It's one of those paradoxes that you can bring up to question the whole idea of God. Sort of like, if God is all powerful, can he create a rock so big that even he can't lift it?
Ok, I remember a time when I was bothered by this statement. Then I took General Physics in college and realized that the paradoxical part of this statement is a problem with the English langauge and has nothing to do with God.
Lets apply General Physics principles to this statement, shall we? We'll start with a small rock.
God decides to test this statement, and sends Jesus (who still has his 2000 year old physical form) to the Mojave desert. He creates a small rock, a pebble. Then he gets Jesus to walk over to the rock and lift it. Since Jesus = God, billions of Christians cheer as God lifts the rock He created.
God creates a bigger rock, this one the size of Jesus' head. Jesus reaches down with his Roman Empire-era body and lifts it, no problem. The Christians cheer again. The same happens for the dog-sized rock and the sheep-sized rock.
Then God decides to start pushing the statement, and creates a house-sized rock. Jesus goes and gets a crane and operates it all himself, eventually lifting the rock 70 feet in the air. The crowd goes wild.
God starts to put Jesus through his paces, and creates a rock the size of a small town. This is where things start getting metaphysical. Jesus prays for a few seconds and then says, "Rock, lift up!" (this follows the general way Jesus did supernatural things in the Gospels) The rock levitates itself in the air, to the hushed gasp of thousands of Christians.
The same happens for the rock the size of LA, the rock the size of Massachusetts, and the rock the size of Texas. The awed and hushed Christians no longer yell, instead they just eat picnic lunches.
Now, as you may have predicted, things start to get strange when God creates the rock the size of the moon. Jesus looks up into heaven with a grin and says "We already do this every day, Father." Jesus then sends the rock into orbit, not only overcoming earth's gravity well but setting the huge chunk of rock in an orbit directly opposite the moon. It even stays there, operating according to the laws that govern our universe that God created.
Then the defining moment comes: God creates a rock the size of the Earth, just laying right there in the Mojave desert. Well, laying there isn't really the correct word... we now have twin Earths, joined at the Mojave. Jesus once again says a quick prayer and then "Earths, separate!" Everyone involved can easily see a space develop between the two massive bodies as they float around in near-weightlessness (ok this I don't remember. can the gravity of a body of matter be felt at the center of the body?) but which is being lifted? Is it the rock or the Earth that Jesus lifted up?
Ok, I'm really enjoying dragging this out to its pedantic finish, but I should cut to the chase: As the body of mass increases to be equal to the size of the earth, the concept of "lifting" it becomes meaningless. Lifting something apparently means making it oppose gravity, as you lift things off the floor and put them on a desk. But if the object is the source of the largest gravity field in the area, you would then be lifting the earth off of it instead of the other way around. What if you created a monstrous body of mass in between galaxies? How can you possibly claim to 'lift' it at all? Its the source of all gravity in the area!
So, in conclusion, this paradox is nothing more than a poorly-worded sentence that someone would only say if they had an incomplete understanding of gravity, nothing more. God still exists, don't worry.
Well, I play alot of games online, and I get to experience alot of gamers. I even run a small gaming guild online. I have always liked to play games against other people, and I usually try to be competitive. I've found that you can always identify newer players because they, uniformly, belive the following things:
1. You have the rules of the game, that everyone knows, and in a computer game they cannot (usually) be broken.
2. In addition to the rules of the game that are clearly laid out, there is another subset of 'unwritten rules' that act much like a code of honor.
3. Each new player has his own little version of these unwritten rules, and cries foul each time that their own version of the rules is broken.
4. These new players that play by two sets of rules consistently, and without fail, LOSE. ALL THE TIME.
Such players will continue to lose until they see the light, and move on to the next level of gaming: playing only by the game's rules rather than their own.
I.E. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHEESE
Now, I don't know about you, but I dislike losing. If your goal when you play a game online is to make up some sort of imaginary rule-set for yourself and the other people you are playing with, and then proceed to bitch and moan when these rules are violated, then go right ahead and do so. I won't stop you. In fact, I will aid you by becoming the person you can bitch and moan about.
However, if your goal in playing online games is to experience the evolution of learning that good games put the player through; to practice the process of ability refinement, knowledge, and experience in a game; to just become better, then you might want to put that childish subset of rules behind you and step into a truer gaming experience.
I firmly believe that games are thorougly healthy pursuits, and that in them you can practice many of the skills that make you successful in real life in a short amount of time. That is why I still play them, and that is why I try to play every game I play well.
I have a problem believing that an onmnpotent being would be quite so intolerant of minors who - by definition - have not yet gained the full faculty to make their own judgement.
