OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
Hmmm. How about the notion that any insignificant human could accurately discern what an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal entity would or would not deign to care about?

Touche!

[spirokeat]

Arryn the agnostic and skeptic

Surely as a skeptic you would be first in the house to put forward possibilities of how something could be outside the boundries of a prescribed theory ?

And as for the 'spike' thing, bah. If i accept the theory that your all just ideas generated by my mind and when I stop thinking about you then you cease to exist till i start again, without god to be thinking about you constantly then 'ole whitebeard' doesnt seem like a bad concept.

Spiro.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Arryn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Are you saying that you can not frame object 2.4m x 3m from 30 feets on standart camera with regular-angle lenses???

On further thought, yes you can. You can probably even get the side aspect of the tank in the frame, and not just the front aspect, from 30' away. 30' is pretty far. If I remembered my high school trignometry from 29 years ago better than I do, I could tell you for sure.

---

Good. Now you are talking. And yes, I think you are correct and you could indeed fit the length of the tank, or at least large part of it (8.1m). But with 2.4m and 3m frontal shoot you would have no problem whatsoever, even if norf would put his non-existent T34 tanks on top of each other.

[ July 29, 2004, 11:35: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by spirokeat:

And storm ! its Spirokeat ! as in a mispelling of that critter you get with limes disease. !

Point taken.

All right, I am off for today. See you guys later.

[ July 29, 2004, 11:37: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[spirokeat]

Im studying philosophy right now, though not physics of course. I have not yet come accross an arguement for omnipotence or omniscience to be logically impossible and thats not to say, Ive read it all and its not there, I just havent come accross it.

Though my next area of study is indeed faith, destiny and purpose, maybe it will show itself.

Spiro.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by spirokeat:
I have not yet come accross an arguement for omnipotence or omniscience to be logically impossible

I'm on thin ice here, but I do think Arryn's right, in that if you regard omniscience as perpetual awareness and knowledge of the future then there's a real problem with God holding us accountable and punishable for the sins He has always known we're going to commit.

I took a Jehovah's Witness to task on the issue once, and he responded that in his view, God's power to know the future is a power that He rarely chooses to exercise. In other words, while He could know the future, He usually chooses not to. I don't buy it myself, but who's to say it aint so?

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by spirokeat:

quote:

---

Arryn the agnostic and skeptic

Surely as a skeptic you would be first in the house to put forward possibilities of how something could be outside the boundries of a prescribed theory ?

And as for the 'spike' thing, bah. If i accept the theory that your all just ideas generated by my mind and when I stop thinking about you then you cease to exist till i start again, without god to be thinking about you constantly then 'ole whitebeard' doesnt seem like a bad concept.

Spiro.

---

This scenario is highly unlikely, but just in case... KEEP THINKING!!

Or perhaps you are the Moth, sleeping in the flower, who is dreaming that he is Spirokeat, and dreaming this whole world and its inhabitants who exist only as part of that dream....


As for the omnipotence - there is a cenuries-old paradox coming all the way from the Dark Ages IIRC, about God and the stone. Translating it in the modern Version that I, as software engineer, like more: If the God exist and omnipotent, than can He write chess program AI, which would be so good that it could beat even its creator?

(Obviosly the paradox part is that if He can't, than he is not omnopotenet, and if He can, than he is not omnipotent as well )


Now I am really off to bed.

[ July 29, 2004, 11:55: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]