Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

[youtube][/youtube]

UNHWildCats wrote:[youtube][/youtube]

You leave Papa O'Reilly alone!

When I'm reading one of 89hen's posts I'm seeing and hearing Bill O talk.

(And I mean that with affection)

kalm wrote:When I'm reading one of 89hen's posts I'm seeing and hearing Bill O talk.

(And I mean that with affection)

That is EXACTLY the way I feel too...
They might actually be the same guy - you can't prove they're not

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:When I'm reading one of 89hen's posts I'm seeing and hearing Bill O talk.

(And I mean that with affection)

That is EXACTLY the way I feel too...
They might actually be the same guy - you can't prove they're not

Maybe we can. I think '93 may have met him.

Hey '93. Does '89 look like Bill O'Reilly?

So he can't explain stuff because he is undereducated and that = god? Wow.

That is really about as moronic as it gets. That would be like a flower thinking that it is all here because of it's existence.

Flower O'Reilly: How did the sun get here? Was it just luck? how did the water get here? Was that just luck too? I don't think so! It takes more faith to NOT believe in the flower higher power!

The flower never has the ability to examine that it's existence is because of these other elements being accessible.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:That is really about as moronic as it gets. That would be like a flower thinking that it is all here because of it's existence.

Flower O'Reilly: How did the sun get here? Was it just luck? how did the water get here? Was that just luck too? I don't think so! It takes more faith to NOT believe in the flower higher power!

The flower never has the ability to examine that it's existence is because of these other elements being accessible.

The funny thing is O'reilly thinks he's really smart...

[youtube][/youtube]

Jesus fucking Christ.

He's a gift from god, alright.

Even in this, I must be weird. I like Dave Ramsey (Fox Business) and I absolutely adore Martha McCallum and Megyn Kelly. But I'm just not that into Bill O'Reilly. He just seems a bit too over the top for me. Am I too old school?

I haven't even graduated high school and I "know" these things. His argument is weak sauce

I think he is being over-simplistic, but he is actually invoking a rather venerable school of cosmological philosophy known as the "First Cause" theory. Notable proponents of the "First Cause" (albeit with personal modifications and caveats) include Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas. It generally holds that all things or actions in existence have a cause, but there must have been something which existed without a prior cause, from which all causation thereafter results. It is still a pretty vibrant philosophy today. Indeed, a prevalent criticism of Stephen Hawking's recent effort to explain how the universe emerged from nothing was that he failed to meaningfully address the First Cause objection (calling the First Cause the "M Theory" is actually adopting a First Cause outlook, but just changing the name of the First Cause). Indeed, many philosophers criticized Hawking for trying to cover his inability to identify a "First Cause" by invoking the vague "M Theory" (a theory which he had previously criticized).

So the First Cause theory is alive and well; so vibrant that even Stephen Hawking cannot explain existence without it.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

That is EXACTLY the way I feel too...
They might actually be the same guy - you can't prove they're not

Maybe we can. I think '93 may have met him.

Hey '93. Does '89 look like Bill O'Reilly?

Much closer to Sean Hannity thank you very much.

But the First Cause needed a cause too ad infinitum.

Just saying that there must be a first cause and deciding that it is the christian god is a pretty big leap.

JoltinJoe wrote:I think he is being over-simplistic, but he is actually invoking a rather venerable school of cosmological philosophy known as the "First Cause" theory. Notable proponents of the "First Cause" (albeit with personal modifications and caveats) include Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas. It generally holds that all things or actions in existence have a cause, but there must have been something which existed without a prior cause, from which all causation thereafter results. It is still a pretty vibrant philosophy today. Indeed, a prevalent criticism of Stephen Hawking's recent effort to explain how the universe emerged from nothing was that he failed to meaningfully address the First Cause objection (calling the First Cause the "M Theory" is actually adopting a First Cause outlook, but just changing the name of the First Cause). Indeed, many philosophers criticized Hawking for trying to cover his inability to identify a "First Cause" by invoking the vague "M Theory" (a theory which he had previously criticized).

So the First Cause theory is alive and well; so vibrant that even Stephen Hawking cannot explain existence without it.

Joe,
You’re being kind
O'reilly wouldn’t know the Plato Prime Mover argument if his life depended on it...
He's a spoon fed talking head mouth piece - it's common knowledge - he's handed his scripts and told what to talk about - he's just a bully - and not a very smart bully who's told exactly what to be a bully about

Vidav wrote:But the First Cause needed a cause too ad infinitum.

