| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
Romans 8:28 (Lyric) by amanda_dcosta I sit here alone deep in thought
What will my future bring me?
It's so uncertain, and distrought
There's million things that scare me.
There's dreams not met, there's hopelessness,
And feelings of despair
For each time I thread on this path
I'm scared and run away.
Yes, this is life as we see it
Its common where we live
To turn around, and with a bound
to gallop out of reach.
But, when i met my Saviour,
He changed my life around,
He held me with his loving arms,
And carried me right on.
And now I live with courage,
I do not fear the night
For by the name of Jesus
I see the light.
I see the light that guides me
I see the light that shines
Inside me, growing brighter
As with love in me he smiles.
He gives me hope to dream on
He gives me hope to grow
And with each and every passing day
I see him more and more.
I am not scared or worried
My spirit not forlorn
There's radiant plans for me I know
Because I love him so.
Up the ladder:
Perfect Time of Year
Down the ladder:
Mittens
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 7.0
Posted: December 29, 2005 11:01 AM PST; Last modified: December 29, 2005 12:27 PM PSTWeighted score: 5.537883 Overall Rank: 2553 Comments:
[n/a]
amanda_dcosta @ 203.145.159.37
|
29-Dec-05/11:03 AM
|
Reply
Romans 8:28.... All things work for good to those that love the Lord..............
Are the first two stanzas an intro of sorts, with a different rhythm? I can feel the rhythm in the last six stanzas but not in the first two. Also in line 4, stanza 1, is it supposed to read "there's a million" or "millions of?" And in stanza two, line 3, is it supposed to read "thread," as you have it, or "tread." Sorry if I seem nit-picky but an answer to these questions is helpful in getting a true handle on the poem.
Yeah Paul, the 1st two stanzas are an intro to what we see in today's world. I've just personalized it instead of making it sound abstract.
About the ref. - it is actually "a million", and "tread"... Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for the review.... Glad you took interest in it.
You're welcome Amanda. Just a thought--in stanza 5, the last line,"I see the light"--could you describe the light (i.e. "the purest light," "the brightest light," or whatever light) Just something to keep the bounce in your rhythm. I really like the way you write by the way.
:-)
I agree. Rhyme or don't rhyme, not both. It's fixable. Just read it over and over aloud and work out the bugs.
The last line of stanza 2? maybe change to "I'm running away scared." But as far as I'm concerned it's fine to mix the styles up a little. This isn't your best work though. I believe on God. I'm not sure why.
Maybe you can give me some logical explanation for believing in God.
Because 1 + 1 = 2
You sound ridiculous. Please listen: '1 + 1 = 2' is ONLY a way we made up to represent how if you have, say, one bowl of custard and you put it next to one other bowl of custard, you have two bowls of custard. 'One' and 'two' are ONLY words we've made up to represent different amounts of custard. 'Custard' is only a tasteless dessert the British made up to represent civilised living. THERE'S NO MAGIC TO IT. THERE'S NOTHING ETERNAL, SUBLIME, OR EXTRINSIC ABOUT IT. It's a LANGUAGE (ie, SET OF SYMBOLS) we MADE UP to represent things that happen reasonably enough WITHOUT GOD. For example,
O OO OOO OOOO See? Now, for all our sakes, please get off this God is Because Math Works stupidity. Seriously, you sound like a moron. PS-Happy New Second. Guess God wasn't working too hard when he invented time, huh?
Poor Dovina.....I wonder what she did to you zodiac. She sounds so innocent when she says 1+1=2. You sound just like my husband who has a lecture for almost anything. Are you two related? Wonder what it would be if you really were!
:-)
I agree with dovina. Just because something is simple does not mean its not complicated.
The question was proof of the logical explaination for god, the answers is 1+1=2,it is a simple way to show that the answer is all around us. simple for the faithful, difficult for the wise. For they search in the deepest of logic, most complicated thoughts while not realising that the answer stares from every little molecule. the natural order of the universe is chaos and any matter left alone moves towards it. energy is required to bring order into chaos. look at the beautiful rules that guide everything and see the simplicity of it all. look deep inside you and take a small breath, you will see the light of dovinas statement............
