what happen to kong hee dishonesty case?

BadzMaro

20 Dec 11, 11:02

Originally posted by Jacky Woo:

still no answer to the qns I am trying very hard to look for the answers, but to no avail. diverting attention away from the qns. humans? humans? why shift attention to humans when who is the omnipotent and omniscient god? again diverting attention away from the issue. of course humans got limitation, are you saying the same for god too?

Here.

Maybe TCMC's link can 'enlighten' your mind,.

Maybe my english is too simple for you to understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Re-read my answer.

Again u fail to understand my post. Humans have limitations thats why we know we can build something we cannot lift, but we can build something to lift what we cannot lift.

God on the other-hand, or some Omnipotent Omniscience Being, the words or language attempting to prescribe such a being, is not just limited by our language, but also by our understanding.

Again. Read. the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Unless you tell me J. L. Mackie. Peter Geach,St Augustine, René Descartes,Isaac Asimov,Thomas Aquinas,C. S. Lewis,John Christian Uy,William Jennings Bryan,Ludwig Wittgenstein(Now this guys is awesome).. AND MANY MORE

Are you trying to tell me that these great thinkers of thier time, who cannot seem to agree universally what or who or how or whatever... to describe something as Omnipotent or Omniscience. And you can ? I sure as hell can't.

So please man.. stop digging urself a bigger hole you cannot get yourself out of. Accept your own ignorance and learn from this experience.

Jacky Woo

20 Dec 11, 13:24

Originally posted by BadzMaro:

Here.

Maybe TCMC's link can 'enlighten' your mind,.

Maybe my english is too simple for you to understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Re-read my answer.

Again u fail to understand my post. Humans have limitations thats why we know we can build something we cannot lift, but we can build something to lift what we cannot lift.

God on the other-hand, or some Omnipotent Omniscience Being, the words or language attempting to prescribe such a being, is not just limited by our language, but also by our understanding.

Again. Read. the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Unless you tell me J. L. Mackie. Peter Geach,St Augustine, René Descartes,Isaac Asimov,Thomas Aquinas,C. S. Lewis,John Christian Uy,William Jennings Bryan,Ludwig Wittgenstein(Now this guys is awesome).. AND MANY MORE

Are you trying to tell me that these great thinkers of thier time, who cannot seem to agree universally what or who or how or whatever... to describe something as Omnipotent or Omniscience. And you can ? I sure as hell can't.

So please man.. stop digging urself a bigger hole you cannot get yourself out of. Accept your own ignorance and learn from this experience.

thats hilarious warped reply from you zealots. I cannot help but to term you with your brethrens here.

I dunno why you bring humans limitations out? you think I dunno or we dunno human limitations, need you to say? anyway the question is on god, if he can create something he cant create. probably you are diverting attention to human limitations away from this qns. you can say whatever you like, but still the qns is not answered. anyway I already knew the reply, just want to see you zealots reply on this qns. you can give anything but the answer to the qns Am I surprised? absolutely not.

talking abour great thinkers? does it not include stephen hawkings and Buddha as well?

anyway I shall not waste my time replying because your reasonings and logic are as warped as your brethrens. anything but the question otherwise its illogical and incoherent replies

Tcmc

20 Dec 11, 13:31

Originally posted by Jacky Woo:

thats hilarious warped reply from you zealots. I cannot you but to term you with your brethrens here.

I dunno why you bring humans limitations out? you think I dunno or we dunno human limitations, need you to say? anyway the question is on god, if he can create something he cant create. probably you are diverting attention to human limitations away from this qns. you can say whatever you like, but still the qns is not answered. anyway I already knew the reply, just want to see you zealots reply on this qns. you can give anything but the answer to the qns Am I surprised? absolutely not.

talking abour great thinkers? does it not include stephen hawkings and Buddha as well?

anyway I shall not waste my time replying because your reasonings and logic are as warped as your brethrens. anything but the question otherwise its illogical and incoherent replies

1000 likes!

BroInChrist

20 Dec 11, 16:52

Originally posted by Tcmc:

1000 likes!

You would like anything that is attacking the Christian faith lah.

dangerboi

20 Dec 11, 20:36

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

Not necessarily so. Else how do you account for why scientists disagree?

They need to agree in order for that finding to be a fact. Since they disagree, that finding would not be a fact then.

Sometimes it's possible for that finding to be a fact even though there were tons of disagreements.

Studies have shown that cholesterol contributes/ doesn't contribute to heart disease.

Do you think that cholesterol contributes to heart disease?

Basically, all scientists will come to an agreement or a disagreement. In that disagreement, it is actually an agreement because there were quite a no. of who had agreed in that disagreement.

It's either black or white in science. The grey are still waiting for their turn to be black or to be white and hence, the grey shouldn't be classified as a fact (which is supposed to either black or white)

dangerboi

20 Dec 11, 20:40

Each research cost ten of thousands or even millions of dollars over a span of a few years. "People who interpret things differently" should never be allowed to do the interpretation and should they decide to challenge that interpretation they would have to do the exact same experiments and obtain different results.

BadzMaro

21 Dec 11, 04:22

Originally posted by Jacky Woo:

thats hilarious warped reply from you zealots. I cannot help but to term you with your brethrens here.

I dunno why you bring humans limitations out? you think I dunno or we dunno human limitations, need you to say? anyway the question is on god, if he can create something he cant create. probably you are diverting attention to human limitations away from this qns. you can say whatever you like, but still the qns is not answered. anyway I already knew the reply, just want to see you zealots reply on this qns. you can give anything but the answer to the qns Am I surprised? absolutely not.

talking abour great thinkers? does it not include stephen hawkings and Buddha as well?

anyway I shall not waste my time replying because your reasonings and logic are as warped as your brethrens. anything but the question otherwise its illogical and incoherent replies

Come on. You know what I am talking about. The human analogy are examples explaining our understanding of human beings using language and our limitations as human beings. Our physical limitations.

