Patryas
Chronicler
Servant of Darkness
Posts: 117
|
Post by Patryas on Feb 28, 2005 18:25:04 GMT -5
Gaien, you seem to have some free time on your hands, huh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaien on Feb 28, 2005 19:47:54 GMT -5
dude... thanks for my next term paper... lol j/k ;) When the muse decends and work gets boring ;D I just wish that I could write that much on Gaien's Journey in one sitting... And to Paytras... >:P Ok, so now that the meaning of life is purrty well covered, what's the next question? |
|
|
|
Post by Phelan on Feb 28, 2005 20:21:05 GMT -5
Speaking of living life Gaien, unplug yourself from the computer and put down the books turn off your brain and go out side and live some  I think Patryas is right you have way too much time on your hands. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaien on Feb 28, 2005 20:26:22 GMT -5
Speaking of living life Gaien, unplug yourself from the computer and put down the books turn off your brain and go out side and live some I think Patryas is right you have way too much time on your hands. I do go outside! I go to my car, from the car to work, and back to the car. With occasional visits to fun places like the gas station, grocery stores and my mother-in-laws... Oh, and I take my cat for a walk too! Besides, I can't turn my brain off. I only have two brain cells and one of them is looking for a corner in a round room. He might not find that corner if I turn it off... So... what's the next question? |
|
|
|
Post by Phelan on Feb 28, 2005 20:57:59 GMT -5
lol Gaien you are a nut, prolly a peanut if I had to guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaien on Feb 28, 2005 21:32:16 GMT -5
I'm not a nut, I'm a Philosopher. Small difference, but it is there...
*Clear's throat*
NEXT!
|
|
Patryas
Chronicler
Servant of Darkness
Posts: 117
|
Post by Patryas on Feb 28, 2005 23:15:33 GMT -5
I'd say the meaning of life differs for each individual person. People have been asking that question for centuries, and now the answer is on an rpg postboard?
(lol)
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaien on Feb 28, 2005 23:47:10 GMT -5
I'd say the meaning of life differs for each individual person. People have been asking that question for centuries, and now the answer is on an rpg postboard? (lol) I just offered the opinons of most major religions and my own personal one. Feel free to post your own. What's the next question? |
|
Patryas
Chronicler
Servant of Darkness
Posts: 117
|
Post by Patryas on Feb 28, 2005 23:50:18 GMT -5
What do they call french kissing in France?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaien on Mar 1, 2005 18:00:36 GMT -5
What do they call french kissing in France? It is considered an insult to call it "French Kissing' in France. The term came from the 1920s and American GIs, refering to a kiss involving the tounge. The French call it a tongue kiss or deep kiss. If you do it right, it feels like your souls are merging. It's universal, almost all cultures do it. The French kiss is also called a 'soul kiss', or 'baisez de âme' because the life and soul are thought to pass through the mouth's breath in the exchange across tongues. This kiss involving the tongue is a passionate one. The tongue has a very sensitive surface, which is why tongue to tongue is the essence of French kissing. Next? |
|
Healingrayne
Apprentice
Flowers are the sweetest thing that Tunare ever made and forgot to put a soul into...
Posts: 11
|
Post by Healingrayne on Mar 1, 2005 21:10:19 GMT -5
If an optimist says a glass is half full and a pesimist says a glass is half empty...
what does that make someone who just says that the glass is at half???
