Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » don't ask don't tell
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442209 is a reply to message #441621] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 15:14   |
 |
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 13:12 |
If God can do anything, can he create something so incredibly heavy that not even he can lift?
|
Depends if he didn't want to be able to lift it >.<
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 15:50 |
Anyway, back on topic. What God says is right or wrong should not come into the picture. This is because religion is not supposed to interfere with government regulations. Freedom isn't free, if you want to live here, there are somethings that you have to be subjected to. Being gay can just be used as a loophole for people to avoid being drafted.
|
Sex change being the next loophole...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Best Case Scenario: Gays become more accepted in society.
Worst Case: Friendly Fire rates go up.
[Updated on: Wed, 05 January 2011 15:40] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442211 is a reply to message #442210] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 16:43 |
|
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 05 January 2011 16:25 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Wed, 05 January 2011 17:14 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 13:12 |
If God can do anything, can he create something so incredibly heavy that not even he can lift?
|
Depends if he didn't want to be able to lift it >.<
|
Ah, but you see, if he creates something that he isn't able to lift, regardless of if it was intended, then it shows he isn't all powerful. If he can't create something that is too heavy for him to lift, then it shows that his creation powers are limited.
|
He is all powerful if he decides he can't lift it beings that means he made the rules for it in the first place. 
IE: He wouldn't be all powerful if he couldn't make something he could not lift.
[Updated on: Wed, 05 January 2011 16:48] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442212 is a reply to message #441534] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 17:56 |
InternetThug
Messages: 1036
Registered: October 2005
Location: vagina
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
|
thats just a stupid fucking paradox because if he was all powerful he could both make an object he could not lift and then give himself the power to lift it ... either way its a paradox ..
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442223 is a reply to message #441534] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 21:47 |
 |
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
My friend had that question put to him once... he accurately pointed out that the question covers the physical and spiritual aspects together, something that makes no sense.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442225 is a reply to message #442223] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 22:17 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 05 January 2011 23:47 |
My friend had that question put to him once... he accurately pointed out that the question covers the physical and spiritual aspects together, something that makes no sense.
|
That's a cop-out answer.
God is supposed to be all powerful. He can be in spiritual form or in physical form depending on his choosing.
Let me put it to you this way:
1. God can do/create anything.
2. Therefore, God can make something that He can't do.
3. Not being able to do something conflicts with his ability to do/create anything.
If you can't do something, you can't do it. If God has the power to grant Himself the ability to do something He previously couldn't, then that means He COULD do it all along and just "pretended" He couldn't. Therefore, in order for God to create something He can't do, he has to absolutely relinquish the power to grant himself the ability to do it.
Whether or not He can create something He can't do shows that He isn't omnipotent.
-If He can create something He can't lift, then He isn't omnipotent because He can't lift it.
-If He can't create something He can't lift, then He isn't omnipotent because He can't create it.
[Updated on: Wed, 05 January 2011 22:23] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442227 is a reply to message #442226] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 22:32 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| M0FiR3 wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 00:25 |
its called a paradox retard ... its like arguing an unstoppable force vs an immovable object
|
Right. And naming the literary term for it answers the question how exactly?
The question is a theoretical paradox. This is because God is merely a theory. There is no proof that God exists and thus no proof of His would-be power.
However, this particular paradox disproves the ability to be omnipotent in our level of reality. (Meaning if God ever 'appeared' to us in our reality, He couldn't be omnipotent without changing the laws of logic, probability and physics)
[Updated on: Wed, 05 January 2011 22:34] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442229 is a reply to message #442227] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 22:47 |
Pyr0man1c
Messages: 186
Registered: April 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 05 January 2011 23:32 |
| M0FiR3 wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 00:25 |
its called a paradox retard ... its like arguing an unstoppable force vs an immovable object
|
However, this particular paradox disproves the ability to be omnipotent in our level of reality. (Meaning if God ever 'appeared' to us in our reality, He couldn't be omnipotent without changing the laws of logic, probability and physics)
|
What's your point?
"Sapere Aude- Dare to be wise"
| AmunRa |
and its all this "drama" that will one day end renegade...
|
Quotes| v00d00 |
A question regarding RenGuard. Because it's a client/server application, what will stop the legions of people who cheat, and can crack apps, from reverse engineering it down to it's core protocol / encryption (which I'll assume it has), and duplicating it, so that they have their own client which responds to the server with all the correct info for an unpatched Renegade, but in fact is patched.