But God created the universe didn't he? I mean when exactly did he decide to go from chaotic natural universe to governed unnatural universe? God is the truth and logic seeks the truth so why isn't logic logically the best way to find God? Faith only desires to feel true. What Zodiac was saying is that math is a metaphor for anything that appears consistent or repetitive. Is that proof of God? Could you imagine a heaven where everyone was a cookie cut out doing the exact same things at the exact same time? Scary. In truthful reality 1+1=1 of each for everything is unique even if just for it's occupation of space and time. I love the fact that you are using the bible as a metaphor for your life because the truest bible you'll ever read is yourself. I just think you're smart enough to search deeper into yourself and find a God that doesn't sound so much like a fairytale. But even if you don't I still think your poetry is quite beautiful.
To answer Dovina's earlier question:
Imagine a universe without intelligent beings. Now suppose that in this universe there's a plum O - And another plum O Of course, they're not called 'plums', since there's no one there to call them anything. But I think we can agree that for all practical purposes the plums are there and pretty much the same as they are here.* Are you with me? In English, you'd say, 'There are two plums'. 'Two' is only a description of plums, specifically a description of quantity. We could just as easily say 'There are purple plums' or 'There are round plums'. In a universe with no intelligent beings, the descriptions 'two', 'purple' and 'round' wouldn't exist, of course - no language would. But the nature of the plums, the quantity, color, and shape, wouldn't be any different there. You see? You can also just as easily (and correctly) say 'One plum and one plum means there are two plums', or 'One plum PLUS one plum means two plums'. That's still just description, right? Mathematicians abbreviate those sentence into '1 + 1 = 2'. They all mean the same thing. They're all only language. I can even do more complicated descriptions. Suppose in our hypothetical universe I have three valleys, each of which have three plums - or, \ O O O /\ O O O /\ O O O / In English, I can say 'There are nine plums', or 'Three valleys with three plums in each of them means there are nine plums altogether', or 'Three groups of three plums means nine plums', or '3 x 3 = 9'. All of those statements are essentially equivalent. They're just our language for describing plums. They don't change the nature of the plums. WHAT I THINK YOU'RE SAYING: One characteristic of intelligent beings that wouldn't exist in an unintelligent (or God-oriented) universe is our tendency to arbitrarily group discrete, unique objects, to say 'There are two PLUMS' instead of, say, 'There is one round purplish thing and one not-so-round reddish-yellow thing'. You'd think that in, um, Heaven, one could only say 'One round purplish thing and one not-round red-yellow thing means only one round purplish thing and one not-round red-yellow thing.' Everything's unique individualness in the eyes of God means no two things can be grouped into 'plums', ergo no numbers and maths. Bollocks, I say. I can do math descriptions at any level. For instance, 'How many things with color are there? Two.' Or, 'How many different shapes are there? Two.' Or simply, 'How many things are there? Two.'
* = http://examinedlifejournal.com/thinkabou
That's not what I'm saying. If you're vague enough you can group everything together but that huge number that you would have is just a symbol for the connecting relationship between the things being grouped. If you have a plum and an apple than yes you have two fruits but if you just tell somebody you have two fruits and they know you only own plums and apples then they are just as likely to assume you have two plums or two apples. So if you say you have one of each then you are obviously more accurate. You're aware that occupying different space means different time so one plum is always going to be older and so they are different. I'm only warning that it is dangerous to group things together without acknowledging first their differences. So one apple + one plum doesn't = 2 apples or 2 plums but two fruits. Yes 3 quantum identical plums + 3 more + 3 more = 9 quantum identical plums but what if 3 of them were apples. Then something needs redefined. I'm only saying math relies entirely on the object or subject it's describing. What the heck does E=mc2 mean if you don't attach it to something that exists. So really I was just agreeing with you and trying to put what you were saying in laymans terms. And failing miserably.
By the way here's a version of genesis you might enjoy: http://www.annex.com/glopez/bookof.htm
What I kind of enjoyed was saying "unintelligent (or God-oriented)".
Hint: I'm not equating the two! Bonus hint: The conversation just worked out that way! Honest injun!
What bothers me more about this conversation is that Dovina's basically saying The proof of God is that things are reasonable. That is, if you count one plum and one plum, you always end up with two plums and not, say, five plums or an infinite number of goldfish. If you did get five plums or infinite goldfish, Dovina would likely say that's proof of God.
MORAL: God exists because things are logical. God exists if things are illogical. I think this is because Dovina doesn't have a very good idea about math, language, God, logic or plums. But that's just me. Amanda, I'm trying. Really I am.
She just hasn't been here long enough to see how wondrously Dovina burns her candle at both ends.
