Best posts made by pe7erpark3r
-
RE: Complain Against mods
What do we learn from this? Always take a screenshot when somebody breaks the rules. Then there can be no stupid argument later.
-
RE: What is it you really don't like in a partner?
@tk_94 said in What is it you really don't like in a partner?:
@petrapark3r Armpit. Quite unique na?
Like her's? or yours?
I don't know how unique such things are :shrug:
-
RE: Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational
@petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Don't spout generalizations like that... Or, if you really believe that, then get a better education.
@Mike_Hawk said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
insulting a complete stranger's intellegence like an asshole.
I did not insult your intelligence as explained above. However I do apologize for having worded it in this aggressive kind of way. This was very unchristian of me. I am sorry.
-
RE: Who wants to be my valentine?
@unknowncat said in Who wants to be my valentine?:
would have been your valentine but you didnt tag me so goodluck:white_frowning_face: :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes: :joy_cat:
How did I miss ya :thinking_face: :yum:
-
RE: Let's make TWS great again!
@Indrid-Cold said in Let's make TWS great again!:
Once again, can I invite everyone to take a backwards step and take a deep breath? Dis cord looks like a Commodore 64 loading screen that's been hacked by nerds; it's just a fad. RE the Mods, what's the problem? From what I can see, they're cooler than the average admin monkeys. I'm pretty sure that if you could stick your head through the screen of, say, Reddit to see what the Mods there look like, you'd just see Swastikas with hands. Even famously liberal, 'people-powered' websites like Geocaching.com tend to have nobs for mods: we've got nothing to complain about.
RE the data loss ...what's the problem? Do we write that much gold? Was someone using TWS to store an Atlas Shrugged esque novel?
Thats a very clever and funny reply my friend.
About the data loss thing: it's not about the gold we write. It's more an emotional kind of thing: on TWS you have interesting and engaging conversations that tend to span days... If it is not reliable you kindof always fear that the conversation will be broken.
Think of it like this: You just don't feel at home in a place where there are little annoying traps layed out on the floor, that don't really hurt, but just take away the fun.
-
RE: What are your thoughts on true love?
@OliveOlivia said in What are your thoughts on true love?:
@RoseoStarlo When you know, you know
Are you sure you couldn't still be making just a little mistake? Always check twice, even when you know you know :yum:
-
RE: petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance
@Neeko said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:
It's possible that something can both exist, and not exist at the same time. As postulated by Schrödinger - and observed in photons. They may only exist when the person observing it actually believes it exists.
The observability of quantum states indeed is a curious thing :grin:, and Schroedinger's cat could be dead and alive at the same time unless observed. However it has not been observed that photons don't exist (just like the cat definitely exists), when there is no observer. What has been shown is that a photon seems to be a wave if it is not observed and a particle if it is.
As far as some all knowing all loving sky-daddy, it's also easily observable that this probably either does not exist, or is untrue - as there are literally millions of scenarios where divine intervention could have prevented some of the worst instances of suffering, on some of the least deserving of people, including children. So my thoughts are, God might exist, but it definitely is not the God that Christians believe exists.
This is a very good argument. Here we have a piece of evidence against the existence of the Christian God at not such a low level. @ScruffyMutt What do you think? Level 5?
The bible clearly states that all suffering is the result of all our sins. But wouldn't it be more just if only the sinners suffered? That would be the case, if not suffering would allow us to share in the great sacrifice that will save everyone who wishes to be saved.
Christian theologicians have in the last century called this question the "Theodizee", the question of how it is possible that God lets so many bad things happen to so many good people. And they tend to forget to mention the core of Christian believe – which is what theologicians seem to do these days – Christ himself, the most innocent of all, died at the cross. And why did He die? Out of love to save us from our sins and bring us to Heaven.
But that is not the end of it. St. Paul says "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions." (Colossians 1:24). Somehow it seems to be possible that the apostle too suffers for the salvation of mankind (or rather christianity = those who agree with being saved).
How can this be? How can a human being help save humanity? The answer also lies in St. Paul's letters: "He is also head of the body, the church;" (Colossians 1:18). This means, that the church is Christ's body on earth, which means, that God lives in us if we really live in Him (e.g. if we fulfill the following: love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself). This means that God also suffers in us and therefore St. Paul can say that he suffers for what is lacking in Christ's suffering.
