825 Forum Posts by "Draconias"
Actually, it is the standard patterns for the party opposite the President to make gains in the midterm elections. It has happened for far more than 80% of presidents in the past century.
Unresponsiveness has really hurt the current Republicans, though, and that's the big thing that caused the retaliation votes in the past election. However, this almost always happens, so it isn't too amazing, like the news media keeps claiming.
At 12/1/06 04:21 PM, BanditByte wrote:At 12/1/06 03:50 PM, Begoner wrote:That's because of minorities here who live in utter poverty. I'm pretty sure they're more of them here than in Canada.(Basically, to turn this country into Canada...Actually, Canada enjoys a higher quality of life than the US.
And yes, liberals are hypocrites who preach helping the poor but sparsely do it themselves.
Canada doesn't have a Mexican border. 10 million illegal immigrants have joined the nation in the past two decades, all in the lowest economic categories.
At 11/26/06 10:09 PM, SirXVII wrote: 1. How should this nation treat buisnesses and corperations?
This nation should have limited input and control of business and corperations
2. How should government treat the poor, those without health care, those who cannot afford college, and those who have no where to live?
The nation should improve the homeless shelters that we have now and create more of them.
3. How should government treat public education?
The government should also create more public schools to falicitate the growing need for public education
4. How should government treat the seperation of church and state? Should it be stricter? Should it be looser?
The present level of seperation is a good level to stay at
5. How should government respond to the majority? How should they respond to the minority?
They should follow the view of the majority but also pay attention to the needs and demands of the minority
6. If a minority idea conflicts with a majority idea then how should government respond to it?
The government should find a compromise that works more towards the majorities view but also doesnt screw over the minority
7. How should government treat religion, race, and cultures in this country?
The Government should have little to no opinion on race, religion, or cultures unless that specific race, religion, adn culture is hurting anothers race, religion, or culture then tthe government must deal with the issue
8. What about drugs? Should the be legal or illegal? Should pot be legal or illegal?
Drugs themselves shouldnt be illegal BUT there should be should be severe restrictions on those drugs like where you could use them, activites you are doing while using them, and age of use
9. What are the main things you think government should provide?
Means of transportion, schooling, and jobs that aid our country
10. In general, what are the major things you think your tax money should be used for?
Internal improvments to the country and country defense
These are answers by a friend using my account.
At 11/30/06 02:28 AM, Altarus wrote: Good job. We should also be able to punch old men and people in wheel chairs. And children.
No, you bigot, you probably shouldn't hit those people unless the situation warrants it because they actually have less physical ability than a healthy young man, not just a sexist stereotype that calls them weak. If any of those people happen to be stronger or nearly equal, then reasonable force is completely warranted.
At 11/29/06 10:45 PM, Snubby wrote: Men have testosterone which makes them better athletes and fighters. A man shouldn't hit a woman because he will really hurt her, while a woman whom hits a man won't do as much damage. It's not okay for a woman to hit a man... I'm not saying that. I think it should just be less of a crime though... and it is (I think).
It's still sexism, regardless of whether or not there actually is a physical basis for it. If you are going to use that justification, then it should be that muslced people aren't allowed to hit weak-looking people, not men aren't allowed to hit women. Using the gender-line divisions is sexist, and just as bigoted as the military draft, political elections, the WNBA, and chauvinists who think women should only be wives.
At 11/28/06 11:04 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Your post was along the lines of dispersing the waste into fine enough amounts that radiation levels would be "natural" again.
I never said "natural" levels, just that it should be diluted (rather than concentrated) when stored. I am over-simplifying the idea to convey it quickly.
You stressed the nature part. Simply braking the waste into chunks and dropping it into multiple holes doesn't solve anything. It would create multiple radioactive holes. The process of breaking the waste into small enough amounts that it wouldn't meaningfully contribute to radiation levels would be prohibitively expensive.
There is no point in going so far as to equalize the waste with the background radiation, and I stressed the nature part because ecological concerns are the main thing getting in the way of nuclear waste disposal.
Draconias, you do understand what uranium is like "in nature," right? The uranium is trace amounts encapsulated in other [non-radioactive] rock..