Personally, I think you should write a server-side only anti-cheat, which hooks the networking routines in Renegade. From there, using either the help of your staff who worked on creating Renegade, or from knowledge aquired while working with the network code in Renegade, create a system to monitor hit locations (did they REALLY hit, based on calculations by the anti-cheat (stopping BH)), how much damage are they claiming, vs how much damage their currently selected weapon really does, etc.
Then, add rate-of-fire checking, complete w/ lag tolerance (since lagged client will of course, upon delag, seem to fire faster, etc), and option to simply "edit" the incoming packets, to filter out the cheat (reduce damage, stop bullets, etc), or kick-ban the cheater (admins decision, based on anti cheat config).
Is it just me, or does that make more sense?
The flaw to Renegade of course, which is the core to the cheats, is that unlike most other games, Renegade lets the CLIENT decide hit locations, damage, RoF, etc. Vs others which say, "ok, the client fired their pistol along this trajectory. Did they hit something? How much damage did they do to that target if so. Report findings to clients".
My only concern, is that there will be alot more teams of people ripping apart the hard work of your small team, and undoing what you have done. Can you keep up writing fixes / completely rewriting the protocol to counter them once they have created their OWN complete anti-RenGuard client? If not, consider the server-side only method, and solve it once and for all, with the only version changes being to fix bugs, and not complete rewrites which will really piss admins off (if it takes this long for the initial, how long after the cheaters create their own client to counter it will your rewrite take to do?).
- v00d00
|
| ELiT3FLyR |
ill say this again to all the TT people actually working on the patch. all you have to do is fix the bugs in the game. This is your role. dont get involved in a pointfix debate that you can never win (spoony has never managed to win one and hes a decent player) nor bother suggesting solutions for the faults in pointfix. just fix the damn bugs and you will all be remmebered as renegade heroes.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442230 is a reply to message #442225] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 23:20 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
A common response is that since God is supposedly omnipotent, the phrase "could not lift" doesn't make sense and the paradox is meaningless. An alternative version would be to assume that an non-corporeal God cannot lift anything, but can raise it (a linguistic pedantry) - or to use the beliefs of Christians and Hindus (That there is one God, who can be manifest as several different beings) that whilst it is possible for God to do all things, it is not possible for all his incarnations to do them. As such, God could create a stone so heavy that, in one incarnation, he was unable to lift it - but would be able to do something that an incarnation that could lift it couldn't.
C. S. Lewis argues that when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing "a square circle." So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock (the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both). Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it.
|
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
[Updated on: Wed, 05 January 2011 23:25] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442231 is a reply to message #441534] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 23:53 |
InternetThug
Messages: 1036
Registered: October 2005
Location: vagina
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
|
yeah i didnt look at the dudes name but whoever the weirdo writing in red is .. youre trying too hard ... i liked altzans response tho cause that basically sums up what i was thinking ... nerds
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442232 is a reply to message #442230] |
Thu, 06 January 2011 00:47 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 01:20 |
| Quote: |
A common response is that since God is supposedly omnipotent, the phrase "could not lift" doesn't make sense and the paradox is meaningless. An alternative version would be to assume that an non-corporeal God cannot lift anything, but can raise it (a linguistic pedantry) - or to use the beliefs of Christians and Hindus (That there is one God, who can be manifest as several different beings) that whilst it is possible for God to do all things, it is not possible for all his incarnations to do them. As such, God could create a stone so heavy that, in one incarnation, he was unable to lift it - but would be able to do something that an incarnation that could lift it couldn't.
C. S. Lewis argues that when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing "a square circle." So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock (the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both). Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it.
|
|
That's a terrible answer. It doesn't correlate any reasoning as to why those metaphors are examples of it being nonsensical. It just says they are leaves it at that. The guy just threw in some big words to make it sound like he knew what he was talking about...
My car is as fast as the sky is blue. Does that make any sense to you? Probably not. Unless I give more perspective, that statement doesn't make sense at all.
So, explain to me how "a square circle" can draw any similarities to an item so heavy that God can't even lift it.
You can't draw a square circle. That's not a paradox, that's just nonsensical. But an item has weight; it can weigh so much one cannot lift it or it can weigh so little that anyone can. A heavy item is not nonsense.
As for the part about not being about lift anything but being able to raise it also fails to "solve" the paradox. Raising something does not require lifting (for example levitation), but lifting does require raising. To say he cannot lift is also saying he lacks the ability to and is therefore not omnipotent. Corporeal or not, God is said to be able to manifest physically or spiritually. Meaning if God can't "lift" something in non-corporeal form, then he should be able to do it in corporeal form.
| Pyr0man1c wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 00:47 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 05 January 2011 23:32 |
| M0FiR3 wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 00:25 |
its called a paradox retard ... its like arguing an unstoppable force vs an immovable object
|
However, this particular paradox disproves the ability to be omnipotent in our level of reality. (Meaning if God ever 'appeared' to us in our reality, He couldn't be omnipotent without changing the laws of logic, probability and physics)
|
What's your point?
|
My point is that being omnipotent is impossible.