Ok, wow... you don't like God because God doesn't subscribe to pop culture philosophy? Should God have waited until they were 18 before sending the bears? How about 21?
and if you follow this logic to its conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, you must have blind, ultimate faith in the fact that a zebra will fall upon your head in the next 17 minutes. Its probably more likely, statistically.
There is precedent for such a thing, particularly in the case of near Earth asteroids. In an effort not to alarm the public and to prevent the media from distorting the facts, things are covered up while examined and studied.
Ok, I don't think you are using the term 'covered up' correctly here. If the government simply waits to release information until its solid, that's not a conspiracy or a coverup, that's just good sense. Other people do this too, for instance myself. If I think that I don't quite yet know all the whole answer to a question, I just may say "let me get back to you on that" and then I go to google.
What I think of when I see the word 'cover up' is a constant and concerted effort to keep information quiet over time, such as... well... I can't think of any real life examples. Either "they"'re just really good, or there aren't any. (how often do you get to use both a "and a ' right after each other. booyah!)
This occurred in Australia, where people don't have the right to bear arms. In fact, nobody has guns in Australia at all, except for cops. So Sayeth My Australian Buddies.
If you are getting a CS degree try to get a minor in something pure like Math, Biology, Chemistry, etc that is more portable than you C/S degree should things get sour.
I have a Bachelor's Degree in Biology and a Master's Degree in Information Technology and I don't see my Biology degree helping me out in getting jobs at all, so I don't think your advice is that top-notch.
So, given that violence is not not a natural thing in children,
What planet do you come from? Its been a very long time since you've been in elementary school, hasn't it? Violence is a natural thing in children, adults, old people, animals, and motile plants!
So why did our hypothetical pro-slavery guy believe what he did? He was subject to it as he grew up; it was part of the culture he lived in. Say he lived in the deep South, e.g. Georgia, in a culture whose livelihood much depended on slave labor. We could hardly blame him.
So to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, kids of today will grow up believing that violence within computer games, movies, and CNN are perfectly alright, as they are a product of their times, and it has become part of the culture they live in.
Now, let me rant.
To say that watching an event causes somoene to emulate that event is just... well, its just crazy talk. Millions of people watch larger-than-life celebrities act convincingly in thousands of movies month after month, year after year, and does this cause people to become good actors? No. The same statistics are true for people watching kung-fu masters, successful businessmen, ace pilots, rather good strippers, and crazily inept programmers, but does watching these events cause people to emulate these events? No.
In the case of all the preceeding examples (except for movie programming, I can't figure that crap out) of course, those are learned skills that you use after you have practiced. Alot. And why do you practice them? Because you chose to practice those skills in order to become good at them.
Well, that begs the question, why does someone become violent? Why do people shoot friends/coworkers/strangers, beat up wives/children/other kids, and generally cause pain to others? Its because they choose to do so. Just like someone chooses to eat a sandwich, drive a car, or develop a new skill that they previously did not have. Just like people cannot absorb new skills by simply watching them in action, people cannot absorb random amounts of 'violence' by watching violence in action. Actually, what CAN you absorb by simply seeing it in action? Nothing. You can't absorb a good sense of humor by watching a comedian. You can't even absorb emotions by simply watching them happen. You can't acquire excess love by watching newlyweds or pick up a few additional pounds of despair by talking to your friendly neighborhood goth.
In a final argumentative gambit, someone could say that by observing an event, people become aware of new options to choose in life. For instance, before watching the movie Eraser I did not even imagine that it was possible to gut-shoot a person and then suffocate them WITH YOUR VERY OWN CHEEK. Of course, since it was a movie it may not actually be possible to suffocate someone with your cheek, but the movie made me aware of this option to try if I ever wanted to kill somoene in a very personal manner. So in this case I would have to agree with this person, that watching movies makes you more aware of the choices that you can make in life, especially violent and sexually stimulating choices.
However, it cannot be and never will be possible to police the ideas and thoughts that people acquire throughout life, and if you try then you quite literally become the THOUGHT POLICE. Even if movie violence was so heavily regulated that the movie Eraser was never created, I could still have met this storyteller who had a burning desire to share this tale about this really, really evil cop who killed somoene that he should have been protecting by shooting her in the stomach and then suffocating her with his cheek. And no thought policeman would have caught us either, because he would have told the story at night, in the mountains, around a campfire, while we were all camping. So there, you stupid thought police!
Anyways, what was I trying to say? I think it was that violence comes from within, not without, and external forces cannot make you violent. If you choose to be violent, it is a choice on your part and you can't blame anybody or anything else. If you try, that's just crazy-talk.
Oh, and if you have not engaged in violence and are STILL trying to blame violence on outside forces then you are a naive fool who does not know himself and are inadvertently providing a flimsy, scapegoat excuse for any sleazeball with a desire to kill and an ear for your theories.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I remember a time when I was bothered by this statement. Then I took General Physics in college and realized that the paradoxical part of this statement is a problem with the English langauge and has nothing to do with God.