Actually, that's blatantly false in some uranium mines. I particularly know of some Russian uranium deposits which are concentrated enough to have evidence of nuclear reactions actually occurring in the rocks (essentially, miniature meltdowns). That's not trace amounts.
At 11/28/06 08:55 PM, RedSkunk wrote: I don't believe that's very economically feasible. But please enlighten me if you aren't just talking out your ass. Prove that this is economical and that a corporation would be willing to do this.
The current plan being pushed by Bush is a big hole in Yucca Mountain. My plan is filling a bunch of small holes we've already dug back up. The economical nature of the plan isn't very hard to comprehend.
In essence, I am proposing landfills for nuclear waste located in depleted uranium mines. It's common practice already for normal and hazardous waste, so it isn't at all outlandish. The willingness of corporations to create landfills has been proven (even when it is illegal), and it saves money by not requiring constant warehouse storage.
A secondary benefit is that the terror threat of vulnerable, concentrated nuclear waste is severely decreased because it is no more worthwhile for terrorists to dig up the dispersed waste than it is to mine fresh uranium.
If something about this plan seems economically infeasible, please specifically point out what you believe the problem could be.
At 11/28/06 08:31 PM, RedSkunk wrote: As far as storing nuclear waste being a permanent solution, we've hit a brick wall. You're entitled to your opinions Begoner. But it's a pity that you can't substantiate the single concrete claim you made. Next time, huh?
RedSkunk, hasn't it occurred to you that this uranium we use didn't just come from nowhere-- it existed before we mined it. The radioactive "waste" is already there, so a very obvious solution is to refill depleted uranium mines with the waste from reactors, but diluted to relatively safe levels. From the ground, and back to the ground, doing as little overall "damage" to that environment as possible.
At 11/28/06 03:27 PM, Begoner wrote:?!Classical liberals are equivalent to modern-day libertarians, and that's a fairly accurate assessment of your economic viewpoint. I'd consider you a socially centrist miniarchist.
I don't think I believe you.
After reading up on that, it sounds significantly more reasonable. I completely misunderstood what he said-- I thought "you're a classic liberal" meant "you exactly fit the stereotype of a liberal," not that Classic Liberal was a political category.
At 11/28/06 04:52 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:At 11/28/06 04:26 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: Why not?because we're not in the USSR?
Which is exactly why we should use it more. We're not dumb enough to build a nuclear plant with a well-known, critical design flaw and absolutely no containment at all, and then put a bunch of idiots in charge who will trigger the well-known design flaw and cause a meltdown.
At 11/27/06 05:32 PM, packow wrote: If you're caught, you lose all College financial aid. Is it just me, or does that sound like a government attempt to keep poor people out of college?
Rich drop-outs use marijuana more. It's targeted at those kids and their parents, because they're a waste of money (the kids).
At 11/27/06 10:45 PM, Shinpachi222 wrote:At 11/27/06 10:38 PM, Draconias wrote:Liberals are not all Democrats. Many who aren't Dems are independants. Unless they are running for an office.At 11/27/06 10:31 AM, SirXVII wrote: Draconias: You are a classic liberal.?!
I don't think I believe you.
I abhor the Democrat party and have never yet found a Liberal who I completely agreed with on any point.
And even then I probably don't like them.
Political Compass says I'm (1.00, -1.95). I was bored and tried it.
At 11/27/06 10:31 AM, SirXVII wrote: Draconias: You are a classic liberal.
?!
I don't think I believe you.
I abhor the Democrat party and have never yet found a Liberal who I completely agreed with on any point. The liberals I know are the source of Welfare, Social Security, huge government, widespread drug addictions, emotional voters, wasteful government "social" programs, institutionalized pro-minority bigotry, Communism, and a belief in never accepting blame for your own actions. I hate those things.
I want small government-- just protection, R&D, and public works. I am opposed to "social" programs, and only tolerate them as very temporary measures until individuals can support themselves. Personal responsibility and self-improvement are paramount. Education needs to be a major priority because America is losing its competitive edge in a global market, and all of that "self esteem" teaching in California is bullocks. I severely dislike emotional people, and rely almost entirely on logical thinking when I can manage it-- which is why I am essentially athiestic. I don't see the point in forcing social change that in unnecessary, and I try to completely ignore race as a factor in anything.
