Blue

"How do you like your coffee?" >Make it Black "Don't pretend to be a tough guy." >With Milk "Oh, coming right up, madam!" >Cream and sugar "What are you, Nanako?" "Daddy, I want it black!" >Surprise me. "..." *Splashes you with scalding coffee*

Good answer, what kingdom would you live in btw? (Earth fire water air). Obviously Water. They have all the sports that involve not being hit by large amounts of stone. And/or the presence of swimwear.

I will sarcastically reply to Doom Shepherd's Suckiverse Paradox by saying "Of course, the great deal we know about the universe is more than ample enough knowledge and wisdom to improve it, and we know this because you're quite sure its possible. But do you mean to improve it as in "make it better", or improve it as in "make it more to our liking"? Wait, what do I mean by "Our"? Mayhaps it is more accurate to say "Your liking"." Even so, how would one go about making it better? The only thing we recognize as being able to be standably improved is the general behavior and moral mindset of society. Unless you plan on changing physics so that earthquakes, meteors and other inconveniences cease altogether. I really do not understand how or why one would want to make the Universe itself more efficient. Us humans, being subject materials within the universe, wanting to increase the efficiency, would be like gasoline complaining about the shape of a fuel pipe. Why yes, the fuel pipe could potentially be different, but who are we and under what power would we undergo change into those other potentials? Also, I really do not think Evil is just Entropy. If a man tries to trip me and fails, I dislike his actions. However if a man accidentally moves his leg and trips me, but apologizes. I do not begrudge the second man even though he has caused me injury. There has to be a moral reason for what is Evil and Good, not just physical.

12% of the planets have 70% of the mass Occupy Jupiter

Derpy! The fiend!

The Omnipotence Paradox in a nutshell: "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?" The nature of the word God to be meaning Omnipotent, means that any imposed limit is the paradox. Thus stating that "The Omnipotence Paradox" to be a paradox is in of itself a paradox, in the same way it would be to say "The married bachelor" or "farther north than the north pole". It's almost a tautology how contradictory it is to say that omnipotence can have or create a constraint for itself. Omnipotence is Omnipotence. Unless you are asking if God can limit himself to anything less than absolute power. Actually, he tried that out for a little bit, about two thousand years ago. The question would then arise if that would be anything but batshit insane to descend from Omnipotence to anything less than omnipotence. In waltzes Jesus Christ, the fellow who was both fully God (omnipotent) and fully Man (limited), but the nature of how that all works is a story for another day, because it's 7 minutes to midnight, I have an appointment early tomorrow, and within that time constraint I don't think I could give a crash course in Christology right now.

Once again, these ponies drive me to think! Confound it! Wait of it- if there are bubbles coming out of my pipe, it can't possibly be Applejack's doing... Where is Rainbow Dash?

Spent $2000 in that game. Got me 7 unusuals. Cheapest was $5, most expensive was $270.

I am also a Christian, and for a time I thought my status as being saved by Christ was somehow diminished by my faith being inherited as opposed to being saved through direct influence of others or my own conscious research. But how it came to be doesn't really matter, the fact is that I am saved, and the same goes for you. What you do with that fact is the more important part. These days I take it upon myself to familiarize myself on matters regarding my beliefs and better understanding of Christianity ("Making my faith my own"). Christology (the study of the Acts and Words of Christ), Theology (the study of the Nature of God and the Trinity), Hermeneutics (the study of Biblical interpretation), Bibliocanonics (the study and verification of the authenticity, accuracy and historical nature of the Bible), it's all great stuff. In regards to Atheism vs. Theism, I would say that this supposition can be taken as true: "A truth claim about the nature of the world must be complicated, because the world is a complicated place." To be sure, to be simple is to be great. -And to that end, there are a great many things that are both simple and great, often great because they are simple. However the Universe is not a simple place. Ever stood out in a field away from the city, just looking up at the marvelous night sky, nothing but stars and view unobstructed by light pollution? The nigh-infinite twinkling of burning spheres of nuclear energy, unfathomably far away- Voyager 2, traveling at over 66,000kph (that's over 15 miles per SECOND) away from the Sun, is still only now leaving the Solar system, after over 30 years of traveling. And it won't come in contact with anything else for another 40,000. Flowers, glowing with color more brilliant than any paint, growing naturally using the chemicals in dirt. Us humans, making wondrous works of art, knowledge and expression, technical expertise and intense emotional introspection. There is undeniably a phenomenal amount of good in the world. But thousands of people die every year from making poor decisions regarding their own willful ingestion of poisons, people kill each other, by the dozen, by the hundred, by the thousand, by the tens of thousand. Cars stolen, places burned, crimes perpetrated, justice undelivered, bribes taken. We hear every day on the news how horrible the world can be. In spite of this we then have someone make a cheap joke and then just laugh it off. There is undeniably a phenomenal amount of evil in the world. How can the world have both these enormous amounts of good and evil in it at the same time? The obvious answer to that question is that the world is a thick and tangled web of interactions, choice and conviction, due to the nature of the interaction, choice and conviction of men and women its entire surface over. No rational person who isn't a poet or artist, when taking the Universe in entirety into account can say it is simple. If one is to make a truth claim about the nature of the world, then it must have an explanation for this complexity that satisfies it in entirety. Atheism says there is no God. Theism says there is [God]. Christianity says there is one God. If there is no God, then everything in the Universe must be able to explain itself. Let's say, all of the Universe is this little box. Science is most often chosen as the avenue to pursue this explanation, a system of ideas for taking what we see inside the box and turning into graphs and charts and equations and representations of the universe that we can comprehend. There are a great many things that Science has explained. "What is the sun made of? Where does wind come from and why? How far can I run if I run right now? What makes apples red? Why can't men orgasm as repeatedly as women?" There are a great many things Science has yet to explain. "How does Gravity operate, beyond acceleration/mass? Why do we yawn? Can every problem whose solution can be efficiently checked by a computer also be efficiently solved by a computer? How many species of Squid are there actually? What is the maximum survivable G-force load a human can survive? Can How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop?" However, these days Science is used in lieu of fitting Atheism as one of these Complex truth claims by using it to satisfy important life questions for which it is not purposed for. There are a great many things that Science can't explain. "What is the metric or dimensional limit of the imagination? What realm of existence do souls exist in? Do souls actually exist? Could there be a Spiritual World, just as real and objective as the Physical World?" There are a great many things that Science has no right explaining. "What is the meaning of life? For what purpose do humans live? Why does the world exist?" The lattermost of those questions fall firmly within the realm of Philosophy, not Science. The meaning of life, purpose and existence can't be satisfactorily answered by biology or physics- yet many claim that what they have postulated should be taken as truth claims, such as the Big Bang and Evolution: satisfying enough to compel a meaning for the universe. Or more accurately, a lack thereof. Thus I would say Atheism is not 'complete enough' in regards to the complexity of the Universe which demands an answer in the form of a truth claim. (Additionally, both of those aforementioned theories, while often regarded as "facts", are never called Laws- they are still yet called Theories) In regards to the belief that there is a God, in the sense that I know the greatest deal about compared to any other belief (Christianity), it quite easily conveys the idea that Omnipotence and indescribable magnitude of good, greatness and splendor exist in a domain that could most easily be described as "the little box which we call the Universe, is inside a space which we call God". There are all sorts of practical explanations that can come out of God being the Creator of the Universe. For one, that simple implication answers where the Universe came from. That he would create it as an expression of his Glory and Power explains why it's there. He would create mankind to show what is the substance of free will, understanding and reason, and it's ability to comprehend what God had created. In return, God hopes that we would see the nature of that beauty and choose to glorify him. But then from that comes the demand of an explanation that says "Well then, why is the world not beautiful? You said so yourself that the world is complicated because good and evil exist together." One of the results of giving us free will was the potential for us going wrong. Anything with power has just as much capacity to do good as to do ill. A mug can either keep tea warm or by negligent use, fall and break. Not a very powerful entity, a tea mug. A dog can save a man's life by pulling him out of a river, or take it by attacking him with its jowls and claws. Indeed, a dog is a much more powerful than a mug, and as a result as much more capacity to do good, and more capacity to do ill. What more could a Man do, in terms of beauty and in terms of depravity. God gave us free will so that we would be able to fully appreciate the wonder of his creation by the use of our free will, in willingly choosing him. This also came with the risk that men might not choose God; God apparently thought this worth the risk. Again, practically thinking, this is why he provided worded instructions on what to do when faced with the choice. Christians call these words the Bible.

