Last status update:
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 25
Date Signed Up:8/13/2010
Last Login:3/05/2013
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 22 total,  18 ,  40
Comment Thumbs: 327 total,  852 ,  525
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level -22 Content: Sort of disliked → Level -21 Content: Sort of disliked
Comment Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 132 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 133 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Content Views:439
Total Comments Made:501
FJ Points:291

  • Views: 722
    Thumbs Up 8 Thumbs Down 8 Total: 0
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 03/24/11
    Intellectual Ownage Intellectual Ownage
  • Views: 665
    Thumbs Up 3 Thumbs Down 5 Total: -2
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 08/27/10
    why use linux? why use linux?
  • Views: 509
    Thumbs Up 6 Thumbs Down 16 Total: -10
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 03/24/11
    Intellectual Ownage Intellectual Ownage
  • Views: 497
    Thumbs Up 1 Thumbs Down 11 Total: -10
    Comments: 9
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 03/24/11
    Intellectual Ownage Intellectual Ownage

user favorites

latest user's comments

#95 - ah but why is considered common courtesy? is it to maybe stop … 12/08/2012 on Blow me 0
#91 - alrite then i concede the tissues but you haven't adressed my … 12/08/2012 on Blow me 0
#86 - your right i am infering i apologise. But she has a tissue in … 12/08/2012 on Blow me 0
#77 - it implies it and the implication is enough 12/08/2012 on Blow me -4
#72 - i totally disagree with you, when you have a cold it is your d…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/08/2012 on Blow me 0
#76 - anon (12/08/2012) [-]
This. If the first fucker ever to catch the cold stayed the fuck away from everyone, it would have died out with that person (as more than likely it was fatal back in those time periods with immune systems not being what they are today and all...) and NO ONE WOULD HAVE IT NOW!! THANKS RANDOM GUY/GIRL!! YOU FUCKED THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE
#144 - it's the Pugnisher 12/04/2012 on Pugs. Pugs everywhere. +2
#38 - if you need time ad money for women than the equation would be… 10/21/2012 on The proof +1
#503 - 'because you can't thats the point to understand why something…  [+] (2 new replies) 10/09/2012 on The Sad Truth 0
User avatar #505 - archangel (10/09/2012) [-]
Cancer is good one I grant you but cancer brings attention and focus towards cells making our species great minds learn about cells through cancer we understood hay flick limit. Cancer shows importance to the cells, study of the cells reveals stem cells stem cells can allow us to grow organs to avoid transplants and complications and maybe one immortality. Cancer presents a method by which some ones life can end all suffering not just the disease but all suffering life causes and also bring people together family, friends , scientists and leaders. Cancer is great leveller every one is vulnerable every one is the same underneath. The planet is over populated the disease kills it is trying to restabilise the ecosystem Cancer also presents a nonhuman threat which is what brings people together to combat it rather than each other.
User avatar #504 - archangel (10/09/2012) [-]
and i said it cant be quantified by measurement but through religion it can be found , well through any kind of spirituality you are searching just not through measurement. If you say that christian only know what is told then you don't understand christianity, but it's not just christianity it's all religions its the constant trial to understand the greater meaning usually through meditation(aka prayer) to find attachment to nature . Christianity has changed since the beginning but it's a good example its added so many other influences of other belief its a collage of human belief its something most culture s have contributed to giving a sample of the understanding of what it means to be human the hate the naivety and the love . A true christian should not pray in public, prayer is not meant to be asking for stuff it's for understanding your place in the universe . it is not the antithesis of science but its in the same tool box the antithesis of science is to not look for answers anywhere or to not attempt to better your self in anyway it would be to basically stay in situ. I'm sorry my friend but to call it the opposite of science is wrong. It works with two very different questions. everything in nature has reason for occurring and spirituality helps us understand and respect that science is to better or destroy those bonds formed but spirituality is to form the bonds and nurture them.
#497 - thats not a basis for belief, just becuase you fear something … 10/09/2012 on The Sad Truth 0
#495 - Comment deleted 10/09/2012 on The Sad Truth 0
Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - srskate ONLINE (11/12/2011) [-]
You need to login to view this link

found something that you might find useful/interesting
User avatar #2 to #1 - ZOOTAllures (11/13/2011) [-]
cheers for the link, it was interesting, to claim omnipotence is impossible by its nature is quite clever. Although this all hinges on what ones definition of god is, if it is just a creator then this isn't applicable. for instance Aristotle's idea of God as an unmoved mover, one who doesn't do anything but contemplate its own perfection which in turn attracts the stars to move (like we are attracted to food, but the food does nothing) wouldn't be affected by this argument.
Have you heard of the inconsistent triad. Its the idea that the core description of a Judeo-christian God has three properties, omnipotence, omniscience(all knowing) and benevolence (all loving), that they are called inconsistent is because they kind of cancel each other out. The obvious is how could and all loving God have suffering in the world, either he is all loving but powerless to do anything or is all powerful but doesn't care. A cooler inconsistency though is contrasting omnipotence and omniscience. if god is omniscient then he knows everything that is ever going to happen from the beginning, even everything that he is going to do, so his path is predetermined and so God is trapped in this path as he knows it is going to happen, therefore God is not all powerful as he doesn't have the ability to change his mind, as it is impossible to do if you are omniscient. So if you are omniscient you can not be omnipotent.
This is the reason why Theists trying to argue the case of God Ontologically kept changing their description of God. Al though the one that stuck is that God is a perfect Being. Descartes argued that Existence is more perfect then non-existence so a perfect being must exist, Hume countered this by saying that existence isn't a predicate of perfection, the two do no correlate, as one could imagine the perfect square, it is perfect in everyway but this does not mean it exists.
User avatar #3 to #2 - srskate ONLINE (11/13/2011) [-]
That is possibly one of the smartest responses I have ever read. And I recently realized, following Christian logic, God cannot be omniscient. Omnipotent, sure, benevolent, why not, but being omniscent crumbles everything. I believe there is a bit of an escape clause for the triangle without the omniscience. He can still be MOSTLY benevolent, knowing that even with suffering, there is a good end for those who deserve it.

