ydoaPs

How do we tell what is obscene? Do we go arresting the executives of HBO for airing Real Sex? AFAICT, he was selling digital copies through Amazon rather than setting up shop in town selling the books. For that, I see no jurisdiction for the locals to arrest him on obscenity laws. From all the sources I've seen, the only hard copy he sold was his own personal volume that he sold because the undercover cop offered him way more than the list price; that seems more like entrapment than a sting. I can see the existence of the book as being justification for a warrant to search for evidence of an actual crime, but arrest based upon the existence of the book alone seems wrong.

An obscenity law? That sounds a wee bit unconstitutional.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h6P-8nQfOIBm3-Gjr7cTxXGbBDxw?docId=CNG.60eb4047766bf2f855b1e742fd8c9784.a91 As far as I can tell, no actual crime was committed. It is NOT child pornography. Child pornography, by virtue of existing implies that a crime occurred, so there is rational warrant for it to be illegal. Occurring to the link above, the 'graphic depictions' were written stories, and thus may not have any basis in factual history.

What was the reason given for the arrest of the guy who was self publishing the pedophile book on Amazon? Is there any evidence that he actually molested any children or attempted to? From the product description of the book: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/amazon-removes-pedophilia-book-store/story?id=12119035&tqkw=&tqshow=

Then why use the free will defense at all? It's an inherent assumption of the free will defense. Accurately depicting the defense while discussing why it doesn't work isn't a bad thing. It's rather similar to Modus Tollens: p->q ~q ~p How is that? By virtue of the free will defense, you imply that free will and moral perfection are incompatible. As such, God does not have free will. In what sense, then, could God choose to do anything? Not really. If free will leads to moral imperfection, then creating beings with free will would be closer to maximizing the likelihood of moral evil and minimizing the likelihood of moral goodness rather than maximizing the likelihood of moral goodness and minimizing the likelihood of moral evil. As such, it would be morally reprehensible to create free will and such a would would NOT be the best of all possible worlds. My second argument is third grade level psychology. Your choices are affected by your values, beliefs, and past experiences. That means your identity is integral to your choices; your choices are utterly dependent upon your nature. It is nonsensical to say that a choice is up to you if the selection among options is completely independent of your nature. Why would having moral perfection be a part of a person's nature keep them from having free will? The answer is it doesn't. If that is the case(which I don't think it is), then free will is immoral and a morally perfect God would not create beings with free will. However, I see no conflict in having moral perfection being a part of the nature of a being with free will. It seems that you also, at least intermittently, agree with me since you've been talking about God(a morally perfect being) making choices.

It still seems to be critiquing the argument rather than the opinion.

Pointing out circular arguments is ostracizing opinions?

http://www.youtube.com/user/googlechrome#p/c/FA594B0BBF1EDFC5/0/7SHbqakDm-w This, imo, is a great idea and I hope they execute it well. It perfectly suits the needs of the majority of computer users. Pros: 1)Bootup speed 2)Lasting speed from files being stored online vice on HD 3)Browsing speed from using Chrome browser 4)Accessibility from being able to access information via other machines 5)Sandboxed applications 6)Verified boot 7)Minimal security risk if device is stolen 8)No loss of information if device is lost Cons: 1)Subject to loss of information upon server destruction(could be sidestepped by thumb drives) 2)Security risk if password is stolen(same with your computer....assuming you password protect it) 3)Restriction to web-based apps All in all, I think it's a pretty good idea. I can't wait to get mine(assuming my application is accepted). Apply for testing here: http://www.google.com/chromeos/ CR-48 Specs: Display Screen size: 12.1 inches Screen resolution: 1280 x 800Aspect ratio: 16:10 Screen type: LCD (Active, Color, Backlit, CCFL) Screen surface: Matte / anti-glare Processor Processor make: Intel CPU family: Atom CPU model: N455 Processor speed: 1.66 GHz Number of cores: Single-core Hyperthreading: Yes Cache size: 32 KB L1 cache 512 KB L2 cache Networking WiFi: 802.11 a, b, g, n WiFi encryption: WEP, WPA, WPA2 Mobile broadband (3G): CDMA-based Memory and storage (basic) System RAM: 2 GB Hard drive(s): 16 GB (total) SSD / integrated Battery Maximum battery life: Up to 8 hours Battery type: Li-ion (63 Wh capacity) Battery access: Removable Input Keyboard: 74 keys Pointing device: Trackpad (Multi-touch) Connections USB: 2.0 (1 ports) Bluetooth: 2.1 + EDR Size and weight Dimensions: 0.9 inches (h) 11.8 inches (w) 8.6 inches (d) Weight: 3.8 pounds

Even in Schellenberg's discussion of the topic, he quotes Swinburne(another giant in the field of philosophy of religion) and even a few theologians whose names I cannot remember offhand. This is a very standard view in philosophy of religion. I'm also fairly certain I presented a resource with a discussion on the topic supporting the view. Yes, again, I am recommending Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason-it's a very interesting book putting forth a great argument and happens to talk about this issue of divine love as an aspect of moral perfection. It is well written as well, so it's not very dry.

As has already been pointed out, Divine Love is an aspect of Moral Perfection. I know of no philosopher of religion who denies this. They are not in competition as one falls out of the other. You might as well say the speed of light is in competition with Maxwell's equations.

(7) is merely a rewording of (6). It's almost the very definition of moral perfection. That's exactly what we find when we look into modern Philosophy of Religion. Schellenberg even discusses this in Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason.