Lets apply General Physics principles to this statement, shall we? We'll start with a small rock.
God decides to test this statement, and sends Jesus (who still has his 2000 year old physical form) to the Mojave desert. He creates a small rock, a pebble. Then he gets Jesus to walk over to the rock and lift it. Since Jesus = God, billions of Christians cheer as God lifts the rock He created.
God creates a bigger rock, this one the size of Jesus' head. Jesus reaches down with his Roman Empire-era body and lifts it, no problem. The Christians cheer again. The same happens for the dog-sized rock and the sheep-sized rock.
Then God decides to start pushing the statement, and creates a house-sized rock. Jesus goes and gets a crane and operates it all himself, eventually lifting the rock 70 feet in the air. The crowd goes wild.
God starts to put Jesus through his paces, and creates a rock the size of a small town. This is where things start getting metaphysical. Jesus prays for a few seconds and then says, "Rock, lift up!" (this follows the general way Jesus did supernatural things in the Gospels) The rock levitates itself in the air, to the hushed gasp of thousands of Christians.
The same happens for the rock the size of LA, the rock the size of Massachusetts, and the rock the size of Texas. The awed and hushed Christians no longer yell, instead they just eat picnic lunches.
Now, as you may have predicted, things start to get strange when God creates the rock the size of the moon. Jesus looks up into heaven with a grin and says "We already do this every day, Father." Jesus then sends the rock into orbit, not only overcoming earth's gravity well but setting the huge chunk of rock in an orbit directly opposite the moon. It even stays there, operating according to the laws that govern our universe that God created.
Then the defining moment comes: God creates a rock the size of the Earth, just laying right there in the Mojave desert. Well, laying there isn't really the correct word... we now have twin Earths, joined at the Mojave. Jesus once again says a quick prayer and then "Earths, separate!" Everyone involved can easily see a space develop between the two massive bodies as they float around in near-weightlessness (ok this I don't remember. can the gravity of a body of matter be felt at the center of the body?) but which is being lifted? Is it the rock or the Earth that Jesus lifted up?
Ok, I'm really enjoying dragging this out to its pedantic finish, but I should cut to the chase: As the body of mass increases to be equal to the size of the earth, the concept of "lifting" it becomes meaningless. Lifting something apparently means making it oppose gravity, as you lift things off the floor and put them on a desk. But if the object is the source of the largest gravity field in the area, you would then be lifting the earth off of it instead of the other way around. What if you created a monstrous body of mass in between galaxies? How can you possibly claim to 'lift' it at all? Its the source of all gravity in the area!
So, in conclusion, this paradox is nothing more than a poorly-worded sentence that someone would only say if they had an incomplete understanding of gravity, nothing more. God still exists, don't worry.
Well, I play alot of games online, and I get to experience alot of gamers. I even run a small gaming guild online. I have always liked to play games against other people, and I usually try to be competitive. I've found that you can always identify newer players because they, uniformly, belive the following things:
1. You have the rules of the game, that everyone knows, and in a computer game they cannot (usually) be broken.
2. In addition to the rules of the game that are clearly laid out, there is another subset of 'unwritten rules' that act much like a code of honor.
3. Each new player has his own little version of these unwritten rules, and cries foul each time that their own version of the rules is broken.
4. These new players that play by two sets of rules consistently, and without fail, LOSE. ALL THE TIME.
Such players will continue to lose until they see the light, and move on to the next level of gaming: playing only by the game's rules rather than their own.
I.E. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHEESE
Now, I don't know about you, but I dislike losing. If your goal when you play a game online is to make up some sort of imaginary rule-set for yourself and the other people you are playing with, and then proceed to bitch and moan when these rules are violated, then go right ahead and do so. I won't stop you. In fact, I will aid you by becoming the person you can bitch and moan about.
However, if your goal in playing online games is to experience the evolution of learning that good games put the player through; to practice the process of ability refinement, knowledge, and experience in a game; to just become better, then you might want to put that childish subset of rules behind you and step into a truer gaming experience.
I firmly believe that games are thorougly healthy pursuits, and that in them you can practice many of the skills that make you successful in real life in a short amount of time. That is why I still play them, and that is why I try to play every game I play well.
I have a problem believing that an onmnpotent being would be quite so intolerant of minors who - by definition - have not yet gained the full faculty to make their own judgement.
Ok, wow... you don't like God because God doesn't subscribe to pop culture philosophy? Should God have waited until they were 18 before sending the bears? How about 21?
and if you follow this logic to its conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, you must have blind, ultimate faith in the fact that a zebra will fall upon your head in the next 17 minutes. Its probably more likely, statistically.
Hasn't anyone played computer games here? If its large enough to land colonists on, its a planet!
