Jump to content

Justin Jaudon

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Justin Jaudon

  1. Justin Jaudon

    2012 Election thread

    Just so I'm not pigeonholed into any party, I will divulge that I have never voted. I have always felt that I couldn't vote for someone simply because they are better than he alternative. That being said, I am not politically ignorant. I have followed politics for a long time, and I came to the conclusion about four years ago that nothing will save this federal government. It is destined to collapse. It is not functioning well enough to be of use much longer, and I think within fifteen years it will not exist. We can't fix it. It's not unlike the Magic-D12 situation, in some ways (obviously not a literal comparison). Someone on here mentioned that we couldn't trade away our veteran workers and rebuild through the draft. That's true, but we can dump our old government and rebuild through smaller, more localized governments(like states, except with power to actually govern rather than simply follow the fed). My assumptions: In twenty years, the American way of life will not be near as absurd as it is now; mostly because we can't afford it for that much longer. Technological growth in some areas will probably slow down, because we won't be able to afford it much longer. Housing will be more collectivized, with more people staying in one household. The federal government will not exist outside of military presence. We read too much into economic booms and panic too hard at economic downturns. Thus we have painted ourselves into a corner by destroying what once needed only small changes here and there, and turning it into something unsalvageable. I'm a small government guy, but I don't even mean taxes, necessarily. I mean oversight. Tax whatever is necessary, but the bigger the boat, the more leaks you're gonna have.
  2. I hear a lot about OJ Mayo, but I honestly don't know much about him. How good could a young guy like that be if Memphis is willing to just give him away? Is there a real reason he can't seem to get minutes on a team that isn't exactly sporting a thoroughbred in front of him?
  3. Justin Jaudon

    The Official Dwight Howard Everything Thread

    I'm sorry, but at what point did Andrew Bynum become a better offensive player than Dwight? What's his career high, like 14pts per? I know he plays with some other good scorers but come on, that's a double edged sword. He sees no double teams. Dwight went for 22 per last season. I know their minutes are very different, but when did we start ignoring what Dwight did last year. The guy was absolutely dominant. If anyone could have hit a jumper against Atlanta, Orlando would have won that in a sweep. Is there another player in the league that no one player can keep from putting up 30 points at will. I'm pretty sure if you couldn't double him he'd put up 27 to 30 a night, like Shaq used to. Bynum might be a twenty point a game guy if he were "the man", but I not at the same %, and I think the pounding he would take from all those doubles would pretty much kill his fragile fat ass. Seriously, what are the "analysts" thinking? Did some bad shrooms make the broadcaster rounds?
  4. Justin Jaudon

    The Official Dwight Howard Everything Thread

    Did that guy really just say the Lakers wouldn't trade Bynum for Dwight straight up? Hahahahahahagahagagahahahagahahaahaahahahahahahahagagahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. If that's true, the Lakers GM is worse than Otis.
  5. Justin Jaudon

    Jameer = liability

    From a guy who had high hopes for Jameer this year and who has supported him for a while... He's playing like ****. But to say he plays best when he has a good backup to pressure him is just absurd. His two best statistical years are when he was the sixth man and when Anthony Johnson was his backup. He's got no excuse this year other than maybe he's being affected by the Dwight stuff. And if that's the case, it's sad.
  6. Justin Jaudon

