11th August 2014

Eintrag

LEGO MOC Space Port Patrol Ship

I one day felt like creating a LEGO spaceship (I know, I know everybody does these days). But it wasn’t supposed to be just another spaceship. I finally wanted to make one that looks good, that looks kind of credible and detailed. People like Peter Reid or nnenn were quite an inspiration on the way I wanted to go.

The problem about this plan was that I do not have a whole lot of bricks to create anything I want in the exact shape or colour I desire. So I thought of what kind of spaceship would lie within my amount of pieces, looks possibly good and does make sense. I finally came up with idea of a patrol ship to keep a space port save and secure. It wouldn’t need to be huge or have too many features.

But for the same reason I chose this rather small kind of spaceship, I didn’t make any design before I started building it, but instead went through a hard process of try and error, of building, adapting, destroying and starting all over again. This is how it finally turned out:

I didn’t want it to be white at all, because it was supposed to look mean. But I just have the best pieces for a spaceship in white. Anyway I am quite satisfied with the result. It looks strong and robust and is mainly covered. I actually could have done more greebling and I even think greebling looks neat, but I tried to imagine being on patrol in that thing and realized how exposed you are to all kinds of space junk and little asteroids, so I decided a thick cover for protection of sensitive parts of the spaceship would come in handy.

The front gun can be brought into a better aming position.

It needs to be in the bottom position when you want to open up the canope though.

Okay, I could not resist adding a minimal amount of greebling on the bottom. And I am happy about how all the landing gear can fold away.

And finally I even added a classic Lego spaceship feature.

Getaggt: legospacespaceshippatrolpolicespace police

2nd August 2014

Eintrag

If the world was created, I believe it was a tiny little dwarf with a blue hat, who was always giggling and who’s only ability was to created the world. And once he had created it, he just died like a bee after it stung through skin.

2nd August 2014

Foto gerebloggt von Shades of Gray mit 8 Anmerkungen

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:



You’re right in the sense that what he has written does not imply God, but his conclusion contains God anyway. That’s why I added the ommited premise, which is neccesary to come to that conclusion. If he just concluded to “a being” there would be no problem, but he didn’t and this is what I counter.

If you’re saying that you’re the one who added that original premise, then you apparently altered what the OP stated(and made it circular) solely for the purpose of mocking them over your own inability to follow their logic. Classy. And I’m done, you have nothing to add to the debate.

Seems you haven’t understood what I’ve just written and are ignoring what his conclusion says, which is his original one. What I added simply expresses what is neccessary to come to that conclusion. Without that the argument would not be circular, but simply invalid.

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

You’re right in the sense that what he has written does not imply God, but his conclusion contains God anyway. That’s why I added the ommited premise, which is neccesary to come to that conclusion. If he just concluded to “a being” there would be no problem, but he didn’t and this is what I counter.

If you’re saying that you’re the one who added that original premise, then you apparently altered what the OP stated(and made it circular) solely for the purpose of mocking them over your own inability to follow their logic. Classy. And I’m done, you have nothing to add to the debate.

Seems you haven’t understood what I’ve just written and are ignoring what his conclusion says, which is his original one. What I added simply expresses what is neccessary to come to that conclusion. Without that the argument would not be circular, but simply invalid.

Quelle: grenzauslotung

2nd August 2014

Foto gerebloggt von Shades of Gray mit 8 Anmerkungen

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

You interpret my polemic as a counter argument. My counter argument was the circularity and yes to reach to “this being is God” from this argument you have to put God into the premises or else “being” cannot be further classified. So you imply God to conclude to God which is circular.

No, that makes no sense. Either you’re not understanding what I said, or you’re reaching for something to convince yourself that you’re still right. There exists a definition of ‘being’. Used here, it means “to exist”. Nothing else about that existence is implied by me. You’ll note that in my own revision of the argument, I did not state, “This being is God.” That the OP said it does not make them stupid(and the only reason I didn’t state it is because then I’d need to define God), and it is certainly not to your credit to attack people for minor mistakes rather than trying to understand what they’re saying.
The OP’s argument(and mine) does not imply God to conclude God. It implies that design indicates intelligence, and concludes in the existence of an intelligent creator. That is the point you need to counter.

You’re right in the sense that what he has written does not imply God, but his conclusion contains God anyway. That’s why I added the ommited premise, which is neccesary to come to that conclusion. If he just concluded to “a being” there would be no problem, but he didn’t and this is what I counter.

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

You interpret my polemic as a counter argument. My counter argument was the circularity and yes to reach to “this being is God” from this argument you have to put God into the premises or else “being” cannot be further classified. So you imply God to conclude to God which is circular.

No, that makes no sense. Either you’re not understanding what I said, or you’re reaching for something to convince yourself that you’re still right. There exists a definition of ‘being’. Used here, it means “to exist”. Nothing else about that existence is implied by me. You’ll note that in my own revision of the argument, I did not state, “This being is God.” That the OP said it does not make them stupid(and the only reason I didn’t state it is because then I’d need to define God), and it is certainly not to your credit to attack people for minor mistakes rather than trying to understand what they’re saying.

The OP’s argument(and mine) does not imply God to conclude God. It implies that design indicates intelligence, and concludes in the existence of an intelligent creator. That is the point you need to counter.

