PDA

View Full Version : Ahhhnold Running For Governor



Muck
08-07-2003, 12:19 AM
He's gonna be tough to beat.

CirclingWagons
08-07-2003, 12:21 AM
"Katherine Brewsta, hov you sustained injury"

Prime Time
08-07-2003, 08:09 PM
:lol: Just give him the win now.

iceblizzard69
08-07-2003, 08:17 PM
He is gonna give Jesse Ventura a run for his money as the coolest governor ever.

baccarat
08-07-2003, 08:30 PM
Gray Davis deserves this recall. I'm glad that Californians are excersising their rights. I could see Arnold becoming a very good leader. But I hope Larry Flint gets no votes. I mean WTF?

baccarat
08-07-2003, 08:31 PM
I can see it now.

What do you feel about taxes, Mr. Governor?

"Get down!!!!"

CirclingWagons
08-07-2003, 08:50 PM
Don't forget Gary Coleman..he's running for governor there as well....what a circus

TerryTate
08-08-2003, 02:03 AM
Gallagher too....<shakes head>

Barbarian
08-08-2003, 02:51 AM
This is rediculous, this recall has made California the laughingstock of the country and cost Californians hundreds of millions of dollars.

This is the worst thing to happen to California in a long time.

Sad thing is that people are blaming the wrong guy (It should be noted I'm not a big Davis fan, but lets be real here folks) What has Davis done?

Oh, thats right the budget problem, yep, he vetoed all those budgets the legislature sent him... oh... thats right, they didn't send him any.

Well, I guess another governer would have... ummm.... well, done exactly the same thing I guess, cant sign something that isn't there.

If we really wanted to make a difference we'd recall the ultra-conservative and ultra-Liberal members of the legislature that refused to cooperate in getting budget prepared instead of the governer that sat waiting to sign anything that got sent to him.

This recall hurt us financially, and it hurt the idea of democracy in that a small minority can force this on the majority.

At least with Arnold running it will ensure that no republican wins and hand the Governership right back to the guy we elected in the first place.

Marino1983
08-10-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by CirclingWagons
Don't forget Gary Coleman..he's running for governor there as well....what a circus




:eek: OMG,, c-JERK has actually posted something that makes sense .... :up:

Now maybe you could start a trend .....:lol:


Marino1983

CirclingWagons
08-10-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983





:eek: OMG,, c-JERK has actually posted something that makes sense .... :up:

Now maybe you could start a trend .....:lol:


Marino1983
a compliment from m83?....i think i'm blushing:lol:

Muck
08-10-2003, 05:05 PM
Don't forget about 22-year old porn star Mary Carey.

Actually, she should be Flynt's running mate.

Barbarian
08-10-2003, 05:28 PM
She should be the Luitenant Governor...

That would be insane.

t2thejz
08-14-2003, 12:21 PM
He is a smart guy and isnt some dumb celeberty running for the publicity, he has succeded at everything he has done, so why not govener

zonk39
08-14-2003, 12:24 PM
He's a JET fan! Thats all I have to say.

Do you remember that Monday night nightmare at halftime.

PhinPhan1227
08-14-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian


I know this belongs in a new thread all by itself, but I had to address your signature...

"~~Is god willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god? - Epicurus"

The second assertion is falacious. It's entirely possible for God to allow evil and not be malevolent. If you assume that the reason we are here is to grow and develop as a soul, then there must be some mechanism for that growth. Further, as anyone can tell you, it's impossible for there to be growth without pain. Therefore, in order for us to fulfill our purpose in this mortal existance pain, and therefore evil is nessesary.
If God allows evil to exist because it fullfils the purpose of serving as the mechanism for our spiritual growth, then he is not in any way being malevolent, he is in fact being very loving.
Any parent or teacher will tell you that their child or student will view their actions as "evil" at some point in their relationship(is there ANYONE on this planet who hasn't said "I hate you" to their parents at some point in their lives?). But those actions are meant to teach, and are actually inspired out of love, and despite their perception as being evil are actually nessesary acts in the development of that child.
The same can be said of Gods allowing evil to exist in the world.

Barbarian
08-14-2003, 03:25 PM
Well since your going to bring this into the thread, I'll reply here...

If god is an omnipotent benevolent being, then can't he make the world in such a fashion that we can "grow and develop a soul" as you put it, without the existance of evil?
If god is all-powerfull or all-knowing, then why can't he allow us to experience that spiritual growth without the evils of the world.

As for you parent/teacher example, you have a failure of logic here. A parent or teacher is limited as a mortal non-all-powerfull beeing and doesn't have the ability to create that growth without using tools such as punishment or hardships, is god limited in the same manner? If so, then why call him god at all?

But you have made your point, and I have made mine, now can we let this thread get back to the topic at hand?

PhinPhan1227
08-14-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian
Well since your going to bring this into the thread, I'll reply here...

If god is an omnipotent benevolent being, then can't he make the world in such a fashion that we can &quot;grow and develop a soul&quot; as you put it, without the existance of evil?
If god is all-powerfull or all-knowing, then why can't he allow us to experience that spiritual growth without the evils of the world.