    Game Thread: Magic @ Kings 1/8/12

    Why is it that everywhere I look people of little real understanding are talking about Tim Tebow? I will begin by saying that if Tebow couldn't run he'd have a hard time starting for Florida at QB right now, much less an NFL team. That being said, if Vick couldn't run I'm not sure he would have started on a good high school team at QB. Tebow is not a good passer, unless he is throwing a deep ball or to an open guy while on the run ( two things he does at a high NFL level). That's not to say he can't or won't be. He's two years in the league with no offseason work in between and no work with the starting team until 6 weeks into the season. I guess people who don't have much understanding can just look at a stat sheet and see that he doesn't complete a high percentage and just say he's not accurate. Kudos to the guy who pointed out that he is overly safe rather than inaccurate. Very astute. That's not to say that he's super-accurate; just that his numbers look worse, from a percentage standpoint, than they would if he just tried to chuck it in there every time. Sam Bradford's % was what, 52 for the season? Wow, only three and a half better than Tebow. He must really suck. They should draft a QB. Tebow's a young running QB who needs to improve his accuracy. It's not hard to grasp, really. To whoever said Tebow doesn't have an NFL arm: his best attribute as a passer is his deep ball. That's not really even debatable. Shen he struggles is when he's trying to throw the short stuff and sometimes he tries to kill guys with it. Phil Simms brought that up, by the way (you know, the former pro bowl QB). He was also the first person I've seen compare Tebow to Brady, when he pointed out that their throwing motions are incredibly similar after they get above the hip. Tebow throws more passes over fifteen yards than anyone in the NFL. Anyone who's watched him play and thinks his arm isn't strong enough is just delusional. He needs work with his footwork to help his accuracy, and his timing and reading defenses needs to continue to mprove as well. In the Steelers game the only long pass that wasn't over thirty yards before the receiver caught it was the touchdown in OT. The rest were Tebow dropping very accurate downfield passes over single man coverage or that beautiful pass to Eddie Royal into a cover 3. There's nothing wrong with his arm. The thing people need to understand about Tebow is that in the games where he is unsuccessful you can look and see clearly why. When he is playing from behind against a good defense without the support of the run game playing against a blitzing deep zone he struggles. Name me a second year QB who is good in that circumstance. Some move the ball a little better at times, but usually only until they throw a pick (speaking of which, yes, Peyton manning set the ROOKIE RECORD for most picks in a season). Tebow is not a pro bowl QB. I know very few people who think he is. What he is is a dangerous young QB who will get better with time, just like every other running QB out there has been at this point in their career. Vick's % was terrible through his first 2 seasons. To address the KC game: he was awful. He was the best player for KC. Just like Brady was for this seasons first matchup with the Bills, throwing 4INTs. There was no excuse for it, and he manned up and came back with a great performance to follow it up. KC did play mostly nine guys in the box, but they rarely played ten, which is what accounted for two of Tebow's big throws against Pittsburg (2 of five over thirty yards). KC didn't do this, and Denver ran for over 250 on them. If Tebow hadn't played the most timid game of his life that would have cost them. To address the d-line of Pittsburg being hurt: true, but Denver was missing their starting center and guard, which is huge against a 3-4 D like Pittsburg's. More importantly, no one really gets much pressure on Tebow. When they do he usually scrambles out of it and that's when he's at his most dangerous. They have a solid Oline and his mobility makes them look even better. There have been a couple games where the pressure got to him, but that has been the exception rather than the rule. Most importantly, the D line in a 3-4 is mostly valuable in stopping the run, which they did. 3-4 D linemen are notoriously interchangeable. Their only job is to take up space, really. So the impact was a wash to me. Also, Tebow's best receiver was gone after the first qtr. Tebow's TQBR, which is the new rating which is more indicative of real QB success than the old QBR, was the highest in a playoff game since they started tracking the stat in 2008... At over 95 out of 100. 3 of Tebow's 11 incompletions were drops. 2 were well-advised throw-aways when no one was open and he was under pressure.Two were phenomenal defensive plays by the dbacks, coming out of nowhere to break up the passes. One was a probing deep pass that was actually well thrown, but the receiver's route was cut off ( not calling for a penalty, just saying it was a good pass) 3 were bad passes, 2 thrown too far outside on comebacks, the other too short on a comeback. 3 bad passes out of 21. Not bad. He's not going to look like this every game, obviously. The way to stop him is to do what KC did. Stack the line, keep 1 safety deep, hope their running game doesn't beat you by itself, and play phenomenal man D on the outside. You still gotta get lucky enough to not get beat even once like he did the first time against KC, or that they make a bunch of mistakes like they did against New England, because with only nine in the box you're not going to stop them from controlling the clock. That's what he brings to a team. He made a bad running game into the best in the league by far. He gives you as good a chance of winning as any second year QB in the league.
  7. Justin Jaudon

    Ryan Anderson breakout season?

    I'm not sure Harper is gonna be a better player overall, but I can all but garauntee you he'll be a better defender. Give him some time and he'll be a fantastic help defender. If he can shoot like Ryno in three years he'll be an all-star. Guy is never going to be a great rebounder though.
  8. Justin Jaudon

    Season predictions

    Prediction: PAIN Either because we start playing poorly again and Dwight forces his way out, or for other teams because we play like champs and compete for a title.
  9. Justin Jaudon

    The Official Dwight Howard Everything Thread

    I really do hope the people here who think Dwight is going to stay are right. I feel like he might warm to it if the team keeps playing well. Need to get Jameer back and playing well though. It seems odd from a team that doesn't use the PG as a distributer as much as a lot of others, but this team has always gone as the point guard goes.
  10. Justin Jaudon

