Aikido.. The reality?

[dvcochran]

You seem to have missed the point and are going in circles lol.

Okay, explain the point to me.

 

[dvcochran]

God can't. Because he can't be omnipotent and also morally good.

Because if say I could act and cure cancer in a baby. But didn't for whatever sadistic reason. I would not be a good guy.

And if you suggest that God is to concerned with the universe to micro manage. He is also the guy who cares who you root, what day you rest and the level of linen to cotton ratio you wear.

I am not saying that, but I will say it does not work that way. Crack a book.

 

[drop bear]

Ha. I mean, I can imagine taking a solid run at proving something steals socks from washing machines. But it's a hard road to hoe to prove (logically) that it's Jesus.

But can science explain it?

Then it must be jesus

 

[drop bear]

omnipotence is the capacity to do everything... not just anything. And omniscience is knowing everything, all at once, past, present, and future, no matter how insignificant.

This is where free will gets dicey, too. If your fate is known and unchangeable, you really cannot have free will. You have a destiny.

 

[dvcochran]

Now we are getting somewhere.

 

[Steve]

To sum up, God precludes free will. So if free will exists, theistic god cannot. Unless you also believe in the multiverse. I can get down with that. If you are okay with the idea that there are an infinite number of versions of you representing every possible outcome of everything you did, didn’t do, or was done or not done to, for or against you… dang it. I think we hit our snag. The Christian belief in unique souls and the idea of humans being created perfect, in god’s image might kill the multiverse idea.

Personally, I think it’s more reasonable to believe we are accountable because we have free will, and that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

 

[Martial D]

Double post

 

[Martial D]

omnipotence is the capacity to do everything... not just anything. And omniscience is knowing everything, all at once, past, present, and future, no matter how insignificant.

This is where free will gets dicey, too. If your fate is known and unchangeable, you really cannot have free will. You have a destiny.

And to make it even more sticky and messy... omnipotence, free will, and omniscience contradict eachother to such a level they couldn't really exist in the same being.

If you know everything that is going to happen before it happens it's set in stone..and you are powerless to change it. If you can change it at will you don't know what will happen. If you know everything you are going to do ahead of time it's no longer choice.

 

[JowGaWolf]

What is the standard measurement for Tiny? in the context of my post, it was pretty obviously 1 foot. What is the standard measurement for Huge? In the context of my post, it was pretty obviously 1 mile.

So if Tiny = 1ft then then is it still Tiny from the perspective of 1 micrometer? It's still 1 foot, but is it Tiny now when compared to a micrometer?

Here's your claim. Your words.
.."if something were alleged to be 1 mile tall and simultaneously 1 foot tall, you could argue that it cannot exist because no thing that exists outside of our imagination can be huge and tiny at the same time."

Just because an object cannot be 1 mile tall and simultaneously 1 foot tall, does not prove that something that's real cannot be huge and tiny at the same time. I have given you real world examples of how something can be Tiny and Huge at the same time. You then try to apply that same logic to the statement below.

Then you make the claim "that a theistic god cannot be "omnipotent", "omniscient", and "omnibenevolent" "while senseless and inecessary pain and suffering exist." How would you know this without being omniscient yourself?

How one can be benevolent and inflict unnecessary pain and suffering. A kind child meets another child who is hungry and shares his sandwich with the hungry child. The hungry child thankfully accepts the food and the benevolence that was shown and given. The hungry child bites the sandwich to satisfy his hunger. After 3 bites the hungry child coughs and gasps for air and dies shortly after. Unknown to the kind child, the hungry child was allergic to peanuts.

A benevolent action or unnecessary suffering? Is it one thing or simultaneously both?

 

[Steve]

So if Tiny = 1ft then then is it still Tiny from the perspective of 1 micrometer? It's still 1 foot, but is it Tiny now when compared to a micrometer?

Here's your claim. Your words.
.."if something were alleged to be 1 mile tall and simultaneously 1 foot tall, you could argue that it cannot exist because no thing that exists outside of our imagination can be huge and tiny at the same time."