Could be taken too many ways. What do you mean?
What I truly love about you is I know you'll take it in the most positive way and so that is how I mean for you to take it.
If you wish to argue against Platonism, in favor of constructivism, you could do so civilly, as Brouwer and Heyting did, without calling anyone a moron, which seems like an illogical thing to do in a discussion of philosophy at this level. You could also listen to the question Alchemy asked, âI believe on God. I'm not sure why. Maybe you can give me some logical explanation for believing in God.â And you might have considered my tenuous answer, âBecause 1 + 1 = 2â with its various implications, before spouting off like some bloated whale without provocation.
Take whatever position you want, but at least consider that a logical God might be discussable by non-morons. I hate name-dropping, and here Iâve done it. Thatâs how far youâve drug me down.
"1 + 1 = 2" is Platonic and eternal because one thing and one thing always makes two things. The implications of "1 + 1 = 2" is that there is some real thing that one of and one of makes two of. Platonic, eternal, and implications are just language describing one thing and one thing. So is my language, except mine is simpler and doesn't lead to mistakes like thinking it's evidence of God.
PS-Please take note of the God exists because things are logical, God exists if things are illogical comment.
Just one of your many logical mistakes in this arguement is deducing that anyone said that God exists because things are logical.
One of your many logical mistakes in this argument is thinking the word "logical" means anything different from "orderly", "consistent" or "predictable". You've said dozens of times on this site that you think the universe's consistent adherence to physical (or evolutionary) rules is possible evidence of God. You believe the statement 1 + 1 = 2 exists in some eternal, Platonic order beyond our mere mortal bow'ls. If that so-called order isn't God, what is it?
That's very easy for you to say. You already have faith in God, part of which says that every little molecule is perfect and proof of God; another, bigger part of which says that God requires no proof.
It's easy for me to take a small breath and imagine a universe run by God, though I bet it's nearly impossible for you to take a breath and imagine my idea of universe: where everything runs perfectly reasonably without Him. Does that mean God's better? No, it probably just means He's easier.
Personally I don't think it's hard to imagine this universe without god or even one in which he allows things to run without him. "GOD, is an absentee LANDLORD!"-Al Pacino as the devil in The Devil's Advocate. But I prefer to keep my options open. God is easier to live with when you put some if not most of the responsiblity on him. It's good to have him around to mentally get you through the toughest times.
You don't need logic to believe in God. ( Like for eg. - Logic states that God is love, love is blind, therefore God is blind.)
Believing in God doesn't really work this way. It as simple as watching a child put his trust in his father and holding his hand to be by his side...for whatever it may be.... a joy ride, a walk, to run through a storm, or to play... it doesn't matter what. I suppose its called 'child-like faith'. The child lets his father decide the course of action , trusting him unconditionally. And no matter what happens, there's a strong bond between father and child....a bond unable to be explained specifically with words but felt intensely through love.
Just because someone said that love is blind and sometimes it appears to be blind doesn't make it blind. As far as God is love? Well love is a chemical reaction sturred by mental stimuli that is designed to urge a species to procreate ie. Sex or it is a simular chemical reaction meant to cause a desire to group oneself with another usually for the sake of safety and survival.
So maybe God exist for the sake of sex and safety. I kinda like that idea. Shouldn't God be blind in the way "love is blind" anyway. "No, your ugly. You can't go to heaven." Seems logical that in that way God should be blind. Why shouldn't a God that created us to think in logical terms(at least aspire to) not make his own existance appear logical? If that child's father told him to go kill his puppy to prove his loyalty to him. if his father watched him being tortured and nailed to a telephone pole and didn't do a thing about it even though he could have ended it emediately. Do you honestly think the child would still trust him? Only if the child was insane. If I told you that the bible you read is one that was rewritten and edited by the multi-god Greeks and Romans and then later by a cruel English monarchy. If I told you some books of the bible are lost forever to us and some passages were entirely invented in later versions of the bible. Would you still call it the word of God and worship the bible(which by the way the bible tells us not to worship objects)? I don't mean to scare or offend you but if the word of God exist then the only place it's truly written is on our souls. I do believe the spirit of God(whatever he is) eminates from the bible as well as others. The Chronicles of Narnia for example or Dante's Devine Comedy. The childs bond to it's father can be summed up like this: If you drop me I might die but you hold me and feed me and keep me warm so that I don't die so I guess I owe my life to you at least until I'm old enough to live on my own. Now, I'm about to tell you what God is so hold on. God is the idea that something exist beyond our capacity of knowledge and the hope that someday we may become a part of that higher level of existance.