So how exactly am I a classic liberal again? Nothing I know about politics agrees with you.
At 11/26/06 10:09 PM, SirXVII wrote: 1. How should this nation treat buisnesses and corperations?
Favorably, as long as they follow fair trade practices (no monopolies, scams, etc).
2. How should government treat the poor, those without health care, those who cannot afford college, and those who have no where to live?
Try to assist in self-improvement or temporarily support, but no long-term support (that's not the government's job).
3. How should government treat public education?
As a top priority because it has such a powerful influence over developing kids.
4. How should government treat the seperation of church and state? Should it be stricter? Should it be looser?
Organized religion should never be allowed to influence the government, but personal religion in politicians is fine as long as they do not let it influence them unduely (lobbying for a Crusade, etc).
5. How should government respond to the majority? How should they respond to the minority?
The government should listen to the majority, but address the protection concerns of the minority. The goverment must fight to protect minorities from violence, exploitation, and bigoted trade practices, and the same is true for the majority.
6. If a minority idea conflicts with a majority idea then how should government respond to it?
Consider compromising, but usually follow the majority. If there is some reason the minority has particular merit (all of the Professors in the entire nation banding together), then it should be considered under special circumstances.
7. How should government treat religion, race, and cultures in this country?
Religions should be ignored for the most part unless conflict springs up between them, race should be nonexistant except when fighting racism, and new Americans should be pressured to integrate into American culture.
8. What about drugs? Should the be legal or illegal? Should pot be legal or illegal?
Medical drugs should be carefully considered, any smoked recreational drug should be disallowed, and alcohol should be carefully limited. Beyond that, harder drugs should be disallowed.
9. What are the main things you think government should provide?
Protection, public infrastructure.
10. In general, what are the major things you think your tax money should be used for?
Public infrastructure, special R&D (like NASA, the DOD), and law enforcement.
At 11/26/06 12:07 AM, poxpower wrote: but a religious person will say "god is omnipotent, so he can do anything" without a second thought.
I never said religious people weren't idiots.
And he's got a beard, don't worry.
loop
Then that is simply a false statement, not a paradox. He may cut the beard of everyone except those who cut their own-- or those who don't shave at all. Some exception must exist in that statement or it is just false.
At 11/25/06 10:12 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Of course, early americans did the same thing to the indians, which is a huge argument when it comes to illegal immigrant supporters.
BS. Europeans conquered North America fair and square. That has absolutely no relation at all to the approx. 10 million illiegal immigrants currently in the US, and the thousands flooding in, or the gun smuggling and drug traffic rampant on the US-Mexican border.
At 11/25/06 08:19 PM, AapoJoki wrote:At 11/25/06 07:57 PM, KingCharles wrote: Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureat economist, put is this way:I don't understand what he means with that. "Putting freedom before equality", what does that mean in practise?
"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."
Not creating a government like the USSR or any of the Communist governments so far which took away almost all freedom from the people to ensure that no one managed to become greater than any other, and invested that power in a ruling elite who controlled everyone's action.
Or in other words, attempt to do what America has done for the most part.
Short Answer to the "Paradoxes":
Four-sided Triangle:
Without altering "Triangle" = Impossible, because it is a static definition. This constraint is artificial though, and should not limit omnipotence.
Without Constraints = Draw a line parallel to one side of a triangle. Declare the figure a new "triangle" (accurate to the original meaning), but it is a figure with four sides. Alternatively, change the meaning of "triangle" to that of "square" and you have a four-sided triangle.
Lifting the Unliftable Boulder:
Without Constraints = Create a heavy boulder, then take a physical form (a human, perhaps). You are unable to lift the boulder (with your muscles), then you lift the boulder with telekinesis from your left eyebrow (with you omnipotent power). Multiple aspects to your abilities allow multiple simultaneous relative states.
Go any others? I can probably break them down relatively easily.
At 11/25/06 04:10 PM, poxpower wrote: Now you're saying that he doesn't lose his powers, yet he loses his powers??? If he's a human WITH THE POWER TO TURN BACK INTO GOD, then he's not a human, is he?