"The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him." (Romans 8:16-17).
-
RE: What is the last book you read and enjoyed?
Is non fiction allowed too? I enjoyed (still reading) "On Becoming a Person" by Carl Rogers...
-
RE: Let's make TWS great again!
@Chicken-meat Obviously TWS has a real problem, if it does not regulate it's moderators, and they behave like you wrote. They will have to fix that.
You are right, my sentence is formulated contradictory, because I packed two different points into it (which I shouldn't have done). One point, that complaints should not be in the default channel. I have been thinking they could even be public, but there should be a complaint area, not where the actualy life goes on in TWS.
And the other point is, that talking badly about people, especially in a public forum is no good... for you, for the other. If you talk bad about a person, there needs to be a really really good reason (like that you have to warn others, about a dangerous individual... but only if they really need a warning and you think they cannot not think for themselves...). Also, look at how much you wrote. That's a colossal waste of time and energy, even if it is true (which I cannot judge at all)...
-
RE: Whats your fav movie?
@Matt_Aranha said in Whats your fav movie?:
@petrapark3r said in Whats your fav movie?:
The lion king
I watched that again with my niece yesterday. I don't know whether I want to see the new version at the cinema or not, I'm apprehensive about it. I'm leaning towards going, I reckon it'll be good.... but I'm still wary
Yeah, it could be a big disappointment. But. It won't destroy the old experience. So why not try. I'll watch it prolly when it's released on streaming...
-
RE: Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational
@Indrid-Cold said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
But it still seems like a good starting point for a conversation doesn't it?
I always love the way you bring these religious ideas to site that's 90% a rat-up-a-drainpipe hook-up zone.
:grin: Gutter philosophy, I like it! Thank you :heart:
-
RE: What is the last book you read and enjoyed?
@spaceboy said in What is the last book you read and enjoyed?:
@pe7erpark3r
I often think about that modern psychology reopens the forgotten truth, which was revealed centuries ago. The stranger's path is stranger by himself.In many ways it does seem so... What do you mean by "stranger's path is stranger by himself"?
-
RE: Why do you get up in the morning?
@Lurker said in Why do you get up in the morning?:
@lego-batman
Motivation comes and goes, there are times that I have a very strong resolve and "light" that cheers my way and then, there are times that I "live" to go back to sleep, I've lived in both spectrum of the coin and I prefer to "live" for something rather then "survive", I believe that's the worst feeling.
I would like to say I live for MYSELF but I'd be lying, I often feel this resolve and drive in someone special! :shrug:
IMHO living for yourself is pretty lonely. I mean obviously you shouldn't obsess about one single person, wether that be you or someone else. Can't help but quote the most influencial person of all times again: "love thy neighbour" means don't save the world, just be there for the people around you (and yourself too).
-
RE: What are your thoughts on true love?
@OliveOlivia said in What are your thoughts on true love?:
@petrapark3r If you think you're making a mistake then you don't know.
Yes...
If you think anything then you don't know. Only when you know, you will know
I don't know about that. I'm pretty sure we have been given our minds for a good reason :yum:... Nah I really think you should know (is that more like feeling maybe?) and don't ignore the warnings of your mind either...
-
RE: petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance
@ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:
@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:
@ScruffyMutt said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:
there can be no such thing as proof of God's existence, there can only be evidence.
I concede that enough evidence stands as proof (unless/untill counter evidence becomes apparent). I think this is merely a matter of semantics and we agree on the general idea of evidence/proof.
From here on out, if I agree with something, I will simply not counter it with an argument. I agree.
@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:
My first submission was the fact, that we cannot think God without existence.
However, it is possible to concive of exsistence without any god as the Atheists do
There is a missunderstanding here. I was not talking about existence itself, I was talking about the existence of God. I think I will simply post the argument from the other topic:
- Everybody can agree on the following definition: God is that above which you can think nothing greater
- Now think God like this, but think that he does not exist
- Woops, you can think of something higher can't you? Because a God who does exist, is definitely greater than one who doesn't
- Ergo: Our mind is not capable of thinking God without also thinking that he exists
If you think God, and think Him without existing, you are not thinking God...
