1. Memorize phone
2. Take square roots
3. Add
4. Multiply
5. Divide
6. Subtract
7. Remove percentages
8. Heat food in an oven
9. find anything in a file
10. Investigate sources other than Google and Wikipedia
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Average Bmi For A Model
10 things you no longer know how to do because of technology
1. Memorize phone
2. Take square roots
3. Add
4. Multiply
5. Divide
6. Subtract
7. Remove percentages
8. Heat food in an oven
9. find anything in a file
10. Investigate sources other than Google and Wikipedia
1. Memorize phone
2. Take square roots
3. Add
4. Multiply
5. Divide
6. Subtract
7. Remove percentages
8. Heat food in an oven
9. find anything in a file
10. Investigate sources other than Google and Wikipedia
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
How Long Do Quinceaneras Normally Last?
The reason there is proof that God
If logical possibility means an absence of contradiction, then an idea that is contradictory in itself (like a square circle) is logically impossible and meaningless to speak of "possible" object denoted by an im-possible idea . Now, the idea of \u200b\u200bGod as understood by the Catholic theodicy, it is impossible to be contradictory attributes assigned to it (a gift), and if the idea is impossible, ergo God does not show existecomo step below
Myth 1: God as a person. Critical : It is impossible that a being is a person defined as infinite, since it is a finite attribute finite beings and if so extrasolar the infinite personality is distorted and disappear. If God is defined as transcendent or outside space and time can not be a person, because it takes place in a context of space-teporal.Tampoco staff may be one who, by definition spiritual, can not be corporeal as are real people.
Myth 2: Triune God. Critical : A single God while triple is a violation of logical principles of non-contradiction and identity, ergo it is impossible.
Myth 3: God as absolutely simple. Critical : There is nothing in this material world that is quite simple and without parts that co-determine. A simple God would dimension 0, but that contradicts the idea that it is infinite and is everywhere in the space of this universe.
Myth 4: God as omniscient. Critical : an omniscient being is impossible in a universe governed by deterministic chaos systems, but unpredictable in the long term. An omniscient God contradicts the supposed free will, because if God knows everything, ergo everything that we determine in life with which it would defeat the supposed free albedrío.Si God knows everything, ergo it implies that knowledge has not only theoretical but also practical, and if so God can do things such as, for example, stab someone, but for God knows that it is necessary to have body and you feel a homicidal rage, which compromise their spiritual heritage and its goodness. Then the idea of \u200b\u200binfinite wisdom is autoaniquilante.
Myth 5: God as omnipotent. Critical : It contradicts the supposed omnipotence of God with the existence of evil in the world as if it really is omnipotent then would end once and for all with the evils, but as they do is because the tolerated and allows suggesting that God is complicit in the evil that contradicts his goodness. An omnipotent God requires an infinite number of things over which we exercise that power infinite, but since there is such a quantity of things, ergo the idea of \u200b\u200bomnipotence is absurd.
Myth 6: God as an absolute consciousness. Critical : If God is an absolute, ergo God can not interact with other beings, since in that case is not absolute but relative. Consciousness is a subject-object, ergo it is impossible for God all be aware, because if it is would be for their existence contradicts what God absoluta.Si is infinite can not be conscious, since consciousness is consciousness of something that makes it finite, and an infinite swamp objects and therefore could not be conscious of something external to it. Consciousness is a state or bodily function of the brain, but if we define God as immaterial, ergo can not have consciousness.
Myth 7: God as infinitely good. Critical : the absolute goodness of God is at odds with the evil and cruelty that abound in this world supposedly created. The good God is inconsistent with the fair, as the good less than they should punish the guilty and punish him just as much as due (or less or more). Only limbic system agencies may have feelings like kindness, but as God is defined as an immaterial spirit, ergo can not have feelings. If God is a perfect being who has everything and nothing is missing, then you can not have feelings that involve a desire for something that is lacking.
Myth 8: God creating the world and mankind. Critical : If God has absolute existence, ergo God can not create the world, as cretion is a relationship between the creator and the created and God is related to the world is not absolute but relative. An absolutely perfect and necessary God is not comparable with the world and absolute perfection of all beings cancel imperfect and imperfect world would disappear, but as the world exists that there is Dios.Un God creator of men is at odds with free will, because if God made "free", ergo God made their existence, but not the substance that drives them to do good or evil, but as an existence without essence is impossible, then God did not free men, but as mere automata determined by the omniscience and divine providence, which debunks the supposed free will.