You seem to be missing very simple concepts here. Physical strength is not power. Rough physical form is not entire being. Let me lay it out for you:
Omnipotent being takes human form -- Not solely a human, just a body with a muscular and skeletal layout that approximates humans capabilities. Using physical strength, the omnipotent being is unable to lift the mountain.
Omnipotent being changes form -- By using omnipotent powers, the being can now lift the mountain through physical force (or potentially other means).
Through this dual nature the being can both be unable to lift the mountain and be able to lift the mountain because it has access to different methods.
you don't understand. You are saying that he can take away his powers to turn into a human. If he cannot break his own rule, then he is not omnipotent.
Who says that being is creating any rule at all? No powers are taken away; none of the actual capabilities of the being change, only the atoms which the being is actively manipulating. There is no rule saying that the being is absolutely a human, only the active will of the being keeping it in that form. It is an act of intent, not a rule of limitation.
Its an endless LOOP :o You did not find an answer to the loop.
You're the one saying that, not me. Again, stop trying to stick words into my mouth. I never said an omnipotent being was the answer to the origin of the universe, or even existed, I am just arguing that the supposed paradox "disproving" the possibility of omnipotence is flawed.
Prove to me that Darth Vader does not exist.
Again, you're sticking words into my mouth. I never said he didn't exist, because concepts and abstracts exist just as well as physical things. I said he wasn't real, which is proven by the fact that he is a concept generated for a fictional story called "Star Wars."
you mentionned books, Darth Vader is in a book.
I mentioned omnipotent beings, but it doesn't mean I'm Jewish. An example you propose for a specific case of my generalized statement is different than me citing that specific example, especially when you try to bring up an absurd example to mock my argument or weaken it by association.
And no, not only in an "imaginary" sense, because if God has dominion "only" over all that is physical, then he can read your mind, because your mind is strictly composed of physical elements. And he can also CREATE anything in your mind, FASTER than you can realise, since he's omnipotent.
Yes, he can do those things. I never said he couldn't. Read the little list I wrote out for you: none of that is ever mentioned under the "can't do it" list. I'm trying to make it blatantly obvious for you.
Hence making it completely irrelevant wether something is fictional or not, not to mention that you, with your limited information and 5 senses, can never even know what's real and not for sure.
Actually, that's entirely false. The entire point of science and logic is that you can prove whether or not things are true through information independent of the senses, and which can extend beyond your current knowledge (predict). Whether or not I can determine what is real or not doesn't matter, though, because you do not need me as an observer to make something real.
God can create anything you imagine. If you imagine something, he can create it and affect it. You still can't escape his omnipotence by restricting his power to "real" things ( which means nothing anyways )
I never said the powers were restricted to real things, only that all real things can be effected but certain non-real things could not be. For example, if you imagine a general concept without any specific substance, then it isn't actually possible for an omnipotent being to create exactly what you imagined because it is incomplete or possibly even logically inconsistant.
But for the most part, if you can imagine the actual details of anything, then an omnipotent being should be able to create it. For example, if you actually could imagine what a four-sided triangle would look like in a logically consistent manner, then it would be possible for an omnipotent being to make it real. However, since you can not do so, you can not assume an omnipotent being should be able to make it. There may be hidden logical constraints.
you don't know what's possible and impossible. Are you pretending that you have a list of everything that's true and false, and of everything that's possible and not?
I know what is possible, as it specifically requires, because by definition if an omnipotent being or anything less does it, then it is possible.
what the fuck is a "dynamic concept" hahaha
"Dynamic" means "changing" and "concept" means "idea" so a "dynamic concept" is a "changing idea," like a human personality or (as you mentioned) Darth Vader. Thus, anything not static (like "triangle").
again, you cannot be the judge of what's imagineable or not
I don't need to be. The logic stands on its own. You think of a way to create a four-sided triangle and an omnipotent being can do it. The reverse is not necessarily true, though.
Were you saying God can create a 4-sided triangle or not?
No. "Triangle" is a static definition.
Or that he can create a boulder so heavy that he cannot lift it?
Yes. Physical strength and omnipotent ability are independent.
Or that he can create rules which he cannot break?
No. No such thing is imagineable.
Or that he only cuts the beards of everyone except those who cut their own?
Yes, assuming he has no beard or does not cut it.
Or that he can travel through time?