I disagree with AlChemy. But I also disagree that "Logic states that God is love, love is blind, therefore God is blind."
The rest of your comment is perfectly good. Why bring logic into it at all? Because the faithful see something like a tsunami and say "How can I force this horrible thing to fit with my idea of a loving God?" The reasonable say "How should I change my idea about tsunamis to fit with this thing?" Does that make us better off? Well, if it's any consolation, you get to go to heaven.
just because logic does not connect to god at present, does not mean god does not exist nor that logic is wrong. gravity existed from the beginning and people understood something was there but later as we understood gravity it became more real to us.
I do know one thing guys our god does not mind discussion or logical attempts to understand him. his mind is wide and i am sure he loves our search for him. its better to keep wondering where he is and what answers he has for the millions of tears we shed everyday. i believe god follows the rules he has put down for us. when u all discuss things i struggle to see the logic behind things. if we are not his intellectual equals we too would struggle to keep up with him but i think we should not be afraid of lifting the shrouds of mystery. to the simple it is only about 2 laws but for the complicated, you are needed to remind us of the dust in the pictures of our god. I understand when u say gods written in our souls ,so keep searching he will lead u and me to him in his time.
No, no. Most simply put, what we're saying is that God is not bound by logic. And even that's not correct. God IS logical, as shown by the following:
1. God can do everything. 2. The set of everything includes 'defy gravity'. 3. God can defy gravity. 1. God knows best. 2. God kills 200,000 people incomprehensibly (to us). 3. God knows best. Provided you accept 'God can do everything' and 'God knows best' as true, it's perfectly easy to understand God and His Works using logic. Most people - including Dovina, most likely - don't really accept those propositions as true, so they think logic doesn't apply to God, and they're in for a world of hurt. Even nonbelievers would do well to consider: 1. God doesn't fit with my idea of the universe. 2. There is possibly a God who can make any kind of universe. 3. The set of any universe includes my universe. 4. There is possibly a God.
That's pretty much what I asked for. A logical statement about Gods existence.
Stop making a God out of logic. It is not foolproof and some peoples version of logic is downright rediculous. Logic has more to do with faith than God does. All logic is, is a way of thinking about things. It depends on the point of view of the person as to whether it is reasonable or not. Use science or math but don't narrow the definition of logic to just what you or scientist think although in your own mind that is perfectly logical.
There is no "people's version of logic". There's only Real Logic and Bad Logic, like "People can fly; I'm a person; therefore I can fly". All logical arguments fall into one or the other category. Things that fall into the Real Logic category never contradict each other. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my logic might be bad logic.
I don't understand this version of Good and Bad Logic. One thing I can stress though, is that however much we discuss God logically, it will not be as easy to see Him as He is as when we see Him through the eyes of faith. Yes, take a look at Abraham, didn't he obey the call of God to sacrifice his only son. What was the result? And I do agree in today's world that parents abandon their child( children), and the like. But one thing we do not understand is that we do not take the time to understand our God for the way He is and on being personal with Him, He reveals a lot of treasures in your life. I have loads of events that I could witness to you about if you are interested( which I doubt strongly), buit that's not the point. The point which I want to stress is that, in all simplicity, God stares you right in the face. Open your eyes and see Him. And when you do you will know the difference. All your logic will only then work clearly.
Good logic is, well, logical. It starts with propositions and makes a logical conclusion. Like:
1. I am taller than my brother. 2. My brother is six feet tall. 3. Therefore, I'm taller than six feet tall. Or, 1. All apples are fruits. 2. Meat is not a fruit. 3. Therefore meat is not an apple. That I'm taller than my brother and that my brother is six feet tall are proveable; we're both in the house, we can measure. That I'm taller than six feet follows naturally. Even things that don't exist can be logical. For example: 1. In an imaginary universe, all snorkbeasts have fangs. 2. Steve does not have fangs. 3. Therefore, Steve is not a snorkbeast. Bad logic makes one or more mistakes in that process. Easy examples of bad logic are: 1. I'm taller than my brother. 2. My brother is six feet tall. 3. Therefore, I'm older than my brother. 1. I'm taller than everybody. 2. My brother is six feet tall. 3. Therefore, I'm taller than my brother. 1. All apples are fruits. 2. Meat is not an apple. 3. Therefore, meat is not a fruit. It doesn't make any difference that I AM older and taller than my brother; the logical process getting there is still flawed, because height doesn't really have anything to do with age, and because I'm not taller than everybody. Anyway, that's the short version. What I've been trying to say is that everybody needs to stop talking about God in the context of logic, because whether you believe in God or not ultimately comes down to whether you accept 'God can do everything' and 'God knows best' as true. There are no possible proofs for those propositions, so in the end you have to just decide to accept them or not based on your own feelings. I'm also saying that if you believe in God, He seems very obvious and things seem very reasonable. But if you don't believe in God, He seems very non-obvious and things seem very reasonable. Logic has nothing to do with it. And trying to 'prove' God with logic is actually disgusting.
