truefusion

Why do you think logic is dependant on consciousness? Do you think that things happen illogically when nobody is looking?

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.

Nope, that defence doesn't hold. God CREATED the universe, God therefore created the evil and did nothing to stop it. In any judicial system in the world that counts as guilty. God could have chosen to create a universe where those particular evils did NOT happen, so by creating a universe where they DID happen he is directly and culpably responsible for them.

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.

No, God cannot make me believe against my will because if he could do so then he would loose any excuse for evil in the world. The only way which Christians can justify the presence of evil is by saying that it is necessary if there is to be free-will. But if free-will is not absolute and God can change it then there is no need for evil and God therefore becomes a monster..

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.

It is not at all absurd. If I know that when I throw this cricket ball, it will hit the wall opposite, and then suddenly the wall falls down, my knowledge is now not knowledge anymore, it is faulty assertion.If God knows everything that will happen, and then those things do not happen, then what he 'knows' is in fact wrong. God can know every possible outcome, but that does not help, since it doesn't determine WHICH possible outcome will occur. I know that if I roll a dice I will get 1,2,3,4,5 or 6. I don't know WHICH I will get. If God DOES know which I will get then it follows absolutely that God cannot do anything to change that result, otherwise his 'knowledge' of what I would roll was in fact not knowledge at all, but error.

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.

Well, yes it does - certainly in this case. If God is subject to (ie unable to change) the laws of Logic then it follows that they exist 'outside' God and must, therefore, be eternal, if God is eternal - otherwise God would have once been free to act illogically but can now no longer do so - which would destroy the notion of omnipotence.

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.

a) God is omniscient and omnipotent. It therefore follows that at the moment of creation God could foresee every action and event within that creation. God could have created a universe in which some things did not happen. Therefore, since God created the current universe, in full knowledge of all the outcomes, God IS directly responsible for everything that happens.

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.

No he cannot. I choose to love or hate him. If he can over-ride my choice then free-will is an illusion and the justification for God creating evil is therefore destroyed.

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.

If God knows that event X will happen in the future at time T, and God then changes things so that event X does not happen at time T, then his previous 'knowledge' was WRONG and he did not know what would actually happen at time T - therefore he was never omniscient.

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 0

Note, you may have to remount the partition for changes to take affect. (Restarting the computer will have the same effect.)

So God is subject to the 'laws of Logic'? Interesting. If God is subject to the laws of logic it follows that they pre-date God. Since God is supposed to be eternal then when did the laws of Logic come into being? The laws of logic are dependant on our spacetime. What is logically impossible in our particular universe need not be logically impossible in another.

 

In fact the 'laws of logic' vary, even within this universe. Let's take your example of mutually exclusive premises.

Brian is in Bolton and Brian is in Manchester. You would, presumably, agree that if those statements are made in the same instant that they are mutually exclusive? (ie a person cannot be in two distinct places at the same time).

But that only applied to people, it is not a universal. Sub-atomic particles can and do 'exist' in several places at once.

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.

 

As it happens, however, I don't need to rely on this argument in order to refute the notions of omnipotence and omniscience.

Proof 1. If God is omnipotent and omniscience then God cannot be wholly good.

(a) Being omniscient, God would have known down to the very last detail all the evils (natural as well as moral) that would bedevil the world he planned to create, including all the evils his creatures would bring about;

(b ) Being omnipotent, God need not have created that world but could have chosen to create one containing no evil whatever; and

© By virtue of his failure to exercise that option, God should be held responsible for every evil that exists in the world he did create.

 

Proof 2. God cannot make me love him with my own free will.

 

Proof 3. By definition, omniscience demands the knowledge of everything - including the past, present, and future. If God knows what is going to happen in the future, God is not able to omnipotently change the future because the future is limited to what God knows will happen. If a God can omnipotently change the future, then God could have not known about the future in the first place.

 

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.

This is illogical.

Consider 2 states - Alive and dead. Neither, at first glance, contradicts omniscience or omnipotence. It is as possible for a non-living thing to possess both as it is for a living thing (a super super computer if you like). The states are mutually exclusive. If God is alive then God cannot logically be dead - the latter is ruled-out by the former. The same is true for every possible attribute. Any attribute automatically rules out a potential infinity of others. Brown hair rules out potentially infinite other shades.

The attribute defines the limit. A limit cannot define an attribute. For example, a limit is the fact that a person may not simultaneously have brown and blond hair (having 'both' is neither). That does not tell you anything about the hair-colour of a person.

Unlimited power is itself a contradiction, normally highlighted by the old question - can God create a weight he cannot lift?

 

Then the hair is not brown. The hair is either brown or not brown. That particular attribute can change with time, but that is not possible for God, since God is eternal and unchanging according to Christian theology, and in any case it is not important - at any time the attribute 'brown hair' limits the person from occupying any other state of hair colour.

If we then talk about intrinsic attributes, then this limits God even further. If God has attributes which are part of 'godness' then they cannot change without 'godness' changing.

 

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.

I installed Mountmanager as you suggested and I modified the mount points. I set the partition I wanted to be mounted in "/windows" and applied the new settings. What has happened now is that it's now owned by root. The whole partition. I can't modify and/or delete things unless I launch software with the sudo command. I tried to set that anyone can use the partition in Mountmanager but it didn't work. Also tried to change the owner through folder options using sudo nautilus but it couldn't change the user or user group. Any help in that?