As for you parent/teacher example, you have a failure of logic here. A parent or teacher is limited as a mortal non-all-powerfull beeing and doesn't have the ability to create that growth without using tools such as punishment or hardships, is god limited in the same manner? If so, then why call him god at all?

But you have made your point, and I have made mine, now can we let this thread get back to the topic at hand?

Lol...nope..:D I think it depends on how far "Omnipotent" extends. If God is omnipotent in the strictest sense of the word than it's difficult to imagine his existance. If he exists without ANY regard for ANY structure what-so-ever, than he would have to approach a state of chaos, which seems like a difficult state for a diety to exist in outside of an HP Lovecraft novel:cool: .In my opinion even God has rules he lives by, and as such, he has to play by certain rules. Apparently he can't give man an appreciation of good without an appreciation of evil. Whether that's a law he established, or is just dealing with I have no idea. But since he spelled out rules in the bible for his relationship with man, it seems to me that there ARE rules which he has to abide by. As such, maybe you would choose not to call him ompnipotent. Personally, I think it comes down to the word existing in relation to the parties involved. In relation to US he IS omnipotent. It's only in relation to the absolute that God is limited.

Barbarian
08-14-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Lol...nope..:D I think it depends on how far &quot;Omnipotent&quot; extends. If God is omnipotent in the strictest sense of the word than it's difficult to imagine his existance. If he exists without ANY regard for ANY structure what-so-ever, than he would have to approach a state of chaos, which seems like a difficult state for a diety to exist in outside of an HP Lovecraft novel:cool: .In my opinion even God has rules he lives by, and as such, he has to play by certain rules. Apparently he can't give man an appreciation of good without an appreciation of evil. Whether that's a law he established, or is just dealing with I have no idea. But since he spelled out rules in the bible for his relationship with man, it seems to me that there ARE rules which he has to abide by. As such, maybe you would choose not to call him ompnipotent. Personally, I think it comes down to the word existing in relation to the parties involved. In relation to US he IS omnipotent. It's only in relation to the absolute that God is limited.

There is no "relative omnipotance" to an ant we must seem omnipotant.

All-knowing, and All-powerfull are absolutes, theres no shades of gray on that.

If you believe that we were created by an extreamly powerfull being that controlls much of our lives, thats one thing, but people toss around those absolutes a little too loosely IMHO. Epicurus saw this as well regarding what people were refering to as god at the time during his life.

There are many definitions of god, but the one most relevant I would think is the first one...


God:
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

If god created the earth and heavens and did everything the bible claims he did, then doesn't he have the power to end needless suffering? If he is the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, then why can't he mold that universe to allow us growth without suffering?

okay... NOW can we get back to making fun of Ahnold?

PhinPhan1227
08-14-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian


There is no &quot;relative omnipotance&quot; to an ant we must seem omnipotant.

All-knowing, and All-powerfull are absolutes, theres no shades of gray on that.

If you believe that we were created by an extreamly powerfull being that controlls much of our lives, thats one thing, but people toss around those absolutes a little too loosely IMHO. Epicurus saw this as well regarding what people were refering to as god at the time during his life.

There are many definitions of god, but the one most relevant I would think is the first one...



If god created the earth and heavens and did everything the bible claims he did, then doesn't he have the power to end needless suffering? If he is the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, then why can't he mold that universe to allow us growth without suffering?

okay... NOW can we get back to making fun of Ahnold?

As I said, I can't concieve of a God who is completely without constraints, and even in the Bible, since God created the world in stages and then had to rest he isn't portrayed as completely omnipotent. A TRULY omnipotent entity would have no need to rest, because he would be without limitation. Therefore we have a connundrum. Is he relatively omnipotent, or is the Bible innacurate. If the Bible is innaccurate the whole discussion os moot anyway, so we have to assume that he is relatively ominipotent. It seems eminently reasonable to me that God could create material creations much more easily than spiritual creations, and can also therefore manipulate the physical much more easily than the spiritual. Heck, one could even limit the definition of Omnipotent to matters of a physical nature and solve the connundrum right there as well.

Barbarian
08-14-2003, 05:54 PM
As I (and Epicurus) said, if he is not omnipotent, and all powerfull, why call him god?

Otherwise all we are talking about is a very powerfull being. (also, there is no relative omnipotance, either you are or you arent, theres no gray on this) He said something along the lines of "thou shalt worship no god before me" or something to that effect (I'm at work and can't look it up right now) seems awfully presumptuous, especially if there is the potential of an even greater power than him.

NOW can we get back to the topic of the Terminator saying that we need to cut back on violance in the media? :lol:

Armored Saint
08-14-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian
This is rediculous, this recall has made California the laughingstock of the country and cost Californians hundreds of millions of dollars.

This is the worst thing to happen to California in a long time.

Sad thing is that people are blaming the wrong guy (It should be noted I'm not a big Davis fan, but lets be real here folks) What has Davis done?

Oh, thats right the budget problem, yep, he vetoed all those budgets the legislature sent him... oh... thats right, they didn't send him any.

Well, I guess another governer would have... ummm.... well, done exactly the same thing I guess, cant sign something that isn't there.