Just saying that there must be a first cause and deciding that it is the christian god is a pretty big leap.

Well, this is frequently stated objection to the First Cause, but it doesn't really hold.

First of all, it accepts the general premise of the First Cause -- generally, that all things which exist must have a cause.

Second, this objection does nothing but simply object to the definition of the First Cause -- that which exists without prior cause. It doesn't really get the meat of the point that, in order for all other things to exist, there must be something which exists without cause, and which from which all causation results (sometimes called the Prime Mover, or the thing which put all things into motion).

Moving from the philosophical to a theological application of this concept, it may well be a long trail from getting from the First Cause to the Christian God, but that process starts by asking whether it is more reasonable to believe that this First Cause is an impersonal force, indifferent to our existence, or a personal force which is actively engaged in our existence. I covered that trail in college and was surprised to see, at the end of it, how necessary and inevitable the Incarnation had to be.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Vidav wrote:But the First Cause needed a cause too ad infinitum.

Just saying that there must be a first cause and deciding that it is the christian god is a pretty big leap.

Well, this is frequently stated objection to the First Cause, but it doesn't really hold.

First of all, it accepts the general premise of the First Cause -- generally, that all things which exist must have a cause.

Second, this objection does nothing but simply object to the definition of the First Cause -- that which exists without prior cause. It doesn't really get the meat of the point that, in order for all other things to exist, there must be something which exists without cause, and which from which all causation results (sometimes called the Prime Mover, or the thing which put all things into motion).

Moving from the philosophical to a theological application of this concept, it may well be a long trail from getting from the First Cause to the Christian God, but that process starts by asking whether it is more reasonable to believe that this First Cause is an impersonal force, indifferent to our existence, or a personal force which is actively engaged in our existence. I covered that trail in college and was surprised to see, at the end of it, how necessary and inevitable the Incarnation had to be.

Joe,
We all find what we're looking for... Usually exactly what we're looking for

Chizzang wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:I think he is being over-simplistic, but he is actually invoking a rather venerable school of cosmological philosophy known as the "First Cause" theory. Notable proponents of the "First Cause" (albeit with personal modifications and caveats) include Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas. It generally holds that all things or actions in existence have a cause, but there must have been something which existed without a prior cause, from which all causation thereafter results. It is still a pretty vibrant philosophy today. Indeed, a prevalent criticism of Stephen Hawking's recent effort to explain how the universe emerged from nothing was that he failed to meaningfully address the First Cause objection (calling the First Cause the "M Theory" is actually adopting a First Cause outlook, but just changing the name of the First Cause). Indeed, many philosophers criticized Hawking for trying to cover his inability to identify a "First Cause" by invoking the vague "M Theory" (a theory which he had previously criticized).

So the First Cause theory is alive and well; so vibrant that even Stephen Hawking cannot explain existence without it.

Joe,
You’re being kind
O'reilly wouldn’t know the Plato Prime Mover argument if his life depended on it...
He's a spoon fed talking head mouth piece - it's common knowledge - he's handed his scripts and told what to talk about - he's just a bully - and not a very smart bully who's told exactly what to be a bully about

I have no idea if O'Reilly has read Plato, or is just paraphrasing something he heard from someone who heard something from someone who did read Plato. His pretty generic and simplistic explanation of it may well support the latter.

But I know that, at your core, you are at least a philosophical/theological First Cause proponent. I know this because you have said that you accept, as the definition of God, the philosophical understanding that God is "What is."

One of the most significant moments of my life is when I first noticed the parallel between Plato's "First Cause" and the Old Testament naming of God as "Yahweh," which translaes, "I am what is" or even "I am because I am," (i.e., I am that which exists without prior cause), or even "I Cause That Which Exists." Given that the Hebrew naming of Yahweh occurred long before Plato, I was struck by the deep philosophical insight this Old Testament writer possessed.

Chizzang wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Well, this is frequently stated objection to the First Cause, but it doesn't really hold.

First of all, it accepts the general premise of the First Cause -- generally, that all things which exist must have a cause.

Second, this objection does nothing but simply object to the definition of the First Cause -- that which exists without prior cause. It doesn't really get the meat of the point that, in order for all other things to exist, there must be something which exists without cause, and which from which all causation results (sometimes called the Prime Mover, or the thing which put all things into motion).

