C
Charles Schuler
Guest
Sure, just hook yourself up to 1,000 volts and then, if you survive, you can
ask additional questions.
ask additional questions.
N
Noah Roberts
Guest
Parse Tree wrote:
If God is all powerful then he can break logic, did that ever occur to
you? Yes, if God *is* all powerful, then he can create an object that
he cannot move but still be able to move it. Why would logic get in the
way of something ALL POWERFUL?
If God is dictated by logic then certainly God is not all powerful, so
by using logic you already assume your conclusion is true, which makes
for an invalid proof. The argument is circular, you are begging the
question.
By the very definition of the thing you want to prove does not exist you
are beaten.
If you can define an ALL powerful being that is limited by ANYTHING, let
me hear it. You can't disprove something unlimited by your proof.
Therefor your 'proof' is of no consequence and remains...unproven and
will remain so because:
Question: Is logic limited in its application?
Premise: There may or may not exist an all powerful being.
1. To prove, using logic, that an all powerful being does not exist I
must assume it is limited and bound by the principles of logic.
2. Any all powerful being by definition is not limited or bound by
anything, including logic.
3. Logic cannot prove the non-existence of a being not bound by its
principles.
4. Logic cannot be used to prove the non-existence of an all powerful
being...
5. This places a limit on the application of logic.
Conclusion: Logically, logic is limited in its application.
But we already knew that, or should have since there are many such
proofs...logic is not an absolute truth. There are no absolute truths
Logic works, I grant you, but is limited in its application.
not," and argued against the answer...I was unconvinced, and still am.
I never once stated that God is infallible, unlimited, and all
powerful...in fact I raised some valid questions to that idea. I also
never stated God was not all powerful for God could well be, all powerful.
I simply argue against the assertations that belief in God is stupid,
irrational, foolish, or otherwise ill-conceived.
Agreeing that it is impossible for an
the kind of person/people I am arguing against. Straw Man.
First off because you have not convinced me that the rules of mass apply
to an all powerful God, and second because you haven't convinced me that
something all powerful is limited by logical rules...and by definition
this is not so.
This later is a new aspect of my argument, which is continually evolving
as I think about the initial "proof". If indeed the proof was valid I
would have to concede that there is very strong evidence that God is at
least limited by something. But the proof is not valid, therefor I
still do not know.
mass behaves for God as it does any known being existing in our
universe..." But as I have said before I do not agree with this
assumption. You are purposefully changing the purpose and meaning of my
argument, which is not arguing in good faith...you are attempting to
ambush me with things I never said, as I predicted you would.
been. A lot about God is rather difficult or impossible to understand.
The main difference I can see *right* off is that any alien, no matter
how powerful, is contained within this universe (any alien in some other
universe is of no concern but would basically be bound by the same
problem). But GOD created the universe, time, and only God knows what
else...everything really...God is the only thing that was not created.
Yes I know, nothing can exist without a beginning and/or an end...in
THIS universe.
even understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion (yet
predicted you would at least make that claim...) since my exact words,
quoted again here for clarification (and below by you), were, "...even
if I give your argument credibility, which I don't..." How did that get
changed around in your brain to "I agree with your argument..."?! Three
possibilities:
1) You can't read.
2) You didn't read, you just reacted.
3) You are arguing in bad faith.
things I don't know or understand and being open to the possibilities.
One of those IS the possibility that the impossible is possible...and
that doesn't even account for the possibility that what I think is
impossible is not, which is the more likely possibility.
Zealots, almost by definition, are close minded....locked into
conceptions that may or may not be truthful. Your words and arguments
label you as a zealot.
I don't discount the possibility that God is not all powerful. I do
discount and discredit the proof that he/she/it is not because I believe
it to be false, and I believe I have sufficiently shown it to be so.
you can break my proof. Or you can prove that an all powerful being
does not exist without assuming it is not all powerful.
At which point I try again, because I believe it is false to apply logic
the way that was done by Kevin and any chink in my proof, or inability
to find one in yours, is a limitation of mine, not God's.
That only works in a universe where laws of mass apply.