[Updated on: Thu, 06 January 2011 00:49] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442236 is a reply to message #442232] |
Thu, 06 January 2011 03:00 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29 |
Imo: this whole debate is somewhat moot. Gays have been allowed to openly serve in the military whether some people like it or not.
|
Translation: the law has been repealed so let's stop talking about this because now homosexuality is widely accepted everywhere and people won't stand in their way in getting on with their lives!
Nope. If you have read this debate, the last few pages isn't about the law anymore; it's something more simple than that. The debate isn't moot in the least.
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29 |
However, DADT advocates are now being called bigots and homophobes for defending DADT. Yet before, they would have been called a bigot or homophobe for not wanting gays in the military at all*.
|
Doesn't matter in the least. Your side has yet to answer WHY the law was set up in the first place and what was the general consensus/motivation behind it.
It's simple; church thugs did it to get their way. So they deserve all the nasty shit that's coming their way.
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29 |
Funny how when the right side of the political spectrum decides to compromise, which may not have been the case then it is now though, the left seems to want to continue pushing their agenda under the guise of equal rights. It's not the fight for equal rights, it is elevating a minority over the majority.
|
Once again, you have to yet to answer WHY this law was set up in the first place and whose agenda it was before pointing fingers at those who killed the law and blaming THEM for having an "agenda."
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29 |
Now because of this, homosexuals that have been passed up for a promotion, demoted, dishonorably discharged, left on the field injured for whatever reason, etc. can now claim that is was because they were gay that what happened to them happened. I know most of them will not do that, but there are some who will.
|
This is an incredibly demeaning thing to say; in the past it would have been:
| Quote: |
Now because of this, blacks that have been passed up for a promotion, demoted, dishonorably discharged, left on the field injured for whatever reason, etc. can now claim that is was because they were black that what happened to them happened. I know most of them will not do that, but there are some who will.
|
Not playing the race-card here, but pointing out similar problems in the past which all boiled down to misinformed intolerance. What you said comes down to denial and downplaying the effect of DADT; so far we know that unnecessarily 14,000 skilled military people who would otherwise could have held on to their posts were kicked out for being gay. To deny this and twist it into what you just did above shows the sinister bias you have against homosexuals.
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29 |
And on this note, let me also state that I'm for civil unions or something along those lines replacing marriage in the state's eyes and allowing religion to keep their version of marriage.
|
Does it make any difference?
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29 |
Churches can call marriages marriages. They'll have their right to. But in the eyes of the law, straight/gay/etc should be called a civil union, or mmarriage, or commonlaw, or anything else other than marriage.
|
And what EXACTLY IS your reasoning for this? You say you are not a bigot for believing in gay marriage but here you are asking for a social double standard. "Please use any other word except marriage!"
Nobody's out to take the church's power to ordain marriages. But you want "marriage" as we know it
The church has no power and it is always below the state. I don't think the state should bent over backwards just so an outdated entity such as a church can protect its "traditional right" that it supposedly had since the beginning of time. No wait, their tradional right that they acquired over a period of the last 2000 years due to changing social conditions! Why should the state help the church hold on to a power they gained over many years? If they want to have a monopoly on the word "marriage," they are welcome to try to hold on to it themselves.
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29 |
The religious connotation stays for the churches that wish to continue that tradition, and in the eyes of the law, everybody is equal and nothing is separate.
|
This is a double standard right there. So in the eyes of the law everyone is equal and in the eyes of the church (we could care less), they are not. You claim this entire matter is all about a minority getting "elevated" over the majority but here you see the majority wanting to keep the minority buckled down under their foot.
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29 |
And if you have churches that allow marriages of homosexual couples, then great, the homosexual couples can be a part of -those churches-.
|
lol so this whole exercise is a complete waste of time. I suggest you figure this out and get a consensus within the faction-based nature of the church and it's multiple denominations before trying to act all united.
By asking for a different verbal description for gay marriage so you can preserve the old way of the church "protecting"marriage, you are obviously asking for a double standard that will further prevent homosexuals from going about their lives. You said, "Oh please call it anything but marriage!!!" If this is not bigotry, I don't know what is.