I agree with you that it is disgusting trying to prove God logically. That is why I made it clear earlier in the day that we should have child like faith and that believing in God has nothing to do with logic. It a challenge for each one of us to see Him through the eyes of faith like Abraham saw him. Well, be a man and challenge Him to prove His love to you. After that, share your experiences with us, or atleast me.... i would be interested cause i know there's always a positive outcome when you discover Him.
You don't believe in psychology do you? Otherwise you would have no problem coming up with a logical or should I say psychoLOGICAL reason for believing in God. I did not ask for proof. I only asked for logical reason. Dovina had the right idea but her answer was too vague and symbolic. You could have said that God is the reminder that we don't know everthing yet and the goal that always lies ahead. By being this, he motivates us and in this way he is a good thing to believe in. But apparently you both know better because you both say that in the search of truth(Logic) you will never find God. What does that say about your idea of what God is?
See, alchemy... you asked for some logical explanation as to why you believe in God. Well, you will never be able to understand God with a logical mind, only with a simple, loving heart. Questioning minds only search for truth, but the loving heart finds the answers. I can boldly say this from experience.
Love is patient, kind, never proud or envious, slow to anger and never rude, never keeps account of wrong, does not delight in evil but always rejoices in the truth, sacrifices, always gives, perseveres and never fails. 1 Cor:12 You might have encountered these qualities which have touched your life unconciously and have driven you to believe in God. Look deeper into this and you will really find beauty in the existence of our God. Believe me its all around, coz God's embracing us... feel His presence.
Yes but my statement about what God might be and why I might believe is feasible or in other words logical.
Truth really is that I believe I live in 2 dimensions. The first one is one where logic reigns and God is in the less fancy role as "The Undiscovered". The second dimension is one where logic takes a back seat and God is a baby dreaming and we are figments of his imagination. This place I call Googooville.
How can I not believe in psychology? Do you mean that I don't believe in some of the theories formulated by psychologists? You're right, I don't. But that's not the point. The point is that I've been saying for a week now that the only real way to believe in God is by feeling Him in your bow'ls. There is no possible proof of God because God means "He Who can do everything", and that's unproveable. To paraphrase -=Dark_Angel=-'s question from another context, If you hear a giant voice in the sky saying "I am God", is that proof of God? Or possibly an megalomaniac in an airplane with a loudspeaker? What if someone rises from the dead? Is that proof of a God who can do Everything? No. And how do you test "everything", anyway?
What does it say about God you can't look for him in truth? Happy New Year.
Then why bother looking for him at all?
Your answer: That's my point.
Then why believe in him? Your answer: I don't know. 'Cause it makes you feel good. Thank you Zodiac I now believe God must exist. Human logic is limited. Ultimate knowledge is God. Forgive me if I sought both. Goodbye human logic, goodbye.
Because most people, myself included, are compelled to find or make some meaning for their existences. Compelled by what? TV, I'd say.
There you go again acting like logic exist outside it's concept. The only perfect(real) logic would have to have all the information there can be on the subject it's focused on. Being that logic is a method of using data and it aspires to find the perfect truth about it's subject. Because our data on most things is not complete then our logic must also be incomplete. Most of us use bad logic to some degree and all of us do it in different ways. Aristotle's logic, economic logic, predicate logic, Boolean logic, fuzzy logic, first-order logic, intuitionistic logic, I could go on. But of course your insisting that there is no logic in God and that these believers are mindless drones who will except anything attached to God as the Gospel truth. True there is bad logic and good logic in those beliefs and ideas but that can be said about most of us if not all of us. See it's a mix. What you call the only logic is really just the best method we know of now to find out the truth about something. Either that or you're talking about an idealized infallible logic that doesn't quite exist.