If we really wanted to make a difference we'd recall the ultra-conservative and ultra-Liberal members of the legislature that refused to cooperate in getting budget prepared instead of the governer that sat waiting to sign anything that got sent to him.

This recall hurt us financially, and it hurt the idea of democracy in that a small minority can force this on the majority.

At least with Arnold running it will ensure that no republican wins and hand the Governership right back to the guy we elected in the first place.

Although I agree with you that all of the blame for California's problems can't be laid at Gray Davis' feet, he has made a significant contribution to said problems:

* Awarding generous pensions to state employees such as fire fighters, police officers and prison guards in exchange for campaign contributions. Now, they can retire as early as age 50 with 90% of their salary.

* Although California law requires a two-thirds majority in the State Assembly to raise taxes, Davis, by fiat, tripled the car tax.

* Davis signed a bill to require employers to grant paid family and medical leave.

* According to the San Francisco Chronicle, " … experts estimate that California paid about $40 billion too much for power in 2000 and 2001 as energy firms jacked up prices. Adding in the $10 billion of overcharges from the long-term contracts signed by Davis would bring the state's tab for the energy crisis to $50 billion."

* Despite his declared freeze in hiring, Davis added 44,000 people to the state payroll.

* During his re-election bid, Davis intentionally misrepresented the size of the budget deficit by giving a number that was roughly half of its actual size.

The recall is necessary because the US economy requires a healthy California economy. Spending $60 million on a recall is a relative bargain considering that the state's deficit is $40 billion. Harping on the expenditure of the recall is a canard. Davis is only the most conspicious of all the culprits behind California's crisis. Recalling Davis would be akin to firing the manager rather than the team.

As for Arnold, so what if he doesn't have political experience? Davis has 30 years' experience and it hasn't exactly served him or the people of California very well.

Barbarian
08-14-2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Armored Saint
Although I agree with you that all of the blame for California's problems can't be laid at Gray Davis' feet, he has made a significant contribution to said problems:

* Awarding generous pensions to state employees such as fire fighters, police officers and prison guards in exchange for campaign contributions. Now, they can retire as early as age 50 with 90% of their salary.

He gave generous pensions to firefighters, police officers, and prison guards... that bastard, how dare he! Doesn't he realise that theese professions make enough money as it stands, and heck, it's not like they are important or anything.


* Although California law requires a two-thirds majority in the State Assembly to raise taxes, Davis, by fiat, tripled the car tax.

whoa whoa whoa...... a law signed by Ex-Governer Pete Wilson raised the car tax when the conservative republicans refused to sign the proposed budget comprimise presented by Davis. You can blame the conservtive republicans and Pete Wilson for that tax hike. Remember during the "Republican revolution" when the states republicns booted out most of the moderate Republicans and put in an inordinant number of right wingers? The chips fell, and we all lost thanks to that, because theese guys were the leading force in not having a budget.


* Davis signed a bill to require employers to grant paid family and medical leave.

yeah.... and? If my kid gets sick, it would be BS if I can't use my sick days to take him to the doctor. That law doesn't require any extra days to be added, only to allow you to use them for immediate family illnesses. If he hadn't signed this it would be a reason to consider recalling him.


* According to the San Francisco Chronicle, &quot; … experts estimate that California paid about $40 billion too much for power in 2000 and 2001 as energy firms jacked up prices. Adding in the $10 billion of overcharges from the long-term contracts signed by Davis would bring the state's tab for the energy crisis to $50 billion.&quot;

This is true, I have said time and time again that Davis' biggest downfall was acting like a republican and deregulating the power industry. He sides with the republicans on this issue, and then when it backfires the GOP can't point the finger at him fast enough. But I do conceede this point, it was a bad move, but it also occoured prior to the last election and shouldn't hold any sway for a recall.


* Despite his declared freeze in hiring, Davis added 44,000 people to the state payroll.

Source? I have read and heard differently.


* During his re-election bid, Davis intentionally misrepresented the size of the budget deficit by giving a number that was roughly half of its actual size.

Source? Accusations like this require a source showing that he knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the numbers. I havent seen any such source, but if you know one, I'd like to see it.


The recall is necessary because the US economy requires a healthy California economy. Spending $60 million on a recall is a relative bargain considering that the state's deficit is $40 billion. Harping on the expenditure of the recall is a canard. Davis is only the most conspicious of all the culprits behind California's crisis. Recalling Davis would be akin to firing the manager rather than the team.

Well, the Manager/team anlogy doesnt work very well, and here is why. The team (in this case the legislature) doesn't work for the manager (Gov. Davis) If you take a manager, any manager and give him a crappy team that refuses to work together and is full of players that havent any clue on how to play, then you tell the manager that he can't controll his own team in any way... how on gods green earth are you going to blame the manager for the teams lack of success? If anybody is to blame it should be the General manger (AKA: The people that put this legislature in office)

It doesn't matter who the governer is, as long as we have the current legislature that has proven to be too inflexable to actually work together things arent going to change.