Just because an object cannot be 1 mile tall and simultaneously 1 foot tall, does not prove that something that's real cannot be huge and tiny at the same time. I have given you real world examples of how something can be Tiny and Huge at the same time. You then try to apply that same logic to the statement below.

Then you make the claim "that a theistic god cannot be "omnipotent", "omniscient", and "omnibenevolent" "while senseless and inecessary pain and suffering exist." How would you know this without being omniscient yourself?

How one can be benevolent and inflict unnecessary pain and suffering. A kind child meets another child who is hungry and shares his sandwich with the hungry child. The hungry child thankfully accepts the food and the benevolence that was shown and given. The hungry child bites the sandwich to satisfy his hunger. After 3 bites the hungry child coughs and gasps for air and dies shortly after. Unknown to the kind child, the hungry child was allergic to peanuts.

A benevolent action or unnecessary suffering? Is it one thing or simultaneously both?

Dude. I’m going to be totally honest. I don’t plan to waste my time reading this post of yours. Just let it go. It’s clear you aren’t interested in adult conversation.

 

[Steve]

And to make it even more sticky and messy... omnipotence, free will, and omniscience contradict eachother to such a level they couldn't really exist in the same being.

If you know everything that is going to happen before it happens it's set in stone..and you are powerless to change it. If you can change it at will you don't know what will happen. If you know everything you are going to do ahead of time it's no longer choice.

It’s a pretty interest mind love if you take some time to think it through. And to get at what @Gerry Seymour was saying, the contradiction is self inflicted due to a belief in things that can only be accepted if reason is abandoned and you are willing to shrug your shoulders and say, “Faith. Amiright?”

And with that, we are back on topic! The idea of faith in martial arts in lieu of evidence.

 

[Martial D]

It’s a pretty interest mind love if you take some time to think it through. And to get at what @Gerry Seymour was saying, the contradiction is self inflicted due to a belief in things that can only be accepted if reason is abandoned and you are willing to shrug your shoulders and say, “Faith. Amiright?”

And with that, we are back on topic! The idea of faith in martial arts in lieu of evidence.

For the record I called this like 5 pages before it happened XD

The parallels are definitely right there for all to see though.

Some practice based in faith. Some based in reason, logic, and evidence. And regardless what the subject matter happens to be in this context..one of these methods leads to advancement and betterment..and one does not.

 

[Martial D]

Okay, explain the point to me.

I already did..but you ignored that post

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you know everything you are going to do ahead of time it's no longer choice.

It's still a choice. It's just a known choice. Regardless of what choice you pick, you know that you are going to pick it and for the most part you know what is going to happen.

We do this all the time on a small scale. Throw a ball in the air you have a choice to either catch it or don't. You also know what will happen to the ball if you catch it or if you don't catch it. The known path that you take is still an option.

You can add variables and more details about what will happen provided that you have correct information that can be used to determine what will happen.

For example, I'm going to use the restroom in a few minutes. I can choose to use it in my pants or in the toilet. I already know what will happen (It will stink). I not only know what will happen but I know which of the 3 toilets in the house that I will use. And I will still make a choice about something I already know before it happens.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I read this about three times and couldn't figure out what the second part of Aiki actually is or does.

合気道.

The middle part is Qi, the tail end is "The Way".

The first glyph is the most interesting on infinite levels. This is what often gets lost in translation into English.

 

[AIKIKENJITSU]

I went spent a few hours on you tube trying to find old sparring videos of Aikido. This was done with my understanding that Fighting is Abrasive. Which basically means that it's rough and it that it doesn't flow smooth like what we often see in Aikido or Tai Chi. When these martial arts are practice they often look as if they are flowing and easy. I think this training concept is similar to Tai Chi /Tajiquan. The free flowing and easy look seems to be how you learn to relax and to flow. It is not fighting, and it's not how the fighting is supposed to look. I also think this is where people screw up with the systems and get it wrong.