You’re right in the sense that what he has written does not imply God, but his conclusion contains God anyway. That’s why I added the ommited premise, which is neccesary to come to that conclusion. If he just concluded to “a being” there would be no problem, but he didn’t and this is what I counter.

Quelle: grenzauslotung

2nd August 2014

Foto gerebloggt von Shades of Gray mit 8 Anmerkungen

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

another circular argument from a christian/intelligent design follower

Not exactly a circular argument, it just overstates the conclusion and doesn’t prove the existence of God. The counterargument is more nonsensical(“you can have a ‘dumb design’” is a poor argument and doesn’t mean anything). So…
If there is observed design in creation, it is evidence of intelligence, as design(as opposed to randomness) is exclusively the consequence of intelligent agents.
As intelligence implies consciousness, the intelligence observed in creation must have a conscious mind behind it.
Consciousness implies existence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent, conscious being responsible for the creation of the universe. Saying that ‘design can be unintelligent’ is inadequate. What the responder needs to do is demonstrate that design/pattern can be created by unconscious, mindless forces… without assuming that the universe is an example(as that would be circular reasoning). If the OP had left off the first line- which wasn’t necessary anyway- it would be a completely reasonable argument.

You interpret my polemic as a counter argument. My counter argument was the circularity and yes to reach to “this being is God” from this argument you have to put God into the premises or else “being” cannot be further classified. So you imply God to conclude to God which is circular.

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

another circular argument from a christian/intelligent design follower

Not exactly a circular argument, it just overstates the conclusion and doesn’t prove the existence of God. The counterargument is more nonsensical(“you can have a ‘dumb design’” is a poor argument and doesn’t mean anything). So…

If there is observed design in creation, it is evidence of intelligence, as design(as opposed to randomness) is exclusively the consequence of intelligent agents.

As intelligence implies consciousness, the intelligence observed in creation must have a conscious mind behind it.

Consciousness implies existence.

Therefore, there exists an intelligent, conscious being responsible for the creation of the universe. Saying that ‘design can be unintelligent’ is inadequate. What the responder needs to do is demonstrate that design/pattern can be created by unconscious, mindless forces… without assuming that the universe is an example(as that would be circular reasoning). If the OP had left off the first line- which wasn’t necessary anyway- it would be a completely reasonable argument.

You interpret my polemic as a counter argument. My counter argument was the circularity and yes to reach to “this being is God” from this argument you have to put God into the premises or else “being” cannot be further classified. So you imply God to conclude to God which is circular.

Quelle: grenzauslotung

2nd August 2014

Foto mit 8 Anmerkungen

another circular argument from a christian/intelligent design follower

another circular argument from a christian/intelligent design follower

Getaggt: godreligionfaithintelligent designatheismargument

28th Juli 2014

Eintrag gerebloggt von Hjúki Hima mit 1 Anmerkung

Warme Gedanken (eine Erinnerung)

Dieser Tage ist es verdammt heiß. Ein Sommer, wie wir ihn lange nicht hatten. (Jedenfalls bilde ich mir das ein.) Auch nachts schwitze ich sehr. Da musste ich zur Abwechslung mal an eine wahre Begebenheit denken.

Es war vor zwei oder drei Jahren an einem Grillabend im Park mit vielen Leuten von der Uni. J., L. und ich sprachen über Urlaubserlebnisse und gerade erzählte J. wie sie irgendwo gewesen war, wo es ebenfalls brüllend heiß ist. Sie sagte, sie habe kaum schlafen können in dem stickigen Zimmer. Schließlich habe sie sich aus lauter Verzweiflung mit kaltem Wasser übergossen, um runterzukühlen. Mit ausladenden Gesten ahmte sie dies nach, während sie vor uns kniend erzählte. Dabei schwangen ihre üppigen Brüste in ihrem engen Top eifrig mit. Unweigerlich entstanden aufregende Bilder in meinem Kopf, wie sich J. im Bett kaltes Wasser auf den nackten Körper schüttete. Wohlbemerkt eine wirklich schöne Vorstellung, die ich an dieser Stelle gern wieder hervorhole!

Aber plötzlich starrte sie L. und mich verwundert an. ”Habe ich irgendetwas Blödes gesagt?”, fragte sie und verwirrte mich damit sogleich ebenfalls. Was, wieso? Nein! Verdattert schaute ich zu L., der mich ebenso perplex ansah. Der Mund stand ihm noch halb offen, zum Glück ohne, dass Sabber heraus lief. Da begriff ich, dass ich ein ebenso weggetretenes Gesicht gemacht haben musste und fragte mich nun viel mehr, warum J. nicht klar war warum!

"Nein, nein, ganz und gar nicht, im Gegenteil, fahr gerne fort", sagte ich schnell und begann laut zu lachen. Kurz danach nahm das Gespräch unbeeinträchtigt seinen Lauf. Mit Ausnahme des Umstandes, dass ich J. den Rest des Abends im Kopf stets anders vor mir sah.

Bis heute weiß ich nicht, ob sie wirklich nicht geschnallt hat, was los war (was ich mir bei ihr, die ebenso attraktiv, wie intelligent ist, eigentlich nicht denken kann), oder ob sie uns nur aus der Paralyse reißen wollte, ohne uns zu peinlich berühren. Spielt aber auch keine Rolle. Ich habe es als schöne Erinnerung abgespeichert.