Moving from the philosophical to a theological application of this concept, it may well be a long trail from getting from the First Cause to the Christian God, but that process starts by asking whether it is more reasonable to believe that this First Cause is an impersonal force, indifferent to our existence, or a personal force which is actively engaged in our existence. I covered that trail in college and was surprised to see, at the end of it, how necessary and inevitable the Incarnation had to be.

Joe,
We all find what we're looking for... Usually exactly what we're looking for

Perhaps we because we are instilled with a longing for it and we are thus drawn to it, instinctively? Like a child is drawn to his mother?

God is the best qualities of man, in perfect fulfillment.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Chizzang wrote: Joe,
We all find what we're looking for... Usually exactly what we're looking for

Perhaps we because we are instilled with a longing for it and we are thus drawn to it, instinctively? Like a child is drawn to his mother?

God is the best qualities of man, in perfect fulfillment.

Every atom contains the whole universe within…
Similarly it is said that Buddhism contains the entire teaching within its single written symbol

"Essence of the Whole Teaching" is a fairly common occurrence if you’re the kind of person who decides to experience the world in that way… others (I suppose) see the world (or everything) as a series of disconnected entities and disconnected events… I guess that’s why I always loved chaos theory - because it worked so hard to connect that which by all appearances was not

In the end we’re all looking for “that connection” regardless of how hard some might try to explain it away or blow it away… it tugs at our very fabric - and our fabric - the stuff we're made of is exactly the same stuff that makes everything in the universe (exactly the same stuff) so we are indeed "essence of the whole" in action - walking talking little universes... It's no wonder we are drawn to it - we're made of it...

Chizzang wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Perhaps we because we are instilled with a longing for it and we are thus drawn to it, instinctively? Like a child is drawn to his mother?

God is the best qualities of man, in perfect fulfillment.

Every atom contains the whole universe within…
Similarly it is said that Buddhism contains the entire teaching within its single written symbol

"Essence of the Whole Teaching" is a fairly common occurrence if you’re the kind of person who decides to experience the world in that way… others (I suppose) see the world (or everything) as a series of disconnected entities and disconnected events… I guess that’s why I always loved chaos theory - because it worked so hard to connect that which by all appearances was not

In the end we’re all looking for “that connection” regardless of how hard some might try to explain it away or blow it away… it tugs at our very fabric - and our fabric - the stuff we're made of is exactly the same stuff that makes everything in the universe (exactly the same stuff) so we are indeed "essence of the whole" in action - walking talking little universes... It's no wonder we are drawn to it - we're made of it...

I won't deny that there is profound wisdom in other philosophy and theologies; however, it is the idea that we are drawn to something, and at least in my mind, the necessary converse that this something must also be drawn to us (and, indeed, is perfectly drawn to us) which, in a nutshell, makes the Incarnation an inevitably, in my mind. Yes, I agree, we are made of it.

I also don't think we're being tricked down here. If there is a personal, loving God, he must be manifesting himself to us in the form of a major world religion.

The IQ Test scale:

JoltinJoe wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Every atom contains the whole universe within…
Similarly it is said that Buddhism contains the entire teaching within its single written symbol

"Essence of the Whole Teaching" is a fairly common occurrence if you’re the kind of person who decides to experience the world in that way… others (I suppose) see the world (or everything) as a series of disconnected entities and disconnected events… I guess that’s why I always loved chaos theory - because it worked so hard to connect that which by all appearances was not

In the end we’re all looking for “that connection” regardless of how hard some might try to explain it away or blow it away… it tugs at our very fabric - and our fabric - the stuff we're made of is exactly the same stuff that makes everything in the universe (exactly the same stuff) so we are indeed "essence of the whole" in action - walking talking little universes... It's no wonder we are drawn to it - we're made of it...

I won't deny that there is profound wisdom in other philosophy and theologies; however, it is the idea that we are drawn to something, and at least in my mind, the necessary converse that this something must also be drawn to us which, in a nutshell, makes the Incarnation an inevitably, in my mind. Yes, I agree, we are made of it.

I also don't think we're being tricked down here. If there is a personal, loving God, he must be manifesting himself to us in the form of a major world religion.

All major world religions seem like the same thing to me...
In fact: Excluding the minutia and nit-picky divisive crap they all seem like exactly the same thing