. There is no sensible reason to question that. If we are going to debate words themselves, we cannot have a discussion.

[Daywolf]

I am glad you brought up the parenting analogy, that is what i alluded to when I referenced "some other reason." It is a great analogy if there is a creator and it is powerful, but not omnipotent. If a parent were omnipotent, why wouldn't they grant their child the ability to readily understand what they needed to do without constant direction and reprimand?

I like your embrace of skepticism, but I don't see what bearing that has on the definition of words. We can redefine words to fit our goals, but then we have no effective medium of communication. Late has a very clear meaning that we understand and if someone is not at an event when it is scheduled to begin, then they are late. There is no sensible reason to question that. If we are going to debate words themselves, we cannot have a discussion.
Which word, omnipotent? Just means the power to do anything. All powerful. It doesn't mean you must do everything or anything. Just like when I play a video game, I can use a cheat code or switch to godmode, remove all challenge, but that gets old real quick. You and I have that in common, eh? We don't like the easy games so much, we play on p99 for the challenge.

As for the party *shrugs* someone else is having a better party? It's all perspective, and can too easily be put to our own expectations, our own limitations. Just like the night sky draws me to it, not it to me. We're both lucky in that, if I literally drew the night sky to me we'd all be vaporized.

[maerilith]

Which word, omnipotent? Just means the power to do anything. All powerful. It doesn't mean you must do everything or anything. Just like when I play a video game, I can use a cheat code or switch to godmode, remove all challenge, but that gets old real quick. You and I have that in common, eh? We don't like the easy games so much, we play on p99 for the challenge.

As for the party *shrugs* someone else is having a better party? It's all perspective, and can too easily be put to our own expectations, our own limitations. Just like the night sky draws me to it, not it to me. We're both lucky in that, if I literally drew the night sky to me we'd all be vaporized.

http://i.imgur.com/cc2gV08.jpg

[maskedmelon]

Which word, omnipotent? Just means the power to do anything. All powerful. It doesn't mean you must do everything or anything. Just like when I play a video game, I can use a cheat code or switch to godmode, remove all challenge, but that gets old real quick. You and I have that in common, eh? We don't like the easy games so much, we play on p99 for the challenge.

As for the party *shrugs* someone else is having a better party? It's all perspective, and can too easily be put to our own expectations, our own limitations. Just like the night sky draws me to it, not it to me. We're both lucky in that, if I literally drew the night sky to me we'd all be vaporized.

I like it and it is good to be reminded of from time to time. Thank you ^^

[Blitzers]

ive been thinking abou tthis, man is not gods source but god is man's source, but when man creates an AI will he be 100% proven to be a god by postmodern metaphysical standards? or he just a conduit for the source, the original source big g-o-d? it will be like a deuce ex machinima or something, what are your thoughts?

I will admit I haven't studied man's progress so far in regards to AI capability.
I have yet to see man "create" anything besides ideas. I previously stated, as far as I know man can only alter, fabricate, and assemble what Nature/God has provided. As to AI and the ability to learn and react in a congruent manner, I am not sure we developed AI without some sort of sensory system programmed by man in order to achieve a desired result. If man achieves this feat does it mean man is god? I would think not. When man can create something from complete 0 or nothingness then I will have to revisit that question.

[maskedmelon]

This discussion has been far to riveting to let slide to the wastes of page 2, therefore main it to you the following.

Your argument hinges on the assumption that something cannot come from nothing, "absolute zero" as you call it. How do we know that absolute zero ever has or ever will exist? How do we know that rather than spring from absolute zero, the stuff you wonder about sprang from "infinitely close to zero" or a bit more instead? How much "absolute zero" have you actually observed?

I walked into a door this morning and these are the enlightened question delivered unto me in my delirium.

[Blitzers]

This discussion has been far to riveting to let slide to the wastes of page 2, therefore main it to you the following.

Your argument hinges on the assumption that something cannot come from nothing, "absolute zero" as you call it. How do we know that absolute zero ever has or ever will exist? How do we know that rather than spring from absolute zero, the stuff you wonder about sprang from "infinitely close to zero" or a bit more instead? How much "absolute zero" have you actually observed?

I walked into a door this morning and these are the enlightened question delivered unto me in my delirium.

Mar 22, 2013 - In our universe, even a dark, empty void of space, absent of all particles, is still something. "It has a topology, it has a shape, it's a physical object," philosopher Jim Holt said during the museum's annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, which this year was focused on the topic of "The Existence of Nothing."

It is impossible for man to fathom "nothingness" we have never experienced it, and if we could somehow identify nothingness wouldn't the mere fact of its existence make it "something?" Would that something then need a source ?

/continue circular discussion

[Ahldagor]

boiled down to a priori and ex nihilo....Macbeth deals with this.