Myth 9: God as giver of free will. Critical : If God is omniscient and provident God predetermined ergo everything beforehand, then this contradicts the supposed free will "freedom from want" metafísicos.Si of free will God gave his creatures, then were given a choice of evil and error, but as the wrong choice did not exist before God could only be created by him and therefore, God is imperfect perfection contradicting absoluta.Si God gives the power to choose good and evil, whence came evil? evil could not exist before or outside of an eternal and infinite, therefore, could only come from God to be evil, therefore the power to choose evil or free will contradicts the absolute goodness of God.
Myth 10: God as timeless. Critical : If God is timeless, ergo can not be aware that occurs in the temporal evolution. If God is timeless person can not be developed in a temporal context. If God is timeless can not be eternal, since eternity is nothing but an infinite time not a time 0 or a "before" God is timeless tiempo.Si could not create the world "before" him, since all "before" and "after" presuppose the time.
Myth 11: spaceless God. Critical : If God is spaceless, can not be infinite, because it could not be everywhere in the universe or God is spaceless be ubícuo.Si can not have consciousness is a subject-object = space. If God is spaceless can not be a person living in a "place" God is spaceless dado.Si could not create the world and all creation = creator-creature relationship and every relationship is real space. 
If logical possibility means an absence of contradiction, then an idea that is contradictory in itself (like a square circle) is logically impossible and meaningless to speak of "possible" object denoted by an im-possible idea . Now, the idea of \u200b\u200bGod as understood by the Catholic theodicy, it is impossible to be contradictory attributes assigned to it (a gift), and if the idea is impossible, ergo God does not show existecomo step below
Myth 1: God as a person. Critical : It is impossible that a being is a person defined as infinite, since it is a finite attribute finite beings and if so extrasolar the infinite personality is distorted and disappear. If God is defined as transcendent or outside space and time can not be a person, because it takes place in a context of space-teporal.Tampoco staff may be one who, by definition spiritual, can not be corporeal as are real people.
Myth 2: Triune God. Critical : A single God while triple is a violation of logical principles of non-contradiction and identity, ergo it is impossible.
Myth 3: God as absolutely simple. Critical : There is nothing in this material world that is quite simple and without parts that co-determine. A simple God would dimension 0, but that contradicts the idea that it is infinite and is everywhere in the space of this universe.
Myth 4: God as omniscient. Critical : an omniscient being is impossible in a universe governed by deterministic chaos systems, but unpredictable in the long term. An omniscient God contradicts the supposed free will, because if God knows everything, ergo everything that we determine in life with which it would defeat the supposed free albedrío.Si God knows everything, ergo it implies that knowledge has not only theoretical but also practical, and if so God can do things such as, for example, stab someone, but for God knows that it is necessary to have body and you feel a homicidal rage, which compromise their spiritual heritage and its goodness. Then the idea of \u200b\u200binfinite wisdom is autoaniquilante.
Myth 5: God as omnipotent. Critical : It contradicts the supposed omnipotence of God with the existence of evil in the world as if it really is omnipotent then would end once and for all with the evils, but as they do is because the tolerated and allows suggesting that God is complicit in the evil that contradicts his goodness. An omnipotent God requires an infinite number of things over which we exercise that power infinite, but since there is such a quantity of things, ergo the idea of \u200b\u200bomnipotence is absurd.
Myth 6: God as an absolute consciousness. Critical : If God is an absolute, ergo God can not interact with other beings, since in that case is not absolute but relative. Consciousness is a subject-object, ergo it is impossible for God all be aware, because if it is would be for their existence contradicts what God absoluta.Si is infinite can not be conscious, since consciousness is consciousness of something that makes it finite, and an infinite swamp objects and therefore could not be conscious of something external to it. Consciousness is a state or bodily function of the brain, but if we define God as immaterial, ergo can not have consciousness.
Myth 7: God as infinitely good. Critical : the absolute goodness of God is at odds with the evil and cruelty that abound in this world supposedly created. The good God is inconsistent with the fair, as the good less than they should punish the guilty and punish him just as much as due (or less or more). Only limbic system agencies may have feelings like kindness, but as God is defined as an immaterial spirit, ergo can not have feelings. If God is a perfect being who has everything and nothing is missing, then you can not have feelings that involve a desire for something that is lacking.
