|
Post by Tiger on Jan 1, 2010 2:15:32 GMT -5
The second one is a bit dodgy. RR already rationalized it away. I'll stick with fossils.
First one's good, though.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 31, 2009 23:23:34 GMT -5
Possessing all powers that are possible and possessing all powers are different things.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 31, 2009 23:20:33 GMT -5
The fact that you have racist supporters does not mean that you yourself are racist.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 31, 2009 22:01:35 GMT -5
I'm not seeing it. If you're omnipotent, you can do anything. It is possible to envision a scenario in which doing X will prevent you from doing Y. Therefore, not all actions are possible. Therefore, it is impossible to be truly omnipotent. I think that the problem with the argument is that it's tangential to arguments about the gods that actually have substance. It's illogical because if you can't do something, it means you don't have the power. So, making something you have no power over would make you not omnipotent. Not having that power doesn't detract from omnipotence because it's logically impossible. Like existing & not existing at the same time. It can't be done. Period. It's not that you don't possess the power, it's that the power doesn't exist. It can't. It's just meaningless wordplay. And you can't circumvent logic to make this possible, for reasons Vene and a few others have already covered pretty thoroughly. If the power doesn't exist, then by definition you cannot possess it. You basically seem to be saying that my argument is flawed because it's impossible to move a stone you can't move. That's pretty much exactly my point.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 31, 2009 19:15:46 GMT -5
Close Combat Weapon: Hatchet Ranged Weapon: Sniper Rifle Armor: Thick but tight clothing. Nothing heavy enough to impair my movement, either in terms of agility or endurance. Vehicle: Humvee. Or one of those trucks from the Dawn of the Dead remake. If the roads are too clogged, dirt bike. Hat: Peaked Cap (the kind you see military and law enforcement higherups wearing) Sidekick(s): Batman Base of Operations: A dirigible. Theme Song: Still Alive Last Words: FUCK YOU ALL IN THE ASS WITH A BROOM
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 31, 2009 10:06:08 GMT -5
What is funnier is that on his last show before X-mas he went on a rant about he and his family were going to eat all this food that is not good for you while smoking and drinking. .........consequnces can be a bitch. Whatever sympathy I may have had for the man is gone. Asshole deserves whatever he gets.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 31, 2009 10:03:13 GMT -5
Dis sounds equally badass and utterly horrible.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 31, 2009 5:12:23 GMT -5
The problem with the "it's illogical" argument is that it re-defines omnipotent. If this god is the creator of all, then he must be the creator of the rules of logic. As such, he must have existed before logic itself, so the logical limitation on his supposed omnipotence does not apply. So the question is a valid one, IMO. The idea of an entity existing before logic makes no sense, especially since logic is immutable and I don't see anyway it could have been nonexistent in some point in the past, then "created". How do you go about "creating" rules of logic, anyway? We can claim that a god is "exempt from the rules of logic" all we want. It's nothing more than empty rhetoric, and does nothing to change the fact that some situations (for instance, the one discussed in the thread) are simply impossible and contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 31, 2009 5:01:46 GMT -5
Growth rate of 0.883%, so very nearly the same amount. If we assume that 14 seconds is exactly the average, then a person is dying every 13.88 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 31, 2009 4:53:02 GMT -5
Not to mention that the fundie opposition to incest is moral, not practical, in nature. Otherwise they wouldn't be using it as a slippery slope from gay marriage, which has none of the practical downsides.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend where he tried to convince me that premarital sex was immoral because you might get pregnant or catch an STD.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 31, 2009 4:39:19 GMT -5
The problem with using this as a point is that is illogical. I'm not seeing it. If you're omnipotent, you can do anything. It is possible to envision a scenario in which doing X will prevent you from doing Y. Therefore, not all actions are possible. Therefore, it is impossible to be truly omnipotent. I think that the problem with the argument is that it's tangential to arguments about the gods that actually have substance.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 30, 2009 21:47:50 GMT -5
Two different social objections. The main objection to marriage between first cousins, aside from the social taboos, is that first cousins are genetically close enough to where the offspring would have a similar rate of birth defects & whatnot as the offspring of a marriage between blood siblings. It isn't until you get to second or third cousins that it starts to be regarded as "safe" to have offspring. Hence, the laws stipulating that first cousins must be over child-bearing age. There was actually an article in some medical journal a while back that said that 1st cousins marrying in consecutive generations is what causes the defects. Two 1st cousins randomly getting married actually has only a slight increase in risk. So cultures such as mid-east tribes that marry into the same family over and over again have a higher rate of mental retardation et al. I remember that. Unable to find a source, though.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 30, 2009 21:32:33 GMT -5
"Tapes of Nixon's resignation show Stein crying, and he insists that he was asked to quit the Ford Administration after a few weeks because his loud weeping was distracting the staff." - An excerpt from a Time articleAm I a horrible person if I find that incredibly amusing?
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 30, 2009 0:17:39 GMT -5
Diverting the conversation into irrelevant tangents without answering the question seems to be something Sky's good at.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 30, 2009 0:13:58 GMT -5
She had a cross thrown out of her hand and stepped on. Over the line? Yes. "Mobbed"? No. "Hit, pushed and spit on", as Faux News describes it? Definitely no.
|
|