If God is all powerful then he can break logic, did that ever occur to
you? Yes, if God *is* all powerful, then he can create an object that
he cannot move but still be able to move it. Why would logic get in the
way of something ALL POWERFUL?
If God is dictated by logic then certainly God is not all powerful, so
by using logic you already assume your conclusion is true, which makes
for an invalid proof. The argument is circular, you are begging the
question.
By the very definition of the thing you want to prove does not exist you
are beaten.
If you can define an ALL powerful being that is limited by ANYTHING, let
me hear it. You can't disprove something unlimited by your proof.
Therefor your 'proof' is of no consequence and remains...unproven and
will remain so because:
Question: Is logic limited in its application?
Premise: There may or may not exist an all powerful being.
1. To prove, using logic, that an all powerful being does not exist I
must assume it is limited and bound by the principles of logic.
2. Any all powerful being by definition is not limited or bound by
anything, including logic.
3. Logic cannot prove the non-existence of a being not bound by its
principles.
4. Logic cannot be used to prove the non-existence of an all powerful
being...
5. This places a limit on the application of logic.
Conclusion: Logically, logic is limited in its application.
But we already knew that, or should have since there are many such
proofs...logic is not an absolute truth. There are no absolute truths
Logic works, I grant you, but is limited in its application.
Can't take something back you never asserted. I simply asked, "Why
not," and argued against the answer...I was unconvinced, and still am.
I never once stated that God is infallible, unlimited, and all
powerful...in fact I raised some valid questions to that idea. I also
never stated God was not all powerful for God could well be, all powerful.
I simply argue against the assertations that belief in God is stupid,
irrational, foolish, or otherwise ill-conceived.
Agreeing that it is impossible for an
No, I never agreed to that though I knew you would claim I did...that is
the kind of person/people I am arguing against. Straw Man.
First off because you have not convinced me that the rules of mass apply
to an all powerful God, and second because you haven't convinced me that
something all powerful is limited by logical rules...and by definition
this is not so.
This later is a new aspect of my argument, which is continually evolving
as I think about the initial "proof". If indeed the proof was valid I
would have to concede that there is very strong evidence that God is at
least limited by something. But the proof is not valid, therefor I
still do not know.
No, I also never agreed to that. My words were exactly, "assuming that
mass behaves for God as it does any known being existing in our
universe..." But as I have said before I do not agree with this
assumption. You are purposefully changing the purpose and meaning of my
argument, which is not arguing in good faith...you are attempting to
ambush me with things I never said, as I predicted you would.
My belief: "God" is the creator of all things. God is, and has always
been. A lot about God is rather difficult or impossible to understand.
The main difference I can see *right* off is that any alien, no matter
how powerful, is contained within this universe (any alien in some other
universe is of no concern but would basically be bound by the same
problem). But GOD created the universe, time, and only God knows what
else...everything really...God is the only thing that was not created.
Yes I know, nothing can exist without a beginning and/or an end...in
THIS universe.
No, because I never "discovered that such is not possible". I don't
even understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion (yet
predicted you would at least make that claim...) since my exact words,
quoted again here for clarification (and below by you), were, "...even
if I give your argument credibility, which I don't..." How did that get
changed around in your brain to "I agree with your argument..."?! Three
possibilities:
1) You can't read.
2) You didn't read, you just reacted.
3) You are arguing in bad faith.
Being open minded is realizing that there are a whole shit load of
things I don't know or understand and being open to the possibilities.
One of those IS the possibility that the impossible is possible...and
that doesn't even account for the possibility that what I think is
impossible is not, which is the more likely possibility.
Zealots, almost by definition, are close minded....locked into
conceptions that may or may not be truthful. Your words and arguments
label you as a zealot.
I don't discount the possibility that God is not all powerful. I do
discount and discredit the proof that he/she/it is not because I believe
it to be false, and I believe I have sufficiently shown it to be so.
Yes, it is pointless, irrational, irrelevant, and impossible...unless
you can break my proof. Or you can prove that an all powerful being
does not exist without assuming it is not all powerful.
At which point I try again, because I believe it is false to apply logic
the way that was done by Kevin and any chink in my proof, or inability
to find one in yours, is a limitation of mine, not God's.