So since I don't actually know anything about Aikido, I decided to use my very limited Tajiquan knowledge to make assumption and guesses, and to find some old footage of Aikido Sparring.

Here's the first first one. I found. To me this looks like Aikido concepts applied and it looks abrasive. It doesn't flow the same way that we see it in a demo. I personally think the "Flow" part is something that you have to experienced. I know that's the case with Muay thai. To the outside it may look like a simple clinch but to the person in the clinch it could feel like your balance is easily being robbed from you before the throw occurs.
This is what I expect to see in a fight on the street (the struggle)

In contrast. We can see that he's trying "flow" similar to what they do in training and demos (not sparring). You can also see that he's uncomfortable with punches coming towards him. It's clear that he doesn't quite know how to handle them. From a function perspective it would make sense that Aikido would have some kind of striking or understanding of "how to enter into grappling"

Here's another example. Not the best, but he's got one arm. What you do see here is punching as a way to enter into grappling. BJJ does it, Muay Thai does it. Sanda does it. So I'm just following some of the things we already know.

2nd Video Same guy,


Parts of Aikido is good as a add on to a punching and kicking art like American Kenpo. I use the circular motion of Aikido and some of it's joints locks and others as a add on to my American Kenpo.
Thoughts?

 

[drop bear]

Unknown to the kind child, the hungry child was allergic to peanuts

That's your sticking point. We would screw up omnipotence because we don't know everything. God does.

 

[Martial D]

It's still a choice. It's just a known choice. Regardless of what choice you pick, you know that you are going to pick it and for the most part you know what is going to happen.

We do this all the time on a small scale. Throw a ball in the air you have a choice to either catch it or don't. You also know what will happen to the ball if you catch it or if you don't catch it. The known path that you take is still an option.

You can add variables and more details about what will happen provided that you have correct information that can be used to determine what will happen.

For example, I'm going to use the restroom in a few minutes. I can choose to use it in my pants or in the toilet. I already know what will happen (It will stink). I not only know what will happen but I know which of the 3 toilets in the house that I will use. And I will still make a choice about something I already know before it happens.

Nope. If you know everything ahead of time, you aren't choosing. There is of course an argument to be made whether choice exists at all...but regardless of that it can't exist if you know every result. The concept of choice requires 'either this or that'. Remove that element and you are merely watching events play out, not choosing them.

Even in your ball example..you could drop it. You choose to try to catch the ball but you don't know if you will; and even if you did you still have the option to not try to catch it. If you know for sure you are going to catch the ball you are powerless to do otherwise...else you didn't really know to begin with.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you know for sure you are going to catch the ball you are powerless to do otherwise

Think of it like this.. You have 4 roads (a single road with no addition side streets) that you can take to get to the same destination. (your house). Without a doubt you know where these 4 roads lead. You are free to choose which way you want to go home. Even though you choose different paths, You will end up in the same place. So no matter which road you take your destination will always be your house.

As long as you choose one of those 4 paths, your destination will always be your house. One road may be longer or shorter, easy or difficult, but the destination will always be the same. While you may be able to choose the Journey you may or may not be able to change the destination.

It sounds impossible but it's not. We all walk different paths in life but we all arrive at the same destination - Death. Depending on the person's perspective some believe that we map our our lives and hardships before we are even born and that life is nothing but a lesson we agreed to take. For me personally that stuff gets too complicated. So I stick with my paths and the single destination that we all arrive at no matter what path we take.

 

[JowGaWolf]

That's your sticking point. We would screw up omnipotence because we don't know everything.

Look at how much we screw up with the little power that we have now. Think of all the screw ups of the past and present that were due to the lack of knowledge, or the rejection of knowledge. I couldn't imagine that more power would make us less of a screw up. I'm my opinion I think we just become more effective at messing things up.

"Radium Girls" pretty much sums it up. Also the saying "If I only knew back then what I know now."

Just my perspective.