truefusion

In the same way perception requires a conscious, so does logic. You could say logic is dependant on perception, seeing that logic is itself a thought process, as logic is formulated based on what is perceived. You can't have an observer without a conscious. I am uncertain of what kind of judicial system you live under, but, going back to my chair builder analogy, being declared guilty simply because, for example, the person did not nail the chair to the ground, or whatever, i find absurd. That's like saying those who were robbed are just as guilty of robbery as those who robbed them. If the rules are injected with exceptions for a being simply because this being has greater potential than a human, then i would claim this judicial system to be inconsistent. The judicial system i know, unless corrupt, could never declare someone guilty of a crime they didn't commit. In this assumed case, you (the plaintiff) are accusing God of an act He didn't commit. Arguing that simply creating humans God should be declared guilty of sin is not a(n) (winning) argument. In order for you to have evidence against God, you would have to show that God created humans for the sole purpose of committing sin. This is impossible for you, and it is Biblically shown that God didn't create them for them to commit sin. In other words, you have no case. I am still surprised that you would mention that free will justifies God, given your argument before this one. It makes me wonder if you're playing the devil's advocate. Regardless, i never believed free will is absolute; in fact, Biblically, it can be argued that it isn't absolute. Also, i never believed God is incapable of doing something about the evil in this world. However, i do believe God is consistent in His ways. Biblical examples of His consistency include how He deals with sin, how the Gospel follows from the "Mosaic" Law, how He gives people time to repent before passing Judgement, how He would not do away with an entire city full of sin while there remains one worthy of life, et cetera. From His character shown in the Bible, why should we expect for someone's desires to cause Him to act against His consistency? It is also interesting to see you saying that a being Who created personalities, Who allowed for things such as love and hate, Who knows you better than you do yourself, is incapable of swaying your position on how you perceive Him. If God were to show Himself to you and suddenly He'd be everything you'd want in a God, you're saying you wouldn't think differently of Him? Would you claim that thinking differently of Him in that point in time is you lacking free will? Does the existence of desires, of preference and of similar things contradict free will? Are you capable of loving what you hate? Are you capable of hating what you love? Does either contradict free will? Tell me, would you be a monster because you acknowledge that there is evil in the world and have the potential to do something about it but choose not to? And is God a monster because He chooses to deal with evil in a way that differs in how you would prefer He treat evil? If God were an impersonal God, would He be a monster if He simply created and let things be? How does simply there being no need for evil make Him a monster? It doesn't; you would have to add things that are irrelevant to that in order to even claim that God is evil. I try to avoid using other people's arguments as my own, as the flaws usually reveal themselves during discussion. It is like an atheist using another atheist's argument (e.g. the tea-pot argument). All the arguments you have presented to me in this topic i have read variations of from other atheists/non-believers. I would not necessarily claim that free will necessarily allows for evil. After all, "free will" is hard to properly define when attempting to fit everything one desires for it. If it were to be defined as "simply having a choice," that is vague and would allow for instances like no good, all evil, yet with free will; and for all good, no evil, yet with free will. Perhaps forming an illustration would help you understand. Let's use your dice analogy: These are all possible outcomes. This is how i would assume God would "see" possible outcomes (of which He knows which number the die would land on). Rolls die ==> lands on 1.Rolls die ==> lands on 2.Rolls die ==> lands on 3.Rolls die ==> lands on 4.Rolls die ==> lands on 5.Rolls die ==> lands on 6.This is what you're doing, you're adding ignorance to the outcomes: Rolls die ==> lands on 1 ==> WRONG ==> lands on 4.Rolls die ==> lands on 2 ==> WRONG ==> lands on 1.Rolls die ==> lands on 3 ==> WRONG ==> lands on 5.Rolls die ==> lands on 4 ==> WRONG ==> lands on 5.Rolls die ==> lands on 5 ==> WRONG ==> lands on 2.Rolls die ==> lands on 6 ==> WRONG ==> lands on 3.There is no ignorance in knowledge. That is not how God would perceive things, since omniscience lacks ignorance. Notice how your dilemma is gone once you keep things like this: Rolls die ==> lands on 1.Rolls die ==> lands on 2.Rolls die ==> lands on 3.Rolls die ==> lands on 4.Rolls die ==> lands on 5.Rolls die ==> lands on 6.You may still find it difficult to perceive things under this "restriction," as it would make potential outcomes irrelevant when knowing the actual outcome, and that it makes events seem absolute, but it is understandable (and more logical). Let's say God knows it'll land on the number 3. Being that God's knowledge is absolute, the die lands on the number 3. Concerning whether or not God's omniscience contradicts omnipotence, there would be no difference from the previous example, except for the fact that it doesn't concern any die. Let's use an (oversimplified) example concerning two countries, A and B: Two countries have an argument ==> War starts ==> War ends in favor of A without God intervening.Two countries have an argument ==> War starts ==> War ends in favor of B without God intervening.Two countries have an argument ==> God intervenes ==> Peace treaty is made.Two countries have an argument ==> War starts ==> God intervenes ==> War ends in favor of A.Two countries have an argument ==> War starts ==> God intervenes ==> War ends in favor of B.Which one is the one that occurs? Only God knows, right? Is His omnipotence, however, haulted (prevented) in the ones where God intervenes? No.