Futhermore, YHWH has cleansed peoples before for being immoral-He once even drowned all but 8 people. What was humanity's guide for morality, the Laws that YHWH gave them! Even if moral perfection is not explicitly mentioned in the OT(I don't know offhand whether or not it is), it is certainly implied. edit: "For the LORD [is] good; his mercy [is] everlasting; and his truth [endureth] to all generations."-Psalms 100:5 "Praise ye the LORD. O give thanks unto the LORD; for [he is] good: for his mercy [endureth] for ever. Who can utter the mighty acts of the LORD? [who] can shew forth all his praise? Blessed [are] they that keep judgment, [and] he that doeth righteousness at all times."-Psalm 106:1-3 "Turn away my reproach which I fear: for thy judgments [are] good."-Psalms 119:39 "Thou [art] good, and doest good; teach me thy statutes."-Psalms 119:68 Presumably, Holiness requires moral perfection. "Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the LORD of hosts: the whole earth [is] full of his glory."-Isaiah 6:2-3

The circles are consistent with the current theory. The cyclic theory, however, is not consistent with all of the evidence. The background radiation shows that the universe is in fact flat. That means that this is either the only or the last universe.

I thought I had specified that in the beginning. Yes, that's quite so. I apologize if I was not explicit enough on that front.

So are caffiene, vitamin B, oxygen, and alcohol; all of which are legal. Alcohol is also more dangerous than THC. Also, studies have not only shown that pot does not cause lung cancer as cigarettes do, but it inhibits cancer growth! So, you disapprove of the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes as well? Let's break this down(feel free to add to the lists): Legalization pros: 1)Economic stimulus 2)Deficit reduction via taxation 3)Reduction in crime(no cartels; similar effect as the repeal of prohibition of alcohol) 4)Lowering of judicial system costs as so fewer people will be incarcerated 5)Increased safety of product via mass production and regulation Legalization cons: 1)It's illegal 2)It is a mind altering drug(which is less dangerous than other LEGAL mind altering drugs)

There are two giant obvious problems with the 'free will defense' which is sometimes used against arguments like this and the argument of evil: (1)If free will and moral perfection are incompatible, it would mean that God would not have free will. This is a huge problem as it gives mere men an invaluable power that God does not. A being lacking the simple ability to choose is not a very likely candidate for omniscience let alone being the greatest being possible. Incompatibility of free will and moral perfection as a problem for theism in the context of the free will defense is discussed in depth by Schellenburg in his famous trilogy. (2)The simplistic variety of free will required by the free will defense is incoherent. It is obvious that this kind of free will does not exist as we clearly have limitations to our free will. The limitation underlying here, though, is actually a part of the foundation of free will; free will is necessarily subservient to a being's nature. Indeed, for in what sense is a decision up to you if it is independent of your nature? Your nature-who you are-is an input into the weighing of your choice. The good thing about a reasonable variety of free will(a variety worth wanting, as Dennett would say) is that it removes problem (1). But you just said free will is incompatible with moral perfection, so, according to your own line of reason, God could not possibly CHOOSE to create beings with free will. What is the warrant for believing that free will is an overriding moral reason? If free will leads to an evil world, is it not itself immoral?

Mark Walker puts forth an argument that the mere existence of humanity is proof that God does not exist. Note that this works only for gods which are omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. This argument uses a moral scale. 0 is perfectly immoral and 10 is perfectly moral(humans are 5). S is the set of all possible worlds which is populated only by beings greater than 5 on the scale. The argument: (1) God is omnipotent (2) So, it is possible for God to actualize a member of S (3) God is omniscient (4) So, if it is possible for God to actualize a member of S, then God knows that He can actualize a member of S (5) So, God knows that He can actualize a member of S (6) God is morally perfect (7) So, a morally perfect being should attempt to maximize the likelihood of moral goodness and minimize the likelihood of moral evil in the world (8) If God knows He can actualize a member of S, then every world in which God exists is a member of S (9) Therefore, every world in which God exists is a member of S (10) Therefore, if God exists in the actual world then the actual world is a member of S (11) The actual world is not a member of S (12) Therefore, God does not exist I think this is a fairly interesting argument. Thoughts?

The universe is flat and probably unbounded(infinite). Yes, it is, because the universe is flat. Extremely unlikely since it is flat; it is either the the only universe or the last. To see how we know it's flat, watch the video I embedded above.

Perhaps you could take a second to calm down and then present some coherent reasons that you oppose school uniforms.

Combining the post I quoted above with the fact that legalization leads to mass production and taxation(thus boosting the economy and chipping away at the deficit) and the fact that legalization removes the black market aspect(thus lowering crime), it's not hard to see that it is in fact reasonable for intelligent people to support legalization. By the way, pot is illegal, not because it is particularly harmful-it isn't(it's even been shown to inhibit growth of cancerous cells), but rather because of a smear campaign against hemp as a cheap high quality manufacturing resource.

THe video answered questions asked in the OP rather than the title of the thread.

Obligatory xkcd:

The part with the dots didn't help you understand how all galaxies moving away from each other looks the same as all the galaxies moving away from you?

The following video has a good visual to show it. If you don't have a lot of time, skip to about 9 minutes in.

He said that the rock was the oldest on earth and they confirmed it by examining the place the rock formed. And then he said that they proved that it was not from our solar system? What? Which is true? I'm thinking neither.