Tim Cook wrote:
> It might not be valid logic, but it is certainly acceptable (in my book) 
> to say "anything unexplainable is the work of something I call 'God'" 
> and refining that when you encounter things for which you discover an 
> explanation. 

Oh, and this also implies that if you actually *did* know everything, 
you'd realize God doesn't exist. ;-) You might want to rethink that one.


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You know, number 11, accept Jesus as your Personal Savior? Didn't that
> get slipped in there a bit back?

Jesus is God in flesh.  Rule number 1.

> > I can't steal an HDTV and PS3 from store by God's law.
>
> Of course you can.
>
> >  Neither can Jim, by men's law.
>
> He can too.

yes, we can.  That's free will.  Of course, we know there are consequences for
it by the laws of men and God.  Going to jail and then to Hell.  and if you
happen to be brazilian it's all the same...

Complete free will is an illusion.  You pay for your actions no matter what.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> It might not be valid logic, but it is certainly acceptable (in my
>> book) to say "anything unexplainable is the work of something I call
>> 'God'" 
> 
> Well, would it be OK for me to say it's the work of Satan?  It seems
> kind of odd to define "God" as "that which I don't understand." I mean,
> if you're going to start giving attributes to God, such as omnipotence,
> benevolence, etc, then you *do* think you understand something about God.
> 


Switch it from 'God' to 'god', and I think yes, that would be
acceptable. "That which is unexplainable is the work of some higher
power whom we shall hence forth call Joe."

Darren New also wrote:
> Oh, and this also implies that if you actually *did* know everything, you'd realize
God doesn't exist. ;-) You might want to rethink that one. 

Why? If Tim ever does understand and know *everything* then maybe he
would become god, or a part of god.

This reduces to either "knowledge is god" or "knowing everything allows
one to be (like) god." Both seem like good options to me.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Oh, and this also implies that if you actually *did* know everything,
> you'd realize God doesn't exist.

if you're Omniscient, you are almost God.

there is this Asimov classic tale that I really like:
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

Post a reply to this message

In article <475db913$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> > To prove a positive I only need to find one item with the required prop
erty.
> > "Some grass is green". Easy as pie to prove. 
> 
> Harder than you think, actually. Grass *isn't* green. It looks green to
 
> you. "Green" is an interaction between you and the grass (and to some 
> extent the light sources etc), not a property of the grass itself.
> 
Its also rather an ironic argument, since I have yet to see anyone show 
any **item** that has **any** attribute that has been attributed to any 
sort of God. I mean, if you want to assert the positive position that 
such a thing exists, wouldn't it, by his own definition, require, at 
bare minimum, that even one tiny fragment of evidence could be applied 
to at least on "god", for the idea that any such god exists, or more to 
the point, that *their* god exists? lol

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> Then you'll have an idea of what it's like to be on the receiving end of
>>>> "spiritual" guidance that is unwelcome and unwanted.  Fair enough?
>>> geez!  If you wanted to get a "fuck you!" instead of "bless you" you could've
>>> asked for it from the beginning.  what a fucked up world!
>> Would you be offended if you posted you were in a car accident and I
>> promised to sacrifice a chicken to Satan for you?
> 
> what a fucked up world!  One in which asking for someone's well being is
> comparable to worshipping the Enemy.
> 
> please, take your medicine, dude...
> 
> 

So if I offered to pray to Ishtar for your well being, would that be
insulting?

Realize, before you answer so hastily, that unlike Darren I have not
reveled my beliefs and may hold her to be one of the true deities. To
me, she may be as real as you believe God JHVH to be. And before you
offer the suggestion that all other deities are just guises for your
Enemy, realize that I might believe that JHVH is just another guise for,
lets say, Lamashtu.

Now, if my offer is insulting to you, think how your offer would appear
to me.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> (The common statement made is "does not a watch imply a watchmaker?"). 

The answer, by the way, is "no."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Let's watch watches evolve.


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Why? If Tim ever does understand and know *everything* then maybe he
> would become god, or a part of god.

Except Tim can't understand himself completely, hence he already is God. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> You know, number 11, accept Jesus as your Personal Savior? Didn't that
>> get slipped in there a bit back?
> 
> Jesus is God in flesh.  Rule number 1.

Then what are the other 9? I thought you were talking about Moses' laws.

>>> I can't steal an HDTV and PS3 from store by God's law.
>> Of course you can.
>>
>>>  Neither can Jim, by men's law.
>> He can too.
> 
> yes, we can.  That's free will.

Then I don't understand what you're trying to say, because you're 
contradicting yourself.

> Complete free will is an illusion.

That simply means you don't understand what free will is.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> require, at
> bare minimum, that even one tiny fragment of evidence could be applied
> to at least on "god", for the idea that any such god exists, or more to
> the point, that *their* god exists? lol

the evidence is out there everytime I open my eyes:  the sky, the stars, the
sea, life...

Post a reply to this message