Total posts: 3,763
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
More sex?
Yeah, that one stopped me, as well. Particularly when radicals can't even decide what's what, gonad-wise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I disagree.
Determinism ... Scientific Argument:... Neuroscience:...
All three are just limiting objections, and the third is merely a sub-set of the second, after all. But what science "concludes" is about as rational as science once concluded geocentricity, and now, climate crisis.
Earth is no more the center of the universe, let alone our solar system, than an argument that birds fly, camels walk, and, therefore, butterflies swim. Two factual arguments do not necessarily mean a third is also true, but that is the form of a syllogism, but incorrectly applied. And, both volcanism and "snowball earth" have concluded that our historic climate range has been far worse than ours, today, even within the advent of mammals [about 140M years ago], whose systems are virtually identical to human physiological systems, today. In other words, we can endure far worse climates than now, and can think of adaptations - not dependent on evolutionary adpaptations, to improve our survival.
Therefore, what "science," today, says of free will totally ignores that the signals they read now by MRI, or other tech applied, and thinking these are determinism, or science, already deciding before we decide ignores the root of ambition, planning, and execution - the decision-making process of an advance human species. WE have ambition to achieve, WE make a plan, and only then, WE decide to act. That three-phase process is all in our own heads, not the universe. Science has just not caught up to reading correctly what they read. It's kind of like our misunderstanding the First Amendment, which does not say, nor imply, "separation..." What it does say, in the Preamble is: "...a more perfect union." That's the goal. No determined universe is going to force our hand to make that happen. We do so by our free will to make it happen, and whatever inputs we need, government or religion, or science, will work to help that accomplishment. Why separate them as if they can only exist autonomously?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
To say God created death is to say God created nothing.
Death = nothing? Nope. Death is a process, like any other. It has a sequence of steps, all but one of which occur during life, and only the last process step results in the consequence of the end of mortal life, but not the end of the spirit's life, which dosed not ever die. That which is nothing is, literally, ex nihilo.
No, infinite regress is impossible. We can talk of hypothetical things in certain realms of knowledge like mathematics being infinite, but those are only analytical and not real
Who says infinite regress is impossible? Non-infinate thinkers, that's who. Show me God's claim that infinite regress is impossible. Otherwise, that's as silly as claiming, today, the geocentricity of Earth relative to the universe, let alone to our solar system. That's just egocentricity. What is unreal about analytics? Are you claiming thought is not real? That's just ex nihilo, as well. Creation [or, rather, organization of chaotic matter and energy] is what makes thought reality.
Also, a thing is what it is. that puts a limit on it. Also, matter is limited by how it is organized. That puts a limit on it. We are limited by what we are meant to do (you cannot do everything in a lifetime). We also have only two parents and come from one place ultimately. That is a limit.
I grant that thinge have limits. But, no thing [an "it" grammatically] is a living presence. All living beings [including plants] are eternal by regression and progression. They will always exist. They will change forms [for example, from spirit matter to physical matter] by form-changing which is not a limitation. Life is not limited but by its form. I will never be a rose. Neither a rose, me, or anyone else. And our parents both have parents... and so on, and, therefore, that is not just one place, nor one set of parents.
"There is no finish line."
I agree, and agree with your conclusion that the period is a finish line. But, relative to life, the statement is true. As I said, our life included for changes, but no living being has an end, ever. There are milestones, but they are merely a marker on the path, but do not define the entire path.
"Who designed the Designer?"
Concurrent with what I said previously, a father-figure Designer created God, our Designer. And, conditio0onal on worthiness for understanding how to apply the Design Rules, we ultimately become Designers, ourselves.
When We speak of God we speak of absolute, perfect and complete Being itself.
And as I mentioned before, what makes us think God's level of performance is absolute -
All-Perfect, All-Knowing, All-Powerful and All-Loving. That means He is not God.
Who decided to limit God like that? We did? ROFL How do we, imperfect, incomplete, et al, beings decide to limit God, even by description of being "all-whatever," which implies he's at an end of his progression. We blind ourselves, and God to limited progression. Limited regress, too. How did we decide we had the authority to make such a claim? God calls himself "Eternal" and that implies an ever-sharp pencil. I believe him. And I believe in my own eternity and everyone else's eternity
[note the absence of the period]
Created:
AI eases that transition.