    The Official Dwight Howard Everything Thread

    I am convinced against all trades except New Jersey, now. The mighty members of this board, in particular Mr. Acres, have convinced me that adding Joe Johnson's contract would be a bad idea. I was wrong. It happens occasionally. Perhaps I just really like Horford too much, or something. I see now the error of my ways. I was putting too much faith in Joe Johnson, and I see that. Also, I have seen the fault in my logic on Orlandonot getting free agents. The more I think about it, the more I realize that pretty soon, those big cities will all have their stars locked up, and Orlando is certainly (with the lack of state income tax) a better choice than any other mid-market team. I still think you need a big time player to entice an elite free agent. Stat didn't go to New York to play with Raymond Felton and Danilo Galinari. He came because he knew NY would either get Lebron that year or Mello or Paul later. I still say, though, that if you're certain he's leaving, you trade him and Hedo to NJ for picks and Lopez and expirings. And like i said, wait till NJ's season is so far gone even adding dwight cant save it. If Lopez is really hurt, just don't re-sign him (he is a FA next year, right?). If not, don't overpay him, but he's probably worth solid center money. He'd be a solid piece on a team with a couple of other better players. Even re-signing him, they'd have a lot of money after losing Dwight's and Hedo's contracts. Maybe they could snag Eric Gordon or something. Or maybe they could flip some picks for Brandon Knight. Seriously, that kid is a monster. The more I see of him the more I see a young Sam Cassel.
  11. Justin Jaudon

    The Official Dwight Howard Everything Thread

    Boston can't sign free agents? Wow. Someone better tell Shaq and Sheed. I will admit they haven't had many big name young players recently, but when did they ever have the cap space to do so. My whole point of using Boston as an example is that they built that team without using free agency. They built it using tradable assets as well as smart drafting. I agree that their formula is not ideal, as I don't want to see Orlando go through years of obscurity. That is my whole point. If we "rebuild", as in wait for dwight to just leave, we will need to wait years and get lucky in drafts to get those things needed to build a competitive team. Relying solely on wooing free agents is foolish. It has not worked anywhere I can think of. Even the dream team in Miami would never have happened if they hadn't already had one of the best players in the league. My whole point on this subject is that good players and picks are more valuable than tanking multiple seasons and getting a lot of cap space. Elite players today want to play with other elite players. Look at every major free agent or upcoming free agent in the last few years. James, Wade, Bosh, Mello, Stat, Paul, Howard, Williams. I love that people talk about KD like he's a saint for signing his extension. He already has a top five PG in the league with him. Why would he want to leave? And apparently I have a higher opinion of Joe Johnson than others here. I think he gives a very similar amount of value as Pierce. I don't know why anyone would think he's not a good defender. He's not Shawn Marion, but he's better than anyone in Orlando now. And calling him a jump shooter like it's a disease is unfair. He has a solid post game, he just hasn't used it in three years. And there are great players who are primarily jump shooters. I think Joe Johnson as a point forward passing to JRich and Meer and JJ is a good thing. I think I may have a higher opinion of Horford than most here as well. I hear a lot about Josh Smith being more valuable, and I don't get it. I think Josh Smith is a good defensive player, but he is an enigmatic player on offense. He is sometimes good, but too often he doesn't understand and play within the flow of the game. Horford is very smart and is a terrific passer and off the ball player. Regardless of how you feel about the Hawks trade, my main point is that trading Dwight is preferable to letting him leave. Getting nothing in return is just stupid. At least get Brook Lopez and some picks. Also, am I the only one who would do almost anything to get Brandon Knight in Orlando. That young man is amazing.
  12. Justin Jaudon