Indeed, trapped; your website is mostly dependent on the Wix website. If you block wix.com in your browser and visit your website, you'll see it no longer looks good (as expected). Wix seems like a Flash WYSIWYG with some extra functionality. If you want to break out of your "prison," i would suggest to avoid being dependent on front-ends. Most websites don't require Flash to achieve the same thing, and you'd be getting the most flexibility available if you learned how to code a website from scratch.I don't think you'd be finding anything similar where you need only pay once?without a steep learning curve, that is. I don't know of any programs or other websites that do the work for you for a one-time only fee. If you're looking to build a website in Flash, then you'll need Adobe Flash, but, of course, that is not what you're looking for. I, however, wouldn't want my website to be dependent on a third-party website.

Couldn't find anything in those files that helps me determine what the current user is, so i suppose you'll be dealing with that. Anyway, to add 1 to an integer in a MySQL database, you can use the following syntax: UPDATE table_name SET column_name1 = column_name1 + 1, column_name2 = column_name2 + 1 WHERE ... Replace the obvious with their practical parts. The "..." is where you would replace with what row to edit according to what the current user is.

Ah, i can see the confusion now. You define "subject to" as "unable to be changed by;" i define "subject to" as "can be applied to." Therefore, while logic is dependent on a (requiring the existence of a) conscious entity, it can be applied to practically anything. God would only be responsible if He takes part in every evil act caused by the creatures He created, as if by supporting evil acts. What you are suggesting is like saying: I built a chair to sit on it, i am therefore responsible for the actions of anyone who uses the chair to beat someone with it, knowing fully that any object can be used to hurt someone. I'm not even omnipotent and i am capable of churning your emotions. I can only imagine what God is capable of doing if He so willed. Perhaps you are overthinking on the concept of free will to realize that people lack more control over themselves than they thought they did. You may be able to train yourself to remain stable when conversing with people, but the fact that anyone even requires training says much about self control and, therefore, free will. Then again, Who knows if all the training in the world could overcome what God can dish out. Indeed, potential events. You cannot define omniscience as knowing everything and then go on to say that by changing an event God no longer knows everything. Where did that knowledge disappear to? It didn't go anywhere, for by definition omniscience means to know, to lack ignorance. Simply acting does not make knowledge disappear. You require ignorance in order for that to happen, but omniscience contradicts ignorance; ignorance does not fit within omniscience. It is absurd to say that you can become ignorant or wrong in knowledge by "changing" a course of action when you know all possible outcomes anyway.

I get the same error when trying to download the PHP files. Try putting them all in a ZIP archive and uploading it.

Okay, so i managed to place myself in your position in more ways than one, and i've managed to get things working the way i intended. The key was setting umask to 0 (zero). In your case, simply replacing the line that mounts your FAT32 partition in /etc/fstab with this should do the trick: /dev/sdb1 /windows vfat rw,umask=0 0 0Note, you may have to remount the partition for changes to take affect. (Restarting the computer will have the same effect.)

Subject-to does not necessarily imply pre-dating, especially if we assume that the "laws of logic" are dependent on our spacetime (though this assumption is not required anyway). I wouldn't think it unreasonable, though, to believe that God instilled logic within us for us to notice and put to use (to say that conscious effort is required for the use of logic). Although there are ways around each example you provide for mutual exclusives, i would agree they would contradict each other or other knowledge. Even so, i would for that matter claim they cannot both be true, eventhough assuming they are both the same Brian, that Bolton and Manchester are not aliases of the same place, and that these particles are one in the same where science is not limited in being able to distinguish the particle between other particles, even if it denies or contradicts other scientific knowledge. For "proof 1." Eventhough omnipotence is irrelevant as to whether or not God need(n't) create, if we are to use terms like virtue?to imply (high) moral standards?, we would realize the accusation of evil placed on God is unjustified. For simply bearing knowledge of something does not automatically place responsibility on God just 'cause one course of action lead to something deemed dreadful. For if intentions were to be disregarded out of any accusation, i cannot agree that any formal justice or criticism of the situation has occurred. Further evidence of false accusation is seen when reading "he did create." On the contrary, what He did create was a creature pure and without sin ("in His image"). Just 'cause this very creature eventually committed wrong does not mean that God created an evil creature. For "proof 2." How so? Can He not make you hate Him with your own free will? How does that mean He cannot make you love Him with your own free will? For "proof 3." So Him knowing that His omnipotence will cause or change the future is not possible for Him? I am curious as to how His own knowledge of His own actions prohibit Him from making use of His omnipotence to make a change in the future. Do you mean He cannot take back a potential action due to His knowledge? Is it not the case that knowledge given from omniscience makes potential actions irrelevant? So why would we consider potential actions for omniscience? Whatever it is that you meant, i'll leave for your response.

