I can prove certain gods don't exist.
Used to be joyous? I feel joy and happiness every day. I've always heard that laughter lowers one's stress levels. I look at this thread and many others in the forum to get my daily dose of laughter.
Definition: G is omnipotent if it can perform any logically consistent action.
Let S represent the set of all logically consistent actions G can perform.
Let P(S) = the act of considering performing all actions in S simultaneously.
P(S) is a logically consistent action which is not in S. Contradiction: G is not omnipotent.
Any definition of God which features omnipotence as an attribute is incoherent, because it is always possible to construct a logically consistent action which is not among the set of actions which that God can perform. Thanks, Cantor.
That only works in 4D space, not if G is external.
The only reason you shit of the idea of joy is that you used to be joyous and it was taken from you. The inner contempt for life that you feel and are not conscious of is caused by your fear to know what you feel. You will not feel your misery because it hurts. You spit on joy because you were made to feel you don't deserve it. But you deserve it as much as anybody does.
"Did you but suffer you would not suffer." A saying attributed to Christ.
The Hero's journey in all world mythology takes him through hell. There is generally some monster, self hate, that screams insults to turn him away, or which will turn him to stone if he looks directly. This is why the Hero may carry a mirror as well as a sword to cut the monster's head off. I just gave you the mirror, but you must wield the sword.
That kind of laughter isn't anything at all to do with joy. You are laughing at others because you feel superior. You feel superior because you have an unconscious need to feel that way. That unconscious need derives from the fact that you actually feel inferior. Naturally, you are not inferior; it's just a feeliing. Thus you live in the delusion that you are happy because you have an illusionary sense of being better than others. That is not an organic happiness because it's artificial. Because you are actually not inferior you don't actually need to indulge in such behavior. The only real feeling you should have is sadness that others feel bad. That is why you will feel even better if you try to bring others hope and light rather than derisive laughter.
Don't feel bad about what you see in the mirror. It has to be the way you see it when you are blind. We are all that way. We are all the same
This is an interesting "epiphany," considering that it's totally at odds with Special Relatively. It's NOT correct that "[T]he clock's light could not catch up to the streetcar." In fact, the clock's light would catch up to and pass the streetcar . . . at the speed of light.Something like that, yes:
His epiphany occurred as he imagined a car driving away from the town clock tower at the speed of light. If the car moved at the speed of light, the tower's clock would appear fixed to someone in the car. The clock's light could not catch up to the streetcar, but the car's clock would beat normally to the person inside.
from: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news...n-Publishes-Theory-of-Special-Relativity.html
This is an interesting "epiphany," considering that it's totally at odds with Special Relatively. It's NOT correct that "[T]he clock's light could not catch up to the streetcar." In fact, the clock's light would catch up to and pass the streetcar . . . at the speed of light.
Remember, one of the two postulates of Special Relativity is the invariance of the the speed of light in a vacuum. The corollary of this is that there is no absolute frame of reference. Thus, a streetcar travelling at the speed of light is just like any other inertial reference frame, indistinguishable from each other. Thus, anyone on the streetcar would measure the speed of light - including light from the clock tower - as c.
This is an interesting "epiphany," considering that it's totally at odds with Special Relatively. It's NOT correct that "[T]he clock's light could not catch up to the streetcar." In fact, the clock's light would catch up to and pass the streetcar . . . at the speed of light.
Remember, one of the two postulates of Special Relativity is the invariance of the the speed of light in a vacuum. The corollary of this is that there is no absolute frame of reference. Thus, a streetcar travelling at the speed of light is just like any other inertial reference frame, indistinguishable from each other. Thus, anyone on the streetcar would measure the speed of light - including light from the clock tower - as c.
That kind of laughter isn't anything at all to do with joy. You are laughing at others because you feel superior. You feel superior because you have an unconscious need to feel that way. That unconscious need derives from the fact that you actually feel inferior. Naturally, you are not inferior; it's just a feeliing. Thus you live in the delusion that you are happy because you have an illusionary sense of being better than others. That is not an organic happiness because it's artificial. Because you are actually not inferior you don't actually need to indulge in such behavior. The only real feeling you should have is sadness that others feel bad. That is why you will feel even better if you try to bring others hope and light rather than derisive laughter.
Don't feel bad about what you see in the mirror. It has to be the way you see it when you are blind. We are all that way. We are all the same
We're all having fun, trust me, and here is an entertaining thought for youI'm bored....
............
But I'd like to ask those scientists though: Why it was only one creature, out of thousands of similar kinds, that has survived the natural selection stage and evolved into a fully freely-thinking-mindset creature.
Ok, so it's not about the natural selection rather than the continuous development of a basic living cell into what we can observe these days, which happened since billions of years ago.That isn't what happened. You are in desperate need of copious amounts of remedial education.
Of course you don't actually believe that the Evolution theory is such a 100%-certain, conclusive, undebatable and backed by hard-proofed-evidence. I mean, those scientists doesn't looks like they've settled down yet on a complete framework for their scientific theory. The case is still under study and we would witness a new changes/updates for a long time to come."Before Lucy, There Was Ardi: First Major Analysis of One of Earliest Known Hominids Published in Science"
Because of its antiquity, Ardipithecus takes us closer to the still-elusive last common ancestor. However, many of its traits do not appear in modern-day African apes. One surprising conclusion, therefore, is that it is likely that the African apes have evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor, which thus makes living chimpanzees and gorillas poor models for the last common ancestor and for understanding our own evolution since that time.
http://www.aaas.org/news/“lucy”-the...one-earliest-known-hominids-published-science
LMAO!!!! This so hilarious coming from the person who tries so hard to prove how superior they are to others in the forum. Your ego and hatred blinds you.