    The Official Dwight Howard Everything Thread

    And how have those "elite" free agents worked out for Orlando? Shard was hardly elite. I doubt anyone thought orlando could build a team around him. Shard helped them get to a Championship series, but he was a thoroughly overpaid third option who started the team's salary woes. They could have had any number of guys for that money, but instead they got two decent seasons followed by a load of crap for one of the biggest contracts in the league. Going further back to the other time Orlando had cap space, They did get an elite player in Grant Hill, who managed to play a "full season" once in how many years. McGrady was luck, as not a single GM thought he could be what he turned out to be. And that same year, the city was the sole reason that the Magic didn't acquire Tim Duncan (supposedly, his wife hated Orlando, the *****). so I'm counting one out of three elite free agents Orlando could have had when they had cap space. More to the point, the NBA has changed, and the players with it. Grant Hill was a different type of guy than these young guys today. These new guys are not just interested in winning; even a "character" guy like Dwight wants mostly attention and control, or he wouldn't be begging to go to a team with one player who would be starting on ANY team in the league. If you don't like Joe Johnson's contract, we agree on that. My point is simply that taking on a bad contract is not the end of the world if it comes with other great pieces. Shard's contract was crap, but it wasn't until he completely tanked that he really started hurting the team with it. If he had stayed a 17-to-18 points a game player, all would have been fine. And I, for one, think that at his current level of play, Johnson is no more overpaid than JJ from a % standpoint. I think JJ is worth generously 3.5 mil a year. He makes twice that. I think Johnson is worth $15-16 mil a year, ending after 3 years. Something comparable to Paul Pierce, but he's younger, so slightly more. He makes, what, $4-6 mil a year more than that over the next 3 seasons? % wise not even close. Actually the numbers there are not even that far apart straight up. So what about Johnson's final two years or so, when he's making $10-12 mil more than he's worth? The first year of that is a loss, but the final year is easily tradable (any team looking to clear cap space would trade solid pieces for a $25 mil expiring contract), or they just eat the contract for another year and end up with huge cap space the following year. Also, I think even at 35 Joe Johnson will be a decent player; not worth 25 million, but I would bet a veteran of his skill level would be good for close to the same level of Pierce's right now at that age. And as I said, Johnson's contract doesn't mean Orlando wouldn't be able to sign other good (not elite, good) players once Meer and JJ are out. Garnett is making, what $21 mil this year. They still have Pierce at like $14 mil, Rondo at $11 mil, and Jesus at $10 mil. It's all about team chemistry on the court and tradable assets in the GM's office. This can be done, but it is harder starting from scratch, and then it takes a considerable amount of luck.
  13. Justin Jaudon

    The Official Dwight Howard Everything Thread

    I will not have anyone impugn my grammar. If there are grammatical errors, I blame my iPad's autocomplete. Or I blame the Otis Smith. To summarize for you, I don't think it is smart to let Dwight walk and "rebuild". I have not seen a team successfully "rebuild" without tradable assets. The opportunity is there to get tradable assets by trading Dwight. Now I agree that if management thinks there is a legitimate chance to re-sign Dwight, then go for it. But if they are even leaning toward the idea that he will leave in FA, they should trade him for pieces and tradable assets.
  14. Justin Jaudon

