Hello Hobbes - how are you today?Hobbes' Choice wrote:Still peddling your crazy bollocks?attofishpi wrote:South America to scale
Do you like the South America painting?
Do you think its my crazy bollocks and why?
Hello Hobbes - how are you today?Hobbes' Choice wrote:Still peddling your crazy bollocks?attofishpi wrote:South America to scale
You are TIT obsessed.attofishpi wrote:Hello Hobbes - how are you today?Hobbes' Choice wrote:Still peddling your crazy bollocks?attofishpi wrote:South America to scale
Do you like the South America painting?
Do you think its my crazy bollocks and why?
Arn't you resourceful Hobbes, well done. So the above means im a schizo...oh well you truly are a sane and obviously very rational chap.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Brazil
1350-1400; Middle English brasile < Medieval Latin < Italian < Spanish brasil, derivative of brasa live coal (the wood being red in color) < Germanic; see braise
Bra
1910-15; < French brassière bodice worn as an undergarment to support the breasts (now obsolete in this sense), Middle French bracieres camisole, Old French: armor for the arms, equivalent to bras arm (see brace ) + -ière, suffix added to body part nouns, the resultant derivative denoting an article for that part < Latin -āria -ary
False association is a sign of schizophrenia
You are a serious case.attofishpi wrote:Arn't you resourceful Hobbes, well done. So the above means im a schizo...oh well you truly are a sane and obviously very rational chap.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Brazil
1350-1400; Middle English brasile < Medieval Latin < Italian < Spanish brasil, derivative of brasa live coal (the wood being red in color) < Germanic; see braise
Bra
1910-15; < French brassière bodice worn as an undergarment to support the breasts (now obsolete in this sense), Middle French bracieres camisole, Old French: armor for the arms, equivalent to bras arm (see brace ) + -ière, suffix added to body part nouns, the resultant derivative denoting an article for that part < Latin -āria -ary
False association is a sign of schizophrenia
My turn...in 2017 (This is our current point in time Hobbes btw) :-
bra
Noun.
1. worn by women to support their breasts
--------------------------------------------------
Brazil
Noun.
1. the largest Latin American country and the largest Portuguese speaking country in the world; located in eastern South America; world's leading coffee exporter
--------------------------------------------------
natal
Adjective.
1. ( Medicine) of or relating to birth. 2. a rare word for native: natal instincts. [C14: from Latin nātālis of one's birth, from nātus, from nascī to be born]
--------------------------------------------------
A chill up your spine
Phrase.
Things that are scary can make you feel cold and make you shiver a little bit. So when something is frightening, you can say that it "sends chills up your spine". This phrase is usually for talking about scary things. However, in some situations you can also use it for things that make you really excited in a positive way. For example: The chorus of that song is so beautiful. When I hear that, it sends chills up my spine.
--------------------------------------------------
If God didn't forge the landmass, and evolve their naming into the current form, then all we have is a strange set of 3 coincidences.
The Coincidences:-
1: So what we have is a landmass, that to scale, i could turn into the profile of a very large breasted woman - in the landmass Bra_zil.
2. On the very nipple of this Bra landmass is a town called Natal - (dict. of or relating to childbirth).
3. The very spine of this landmass is a perfectly located Chile - as the saying goes - a chill up your spine.
Do you think these are rather peculiar coincidences?
Cop-out. You cannot argue against what are extremely unlikely to be naturally occurring 'coincidences'...and that is just one of the images.Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are a serious case.
I am embarrassed on your behalf.
SImply; you are MAD.attofishpi wrote:Cop-out. You cannot argue against what are extremely unlikely to be naturally occurring 'coincidences'...and that is just one of the images.Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are a serious case.
I am embarrassed on your behalf.
atto again outwits an atheist.
You should be embarrassed on your own behalf - unable to refute my claims, and instead having to resort to cheap digs.Hobbes' Choice wrote:SImply; you are MAD.attofishpi wrote:Cop-out. You cannot argue against what are extremely unlikely to be naturally occurring 'coincidences'...and that is just one of the images.Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are a serious case.
I am embarrassed on your behalf.
atto again outwits an atheist.
Depends upon what you call God, so God needs to be defined first absolutely.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Makes me wonder.