Myth 8: God creating the world and mankind. Critical : If God has absolute existence, ergo God can not create the world, as cretion is a relationship between the creator and the created and God is related to the world is not absolute but relative. An absolutely perfect and necessary God is not comparable with the world and absolute perfection of all beings cancel imperfect and imperfect world would disappear, but as the world exists that there is Dios.Un God creator of men is at odds with free will, because if God made "free", ergo God made their existence, but not the substance that drives them to do good or evil, but as an existence without essence is impossible, then God did not free men, but as mere automata determined by the omniscience and divine providence, which debunks the supposed free will.
Myth 9: God as giver of free will. Critical : If God is omniscient and provident God predetermined ergo everything beforehand, then this contradicts the supposed free will "freedom from want" metafísicos.Si of free will God gave his creatures, then were given a choice of evil and error, but as the wrong choice did not exist before God could only be created by him and therefore, God is imperfect perfection contradicting absoluta.Si God gives the power to choose good and evil, whence came evil? evil could not exist before or outside of an eternal and infinite, therefore, could only come from God to be evil, therefore the power to choose evil or free will contradicts the absolute goodness of God.
Myth 10: God as timeless. Critical : If God is timeless, ergo can not be aware that occurs in the temporal evolution. If God is timeless person can not be developed in a temporal context. If God is timeless can not be eternal, since eternity is nothing but an infinite time not a time 0 or a "before" God is timeless tiempo.Si could not create the world "before" him, since all "before" and "after" presuppose the time.
Myth 11: spaceless God. Critical : If God is spaceless, can not be infinite, because it could not be everywhere in the universe or God is spaceless be ubícuo.Si can not have consciousness is a subject-object = space. If God is spaceless can not be a person living in a "place" God is spaceless dado.Si could not create the world and all creation = creator-creature relationship and every relationship is real space.
Hypothyroidism In Men
Catholic lies and fallacies about Galileo case
Historians serve the interests of the ICAR have used a number of fallacies, half truths and rhetorical tricks to fake (in Newspeak Catholic "review") the reality on the Galileo case to expose what has happened immediately:
1) Galileo was a brawler type, proud, vain, arrogant and bad temper that caused an unnecessary conflict with the Catholic Church on the subject of heliocentrism, she wanted to avoid at all costs, only for pride intellectual a man who always "right" and at the end, I did a disservice to the church and the same science that became atheist by his arrogance left. Critical
: Here we see that the "argument" is nothing more than revisionist a distracting ad hominem fallacy ABUSIVE that focuses only on the subjective character (which is irrelevant in a discussion wise), not arguments either (ad rem) it should be. On the other hand, it is true that Galileo would trigger hostilities against the Church for the heliocentric, as the Church itself triggered the war against the heliocentric theory by burning at the stake to the philosopher Giordano heliocentric Bruno in 1600 (16 years before the first trial of Galileo). And on the pride and vanity that is credited to Galileo (which may well be true) I would not use it much as a weapon, because after all also Pope Urban VIII, who condemned Galileo in the second trial, was described by his biographers as a pompous, proud and vain Pope who said "I know more than all the cardinals together" and who, on one occasion, ordered to kill all birds near the Vatican because the noise bothered him ... they made (do not think that Pope is an idol of the humane society, precisely ;-)).
2) Galileo did not show the heliocentric theory, which was only subsequently demonstrated by Kepler, and the Church had no reason to believe in a theory before being verified. Critical
: New error, as Galileo did demonstrate the Copernican theory to verify observationally, with the telescope, the phases of Venus that were predicted by Copernicus. And if a theory is corroborated verify predictions derived from it, and that made Galileo, Galileo ergo it verified the Copernican theory. Moreover, Galileo's discovery of the satellites or moons of Jupiter served to dispel the objection that the planets geocentrist should revolve around the earth as we see the moon does, but as the moon is a satellite of the earth could not expect otherwise, and it does not follow that because the moon revolves around the earth around the planetary system should, too. That the Catholic Church did not believe in the theory of Copernicus during his lifetime was reasonable given that Copernicus did not show it, but do not accept at the time of Galileo, Kepler and Newton (XVII and XVIII centuries) when the theory was solid foundation is only blindness (as the worst blind is the one who will not see) and faith-driven irrationality, as the "infallible" Church just accepted it, reluctantly, in the year ... 1835 (sic).