Also, the $60 million is a little misleading, when the S&P lowered the states credit rating, citing the recall as the primary reason for the most recent drop, the drop in credit due to this recall will cost the state approximately $800,000,000, bringing the real cost of the recall to appx $860 million. All for absolutely naught. Because it matters zilch who we bring in, they won't be able to work this legislature into controlling spending and agreeing on budget matters.

$860 million dollars buys a whole lot of sour grapes.

If the new governer comes in and puts this state back in the black though, I will come in here and apologise about being wrong... but it's not going to happen, no way, no how. Not untill we get the extreemists out of the legislature.


As for Arnold, so what if he doesn't have political experience? Davis has 30 years' experience and it hasn't exactly served him or the people of California very well.

I didn't recall slamming arnold for lack of experience(I just think its a situation ripe for satire :D ), heck, as far as the guys that are running, he is one of the less scary candidates (I'm just thanking the powers that be that Darrel Issa dropped out of the race, that Nazi scumbg scared the bejeesus outta me.) Personally I wish that Reirden (spelling?) was on the ballot, so I could vote for him (see, I'd vote for a republican, I'm not the leftists some folks might want to lable me as) :D

PhinstiGator
08-14-2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian
...If god is an omnipotent benevolent being, then can't he make the world in such a fashion that we can &quot;grow and develop a soul&quot; as you put it, without the existance of evil?
If god is all-powerfull or all-knowing, then why can't he allow us to experience that spiritual growth without the evils of the world.
....

He certainly could create a world without evil, but it would not include humanity. To create a being that is what we know to be human...it would have to have the ability to choose both good and evil. God could create a universe of puppet robots that have no true free will. But, the ability to experience true love would not exist without the ability to choose.

Original creation was perfect...but it had to have the ability to become corrupt if free will would truly exist. With this ability to become corrupt...there would also be the design for redemption.

By definition, a benevolent creator would limit His power to benevolence. He could end all evil right now. He could...but who would be left standing? I know I wouldn't be.

To suggest that God could create this awesome universe and hold together the nucleus of the atom, but not have ultimate power to rule this system would be like saying that God can create a rock that He cannot move.

CirclingWagons
08-14-2003, 09:56 PM
Human beings are inherently evil

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2003, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


He certainly could create a world without evil, but it would not include humanity. To create a being that is what we know to be human...it would have to have the ability to choose both good and evil. God could create a universe of puppet robots that have no true free will. But, the ability to experience true love would not exist without the ability to choose.

Original creation was perfect...but it had to have the ability to become corrupt if free will would truly exist. With this ability to become corrupt...there would also be the design for redemption.

By definition, a benevolent creator would limit His power to benevolence. He could end all evil right now. He could...but who would be left standing? I know I wouldn't be.

To suggest that God could create this awesome universe and hold together the nucleus of the atom, but not have ultimate power to rule this system would be like saying that God can create a rock that He cannot move.


"Ultimate power" is a nifty term, but if you break it down as a concept you'd have a creator who was completely without any limitations, and therefore completly without form. Aside from the fact that the Bible itself acknowledges that God has limitations, just look at it from a logic standpoint. How could a being with no boundaries interact with creatures as limited as man? He would have no common ground on which to interact, and therefore no way to empathise with mankind. Again, the Bible refers to instances of mankind pleading its case to God and God deferring to that argument. Lastly, from the viewpoint of Christianity, if God's power is truly limitless, then he'd have had no need to create Christ. According to the Bible he did so in order to FULLY appreciate the human condition in order to forgive us our foibles. ABSOLUTE omnipotence and omnicience would have obviated that need.

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian
As I (and Epicurus) said, if he is not omnipotent, and all powerfull, why call him god?

Otherwise all we are talking about is a very powerfull being. (also, there is no relative omnipotance, either you are or you arent, theres no gray on this) He said something along the lines of &quot;thou shalt worship no god before me&quot; or something to that effect (I'm at work and can't look it up right now) seems awfully presumptuous, especially if there is the potential of an even greater power than him.

NOW can we get back to the topic of the Terminator saying that we need to cut back on violance in the media? :lol:

A martial arts sensei is only a person who has more knowledge than you, but his students still call him Master. "Omnipotent" is a relative term when taken to it's absolute just as almost any term is relative when taken to it's absolute(other than the Bengals sucking, there are NO true absolutes). To my way of thinking, God only needs to be sufficiently superior to man that it makes sense to honor him, and the ability to create the universe and know all things within it seems sufficient to me. Heck, take a look at your day, and how many things you take on faith with your fallible fellow man. I guarrantee that at least a dozen times today you'll put your life in another persons hands(at least that many times driving to work, but also eating, riding an elevator, drinking water, cooking, sleeping, taking medication, etc), and you probably won't give it a second thought because you have faith that those persons knew what they were doing, and didn't harbor ill will towards you. If you're willing to put THAT level of faith in your fellow, flawed man, than why is it any kind of stretch to put an additional level of faith in a being that is darned close to omnipotent?

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by CirclingWagons
Human beings are inherently evil


That's just Buffalo fans...I can see how easy it would be to make that mistake though...:D

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian


He gave generous pensions to firefighters, police officers, and prison guards... that bastard, how dare he! Doesn't he realise that theese professions make enough money as it stands, and heck, it's not like they are important or anything.

