BF2S Forums Suggested by Tyferra

whats a burrito?  i'm from ireland so dont flame me

kkolodsick wrote:

david363 wrote:

whats a burrito?  i'm from ireland so dont flame me

No flame here, I just nearly pissed myself...

A burrito is usually cheese/beans/some type of meat etc wrapped in a tortilla.

what he said, and its mexican

As much as I enjoyed the debate in the other thread, I just don't think this one is going to spark ( sic) a serious debate.

Again, this is an attempt by the non-believers to capture god with human concepts of reasoning, with human logic. how is that supposed to work ?

What a Burrito is dosn't matter, the point is it's microwavable and is tasty when heated.
Debate and Serious talk? Honestly Spark...

I would have put it in the "Not" section, but it has potential... yes it has potential.
Bible-bashers, take your marks... GO!
I'm looking forward to some comment at some time from JaMDuDe.

Edit: Spark, it's good to see you made sure that I was responsible for this. Nice to see yourself keeping out of trouble if this blows up in our face - much like an over-microwaved burrito. As for me, this type of behavior is expected

Last edited by Tyferra (2006-04-18 05:35:50)

kkolodsick wrote:

A burrito is usually cheese/beans/some type of meat etc wrapped in a tortilla.

Dude, that's half of everything dubbed "mexican cuisine"

Change it up just slightly, you have a taco, tostada, etc...

and LMFAO at the Irish guy. That was awesome.

B.Schuss wrote:

I'll give it a day or so and see how it goes.

cool

tyf's theory is correct though... since god is the almighty and all seeing, couldnt he make something so complex that he doesnt even understand?

Spark wrote:

Tyferra wrote:

Could God microwave a burrito SO HOT that he himself could not eat it?

Yes I know I stole that from The Simpsons, that marijuana episode was bloody hilarious, but I would be so thankful if some nice christian fellah could answer this for me.

And if he could make a burrito so hot He Himself couldn't eat it, would that burrito be a cooling snack for the Devil?

B.Schuss wrote:

well, the point is, that if he were to do that, he wouldn't be almighty any more...

thats why the theory of a god is wrong right

so pretty much is... A BURRITO IS MORE POWERFUL THAN GOD

wait... wouldnt the burrito burn up if its so hot?

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Tyferra wrote:

What a Burrito is dosn't matter, the point is it's microwavable and is tasty when heated.
Debate and Serious talk? Honestly Spark...

I would have put it in the "Not" section, but it has potential... yes it has potential.
Bible-bashers, take your marks... GO!
I'm looking forward to some comment at some time from JaMDuDe.

Edit: Spark, it's good to see you made sure that I was responsible for this. Nice to see yourself keeping out of trouble if this blows up in our face - much like an over-microwaved burrito. As for me, this type of behavior is expected

Ok... I'll try, but I can't give a smart answer to a dumb question.  So I'll ask you a question.

Can a genius successfully pass a test that would qualify him as an idiot?

One word answer: NO. They have a test for I.Q. it is called an I.Q. test, and NO(!) genius's do not PASS (which constitutes a verification of a level of education, combined with abstract reasoning skills, you're simply being semantically ignorant here, I assume it's deliberate or due to laziness); so they don't get verified (pass) this test at a level equal to an Idiot - they PASS (get verified) at a level equal to a genius.

Can god make a burrito to hot for even god to eat? Or a rock so heavy he can't lift it. Or make a mountain so high he can't climb it? Or make a pair of tiny shiny blue underwear so tight that even he can't put them on?

All these supposed contradictions are merely evidence of the limitations of language and common human error when contemplating complexities and infinites - without any depth. The errors are simply semantic/grammatical errors - and nothing more (human error when using language; and not using reason).

We are all contemplating quite a few different things when we are constructing a (human) metaphysical extension to the known attributes of this Universe.

We are contemplating:
Infinities (of many different forms)
The concept of absolutes (is there really an absolute in space-time?)
Greater being
Transcendence (what is extant outside of this space-time?)
God as a concept
God as a divinity
God as a label for Transcendence
The void of nothingness
Omnipotence (what is this Churchy idea?)
Singularities (or boundaries of knowing & being)
Anthropomorphic projections (it’s hard not to - you are a human being & you’re brain works with images all the time)

I think the obvious answer to the question is also a short one - NO. God could not & would not make a burrito so hot that he could not eat it. An atheistic attempt to disqualify the concept of omnipotence with a semantic contradiction hardly seems like a logical pursuit for any reasonable mind. There is no (logical!) proof for god; and conversely there is no (logical) proof against god. The conception of this type of logical conjecture - is purely absurd, and is exactly what it is - pure conjecture (logical hyperbole and nonsense of the grandest kind).