    The Official Dwight Howard Everything Thread

    I should probably start a new thread for this, but apparently all things Howard must go here, so: A note to all those who think Orlando should let Dwight leave via free agency or trade for just picks instead of trading him for at very least young build able talent. Witness the Toronto Raptors, or the Minnesota Timberwolves, or the Sacramento Kings, or the Philadelphia 76ers, or the Cleveland Cavaliers, or the Indiana Pacers. Does anyone believe these teams have a chance to be relevant anytime soon? I don't. Bosh left Toronto, and no matter whether or not they have all the salary cap space in the world, no dream team is coming there. The only place a boat load of salary cap space is a recipe for a contender is a place where players want to live. Does anyone think NBA players are lining up to live in Orlando? NBA players don care enough about their 12 illegitimate kids to want to live in Disney World. Elite players like attention and pretty lights. They like to mingle with stars and party till dawn. That's not really the scene in Orlando, is it? So how do you build a winner in Orlando? You get the guys who are really good but are ignored by the big city teams, like Dallas did. Dallas tried and tried to spend their way to a title, but it happened when people least expected it. It happened when they put guys around each other (good but not great players) who complimented each other and built a cohesive unit. The same thing happened a few years ago in Detroit, before they burnt that team to the ground. Those teams didn't come together organically, they were built, very carefully. After losing Grant Hill, the Pistons didn't panic. They built on what they had, and what they got for him. They got Ben Wallace in that trade. Then they added Billups, they traded Jerry Stackhouse, a good scorer at the time, for a young unproven Rip Hamilton. They drafted a defensive stopper in Prince, then they added the last piece, 'Sheed. None of those players were superstars. Hell none were stars. Dallas' story is different, but still relevant. They could have gone the Laker route, assemble tradeable assets and trade for another star to put next to the one hey had. It worked in LA. But when they tried that it never quite worked. Guys who were great elsewhere just couldn't get it done on that team. Eventually, they won a title with a 38-year-old point guard, a scrub starting in front of an undersized and over-the-hill sixth man at 2-guard, a supposedly washed up defensive stopper at the 3, and a cast-off from the Charlotte Bobcats at center, all around a second tier borderline star in his mid-thirties. And all this while never getting under the luxury cap. No big free agent pickups, just good trades adding the right players and a really smart coach. Orlando has a really smart coach. A guy who has taken a team without an elite scorer to a championship series and followed it up with a trip to the Eastern Conference finals. Not a bad couple of years. But management keeps panicking. They broke up the team that went to the finals. Then they broke up the team that went to the ECF. Right now Orlando has the NBA's most valuable asset (a great big man at both ends of the floor). They can use that asset to get pieces to make them better after he is gone, or they can become the Cleveland Cavaliers, and hope that a miracle drops two top five picks in their laps, and then hope they have the brains to make the right picks if they do (Cleveland didn't, by the way; the right picks would have been Derrick Williams and Kemba Walker). The draft involves too much luck. If you can get pieces that compliment what you already have, or if you can get pieces that are easy to build around, you do these things. Picks are like picking what's in the box on one of those game shows. You may end up trying to build a team around Andres Noccioni, or Andre Iguodala, or Kevin Love, or whoever, with no ability to trade for better pieces, because no one wants your crappy role players. Orlando is dangerously close to this place. Whoever gets Howard must take Hedo. They should probably have to take JJ as well, but I don't think that's a must. I've heard rumors of "Dwight and Hedo for Joe Johnson and Al Horford or Josh Smith", or "Dwight and Hedo for Gasol and Bynum", or "Dwight for Lopez and picks". These are really the only trades I've heard that I give any credit to. He's not going to OKC. They wouldn't gut a contending team, which they are, to get one player, even Dwight. They would need to give up too much, with no guarantee that their team would be as cohesive. My personal favorite is probably the Hawks trade with Horford, if it's even possible (Dwight would need to agree to re-sign with Atlanta, which I have no clue as to whether or not he would). I love Horford's game, at least compared to the other losers being offered. Bynum is made of porcelain, and Lopez doesn't play good defense, and now he's got a bum ankle. No chance I would make either of those trades unless the alternative was loosing him to free agency. But the Atlanta deal intrigues me. Horford is a great piece, a guy who does so many things great teams need. And a complete big man is really hard to find. There are lots of bigs who rebound, lots of bigs who can block shots, who can defend the post, who can play great help D, who can shoot the mid-range shot, who can score down low, who can pass in and out of the paint; but how many bigs can do all of those things, even if none are to a quite elite level (though his mid-range J is elite, in my opinion). Joe Johnson's contract is a red flag, for sure; but he is a good player, even a borderline star, at this point. He is so versatile, he does so many things. Put these two guys on a SVG team with a bunch of PandR and a Meerkat who doesn't have to worry about creating for Dwight all night long, with BBD clogging the land and JRich standing outside and shooting 3's, with Ryno and Maybe JJ off the bench, that's a solid team. Also, even with Johnson's contract, Orlando would be in decent cap shape in a couple of years with Meer's and JJ's and Dudu's contracts gone. In 3 years, Johnson could be an overpaid second fiddle to a young new guy like Eric Gordon or something. I think Orlando needs to take that deal if they aren't certain Dwight will stay, and if they can get it done. Otherwise, second on my list is the Jersey deal, just wait until the trade deadline, so you get the best possible pick out of their sorry team, and only if they can take Hedo. Lastly, take the Lakers deal, and see if you can flip Bynum, not Gasol, for healthier pieces.
  15. I just feel like being somewhat optimistic for a minute. New Jersey is a cesspool. They have enough money to sign Howard next offseason, yes, but he would be playing with D-Will (maybe) and who? I can't see him on the floor with Brook Lopez, and I don't know who will give up much for him with his ankle (not this soon after Yao). And why would Howard have any more faith in that front office than Otis. I'm not an Otis fan, but I think he knows now that the writing is on the wall. Either he listens to Howard or he's done. So if Dwight goes to NJ, they won't be any better than Orlando is now for at least a couple of years. And I think that can be said of anywhere. The Lakers might be good quickly, or at least I can see Dwight buying that, but they will need to rebuild around Dwight in a couple of years when Kobe is no longer Kobe. So why can't Orlando get things straight just as quickly? In a couple of years, Hedo's contract, as well as JJ's (I like JJ, I do, but 7 mil a year...come on) and Duhon's, and Meer's are all gone. Leaving Orlando with long terms to Baby Baby and JRich. At that point, who can't they sign. Extra money and playing with Dwight should entice some pretty nice free agents. My point is that perhaps the management can convince Dwight that as he's coming into his prime (27-29), he'll be getting a great team around him. Maybe I'm off on this. I know it's crazy to think that a player would listen to that type of reasoning, but maybe at some point Dwight will see that no one else can really give him much more than Orlando can. There is no other Dream Team coming together any time soon. And if it is, it will be in Boston. (just a hunch). So as far as I can tell, the problem really is with Otis. Can he convince Dwight that he's not going to make the same mistakes yet again. I a tually like the people he's brought in this offseason, as I believe that Big Baby is infinitely better than Bass, and Hughes in small doses is great. But he still has a history of getting old washed up stars and trying to pass that off as a big move. I like JRich, as long as he is a third option, but they need a valid second option. And I don't know if Dwight believes that Otis will bring one in. And here I will make my very optimistic thought. Jameer Nelson will be back to all-star form this year. Think about this for a moment. Jameer has been fantastic when he has not been challenged by his backup(when the job has been solidly his). His best season, the first half of 09, they didn't have a stellar backup for SVG to hold over him. Before that it always seemed he was fighting for minutes with either Dooling or Arroyo. Then Orlando put some faith in him and let both of those guys go and just used A Johnson, and Jameer was having an all-star season. Then the next year I really think he had trouble getting back to form and adjusting to Vince, but by playoff time he was stellar again. then last year he started off really well. He was going for 16 and nearly 7 when the trades went down. But the trades brought in Agent Loser, and his minutes and performance suffered as a result. Now he's supposedly lighter and in good health, so I am (admittedly optimistically) thinking that 'Meer is back. Hopefully. If last year taught me anything, I think I saw that a star surrounded by good players can be more effective than two or three stars surrounded by fodder. The question remains, is this team that team. My gut says still no, but who really knows, anymore. Dallas was supposed to be old and dead in the water before last year, so I don't take anything for granted anymore. I will say that in my opinion, Otis should do whatever it takes to get one of the two guys Dwight has asked for. Iggy orJosh Smith make this team very good, I think, it is just a matter of getting the deal done. I have seen teams work bigger miracles. That said, I haven't seen that kind of genius out of Otis. So I guess my overall thinking is that I am not ready to give up on this team, but I don't feel great about them either. Also, I feel that either Iggy or Josh Smith keeps Dwight in Orlando. Wow that was longer than I meant it to be.
  16. Justin Jaudon

