19 Apr 13
Originally posted by AgergAnd I think that would lead to time paradox's. The suggestion that an entity is unconstrained suggests that said entity can make a change to the universe today, and via some causal relationship that depends on the results of todays change, go and make some change yesterday. But this would affect the state of the universe today, thus creating a time paradox.
I can roll with the notion of some god existing unconstrained by [b]our temporal dimension[/b]
If however we disallow time paradox's, then it becomes somewhat meaningless to say that he is unconstrained temporally. ie once he makes a change to the universe now, he cannot make any change in the past that will affect the current state of 'now'. In fact, even knowledge of the future would remove his ability to make changes.
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not even sure what you're asking. The point is that the "argument that an 'infinite past' is inconceivable because the present could never be reached" doesn't hold water. All one need be able to do is conceive of something having "existed forever".
Well since people are quite happy conceiving of the most ridiculous and irrational things, I find it inconceivable that there is anything that can be mentioned that is genuinely inconceivable. The fact that you can talk about it means it is conceivable. If something is inconceivable, how do you even tell us what it is?
20 Apr 13
4 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneAccording to people who think like you do, there's no proof of any girls on the internet, either, so why not call everyone who claims to be a girl 'it' because you have no proof that they are "equipped with all the necessary anatomical features". So you make concession and call those who claim to be female 'she' and 'her'. Similarly, God claims to be 'He' in the Bible, others call Him 'Father', so why not give Him that tiny bit of respect?
More to the point, you're just doing it to tick off the Christians.
According to people who think like you do, there's no proof of any girls on the internet, either, so why not call everyone who claims to be a girl 'it' because you have no proof that they are "equipped with all the necessary anatomical features". So you make concession and call those wh ortunity to blast Him with more name-calling. Including 'it' over 'he'.)
Well I'll take your "According to people who think like you do, there's no proof of any girls on the internet" and raise you "According to people who think like you do, there's no proof that their is anything wrong with slaughtering people by the thousands if they think their god asks for it". How does that grab ya?
The difference between believing the proposition that their are girls on the internet and believing that your god exists is not a subtle one. In the first case let us assume we're talking about females who use the internet as opposed to females posted on the internet
since in that case there is nothing to prove
. Firstly I know that females exist since otherwise I wouldn't be here to talk about whether I believe they are or are not on the internet; secondly I know that the split between males and females is roughly fifty fifty and so lacking any prominent evidence that females are incapable of being on the internet, I ought to appeal to probability and statistics by asking what is the probability that for every person that is using the internet right now, each and everyone of them fails to be female - the answer to that one is staggeringly small -moreover, the complimentary probability is augmented by the fact that some females are employed in capacities which require them to be users of the internet. Now we both know this is not a proof but it is compelling none the less.
On the other hand, as for proof that god exists, you haven't yet demonstrated that fairy-glitter, twinkle dust, and, well... magic in general is a real phenomena. You haven't proven that the Bible is more than some crappy story book written by primitive folk 2000 years ago. Indeed all you do have are appeals to your own faith, personal bewilderment as to how things could all work otherwise, an appeal to large numbers, and perhaps some other fallacies that I haven't recalled in this post.
As for ticking off Christians, that is not actually my intention; more it just seems painfully silly to refer to this magical creature you propose as though it was male - especially given that it has no female counterparts, Similarly, it seems a tad silly to me that people refer to boats and ships as 'she' (even though we have a concept of mother-ships!) As such, it is not to tick off boat-owners that I still continue to refer to them as 'it' - same as I shall do with your god (who does not exist to require my respect).
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by Agerg[Waving her hands side to side] Never mind. Let's just forget I said anything. 😞
[b]According to people who think like you do, there's no proof of any girls on the internet, either, so why not call everyone who claims to be a girl 'it' because you have no proof that they are "equipped with all the necessary anatomical features". So you make concession and call those who claim to be female 'she' and 'her'. Similarly, God claims to be 'He' ...[text shortened]... shall do with your god (who does not exist to require my respect).