While this obvious error does not negate God in concept - does it negate the concept of omnipotence?

The Christian Church (a human organization) has (and has; in the past) asserted that God is omnipotent. But what does that assertion mean beyond the linguistic (contradiction) error inherent to the semantic/grammatical construction. Omnipotent over creation can mean something quite different than omnipotent over the platonic ideal (or a world of ideas existing in pure form; or merely as thought).

Omnipotence as an absolute is the (human) semantic conceptualization error that is made here. You live in a Universe where everything is relation to something else - thus it is always relative to something else. Yet there are erroneous absolutes conceptions ever lingering in the human mind (omnipotence within reality being one of them). Existence requires a limit; a boundary - and this is a limitation period (omnipotence within a limitation should be an obvious NOT). Everything that exists, that is not outside of space-time is existing with a limitation - that is within the boundary of our Universe. A real burrito in (existing within the boundary; the limitation of) space-time CANNOT be so hot that God could not eat it (it would not be a real burrito if it could not be eaten. It CAN’T BE INFINITELY HOT, within the boundary of our Universe. Eating & chewing on ideas though are quite easy).

Also - we are not talking about a transcendent burrito here - that would not be extant as we know existence to be - we are talking about a REAL burrito. Second - we are not talking about the burrito as an absolute conception (a platonic form existing separate; & dualistically; from the actual burrito). Third - we’re not just constructing an oxymoronic contradiction of semantic terms and hoping no one will have enough brains to notice the error (or are we?). Therefore it would be a REAL burrito and it would NOT be to hot for even you to eat it (finish it maybe not, but taste it even you could do that, you could eat some of it; a tiny part at a minimum) - and (NO!) God would not (could not) eat it - as this has no meaning for it to do so (and God not being like you or your reality, being transcendent of it; of limitation; and transcendent of the burrito; it simply makes no sense at assert the absurdity further; yet). IF god is transcendent of our limited existence (beyond the laws of our space-time) then it is also beyond eating a REALLY god-damn-hot-burrito; or more correctly of eating an impossible infinitely hot burrito. The god-killing; logical-poof-god-gone; omnipotence-no-more; burrito of death; would have NO MEANING PERIOD OR POWER AS A CONCEPT IN THE MIND OF TRANSCENDENT GOD.

Omnipotent within a boundary is the human error made here and cannot be transcribed to natures that are transcendent. 

I think, I could safely assume that God being transcendent of this kind of nonsense - we can safely guess it is also free from making this semantic/grammatical mistake in reasoning as well.

Last edited by topal63 (2006-04-18 11:04:54)

So.. is the burrito too hot or not?

Sorry, now I'm just being a dumbass.. Deliberately..

If an example of Murphy's law is that a slice of bread always lands butter-side-down, can it be reversed by natures laws; By glueing the slice of bread onto the back of a cat..

Whoa, I just won myself in a game of "spot the dumbass"!

topal63 wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Tyferra wrote:

What a Burrito is dosn't matter, the point is it's microwavable and is tasty when heated.
Debate and Serious talk? Honestly Spark...

I would have put it in the "Not" section, but it has potential... yes it has potential.
Bible-bashers, take your marks... GO!
I'm looking forward to some comment at some time from JaMDuDe.

Edit: Spark, it's good to see you made sure that I was responsible for this. Nice to see yourself keeping out of trouble if this blows up in our face - much like an over-microwaved burrito. As for me, this type of behavior is expected

Ok... I'll try, but I can't give a smart answer to a dumb question.  So I'll ask you a question.

Can a genius successfully pass a test that would qualify him as an idiot?

One word answer: NO. They have a test for I.Q. it is called an I.Q. test, and NO(!) genius's do not PASS (which constitutes a verification of a level of education, combined with abstract reasoning skills, you're simply being semantically ignorant here, I assume it's deliberate or due to laziness); so they don't get verified (pass) this test at a level equal to an Idiot - they PASS (get verified) at a level equal to a genius.

It was deliberate to show that the question itself does not make logical sense.  And I was not referring to an I.Q. test... any test that successfully passed that would qualify a genius as an idiot.