|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 16, 2010 16:13:36 GMT -5
Give me a while and I can most likely tell you which is heavier, how much it weighs and assuming it's secured in the box, where it sits. They are two distinct entities, which would allow someone to determine their impact on the weight distribution of the box given enough effort. I'm sure you could, if you could manipulate it. aka trying science. This is a philosophical argument, mind only. Which can tie into the argument that God can't be known (understood). Don't hate, just except is a mental exercise in which the rules and laws of nature are not limits. .......oh and who says reality is made up of just the physical world?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 16, 2010 14:35:10 GMT -5
No pain, sorrow, sadness, anger, hate, etc. Some people may hold this to be greater than gaining happiness or other emotions of that nature. And how do you know that we cannot know which one is greatest? And how can it be the greatest if we cannot know it? Would it not be greater for this thing to be able to interact and become known by us? Who says that to exist one would need to have any emotional traits? How do I know? I don't, but that is the argument. The greatest would be a objective measure. Individuals opinions are subjective. If there are two different weights inside a sealed box. One can't know which is greater in weight, but yet one is. Being known my a mind that has limitations would place limitations on that being. I would think having no limitations would be greater. This argument can also be used to get rid of all physical properties. Physical properties introduce limitation. The greatest possible being should be without limitation since that would be greater.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 16, 2010 14:14:19 GMT -5
2. It is more perfect ('greater') to exist than not to exist. This is actually a very culturally relative statement. There exists some social groups in which it is greater not to exists. So the conclusion that God must exists is only true within certain cultural realities. What would be the argument that not existing would be greater?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 16, 2010 14:13:31 GMT -5
Two people are thinking of the greatest being. One says it has a full head of black hair but only one head, the other says white and agrees. What happens? A third person walks in and declares the greatest being has two heads and they each have only red hair. What happens? Mind you, I do recognize I am dragging other things into a philosophical idea, but still. Fun. The fist way of removing this problem is by stating that there is no way of knowing which of those attributes are greater than another. It does not matter what individuals think is greatest, only that there must be a greatest and that is God. Also known as the "He must exist, but we can't know him" position. The second way is as I stated. The greatest possible being must fulfill all of those attributes. Which means he would have one heads and many heads all at the same time. Making him possible and impossible.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 16, 2010 12:31:10 GMT -5
The first part gets shot to hell by one simple sentence, "I don't believe that". Seriously, each person has their own idea of the "greatest possible being", does that mean each person's idea exists? An individuals idea of the greatest possible being does not matter to the argument. The greatest possible, would be just that. The greatest (no matter how you define great) that there can be. ....or thought of another way. The greatest possible being would fulfill all ideas of what it was.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 16, 2010 7:38:23 GMT -5
Ontological Arguments are mental exercises, and not much else. I have always been fond of this one. It is simple and to the point.
1. God is the greatest possible being there is.
This makes sense as God is seen as the post powerful, most knowledgeable, most.......well everything by people who believe. This statement can also mean be seen as meaning that the greatest being in the universe is God. Regardless of what that being is.
2. It is greater to exist in reality then only in the mind.
That wording is how I learned the proof. This statement also makes sense as ideas of objects or beings can't affect reality the way things in reality can. An imagined pen can't write fill a page.
3. Since God is the greatest possible being, and it is greater to exist in reality then only in the mind, God must exist.
Not much to say about the conclusion. It simply follows the first two statement to it end.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 12, 2010 7:39:49 GMT -5
This is very true. Special interests groups (racist fuckheads, in this case) are a determined enemy of good policy. I don't know the answer, I think the Democrats would just have to suffer their idiot whine. This is part of the reason I sometimes jokingly advocate the 'Public Idiots Voting and Speech rights denial act'. Parents that want their children to go to a good school, or not have to ride the bus of an hour are not racist fuckheads. The problem with segregation has nothing to do with color. It has to do with money. Forcing student to attend schools outside their areas may help move money around, but it also eats up more funding. School districts in poorer areas will always have less funds. No child left behind did not help. How much money a students family makes also can affect performance. We know that poor families are more likely to be minorities you would expect to see a correlation. In the end this issue is about much more then schools.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 11, 2010 20:19:36 GMT -5
Not so much black or white families, as the students themselves. Forced bussing worked. .....well until parents that moved to certain area so their children would go to those schools raise holy hell. Those same parents also elect school board members, and other government officials.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 11, 2010 20:15:34 GMT -5
We'll have to see if Obama actually defends this. Remember, this is something he could end by executive order. It is not enshrined in legislation. You mean the pay, maybe. If you mean DADT, no. It is in fact federal law and can't be repealed by executive order. ......look it up if you don't believe me.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 11, 2010 10:34:20 GMT -5
We could move money and good teachers in. Seems like a little less work. Well in some places there are already bonuses for teacher to work in troubled schools. Money would be easy to spend also. .......both would not do a damn thing. The problem is not the schools, but the students and their families. Regardless of race students that have support at home do better. You want to improve scores in schools you have to improve the conditions for the families so parents have time to take interest in their children's education.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 11, 2010 9:30:53 GMT -5
What should we do then ltfred, move black families out of the inner city? Or move white families in?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 9, 2010 15:09:38 GMT -5
I don't suppose they'd support it if we told them there'd be a new rail lobby who's dick they could suck if the high-speed rail went ahead... The problem is that other industries, like oil, have bigger dicks.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 7, 2010 16:11:27 GMT -5
People who view are to the left of the political center do share some common beliefs. Such as equal right for everyone, separation of church and state, government should help people who need it, Things such as education and health care should not be depended on a persons income.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 7, 2010 8:25:36 GMT -5
Good riddence. Party loyalty and therefore long-term political success and even survival is worth more than half-a-dozen House seats. Modern parties cannot be split against the leadership, since the Republicans aren't. Tell that to the voters. ....and I'm sure the GOP members in the house will be willing to talk to the remaining Dems. True for low information voters. Which are the same voters who will vote for the other party if the current one has not helped. High Information voters vote on policy and their own beliefs. That is not that long ago in political election history. Having the public option in the bill would not have made people like the overall bill. People like the parts of the bill now, but dislike the bill as a whole. All because of perceptions. It does, but over time. Even with a near infinite amount of stimulus the housing market was still going to take time to time to work itself out. Private business would still have needed time to once again be comfortable enough to hire. OK, just ignore my argument. Ignore the people that scream and yell about government spending. Ignore that fact that the GOP ran on reducing government spending while branding the Dems as having run away spending and won in a landslide. ...I stand corrected. They will also say it is important to balance the budget and lower taxes. The problem is low information voters like the sound of those, but could not tell you which party represents them. Both parties understand their base is important. The GOP base is not as likely to vote against, or not vote, then the Dems base. That and the GOP will outright lie to get the center. I addressed 1994. If it is your argument that the GOP made gaines because Clinton moved to the right it goes to show that liberal voters by not supporting Dems did so against there own interests. ....and remember that DADT did not bar gays from the military. It accually let them serve as long as they where in they did not reveal. Clinton won in 1996 because he showed spine in the budget show down with the GOP. Also things where going good in the country. Only a few seats changed hands in that election.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 5, 2010 14:47:04 GMT -5
But I suppose that did slip my mind. Due to the absurdity that is this current situation. Not a problem. Some times that mind has to forget things to stupidly painful to remember. ;D
|
|