Subject:
|
Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Dec 1999 15:04:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
823 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 17:47:24 GMT, "Larry Pieniazek" <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> I repeat, given the choice, I'd choose immortality. I could always change my
> mind later and kill myself if I got bored. No one is ever actually "immortal"
> no matter how old, just "immortal so far" because even immortality isn't
> defense against someone getting your ICBM coordinates exactly right.
That's _not_ what immortal means. By definition, immortal means _not_
able to die or be killed. Not by a .25 bullet, not by an A10 2 kg
depleted uranium round, not by a tac-nuke, not by a full-blown 20
megaton H-bomb, not by hurling yourself into a sun, not by hurling
yourself into a black hole (actually, nobody can kill themselves by
flinging themselves into a black hole ;) ).
The only possible way for an immortal creature to kill itself would be
if it were also omnipotent. If god is all-powerful, can he create a
stone he cannot lift? The answer: Assuming the laws of logic hold,
omnipotence and another invincible force cannot exist in the same
universe. Silly answer: The christian god isn't bound by the laws of
logic.
So since you're immortal, you're not omnipotent, so you can't kill
yourself. QED.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
| (...) Well, I'm not Larry(1), but I use the web interface, so I can answer this. When you post a message, there are 4 fields you can enter data in. From the top right: Newsgroups: Followup-To (optional): Subject: (and 1 untitled box, which is the (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
|
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