I'll hand you this: You're consistent and persistent. Maybe that's what you mean by burning a candle at both ends. Zodiac bounces from fuzzy logic to illogic and back so much it's dizzying.
You'd laugh if you knew what my real motives for arguing with him on this subject are. No, I'm won't tell you yet either. I will give him this. For all his degrees and apperant know-it-allness he is still willing to bend a little and give folks the benefit of the doubt sometimes. He'll even occasionally swallow his pride. I'm still pretty sure I know women better than him.
As far as you go dovina, don't you dare change anything. This site just wouldn't be the same without you.
You know women better than him? Wow, I won't even count the ways that could be taken. Oh, yes - in the most positive way.
I won't speculate on your motives for arguing this issue so long and hard with zodiac. As for not changing anything, I was considering a new username: Queen_of_the_Logical_Universe.
LOL
At least I know you should finish an argument with a woman by telling her how lovely she is or to just say OK dear from the start. Better leave it at Queen_of_the_Poemranker_Universe. If anyone fits that title it's you.
Congraulations Dovina! :-)
I disagree. Anyone who is anyone in the poemranker universe knows a queen always carries a good chainsaw. <~> has an Husqvarna. I've seen it. It's chrome!
Yes lets be democratic and have a vote. Next posts by the two after this date, we'll count the votes of 0 and whoever get's more over the period of a week will be queen. Self voting encouraged.
Show me a queen who ever gained her title democratically. I think the use of "her" eliminates the queens Intransit is talking about.
J. Edgar Hoover?
I'm a little hurt by "degrees and apparent know-it-allness". All I mean by that is that I've worked hard to know as much as I can about things that interest me, and I'm naive enough to think that matters. If you were a pool shark, I wouldn't insult your experience by saying it's perfectly okay to play with live baby pigeons instead of billiard balls.
First of all I didn't mean it as an insult. There aren't many people with your education that don't totally let it go to their heads. Sheesh!
Second I was a pool shark once and metaphorically speaking I only said that you were willing to ease up on your game a little so that you didn't leave others feeling insufficient. You know, 'cause you're such a nice guy and all.
Happy Jan. 2 Zodiac.
Stupid. Fuzzy logic is illogic. There's no distinction. And I've admitted my areguementes might be flawed, which is more than you've had the common courtesy to do, Miss.
Fuzzy logic:
1. I'm taller than everybody. 2. My brother is six feet tall. 3. Therefore, I'm taller than my brother. The fuzzy-logic word here is âtherefore.â Without it, No. 3 would be perfectly logical, and your assertion of its illogic absurd. But âthereforeâ is not totally illogical since it works with Statement 1, and No.2 is irrelevant. Read it without No. 2, and it means the same thing. Illogic: Dovina is a moron because she cites 1 + 1 = 2 as evidence for a logical God.
You're blathering. You have no idea how badly you're coming off here. Please stop now.
No answer, eh?
We seem to agree on the meaning of fuzzy logic, but that is, of course, an overwrought assumption, not to be agreed with.
My answer is, You're blathering. This is insane. We have no common vocabulary with which to continue this discussion. Do you even know the difference between a logical proposition and a proof? Or between logic and proof, even? (DOVINA: A logical proposition is blah blah blah... ZODIAC: Shut up.) I could say your characterizations of fuzzy logic and illogic are ludicrous and the most made-up things I've ever read on poemranker, and you're just going to say "Hair jelly" or something equally ludicrous. Let's just stop. Now.
It's a Tower of Babel then.
Yeah, I guess so.
For this reason God made two heavens - one for those who speak in tongues,and one for those who hoped the laws of physics would change. Go to babblefish.com for translation.
First this:http://dictionary.reference.com/sea
Now I'll cut through all my BS. I'm sure you'll reply bullocks to this but all forms of human conceptual thought involves both elements of faith(assumption) and logic(truth). To assume that we think entirely through logic or believe entirely through faith is delusional, at least in it's practical use in the real world. You can not seperate the two from any human concept as nothing can totally be proven to make it complete logic nor disproved to make it a matter of complete faith.
1) "Fuzzy logic" is a term used by, oh, fishmongers and politicians. No person who'd ever studied logic, proof, or nearly anything else would ever say "fuzzy logic", except in the most tasteless of jokes.