As for being happy. Yes, I tend to be happy most of the time though there are times when I'm not. Usually spending time with my grandson makes me happy again as I get in touch with what's really important in life.
You on the other hand come in here to spew hatred towards those who think differently than yourself on almost a daily basis. I'm so glad I've never felt the need to do such.
Green ideas sleep furiously.
Edit: I'll expand, since you're not likely astute enough to get the point.
The above is a logical argument, which means it is true in all universes. Your suggestion of some kind of exception "external" to "4D space" is nonsensical, and reveals your own ignorance of the scope of logical arguments. God is not a "get-out-of-logical-jail-free" card.
We're all having fun, trust me, and here is an entertaining thought for you
It's in our faith actually, that all the living creatures out there, do in fact acknowledge and revere their God/creator; thus, faith isn't only limited to the Human race.
Ok, so it's not about the natural selection rather than the continuous development of a basic living cell into what we can observe these days, which happened since billions of years ago.
Yet, that theory still didn't figure out who did create and design that basic cell though.
Of course you don't actually believe that the Evolution theory is such a 100%-certain, conclusive, undebatable and backed by hard-proofed-evidence. I mean, those scientists doesn't looks like they've settled down yet on a complete framework for their scientific theory. The case is still under study and we would witness a new changes/updates for a long time to come.
That said, why would you completely ignore any argument or statement from those religious freaks and their ancient, probably forged, sacred books. Isn't it a debatable subject? why can't you give the slightest consideration for any of their heresy.
Sorry, I've taken a glance, and that theory can't answer my argument over why our inside organs/systems has had to be that complicated. A much simpler systems might have done it so well, one way or another. Well, take a look over that sensation of orgasm for instance, I believe half of it would be enough to continue the sexual reproduction process between all the living kinds.
How about our ages, who did set the reliability standard of our hearts.
Take a very thoughtful look into each and every system, then at least you may have understanding about my believe that the human was created as a human; a perfection compared to all other living species, especially when it comes to his brain.
If our eyes had developed from a very primitive state (like realibrad already pointed out) then why it didn't happen to all, since basically the very original livings went through almost the same circumstances. Yet, and after billions of years, we still can find some creatures with a similar primitive design that had long existed since the very beginning of life.
Can't our scientists abandon their bias for once, and give a slight hint about the possibility of an intentional design for those living creatures. Of course not, as then they'd have no choice but to believe in the God.
You seem to be overlooking that very real possibility that exactly no one will "ever know he was right," for the simple reason that every single person who has every existed will eventually die, and nothing of any of them will continue beyond their deaths. Nothing.
How many other things do you believe in without any proof? Or is that exclusive to the Christian God only?
We're all having fun, trust me, and here is an entertaining thought for you
It's in our faith actually, that all the living creatures out there, do in fact acknowledge and revere their God/creator; thus, faith isn't only limited to the Human race.
Ok, so it's not about the natural selection rather than the continuous development of a basic living cell into what we can observe these days, which happened since billions of years ago.
Yet, that theory still didn't figure out who did create and design that basic cell though.
Of course you don't actually believe that the Evolution theory is such a 100%-certain, conclusive, undebatable and backed by hard-proofed-evidence. I mean, those scientists doesn't looks like they've settled down yet on a complete framework for their scientific theory. The case is still under study and we would witness a new changes/updates for a long time to come.
That said, why would you completely ignore any argument or statement from those religious freaks and their ancient, probably forged, sacred books. Isn't it a debatable subject? why can't you give the slightest consideration for any of their heresy.
Sorry, I've taken a glance, and that theory can't answer my argument over why our inside organs/systems has had to be that complicated. A much simpler systems might have done it so well, one way or another. Well, take a look over that sensation of orgasm for instance, I believe half of it would be enough to continue the sexual reproduction process between all the living kinds.
How about our ages, who did set the reliability standard of our hearts.
Take a very thoughtful look into each and every system, then at least you may have understanding about my believe that the human was created as a human; a perfection compared to all other living species, especially when it comes to his brain.
If our eyes had developed from a very primitive state (like realibrad already pointed out) then why it didn't happen to all, since basically the very original livings went through almost the same circumstances. Yet, and after billions of years, we still can find some creatures with a similar primitive design that had long existed since the very beginning of life.
Can't our scientists abandon their bias for once, and give a slight hint about the possibility of an intentional design for those living creatures. Of course not, as then they'd have no choice but to believe in the God.
Definition: G is omnipotent if it can perform any logically consistent action.
Let S represent the set of all logically consistent actions G can perform.
Let P(S) = the act of considering performing all actions in S simultaneously.
P(S) is a logically consistent action which is not in S. Contradiction: G is not omnipotent.
Any definition of God which features omnipotence as an attribute is incoherent, because it is always possible to construct a logically consistent action which is not among the set of actions which that God can perform. Thanks, Cantor.
No, but trying to explain relativistic quantum mechanics to you would be a lost cause, so I'll pass. :\
This is incoherent.If being God, follows from ability to do some task, then the logic is invalid because ...
A priori knowledge is not affected by consequence or empirical knowledge.