    The Official "WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU PLAYING!!!?" Thread

    Actually, Elder Scrolls has been considerably dumbed down. In Morrowind, there was no "compass" to tell you exactly what to do, or magic spell to show you a path to your next objective. Your map didn't even show you where you were. It was cool. You had to look around like reading a real map and figure it out. That, and there were a lot more different kinds of weapons and spells. And that's my geek rant for the day.
  17. Don't have time to browse the heck out of these long threads; what's the word with JRich?
  18. Justin Jaudon

    An Appeal to Otis Smith

    Why the he'll would Atlanta want Jameer and Ryan for Josh Smith? That is absurd.
  19. Justin Jaudon

    Dear Mr. DeVos

    If it makes it any better, it made my day just reading it. I love when people contest absurdity by being absurd. These days, it's really the only way to get people to look at their own stupidity... Unless they're too stupid to catch the joke... Then they're probably hopeless anyway.
  20. I've said before that I live in Richmond and have met Justin Harper a few times. My brother-in-law has actually been to the U of Richmond coaches camp with Harper the last couple of years. Unfortunately, while eating out with Harper after the camp, Harper told him that while he meeting the players in Orlando, everyone seemed to be assuming that Howard would be gone some time next season (if there is one). Now I'm hoping that means nothing. He never said he heard that from Howard (in fact I don't think he met Howard). I'm hoping that this was just speculation from a guy who spent all of a week with the team before everything got shut down. But I figured since I have some inside information (however unreliable) I should share it.
  21. Justin Jaudon

    Do we got any real Christains here?

