To claim that because one can not provide a detailed description of a deity, therefore a deity can not be defined is really an antithesis for Philosophy.
Ask Popper and Godel.
It simply does not conform to logic, at least in a rational sense.
You keep using these words, yet you operate in realms where they have no meaning. Do you know what does not conform to logic? Claiming that you can define a creator whose creation you're unable to comprehend, let alone define.
Aristotle's work on the Un-caused cause was an abstraction from the work called the Unmade Maker, and I believe conceptually better in terms of a creator.
The Universe did come in to existence, or we would not be here typing.
I directed you to the anthropic principle first, so don't play a wise-ass.
You are correct with Pascal's wager, which is why I stated to read his contemporaries for a better perspective on the given statement.
I already said I don't have the time or interest to once more turn the same heap of dung.
Interesting how you inject so much fallacy in to your statement claiming that his opinion is a fallacy.
What's my fallacy? Do you really expect me to write a book here? You claimed to have been well-read in these arguments, so I assumed you'd know what I meant without delving into details.
To believe in a creator is not the same as believing in Theology.
You're muddling again. To believe in a creator is to believe in a theology (stop with the exalted capitals because it looks silly and stick to proper orthography). When you find all existing theologies unacceptable you simply end up with your own.
This means I was correct in my assumption that we disagreed on the definition of atheism.
Which doesn't make you correct overall. It just shows again you don't know what you're talking about.
Your last statement implies that if I disbelieve in a Hindu version of a creator, I am atheist.
This statement proves any discussion with you is pointless, because you can't read. And I don't have time for manipulative analphabets (yes, ad hominem, but a hard-earned one). I wrote antitheist.
No. The dictionary "definition" explains nothing. It's as if one answered "an automobile" when asked to define a "car." A deity cannot be defined, because any such attempt is self-contradictory and inherently paradoxical. To paraphrase a Chinese saying. "a deity that can be known is not the true deity." Impossible to be defined, it's an unfalsifiable (therefore meaningless in any rational discourse), superfluous hypothesis.
You've either misread Metaphysics or read some "religious philosopher" (what a nice oxymoron there) like Aquinas or McGrath who purposefully, self-servingly overinterpreted Aristotle.
Pascal's Wager is a sophistic, naive, short-sighted and chauvinistic attempt at proving that it is better to unquestioningly submit to an insane hypothesis than to remain skeptical in absence of concrete proof. Excuse me, but this isn't even a proper argument, and its defenses are all logical fallacies. It's a good mental exercise for a budding thinker, but not for a mature philosopher.
In contrast to "deity", definition of "atheism" is clear, simple and unambiguous.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
You seem to conflate the term with antitheism which you also misunderstand. To put it bluntly, excluding agnostics, who simply don't care, everyone (especially any religious person) is an antitheist, because everyone denies the existence of at least N-n (where N > n > 0) gods.
"Carthago delenda est" [...] The phrase was most famously uttered frequently and persistently almost to the point of absurdity by the Roman senator Cato the Elder (234-149 BC), as a part of his speeches.
I was referring to constant factitious accusations thrown by Apple/Win [fans] concerning the "console voodo" one has to make in GNU/Linux systems to achieve anything useful. That didn't mean I subscribe to this ignorance, hence the "quotes." I just compared the facility of extracting the music from iPod to those misperceived mythical incantations.
Plutonium? Last I heard they tried to achieve high purity U235. They wouldn't require all those centrifuges if they wanted to make Pu239. Which raises the question: if you want to build a nuke, why enrich uranium when you can breed plutonium at a fraction of the cost?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe this will compensate.
What, in TEXAS? If anything, he can be blamed (he's the devil) there.
The people of the day had no idea we live on a globe.
Unless your "day" means before 6th century before the alleged Jesus was born/killed, you're wrong.
The important thing about this kind of research is that the artificial solutions move in the same way as the biological models.
Really?
I think all the conspiracy theorists are crazy
You're delusional.
To claim that because one can not provide a detailed description of a deity, therefore a deity can not be defined is really an antithesis for Philosophy.
Ask Popper and Godel.
It simply does not conform to logic, at least in a rational sense.
You keep using these words, yet you operate in realms where they have no meaning. Do you know what does not conform to logic? Claiming that you can define a creator whose creation you're unable to comprehend, let alone define.
Aristotle's work on the Un-caused cause was an abstraction from the work called the Unmade Maker, and I believe conceptually better in terms of a creator.