2) Yes, of course most people use some mix of logic and (blind) faith to get through their lives. I've not suggested otherwise. I personally don't think it's as healthy to use faith as it is to use logic, but then most people are awful at logic, so they're just as well off using faith as sullying the good name of logic. Which they do anyway. If it's any consolation to the faithful, they'll get to go to heaven and I won't. I think if you got down to it, you'd find that logic and faith aren't as often as odds as you'd expect. Actually, I believe the logical conclusion matches the faithful conclusion in almost every instance where logic applies. In a case where your dog dies and you feel his presence somewhere in the bow'lsphere or whatever, logic doesn't and can't apply. Anyone who has told you so is a bad logician, and disqualified. Ergo, I consider myself a pretty logical person; at least, I base most of my decisions on the best of my logicking abilities; and I think you'll find we agree on most matters not 100% related to faith. Here's what gets me - YOU: Nothing can totally be proven to make it complete logic nor disproved to make it a matter of complete faith. ME: Not true. For example: Under conditions such as those existing in a laboratory on Earth at the present moment, objects falling in a vacuum will accelerate toward the Earth's center at a calculable rate irrespective of their mass = true, logical, and proveable. 2. I feel bored = true, logical, unproveable. 3. God exists = possibly true, unlogical, proveable. 4. There possibly exists a Being who can do everything = true, logical, unproveable. What allows you to make such grandoise assertions as "nothing can totally be proven to make it complete logic nor disproved to make it a matter of complete faith"? YOU: Faith. ME: Okay. Well, then... Um...
"ME: Not true. For example: Under conditions such as those existing in a laboratory on Earth at the present moment, objects falling in a vacuum will accelerate toward the Earth's center at a calculable rate irrespective of their mass = true, logical, and proveable."
First you have to determine when the object started falling. You can't. You can only give a relatively practical number or word to describe when it started falling. It could be that for the first incalculable moments the object is falling that it actually falls at a different rate than the calculated moments. It probably doesn't fall at a different rate because that would be inconsistant but at a quantum level all sorts of strange things happen. What allows you to make such grandiose assertions as to say you know things at a quantum level that nobody else does. YOU: Logic. ME: + Faith.
No. The rule I gave takes time into consideration. I think you misread it. The trick was "calculable rate" - specifically 9.8 meters/second^2 at sea level at a certain temperature. The speed doesn't stay the same. After one second, the object's falling 9.8 m/s; after 2 seconds, the object's falling 19.6 m/s, and so forth. After one half-second, it's falling at a speed proportional to 9.8m/s^2.
The quantum level is a trump card and straw man. Nobody knows for sure what happens at the quantum level, if there is such a thing. No logician or mathematician claims to. That's why, for everyone except poets, "rules" or "laws" of physics are given as long strings of conditions (see my gravity rule above) with plenty of room for as-yet unobserved conditions. That's why we're right and poets aren't.
Yeah I meant to change that first sentence but I got side tracked by my 6 yr. old niece. The rest of what you said is pretty much what I was trying to say. I suppose there are some truly wise logicians who are willing to leave room for microanomalies(How you like that for a compound word?) even in the surest of rules but those folks are few and far between. Most of them think they know more than they know.
Most nonlogicians think they know more than they know. So, logically, you're left withL What's it better to be, a logician who thinks he knows more than he knows or a nonlogician who thinks he knows more than he knows? Thinking you know more ceases to be a factor, except for dissing people.
I don't think it really matters that much as long as their not bothering me. Whatever floats their boat.
Maybe we should just start typing "The last word" back and forth until one of us gives up. This brain-fencing can be exhausting.
Agreed. I just moved to Alaska, a 12-hour flight at the end of a two-day party. I'm in no mood to continue this.
Most people go to these far off places in search of adventure. You just seem to get Forest Gumped into them. Lucky for you, you're a writer.
Sometimes even I try to understand God logically, but then at times I've given up and relied on "Faith", which has worked for me beautifully. Would you believe it if i told you that God spoke to me about my husband even before I met him ( my husband), the exact words being "Mandy, your husband". And when I looked up and saw this guy grinning away with his friends, my immediate reaction was "O no! NOT HIM!".... Ha ha ha... hmmm.. that was ten years ago. And now we're married happily for seven years, on our eighth. Even when I did take the plunge, i told God that if anything happened to me he was entirely responsible. That's the same even today, and He has never let me down.....There are things I don't understand about Him and logic has not worked in many cases, still even then what I want in my belief in God are the results......having love, joy and peace in my life. And this I do have....loads of it.
