|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 23, 2009 9:20:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 14, 2009 21:09:49 GMT -5
Wow, that was even worse than I expected. I liked it better when it was broken.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 14, 2009 11:35:43 GMT -5
Your link doesn't work.
A)The first cause argument is as old as the hills and holds no water. Something exists; on that we can all agree. Everyone agrees that SOMETHING exists just because it does. There is no efficacy in pushing the something that exists just because it does from the universe to a creator. B)The first cause argument and its view of cause and effect demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of time. There is no "before" the universe (even though it had a beginning), because that beginning includes the beginning of time itself. The things that are true inside spacetime are not necessarily true OF spacetime, but even so, it's actually NOT any sort of "law of physics" that everything has a cause. But I'll give that it's generally true that things inside of the universe all have a cause, though demonstrably not deterministically. C)Even if the universe had a cause in the way we think of it (it might have), the fact that something caused the universe does not mean that someONE caused the universe. We get back to the fact that something, at some point back, exists just because it does exist.
We cannot philosophically answer the question "why is there something instead of nothing"? (I am meaning "something" in the broadest terms, not just mass or spacetime, but the phenomena described by the uncertainty principal itself, or anything concievable.) Even if Yaweh made the universe, and another god made him and another god made it and another god made her and that god is a computer simulation running on a computer programmed by a nerd who lives in a universe that is simulated on another computer that runs on the tortured souls of hell in another universe created by another god created by another god created by a final god, who popped into existence because of a totally different uncertainty principal which is the only thing dictated by a deistic god created by another god run on another computer in a universe created by another god, but that god is the end of it (or even if it's turtles all the way down), the philosophical question of why there is something, whether that something is a universe, a phenomenon we can describe with math, a god, or anything else, is no closer to being answered. The first cause argument and its rephrasing are all clown shoes.
Of course, I'm sure this was just a driveby preaching. It does amuse me that the broken link containing answers to the "most common counterarguments" is appropriately blank.
Edit: Bluefinger did a better job of covering uncertainty and causality. ++
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 11, 2009 1:58:22 GMT -5
If not, why would my having sex using a condom with a woman who is on birthcontrol be any less bad than a couple of gay men having sex with each other? Because your way, if God really wanted it, she'd get pregnant anyway. He's like some dick that goes around poking holes into people's condoms. If god REALLY wanted lesbians to get pregnant, they would, too. Parthenogenesis is a remote possibility (it's been seen in every major group except for mammals and suspected in mammals), and even without parthenogenesis, Nautical's belief system allows for complete disregard of the usual natural order. Hell, if god REALLY wanted it, gay dudes could get pregnant too, because god can do, absolutely literally, anything.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 11, 2009 0:57:29 GMT -5
Our luck, it will just end up being Heisenberg's orgy.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 11, 2009 0:46:42 GMT -5
magnazeal the only reason palygomy was allowed in biblical times was to populate the earth and nowhere in the bible doe sit speak about a relationship the way you guys have one as being ok. Far from it. It speaks of orgies and all being sin. We haven't had an orgy. We'd need at least two more spice to have an orgy. See, I always say that three is a threesome, and four is an orgy, but others say that four is a foursome and five is an orgy. How do we decide! But three is definitely not an orgy, despite what my roommate has to say about my birthday party.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 11, 2009 0:37:40 GMT -5
After that they were expelled from the garden where the womans curse was child birth and menstrations. The were told to be fruitful and multiply. Do you mean Sodom and Gamorrah? I know out board doesn't have a spellchecker embedded, but someone who has such a horriffic grasp of basic spelling and grammar and punctuation should really take the time to type their responses in Word or something and then C&P over. (I know you know how to C&P....) Every time you post crap like this you make yourself look stupider and stupider. He actually did say earlier that he didn't know what this "ctl + c ctl + v thing" meant. I believe it was in response to someone copypasting "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" and asking if it counted if the only keystrokes they used was ctl + c ctl + v.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 11, 2009 0:32:32 GMT -5
Funny thing, my first group was neo-hippie-stoner types, and we all ate healthy shit. I'm never touching brewer's yeast again. >.> I would always bring carrot sticks and OJ and shit to D&D games. Healthy shit while rolling the dice! It's good for you! Mmmmm!
