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

Grassblade wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Grassblade wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Of course he can. Whether you believe in science and whether you believe
>>>> in God are orthogonal. Many scientists are rather devout. It's *because*
>>>> religion is illogical that this is possible.
>>> It is?
>> Yes. In my experience, it is.
>>
>> Take, DeCartes, for example. His first step, "I think, therefore I am"
>> is logical. His second (or so) step is "I know there is evil, hence
>> there must be good" isn't. There could be many kinds of evil, and no
>> good.
> Descartes was also a philosopher, apart from mathematician. Philosophers have
> this (annoying, IMHO) tendency to split everything in twain. However, if you
> know the word "good", and observe only degrees of evil, what do you think a
> philosopher living in such a world would call the less evil tier? His step is
> illogical only if you define an absolute concept of good, which could
> potentially not exist. But if you define relative concepts, I cannot imagine
> how observing (relative) evil could not lead to defining (relative) good.
> 

Personally, I think it would be easier to define good in strict terms
and define evil as either the lack, or opposite, of good. To do so
otherwise, as you suggest, leads good to be that lesser tier of evil. I
believe De Sade explored that in Justine. It does not present a very
pleasant picture of 'good' in such a situation.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> I was not comparing JHVH to Ra, Zeus or anything.  Just stating that, regardless
>>> of the different divine personas the pagans applied to represent the forces of
>>> nature, the one true God is the one who really rules over the many different
>>> forces of nature.
>> So, the satanists are really worshiping the same God that you do? As
>> well as the Mayans doing human sacrifice?
> 
> no, I'm saying they misinterpreted God's actions and began making up their own
> idols to represent the many facets of what can't be physically represented.
> One of the reasons why God wanted to wipe out life from Earth.
> 

So, which is it? They all are worshiping your God, or they aren't.

> don't put the satanists on the same level as the pagan gods:  the satanists
> worship the wrong side of the same Islamic/Christian/Jewish faith,

Which satanists, let's be sure we are on the same page for this
arguement. LaVey satanists, rebellious teenage satanists, or some other
unifying branch that I haven't heard of yet?

 the pagans
> just didn't know any better.
> 
> 

Yeah, now I'm insulted. The pagan religions that were formed, at least
according to some modern science, around the same time as your Eden
stories would have taken place by biblical time lines, are obviously
worshiping the same deity as you. Regardless of the fact that your God
did not take the same form to them and never bothered to correct their
opinions until long after they were all dead. Obviously, they are the
ones who were wrong.

What evidence would you put forth that you are right and they are not?
What evidence would it take to convince you otherwise? A giant glowing
being coming out of the sky and speaking to you personally, claiming to
be Ra or Marduk, or would you write those off as being Satan in
disguise? And why, if those pagans were right and you are wrong, are
they still the 'poor pagans' who seem to be so misled?

Post a reply to this message