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI will get back to you on this one later...so far I haven't been able to come up with a situation that I could not resolve (in my head that is)
And I think that would lead to time paradox's. The suggestion that an entity is unconstrained suggests that said entity can make a change to the universe today, and via some causal relationship that depends on the results of todays change, go and make some change yesterday. But this would affect the state of the universe today, thus creating a time parado ...[text shortened]... te of 'now'. In fact, even knowledge of the future would remove his ability to make changes.
21 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneIs that another way of saying 'don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up'?
[Waving her hands side to side] Never mind. Let's just forget I said anything. 😞
Can you answer me this: Why can females throughout the last 2000 years put up with the biblical pronouncement (therefore coming straight from God itself) that women are not worth as much as men.
If I was a woman and some book said that about me I would become an instant terrorist. What, not equal to men, I'LL SHOW YOU EQUAL. EQUAL THIS ASSSHOLE.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonhouseyou are mistaken. not even the fundamentalists claim such nonsense. the woman is not worth less than the man, the woman is simply assigned a role of submissiveness. in return the man is responsible for protecting her, providing for her, keeping the family unit safe. the man must make the decisions, yes, but do so with the woman's best interests at heart.
Is that another way of saying 'don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up'?
Can you answer me this: Why can females throughout the last 2000 years put up with the biblical pronouncement (therefore coming straight from God itself) that women are not worth as much as men.
If I was a woman and some book said that about me I would become an instant terrorist. What, not equal to men, I'LL SHOW YOU EQUAL. EQUAL THIS ASSSHOLE.
this was set so that the woman, the less physically capable of the two, be kept safe-ish at home, caring for the children. nowadays, the world is less physical and this need is no longer valid, so the woman should have the same responsibilities and rights as the man.
in conclusion, i submit the idea that the woman was never less than the man, just subordinate to him.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by AgergHave you ever played computer strategy games? Something like Age of Empires.
I will get back to you on this one later...so far I haven't been able to come up with a situation that I could not resolve (in my head that is)
Now imagine that you have a completed game in front of you, and you can make changes anywhere you want. The moment you make a change, the whole of the game beyond that point is changed. If you keep making changes at random, the result is a whole range of games all having 'existed' at some point. The only possible way to interact with the game without this consequence, is to interact as it is played out in time order ie you cannot time travel backwards.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziI can understand that a subordinate is not necessarily less than their master
...i submit the idea that the woman was never less than the man, just subordinate to him.
but when ordained by god does that not make the subordination rationale?
ie women are less than men.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59someone has to lead. someone has to stay home with the children.
I can understand that a subordinate is not necessarily less than their master
but when ordained by god does that not make the subordination rationale?
ie women are less than men.
a man needs to be at home for a week or so to procreate. then he can be off to explore, create food, fight wars, etc. the woman needed to stay home. if a male dies, it is not such a loss for the species.
now the world has changed and roles no longer need to stay the same (and they shouldn't). women have equal access to education (they should anyway), the world is less physical, our numbers are very high,etc, and as such, the roles no longer need to stay the same.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziJUST subordinate. Well that says volumes right there. And that is different from women being on a lower plane how?
you are mistaken. not even the fundamentalists claim such nonsense. the woman is not worth less than the man, the woman is simply assigned a role of submissiveness. in return the man is responsible for protecting her, providing for her, keeping the family unit safe. the man must make the decisions, yes, but do so with the woman's best interests at heart. ...[text shortened]... clusion, i submit the idea that the woman was never less than the man, just subordinate to him.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonhousefor there to be order, some have to follow
JUST subordinate. Well that says volumes right there. And that is different from women being on a lower plane how?
was einstein on a lower plane of existence than his anonymous boss at the patent office where he worked?
bush jr was the head of the united states, were everyone following his orders less than him as persons?
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziBut if someone said "only whites can be president" or "only men can be president" or "only people with brown hair can be bosses", would you still say "everyone is equal"? No, you would probably object to all three based on the inequality they create.
for there to be order, some have to follow
was einstein on a lower plane of existence than his anonymous boss at the patent office where he worked?
bush jr was the head of the united states, were everyone following his orders less than him as persons?
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziAll very true, in evolution. But evolution does not result in equality.
someone has to lead. someone has to stay home with the children.
a man needs to be at home for a week or so to procreate. then he can be off to explore, create food, fight wars, etc. the woman needed to stay home. if a male dies, it is not such a loss for the species.