Are you that insecure about your religion?
btw, I am hetrosexual and will be getting married for sure but WON'T be doing so in a church. Will I still be a "married man" and fit your verbal definition of "marriage?"? Sure I will be...cos of my lady.
Anyone can see thru what Muad REALLY wants; a legalized social divide and distinction between married homosexuals and married hetrosexuals. All just so he can sleep tight at night feeling secure.
| Altzan wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 00:35 |
Only one part of your reply is even worth touching, since you refuse to stop trying to drag me into conversations I want no part with.
|
^ seems a contradictory statement to say. I wonder what part of the conversation you didn't want a part in when you wanted something lame disproved. Glad to see you ignore the response to that and move on to this:
| Altzan wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 00:35 |
Quote me where I said I support those laws. Go on.
|
This coming from someone who said a few months back that not setting up such laws and agreeing to them is "partaking/aiding in such sin." I blame this on either dishonesty or poor memory.
-----
btw, a quick word on "sanctity of marriage." You hear people whine about this a lot and how homosexual marriage will somehow "taint" the "sanctity of marriage."
OK, first of as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread (and conveniently ignored by the religious fanatics here), marriage was never about 1 man and 1 woman. Polygamy was the norm of the day at the time the bible was written and women were mere property. It's important to note that the ban on homosexuality was in effect at this same time! So polygamy was the norm and homosexuality banned. Now we have history-denying church thugs who claim marriage was always about 1 man and 1 woman while at the same time banning homosexuality. Admit it, you lost on this big time. Morals and the way we live and think and behave collectively as a society are changing ALL THE TIME. No response at all to that one from fanatics here.
Not to mention how many times the god christians' worship orders his chosen people to attack countless cities and kill every man AND married woman ("kill all women who have known a man") plus their children. And to take away the virgins as prize.
I find it really arrogant of the church to deny their own bible and now claim rights to decide the "sanctity of marriage." If anybody has the right to decide what this sanctity is all about, it should be by those who are not clouded by such spiteful ignorance and sheer history-denial.
btw, the church can preach its "sanctity" crap to its millions of members who walk down the aisle each year and split up years later citing "irreconcilable differences."
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442242 is a reply to message #442232] |
Thu, 06 January 2011 08:41 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 01:47 |
That's a terrible answer. It doesn't correlate any reasoning as to why those metaphors are examples of it being nonsensical. It just says they are leaves it at that. The guy just threw in some big words to make it sound like he knew what he was talking about...
|
It's not terrible. It makes sense. Whereas the paradox does not.
If it were so easy to understand this paradox, it wouldn't still be open to interpretation.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 01:47 |
You can't draw a square circle. That's not a paradox, that's just nonsensical. But an item has weight; it can weigh so much one cannot lift it or it can weigh so little that anyone can. A heavy item is not nonsense.
|
Sure it isn't nonsense. Expecting a non-physical being to "be able to lift a rock or not" is nonsense.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 04:00 |
| Altzan wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 00:35 |
Only one part of your reply is even worth touching, since you refuse to stop trying to drag me into conversations I want no part with.
|
^ seems a contradictory statement to say. I wonder what part of the conversation you didn't want a part in when you wanted something lame disproved. Glad to see you ignore the response to that and move on to this:
|
Contradictory? I don't want to discuss homosexuality with an attitude like yours. Simple as that, buddy.
Simply, nobody can see whether or not you're right (and I do say either of us could be) because of all of your flaunting of how "in the right" you are and how we are all "a bunch of closed-minded bigots".
Maybe when you learn to "debate" and not "flame and taunt" you might get people willing to discuss it on your preferred level. Until then... 
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 04:00 |
| Altzan wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 00:35 |
Quote me where I said I support those laws. Go on.
|
This coming from someone who said a few months back that not setting up such laws and agreeing to them is "partaking/aiding in such sin." I blame this on either dishonesty or poor memory.
|
I'm not surprised in the least. Honestly, what ISN'T to blame for all of the things you despise?
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442246 is a reply to message #441534] |
Thu, 06 January 2011 11:11 |
InternetThug
Messages: 1036
Registered: October 2005
Location: vagina
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
|
r3l1arazrsr are you trying to be a fucking retard or does it just happen? If he was omnipotent he could both make an object he couldn't lift but he would be setting the rules for it ... and then if he didnt lift it he wouldnt be omnipotent? either way hes not omnipotent to your rules ... but he is omnipotent and he could do either but he'd be setting his own rules which he could also break ... CS Lewis explained it perfectly and you're just trying to act like you have even an ounce of intelligence when you're obviously a fucking moron ... it's depressing how stupid some people on this forum are ... go watch a 72 hour gundam marathon or something
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442248 is a reply to message #441534] |
Thu, 06 January 2011 12:44 |
Pyr0man1c
Messages: 186
Registered: April 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Nevermind...
