hobbitgonewild

It would not only be recursive but a type of math beyond the laws of math.

Check out Nikki Hornsby and tell me what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Zf61X2j4A

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias...

Now that we've bled some raw posts, it's time for word assasination:

'Jehovah God, the God of the Bible, says that we can use his wisdom to make choices.'

And if his wisdom is or wasn't available... the mayans, the cherokee, the congolese... how can we use his wisdom to make a choice? do they get a free pass? or is there another special exception we have to make?

'Free will is your CHOICE to follow whatever laws/rules you live under, as opposed to a pre-determined fate. Free will and Divine law, or any law, can exist side by side.'

But that's just it.. .your fate is pre-determined.. sure you have choice A or B but in the end all you have is choice A or B which results in... this is without even bothering to question the notion of an all-knowing god...

'What you fail to understand is that Jesus fulfilled the divine law for us. We cannot keep the laws. However, when we invite Jesus to become Lord of our life, instead of us in control, we reap the benefits of what He did for us, including redeeming us from sin. Sin is the whole problem that mankind has.'

This is my whole problem with your view. To accept the character of a sadistic god who knowingly creates people who will sin, the consequence to be damned, to create a world with a word but have to come down as heracles or horus to excuse sin... what game is this?

'On the contrary, you do choose to obey divine law. The Bible makes that clear. You have the choice. Your choice affects the outcome.'

The Bible. The Bible. The Bible. The same one with Soddom and Gemorrah right? Sorry, a god with that kind of character is disgusting...

So would you create a world where beings end up in an oven or strawberry fields forever, to have the power to stall suffering but permit it anyway?

A curious paradox.

In a natural sense men do not possess free will as natural law is a container. I cannot fight death, nor can I flap my arms and fly simply because I WILL it to happen.

In a 'divine' sense, or a moral sense, supposing it exists, we are subject to divine law, the idea that breaking it is a 'sin' and the consequence an eternity in a charcoal pit.

BUT that contradicts the idea of free will, as the human is bound to an end determinant on some divine law, hoping one is even aware of it.. .as the mayans certainly didn't have the luxury of being aware of Mohammad, Moses, Ibrahim or Abraham, and Jesus...

So, is it not so, you cannot have both absolute actual free will and a god who exacts divine law?

http://www.writerscafe.org/HighBrowCulture/blogs/

In other words, much of fundamental science in terms of what is quantifiable seems to be based on measurement, mathematics, etc.. rather theoretical blocks used to determine order. Quantum mechanics began on two curious interpretations: that the observer is unable to precisely measure subatomic particles or that the nature of the system is simply unpredictable. Now I believe that has slightly changed with attempts at the theory of everything which must fundamentally assert that all things theoretically are predictable and linked.

But no such theory of everything has been proven, despite the acceptance of supersymmetry and the such.

So. Is the inability to discover a theory of everything a result of modern physics attempting to understand the order of all things based on the order of fundamental components i.e. gravity, electromagnetism, weak/strong forces without contemplating the idea that the order of all things may actually be maintained by the chaotic underlying elements of all things? In other words, a law of imbalance may actually maintain perfect balance? Absolute order a culmination of fragmented chaos?

In other words, much of fundamental science in terms of what is quantifiable seems to be based on measurement, mathematics, etc.. rather theoretical blocks used to determine order. Quantum mechanics began on two curious interpretations: that the observer is unable to precisely measure subatomic particles or that the nature of the system is simply unpredictable. Now I believe that has slightly changed with attempts at the theory of everything which must fundamentally assert that all things theoretically are predictable and linked.

But no such theory of everything has been proven, despite the acceptance of supersymmetry and the such.

So. Is the inability to discover a theory of everything a result of modern physics attempting to understand the order of all things based on the order of fundamental components i.e. gravity, electromagnetism, weak/strong forces without contemplating the idea that the order of all things may actually be maintained by the chaotic underlying elements of all things? In other words, a law of imbalance may actually maintain perfect balance? Absolute order a culmination of fragmented chaos?

Won a few grammars, played at World Cup 06 song titled 'This IS America'. Check out her stuff and tell me what you think.

Check out Nikki Hornsby "This IS America" on Youtube!

What is the title of the film set in I'm guessing the 80s or 90s in which an IRA member goes to NYC to purchase weaponry and stays in the basement of a cop who eventually finds out and tries to stop him. I think Cage and Dicaprio are in it.

Thoughts on the stimulus package?

I agree with a lot of the components focused on infrastructure, ie repairing roadways, bridges, converting the grids, school reconstruction. I think some of the unemployment benefits as well as the stimulus returns might be a bit much. People are crucifying the Republics for trying to slash it, which is fair, but I feel they have some points we should consider. Tax cuts to big business allows them to expand = more jobs. There are also a lot of scuffled ear marks tucked in as well, ie condom production.

There are obviously several arguements present surrounding the existence of a higher being. Look up anything from Aquinas to Anselm's Ontological Arguement and anything from Descartes to Plantinga. But do any of these arguements truly suffice?

I believe that we must first define the concept of God which is generally that which exists in one's perception as something which nothing greater can be conceived (a notion presented by Anselm). Now this conception of that which nothing greater can be conceived must be totally infinite thus it cannot be multiplied, analyzed, compared, etc.. because it is boundless and everything is less then it. Because men are truly limited in the sense of things, being finite creatures, we are unable to completely conceptualize anything which is conceivably infinite. thus that which something with infinite conceivability must have conceived that which nothing greater can be conceived, now this then goes back to Descartes: I think therefore I am.

We go into Iraq on March 2003 on the premise that Saddam's regime is supporting Al-Qaeda and that he possesses WMDs, despite 2001 and 2002 reports from the Bush administration that only Afghanistan is a necessary target. Well I guess the fact that Saddam's attempt to kill Bush's daddy prompted him to conjure up a pot of boiling bs so he could finish the job in Iraq. Congress voted hands in, but I'm sure not one truly looked into the reports, and only 1 congressman had a child in the military so no loss right, well not for the boys on the hill at least. Funny thing is 15 of the hijackers were Saudi, 7% of the American economy is set on Arabian investments, and on September 13 Bush allowed over 100 Saudis, some of the bin Laden family, board private jets back to Saudi Arabia without a single interrogation. Why doesn't Bush grow balls, pull his hand out the Arabian wallet, and force the Saudi family to cut down on their own terrorist problems? So why are we in Iraq again?

Mine are:

1. Jimi Hendrix

2. BB King

3. Les Paul

4. Jimmy Page

5. Eric Clapton

6. Santana

7. Robert Johnson

8. Jeff Beck

9. Rhandy Rhoads

10. George Harrison