    I appreciate the information on quatnum physics. As I said, most of my understanding came from conversations with my high school physics teacher ten years ago, and what little time I have been able to devote to researching it out of simple curiosity. When I said unprovable, I simply meant that since "Theoretical physics in general has outpaced our technology's ability to provide us with ways to test a lot of this stuff", many of the theorhetical mathematical constructs in quantum physics are in that tangible sense unproveable. I did not mean to call their validity wholely into question, but rather I meant to illustrate that we must use our own reasoning to understand our universe, where tangible proof would be more benificial. Reasoning is good. It gave us Newtonian physics, then relitivity. And as God (if you accept his existence, that is) must be a rational being, it should stand to reason that science coincide with His nature. I do wish to reiterate that I did not mean at all that the "God in the gaps" way of reasoning is sound. I have never understood the notion myself. Nor have I understood the realm of thinking that denies God because He cannot (as far as I can tell) be proven to exist. My using of C.S. Lewis' quote, in which he was not specifically referencing quantum physics, for when he said this it was but a twinkle in the scientific eye, was simply an illustration that the questions that things such as quantum physics arouse open doorways through which faith may enter/ or not. As I said, the existence of God is, and likely will always be, a matter of faith. The more questions arise, the more we can attribute to either God or the future. Unanswered questions still abound in physics and in phylosophy, and the answers to those questions will likely never refudiate God, nor confirm Him. As to the argument of an omniscient God being unable to create everything as well as free will, I don't see much in your posts to support that. While they are exeptionally well thought out, I think they lack the understanding that Lewis demonstrated in my first post. That to create free will, He had to create everything else for that free will to be valid. He gave us a world in which we could interact, and without that common world we could not do so, and without interaction between beings, those beings would have no sense of self, leaving them without life. I understand where you are coming from, I do. It is a tricky question. The only way for it to make sense is for God to be outside of our concept of time, so that to God all times are now. This also doesn't seem to contradict science, as time seems to be relative. And if God is outside of time, then his omniscience is absolute for any specific space of time. He did not know yesterday what we would do today, He knows today what we do; and He will know tomorrow as well. With these concepts of yesterday today and tomorrow, He has limited His omniscience; or better, "redifined it" (though only from our relative frame of reference). His knowledge of what 'is' does not supersede our ability to change 'what will be', as His knowledge of 'what will be' seemingly would. It is still a slippery thought to me to dissasociate foreknowledge with creation of free will, but the logic is reasonable enough not to try to get around it, especially since it is not intrinsically necessary. So in a sense, you are correct (or at least as far as I can make sense of God/omniscience/creation) Omniscience seemingly must be tempered to allow the coexistence of creation and free will. Since to this tempered-omniscient God all times are now, the tempering does not effect His nature, because in reference to Himself He is still all-knowing at all times of all times. It is only in reference to us that his omniscience must be tempered. I appreciate the conversation, truly. I find it hard to find people who are capable and willing to have a decent debate on anything other than the reletive merits of sports or politics (much less do so with civility). Finding people who can understand even the basics of quantum theories and reletivity is a rare thing, especially as someone not associated with academia. So thank you for your posts.
  22. Justin Jaudon

    Do we got any real Christains here?

    I understand your point about citing C.S. Lewis. I didn't mean to add weight by adding a name, I just don't like citing someone else's ideas without giving proper credit. C.S. Lewis was no more a Bible scholar than I am a physicist. That is to say that he never officially studied the subject in an educational institution. He was however a man of considerable logic, at least as far as I can follow. I quote Lewis because I find that he, being a philologist, is far better at explaining what are somewhat complicated matters. Whomever's ideas they are, they still carry the weight which their logic entails. As far as quantum physics, I will not claim to be an expert (though who truly can make that claim). from what I understand, quantum physics is, at least as far as it pertains to this discussion, essentially the study of the absurdly small. On a broader scale, it studies the wave-particle duality of matter and energy. That matter, like light, which exists both as a wave and as a stream of particles. Once scientists had the math and science necessary to study these things, they began to understand that they are inconsistent They do not follow traditional laws of conservative physics. It should not be possible for something to operate as a wave and at the same time as a stream of particles. Here, you must forgive me, I am not a physicist, so I must take the word of my physics instructor from high school. What research I have done, however, seems to back up this theory. At least, it seems from what I've read that even scientists can't make the two views consistent. Thus we have quantum physics. I will give an example of something we cannot explain logically: quantum foam can move faster than the speed of light. How this is accomplished is a matter of debate, but however it is done, it is obviously not done in the same Newtonian physical sense that determines the movements of larger bodies. These inconsistencies in the dual nature of matter cannot be eliminated, because we are not able to manipulate such bodies, or even accurately predict their nature. They defy the laws of what we so far understand. This, as C.S. Lewis said, can be called the action of a non-physical entity on a physical reality, simply because these bodies, which are the building blocks of reality, do not behave in a physical way, at least not in one which can be explained using physics. Thus we create quantum physics, a new set of rules to govern that which we cannot reconcile to our traditional views. Quantum physics is interesting because it is really a collection of mostly unprovable theories used to try and explain things we can't yet understand. I must apologize for the brevity of my argument against determinism from the last post. It was late, and I have kids. I should have explained more clearly that things such as quantum physics and the inconsistencies within determinism are not a proof for God. They are simply an argument against determinism. The notion that God could not create free will seems from your earlier posts to find its logic within determinism. If I am mistaken, please explain. A proof of God is something beyond my ability. And that should come as no shock. For if God could be proved by mere intelligence, then He would once again be destroying the free will we have discussed. If it were obvious in a physically provable sense that God existed, we would have little choice but to follow him. And as I have said, lack of choice is lack of life. What I am doing here is simply arguing that the existence of God is possible, and that to my understanding, it is far more likely than the alternative. If I accept that human thought is based on rationality and reason, that these are true concepts, then I accept that there is within man a sense of self. If I deny rationality in defense of determinism, then I deny the sense of self and call it an illusion. To deny rationality and reason seems to me to be a paradox. If you come to me and say, see here, how reasonably and rationally, rationality and reason are simply illusions, then how is what you say to be trusted? If there is no true rationality, how could that be proved. As I said before, however, nothing I have posted has been meant to be a proof of God, only a refutation of the impossibility of God. God is still a matter of faith. I am only arguing that such faith need not be intrinsically unmerited.
  23. Justin Jaudon

    Do we got any real Christains here?