"Sapere Aude- Dare to be wise"
| AmunRa |
and its all this "drama" that will one day end renegade...
|
Quotes| v00d00 |
A question regarding RenGuard. Because it's a client/server application, what will stop the legions of people who cheat, and can crack apps, from reverse engineering it down to it's core protocol / encryption (which I'll assume it has), and duplicating it, so that they have their own client which responds to the server with all the correct info for an unpatched Renegade, but in fact is patched.
Personally, I think you should write a server-side only anti-cheat, which hooks the networking routines in Renegade. From there, using either the help of your staff who worked on creating Renegade, or from knowledge aquired while working with the network code in Renegade, create a system to monitor hit locations (did they REALLY hit, based on calculations by the anti-cheat (stopping BH)), how much damage are they claiming, vs how much damage their currently selected weapon really does, etc.
Then, add rate-of-fire checking, complete w/ lag tolerance (since lagged client will of course, upon delag, seem to fire faster, etc), and option to simply "edit" the incoming packets, to filter out the cheat (reduce damage, stop bullets, etc), or kick-ban the cheater (admins decision, based on anti cheat config).
Is it just me, or does that make more sense?
The flaw to Renegade of course, which is the core to the cheats, is that unlike most other games, Renegade lets the CLIENT decide hit locations, damage, RoF, etc. Vs others which say, "ok, the client fired their pistol along this trajectory. Did they hit something? How much damage did they do to that target if so. Report findings to clients".
My only concern, is that there will be alot more teams of people ripping apart the hard work of your small team, and undoing what you have done. Can you keep up writing fixes / completely rewriting the protocol to counter them once they have created their OWN complete anti-RenGuard client? If not, consider the server-side only method, and solve it once and for all, with the only version changes being to fix bugs, and not complete rewrites which will really piss admins off (if it takes this long for the initial, how long after the cheaters create their own client to counter it will your rewrite take to do?).
- v00d00
|
| ELiT3FLyR |
ill say this again to all the TT people actually working on the patch. all you have to do is fix the bugs in the game. This is your role. dont get involved in a pointfix debate that you can never win (spoony has never managed to win one and hes a decent player) nor bother suggesting solutions for the faults in pointfix. just fix the damn bugs and you will all be remmebered as renegade heroes.
|
[Updated on: Thu, 06 January 2011 12:49] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442255 is a reply to message #442253] |
Thu, 06 January 2011 15:58 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 16:44 |
R3, that particular argument does boil down to pitting a hypothetical God's omnipotence against itself, which is not possible.
|
While I really don't get what this means since no one bothers to explain it... it doesn't really matter. To be honest, the question doesn't really relate to God but rather the concept of omnipotence itself.
You ever hear the phrase "where there is a will there is a way"? This is what I'm trying to say about omnipotence.
If you can't do something one way, then you can change yourself or the environment to be able to do it another way. However, since you had the power to change yourself all along, then logically, you were never able to not do it to begin with! But not being able to do something contradicts the idea of omnipotence.
Something that is impossible to do is not the same as something that can't be done until something else is done first. (Does that make sense?)
Something that is impossible means that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to allow you to reach a goal. There is a permanent obstacle in the way that can not be circumvented under any circumstance.
Let's say you want to play a new video game on your computer. However, your current computer doesn't have the necessary specs to run the game. Does that mean that it is impossible to play that game? No, because all you have to do is upgrade your computer and THEN you can play the game! You had the ability to play that game all along, you just were required to do some other task(s) first.
[Updated on: Thu, 06 January 2011 16:04] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442264 is a reply to message #442232] |
Thu, 06 January 2011 17:29 |
|
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 00:47 |
| Pyr0man1c wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 00:47 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 05 January 2011 23:32 |
| M0FiR3 wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 00:25 |
its called a paradox retard ... its like arguing an unstoppable force vs an immovable object
|
However, this particular paradox disproves the ability to be omnipotent in our level of reality. (Meaning if God ever 'appeared' to us in our reality, He couldn't be omnipotent without changing the laws of logic, probability and physics)
|
What's your point?
|
My point is that being omnipotent is impossible.
|
Impossible to us perhaps, I'd expect cheating and he'd just split reality into two dimensions, within one he'd lift the object, the other he'd fail to lift it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 07 03:52:55 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01307 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