Do you know the maxim: "Don't let temps make permanent decisions."
The temp, here, is AI. As I said, AI is, first of all, artificial. That makes as much sense as if/then logic, which is flawed because the "if" clause is invariably, currentry false. and so cannot ever justify the "then" clause. And that is typically how AI approaches reality: by if/then. And that's supposed to represent reality's soft landing?
ROFL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
privation in philosophy.
My understand of privation is that one's needs and wants are simply unavailable, and that this is a constant, i.e., never has been, is not, and never will be available. Death is deprivation; i.e., needs and wants have been and are available, but ultimately will not be available, primarily because body systems do not sustain throughout life. At a cellular nucleus level, the telomeres, the protective "sleeves" at the ends of the DNA double helix in each nucleus breaks down and cannot be repaired, interrupting normal bodily function, allowing aging and death to occur; something I endure, now., on my way to ultimate demise
imperfect purpose
By "imperfect purpose," I mean that God did not create perfect systems, and that was not a failure, but for a purpose. His purpose was for us, by free agency and dominion, to figure out how to improve the imperfections we were given. Simple example. God made a simple box, and this represents the Earth and all that is n it, for our use. Ir has a bottom and four perpendicular sides. Maybe the sides are not all the same size, or some sides have holes in them. It's our job to apply critical thinking to improve the box, ultimately to be a better container to protect all that is in it - maybe even by adding a lid. We are supposed to return Earth to God, beiter than we were given, thus proving our willingness to be obedient to him, and to improve ourselves [who are also imperfect] and our box.
infinite regress is not possible
Sure it is. Get a sharper pencil with an infinitely smaller point. Why do we restrict ourselves thinking up [poorly] that we are limited? Why think that? "The greatest sin is to limit the Is. Don't" - Richard Bach. One idea is to consider perfection as a process rather than a destination. Some things we do are already done perfectly. The trick is to agh capability - an infinite process, not ever fully achieved. God is just further along on the same path. His God is father along than him, because we have progressively sharper pencils. And so on...
God has to have always been God in order to be God.
Who says that's his condition? Do they know what they're talking about, or is this just poor critical thinking? Progress What's wrong with a progressing God who is more perfect today than he was yesterday, last year, last epoque, last... We progress, don't we? I'm smarter and more cap[able than I was twenty years ago, ands so on... Why not God? Does God always act with all the power in his possession, or only the power needed to do stuff? Some stuff is more difficult that other stuff, just as we encounter stuff to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I already provided plenty of proof against this.
You have offered personal opinion, and nothing more. I prefer my view, because I remain in charge of me by my assertion of free agency and dominion of Earth.
The results of your opinion is personal defeat.
Knowledge gained from environment or genes, or found in brain structure, usually when wanting something and knowing it is not there.
Tell me what infant told you that little gem, considering:
"...the newborn infant can be awake, exhibit sensory awareness, and process memorized mental representations. It is also able to differentiate between self and nonself touch, express emotions, and show signs of shared feelings. Yet, it is unreflective, present oriented, and makes little reference to concept of him/herself. Newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as basic consciousness and they still have to undergo considerable maturation to reach the level of adult consciousness. The preterm infant, ex utero, may open its eyes and establish minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to harmful stimuli. However, the thalamocortical connections are not yet fully established, which is why it can only reach a minimal level of consciousness."
In other words, boyo, your "wanting something and knowing it is not there" is your personal wish balloon. Keep blowing, it needed more bozone..
Created:
-->
@Shila
I cannot get around the clear notion that the flaw of AI is that it's first word tells all: artificial. Why do we need to depend on artificial. That's not reality. No wonder so many people think God is artificial.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
does that mean there's male women... and female men?
Emphatically: no! Se my post #3. We cannot self-identify, because cis-gender is not properly determined by vagina/penis. The gonads - the set of ovaries or testes determines gender, and the brain has no choice in the matter. None. . Note that LGBTQ+ conveniently ignores F and M - which is what 99.99999993% of us, worldwide, are.
Created:
-->
@Savant
but it's a pretty strong correlation.