:D


Firefighters and cops are one thing, but prison guards? I know several prison guards and quite honestly for the vast majority of them, without the uniform, you can't really see much difference between the guard and the person he's guarding.

PhinstiGator
08-15-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



&quot;Ultimate power&quot; is a nifty term, but if you break it down as a concept you'd have a creator who was completely without any limitations, and therefore completly without form. Aside from the fact that the Bible itself acknowledges that God has limitations, just look at it from a logic standpoint. How could a being with no boundaries interact with creatures as limited as man? He would have no common ground on which to interact, and therefore no way to empathise with mankind. Again, the Bible refers to instances of mankind pleading its case to God and God deferring to that argument. Lastly, from the viewpoint of Christianity, if God's power is truly limitless, then he'd have had no need to create Christ. According to the Bible he did so in order to FULLY appreciate the human condition in order to forgive us our foibles. ABSOLUTE omnipotence and omnicience would have obviated that need.


Like I said...a benevolent, all powerful creator would "self limit" His power to fit His character. He could NOT lie. He would be slow to anger. Mercy would trump justice.

In this model where Humans had complete free will and the ability to become corrupt, An all powerful benevolent creator would design a way to demonstrate His love and redemption for creation. He would choose to self limit Himself...become one of us...pay the price required by His character (justice) and would demonstrate the greatest act of love for mankind... To lay down your life for your enemy.

This universe has a certain beginning and science has evidenced a certain end. An all powerful, benevolent creator would transcend the finiteness of time and space.

PhinstiGator
08-15-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


... there are NO true absolutes...

How can that be absolutely true? :D

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator



Like I said...a benevolent, all powerful creator would &quot;self limit&quot; His power to fit His character. He could NOT lie. He would be slow to anger. Mercy would trump justice.

In this model where Humans had complete free will and the ability to become corrupt, An all powerful benevolent creator would design a way to demonstrate His love and redemption for creation. He would choose to self limit Himself...become one of us...pay the price required by His character (justice) and would demonstrate the greatest act of love for mankind... To lay down your life for your enemy.

This universe has a certain beginning and science has evidenced a certain end. An all powerful, benevolent creator would transcend the finiteness of time and space.


I don't think I could embrace the "self limitation" model for the reason why pain and suffering is the only vehicle for growth. That would imply that God COULD use another method, which allows for growth without pain, but CHOSES not to. At that point than yes, it's hard to argue for a benevolent God. And if you argue that God has to impose those limits in order to empathise with humanity, than again, you've got a limitation preset on God. If he's truly all knowing and all powerful than he should be able to empathise with us without artificial limitations. If however God does have limitations, then I still see no reason to lower his status since he would still be so vastly beyond us as humans that the distinction becomes unimportant. Basically it's like arguing that you don't have to fear/respect a 10 megaton nuclear weapon going off right next to you because there might also exist a 15 megaton nuclear weapon. In the grand scheme does it make ANY difference?

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


How can that be absolutely true? :D

That's the beauty....the only constant is change, and the only absolute is that there are no absolutes...except for the corelation between Bills fans and bad teeth...that's the ONLY other absolute.

PhinstiGator
08-15-2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I don't think I could embrace the &quot;self limitation&quot; model for the reason why pain and suffering is the only vehicle for growth. That would imply that God COULD use another method, which allows for growth without pain, but CHOSES not to.

I think you are setting up a false arguement. Why would pain and suffering be the ONLY vehicle for growth? Obedience to natural law would be a much more efficient way of growth. For example, Don't put your hand on a hot stove or you will experience pain & suffering. Sure, I could learn the hard way...or learn from anothers violation of this principle. Still, the gift of free will permits me to learn the hard way if I want to. :)



At that point than yes, it's hard to argue for a benevolent God. And if you argue that God has to impose those limits in order to empathise with humanity, than again, you've got a limitation preset on God. If he's truly all knowing and all powerful than he should be able to empathise with us without artificial limitations.

It is one thing to have empathy...it is an entirely different thing to demostrate it.


If however God does have limitations, then I still see no reason to lower his status since he would still be so vastly beyond us as humans that the distinction becomes unimportant. Basically it's like arguing that you don't have to fear/respect a 10 megaton nuclear weapon going off right next to you because there might also exist a 15 megaton nuclear weapon. In the grand scheme does it make ANY difference?

Good point. I am much more aware of my limitations.

PhinstiGator
08-15-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227

... the only absolute is that there are no absolutes...

I hope that you understand the true absurdity of that statement and the amount of faith that it takes to believe in this single limitation to an absolute.

I am sad for the state of our educational system that teaches such circular logic. ;)


... :judge:
:stuck:

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


I hope that you understand the true absurdity of that statement and the amount of faith that it takes to believe in this single limitation to an absolute.

I am sad for the state of our educational system that teaches such circular logic. ;)


... :judge:
:stuck:

Actually the fault lies in the limitations of language. To make any statement of an absolute nature(there are no human beings who are 60 feet tall), is absurd because it's impossible to know that nowhere in the universe there does NO exist a 60 foot tall human. Give it a shot...make an absolute statement. The only validity of that statement will lie within your realm of perception. Everything outside your realm of perception you have to take on faith. Thus, the only absolute is that there are no OTHER absolutes...better?