@petrapark3r said in petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance:
Causality. Everything in nature – everything that science deals with – appears to be causal.
I concede that as a fact- science often concludes causality.
Yes, even more than that. Science is based on the idea of causality. Science is the endeavor of finding natural causes for all effects and finding the natural reasons for every phenomenon.
I maybe unclear on this, you may be saying "Why does causality itself exist except for by God?" or "what is the first link in the chain of causality if not God?"
Rather the second, if we assume a finite chain for simplicity.
It seems that you are placing an arguement of "We don't know, so the answer must/may be due to God or a god-like entity"
In this scenario ...
For lack of articulating myself properly I will point at my car. Your arguement is "I don't know how it works, therefore God must make it work"The flip side is "I don't know how it works." The end.
With your arguement, when the car dies people must pray to God to get it working again.
With my flip side, when the car dies the only possible recourse to get it moving again is to take it appart, study it, learn how it works, learn how to fix it.
And so i put to you that not only does the apparent existance of a causality chain fail to prove that there is a God, but that the belief in God itself defeats the pursuit of knowledge.
Not understanding "Why/How" does not mean that "Why/How" is due to God. It only means that we do not (yet?) know.
The first link in the chain cannot be normal, like everything else in the chain. It must somehow be its own cause. It cannot be compared to a car, for a car, just like every element in the causal chain can be understood. It is not a "we don't know" it is a "we can never understand". This is the one gap, that science can never fill!
And this fact in itself leaves us with 3 options:
- accept the fact that we will never know because our minds simply are incapable of understanding this conundrum
- assume that the world has no reason, is eternal and can never really be understood
- assume that there is a God, who is eternal and can never really be understood, but have a world that can be understood because now it has a reason / first cause (God)
And this as I said, is enough reason (for me) to make this debate meaningful.
-
RE: WTF IS WRONG WITH TWS TOPICS!!!!
We are a strange community of even stranger human beans...
-
RE: Why do you get up in the morning?
@cjko said in Why do you get up in the morning?:
Blame this to Bladder.. no matter how you wanted to continue your sweet dreams, Bladder will kick you out of the bed.
:joy: :joy: :joy:... sometimes yea, definitely that hehe
-
RE: Do you hide your faith?
@OliveOlivia said in Do you hide your faith?:
@petrapark3r I wouldn't say I 'hide' my faith, I just don't go around discussing it every time I have the chance. Reason being is that I don't put myself under any one religion. I'm not Christian, Catholic, Muslim, or anything. I have my own beliefs and my own feelings about this world and there is no book for anyone to read or learn about it. Therefore its hard to tell people about a path that they didn't even know existed.
I think it's actually much to tell them the contents of your faith better than giving them a lable ("I'm catholic") and be put into a box... Also more interesting...
In addition to that, talking about a different religion around someone who has set they own belief can be problematic.
Yap, no need to wake sleeping dogs at every corner. That's actually what the bible says Christians should do: live their faith mostly, and tell everyone honestly who wants to asks.
If anyone really wants to know about my thoughts and beliefs, I would gladly tell them all of it,
tell me then sometime... I mean the parts you haven't yet publically anounced :yum:
but I wont stick my thumb in a whole where its unwanted.
Yeah, nobody likes that :shrug:
-
RE: petrapark3r and ScruffyMutt debate God's existance
@ScruffyMutt the thing to understand with both of those philosophical ways to God is that their nature is special.
In the first case (thinking God means thinking God existing) God's nature which can only be defined by the limit of our thinking puts Him apart from every other thing, including the mythical creature that people always bring up may it be a unicorn or a troll in your case :joy:.
In the second case, it is the fact that nothing else but this one first element in the chain must necessarily be its own cause. And that everything else we observe in nature seems to have a reason while this first reason, the reason for all existence, has no reason other than itself. Thus it cannot validly be compared to anything else, and it is not a simple question of "not knowing why/how (yet)".
I definitely see the second case as evidence of the possibility of God existing. The question is how convincing would you rate it on our scale?