Aristotle's work is on the universe that already exists and he deals with "unmoved mover," not in any sense a creator, which you claimed. Be aware that Greeks and their predecessors did not have the concept of mathematical limit, so they found paradoxes where there weren't any. Oh, and I ignore your beliefs.
The Universe did come in to existence, or we would not be here typing.
I directed you to the anthropic principle first, so don't play a wise-ass.
You are correct with Pascal's wager, which is why I stated to read his contemporaries for a better perspective on the given statement.
I already said I don't have the time or interest to once more turn the same heap of dung.
Interesting how you inject so much fallacy in to your statement claiming that his opinion is a fallacy.
What's my fallacy? Do you really expect me to write a book here? You claimed to have been well-read in these arguments, so I assumed you'd know what I meant without delving into details.
To believe in a creator is not the same as believing in Theology.
You're muddling again. To believe in a creator is to believe in a theology (stop with the exalted capitals because it looks silly and stick to proper orthography). When you find all existing theologies unacceptable you simply end up with your own.
This means I was correct in my assumption that we disagreed on the definition of atheism.
Which doesn't make you correct overall. It just shows again you don't know what you're talking about.
Your last statement implies that if I disbelieve in a Hindu version of a creator, I am atheist.
This statement proves any discussion with you is pointless, because you can't read. And I don't have time for manipulative analphabets (yes, ad hominem, but a hard-earned one). I wrote antitheist.
Good day, sir (this time for good).
I even provided the definition of deity
No. The dictionary "definition" explains nothing. It's as if one answered "an automobile" when asked to define a "car." A deity cannot be defined, because any such attempt is self-contradictory and inherently paradoxical. To paraphrase a Chinese saying. "a deity that can be known is not the true deity." Impossible to be defined, it's an unfalsifiable (therefore meaningless in any rational discourse), superfluous hypothesis.
You've either misread Metaphysics or read some "religious philosopher" (what a nice oxymoron there) like Aquinas or McGrath who purposefully, self-servingly overinterpreted Aristotle.
Pascal's Wager is a sophistic, naive, short-sighted and chauvinistic attempt at proving that it is better to unquestioningly submit to an insane hypothesis than to remain skeptical in absence of concrete proof. Excuse me, but this isn't even a proper argument, and its defenses are all logical fallacies. It's a good mental exercise for a budding thinker, but not for a mature philosopher.
In contrast to "deity", definition of "atheism" is clear, simple and unambiguous.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
You seem to conflate the term with antitheism which you also misunderstand. To put it bluntly, excluding agnostics, who simply don't care, everyone (especially any religious person) is an antitheist, because everyone denies the existence of at least N-n (where N > n > 0) gods.
quality production lines
Aaaaahaaaahahaha! You need to have a serious talk with your dealer, dude.
because, well, ZOMG BOYCOTT SONY.
No. It's because, well, fool me once...
by Sony
Pity. I won't be getting one then.
Coffe
Yup, it did.
*grumbles and goes for coffee*
Coffe might have cause attention problems in the first place.
"Carthago delenda est" [...] The phrase was most famously uttered frequently and persistently almost to the point of absurdity by the Roman senator Cato the Elder (234-149 BC), as a part of his speeches.
This is the gist of GP's signature.
So it's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the "masses?" Fuck you.
Obsoletes some MCS* certificates perhaps.
2k12
Seriously...
I was referring to constant factitious accusations thrown by Apple/Win [fans] concerning the "console voodo" one has to make in GNU/Linux systems to achieve anything useful. That didn't mean I subscribe to this ignorance, hence the "quotes." I just compared the facility of extracting the music from iPod to those misperceived mythical incantations.
It's been tried. Rust didn't eat it. Rats did.
being stiffer than Kevlar may limit its usefulness in certain applications, such as body armor and the like
Scale mail.
Or a good excuse to grow hemp.
Women might be impressed with bulletproof wood, but transparent?
With transparent they'd be surprised.
Philosophy of Religion
... is a contradiction in terms.
Magnets.
Plutonium? Last I heard they tried to achieve high purity U235. They wouldn't require all those centrifuges if they wanted to make Pu239. Which raises the question: if you want to build a nuke, why enrich uranium when you can breed plutonium at a fraction of the cost?
And here we come to the point where Apple product's ease of use nears "unavoidable console voodoo" of the GNU/Linux.
Let's say I legally took control as there was no "official" workforce to make a 1Mbps work reasonably for 120+ machines.