@T2- I wish you luck at your visit. NYU is a good school; I was recruited their myself when I was 13..but I turned them down due to family issues at home. But I shant forget my campus visit. Truly beautiful. It is good to see that you are pulling your life together.
@ljoss- My heart goes out to you and your family. If it means lesser activity, c'est la vie.
I have been rather busy of late...research for school. Academia is a beautiful country, but the spring brings the rainy season and the summer flowers are being stifled under the down pouring of grades and theses and all nighters. Eventually, the monsoon will subside and the sun will peak upon the florid fields of June.
Do you have some sort of explanation for why you answered "yes" to number five?
While I am sure that ljoss can answer this, I am compelled to butt in momentarily; I hope you don't mind.
Christian doctrine holds that people are inherently sinful, ala Adam and Eve...so does it not follow that a person committing the above actions is perfectly fine? Indeed, a person who would not commit those actions must be no less than Jesus Himself- and would that not be blasphemy?
In all honesty, the real reason that #5 deserves an affirmative nod is that a person who would lie is not necessarily a homocidal sociopathic maniac--such a person is indeed fine...you, for example. As a true Christian, I am sure that you would not lie about being an imperfect human being...are you "not fine?"
If this is the Zenith of intellectualism on this site, then the world has much to fear indeed. But forgive my sarcasm, it's been a long day. That said, I am intrigued just enough to request membership in this institution. Mother may I?
In theology, omnipotence means the unlimited ability to do any possible thing.
Does this not include physically impossible things as well? Our Christian friend here was vague about his semantics, after all. Suppose we wait for him to chime in?
As ever, T2sux, you display your showy pretentiousness--with more flare than ever. This is the realm of casual interactions, not stick like, high-brow discourse. Nice idea, in theory, but try again.
In theology, omnipotence means the unlimited ability to do any possible thing. If omnipotence meant the ability to do impossible things, like making a circular square in the fullest of both senses, then we'd all agree that there's no such thing as anyone with omnipotence.
It's like saying, "Omnipotence is illogical because it includes the ability to violate logic, which goes against logic." False premise obv.
And yet God created the Universe and all its inhabitants? After all, it is not possible to create matter, a la physics.
I agree with this for the most part. What I was saying was in the context of practical beliefs, which are inherently corrupted by observation. I wasn't talking about sacrosanct fundamentals, like "I am" or "1+1=2." That's clearly not at all in the realm of what we were discussing, thanks.
Aren't we though? Are we not discussing impractical metaphysical/theological theory?
after all, you could just change your axioms, which are unproven assumptions.
False definition, friend. Axioms are unproven, true; however, the basic axioms are accepted in every premise of conversation and thought and action that a being undertakes. An axiom cannot be changed, and one that can is more of an axiomatic corollary to a true axiom.
Seeing as how you only have two posts, I won't blame you for not seeing my other posts on this topic or noticing relevant contextual nuances, and not realizing that you're trying to talk down to someone who already agrees with you for the most part, and has both covered this in other threads and realizes that that's not relevant at all in this discussion except to nitpick for no good reason.
Now this is a perfect example of your "unproven assumptions"--that my low post count implies a reading deficiency. I have read this thread, and if we are to speak about nitpicking, you are not the person to do it. On the first page, I believe, you spent 2 or 3 posts shouting that it's "Revelation" instead of "Revelations."
But I must be going. Friends and lovers await beyond my monitor.
You still haven't said anything about the political aspect of the WMD justification. Would Americans (whatever precentage of them did) have supported the war if they did not believe Saddam posed a threat to America?
Undoubtedly. American's can be aroused to excitement if they believe the villainous Iraqi's have a roll of toilet paper more than they are allowed. And one must not forget the ever so important fact of
TERRORISM
As long as there is
TERRORISM
in the world, and obsessive jingoism rules the day, we Americans will fight for anything.
This is silly. It's logically impossible for there to be more than one perfect being. Inability to defy logic does not limit omnipotence.
If you want to get technical, inability to do anything limits omnipotence, you know, since omnipotence means the ability to do anything that one omnipotent being may wish to do. Worry not, your inability to grasp this fact does not limit your omnipotence--it belies it, to be sure, however it does not limit it..oh no.
It's based on evidence, logical and testimonial, and of course, ultimately assumption. Every belief is ultimately based on assumption.
False. I believe that when one adds 1+1 they get 2...this is based on logic purely, and no assumptions whatsoever.
Nothing can ever be absolutely proven.
Please, my boy, leave behind your elementary school philosophy and learn a few things. Tautological abstractions can be proven true--such as mathematics, and logic.
@ljoss- My heart goes out to you and your family. If it means lesser activity, c'est la vie.
I have been rather busy of late...research for school. Academia is a beautiful country, but the spring brings the rainy season and the summer flowers are being stifled under the down pouring of grades and theses and all nighters. Eventually, the monsoon will subside and the sun will peak upon the florid fields of June.
Slainte,
Jasaicrai
While I am sure that ljoss can answer this, I am compelled to butt in momentarily; I hope you don't mind.
Christian doctrine holds that people are inherently sinful, ala Adam and Eve...so does it not follow that a person committing the above actions is perfectly fine? Indeed, a person who would not commit those actions must be no less than Jesus Himself- and would that not be blasphemy?
In all honesty, the real reason that #5 deserves an affirmative nod is that a person who would lie is not necessarily a homocidal sociopathic maniac--such a person is indeed fine...you, for example. As a true Christian, I am sure that you would not lie about being an imperfect human being...are you "not fine?"
Thanke, goodnight.
Slainte,
Jasaicrai
Slainte,
Jasaicrai
Slainte,
Jasaicrai
T2- Sadly, even after over a year of "growth" (
But I jest.
In truth, I respect you and your opinions, but I do not believe that formalized debates are appropriate for this casual format.
Slainte,
Jasaicrai
Slainte,
Jasaicrai
But I must be going. Friends and lovers await beyond my monitor.
Slainte,
Jasaicrai
As long as there is
Slainte,
Jasaicrai
Shall we begin in the new OM?
Slainte,
Jasaicrai