CirclingWagons
08-15-2003, 01:10 PM
oh dude, don't get into the "Ultimate truth" discussion...that will run your brain in 20 different directions until blood shoots out of your nose:lol:

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2003, 01:11 PM
Bad example. If I tell you not to touch a hot stove or you will be burned, you haven't learned anything about being burned, you've only exhibited obedience and trust. You still have no concept of what burning is like, so there's no way you can fully appreciate what it's like to NOT be burned. All learning involves pain. I don't know if that's the ONLY way to do it, but that's the way in which we function as human beings. Lets go back to your example. You see a hot stove and I tell you that if you touch it you will be burned. You then ask me what being burned is because you have no knowledge of it. I explain that it involves pain(which you've also never experienced), and that therefore you should avoid it. You take it on faith and don't touch the stove. Now, there is food cooking ON the stove which you want. How do you weigh the risk of being burned, which is a concept at this point, with the benefit of being fed, which is a driving compulsion at this point. You still have no REAL frame of reference because you never REALLY learned anything. If you've ever watched a kid, you'll know that compluslion will beat out concept EVERY time. TELL a kid who has never been spanked that if he does something he'll get a swat on the butt. I promise you that eventually he'll get that swat because he has no TRUE concept of what that swat was like. If there IS a different way for us to learn and God CHOSE not to take it, then yes, it's difficult to argue for a benevolent God. If that's just the way it is however, than God is doing the best he can with what he was given to work with...yea God!..



Originally posted by PhinstiGator


I think you are setting up a false arguement. Why would pain and suffering be the ONLY vehicle for growth? Obedience to natural law would be a much more efficient way of growth. For example, Don't put your hand on a hot stove or you will experience pain &amp; suffering. Sure, I could learn the hard way...or learn from anothers violation of this principle. Still, the gift of free will permits me to learn the hard way if I want to. :)




It is one thing to have empathy...it is an entirely different thing to demostrate it.



Good point. I am much more aware of my limitations. [/B] :D

PhinstiGator
08-15-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227

Actually the fault lies in the limitations of language. To make any statement of an absolute nature(there are no human beings who are 60 feet tall), is absurd because it's impossible to know that nowhere in the universe there does NO exist a 60 foot tall human. Give it a shot...make an absolute statement. The only validity of that statement will lie within your realm of perception. Everything outside your realm of perception you have to take on faith. Thus, the only absolute is that there are no OTHER absolutes...better?

Whilst I respect your view of relativism, I perceive it to be untrue.

Science would suggest that there are absolutes. Language is limited. Darkness can not be light. Dry can not be wet. Raw meat is not cooked. You can not go forward and backward at the same time (unless you are Michael Jackson). You can not be physically in two places at the same time. You can not breathe without air. You can not live without water. A lie can not be true. 2 + 2 always = 4. You can not be asleep and awake at the same time. Electricity requires both a positive and negative charge.

And the final absolute...a guy named ARNOLD will be the next governor of California. :D

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


Whilst I respect your view of relativism, I perceive it to be untrue.

Science would suggest that there are absolutes. Language is limited. Darkness can not be light. Dry can not be wet. Raw meat is not cooked. You can not go forward and backward at the same time (unless you are Michael Jackson). You can not be physically in two places at the same time. You can not breathe without air. You can not live without water. A lie can not be true. 2 + 2 always = 4. You can not be asleep and awake at the same time. Electricity requires both a positive and negative charge.

And the final absolute...a guy named ARNOLD will be the next governor of California. :D


Lol...ALL of those statements are either subjective or incorrect.


"Darkness can not be light."-Darkness or even dark are both relative terms. Nighttime is a state of darkness, but there is still some light. Absolute dark would require a complete lack of any photons anywhere within the percieved space. Further, you'd have to limit the statment to visible light since "dark" to a bee that sees in the ultraviolet isn't the same as dark to a human.

"Dry can not be wet". Also relative..A desert is "dry" but there is still moisture present.

"Raw meat is not cooked".-Since meat is made of animal tissue, and since that tissue is sustained by the chemical generation of heat, ALL meat is cooked to a certain extent even while it's still attached and healthy.

"You can not go forward and backward at the same time (unless you are Michael Jackson)".- Sure you can. Inhale. You've expanded you're volume thus moving both forwards and backwards.


" You can not be physically in two places at the same time."-You've obviuosly never seen that experiment with the box and the photons. Quantum physics proves that an object can and DOES exist in two different places at one time. For more info look up Schroedingers Cat, or just follow this link

http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html


"You can not breathe without air".-Sure you can. There's been a liquid for the last 30 years that is oxyginated and allows the lungs to breath without "air"

"You can not live without water." -Sure you can...it just depends on how long.


"A lie can not be true." Oh man, there's just VOLUMES on this one.


"2 + 2 always = 4. " Again I claim Quantum Physics which make normal math mutable.


"You can not be asleep and awake at the same time."-There's no one spot where any scientist will state that a person goes from being completely awake to completely asleep, it's a progression.