I was right, see above...
N
Noah Roberts
Guest
Parse Tree wrote:
religious zealots destroying life on this planet, for that is what you are.
Also, see my proof that it is logically impossible to apply logic to
prove the non-existance of an all powerful being. At this point I will
assume it to be unread and not repeat it.
Heh...again you assume your definition of God is correct, just like the
religious zealots destroying life on this planet, for that is what you are.
Also, see my proof that it is logically impossible to apply logic to
prove the non-existance of an all powerful being. At this point I will
assume it to be unread and not repeat it.
N
Noah Roberts
Guest
John Woodgate wrote:
spiritual need of people to further their own desires, often to the
detriment of the people they claim to help. They are evil, misinformed,
insain, or some combination as to each particular case.
either exist or don't, they can't be created.
Yes, there have been immoral priests (or whatever) that have used the
spiritual need of people to further their own desires, often to the
detriment of the people they claim to help. They are evil, misinformed,
insain, or some combination as to each particular case.
Man (miss)interpreted gods and/or misused/invented the concept. Gods
either exist or don't, they can't be created.
J
Jim Douglas
Guest
I hate that stuff, I have sent messages to some things like that and they
never show up. I asked and they said "Most users would not be interested in
that!", I said bullshi%%!!
"Mark" <mjohnso1@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1106918680.055115.153590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
never show up. I asked and they said "Most users would not be interested in
that!", I said bullshi%%!!
"Mark" <mjohnso1@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1106918680.055115.153590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
R
Rich The Philosophizer
Guest
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:25:12 +0000, Willem wrote:
Unfortunately for some, the one who has power to deny it has been exposed,
and is being repaired as we speak:
http://www.godchannel.com
Love!
Rich
It might not be logically sound, but you do have the power to verify it.
Unfortunately for some, the one who has power to deny it has been exposed,
and is being repaired as we speak:
http://www.godchannel.com
Love!
Rich
C
Charles Schuler
Guest
Thanks Charlie:
Found this: http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/sacred/baen04/titlepage.shtml
I'll check into it.
Found this: http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/sacred/baen04/titlepage.shtml
I'll check into it.
Guest
John Larkin wrote:
<snip>
-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
<snip>
Not one that you seem to be equipped to appreciate ...
-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Guest
In <pYKdnVQ8WOF_JWfcRVn-gw@comcast.com>, on 01/28/05
at 05:12 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said:
see God!
at 05:12 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said:
What good would that do? He still won't see any electrons, but he might
see God!
C
Charles Edmondson
Guest
Charles Schuler wrote:
Good link. Gives a lot more samples than the baen.com site. Loved the
section on DDT. Banned due to political influence by envirowacko groups
in their ceaseless quest to eliminate the largest predator from the
earth! (man...)
--
Charlie
--
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems
Thanks, Charles,
Good link. Gives a lot more samples than the baen.com site. Loved the
section on DDT. Banned due to political influence by envirowacko groups
in their ceaseless quest to eliminate the largest predator from the
earth! (man...)
--
Charlie
--
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems
K
Ken Smith
Guest
In article <APuKd.81704$Ta2.67335@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
Mook Johnson <mook@mook.net> wrote:
that you really need an analog output.
One of the problems with the ADC-DSP-DAC method is that the DC offset in
the converters can add up to a fair amount. A trick for dealing with this
is to make an integrator with a very low gain and feed it the difference
between the input and the output. So long as the integrator's gain is way
down before the phase shift of the filter gets big, the exact gain of the
integrator doesn't matter, you can use it to tune out the offset. This
lets you get away with inexact parts and yet have an exact cut off.
A DSP or even a micro controller making an IIR filter can have a very
sharp cut off without too much cost in hardware. You may want to follow
the DAC with an analog filter and dither it to increase the effective
number of bits. Since the frequencies you want to do are very low, 24
bits worth of DAC can be bought so you should be able to make 26 or 28
bits worth of results.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
Mook Johnson <mook@mook.net> wrote:
Since you didn't say you wanted your result in digital form, I will assume
that you really need an analog output.
