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

[spirokeat]

The notion that some all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal entity capable of existing outside the laws of the universe would actually deign to care about something as insignificant as humans is arrogance and conceit on the part of such believers.

To accept that something is omnipotent and omniscient means that unless they explode themselves with logical immpossibilities (big bang maybe??) they know everything and can do everything and could likely place equal consideration to every single atom in the universe with no limit on his unlimited resources.

Spiro

[Arryn]

Originally posted by spirokeat:
Posted by Arryn the Monist, Functionalist Materialist

May I assume by your logic that you are a hard aethiest ?

No, you may not. Nor do I take kindly to the tagline you've ascribed to me.

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

I prefer "Spike", also.

-- Arryn the agnostic and skeptic

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Arryn:
The notion that some all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal entity capable of existing outside the laws of the universe would actually deign to care about something as insignificant as humans is arrogance and conceit on the part of such believers.

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?

[Arryn]

Originally posted by spirokeat:
To accept that something is omnipotent and omniscient means that unless they explode themselves with logical immpossibilities

Omniscience and omnipotence is a logical impossibility in itself. If you haven't studied philosophy (and physics), you might try doing so.

[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?