3) Galileo was never tortured and never was subject to imprisonment as say detractors of the Church. Critical
: Error, if Galileo was subject to imprisonment, treated with indignity, and death threats amounted to mental torture and, to top it off he was forced to an old poor and nearly blind, pronouncing knees humiliating withdrawal following: "I, Galileo, sixty years old, with POW and he knelt down to your eminence, having before my eyes the Holy Gospel, on which I put my hands, abjure, curse and detest the error and heresy of the movement of the earth "(The struggle between dogmatism and science at the heart of Christendom by Andrew White).
4) The Catholic Church does not burn when Galileo showed great indulgence that honor. Different would be the case if it had fallen into the hands of the evil Protestants such as Calvin, who, without further ado, I would burn at the stake and burned at the stake the scholar Miguel Servet. Critical
: No doubt that Galileo had been roasted by fans in Geneva if he had fallen into their clutches, but it seems that these "historians" have a fragile historical memory, as Giordano Bruno to defend, among others, Copernicus's theory as fans toasted Catholics with such "indulgence" as the Protestants Servet.Por other hand, if Catholics are not roasted to Galileo was because 1) Galileo was recognized internationally and have been a disaster of "public relations" toast to the eminent scientist, especially if we Realizing that this murder had served as propaganda trick for Protestants in their campaigns anticatólicas.2) Galileo was not retracted toast because (unlike the brave Bruno), but if he had not retracted as Bruno had been burned and many others and you would witness the "lenient" may be the ICAR when someone does not bow to their whims dogmatic.
5) Pope Urban VIII was advised by the best astronomers and had as an argument against the theory of the astronomer Galileo T. Brahe who defended geocentrism with new arguments. Critical
: If the pope was so well advised and had so many "scientific" arguments against Galileo, why did not refute rationally rather than submit to threats of death if he did not recant?. Resort to violence to settle scientific arguments is only one AD baculum fallacy that nothing shows. And in the trial of Galileo were conspicuous by their absence, the test sound (or any Brahe), but plentiful, yes, the Bible verses .. (sic) who were the ultimate "test" against Galileo as evidenced by this excerpt from the decision of the Inquisition :"... the opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun is contrary to scripture, and therefore can not be sustained and defended. " (The scientific perspective of Bertrand Russell) What good be so good "advice" if it resorts to vulgar fallacy of argument from authority to "refute" Galileo?.
6) Galileo was condemned for heresy, but contempt and disrespect for the pope. Critical
: Although Galileo did not comply with the prohibition of trial in 1616 and apparently put into the mouth of a character of some objections Diálogollamado Simplicio Pope him in person, which upset over the pope, is an argument that turns against Urban VIII as this implies that the pope condemned for 200 years and outlined a theory to Iglesiaa accusations of obscurantism and if unscientific ... just a mere child tantrum against Galileo personal (sic). On the other hand, this charge is not sustained by the rulings of the inquisition that clearly say "heresy" and not "Default". Then the "plot" has no evidence base. 
Historians serve the interests of the ICAR have used a number of fallacies, half truths and rhetorical tricks to fake (in Newspeak Catholic "review") the reality on the Galileo case to expose what has happened immediately:
1) Galileo was a brawler type, proud, vain, arrogant and bad temper that caused an unnecessary conflict with the Catholic Church on the subject of heliocentrism, she wanted to avoid at all costs, only for pride intellectual a man who always "right" and at the end, I did a disservice to the church and the same science that became atheist by his arrogance left. Critical
: Here we see that the "argument" is nothing more than revisionist a distracting ad hominem fallacy ABUSIVE that focuses only on the subjective character (which is irrelevant in a discussion wise), not arguments either (ad rem) it should be. On the other hand, it is true that Galileo would trigger hostilities against the Church for the heliocentric, as the Church itself triggered the war against the heliocentric theory by burning at the stake to the philosopher Giordano heliocentric Bruno in 1600 (16 years before the first trial of Galileo). And on the pride and vanity that is credited to Galileo (which may well be true) I would not use it much as a weapon, because after all also Pope Urban VIII, who condemned Galileo in the second trial, was described by his biographers as a pompous, proud and vain Pope who said "I know more than all the cardinals together" and who, on one occasion, ordered to kill all birds near the Vatican because the noise bothered him ... they made (do not think that Pope is an idol of the humane society, precisely ;-)).