Would it be accurate to say that you are saying that God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent because He cannot be weak and ignorant? Perhaps you are assuming that terms like "omnipotence" and "omniscience" implies not having any limits in general. If that is the case, i could understand why someone would get that impression, but omnipotence just implies not having a limit on power, and omniscience implies not having a limit on knowledge. A person with brown hair cannot have another shade of hair if and only if we are talking about every strand of hair on their body, but the original statement would have to be modified in order to prevent the other possibilities it allows. If the person were to so choose to paint the hair on one side of their body a different color and leave the other half its original color, it cannot be said that the person has neither color. Indeed, "both" is not a color (by practical means), but it would be inaccurate to say that they do not have, for example, brown and yellow hair. Can it not be said that he has brown hair? Can it not be said that he has yellow hair? Stating that he has either, in this case, would evaluate to true. Omnipotence is not self-contradicting, only the "old question" is. As i have told you before, its fallacy is of contrary premises leading to the same conclusion: He can => He isn't omnipotent. He can't => He isn't omnipotent. Logically, this cannot be the case, because logic requires that mutually exclusive premises lead to mutually exclusive conclusions. Therefore God is capable of both attributes, as He is described to have.

The forums are being slow for me, too. Almost each page is taking 20+ seconds to load. Some of the JavaScript seems to not be working also.

Sorry for the late reply, but you can change ownership using the chown command. CONSOLE sudo chown user:group /path/of/partition Replace "user" with your username and "group" with the primary group your username is placed under (this is normally the same as your username). I had to do this too, but it has been a long time since i had to do this, and have just now remembered.

Yes, there were many who believed it would occur in their life time, even today many do, but that doesn't mean we should therefore assume that is what was meant in the text. For what does the Bible say about Judgement Day? It says no one but God knows of the hour and day of when it will occur. In what way then would it seem logical to entrust the definite hour and day to those who think it would occur within their life time? Also, it would be counter-intuitive if salvation is not eternal. If salvation was temporary, those who are saved would be no better off than those who aren't. I know that this part is part of another conversation you were having (though it is irrelevant to the topic), but i seek to post a comment on it. Your argument works in reverse. It should not be the case that a limit defines an attribute, but the attribute defining the limit. Also, a "limit on possible states" is not a limit on the attribute itself. Can God have attributes that make Him have unlimited power and knowledge? Yes. Does the inability of having a weaker and ignorant state, therefore, prevent Him from being omniscient or omnipotent? No. So God is able to "occupy" every "state" except that which contradicts omniscience and omnipotence. By the way, a man with brown hair can indeed have black hair. Of course, not naturally (unless perhaps a new drug were to come out that can issue such a permanent biological change), but certainly can have different colors of hair.

Mount points are stored in /etc/fstab. If you are not fond of editing it manually, there are a few fstab front-ends you can install. I use the program "mountmanager" for editing the fstab file and changing mount points./etc/mtab is a file that keeps track of the currently mounted devices. You'll see devices added or removed from here when using the commands mount or umount, and when third-party programs temporarily mount devices for you.BTW, the next time you install Ubuntu you may want to try out the alternative CD. I find it easier to install Ubuntu and specify mount points with the alternative CD.

Disregarding the fact that you would translate "ages" (plural) to "age" (singular) and disregarding the contextual evidence (e.g. references in the Book of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Revelations, Paul's writings and similarities in the other Gospels, etc.) on why the verse is translated the way it is in major translations, consider the following: Let's assume that it is better translated as "life in the reign of Jesus." The Bible mentions that Jesus is to reign until God puts all of his enemies under Jesus's feet. This is not to happen until Judgement Day. If it were true that we were to assume things in the millenial sense, it's been almost 2000 years since the Biblical crucifixion. That is more than one millenium.

Right-click the link in your browser that leads to the PDF file and pick "Save Link as" or whatever it is in your browser. This should skip over the browser activating the Adobe Reader plug-in.I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the save to desktop feature of the browser plug-in is in a counter-intuitive spot.

Here is a method from my gallery script that you can use to study (or copy) for your code: link.