The nature of time is current not known, so that can not be answered.
Or that he can't make Star Wars real?
He could, although perhaps not exactly matching the logically inconsistent human descriptions.
At 11/25/06 06:40 PM, rRfAnToM wrote: Iraq was a war linked to the WTC, initially. They wanted a "Pearl Harbor" event to trigger fear in the lives of many.
Iraq wasn't linked to 9/11 through anything except the idea of a War on Terror. It was the Pearl Harbor of that war, which has translated primarily into the War in Afghanistan. However, Iraq was sort of a tangent.
It succeeded, but many believe it wasn't enough. They gave false intelligence to charge into Iraq, apparently looking for weapons of mass destruction.
Actually, no. The "false intelligence" was not at all controlled by Americans seeking a war there, nor was there any particular group trying to manipualte events to create a war there.
-Bush wanted to avenge his father (...)
Bush doesn't get to choose when we go to war. Everyone supported it. And what exactly was there to avenge? Bush Sr. won, and voluntarily stopped at the behest of the UN. So how does attacking Iraq again avenge anything?
-Bush wanted the oil, so he could become rich
He's already rich, and he was long gone from the oil industry by time we invaded. America only gets like 3% of its oil from Iraq. If anything, the invasion hurt the oil industry through disruption. The tensions with Iran have done a much better job of allowing oil companies to rip off customers.
-The Government wanted to "jumpstart" the economy again
We already had one war going (Afghanistan), so the economic boost of a war was irrelevant. Although this is somewhat reasonable because wars do have that effect, it is unlikely.
The War on Iraq was created so that there would always be division in Iraq: through religion.
That division has existed throughout Iraq's history. It is the reason for the genocide in Iraq, and for continuing tensions. It is simply how the populations are concentrated that creates the problem, not anything you could possibly control.
WRONG, the Euro was created to unite the European Union as an inseparable "one"
Inseperable? Ha. Europe has always been chronically divided, and the intention of the Euro was to enhance Europe's overall global trading strength through a united currency. The countries themselves, though, are still heavily divided (although trying to form a coalition).
Backtracking a bit, we go back to JFK.
No, JFK was the last President we had who truly stood up for what was right.
Hahaha! Sure. Now you've truly jumped into the deep end of conspiracy theories.
Not enough proof? Think I'm a stupid conspirator with nothing else to do?
Research the symbols of previous civilizations and relate them to the world we live in today.
They are unrelated or have no importance to the current world order. And how exactly does ensuring permanent division in the Middle East help unite every country? The logic just doesn't add up.
At 11/25/06 01:14 AM, poxpower wrote: Dude, you won't solve a paradox by adding another one to it.
Now you're saying God can take away his own super-powers? Effectively saying "God can create rules which he himself cannot alter".
Did I say God lost his "super-powers"? No. No omnipotent being can have a strict physical form, so the omnipotent powers can never be tied to the current physical form that being chooses. As a human he couldn't life the mountain, but he doesn't have to stay a human due to omnipotent powers.
You're try to add complication where it does not exist. It's not that hard to understand, you're just muddling it in your own mind.
In which effect, he creates PHYSICAL RULES, to which your conveniently specific definition of "power" still apply. And he's POWERLESS to break them, thus rendering him NOT OMNIPOTENT.
Powerless? What the hell are you smoking? Didn't I demonstrate exactly how he could break the physical rule, by changing his own physical form?
Ever read a book? Why do we name characters?So you're saying that God, being omnipotent, couldn't affect Darth Vader? He couldn't create Darth Vader?
Affecting those characters has nothing to do with this. You claimed that we never name imaginary things because they aren't real-- and I proved you wrong. There is nothing more to that statement.
If he can create Darth Vader, someone you claim to be purely fictional, then doesn't it mean he can instantly create any other imaginary scenario as they spring to his mind, and instantly?
Only in an imaginary sense, since we already have media designed around conveying imaginary ideas. I also never said anything about Darth Vader, so you are attempting to stick words in my mouth.
What no omnipotent being can do is take any imaginary scenario and make it real-- because the mechanisms of fiction are not necessarily implementable. Sometimes suspension of disbelief is necessary because concepts simply are not translatable to reality, so we simply accept them as mechanisms for the plot (such as certain forms of FTL travel, etc). Some of these concepts may not be implementable because they are only an idea which has no specific details to work with.