Ok, I don't think you are using the term 'covered up' correctly here. If the government simply waits to release information until its solid, that's not a conspiracy or a coverup, that's just good sense. Other people do this too, for instance myself. If I think that I don't quite yet know all the whole answer to a question, I just may say "let me get back to you on that" and then I go to google.
What I think of when I see the word 'cover up' is a constant and concerted effort to keep information quiet over time, such as... well... I can't think of any real life examples. Either "they"'re just really good, or there aren't any. (how often do you get to use both a "and a ' right after each other. booyah!)
If there's one thing you can count on, its that mad-hatters never let any facts get in their way.
have you SEEN any Americans/Canadians/whatever recently? Have you seen where they all live? This has been DONE.
This occurred in Australia, where people don't have the right to bear arms. In fact, nobody has guns in Australia at all, except for cops. So Sayeth My Australian Buddies.
What I'm most concerned about right now is WHICH ARE THE OTHER TWELVE STATES?
So can I come work for you? please?
I have a Bachelor's Degree in Biology and a Master's Degree in Information Technology and I don't see my Biology degree helping me out in getting jobs at all, so I don't think your advice is that top-notch.
old Battlestar Galactica:new Battlestar Galactica::star trek the animated series:babylon 5
So, given that violence is not not a natural thing in children, What planet do you come from? Its been a very long time since you've been in elementary school, hasn't it? Violence is a natural thing in children, adults, old people, animals, and motile plants!
So why did our hypothetical pro-slavery guy believe what he did? He was subject to it as he grew up; it was part of the culture he lived in. Say he lived in the deep South, e.g. Georgia, in a culture whose livelihood much depended on slave labor. We could hardly blame him.
So to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, kids of today will grow up believing that violence within computer games, movies, and CNN are perfectly alright, as they are a product of their times, and it has become part of the culture they live in.
Now, let me rant.
To say that watching an event causes somoene to emulate that event is just... well, its just crazy talk. Millions of people watch larger-than-life celebrities act convincingly in thousands of movies month after month, year after year, and does this cause people to become good actors? No. The same statistics are true for people watching kung-fu masters, successful businessmen, ace pilots, rather good strippers, and crazily inept programmers, but does watching these events cause people to emulate these events? No.
In the case of all the preceeding examples (except for movie programming, I can't figure that crap out) of course, those are learned skills that you use after you have practiced. Alot. And why do you practice them? Because you chose to practice those skills in order to become good at them.
Well, that begs the question, why does someone become violent? Why do people shoot friends/coworkers/strangers, beat up wives/children/other kids, and generally cause pain to others? Its because they choose to do so. Just like someone chooses to eat a sandwich, drive a car, or develop a new skill that they previously did not have. Just like people cannot absorb new skills by simply watching them in action, people cannot absorb random amounts of 'violence' by watching violence in action. Actually, what CAN you absorb by simply seeing it in action? Nothing. You can't absorb a good sense of humor by watching a comedian. You can't even absorb emotions by simply watching them happen. You can't acquire excess love by watching newlyweds or pick up a few additional pounds of despair by talking to your friendly neighborhood goth.
In a final argumentative gambit, someone could say that by observing an event, people become aware of new options to choose in life. For instance, before watching the movie Eraser I did not even imagine that it was possible to gut-shoot a person and then suffocate them WITH YOUR VERY OWN CHEEK. Of course, since it was a movie it may not actually be possible to suffocate someone with your cheek, but the movie made me aware of this option to try if I ever wanted to kill somoene in a very personal manner. So in this case I would have to agree with this person, that watching movies makes you more aware of the choices that you can make in life, especially violent and sexually stimulating choices.
However, it cannot be and never will be possible to police the ideas and thoughts that people acquire throughout life, and if you try then you quite literally become the THOUGHT POLICE. Even if movie violence was so heavily regulated that the movie Eraser was never created, I could still have met this storyteller who had a burning desire to share this tale about this really, really evil cop who killed somoene that he should have been protecting by shooting her in the stomach and then suffocating her with his cheek. And no thought policeman would have caught us either, because he would have told the story at night, in the mountains, around a campfire, while we were all camping. So there, you stupid thought police!
Anyways, what was I trying to say? I think it was that violence comes from within, not without, and external forces cannot make you violent. If you choose to be violent, it is a choice on your part and you can't blame anybody or anything else. If you try, that's just crazy-talk.
Oh, and if you have not engaged in violence and are STILL trying to blame violence on outside forces then you are a naive fool who does not know himself and are inadvertently providing a flimsy, scapegoat excuse for any sleazeball with a desire to kill and an ear for your theories.
Too many people underestimate the sheer fun factor of randomly firing blasters.
That's alot of Blam
The unexamined universe is not worth inhabiting!
script kiddies do NOT go to heaven!