Pretty strong? According to the Library of Medicine, only 0.0000007% of us [about 500 of us, worldwide] are not XX or XY, but a numbers of other variables. The truth of the matter is that 100% of us have either ovaries or testes as gonads. Our cis-gender should not be designated by a vagina or penis, but by the gonads. But that is problematic since ovaries are internal, but everopne has them, one set to a customer, only, even if one has both a vagina and penis. So, "transgender" does not exist, and cannot be chosen by the brain. That is a head-trip. The brain cannot modify the gonads. Hormones do not change them. Surgery does not change them. Worse, every single cell in the body - about 1 trillion of them, also contain, by DNA, our appropriate gender determinative. Are we going to surgically change all of them? Don't thinks so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
So God created something imperfect?
What do you think death is? The entire creation of heaven and earth is to an interim, imperfect purpose, to be resolved by our efforts in free agency and dominion to return a heaven and earth, and all in it/them to God in perfection. We do that, not God. We will learn how to achieve perfection, and then make it happen by his instructions. We, after all, need to learn to become like him. How do we do that if he does everything for us? It is not God who is imperfect for creating imperfection. This is an eternally repeating process. God was once likes us; imperfect, and mortal. He also had a God in a heaven above him, who created his "heaven and earth... and so on...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Killing lawyers is not trivial.
I did not say it was. That's Will's line, not mine, you quoted. I said the law [sometimes] compels to do useless things - trivia.] We can distinguish the difference between lawyers and the law, yeah?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Nulla est mendaciorum copia, quae veritatem improbare possit.
Therefore...? η αλήθεια θα σε κάνει ελεύθερο
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Person's choice is contingent on....
...and that contingent on... and that contingent on... ad nauseas.
Tell me based on what knowledge a newborn infant chooses to cry - a reaction to both internal and external stimulus. That it chooses to do so is clear; the infant cries. But, based on knowledge? Nope. Environment? Maybe.
person's genes and brain structure,
Nope, no "and." Your genome and mine, and everyone else's determine structure of all bodily systems., many of which are autonomic - no choice required. But all choice is freely made, even if we are prevented from acting on choice. Neither God nor the universe messes with free agency. We choose to be righteous; we choose to be evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Si magnitudinem quaeris, hic summa sapientia est. Vincit Amor.
...is likely based upon a poem in hexameter by Vergil in 37 B.C.E, the last of a 10-poem series, and contains the line, "Omnia vincit. amor: et nos cedamus amori."
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
In our image, in our likeness.Who's?
God is a title, not a name, and there are several others with him in the creation process; probably including the pre-mortal Jesus's Christ, who is Jehovah of the Old Testament.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Free will is the only assurance in the universe because the Earth was created imperfectly for a purpose: that we choose by free will to improve it ourselves and deliver it back to God in a perfect state, for that is the dominion God granted to us to perform, and he did not guarantee we would succeed. That, too, is on us, entirely.
Lex potest cogere justum res. The law can compel to do just, and therefore, righteous things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
What opportunities do you have?
I still write and illustrate/graphic design for myself and freelance customers, and continue investment in my portfolio of precious metals, real estate, and a few stocks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
I like that phrase of equal opportunity.
Yeah, but is that equal input or equal output? I prefer thinking we are not collectively expectant to have either one. What is important is individual ambition, planning, and execution, which my father taught me beginning in elementary school to stop worrying about this or that other competing student, but to compete with myself and apply ambition, planning, and execution on my own terms and excel on my terms. Equal opportunity is a shell game, always was and always will be a failure because it's a socialist/marxist attitude of collectivism. We're meant to be individuals in a free society. I make my own opportunities, thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
When in principle photography, that means the film is still in production, i.e., not yet released to theaters. Therefore, no Osacar-winning performance by anyone in the production, yet.
Created:
Posted in:
Gene Hackman is currently in principle photography in an un-named film about a dog who kills his human owners, a husband-wife who kill him, first by canine Alzheimers delivered by hantavirus. Robert DeNiro turned down the part played by the dog as too challenging for his short-range entertainment value. Lassie was brought out of retirement.
Such is Hollowood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
No more wars.
What in the world makes you think a one world government would prevent war?
"Of the approximately 200 countries in the world, there are currently 30 civil wars underway, including several in which the U.S. military is directly and deeply enmeshed."
Created:
And genesis says we / mankind was created to dig the land ( slaves).
And once again [still] incomplete reading by you. Cherry-picking. There are worms in that cherry.
The very first mention of man does not occur until verse 26 of Chapter 1, in Genesis, and it is not a mention of slavery. That is your personal, complete fixation.