No one who has seen the princess bride should be touched. in any meaning of the word. that is my decree.
"Nothing gave Buttercup as much pleasure as ordering Westley around."
"My name is Inigo Montoya. You keel my father. Prepare to die."
Alchemy, she is saying that God is real to her because she feels his presence and sees his action in her life. You are saying that you do not feel him and do not witness his presence in your life. Therefore you want logical reasons for God. You cite Jusus' logic when He was here on earth. And you recall the bad actioins of people who claimed to be following God as they flew airplanes into buildings. But Amanda has found the true God, while the 911 terrorists have not. I know this because her God brings love, joy, and peace, while theirs brings hate and war. You could argue that Amanda's God brings tsunamis and earthquakes, and maybe he does. Maybe Amanda has an answer for that, I don't. And to say that everyone who claims to follow the true God, really does, is ludicrous. But listen to Amanda because she comes closer than most.
I don't believe that I ever said I didn't feel his presence. I feel God's presence when he leaves presents under my Christmas tree every year for instance. Her God's the same one of the great flood and Armageddon right? Just checking. I like the idea of calling him Jusus, like jus'us are getting into heaven. Sorry, Cheap joke. Amanda is close to God because she is a good person(her goodness only finds inspiration in the word of God). The bible did not make her that way, she did. She follows the "true God" because the "true God" inspires her. She'd likely be a good person even without him. In short God is real to me but so is logic. See my paradox yet?
I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the obvious blunder about the J/H thing yet. My correction to it? God is really Hispanic. I think Zodiac is close to winning this debate with me though.
Yes, you never said that you do not feel God's presence. I assumed that from your comments. Many things about God don't make sense logically as you say. But many more don't make sense to me without considering His presence. Your paradox is the same as mine. I feel His presence with an emotional awareness that can be shot in the head with logic. Yet, I don't understand him. The idea of Jes'us - just for us - appeals to me because it makes God personal, and not just for us, but for anyone who believes. But belief is harder than logic for me, so I try to merge the two and imagine logic as a part of God or his creatioin. I hope he understands me, because few others do.
The really scary thing is I think I'm starting to understand you.
Alchemy, I might be a good person, but only because my God inspires me through His word (in the Bible). Without Him I would be a wreck. Just as a vehicle needs refilling each time the fuel tank gets exhausted, ss does my life need refilling (infilling of His Spirit) to help me continue, for there are umpteen times when each of us is exhausted, and we come to a point where we say, 'O God help me!' Banking on His word gives me the confidence that I live in hope even through my toughest times, not worrying what tomorrow brings.
You probably know the story about the 'Footprints in the sands of time'. A man walks with God along the sandy shore of life.... there are two sets of footprints.... and all along there's two sets of prints. But during the toughest times in his life, over the rocky edge of the shore leading him through utmost danger to the other side of safety there's only one set of footprints. He feels dismayed and questions God...'Why did you not walk with me. I was depending on you to hold my hand and lead me through, but have only left me alone to struggle on my own.' ' No', says God. 'The footprints that you see and not yours, but mine. It was through those difficult times that I carried you.'
I think you're a good person with or wothout God. Zodiac is a very good person and he is for all practical purposes an atheist.
If you knew half the things he did to help unfortunate people you wouldn't be so hard on him when he occasionally lets off steam on Dovina or others. Especialy Dovina:) Just kiddin' D. There are plenty of good people out there who have never even heard of God. I hope you'll save a seat for them in heaven.
Thomas you see and believe. Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. (John 20:29).
Happy New Year Amanda.
Alchemy, I really enjoyed reading the above mentioned page. It's more like something that i have been trying to understand and pondering upon,......
'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding.' Job 28:28 Happy New Year to you. I pray the Lord grant you the answers you're looking for; the answers that will satisfy your logical mind and eager heart. Happy New Year.
I think we should functionalize it: K + L = W. Then we could say that W - L + K or L = W - K. Maybe God would be pleased with that since it presents several propositions that we can test logically.
Or: ABC. It's east as 123. It's east as Doh Ray Mee...
Have you stuck gum between your Y and T keys, or is it chewing tobacco?
DOH!
this is a poem as i love to read
it's faith inside what i live for the poem made love
How deep are the depths of the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God!
476 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
