"quotations"
- Thread starter sear
- Start date
"The people who say 'you are what you eat' have always seemed addled to me. In my opinion you are what you think, and if you don't think; you can eat all the meat in Kansas City and still be nothing but a vegetable." Russell Baker
"Indeed, it could be argued that when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, 'Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,' he got it precisely backwards. Properly understood, the levels of taxation, government spending, and economic and social regulation are measures of our failure to civilize our society." Edward H. Crane, CATO Institute President
"Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket that is fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children ..." President Dwight D. Eisenhower
"A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James
"Indeed, it could be argued that when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, 'Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,' he got it precisely backwards. Properly understood, the levels of taxation, government spending, and economic and social regulation are measures of our failure to civilize our society." Edward H. Crane, CATO Institute President
"Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket that is fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children ..." President Dwight D. Eisenhower
"A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James
Good one for a debate board.
Thanks t #4,
I haven't figured out the best way to format it. I think the likely popular preference would be one thread for quotations, and a parallel thread for discussion, listing the quotation as the intro to the post / comment.
But two threads seems kind of clumsy. Any ideas?
I haven't figured out the best way to format it. I think the likely popular preference would be one thread for quotations, and a parallel thread for discussion, listing the quotation as the intro to the post / comment.
But two threads seems kind of clumsy. Any ideas?
"The single greatest threat to our republic is a president who would put his own self-interest above the Constitution, above the national interest. We've had a situation where President Trump claimed for months that the election was stolen and then apparently set about to do everything he could to steal it himself and that ended up in an attack on the capitol. 5 people killed that day." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) speaking on FNS Superbowl Sunday 21/02/07
mark mywords
Active member
certainly five people DIED that day, but KILLED?
Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer as rioters tried to breach the House chamber
Kevin D. Greeson died of a heart attack, collapsing on the sidewalk west of the Capitol on Jan. 6
Rosanne Boyland appeared to have been crushed in a stampede of fellow rioters as they surged against the police.
Benjamin Philips, the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo, died of a stroke
Officer Brian D. Sicknick of the Capitol Police, who was attacked by the mob, died on Jan. 7.
mm #7
OK
But I'm not sure "died" is a significant improvement, if Sicknick died two days later.
Precision becomes all the more important in matters of national importance. But in the case of Trump's insurrection I suspect what matters is that human life was lost, rather than how many and when. At either estimate, from lowest to highest, was the republic any less threatened?
OK
But I'm not sure "died" is a significant improvement, if Sicknick died two days later.
Precision becomes all the more important in matters of national importance. But in the case of Trump's insurrection I suspect what matters is that human life was lost, rather than how many and when. At either estimate, from lowest to highest, was the republic any less threatened?
"God" is portrayed as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and short of cash." Crane
“Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270 BC) / S2
“Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270 BC) / S2
Shiftless2
Well-known member
A little thought will show you that omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive attributes. That is, no being can have both.
note:
I suffer from literal-mindedness.
This can interfere with my benefiting from allegory.
Over a half century of experience has taught me dismissing ancient wisdom recounted in holy scripture is self-defeating.
We can acknowledge the counterintuitive utility of "turn the other cheek" (pacifism) without accepting literally the talking serpent, or the pregnant virgin.
Pacifism not only helped expel the imperialist Brits from India. It also helped the cause of civil rights in the U.S.
- om·nip·o·tent (ŏm-nĭpə-tənt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. *
- om·nis·cient (ŏm-nĭshənt)
adj.
Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator. *
To my knowledge the capacity to act is not impaired by the capacity to know.
Neither is the capacity to know impaired by the capacity to act. Have I overlooked an obvious contradiction here?
BUT !
There are religious contradictions aplenty, even if #11 not the best example.
* The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
I suffer from literal-mindedness.
This can interfere with my benefiting from allegory.
Over a half century of experience has taught me dismissing ancient wisdom recounted in holy scripture is self-defeating.
We can acknowledge the counterintuitive utility of "turn the other cheek" (pacifism) without accepting literally the talking serpent, or the pregnant virgin.
Pacifism not only helped expel the imperialist Brits from India. It also helped the cause of civil rights in the U.S.
That's an intriguing thesis. But I could not argue it persuasively in the affirmative, given the definitions of the terms:
- om·nip·o·tent (ŏm-nĭpə-tənt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. *
- om·nis·cient (ŏm-nĭshənt)
adj.
Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator. *
To my knowledge the capacity to act is not impaired by the capacity to know.
Neither is the capacity to know impaired by the capacity to act. Have I overlooked an obvious contradiction here?
BUT !
There are religious contradictions aplenty, even if #11 not the best example.
* The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
I'm a glutton for stuff like this. BUT:
In this case I think Dawkins erred.
Let's accept as a premise that omniscience applies not merely to the present, but also to the future. - dandy -
If G knows what would have happened before issue was made of the approaching event, and G can NOT change it, G is not omnipotent.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
That's Dawkin's point - if God is omniscient he knows everything that will happen in the future including any attempts he might make to change it from which it follows that he's not omnipotent.
BTW, a similar argument proves that if God is omniscient free will is impossible.
OK
I accord myself a rare time-out.
So this #16 isn't to advocate for either position, but to reflect more broadly.