One of the problems with the ADC-DSP-DAC method is that the DC offset in
the converters can add up to a fair amount. A trick for dealing with this
is to make an integrator with a very low gain and feed it the difference
between the input and the output. So long as the integrator's gain is way
down before the phase shift of the filter gets big, the exact gain of the
integrator doesn't matter, you can use it to tune out the offset. This
lets you get away with inexact parts and yet have an exact cut off.
A DSP or even a micro controller making an IIR filter can have a very
sharp cut off without too much cost in hardware. You may want to follow
the DAC with an analog filter and dither it to increase the effective
number of bits. Since the frequencies you want to do are very low, 24
bits worth of DAC can be bought so you should be able to make 26 or 28
bits worth of results.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
N
Noah Roberts
Guest
John Fields wrote:
Just kidding. I haven't done LSD in years and it was never all it was
cracked up to be.
wondering where you sign up.
Just kidding. I haven't done LSD in years and it was never all it was
cracked up to be.
N
Noah Roberts
Guest
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Actually, I would find it rather interesting if a brain fell out of a
mind...
Only cause they float...
Actually, I would find it rather interesting if a brain fell out of a
mind...
K
keith
Guest
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:11:49 -0600, Rhyanon wrote:
--
Keith
Woosh! ...spoken like a true illiterate.
--
Keith
J
John Fields
Guest
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:17:43 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
isn't very deep.
--
John Fields
It's wide enough that its lips incessantly flap in the breeze, but it
isn't very deep.
--
John Fields
K
keith
Guest
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:47:45 -0800, Noah Roberts wrote:
mother's milk, at least until I was married. I do beer now. ;-)
--
Keith
Umm, that's what JF was referring to.
"Cracked"? Ok, so you've moved on to better things. I stopped at
mother's milk, at least until I was married. I do beer now. ;-)
--
Keith
K
keith
Guest
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:51:38 -0600, John Fields wrote:
--
Keith
More like a *itch with her broom snagged in a clothes line.
--
Keith
K
keith
Guest
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:09:09 -0600, Rhyanon wrote:
engineer fettish. Oooh, I feel dirty all of a sudden!
--
Keith
The sexual connotations are all in _your_ mind, *itch. You must have an
engineer fettish. Oooh, I feel dirty all of a sudden!
--
Keith
P
Parse Tree
Guest
Noah Roberts wrote:
What if person A has the belief that you should be dead? What if they
have the belief that you should be murdered? You don't think you should
persecute someone for those beliefs?
Beliefs have consequences. Believing something that is wrong (like
5+5=11) also has consequences. Any consequence that is negative is a
persecution. Pretending otherwise is hiding your head in your ass.
anything about them? You do know that you just took the exact same
position that I did, right?
Nonsense.
And you don't believe in persecuting someone for their beliefs?
What if person A has the belief that you should be dead? What if they
have the belief that you should be murdered? You don't think you should
persecute someone for those beliefs?
Beliefs have consequences. Believing something that is wrong (like
5+5=11) also has consequences. Any consequence that is negative is a
persecution. Pretending otherwise is hiding your head in your ass.
So you don't mind people having beliefs, but have a problem when they do
anything about them? You do know that you just took the exact same
position that I did, right?
Except when you fail to abide by my beliefs...
P
Parse Tree
Guest
Aunty Kreist wrote:
those sorts that advocates complete tolerance of everything without
really realizing that such tolerance is quite stupid and self destructive.
A person's right to a belief ends when that belief is made clear to
another person.
It reminds me of Jan, who suddenly hated me because I said people should
be discriminated against based on what they believe. A clear example of
this exists in kate, who has demonstrated certain beliefs that differ
from those on the MRR.
first place.
I think he'd very much qualify as a fluff bunny Wiccan. He's one of
those sorts that advocates complete tolerance of everything without
really realizing that such tolerance is quite stupid and self destructive.
A person's right to a belief ends when that belief is made clear to
another person.
It reminds me of Jan, who suddenly hated me because I said people should
be discriminated against based on what they believe. A clear example of
this exists in kate, who has demonstrated certain beliefs that differ
from those on the MRR.
I think a person needs a mind before it can be considered stable in the
first place.