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 10, 2009 2:34:53 GMT -5
I thought schizophrenics are more logically consistent It really depends on what stage their delusions are at; they can be fairly logical and consistent at the early stages, but as the illness goes along (untreated, I might add), the delusions become more fierce, and what was once a merely tenuous grasp on reality is now completely gone. Additionally, the intelligence of the person who has the disorder affects how able they are to be logical. Schizophrenics can have spells where they're perfectly logical, or sometimes can be very logical within the confines of their delusions, but a smart person with schizophrenia will be smart about their reasonableness when they're not currently deluded, and a dumb person with schizophrenia will be dumb.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 10, 2009 2:30:02 GMT -5
John as per our discussion on the psoriasis is it normal for clear spots to be seen in the middle of the redness. I have no idea about this disease but this is the report i got today. Yeah, it's pretty normal. It just sort of comes and goes. Mine cleared up almost completely when I became a vegetarian. I've gotten maybe a few little spots for a few days in the last 15 years. I never had it that bad, but mostly treated it with cortisone cream because I would get it under my eyes which cramped my style. My mom and uncle had it much worse and would get scaly cracking bleeding on their elbows or hands in particular, but it still would just come and go. Sometimes a little spot, sometimes bigger spots, sometimes a clear spot in the middle of the breakout. Psoriosis is basically like bad dandruff but not necessarily on your head. It is caused by your body creating skin cells too quickly, and thus your epidermis and/or dermis becoming flaky or in worse cases scaly, and if it gets to the scaly point for long enough it can crack and bleed. The scales happen when the dermis gets too thick (I think), and so your skin is just denser in those areas than really works. It's pretty easily treatable with hydrocortizone, though some people seem to be able to get rid of it by a change in diet. Oh, and I hear that Gold Bond Medicated Powder works too. And it's genetic.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 10, 2009 2:21:45 GMT -5
Oh mans, I just gots ta jump in here. Misunderstanding of D&D is the lulziest. advent what you do not realize when playing these games is these charcters are named after demons. You name characters yourself. The last character I remember playing in D&D was named Solange. Demon name? I'm pretty sure I've used Biblical names, as well as made up arrangements of characters that sound sort of good. I guess those in their glossolalia-like origins could more reasonably be demonic. Oh by the way you could name your characters Peter, Paul, Timothy, and Isaiah and play the game about killing demons and bringing people to Jesus if you felt like it. Yay, Sephiroth IS a demon! Final Fantasy is a video game though. Oh man, I am re-non-regretting starting to read this thread again. I do totally search for traps when I enter a dungeon.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 10, 2009 2:02:44 GMT -5
lonelocust coming from the one who was supposed to call and prove i was a liar? I'm not sure exactly what of mine that was in reference to or the relevance. I'm currently on the fence about rescheduling our session of amusement. There's really no proving you're a liar. That's already been done here. It will be interesting to me to try to make you directly answer questions in a format where they are less easy to dodge than here. Though at this point I'm wondering if you won't simply rant incoherently, I'm not straight-up assuming it. And then I think we'd all like to see exactly what your method sounds like when it's not just over text (your command of which medium is very poor). I do find it interesting that though I have been VERY CLEAR that I am doing this for my amusement, and those of others here, and you've said that is fine, you've later said that you don't carry through with people talking to you for laughs and giggles (although that is clearly like, everyone else on this thread) and you agreed to an interview even though you don't play 20 questions. I keep meaning to give up this thread, but then the entertainment value beckons to me with its sirens call.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 9, 2009 1:07:31 GMT -5
I have a story, from a dear friend of mine, who is a Christian, of a time that she thinks that she met Jesus or an angel.
First, as backstory, she liked to call people "assholeface" both affectionately/joking to her friends or when venting about someone being a jerk. She was a barrista (that is, someone who makes coffee at the coffee shop, if you don't know that word), and a man came in wearing a pristine white suit, and he had... an assholeface. He had a scarred face in a way that made his mouth look *ahem* sort of like an asshole. She had been having a bad several weeks, and the cafe was pretty un-busy, and he happened to start talking to her randomly as he was deciding on his drink, and he made her feel very uplifted even though she felt a little bad about her first thought upon seeing him being "oh man, it's an assholeface!" She then turned around to make his drink, and when she turned back to the counter, he was gone. She asked the other coworker "Did you see where the guy in the white suit went?" and the coworker was like "what?" And she was like "The guy that just ordered this drink, in the shiny white suit? With the facial scars?" and both the coworker and the patrons in the store had seen no one, and her coworker said no one had been in for about a half hour. So my friend realized that the man had been god or an angel, or a sign god had sent her to remind her that she was not alone.
(I pinky swear I am not making this up, BTW. I was very intimate friends with this girl, and she was very happy to share this with me later that day.) So Nautical - total proof that my friend saw god, or was that a demon?
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 9, 2009 0:59:11 GMT -5
Oy, locust, what the hell is with the picspam? Sorry, I was bad and didn't notice that one of the first ones I posted was huge. It is edited now. I'm showing Nautical people who heal not in the name of Jesus so he can show us how false they are.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Nov 9, 2009 0:55:29 GMT -5
john show me one who heals in any other name but in thename of Jesus Christ and i will show you what power my God has over them. davedan assuming the sins said befor ethe legal rights are false religion.
|
|