By the same token, you do realise that everything you see and think are probably only byprodcuts of physical reactions inside your brain? Hence, EVEN IF "power" only applies to "real things" ( another ridiculously vague term, because we can't even tell what's real and what isn't ) you couldn't possibly EVER see the difference?
Again, making the distinction between power affecting only "real" things and not "imaginary" things, completely useless.
Or just revealing your complete misunderstanding of my statements. Let me try to simplify it:
Omnipotent beings can...
1. Do anything known to be possible
2. Do anything for which a possible course of action can be described
3. Deal with dynamic concepts
Omnipotent beings can't...
1. Alter static concepts without redefining the concept
2. Deal with relative states without applying those states to himself
3. Deal with general ideas that have no imagineable course of action for implementation
Is that simple enough for you? The limitations for omnipotence arise from situations when you try to work within limitations, such as altering a static without redefining it, or dealing with relatives without any reference. Certain things also are not possible because there simply isn't any way to do it-- no one can imagine a possible course of action. However, the last one is often just an illusion because there actually are courses of action, we just can't think of them.
At 11/24/06 09:42 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: God is not a she, if it was a she why would we be chanting 'Our FATHER who art in heaven'
Because the Jewish society was a patriarchy and looked down on women as weaker and inferior. Worshipping a female God would have severely undermined the dominating male priests and would have made the Jews appear weak and pathetic to their neighbors. Thus, their religious texts were written to make them appear strong and mighty, and God had to be male to validate the male-dominated society, male priests, and men ruling everyone.
Metric is not well-suited to everyday applications. Celsius sucks for temperature, since it is far more compressed than Farenheit and lacks the fine differences that humans distinctly notice. Meters suck for measuring small (human-size) objects because it is too large, and centimeters are too small.
It isn't worth the effort because learning the systems requires an insignificant amount of effort. Is it really that hard to remember:
Freeze at 32 degrees
12 inches = 1 foot,
3 feet = 1 yard,
5280 feet = 1 mile
660 feet = 1 furlong = 1/8 mile
(The last one is optional)
The incentive to convert is too weak because the system we have works well for average life. It is only in science and certain industries that the metric system is actually helpful, and the conflicts with long-established systems cause problems. Traditional systems don't die easily; the British inherited a 5000 foot mile from the Romans, but because they relied on the furlong so heavily, they altered the mile to match the furlong.
At 10/10/06 01:00 PM, therealsylvos wrote: **cough**lawofconservationofmass**cough**
Actually, no. The law of conservation of mass is wrong. We know this for a fact and it is a well-accepted reality. The law of conservation of mass and energy, though, is true. You can create mass from energy and vice versa-- the big question is just how we generated energy in the first place, and that question is way out of my league.
ibid.
What? Ibidem or something else?
but you too, are assuming the impossible.
Not true. I am only assuming the possibility of the unlikely. You assume the blatantly impossible. No matter how likely creation through a god is, the big bang is more likely. Fewer unexplainable originations and variables.
At 11/24/06 12:55 PM, poxpower wrote:At 11/24/06 09:44 AM, Draconias wrote: You lifted it.So then he couldn't create an object he couldn't lift.
dur
But he did. He couldn't lift it in that instant of time when he was in the inferior form. But in another instant of time he was in a different form that could lift it. By the way, it is "Durr" not "Dur."
Like I said before, an omnipotent being can do anything-- but there are things for which a specific action does not exist, and thus "infinite ability to act" is irrelevant.Well that's where lots of people's opinions diverge.
I'm sorry, but you have to realise that "unlimited power" is an incredibely vague definition.
It's not vague at all. It means that any specific action can be done by an omnipotent being, as determined by the definition of the word "power." Things for which no imagineable action can accomplish the intended goal (such as making a four-sided object fit a static definition that requires three sides) are outside of the scope of omnipotence. You can do anything, but sometimes there is nothing to do.
Anyways, literaly, UNLIMITED = with no limits.
If its LIMITED to the real, then it has a limit. Its not, BY DEFINITION, omnipotence, which is the power to act over all that IS.
