US Oligarchs Find Common Ground In Circumventing Law

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Or they are there but we are just too preoccupied with something to notice. Lots of times I've had those moments where someone or something that I thought wasn't there actually was there all along, the realization hit me by surprise.

I am specifically referring to the nature of people who are actually not there, whether we as attendees know or do not know that they are not there. If they actually are not there (whether we see them or not, or are even aware of them at all) then they are late.

If we are looking for a specific person and do not see them then I agree, they could be anywhere. Whether we see them or not has no bearing on their lateness if they truly are not there though.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Our senses are pretty funky, I really-really-really wish I could even look into the sky and see the whole UV spectrum at night, or feel the literal waves of the universe roll over me. I know it's there and active, a big part of my life knowing it or not, I search it often, but... [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
At least my faith says it's there. Still can't touch it or show it to you directly w/o need for the same faith, but it's there. Even our concept of pictures are limited, so much more going on there we can't see of the sky, that a camera can only show grey ghosts of.

And not just the big stuff that mesmerizes me, like mega black holes and magnetars and such, but even to the tiny world we can see nothing of, yet is active in our lives. That world is a huge mystery the way it works, especially in the realm of quantum physics. I'm blown away the more and more I learn of it over the years, just astounding. When I was born, we had no idea the Universe was so huge and also so small. And I think we have hardly even scratched the surface of our reality, we are so very small.

My personal interpretation? We are in a hatchery. Too much or too little we just don't develop as we should, individually. If the hen pecks the shell open we die. Certainly we are meant to search things out and develop, just look how complex everything is from the biggest to the smallest of things in our universe. Those things always there but we just didn't know how to look (and still don't fully), which is not simply by sight. And then individually we move on, just as like the first law of thermodynamics.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that there is no creator, just that we have no way of knowing. That does not prevent us from inferring things about its nature though if it does exist. I said if it does exist it is malevolent, impotent or apathetic and not both benevolent and omnipotent for a reason. If it we're benevolent why does it allow suffering? It must either be incapable of doing anything or unwilling to do anything or perhaps it has another reason. If it has another reason though and is omnipotent, then why not alter that other reason such that it is no longer a reason? If it is benevolent then it would do so.

While perhaps less inspiring and certainly less promising, the universe is all the more amazing if the product of random chance. Play a lottery or flip a coin, then go take a look at the life around you and what it is capable of. Then go learn of cellular biology, chemistry and physics and quantum mechanics too, and all the processes by which our world is governed. It is mind blowing (as you've already agreed with ^^) Until you attribute it to an omnipotent source. Then it is not so miraculous, not at all. Why so slow, why so inefficient, why at all?

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why then does the tree not exhibit every characteristic of the leaves if the leaves are made by he tree and creations must reflect every aspect of their creators as you argue?

I never said the tree was the creator nor did I say the tree must exhibit every aspect of the leaves. Maybe the tree does reflect every aspect of the leaves they just are unidentifiable to modern science. Hell can we clone a tree from a leaf? I dunno really haven't looked into it.

Nihilist Santa already addressed this, but you appear to be operating with a different definition of the the word "create". What is your reasoning here? Why must nature exhibit every aspect of man?

If you you believe man evolved from Nature then everything man is must have been present within nature. Or are we of the belief that evolution can harvest these traits without a source? I'm not saying it's right or wrong. All I'm saying is if logic and reason exist within man. Somewhere within the process of evolution a chemical combination assembled logic and reason, and if nature assembled this then all that man does should be considered natural and working as intended by nature. Nature destroys nature, Nature destroys man, man destroys man, man destroys nature. Seems consistent with me why we bitching about man just doing what nature intends.

If we don't believe nature passed the ability to reason to man then where did it come from?

[maskedmelon]

Are you asking where logic came from or where man's aptitude for reason/logic come from?

We know not nearly enough about how the human brain works due to the inherent challenges and ethical limitations of interaction/observation. Reason is not much more than advanced pattern recognition though. It is an iterative process of chance directed by logic.

Push a ball down a hill and it will roll in its initial direction. Obstruct its path and it will change course. Such obstructions can by viewed as logic checks of an algorithm directing information through a system of pattern recognition. Microprocessors function similarly although not nearly on the same scale.

Now if you want to know where logic or information itself originates or resides, well that I have no idea. It's just there. Why? I don't know that either. Could it have been created? Sure. Could it have always been there? Sure. Could it be purple? Sure. Can we ascertain any of the above? Nope.

[maerilith]

Kind of beyond me why you guys reply to Dumbwoopy

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Are you asking where logic came from or where man's aptitude for reason/logic come from?

We know not nearly enough about how the human brain works due to the inherent challenges and ethical limitations of interaction/observation. Reason is not much more than advanced pattern recognition though. It is an iterative process of chance directed by logic.

Push a ball down a hill and it will roll in its initial direction. Obstruct its path and it will change course. Such obstructions can by viewed as logic checks of an algorithm directing information through a system of pattern recognition. Microprocessors function similarly although not nearly on the same scale.

Now if you want to know where logic or information itself originates or resides, well that I have no idea. It's just there. Why? I don't know that either. Could it have been created? Sure. Could it have always been there? Sure. Could it be purple? Sure. Can we ascertain any of the above? Nope.

The ball follows the path of least resistance when it's met with force, no logic check needed just force and gravity just like water, but man can "choose" to stay the course if he is so inclined. Which is why I asked the question earlier of " If a Beaver had the intellectual capacity and physical ability to build a dam like man can build a dam, would he choose to?

I'm looking for a source, modern science seeks a source, if that source is nature itself then "Man" and all that man does is acceptable by the laws that nature since nature "created" it.

[Blitzers]

So here:

If 0 represents absolute nothing

And .00000000000001 represents the smallest microbe in nature

How do we get from 0 to .000000000000001 since 0 is absolute nothing

The Big Bang? Well then wouldnt the Big Bang have to be (X) or infinity? That still doesn't answer the question on how we get from 0 to (X) or even .000000000000001

So the only option is (X) or infinity always existed and only from (X) or infinity can .0000000000001 be possible.

A source must exist, without it existence is impossible.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by big [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so your entire walls of text boil down to the grade school revelation that the line between "natural" and "man-made" is just an arbitrary distinction drawn between things done by sentient consciousnesses, and not. Congrats.

Everything else you're trying to do with that profound insight here is postmodern as fuck -- are you doing dadaist performance art trolling (9/10 i replied), or did your high school girlfriend make you read Being and Nothingness before she would give up the pussy?

I think my revelation is:

Nature is not "Man's" source.

God is "Man's" source

[Blitzers]

Or maybe;

God created nature and from nature God assembled "man" and then God granted "man" the ability to be like God.

[Blitzers]

Either way God is ultimately the source.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think my revelation is:

Nature is not "Man's" source.

God is "Man's" source

So what's God's source?