PhilX
I would give it a practical definition, like "The supernatural entity(s) that is(are) responsible for the existence of the (natural) universe". If it is part of the universe, it might just be any random superior thing. I don't consider that a god in any way. If it has complete power over you, then there is a master/slave relationship, but still not a god.Beauty wrote:Depends upon what you call God, so God needs to be defined first absolutely.
That would be a mommy, not a god. You want such a relationship with a god, but I see nothing that necessitates this.Then, we have in a way defined God using the backwards, in the sense that God is someone or something we like, love, hold in high esteem, bow to, adore, appreciate immensely, perhaps cannot do without etc.
And you don't fit this description? What is your thinking independent of, and why does a computer not have that independence?I don't think it could ever be God itself for it cannot think, feel, understand etc., for it only responds to previously coded information, so independent thinking etc., in the computer is not there.
Well, you definitely raise some good points here.Noax wrote:I would give it a practical definition, like "The supernatural entity(s) that is(are) responsible for the existence of the (natural) universe". If it is part of the universe, it might just be any random superior thing. I don't consider that a god in any way. If it has complete power over you, then there is a master/slave relationship, but still not a god.Beauty wrote:Depends upon what you call God, so God needs to be defined first absolutely.
Any computer created in this universe is still a natural one, and thus cannot be responsible for the existence of the universe. A god of something perhaps, but not our god.
Phil (in post 11) implies that mathematics is only a property of the universe, so mathematics would not be valid for a supernatural entity that created it, and thus that while God might exist, is not a computer as we know it that utilizes mathematics.
That would be a mommy, not a god. You want such a relationship with a god, but I see nothing that necessitates this.Then, we have in a way defined God using the backwards, in the sense that God is someone or something we like, love, hold in high esteem, bow to, adore, appreciate immensely, perhaps cannot do without etc.
And you don't fit this description? What is your thinking independent of, and why does a computer not have that independence?I don't think it could ever be God itself for it cannot think, feel, understand etc., for it only responds to previously coded information, so independent thinking etc., in the computer is not there.
So when we make movies(silver screen), who is there on the screen, not us? It is us, so we are part of what we made.Noax wrote: I would give it a practical definition, like "The supernatural entity(s) that is(are) responsible for the existence of the (natural) universe". If it is part of the universe, it might just be any random superior thing. I don't consider that a god in any way. If it has complete power over you, then there is a master/slave relationship, but still not a god.
In so much as everything in this world can have power over us, everything must sit God.Noax wrote: Any computer created in this universe is still a natural one, and thus cannot be responsible for the existence of the universe. A god of something perhaps, but not our god.
So I made paper and am utilizing it also, so then because I am utilizing paper, I did not make it? I did(only an example).Noax wrote: Phil (in post 11) implies that mathematics is only a property of the universe, so mathematics would not be valid for a supernatural entity that created it, and thus that while God might exist, is not a computer as we know it that utilizes mathematics.
In this example, you would create paper, but also be made of paper yourself. Sort of a chicken and egg problem.Beauty wrote:So I made paper and am utilizing it also, so then because I am utilizing paper, I did not make it? I did(only an example).
I think this will answer it all:Noax wrote:In this example, you would create paper, but also be made of paper yourself. Sort of a chicken and egg problem.Beauty wrote:So I made paper and am utilizing it also, so then because I am utilizing paper, I did not make it? I did(only an example).
It is a bit irrelevant. I believe I misrepresented Phil's statement that mathematics is only a property of the universe. He defines universe as all there is (including God), making the statement empty. Phil perhaps has no word to distinguish created from creator.
To me, 'universe' has two context-dependent meanings, both short of 'all existence'.
1) Everything that is part of our fundamental physics (including other inflation bubbles for instance)
2) Everything part of our local piece of accessible spacetime, a far more restrictive definition.
The latter is probably how most people use the word. Mathematics appears not to only be a property of the universe by either definition. If the universe exists because of a god, then it is the 1st definition that is the created thing. There are no unicorns on earth in the latter restricted definition. The speed of light is not a property of the first definition of universe, but it is a property of the second one.
Your point is invalid. The creator cannot be in it's creation because they are inseparably one and the same no thing.. aka oneness. No thing created oneness, it's an illusion, any creation is therefore just an image of the imageless. A reflection of invisible light/energy. No logically coherent description exists by which a thing can create itself.Beauty wrote: Point is that in the created the creator can be, also the creator can use the created as in using a pen, and so forth.