The power has no limits. Power is the ability to do something. But you can imagine things that you want to happen which can't be done, but may appear possible only because you make a mistake.
You can't NAME something that doesn't exist, because if it didn't exist, then why would you need a name for it?
Ever read a book? Why do we name characters?
At 11/24/06 12:30 AM, poxpower wrote: If something is out of your power, then you are not omnipotent.
If you are omnipotent, no action is out of your power. There is no action you can apply to abstract, imaginary things, so they don't violate the definition of omnipotence even though you can't alter them.
By definition, "yes" is the opposite of "no". They are concepts. Abstract concepts.
"Yes" and "no" have specific, real meanings which can be altered and manipulated because they are two extremes of a variable spectrum. "Triangle" is not alterable because it is a static definition.
Some religious people do NOT understand that "omnipotence" basicaly means nothing. So they use the term to justify situations that make no sense, and they get backed into corners like the three-sided squares, the too-heavy to lift boulders, the self-generated unbreakable rules etc.
The whole problem is your misunderstanding of the nature of those concepts. Omnipotence has a very real meaning-- but it has limitations because not everything imagineable is actually possible due to logical constraints.
You can not have a three-sided square because "Square" is a static definition.
You can not have an unliftable boulder because "Lift" is a relative movement that requires a heavier object and "Too-Heavy" is a relative term that requires imperfect beings. However, by applying those relatives to yourself (if you were an omnipotent being) then you could achieve that goal: create Mt. Everest, then turn yourself into a human. It is unliftable. Then turn yourself into a star about to nova directly beneath the mountain. You lifted it.
Self-generated unbreakable rules are simply false because self-referencing logic (circular) is inaccurate.
omnipotence:
"unlimited power"
Not limited by possibilities or imagination or whatever.
Actually, from your source,
Omnipotent:
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
Power:
1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.
Like I said before, an omnipotent being can do anything-- but there are things for which a specific action does not exist, and thus "infinite ability to act" is irrelevant.
If the Democrats and Bush want to be all kicked out very quickly, they better not reinstate the draft. Iraq is totally not worth it, and everyone knows that. We would have a revolution before allowing idiots in Congress to draft us for something so stupid.
But we like Canada.
If anything, we should attack southward and conquer everything from Mexico to Panama, then kick out everyone and send them as refugees to South America, then build heavy defenses at the thinnest part of Panama.
That way we shrink the border, solve the illegal immigration problem, and don't get a craphole country to burden us.
At 11/23/06 06:55 PM, poxpower wrote: omnipotence, BY DEFINITION, applies to all areas of everything.
Regardless of whether or not you have the power to do anything, imaginary things are outside of your power. They can not be acted upon in any way, and only a fool would demand action on them. Omnipotence can not change what something is when that state is the entirety of its existance-- it would become something else. That's all there is to it.
And yes, opposites do exist. Yes is the opposite of no.
Uncombineable opposites. Yes is the opposite of no, but you hear people respond with mixed feelings all the time-- both yes and no. Maybe also exists. Yes and no are part of a spectrum, not true opposites.
For instance, I create fig 1, and this is the definition of figure 1 = it has 3 sides. If it has any number of sides that isn't 3, it ceases to be fig1
Hence, the paradox.
There is no paradox here. Fig1 is fig1-- and that's all there is to it. There is nothing to change, nothing to act upon, so omnipotence is irrelevant. Omnipotence allows you to do anything which is possible (because, by definition, if you did it then it was possible), but altering static, abstract definitions or labels is not possible by the nature of the concepts.
The "paradox" here is spawned from the assumption that "omnipotence" means that you should be able to do anything, but there is no "anything" which can be done to abstract things.
At 11/23/06 03:50 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote:At 11/22/06 09:58 PM, I7REI7I7 wrote: Maybe if God existed Pi wouldn't be a number caculable to a million decimal places but would be something more "common sense" like 3.0I never understood what that Pi crap was about, anyway. Why use 3.141593653589251649824 to measure the area of a circle instead of 3 ?
Because the area is not something we define. The ratio of the diameter to the circumference of any circle is pi. It is mathematically defined. It just so happens that there is no exact ratio, so pi is endless.
