I mean, it works with the Republican campaign, why didn’t work for the Democrats campaign? Literally, Trump spent most of his campaign demonizing the other side.

That’s what irks me about the “Harris lost because she ran a terrible campaign” argument. The reality is, Trump ran a far worse campaign. In the final months, the dude was up on stage saying stuff that made medical physicians think he was mentally declining. The guy wasn’t forming sentences, and he was talking about the size of some dudes dick.

We have all of these people trying to explain Harris’s failure without also recognizing the campaign that Trump ran. This is not a genuine way of analyzing the results of this election. The reality is Harris’s campaign had some blunders, but the Trump campaign had far more major blunders in comparison; but he still won. I would like to know how that happened…

Even if you imagine doing them separately, the acceleration of the Earth cannot be calculated based on just a singular force unless you assume nothing else is exerting a force on the Earth during the process of the fall. For a realistic model, this is a bad assumption. The Earth is a massive system which interacts with a lot of different systems. The one tiny force exerted on it by either the feather or bowling ball has no measurable effect on the motion of Earth. This is not just a mass issue, it’s the fact that Earth’s free body diagram would be full of Force Vectors and only one of them would either be the feather or bowling ball as they fall.

As for my second point, I understand your model and I am defining these references frames by talking about where an observer is located. An observer standing still on Earth would measure the acceleration of the feather or bowling ball to be 9.81 m/s/s. If we placed a camera on the feather or bowling ball during the fall, then it would also measure the acceleration of the Earth to be 9.81 m/s/s. There is no classical way that these two observers would disagree with each other in the magnitudes of the acceleration.

Think of a simpler example. A person driving a car towards someone standing at a stop sign. If the car is moving 20 mph towards the pedestrian, then in the perspective of the car’s driver, the pedestrian is moving 20 mph towards them. There is no classical way that these two speeds will be different.

This argument is deeply flawed when applying classical Newtonian physics. You have two issues:

1. Acceleration of a system is caused by a sum of forces or a net force, not individual forces. To claim that the Earth accelerates differently due to two different forces is an incorrect application of Newton’s second law. If you drop a bowling and feather in a vacuum, then both the feather and the bowling ball will be pulling on the Earth simultaneously. The Earth’s acceleration would be the same towards both the bowling ball and the feather, because we would consider both the force of the feather on the Earth and the force of the bowling ball on the Earth when calculating the acceleration of the Earth.
2. You present this notion that two different systems can accelerate at 9.81 m/s/s towards Earth according to an observer standing on the surface of Earth; but when you place an observer on either surface of the two systems, Earth is accelerating at a different rate. This is classically impossible. If two systems are accelerating at 9.81 m/s/s towards Earth, then Earth must be accelerating 9.81 m/s/s towards both systems too.

You are making such a useless point that requires minimal effort or thought. It would be better if you actually shared a tangible concern rather than providing a strawman argument meant to cause an irrational fear in people reading your comment.

For example, you could have shared which group of people you want to be a protected class and is not by Irish law; or which group of people is currently a protected class by Irish law and should not be. At least, then, you would have brought up a real concern about how the Irish government is determining hate speech; because right now, all you are doing is fear mongering.

Wasn’t it dragon age 2 where the level design got super repetitive though? It felt like they kept reusing the same exact level design in ways that didn’t really make sense.

Project Zomboid. Feels like a Sims game with zombie and great survival elements. Arguably, the best zombie survival game to hit the market. Supports split screen couch co-op.

It’s not totally subjective, because they define a way to measure an athletes performance objectively. It’s also a bit ironic because gymnastics could also be quite subjective too. Ultimately the judges and the athletes are aware of how everything is being scored, and the athletes plan their routines around how highly they can score on this rubric.

The smartphone is a different beast. Hardware and software companies spent millions of dollars of R&D to create the most psychologically addicting and attention demanding device as possible.

I appreciate you sharing the model of god suggested by Orthodox Christians, but I fail to see how this information alleviates the Paradox.Could you present your information in a way that relates to the Paradox? I am discussing with good faith, so I am actually curious how a person who believes the Christian model of god would find a way to solve this Paradox.

This being said, I do have some questions and comments regarding your statements.

2. If god has already defeated evil through Christ, then why is evil so prevalent today, even among those who worship him? God would rather damn people to burn in hell for eternity for doing evil than remove evil from the universe all together? To me, this is, in and of itself, an evil course of action which puts to question god’s goodness.

3. I am not sure if I am understanding you here. If evil is the absence of good, then does this mean that evil and good cannot coexist? In other words, can an action be both evil and good, or does every action fit in a bucket of either good or evil?

As for your final statement regarding how god is good and without god, neither good or evil can exists: I can’t help but relate this to the concept in Eastern Philosophy of ying and yang. Not sure if you are familiar with it, but the basic premise is that when you have two opposite concepts (for example, good and evil), one cannot exist without the other. For instance, if we lived in a universe that was only “good” then “good” would not exist, because without “evil” then there doesn’t exist a concept of “good”. In other words, if everything is “good” then the concept of “good” is irrelevant.

Reading your closing statement and relating it to ying/yang made me think that it kind of goes both ways. If god is good, then evil must exist for god to exist, since evil must be present for good to be present.

I agree, this is not a good argument against the existence of god, but it seems to be a fine argument against certain models of god. To get out of the paradox, one must be willing to give up certain notions about god. Either:

1. God isn’t all knowing, so it’s unaware of all the evil in the universe.
2. God doesn’t have infinite power, making god unable to create a universe without evil (perhaps due to limitations of what god can and cannot do.
3. God is not entirely good or god’s definition of good does not align with what us humans have been taught. God doesn’t see evil where we see evil so it does not use its infinite power and knowledge to change it.

I think there are a lot of theists who would have trouble accepting one of these notions, which would keep them stuck within this paradox.

Stephen Hawkings had an interesting perspective regarding the creation of our universe. When people ponder our universe’s creation, they ask questions like “what caused the big bang?” or “what caused the universe to exist?”. Hawkings would have responded with the sentiment that these kind of questions were pointless. When one asks such a question regarding cause/effect, this presupposes the existence of a timeline. Cause and effect explanations have no merit without time; therefore to ask what caused the creation of the universe is silly, because time did not exist which means the notion of cause/effect would not have existed either.

Nevertheless, I think a lot of the folks commenting here have a problematic understanding of science, which is resulting in them agreeing with the toxic meme. Science and Religion don’t compete because they are fundamentally different in the way they approach understanding the universe. Religions relies on “truths” whereas science relies on “models”. There are no scientific facts or truths, there are only models that can accurately predict things we observe.

For example, the atomic model (atoms, +ions, - ions) can accurately predict a lot of different phenomena in our universe (electrical phenomena, chemical reactions, thermal phenomena, etc). Nevertheless, no good scientist should confidently tell you that atoms actually exist in reality. The atom is a model that functions well in explaining our universe, but that doesn’t mean it is “The Correct Model”.

Have you tried earnestly starting the discussion, or are you expecting others to start the conversation on your behalf? 🙃