"Electricity requires both a positive and negative charge."-Talk to a physist about this one, I don't have the time to look up the math or the link.

I took the time to address all of these but even then it wasn't required. We do not have a full understanding of anything, not even our math ans sciences, nor have we experienced exerything there is the experience. The VAST majority of our knowledge is taken on faith, and therefore NOT absolute. If you want a cardinal logic flaw, you're trying to prove absolutes using science which is VERY limited and as such FAR from an absolute itself.

PhinstiGator
08-15-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227

Lol...ALL of those statements are either subjective or incorrect.


That's very subjective of you.



&quot;Darkness can not be light.&quot;-Darkness or even dark are both relative terms. Nighttime is a state of darkness, but there is still some light. Absolute dark would require a complete lack of any photons anywhere within the percieved space. Further, you'd have to limit the statment to visible light since &quot;dark&quot; to a bee that sees in the ultraviolet isn't the same as dark to a human.]

So, you are making the ascertion that there is no place in the universe that has an absence of light. That is an interesting absolute that I am not quite sold on. But, I'll have to do more research to see if you are correct about that absolute.



&quot; You can not be physically in two places at the same time.&quot;-You've obviuosly never seen that experiment with the box and the photons. Quantum physics proves that an object can and DOES exist in two different places at one time. For more info look up Schroedingers Cat...

That was a S T R E T C H.

&quot;You can not breathe without air&quot;.-Sure you can. There's been a liquid for the last 30 years that is oxyginated and allows the lungs to breath without &quot;air&quot;][/QUOTE]

Your right. I should have said that you can not breath for a period longer than 5 minutes (60 second minutes) without OXYGEN (meaning 0%).


&quot;You can not live without water.&quot; -Sure you can...it just depends on how long. ]

Your right. I should have said life can not exist without Water (meaning 0%).


&quot;A lie can not be true.&quot; Oh man, there's just VOLUMES on this one.

&quot;2 + 2 always = 4. &quot; Again I claim Quantum Physics which make normal math mutable.]

I'll stick with 2 + 2 = 4. Is this true or is it a lie?


&quot;You can not be asleep and awake at the same time.&quot;-There's no one spot where any scientist will state that a person goes from being completely awake to completely asleep, it's a progression.

[QUOTE]&quot;Electricity requires both a positive and negative charge.&quot;-Talk to a physist about this one, I don't have the time to look up the math or the link.

Why should I talk to a physist if truth is only subjective and it can be twisted around to mean anything?


I took the time to address all of these but even then it wasn't required. We do not have a full understanding of anything, not even our math ans sciences, nor have we experienced exerything there is the experience. The VAST majority of our knowledge is taken on faith, and therefore NOT absolute. If you want a cardinal logic flaw, you're trying to prove absolutes using science which is VERY limited and as such FAR from an absolute itself.

You can NOT keep insisting that there are no absolutes without making an ascertion that there is an absolute. Is that not a cardinal logic flaw?

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


That's very subjective of you.



So, you are making the ascertion that there is no place in the universe that has an absence of light. That is an interesting absolute that I am not quite sold on. But, I'll have to do more research to see if you are correct about that absolute.




That was a S T R E T C H.

&amp;quot;You can not breathe without air&amp;quot;.-Sure you can. There's been a liquid for the last 30 years that is oxyginated and allows the lungs to breath without &amp;quot;air&amp;quot;]

Your right. I should have said that you can not breath for a period longer than 5 minutes (60 second minutes) without OXYGEN (meaning 0%).



Your right. I should have said life can not exist without Water (meaning 0%).



I'll stick with 2 + 2 = 4. Is this true or is it a lie?



Why should I talk to a physist if truth is only subjective and it can be twisted around to mean anything?



You can NOT keep insisting that there are no absolutes without making an ascertion that there is an absolute. Is that not a cardinal logic flaw? [/QUOTE]

No it's NOT a cardinal logic flaw, unless it was placed in the form of..

There are no absolutes, there is however one absolute which is that there are no absolutes, therefore there IS an absolute. The flaw is in the first assertion which is contradicted by the second assertion. Saying however that the ONLY absolute is that there are no absolutes implies the unspoken "other". Stated out completely it would read "The only absolute is that there are no OTHER absolutes". It's implied but if you want to be picky I have no problem with that. As for being picky about being in two places at once, Schroedingers Cat is an established belief in quantum physics. One object can and DOES exist in two different places at one time. As for the rest...

b)There are Free Divers who do hold their breath for more than five minutes. Further, you can freeze a person and theoretically keep them "alive" for an almost indefinite period without breathing.

c)There are animals which live on chemosynthesis, which overturned the theory that life could not exist without sunlight. What makes you think that the assertion that life requires water is any more sacred?

There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophies.

Barbarian
08-15-2003, 06:23 PM
Boy, I turn my back and catch some Z's and this subject goes off waaaayyyyy into left field. :shakeno:

Can somebody BS some reason what any of this has anything to do with the Terminator?