Try this, instead. of all creation, we are given status: "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over [the rest of Earth's creation]..."
I've already advised of man's glory in being created according to Isaiah. Also, Psalms 8: "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars.... What is man that thou art mindful of him... for thou has made shim a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor..."
Your insistence of slavery is merely acknowledged, but not condoned. I tire of sang it. Read all of it. Every bloody word. Enough
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
[Musk is] not a part of a closed, self-serving elite
Great post! I completely agree to the obvious as you described it.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It doesn't say why god creating anything at all in the first place.
Evidence, my friend, that though you think you read, or claim to read the Bible, you do not. Until you do, stop with your objections. They are empty twaddle. I have said it is to be read cover to cover; every bloody word of it. Isaiah tells us we are created for the glory of God. His glory increases by our increase, just as a child of earthly parents develops and increases their stature. Yeah, we even have a Mother in heaven... chew on that
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I see, so that is a NO, then. There is nothing that you can cite from the bible that supports your claim.
I said in my post #35
it is the nature of gods to create - which is better said to organize order out of chaos, or useful energy and material out of the void.
Citation:
Genesis 1: 1
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Satisfied?
Created:
Logical. Emotional. I don't see the disconnect of being both, for either women or men. And whether or not either are cute is just an argument gone sideways.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Nope. I wrote at #29 Stephen wrote:
Why would you cite sungod's #9 if you opposed it? Nope, youxagree with it.
And you can cite that from the bible can you?
How and why should I cite personal experience from the Bible? It's my experience, not any of those writers. Get it?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Be nice to see where I have "cited" anything
Your post #29
And what was his reply when you asked him why he created anything
That it is the nature of gods to create - which is better said to organize order out of chaos, or useful energy and material out of the void
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Nope. ALL stars eventually exhaust their nuclear fuel, leading directly to their demise. The variable of when that occurs is entirely based on the star's mass.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
But your bible does.
No, it's not just "my" Bible. And I have advised, before, of taking caution to cite only specific verses of the Bible and count on them, only, for description of God's word to man. For example, the citation many make, including you, of "an hundred and forty and four thousand" of "servants of God" [revelation 7: 4 - 8 and Rev. 14: 1, 3-5] who are claimed to be the total count of those who will be favored to live with God in heaven. Not to put too fine a point on it, but bullshyte. That is the problem, as I have advised before, of cherry-picking verses to cite, ignoring others. Well, what of the "great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations and kindreds , and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes , and palms in their hand; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God, which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb,..." [Rev. 7: 9-13] Numberless is the number of people who will abide with the Lamb of God in heaven, my friend. The 144k may be leaders of these numberless host of forgiven, righteous people who will abide in heaven. Do we forget them just because you don't bother to read more of the Word than you choose?
Yeah, bullshyte. It's not me tearing words and pages out of it just so that what remains is in total agreement with me. I accept there are biblical flaws, okay?But I havre a means to find the truth: I ask. I ask God, who still reveals truths to the faithful who understand that faith is the power by which God reveals to man, today, as he has in times past. Who told God to shut his mouth? Not me, my friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I'm surprised you have the courage to rise in the morning, considering you orbit the galaxy at 250 km/s
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Nope, a decided waste of time. I was bored by Pong, released in 1972, within 30 seconds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
So, who respects Trump EOs? Mostly people who could not care less who wins an NCAA event. After all, for all the time I 've spent in academia [I just obtained another baccalaureate last fall, at 75, in linguistics], I've never had any need to be justified by the NCAA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It won't last, and it shouldn't
Correct 100%
I believe in cooler heads. For one thing, they do not explode.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Why should I cite that which I do not claim?
Created:
Is the U.S. currently being run by an oligarcy, i.e., the Trump administration, as some Democrats accuse?
First, do we know what an oligarcy is? You tell me. I have a definition from my Oxford English Dictionary [OED], unabridged [20 volumes; the moist authoritative dictionary of the English language in existence], but, since this question does not represent my claim, I charge those who do make the claim to admit that which is claimed by definition.
Seems simple enough: do you know what you're talking about? This is something like the question: do you know where Moscow is found? [no, I do not mean the cities in ID, KS, ME, MD, OH, PA, TN, or TX]. Justify your definition by explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Did you know...
