Was God at the Olympics?

[_Themis]

no it does not...and it is not a variable, it is a constant.
But feel free to prove otherwise

Prove your assertion.

[_subgenius]

no it does not...and it is not a variable, it is a constant.
But feel free to prove otherwise

Prove your assertion.

assertions do not require proof, and i provided an accusation.......currently the burden for proof is on palerobber for his original claim, otherwise my accusation is as valid as his.


but if you want the nutshell...
Clearly the "equation" is an exercise in the ability for a human being to "choose otherwise". This ability, for humans, is impossible in nature due to the laws of physics, laws of chemistry, laws of biology, etc..Just as a leaf can not "choose" to bend away from the sun nor can H2O choose to be anything else but water. Therefore the ability to choose otherwise must be supernatural, and in as much as it that it may well be divine. This is supported by the majority of evidence and tradition supporting this aspect of human existence. Without God the equation is rather unsolvable.

But hey, i am sure palerobber has a good rational explanation of how it works "otherwise"....i can wait.

[_Themis]

but if you want the nutshell...
Clearly the "equation" is an exercise in the ability for a human being to "choose otherwise". This ability, for humans, is impossible in nature due to the laws of physics, laws of chemistry, laws of biology, etc..Just as a leaf can not "choose" to bend away from the sun nor can H2O choose to be anything else but water. Therefore the ability to choose otherwise must be supernatural, and in as much as it that it may well be divine. This is supported by the majority of evidence and tradition supporting this aspect of human existence. Without God the equation is rather unsolvable.

All you have done is just made the same assertion with a few more words, and no evidence to back it up.

[_Quasimodo]

Maybe Usain Bolt?

[_subgenius]

but if you want the nutshell...
Clearly the "equation" is an exercise in the ability for a human being to "choose otherwise". This ability, for humans, is impossible in nature due to the laws of physics, laws of chemistry, laws of biology, etc..Just as a leaf can not "choose" to bend away from the sun nor can H2O choose to be anything else but water. Therefore the ability to choose otherwise must be supernatural, and in as much as it that it may well be divine. This is supported by the majority of evidence and tradition supporting this aspect of human existence. Without God the equation is rather unsolvable.

All you have done is just made the same assertion with a few more words, and no evidence to back it up.

which, as i said before, is no different than what palerobber has done...and therefore we share the same level of validity...than you for your agreement on that end.

[_Elphaba]

Clearly the "equation" is an exercise in the ability for a human being to "choose otherwise". This ability, for humans, is impossible in nature due to the laws of physics, laws of chemistry, laws of biology, etc..Just as a leaf can not "choose" to bend away from the sun nor can H2O choose to be anything else but water. Therefore the ability to choose otherwise must be supernatural, and in as much as it that it may well be divine. This is supported by the majority of evidence and tradition supporting this aspect of human existence. Without God the equation is rather unsolvable.

That was a bunch of nonsensical theobabble. The ability to make ethical choices does not require a supernatural god. It requires the combination of sentience and the ability to feel emotions, such as affection and love, that benefit the survival of the species, all of which are explained by evolution.

Additionally, humans are certainly not the only animal that make ethical choices, as many other higher-thinking animals, including gorillas and elephants, do the same all the time.

As I said, sentience and the ability to feel emotions that encourage ethical choices are explained by evolution, and there is no need for a supernatural god with human characteristics, including the Christian god's penchant to often act like a petulant teenager. I don't claim we know the precise details of all evolutionary events that lead to sentience or ethical behavior, and I'd be surprised if we ever do. But we currently know enough to suffice.

[_Gunnar]

Whether God was at the Olympics or not, it was heartwarming to see the camaraderie and sportsmanship displayed by so many of the participants. I was particularly touched by the way some of the young women gymnasts made it a point go over to their arch-rivals when the competition was ended and give each other apparently heartfelt congratulations and even hugs.

[_Themis]

which, as i said before, is no different than what palerobber has done...and therefore we share the same level of validity...than you for your agreement on that end.

So you admit you have nothing. I was never commenting on what palerobber said, although his makes more sense, and one that even many Christians would agree with.

[_Drifting]

which, as i said before, is no different than what palerobber has done...and therefore we share the same level of validity...than you for your agreement on that end.

So you admit you have nothing. I was never commenting on what palerobber said, although his makes more sense, and one that even many Christians would agree with.

It's getting hard to differentiate between subgenius and gdemetz...

[_subgenius]

Clearly the "equation" is an exercise in the ability for a human being to "choose otherwise". This ability, for humans, is impossible in nature due to the laws of physics, laws of chemistry, laws of biology, etc..Just as a leaf can not "choose" to bend away from the sun nor can H2O choose to be anything else but water. Therefore the ability to choose otherwise must be supernatural, and in as much as it that it may well be divine. This is supported by the majority of evidence and tradition supporting this aspect of human existence. Without God the equation is rather unsolvable.

That was a bunch of nonsensical theobabble. The ability to make ethical choices does not require a supernatural god. It requires the combination of sentience and the ability to feel emotions, such as affection and love, that benefit the survival of the species, all of which are explained by evolution.

in order to make a choice, as opposed to the physiological illusion of making a choice, an individual must simply choose to do otherwise. If sentience and feeling are natural (as in not divine or supernatural characteristics) then sentience and feeling are bound by natural laws. Physiologically, or biologically, speaking this is considerably founded in the laws of chemistry. Either you consider sentience and feeling to be products of biochemical reactions (natural) or you consider them not to be products of biochemical reactions (supernatural).

Additionally, humans are certainly not the only animal that make ethical choices, as many other higher-thinking animals, including gorillas and elephants, do the same all the time.

you have no proof nor evidence that an other animal has ethics or morality, let alone any proof or evidence that they make any "decisions" with regards to those systems. For all you know, they are simply following the cues of biochemical reactions.

As I said, sentience and the ability to feel emotions that encourage ethical choices are explained by evolution

no they are not, in fact there is no evolutionary data or evidence that "explains" sentience or emotions. But feel free to prove your claims here, i believe everyone would be amazed.

and there is no need for a supernatural god with human characteristics, including the Christian god's penchant to often act like a petulant teenager.

whoever said there was need?

I don't claim we know the precise details of all evolutionary events that lead to sentience or ethical behavior, and I'd be surprised if we ever do. But we currently know enough to suffice.

and exactly what is it, that "we know"?

(spoiler alert: you will quickly find that you are ill-prepared for this argument and that you have but a cursory and inadequate knowledge of all the topics mentioned herein)

Just remember Glinda is actually the hero. Your very moniker highlights the ill-conceived notion i speak of above...that a person surely bears no real responsibility for who they are, they can just blame their environment - just a victim of circumstance, for how could they have possibly "chosen otherwise"?