So_crates

Another time, back in my university days, a grad student and I were discussing postmodernism. It was her assertation that there was no reality, only perceptions. "No reality, only perceptions," I repeated. "So if there are only perceptions, I go into a class and do what I percieve is "A" work, but you claim its "D" work. What makes one perception more valid than the other?" "The one with the authority," she responded. "But if all you have is perception, then authority too must be a perception." She just kind of shook and walked away. There is something out there,

For me proof is an objective thing. As with most scientific thought one of the elements of proof is predictability. How do we know two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen make water? It's been done billions of times and will be done billions more. How do we know gravity exists? Apples fell before Newton and they continue to fall to this day. That's why cold fusion fell flat. The scientists say they created it once, but nobody could replicate their experiment. (My theory: The original scientists unknowingly used a dirty test tube and whatever was in that test tube before served a

I'm always leery of all encompassing statements. Back in my university days, an astronomy TA tried to tell me you can't really know anything. My response: "If we can't really know anything, how do you know we can't really know anything?" Same difference with your quote above: If we can't prove anything, then we can't prove we can't prove anything, which opens the possibility things can be proven. (Still there?) Science is actually based on proof. Oh, there are theories, but theories have to sooner or later be proven. And not just once. Again and again.

Or, as they used to say at the university: You spend four years in to the School of Engineering learning to ask the question, How can we make it? You spend four years in the School of Management learning to ask the question, What will it cost? And you spend four years in the School of Liberal Arts learning to ask the question, You want fries with that order?

Which disqualifies him from making any value judgements about Saint Vic or his work. Would we trust the ruling of a judge or jury that said, at a trial, never mind the details of the crime, just tell me about the times the defendant was an upstanding citizen. What Mike fails to understand is that if he continues to push his Weirwille over the World agenda, he going to constantly be confronted with Saint Vic's sexual indiscretions. When Saint Vic started information wasn't a few mouse clicks away. Now, a few keystrokes and anyone can find out everything they would care to know ab

I understand: it must be pretty frustrating to repeatedly present the same old, tired argument you've been pedaling for 17 years just have someone else answer with the same rebuttal that disproves the argument. For example, about 20-50 posts back, you made the claim God gave Saint Vic permission to steal others work. I asked how you know God gave Saint Vic permission. You said you didn't have time to explain. However, you've had time to continue writing other posts. Then there's the claim, also pretty far back, God won when Saint Vic got away with stealing others works. I asked you i

I find it interesting that you use the two views argument here, yet you fail to follow through on it. Yes, there's God's view and man's view. God's view is absolute, black or white (your either in fellowship or your not; you either obeyed Him or you didn't; something was either stolen or it wasn't) is necessary because those same rationalization we use to fudge our obedience to God, Christ could have used to fudge his obedience to The Law. If Christ didn't obey The Law, then we have no savior. If rationalizations were acceptable to God, then Christ could have stolen the temple

Once again, your intellectual dishonesty is on display; The following is a copy of my original post: Your answer: As you can see, you gave an answer to question I didn't ask. Now would you like to answer the other part of may post (Are they God winning, as you claim with Saint Vic getting away with stealing others works)? Also, the problem with plagerism is that it's deceitful, bearing false witness (taking credit for something you didn't do). This begs the question: Would a loving God send one of his spokesmen to intentionally decieve His people? And what is the

So your contention is that because Saint Vic got away with stealing others works, God's hand was in it. Really? Your argument falls apart in more instances than I care to count. Here are a few: Saint Vic also got away with forcing himself on how many women? Was that God winning too? Jack the Ripper got away with murdering how many prostitutes? Was that God winning too? Hitler got away with the systematic slaughter of how many Jews? Was this God winning too? Stalin got away with killing how many Russians? Was that God winning too? All four follow your law bro

The above is another question you apparently didn't have time to answer. As it's the crux of your argument, one would think you would make time to answer it. So, once again, how do you know God gave Saint Vic permission to steal other people's work?

No you didn't. You left out half the question and went off on a tangent. An intellectually honest person would have answered the whole statement. Once again, you attempt to set yourself as the standard. Well, I don't care what your opinion is. I care what God's opinion is. Responding to half a statement is not only a sin of omission, it's intellectually dishonest. An intellectually dishonest person lecturing about intellectual honesty is like a Saint Vic lecturing on thou shall not commit adultry. Don't have to. The point has nothing to do with previous post. Yo

At the cost of how many peoples lives? How many women had Saint Vic force himself on them in the name of getting the job done?

Don't change the meaning of what I wrote. I wrote "explain to me the good that can come from stealing others works and someone forcing themself on women." I notice you left out the part about Saint Vic forcing himself on women. Rather intellectually dishonest don't you think? Of course I remember it. I also remember its been pointed out the irrationality of your position because if God owns everything than its okay to steal a car. That in spite of the fact God commands us not to steal. There's also the small matter of your position negating Christ sacrifi

So, what's all this called for positivity do for the people who Saint Vic plagerized? What's this call for positivity do for the women Saint Vic forced himself on? Where in the bible does it say "Positivity will set you free"? I can, however, point out in the bible where it says The truth will set you free (John 8:32). So, explain to me the good that can come from stealing others works and someone forcing themself on women. You want to talk about a Pure Evil model. Have you read any of your posts recently? All the negitivity launched at other posters. Accordin