To me "omnipotent" means not merely the ability to change ones mind, but to manifest change of outcome. I get Dawkins, changing his mind is possible, BUT the omniscient mind would know that in advance.
To validate Dawkins' point is to argue that knowledge is disempowerment. (that we can't be fully potent unless we're at least partly ignorant) That obviously contradicts the cliche' "knowledge is power".
note:
Before CV.us (over a decade ago) we covered a topic like this, inspiring: "No thought or action can be both preordained and an act of free will at the same time." tronport
Whether tron took his inspiration from Dawkins, don't know.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This argument seems to me to belong to a class of self-contradictions, such as: "I always lie."
If that's true, and he says it, then he doesn't always lie.
I'm inclined to reject Dawkins here because of Limbaugh: "Words mean things."
If G is omnipotent, then he can't be not omnipotent. BUT !
I'm grateful to S2, Dawkins, tron, & Rush for the mental gymnastics.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Reminds me of one of my university math profs (interesting character but he taught my third year general topology course).
In any case he used to tell the story of teaching an evening course in symbolic logic. In those days the university wouldn't let us take evening courses because, even though the students taking them got the same credit we got for taking the course during the day the evening courses were very much watered down (the majority of students in those classes were high school teachers trying to upgrade their credentials or meet some sort of continuing education requirement.
That said my prof said that he was talking about truth tables (you can google them if you're not familiar with the concept) but he was explaining to the students that he'd restrict the course content to statements that were either true or false and wouldn't consider other truth values (for example, the sentence "This sentence is false" is neither true nor false). Apparently, at that point one of the student stuck up his hand to ask a question - expecting some sort of question relating to that "third" truth value he asked the student for his question. And the student asked for an example of a false sentence. My prof said he went completely blank because all that he could think of was "You are a very intelligent student".
But back to the omnipotence/omniscience discussion or the omniscience/free will point - once you understand the arguments they're pretty obvious but they do give me a headache every time I try to explain them.
I'm trying to keep up here S2, but my elmer mother is an undistinguished high school in the lower Hudson valley.
a) knowledge of the future is immutable, then omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive, as Dawkins argues. BUT if
b) knowledge of the future is only what will happen IF no deliberate action is taken to alter it, as omnipotence implies,
knowledge and power may be rivals, but not antithetical.
Part of my reason for deferring to omnipotence is, in our mortal experience, conduct trumps knowledge, even if rather more a guideline than an immutable rule.
The sanity check:
Omnipotence means able to do anything. There is no "except change the future" clause in the definition.
So given the premise of the hypothetical, defining omniscience as the parameter subject to variation seems more consistent.
We should acknowledge, there's not much more to this than the how many angels can dance on the head of a pin debate.
The only thing I know of that knows all is the cosmos itself.
One might argue the cosmos is also omnipotent, because it does 100% of everything that happens. BUT !!
It really can't do anything else. So that drops to zero%?
Is that what Dawkins is driving at? This isn't a stain on god's résumé, just an exercise in the purely hypothetical.
I retired a quarter century ago, but in computer chip development topology was (without divulging proprietary information) an "issue" we measured in Ångströms.
At this stage seems to me it hinges on the details of omniscience. If
a) knowledge of the future is immutable, then omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive, as Dawkins argues. BUT if
b) knowledge of the future is only what will happen IF no deliberate action is taken to alter it, as omnipotence implies,
knowledge and power may be rivals, but not antithetical.
Part of my reason for deferring to omnipotence is, in our mortal experience, conduct trumps knowledge, even if rather more a guideline than an immutable rule.
The sanity check:
Omnipotence means able to do anything. There is no "except change the future" clause in the definition.
So given the premise of the hypothetical, defining omniscience as the parameter subject to variation seems more consistent.
We should acknowledge, there's not much more to this than the how many angels can dance on the head of a pin debate.
The only thing I know of that knows all is the cosmos itself.
One might argue the cosmos is also omnipotent, because it does 100% of everything that happens. BUT !!
It really can't do anything else. So that drops to zero%?
Is that what Dawkins is driving at? This isn't a stain on god's résumé, just an exercise in the purely hypothetical.
Taught as geometry?
I retired a quarter century ago, but in computer chip development topology was (without divulging proprietary information) an "issue" we measured in Ångströms.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
And omniscience means "knows everything" and there is no "unless something he doesn't know happens" exception.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
General topology (aka point set topology) is a pretty wide ranging subject
In mathematics, general topology (or point set topology) is the branch of topology that deals with the basic set-theoretic definitions and constructions used in topology. It is the foundation of most other branches of topology, including differential topology, geometric topology, and algebraic topology.
The fundamental concepts in point-set topology are continuity, compactness, and connectedness:
The terms 'nearby', 'arbitrarily small', and 'far apart' can all be made precise by using the concept of open sets. If we change the definition of 'open set', we change what continuous functions, compact sets, and connected sets are. Each choice of definition for 'open set' is called a topology. A set with a topology is called a topological space.
- Continuous functions, intuitively, take nearby points to nearby points.
- Compact sets are those that can be covered by finitely many sets of arbitrarily small size.
- Connected sets are sets that cannot be divided into two pieces that are far apart.
General topology - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org