Also, this brings to mind Dr. Manhattan
User avatar #4 to #3 - ZOOTAllures (11/14/2011) [-]
Yeah because Dr Manhattan sees time as circular, he can comprehend the fourth dimension, in the books there are times when he knows something is going to happen but there is nothing he can do to prevent it from happening and so is helpless, this is the same idea, as omniscience causes you to be trapped by your foreknowledge. I need to read Watchmen again, its such a clever book.
But for the christian ideology to work God must be omniscient, as without it there would be no fate and no great plan of God. It would bring into repute the idea that God is infallible, as this is only held together by omniscience, as a god without omniscience can be wrong. So this could negate the truth of Bible itself, as it is said to be the word of God , which we now know can not be trusted to be true.
If the idea of God comes from the teachings of the Bible and the bible states that God is omnipotent, which we now know is a false claim, surely the idea of God is also brought into question. All of Judeo-christian laws are only held together by the idea of an all-knowing God, if there is no omniscience there is no Judeo-Christian God.

I've only just realised whilst writing this that omnipotence is paradoxical in nature. If one is all powerful then one has the power of omniscience, which in turn limits ones power so one can not in fact be omnipotent.

So all that's left is benevolence, but this is also brought into question by the lack of omniscience, as to truly love something you must first have knowledge of it. So to love everything you must first know everything. So without omniscience one can never truly be all-loving.

As i said the triad is very inconsistent.
User avatar #5 to #5 - srskate ONLINE (11/14/2011) [-]
I still say that by "dropping" one of the tenets of the triad, that the remaining partnership can be saved.
Drop omniscience, God can do all and loves all, but does not know what his actions may entail
drop omnipotence, God loves all and knows all, but cannot do all
drop benevolence, God does not give any *****

Not to say that the Christian-Judea God wouldn't be comprimised, but it wouldnt be destroyed
User avatar #6 to #6 - ZOOTAllures (11/15/2011) [-]
The only explanation that kind of worksis the one where you drop benevolence, the one where God doesn't give a **** , this is because, as i reasoned before you can not have omnipotence with out omniscience, if you are all-powerful then you must have the power to know everything, so he can not be omnipotent and benevolent because as he has the ability to stop suffering and has the ability to know when and where it is going to occur.
It also works vice versa you can not have omniscience with out omnipotence, for if you are all knowing then surely you should be able to answer a question i.e. how do i stop suffering, if God can not answer this then he doesn't know everything so he is not all knowing. Now you could say he knows but is not able to act, this is also illogical, because all you he would have to do is ask himself 'how can i, with no omnipotence, stop suffering?' again if he can not produce an answer for this then he is not omniscient. He could even just ask himself 'How do i become omniscient' There can not be a question an omniscient being can not answer, if there is, then the being is not omniscient. I don't know is not an answer, as all things are possible, you just need to know how.
So God can either be just a Benevolent God or an omnipotent One. I can not argue against just a Benevolent being, as it is essentially just something that instantly loves anything it comes across, although as i explained to love everything you must know of everything, so i does require you to be omniscient to trully love everything, otherwise it is just a shallow face value kind of love, doesn't really have any meaning. It also raises the question,'what is the point of worshipping it, if it can't do anything and doesn't know anything'

User avatar #7 to #7 - ZOOTAllures (11/15/2011) [-]
So we are left with Omnipotence. And as i explained omnipotence is impossible, as to be omnipotent you must have the ability to be omniscient, if you are omniscient then you can not truly be omnipotent---so omni potency is a paradox.
With this all of the doctrines held buy theist's of any creed are nullified, as all are based on the idea that their God is one of the three, which i've reasoned is now two, one of which is a paradox and the other needs this to be true to work, then they must be false ideas.
You can have a deist God, but where in any holy Book is their God a dead god.
User avatar #8 to #8 - srskate ONLINE (11/16/2011) [-]
I feel that you are using a sort of a loop-hole, so ill rephrase
realistic omnipotence, can do countless things, but not ALL things
realistic omniscience, knows many things, but not ALL things
realistic benevolence, loves many things, but not ALL things

Its possible, with a bit of compromise.
User avatar #9 to #9 - srskate ONLINE (11/16/2011) [-]
I want to stress that I am not saying that you are incorrect, just that there is an alternative.
User avatar #10 to #10 - ZOOTAllures (11/16/2011) [-]
i am kind of, I'm classing it all under omnipotence and then try to show it is a paradox there by negating all three, if you prove a concept is paradoxical then it is kind of a loop-hole because you can always regress back to the paradox which proves it is a concept that just doesn't work.

the definition of omnipotence is all-powerful, omniscient all-knowing and benevolent all-loving. If something can do countless things but not all things then it is powerful not omnipotent, if it knows many things but not all then it is wise not omniscient, if it loves many things but not all then it is loving not benevolent.
Im not saying a God can not be powerful, wise and loving, I'm reasoning it can not be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving.
User avatar #11 to #13 - srskate ONLINE (11/17/2011) [-]
I agree with that. (For the record, I'm more deist than Christian)
 Friends (0)