Yeah, I saw that, too, but since you already straitened sado out, I didn't bother. Good call.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Cars are expensive and dangerous >.<
So is your thumb [it can kill a number of ways]. So, should we ban cars, guns, and thumbs? What else?
Created:
Posted in:
I just read Chief Justice is being verballly attacked by Fox news commentators, because Roberts is citing 100 or more years of law that Trumpet thinks he can just crush into dust. -- by ebuc
Believe everything you [ebuc] read? The fact is, C.J. Roberts is not correct. There may be 100 years of SCOTUS precedent, but, while the Justices like to think precedent is law, it is also fleeting, and 10% of all SCOTUS cases [about 3,000, total] have been overturned by subsequent courts, meaning precedent is only as enduring as another Court will consider it is law. And a decent read of the Federalist Papers, since you enjoy reading, will tell you that Madison/Hamilton/Jay considered that impeachment, even of federal judges, including SCOTUS, should occur mores frequently than it does.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Only 144,400 survive.
You want to cite that? I know what it says, but all of us "survive;" and we all will die one way or another, but Christ assured we would all live again, so, how we die is variable, but not permanent for any of us. Even Ra assured that, according to Ani's Egyptian Book of the Dead, which I read in its original lingo. You must not be Ra.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I ate meat accidentally
How do you eat anything "accidentally?" Seems whatever goes in the pie hole goes by personal choice at your age. As for fasting, I've been around the sun 75 times, and have fasted every month for 24 hours once or twice a month for the last 50 of those circuits. Good for body and soul. I do it for myself and no one else, including Jesus.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Bible says that Jesus will kill most humans
Doesn't give a number of killings, so how do you know sty's "most?" Besides, tell it to him; we sure cannot do anything about it, can we? Ra Ra.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I have never in my life played an online video game, but I am well aware of them
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
on. AI, the wave may end up being a tsunami. Like I said, being associated with artificiality is not my cup of tea. This ought to be cautious territory, and many experts in the field agree. Many others do not...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Biden's residential pardons have problems outside of using a poxy to sign them. Bills, EOs, pardons, are all actionable documents, and the law requires that proxies area signed only with the president and the proxy in the same room, and that has been law since before the Constitution was ratified 230 years ago. And if the president is in the room, why sign by proxy unless the president cannot perform the duties of his office. What's actionable there is the 25A, but Bisden's VP and Cabinet where a coven of cowards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The question is: are pardons legitimate if they were signed by autopen?What if the president was out of the country when the documents were signed in DC via autopen?What about legislation? Does the public have a right to demand presidents must physically have the document in front of them for examination as they sign it?Is the inability to physically sign documents grounds for removal under the 25th amendment?What is the legal procedure? How do we know the president activated the autopen?
1. I say, no. How do we know with an autopen if the president, or someone else, activated the autosign?
2. If signed by autopen, regardless of the president's whereabouts, even if in the White House, actionable documents like billls, pardons, and even EOs, need to be personally signed.
3. Yes, as in 2, above
4. Yes, since the president is an executive officer; in effect, the CEO, his inability to read, comprehend, and sign actionable documents as noted in 2, above, any disability to do so should cause a launch of the 25A by the VP or Cabinet. In both cases, those people have been derelict, themselves, the last 4 years. I find it curious that in the last 50 years, since launch of the 25A, Congress has not acted to include itself in raking action on the 25A, when the suggestion is in it for Congress.
5. I don't know the official autopen procedure, but I found the following:
"The state of the law surrounding proxy signatures has remained amazingly constant through both English and American history. The proxy and the principal [in this case, the autopen and the president] must be present together when a proxy signature is utilized for a high-value transaction. This was the rock-solid law when the constitution was written."
If that is still the law, why didn't Biden just sign the bloody papers, himself? I go to #4 above for disability. An aurtopen [proxy] signature can always be identified by observing multiple documents. They will be identical signatures, whereas it is known that personal signatures vary from signing to signing. It is impossible to personally scribe identical signatures. Close, but identifiably different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Blah, blah, blah. Y'all Demos need a complete re-set after Biden screwed y'all, and you can't even admit his complete dereliction. Auto-signing pardons, and all. Nice. That's dereliction cubed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Double_R
Democrats must feel no pulse on the American populace. That's a beat going on only in their heads.
Tell it to Doubler. He does not yet get it.
Created: