Originally posted by Wesker
The real one. Adam covered it nicely.The imaginary one has no taste. And Bardock... PROVE that taste is imaginary.
Well it may not be imaginary (I think it is, but well), but iut surely has the same properties as jsut imagine the exact same taste....if you ccan't do that, well, maybe your imagination is not strong enough, but if you imagine the exact same taste iut is just as good as actually tasting it....there is no difference...
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well it may not be imaginary (I think it is, but well), but iut surely has the same properties as jsut imagine the exact same taste....if you ccan't do that, well, maybe your imagination is not strong enough, but if you imagine the exact same taste iut is just as good as actually tasting it....there is no difference...
What?? of course there is!
Your imagination may simulate the taste in your brain, but it does NOT have the same effect as the actual food stimulating your taste buds and sending the messages to your brain.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
What?? of course there is!Your imagination may simulate the taste in your brain, but it does NOT have the same effect as the actual food stimulating your taste buds and sending the messages to your brain.
It can be just as good or even succed the normal taste. If you really imagine the taste it can be just like the real thing.
But beides that, what did the analogy try to prove in the first place?
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
What?? of course there is!Your imagination may simulate the taste in your brain, but it does NOT have the same effect as the actual food stimulating your taste buds and sending the messages to your brain.
Same effect?
From a penis' POV, what difference in effect is there between a sexy treat, and you imagining a sexy treat?
balloon
Originally posted by MindshipYou know, I'm a vegetarian, but the way you worded that yummy flesh is making my mouth really water..........lol
Real, fresh off the bar-b, with all the fixin's, dripping with flavor...
From a penis' POV, what difference in effect is there between a sexy treat, and you imagining a sexy treat?From burgers to sexy treats..........hahaha
I think the analogy is you have to have perception to perceive something.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It can be just as good or even succed the normal taste. If you really imagine the taste it can be just like the real thing.But beides that, what did the analogy try to prove in the first place?
I'll take a page out of your book right about here.
Prove it.
Originally posted by Mindship
Same effect?
From a penis' POV, what difference in effect is there between a sexy treat, and you imagining a sexy treat?balloon
Usually some sort of physical contact.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
I'll take a page out of your book right about here.Prove it.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Usually some sort of physical contact.
So there is no difference? Except for some action that might happen later on? I see....
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Exactly. Now, if he is all powerful, he can create a boulder that he cannot lift. yet, if he was all powerful, he's be able to lift the boulder. But if he did lift the boulder, then he didn't create a boulder that he cannot lift, therefore making him not all powerful. also, if he doesnt lift the boulder, he isnt all powerful, because something exists that he cannot do
why would God do something so ridiculous? 😬
😂 fine fine fine. Of course he could create one, and he cannot lift it. These are the requirements of Bardock's question. He creates one he cannot lift, and when he tries to lift it, he cannot. This means taht he is not powerful enough to lift it, but it also means he is powerful enough to create something even he can't lift.
Originally posted by Council#13
😂 fine fine fine. Of course he could create one, and he cannot lift it. These are the requirements of Bardock's question. He creates one he cannot lift, and when he tries to lift it, he cannot. This means taht he is not powerful enough to lift it, but it also means he is powerful enough to create something even he can't lift.
Yes, good then..but he can't lift it therefoire something can exist that he doesn't have power over ergo he is not all-powerful....easy concept. isn't it?
Originally posted by Council#13
but because he is powerful enough to create a stone that even he cannot lift, and therefore is all powerful. We're going in circles! 😆
No we aren't you just jump back. He is powerful enough to create the stone, but to be all-powerful he needs to be able to do EVERYTHING. But he cannot lift the stone, so he is NOT all-powerful. Get it?
Paradox, people. Paradox. If you insist in trying to reason through it, yes, you will end up in circles. As such, the omnipotence paradox can Not be used as proof that God doesn't exist. For that matter, this ontological argument can Not be used to prove that He Does exist, either.
In fact, No ontological argument can be used to prove/disprove God's existence, because "God" as generally defined, is "more than mere reason."
But, hey, if you insist, knock yerselves out...kinda like the intellectualizing equivalent of spinning in circles til you get dizzy.
jerry
Paradox, people. Paradox. If you insist in trying to reason through it, yes, you will end up in circles. As such, the omnipotence paradox can Not be used as proof that God doesn't exist. For that matter, this ontological argument can Not be used to prove that He Does exist, either.
paradoxes do not exist. They are thoughts, what-ifs that reside soly in human imagination.
In fact, No ontological argument can be used to prove/disprove God's existence, because "God" as generally defined, is "more than mere reason."
There is no way to prove god does not exist.......simply because there is no way to prove ANY negative. For something to be proven, there must be physical evidence or data that can be researched and tested. If something (a negative, any negative) does not exist, it cannot leave behind any physical evidence or data to be researched or tested.
I'm the first to admit, absense of evidence does not equate evidence of absense. Every single discovery in the history of mankind was at one point not fact because physical evidence nor data had been researched and tested....therefore there was no evidence to support it as fact. Someone may have said 400 years ago that dinosaurs existed......but it was not fact yet.
That said, many people go around talking about a god in the same way that same person 400 years ago may have talked about dinosaurs. Here it is 400 years later.....we have thousands of fossils for hundreds of species of dinosaur.........those same people talking about a god have had 4,000 years to submit physical evidence or data to be researched and tested.....and nothing. Not one bit. I take that back, they submitted the "shroud of Turin".......which ofcourse turned out to be a medeival hoax.......trying to fake something to prove their claims because they realized their claims had no basis in reality.
God exists in the realm of pink unicorns and purple dragons.....in the human mind and nowhere else. Sure it's possible that god exists....just as possible as pink unicorns and purple dragons exist.......it's possible that anything exists. It's possible that a 200 feet tall cycloptic sasquatch exists.......but where's the evidence? We've given these nutjobs thousands upon thousands of years to produce some.......and nothing. Incredible claims require incredible proof. Next time some idiot claims to have a pink unicorn in his basement, are we to take him at his word without him ever giving any proof whatsoever? Hell......that crazy guy is actually better than most who claim there is a god. Atleast he claims he's seen the unicorn....perhaps even touched it. Those who believe in god say, "there is a god.....because that's what I heard from someone else........who heard it from someone else......who heard it from someone else..etc. etc. etc. who heard it from someone else 4,000 years ago"......and they don't even know who that person was. Four millenia from now there may be a cult of people who worship a pink unicorn some guy had in his basement....even though they never met the guy and he never gave any evidence to the pink unicorn's existence at all to begin with.
I have no problem with people believing in god. It's human nature to want to believe is something larger than themself, to feel there is someone/something giving their lives purpose. Hell, I want to believe it too. This isn't just god.....it's superior aliens watching/visiting our planet too. It's all the same. The problem I have is that these people express beliefs as fact........they teach it to their children as fact......they type on internet message boards that it is fact......not simply a belief that rests soly in their own mind.
I myself even have beliefs. Sure it's not god......but I do have my own beliefs about the inter-connectedness of our universe...matter, energy and intelligence. The difference is.....read the first sentence of this paragraph. my BELIEF. I don't present it as fact......I don't teach it to my children. If someone asks......I will accomodate them by giving a quick rundown, that's it......let them make their own conclusions, agree...disagree...think I'm a nut, whatever.
ah, but we don't need to go back 4k years. For Christians 2k is more than enough. Muslims only need 1400 years. Mormons claim there are people now who have seen him. Don't say there's no evidence. What you really mean is that you reject what evidence has come forward. Age has little bearing on truth. If it was true 4000 years ago, it's likely still true.
Don't say there's no evidence. What you really mean is that you reject what evidence has come forward. Age has little bearing on truth. If it was true 4000 years ago, it's likely still true.
Christians and Muslims all worship the same god as the Jews......so yes, 4,000 years.
what proof? Where is this proof housed? What tests have been done on it? Is it recorded data or tangible? Why am I just now hearing about it? Looks like it would be on the cover of every magazine and run on CNN 24 hours a day.