I already answered your question.If such a question can be answered in such definitive answer, we would already have the answer already. Right ? Comprende ? Kapish ?

Lets say I entertain your question with a definite answer of NO. And then what ? What u going to say ? Are u going to say that an Omnipotent Omniscience being can fail ? So if so.. exaplain. And then we will go round and round on the definition of Omnipotent or Omniscience. You get it ?

I don't see you attempting to explain anything or discuss ANY of the philosophers argument in WiKiLink.

And great thinkers of course include Stephen Hawkings and Buddha. But did they attempt to answer such a question themselves ?So what is your point ? Are u anywhere near these people ? Just because I did not name EVERY SINGLE great thinker does not mean I do not acknowledge thier existence right ? Did u see my replay with "AND MANY MORE".

So where do you stand in terms of intellect as compared to these great thinkers ?No where close, because you cant even understand what they are talking about when I gave you the human examples. AND the link to read.

You talk so much about it being a paradox and you can only come up with Stephen Hawkings and Buddha. Please man.

Yes.. good that you dont waste your reply. So I take it you wont post here anymore ?

Just give it up. The more you insist on this charade, will only expose yourself of your ignorance.Well, its no longer ignorance.. its just plain dense. Like a rock. That needs to be hammered... hammered and hammered until it breaks.

You know, this is not the first time someone asked this question, and people who does and then insist on a simple answer without taking into account the reasonings of the great minds before them, really exposes thier own stupidity. I must thank you because you are giving me the opportunity to refine and streangthen my answers over n over n over again. While you all just ask the same stupid question over n over again.

BadzMaro

21 Dec 11, 05:19

I just thought of an even better example.

Consider this.

Its like the irresistable force meets immovable object. You know that these are two logically absurb things and that these two definitions cannot exist in real space and time TOGETHER. Not to mention they are just self packaging of words

So consider that the definition of Omnipotent does not include the ability to do the logically absurd. E.g Creating something so big that he himself cannot lift. You are already inhibiting the very nature the words you intend to express. It becomes a non-question. And the task of doing something logically impossible is no longer a task at all. Its just like you said it, logically impossible. Its like another self packaging of words with inhibitions in them.

Now consider that this Omnipotent being can do the logicall impossible. okay.

So now he can create something he cannot lift..... and then just lift it. Because he already CAN do the logically impossible.

So what now ?

This is one of the most simplest explaination I can give without going down into the philosphical argument of definitions, premises and what nots of the likes of Decartes or Ludwig.

Now if you cannot understand this example. I am afraid you will not be able to understand the WikiLink. And thus I can understand why you think you are smart.

laurence82

31 Dec 11, 01:49

Originally posted by Tcmc:

1000 likes!

lolx

x2

BadzMaro

31 Dec 11, 07:45

Ya.. and I am sure Rooney is making as much logical sense as he is in Buddhism forum with his superficial understanding of the Dharma. Not suprised that it was him all along with the same stupid question for 2 years.

BroInChrist

31 Dec 11, 17:46

Originally posted by dangerboi:

They need to agree in order for that finding to be a fact. Since they disagree, that finding would not be a fact then.

Sometimes it's possible for that finding to be a fact even though there were tons of disagreements.

Studies have shown that cholesterol contributes/ doesn't contribute to heart disease.

Do you think that cholesterol contributes to heart disease?

Basically, all scientists will come to an agreement or a disagreement. In that disagreement, it is actually an agreement because there were quite a no. of who had agreed in that disagreement.

It's either black or white in science. The grey are still waiting for their turn to be black or to be white and hence, the grey shouldn't be classified as a fact (which is supposed to either black or white)

Many scientists can agree and still be wrong. The history of science is littered with many errors and wrong conclusions. That is why science text books are constantly out of date and in need of revision. Not so with the Bible.

BroInChrist

31 Dec 11, 17:48

Originally posted by dangerboi:

Each research cost ten of thousands or even millions of dollars over a span of a few years. "People who interpret things differently" should never be allowed to do the interpretation and should they decide to challenge that interpretation they would have to do the exact same experiments and obtain different results.

Not so, peer review does not necessarily require you to redo the same experiments at the same costs.

Honeybunz

21 Jan 12, 14:19

so what happened to Kong Hee? got acquitted izzit? no sound no sight. that time so many ra ra about this case. LOL

BroInChrist

21 Jan 12, 17:45

Originally posted by Honeybunz:

so what happened to Kong Hee? got acquitted izzit? no sound no sight. that time so many ra ra about this case. LOL

Was he even charged with anything at all? If not then it is rather misleading to ask if he has been acquitted.

Honeybunz

22 Jan 12, 23:08

oh ya...

He is still UNDER INVESTIGATION !

Susanteo2011

22 Jan 12, 23:11

PAP don't dare to imprison Dong Kee....................they scared later christians will vote for opposition...................

also, there'll be mass suicides........becoz those brain-dead goons trust Dong Kee and Sun Whore

Honeybunz

23 Jan 12, 18:01

since when our gahmen scared of Christians one? no way siah. besides, they only make up 20% of the population and many are not actively practising. So there left less than 20% and not all will be pro opposition. Don't forget our President also Christian leh.

charlize

24 Jan 12, 20:00

I thought he not in sg anymore?

4sg

24 Jan 12, 20:03

Originally posted by Honeybunz:

oh ya...

He is still UNDER INVESTIGATION !

how come lim kopi with cpib for so long one.....

charlize

24 Jan 12, 20:58

Originally posted by 4sg:

how come lim kopi with cpib for so long one.....

A lot of weird cases surfacing now.