 

Sorry for the late reply, but you can change ownership using the chown command.

 

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.

But the view at the time was that Judgement day was imminent. Most of the early Christian sects were millenialists - they believed that judgement day would happen sooner rather than later. The fact that it didn't is a weakness in the bible, not in the critique.

 

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.

 

*if God is a thing, God is finite. An attribute is, in fact, a limit, so if God possesses ANY attributes then God is not omnipotent or omniscient. I can prove that in symbolic logic but it's a pain generating the symbols so I'll just give a quick example. A man with brown hair does not have black hair. The attribute 'brown hair' is a limit on the possible 'states' which the man can occupy. The same applies to any attribute.

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.

The problem is that the actual Greek reads differently.

zoe aionion is the phrase used - it means 'life ages'. Life of the age was a phrase used by Hebrews in the millenial sense - it translates much better as 'life in the reign of Jesus'

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.

I think you should be doing research on the folder "winsxs" rather than the file itself. I do not know what the purpose of the folder is, but i am inclined to say that this may be used by Windows for backing up system files.

Quick question, I'm currently just running the html off my hard disk. Does the web page have to actually be online in order for the cookie to be made?

What's the protocol being used when viewing the page? file:// or http://? I wouldn't expect the cookie to be set for file://

Internet service providers are well aware of the content being streamed through your internet connection. If by P2P they mean home users will be helping to host this DNS server, being self-hosted, then i don't see what would stop the government from issuing that ISPs do some filtering. I'm pretty sure they'd require a specific port to connect to for this DNS server, so that should make things easier to filter things. I don't really see this being an issue in terms of preventing the service. Maybe an expert in networking can correct me.

Without a page to look at it'll be a bit difficult to help you debug your code. It is possible that document.cookie does not contain any information; it is possible that readCookie() is returning null; or it is something else that it causing things not to work as expected. Firefox has a nice debugger that helps you debug JavaScript errors. When you click on the link that is supposed to execute the nextImage() function, what does Firefox report in its error console?

It'd be easier if i just redirect you here and tell you in your case you don't have to store the path of the page the visitor is on, because according to the JavaScript you have provided the user isn't leaving the page when they change images. Instead, what you'd want to store is the array index of the image that the user last saw. You would have to update the next image and previous image functions to deal with cookies in order for this to work properly. You would also have to create a function that gets loaded on page load that checks for the cookie and adjusts the array index accordingly. There is no need to save the default index in a cookie if it is the user's first time visiting the page.

If, however, you have multiple pages with the very JavaScript you have provided, then you'd want to set the path of the cookie to the current page the user is on. In this way, at least in theory, the cookie that the browser loads that would be accessible to your code would be the one created for that page alone.

I have recently come across a game called Arma II. I have always wondered what it would be like if there was a game that tried to simulate reality as close to real life as possible. And i have found such a game. Arma II is a combat simulator with as close to real-world scenarios a game can get. I have to say, if flying a helicopter is as hard in real life as it is in that game, then helicopter pilots must get some really good income. This game is incredible, but, due to its realism, extremely difficult to beat. If anyone is interested in knowing what it is like to be in actual modern warfare, then i would highly recommend this game. This game will make you want to bring back troops from fire fights to safe ground?at least it gives me that feeling.

Taking in consideration that a dog costs money and maybe can considered to be expensive and that for most households a dog doesn't contribute to the household income there seems to be no explicite explanation and no obvious reason and no economical ground for the situation, that some people in the Western world have dogs in their houses.

 

Why do people have dogs?

 

That's like saying, why have children when it can take decades before they contribute to family expenses? If one sets all the positives aside just for the sake of some lifeless object with far more negatives than anything with life in itself, then i cannot say there is a problem with those who choose to have a relationship with living things but with those who have a relationship with lifeless material. To take on such unemotional behavior i would be willing to claim that it is a step towards evil. And the last thing i'd want is to be "controlled" by money to such an extent. If anyone does not consider their pet as part of their family, then perhaps they shouldn't have one in the first place.

I hear the new Antec Lanboy Air when you make all fans intake air (all 15 fans, i think), it creates what they call "positive pressure." This is supposed to ensure a dust-free case.

We actually found the skeletal remains of a mouse! Ug. How the heck that thing got in there is beyoud me!

Your power supply unit died but forgot to take it out when you got a new one. Taking out the mouse wheel, however, seems to have been an effortless task.

It's not the skull itself, it's the aura surrounding it and its relation to things like witchcraft or wicca. Things that imply or where socialism makes the object seem inherent to something that is taboo or completely condemned will therefore be spoken against by the worry.Theoretically speaking, if you hang around such things, you will be influenced by these things, therefore leading to either (more) foolishness or sin.

My account shows PHP 5.2.9 and MySQL 5.0.91. I wouldn't expect paid hosting accounts to be any lower than this. I don't really require MySQL for my site, but some of my scripts require at least PHP 5.2, and they work fine on my account. If anyone were to experience any problem while installing WordPress, i wouldn't expect it to be due to failure of meeting the PHP and MySQL minimum version requirement.