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaien on Mar 1, 2005 21:24:57 GMT -5
If an optimist says a glass is half full and a pesimist says a glass is half empty... what does that make someone who just says that the glass is at half??? The Optimist says the glass is half full. The Pessimist says the glass is half empty. A realist drinks it and says "It's empty now". The Engineer says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. Marketing calls the extra glass a feature and says the glass can be easily upgraded to twice its current liquid volume. Manufacturing can make a full glass, but in compliance with ISO 9000 they would have to write a waiver form to deviate from the standard written procedure. Accounting says we only budgeted for half a glass, and if you want a full glass, you will have to wait until the budget revision comes out in June. Quality Control measures the glass to ensure it is between 7/16ths and 5/8ths full and has a salinity content of no more than .241% by volume. Sales will sell you a full glass, for an extra $20. Ask about the lifetime filling plans. OSHA says that a glass any more than half-full presents a drowning hazard, so it should only be handled by properly trained workers with the appropriate breathing equipment. The Computer Hardware Designer worries about the "memory" effect that filling the glass half-way repeatedly might decrease the glass' ability to contain a full amount of liquid. The Computer Software Designer says the glass comes pre-installed with the most popular level of liquid, and you can easily uninstall the water if you want to. The Scientist tells you the glass is full; it's filled with a heterogeneous mixture of gasses and liquid. The Geologist discovers that water is evaporating from the glass at a more or less constant rate, so by measuring the amount of water in the glass now, and estimating how much water was in the glass in the beginning, he can determine the age of the glass. The Liberal says that to call the glass half-full or half-empty is judgmental and biased against the underprivileged glasses in society, and we should refer to the glass as "partially liquefied". The Conservative says the glass would be full, if it weren't so heavily taxed. The Politician promises to go after "Big Bottling" and to give every person a full glass. The Feminist says the hard, cold, "masculine" glass is in a characteristic position of dominance and control over the soft, flexible, "feminine" water. The Traditionalist claims the water needs the support and protection of the "masculine" glass. Environmentalists worry about the encroachment of glass on former wetland areas. Animal-Rights activists put "No Fishing" signs around the glass. The Psychologist says the glass represents your mind; the water is the knowledge you have, and the emptiness is the knowledge you lack. He says to come again if you have any more recurring images, and charges $53.25. The Bartender says you need another drink, fills your glass, and charges $23.75. The Pengineer says the glass is at half, now read my story... Next question? |
|
|
|
Post by Phelan on Mar 1, 2005 21:41:26 GMT -5
The Pengineer says the glass is at half, now read my story... Next question? Darn straight now get to it |
|
|
|
Post by Wilkens on Mar 1, 2005 21:46:55 GMT -5
if God is all powerful and can accomplish anything, can he make something too heavy for him to lift?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaien on Mar 1, 2005 22:08:54 GMT -5
if God is all powerful and can accomplish anything, can he make something too heavy for him to lift? That, my dear, is a paradox and cannot be solved, but let me give you a philosophical response and let you determine the answer for yourself If He cannot create the stone, then He isn't omnipotent. If He can create the stone, but it's too heavy for Him to lift, then He again isn't omnipotent. Since we can conceive of such things, then we should be able to in all fairness say that they should apply equally to such an omnipotent God. The only seeming claim that may give the argument for an omi-everything God somekind of validity - albeit not much - is one that relies on making a plain distiction between ontological status and intellectual analysis. It would be the kind of argument that claims man to have limited epistemic access of what in fact is the case - viz. An actual God possessing these supra-attributes. In other words, it maybe the case that metaphysically this God exists, but It is epistemically unknowable, with the added bonus, of when thought about, leading to persistent (conceivable) logical inconsistencies or counter-examples that point to It not being so omipotent "Omnipotent" doesn't mean that one is capable of doing anything. It means only that one is capable of doing anything that it is logically possible to do. This means that since, by definition, it's impossible to lift an unliftable stone, an omnipotent god cannot lift it, either. The proposition, "An omnipotent god (or anything else) can lift an unliftable stone," is a logical contradiction. On the other hand, if the stone can be lifted then it's not an unliftable stone and an omnipotent god can lift it. There are three possible understandings of God's omnipotency, however. It can be defined as (a) His ability to do absolutely anything, (b) His ability to do anything that is logically possible, or (c) His ability to do anything that is logically possible and is consistent with who He is. The problem with the first understanding is the gross contradictions that arise, both within the realm of common sensibility and coherence within God Himself. For example, (a) would suggest that because God is omnipotent, he is able to make a married bachelor, or a square circle. C.S. Lewis referred to this as "meaningless combination of words" that, in the mind of the adherent, suddenly have meaning simply because he prefaces them with "God can." Furthermore, (a) has the potential to wreck havoc with the coherence and unity of God's attributes as a whole. "Can God make a rock so big that even He can't move?" Answering "yes" or "no" to this question will, regardless, undermine His omnipotence. For if there exists a stone too heavy for Him to lift then He is not omnipotent; but if He does have the power to create such a rock, he has the power to bring it about that he lacks an attribute (omnipotence) that is inherent to His being. With this in mind, (b) is not so much wrong as it simply does not go far enough in its definition. Therefore, it seems to reason that (c) is the most reasonable understanding of omnipotence. Hope that helps ;D Next? |
|
I think Patryas is right you have way too much time on your hands.