(Seeing the utter amount of BS I have read so far in this thread, I'm certain that somebody can draw up some insane reason it's relevent to the situation.)

baccarat
08-15-2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Lol...ALL of those statements are either subjective or incorrect.


&quot;Darkness can not be light.&quot;-Darkness or even dark are both relative terms. Nighttime is a state of darkness, but there is still some light. Absolute dark would require a complete lack of any photons anywhere within the percieved space. Further, you'd have to limit the statment to visible light since &quot;dark&quot; to a bee that sees in the ultraviolet isn't the same as dark to a human.

&quot;Dry can not be wet&quot;. Also relative..A desert is &quot;dry&quot; but there is still moisture present.

&quot;Raw meat is not cooked&quot;.-Since meat is made of animal tissue, and since that tissue is sustained by the chemical generation of heat, ALL meat is cooked to a certain extent even while it's still attached and healthy.

&quot;You can not go forward and backward at the same time (unless you are Michael Jackson)&quot;.- Sure you can. Inhale. You've expanded you're volume thus moving both forwards and backwards.


&quot; You can not be physically in two places at the same time.&quot;-You've obviuosly never seen that experiment with the box and the photons. Quantum physics proves that an object can and DOES exist in two different places at one time. For more info look up Schroedingers Cat, or just follow this link

http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html


&quot;You can not breathe without air&quot;.-Sure you can. There's been a liquid for the last 30 years that is oxyginated and allows the lungs to breath without &quot;air&quot;

&quot;You can not live without water.&quot; -Sure you can...it just depends on how long.


&quot;A lie can not be true.&quot; Oh man, there's just VOLUMES on this one.


&quot;2 + 2 always = 4. &quot; Again I claim Quantum Physics which make normal math mutable.


&quot;You can not be asleep and awake at the same time.&quot;-There's no one spot where any scientist will state that a person goes from being completely awake to completely asleep, it's a progression. .


Yes, but if quizzes are quizzical, then what are tests?

PhinPhan1227
08-18-2003, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian
Boy, I turn my back and catch some Z's and this subject goes off waaaayyyyy into left field. :shakeno:

Can somebody BS some reason what any of this has anything to do with the Terminator?

(Seeing the utter amount of BS I have read so far in this thread, I'm certain that somebody can draw up some insane reason it's relevent to the situation.)


Well...the conversation eventually devolved into quantum mechanics which has a direct correlation to the time travel postulated in the Terminator movies....:lol: :cool:

Barbarian
08-18-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Well...the conversation eventually devolved into quantum mechanics which has a direct correlation to the time travel postulated in the Terminator movies....:lol: :cool:

damn.... I knew somebody was going to be able to BS something... but that was impressive! :lol:

PhinPhan1227
08-18-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian


damn.... I knew somebody was going to be able to BS something... but that was impressive! :lol:


Useless trivia and bull****. So much of my brains wattage is taken up by those two things that it's amazing there's enough power left to keep the heart pumping...:lol:

Mr.Murder
08-23-2003, 09:17 PM
Darkness is in itself a measure of light, not a distinction seperate of it, is the argument.
Darkness does exist without light, see also, BLACK HOLE... oakland HOT Stadium, Al Davis, and Raiders !!!

Perhaps darkness in and of itself is a degree manifestation of energy, similar to electric charge theory. Comparable to neutrons, inert noncharged elements. Further subatomic categories such as quarks and gluons and their smaller categories, and the existence of Neutrons with positively charged bodies inherent in nuclei would lead to further categorization of eletric charge in relation to compositional matter makeup such as noting the existence of netron masses outside of the nuclei or perhaps bonding with negatively charged compnents covalently in nuclear model as an entity with positive bodies in a dynamic state around them, such has yet to shown so on our planet as the inertia of polar gravity prevents such.

Weightless bonding of compnents in medicine(chemical bonding) has been done. NASA also planned to put enough radioactive material in a space shuttle to bake Florida in event of accident but was blocked from approval before the first Challenger explosion (thankfully) has probably been carried on since. Attempts to gain centrifuge seperation of nuclear materials in gravity free enviornement using suspendedanimation perfect bonding crystlization patterns via suspensiuon of nuclears in electric fields for new level of atomic fuels that are stronger and have lower levels of critical mass is still being reseached at the multiple trillion dollar level...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Back to football this talk is boring... :jumper:

Steroid make you Smahtah, jusk Ahhsssk Ahnold... the Aryan candidate for recall. Issel knew he wasnt going to run, Ahnold's prepoll results were too much for him, but if AHnold led the recall it would have come under scrutiny. Let some right wing order taking lackey from the Enron circle start the recall effort and then back out so the new Ronald Wilson Reagan will run in time to let W's brother from FLA run as VP and arrive at white house in time to shoot his ticketsharing actor into his new office for take over. Maybe next time he will hire someone who can acutally kill the guy. Bush league had enough ties to the Texas oil lobby that helped off JFK while Junior was out playing AWOL. Their MO hasnt changed a lot, shoot the people better than you keep the oil money (Johnson,Papa, Enron) close.
One more time W, give us another promise of accountability for energy crisis scandals. Oh wait the same thing is going on in the northeast and northwest now...

:rocker: party on dude, let the band play on...