    Not sure how that point was defeated. If there are intrinsic truths that even God must follow (meaning that He has the power to do anything so long as it does not contradict itself), then to give man free will He must allow the possibility of pain. To create a world in which there was no ability to sin, or to create creatures who were incapable of it, would be useless. He would be creating something, but not something of free will. To give his creations the ability to interact, he must give them a world of shared space in which to do so, for two creatures of free will could not even conceive the notion of each other without one or both being able to exert some of its own will into that of the other. In fact, it is not conceivable that one could even understand a sense of self (which seems to be essential to free will) without the sense of "other". And as I said, without shared space, there can be no "other". So God could have done many things, but he could not create a world without the possibility of sin while creating a world of free will. It is simply a contradiction in terms. Now if we are discussing whether or not it would have been better for God not to create humanity at all, we are asking a question which we cannot answer. In fact, it is an intrinsically nonsensical question. "To be or not to be", is not something we can gauge. As Lewis put it: "I am aware of no human scales in which such a portentous question can be weighed. Some comparison between one state of being and another can be made, but the attempt to compare being and not being ends in mere words. 'It would be better for me not to exist'-in what sense 'for me'? How should I, if I did not exist, profit by not existing?" It is something akin to a man who lives his whole life underground debating the beauty of a sunset. He cannot truly understand the sky, much less its beauty; he has no frame of reference (though maybe a blind man would make more sense, as a man underground still understands the idea of visual beauty, where a blind man would not have a proper reference at all). Similarly, we cannot compare existence with nonexistence because our conceptions of the two are unbalanced. We know what it is to exist, but we cannot begin to understand nonexistence. In fact, it seems that there could be no true understanding of nonexistence because how could someone who did not exist understand anything. They could not. Even among those whose existence is constant suffering (if there truly is such an existence), the question is still a hollow one. If we are questioning the ability of an omniscient God to create a being who could have free will at all, being that God would know all of the actions the being would take at its creation, that is essentially questioning the entire concept of free will. It is like asking, "Could I, in fact, make a choice different from whatever choice I make?" Is it true that only what can happen will happen? Is the world truly deterministic? Again, Lewis predicted its logical counterargument. We now know, through quantum physics, that any observable system will and in fact must have inconsistencies and though we should be able to measure and predict these, effectively eliminating them, we cannot. Any attempt to do so only creates more inconsistencies. Even having all the necessary information with all our laws of physics, we cannot gauge the behavior of matter when broken down far enough. This is relevant, because of what Lewis predicted, that this creates an entry point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality. The "God in the machine" has been glimpsed by scientists, even if most of them don't realize it. Lewis also argued that naturalistic, complete determinism is irrational. For determinism to be true, there would have to be a rational basis for their thought. But if determinism is true, then there is no rational basis for thought, since all is determined by non-rational forces. So, if determinism claims to be true, then it must be false. I have read through all of the posts here, and I don't see any of these points defeated. Perhaps if you could be more specific. A simple copy and paste, perhaps?
  24. Justin Jaudon

    Do we got any real Christains here?

    That was from "The Problem of Pain", if anyone is curious.
  25. Justin Jaudon

    Do we got any real Christains here?

    I can't resist the opportunity to use a C.S. Lewis quote to make a point. "We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of [the] abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them. All matter in the neighbourhood of a wicked man would be liable to undergo unpredictable alterations. That God can and does, on occasions, modify the behaviour of matter and produce what we call miracles, is part of Christian faith; but the very conception of a common, and therefore stable, world, demands that these occasions should be extremely rare. In a game of chess you can make certain arbitrary concessions to your opponent, which stand to the ordinary rules of the game as miracles stand to the laws of nature. You can deprive yourself of a castle, or allow the other man sometimes to take back a move made inadvertently. But if you conceded everthing that at any moment happened to suit him- if all his moves were revocable and if all your pieces disappeared whenever their position on the board was not to his liking- then you could not have a game at all. So it is with the life of souls in a world: fixed laws, consequences unfolding by causal necessity, the whole natural order, are at once limits within which their common life is confined and also the sole condition under which any life is possible. Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself."