Cover-alls

[Edit 26/10/05]
The gym has redeemed itself by playing Pearl Jam's Black. Well, perhaps they didn't do this willingly, but they are redeemed in my eyes nonetheless.

This will be yet another post to add to the collective concerning the evident decline in the state of our music.

I was listening to the radio today, and I heard some of the worst covers ever aired. Well, they weren't really covers so much as hideous manglings in large machinery with newborn kittens and puppies while playing out of tune violins with saxophones that have been run over four times each by 150-tonne trucks filled with hippopotamus manure.

I wasn't sure which station the radio was tuned into but I think it was that new station they've instated, 94.5? Anyway, the reason I didn't know what station the radio was on was because I was in the gym, and being distracted by my activities I did not at first notice the song that was being aired. A bit later though, I noticed that the song sounded strangely familiar. Careful listening revealed that the song was in fact Guns N' Roses' classic Sweet Child O' Mine. It was a great song. Until that chick on the radio destroyed it.

Not only were the guitars (with that AWESOMELY AWESOME intro and riff) and drums replaced with an electronic beat, but the singer didn't even try to put any sort of emotion into her voice. It was a bland performance with no energy, no awesome riff and a singer who sounded like she couldn't care less whether anyone liked the song or not. My anger rose but it subsided as I once again became absorbed in trying to lift those surprisingly heavy 1kg barbells.

I made a quick mental decision to stop listening to the music at all, and that strategy served me well, until a careless slip of my conscious deafness struck me. This time however, it was the Smith's timeless How Soon is Now. Another great song. Another tragic burial. I think that woman should just go and castrate the 80s right now. Having no regard for great bands, she plunged forwards into the song, with the same listless voice, the same lack of energy, even the same beat to some extent. I couldn't bear it any longer, and proceeded to perforate both my eardrums using my manus digitus minimus and all the strength granted to me by my endeavours as I could not get to my bag fast enough to retrieve a pen. Relieved at last, I finished my workout and went home.

Next time I'm taking in my MP3 player.

Be vewy vewy quiet, we're hunting wabbits. Hehehehe.

Exams are almost upon us, and you all know what that means!

That's right, exactly what the title suggested: it's rabbit hunting season! And by hunt, I of course mean rant. It was a very clever metaphor you see. When you're on the hunt, you are trying to find something live, and shoot it dead. And my very own mother was born in the late 50s, as were many other mothers. So by that irrefutable logic, hunt=rant.

Well anyway, I'm just giving people a heads up in case they thought my rambling days were over.

Late night philosophy/"I smote him. I smote him good"

I've just had this thought, and I found it interesting. I can't think of a way to disprove it at this late hour, so I leave it to you to do so:

A perfect being is incapable of creating imperfection, as this would contradict the definition that this being is not capable of imperfection (as this would render it imperfect).

Humans are not perfect, as is evident in everything around us.

Hence, no perfect being created humans.

Therefore there does not exist a God, as God is by its own definition perfect.

Actually, looking back on it it's not so disprovable but I'll leave it as a late-night challenge nonetheless.

Enjoy!

EDIT [5.59pm 04/10/05]:
I realised that I can already spot many holes in the above statements hence I will make a slightly longer post on this very topic (i.e. expand this post) in the near future (after I watch The Simpsons).

[Edit 6.31pm 04/10/05]:
Here are the amended arguments:

God by definition is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

To satisfy these conditions, God must be perfect, as an imperfect being would not be capable of satisfying all three states at the same time (at least in my opinion- for example only a perfect being can be omnibenevolent).

Alternatively, if God is omnipotent then He has the power to become perfect (assuming He is not already), and thus He would as this would prove that He has that power. If He is not perfect how can we know that He is omnipotent? However, this creates a paradox, as in this argument God has the ability to infinitely improve Himself, hence He can never achieve perfection as He will always become greater than He currently is (and there may exist another being that is greater than He). HENCE to avoid this problem, God must be perfect to begin with, therefore eliminating this problem because there is nothing greater than God hence He has nothing to improve.

Therefore God should be perfect (in order to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent).

A perfect being is incapable of creating imperfection, as this would contradict the definition that this being is not capable of imperfection (as this would render it imperfect [Edit: or not totally/always perfect hence it is not perfect]).

Humans are not perfect, as is evident in everything around us.

Hence, no perfect being created humans.

Alternatively, why should we worship an imperfect God?

Enjoy again!

This might be amended again in the future, don't hold your breath (unless You're God, in which case do what you want, I can't stop you...please don't smite me)

[Edit 10.30pm 04/10/05]:
Perfection as I see it is a state in which absolutely nothing new can be introduced into a system that would improve the overall functionality/appearance/usefulness etc of that system. Taking the example of omnipotence, if a being is omnipotent there is nothing that can be done to make this being more powerful as it is already "all-powerful" (and if it can be made more powerful then it cannot possibly be omnipotent). This would mean that saying "perfectly omnipotent" would be tautologous by my definition so I haven't stated it.

There would be a similar line of reasoning for "omniscience" and "omnibenevolence".

Now, for the case of a perfect being creating imperfect beings I would argue thusly: if a perfect being decides to create an imperfect being, then it would be a flawed process. This flaw can easily be improved on by the perfect being deciding to create a perfect being. Hence, something can be introduced into the system to improve the outcome and so this being is not perfect as it is capable of actions which can be improved upon.

So I guess the end-point of this is that I see perfection not as an analogue system (where there are shades of grey) but rather as a digital system (black or white, on or off, you've either got it or you don't).

[Final edit 11.00pm 04/10/05]:
I have just come to realise that if an omnipotent being is incapable of creating imperfect beings because of my restricted definitions then that being no longer holds the title of omnipotence. Perfection does not require omnipotence, but God does so this would blow my arguments to bits.

I conclude that I have bitten off more than I can crap out and so should leave all this stuff to the philosophers.

[Final edit part II 11.05pm 04/10/05]:
I have come up with something else: if God is supposed to be omnibenevolent then He is incapable of 'bad' actions, hence He cannot be omnipotent as well. But his may be countered by the argument that many believe God to be beyond morality and all that good vs. evil stuff. And I can't be bothered trying to find/think of a rebuttal for that so I will let it be.

Also, can God, if He is omnipotent, destroy Himself? If he can't, is he not omnipotent? If he can, is he also not omnipotent?

This stuff gets too confusing and I've got uni and other things to worry about. Consider this post closed (after numerous edits- a PB I think).