2) Galileo did not show the heliocentric theory, which was only subsequently demonstrated by Kepler, and the Church had no reason to believe in a theory before being verified. Critical
: New error, as Galileo did demonstrate the Copernican theory to verify observationally, with the telescope, the phases of Venus that were predicted by Copernicus. And if a theory is corroborated verify predictions derived from it, and that made Galileo, Galileo ergo it verified the Copernican theory. Moreover, Galileo's discovery of the satellites or moons of Jupiter served to dispel the objection that the planets geocentrist should revolve around the earth as we see the moon does, but as the moon is a satellite of the earth could not expect otherwise, and it does not follow that because the moon revolves around the earth around the planetary system should, too. That the Catholic Church did not believe in the theory of Copernicus during his lifetime was reasonable given that Copernicus did not show it, but do not accept at the time of Galileo, Kepler and Newton (XVII and XVIII centuries) when the theory was solid foundation is only blindness (as the worst blind is the one who will not see) and faith-driven irrationality, as the "infallible" Church just accepted it, reluctantly, in the year ... 1835 (sic).
3) Galileo was never tortured and never was subject to imprisonment as say detractors of the Church. Critical
: Error, if Galileo was subject to imprisonment, treated with indignity, and death threats amounted to mental torture and, to top it off he was forced to an old poor and nearly blind, pronouncing knees humiliating withdrawal following: "I, Galileo, sixty years old, with POW and he knelt down to your eminence, having before my eyes the Holy Gospel, on which I put my hands, abjure, curse and detest the error and heresy of the movement of the earth "(The struggle between dogmatism and science at the heart of Christendom by Andrew White).
4) The Catholic Church does not burn when Galileo showed great indulgence that honor. Different would be the case if it had fallen into the hands of the evil Protestants such as Calvin, who, without further ado, I would burn at the stake and burned at the stake the scholar Miguel Servet. Critical
: No doubt that Galileo had been roasted by fans in Geneva if he had fallen into their clutches, but it seems that these "historians" have a fragile historical memory, as Giordano Bruno to defend, among others, Copernicus's theory as fans toasted Catholics with such "indulgence" as the Protestants Servet.Por other hand, if Catholics are not roasted to Galileo was because 1) Galileo was recognized internationally and have been a disaster of "public relations" toast to the eminent scientist, especially if we Realizing that this murder had served as propaganda trick for Protestants in their campaigns anticatólicas.2) Galileo was not retracted toast because (unlike the brave Bruno), but if he had not retracted as Bruno had been burned and many others and you would witness the "lenient" may be the ICAR when someone does not bow to their whims dogmatic.
5) Pope Urban VIII was advised by the best astronomers and had as an argument against the theory of the astronomer Galileo T. Brahe who defended geocentrism with new arguments. Critical
: If the pope was so well advised and had so many "scientific" arguments against Galileo, why did not refute rationally rather than submit to threats of death if he did not recant?. Resort to violence to settle scientific arguments is only one AD baculum fallacy that nothing shows. And in the trial of Galileo were conspicuous by their absence, the test sound (or any Brahe), but plentiful, yes, the Bible verses .. (sic) who were the ultimate "test" against Galileo as evidenced by this excerpt from the decision of the Inquisition :"... the opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun is contrary to scripture, and therefore can not be sustained and defended. " (The scientific perspective of Bertrand Russell) What good be so good "advice" if it resorts to vulgar fallacy of argument from authority to "refute" Galileo?.
6) Galileo was condemned for heresy, but contempt and disrespect for the pope. Critical
: Although Galileo did not comply with the prohibition of trial in 1616 and apparently put into the mouth of a character of some objections Diálogollamado Simplicio Pope him in person, which upset over the pope, is an argument that turns against Urban VIII as this implies that the pope condemned for 200 years and outlined a theory to Iglesiaa accusations of obscurantism and if unscientific ... just a mere child tantrum against Galileo personal (sic). On the other hand, this charge is not sustained by the rulings of the inquisition that clearly say "heresy" and not "Default". Then the "plot" has no evidence base.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)