triple6fistdestructionsoulhammer

MLA style and all champ. Happiness is what one should define it as. What is happy to myself may in fact be horrible to you. A state of happiness is momentairy and will soon be forced into a state of sorrow. Now, without making this a huge reply (I should be doing my mid-term paper) happiness can indeed be obtained, it is just a matter of long this seeming state of happy lasts and to what extend it is existing. What if happy were just a chemical reaction anyways? Take it from a totally eliminative materialst perspective. Happy as a result of physical function, nothing more.

One has to keep in mind that the world has always seen conflict. We just seem to be a little more aware. Now if the world is to end soon, I haven't a clue. Maybe something does in fact need to happen.

I was born in Edison, New Jersey and now I live in Bloomington, Indiana for schooling at Indiana University.

I'm not sure a human being can fully fathom the concept of God, if there is one. Shame on me for going into such a debate. Agree to disagree? The fact is, when it's all done and said, you will still have your ideas, and myself mine.

There is no repeating after the period. This is not a hard concept to comprehend. To fail at failing is failing, simply put. Why wouldn't a God set out to fail? What in your logic infers this? To fail would not deminish their assumed holiness if they willed to do so. You point at that it is unlikely for a God to ponder failure, but that does not eliminate all possibility. That phrase is indeed apt, assuming God is what you seem to think he or it may be. It seems you are falling victim to a catagory mistake with omnipotence here.

I don't fully understand why an all powerful being can not fail. What if this being, of all power, does in fact decide to fail at some point in time? This leads to the possibility of willed-failure. There is no absurdity here at all my friend. This paradox can be as complicated as one should decide to make it and this quote over simplifies it. An all powerful being can fail. The ability to not fail is failing at failing. Therefore, casuing a degree of faliure. Omnipotence does imply unlimited power, so why not the power to fail? Explaine this to me if you will. If the ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence, then this diety is not compltely omnipotent.

Being that there seems to be some opinions regarding religion here, I was curious to see how this paradox could be approached. To put it metaphorically: Could a divine being create a rock so heavy that even the divine being itself could not lift it?

It seems to me that it's better to show affection than to shoot one's fellow classmates.

Not everyone shares the morals you seem to have for yourself. Who ever said that this wasn't supposed to happen? I see how you could be offended by a phrase of sorts but please understand not everyone shares your view on sex and life. Some find sex to be enjoyable and when both partners consent and are responsible, then they justify it for themselves. You know, I hope this is what the world is becoming. People may find more fun in sex than blowing each other up....there is really nothing to do but take this stuff in!!!

Haha, I don't really see what Hitler has to do with this matter. I am not focusing on the elimination of a group of people, I am looking at the complete destruction of human kind. This was a joke more than anything else. Sheer bordum between classes.

Just weigh the cause and effect if you can killer.

Well, take this as an example if you will; A man in the desert comes to an oasis, but this oasis is a mirage. There is not really a oasis there, but something is still being seen. It does not exist in a physical or material form, but it still exists. That thing that exists is a sense-data. If you are interested in learnign more about the concept of sense-data, perhaps start with A. J. Ayer who is a philosopher who talks of the subject. Now, the way we take in the world is through our senses. We see, we smell, touch, hear, and so on. Our senses take in this information, process it and interpret. This information exists within us for a ver small amount of time and is then project outwards to experience. This experience of materail is our sense's data of that material. So according to Ayer and other philosophers, we only experience the data of the world, our interpretations of the world, and not the actual material object.

This could go into a whole bit on sense-data as well. Something may not exist in a material sense but something is indeed there and that something is sense-data. There are ideas that we do not directly percieve the materail world and only percieve this sense-data. Now with schizophrenia, it may very well be "tuned" into something. I really haven't read much on how or why schizophrenia works and I'm a psych major. Nobody seems to be able to provide any agreeable answers to my knowledge. If anybody knows anything, I would love to find out more.

If this is something you have thought out and feel would be something you could handle I say go for it. Highschool can be quite a drag sometimes. You've got my support. Hope it works out well for you.

I don't quite see the connection between being selfishness and a will to live. One has to believe in many aspects of evolution to accept we evolved here in a natural process. I do not share that view and I do not take a Christian perspective. I agree that there were in fact several individuals that tried to eradicate humanity as you said, but what was their motive in doing so? I feel there is quite a difference in eliminating a race due to their race and the removal of human kind as a whole. As I said in an prior reply, this isn't an idea I would go support and make any stratigic plans to make it a reality. It was simply put to provoke thought on a subject. Perhaps by reviewing the nature of its content, one could explaine as to why humanity really "doesn't" need to be destroyed. We all seem to be able to claim we don't want it to happen, but why?