Yup. Man, I know I have all these great ideas, but I never really act upon them because the scale is so grand on many of them.

L-7Vu7cqB20 This is what I see every time I close my eyes.

Either or uoC7kuFV3oY I lol'd. Except I was thinking Gertie the Dinosaur. Still good though. What's your poison?

That one makes me think of logistics related to Star Wars. Which makes me think of this picture

There is some unspecified distinction between some animals and others being sentient and dumb. For example, Applejack's dog Winowna is obviously a dog in mannerism and intellect, yet there are the troll-like Diamond Dogs.

Being an old man and yelling at a cloud.

Oooh, The Paper Mario universe. That'd be fun!

In an astounding flurry of flak, torpedoes, shells and lasers, the other two corvettes shattered into space dust and expanding gasses. The Valiant fired a few rounds off towards the fifth Corvette, both shots missing as it bobbed and turned, finally going from an erratic nervous flight path to an intentional serpentine to avoid being hit, knowing it was already out of range for most weapons. "Cease firing on that little runaway." said Roam to the weapon control. He sighed. "Looks like my past lives once again, to haunt me some time in the future. Open the Main Comm Channel. "" Roam stood up from his chair, beckoning the Professor with a glance, turned and walked out of the Bridge, saying "Darril, you have the wheel. Prepare the Interstellar Drive and main docks for the strike craft for reception." Argyle never much cared for Richard's abrupt manner of speaking, but somehow the charisma of his person silenced those complaints. They walked down one of the well lit corridors towards the briefing room. They entered though the door, revealing a relatively spacious chamber with a long table in the middle, a set of chairs around it and a dome-shaped projector in the middle of the ceiling. The room seemed fairly modestly adorned with newer fixings, enough to make it warm and pleasant but tasteful enough not to be distracting. "Captain Roam, I thought you said we were going to be keeping a 'low profile' on this expedition. I should think that exploding a man's corvette in the middle of an Allied star system hardly consti-" Roam pulled off the Captain's dress jacket from his shoulder and spun it around by the neck, placing it on a coat rack off to one side, his arm rudely intruding in the way in front of Argyle's face. "Conspicuousness is not something anyone cares for when their life is in danger." said Roam in a candid yet polite manner. "We outnumbered them four to one!" "Leave the expertise of space combat to me and I'll leave the expertise of old space junk to you, Doctor Argyle." "Professor." corrected Edward in a rather irked tone.

Maybe, but I wouldn't be such an ostentatious prude to instantly dismiss a possibility of archives being incomplete- especially in regards to the fact that the archives would have to account for all the happenings in an entire galaxy. Libraries these days have a hard time accounting for everything that happens in a single country, let alone a small star system.

This locomotive would be suitable for moving the earth's axis, or similiar heavy freight duties.

Aren't all the Hayao Miyazaki films in the same continuity?

"Oh man. That is, a very hard, core, game blog."

Yeah I never got that gibberish language that was in the Lovecraft books.

"I don't need to be the best soldier in the world. I only need to be able to fight a minute longer than the enemy."