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.

The irony: This is basically what we have. When it comes to action, as senators, Kamala and Bernie voted the same way on most issues. Obviously, they are not the same people, but their viewpoints led to more or less the same voting actions.

You realize that you're currently being con'd. Netanyahu wants Trump to win the presidential election, because he knows Trump will be friendly towards his genocidal actions. Netanyahu is doing everything in his power to extend this genocide so that he can stay in power; and so that he can keep single issue voters like you away from the polls.

Netanyahu knows that if he ended Israel's genocide before the election, the Biden administration would receive credit in playing a role in mediating the conflict. This would likely assure a Harris victory. By escalating the conflct, he is assisting Trump. Why would you think that this genocidal maniac is doing this?

So here you are, the single issue voter that is tuning out all of the other important issues. For example, Trump considers communist (all you genius tankies) some of the biggest enemies in the USA; or how Trump backers and policymakers wants to remove women's right to make decisions about their bodies.

Do I believe that Biden/Harris has done enough to help Palestinians? The answer is no. Do I believe Biden/Harris feels like Netanyahu and the Israeli government are in the wrong? Yes. Do I believe Trump feels like Israel is in the wrong? No.

So even if this is your single issue, as an American living thousands of miles from Israel, your best way to assist Palestinians right now is to put someone in the Whitehouse who at least views them as human-beings. By not voting or voting third-party, you're not helping anyone but yourself. You are doing it so you don't need to "feel bad" about crossing some morale boundary.

Listen man, if that's the route you want to go, then fine. But I'm gonna go ahead and waltz my sorry butt to the polls and cast my vote for the person who will more likely do something to assist Palestinians even if I feel like I'm crossing a moral boundary. Am I gonna feel good doing it? No. But it's the better decision to make, especially considering all the other important issues that surround this election beyond the Palestinian genocide.

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.

From your description, it sounds like you are an Agnostic Atheist. It takes some faith to be an Atheist. Personally, I agree with your points, so I'd be more of an Agnostic Atheist too; but I am somewhat convinced that science has decent evidence which disproves the old and new testament god. I believe our scientific understanding of our universe suggests god would not give a shit whether it was worshipped and it would not be some moral judge. It's consciousness (if we can even call it that) would be so far beyond what humans could comprehend that our puny human morales and ethical dilemmas would be irrelevant to it. Nevertheless, I still think human morales and ethics are important, because us Agnostic Atheists don't need the fear of divine retribution to do the right thing.

Thank you for sharing your beliefs in such detail. I appreciate it. Sorry to hear about your experience with those forcing their religion on you due to being transgendered. I am cisgendered, but I like to consider myself an ally. I have a lgbtq+ flag flying in my classroom (I'm a teacher) and I already had to give a student a stern talk for telling me that "god loves you" after looking at my flag

I agree with this sentiment, but Christianity is partly defined by "spreading the word of god". So "telling people what to believe" is par for the course (think missionaries).

Curious though, why do you not refer to yourself as atheist? Non-religious is actually not very specific. Non-religious can mean Agnostic Theist, Agnostic Atheist, or Atheist.

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.

The reality is: if you don't understand why providing "white" scholarships is very different from providing "people of color" scholarships, then you don't have a full understanding of how Racism manifests in America. This is a fundamental thing you will need to work to better understand before a discussion of this topic can be useful.

Nevertheless, you are correct that not every white person in America take advantage of generational wealth, but this is besides the point. The fact is Black Americans have been in this country for 400 years and the community is still disproportionately impoverished, whereas there are a lot of European/Asian immigrants who have been here for much less time and they are much better off. You kind of make this observation in your response, but missed the implications it has on how Racism rewards certain demographics.

By this metric, one can argue that we currently "misuse" a lot of words in the English language, but the reality is language evolves. Think about how the definition of "nice" has evolved from meaning "ignorant or stupid" in the 1300s to it's current meaning.

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.

FSR exists, and FSR 3 actually looks very good when compared with DLSS. These arguments about raytracing and DLSS are getting weaker and weaker.

There are still strong arguments for nvidia GPUs in the prosumer market due to the usage of its CUDA cores with some software suites, but for gaming, Nvidia is just overcharging because they still hold the mindshare.

I've noticed that words that are considered "profanity" tend to be vernacular words that express negative emotions (pain, anger, frustration, etc). The fact that these words are considered profane seems a bit unhealthy, because it limits our ability to verbally express how we are feeling internally. Nevertheless, I think some people might use these words too often. If one is cursing every other word all the time, then it's a bit like "crying wolf" once they use it when they're actually experiencing a strong negative emotion.

I was engaging with a collective in the US, and they seemed to be wishing for a global revolution; so excommunication would not be an option like the Kulaks unless the idea is to remove them from Earth.

I guess I can't judge all collectives when I only engaged with one (go figure, right). I appreciate you taking the time to share information with me. It was enlightening.

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.

This is a fair point, but a general premise to Marxism is a bloody revolution where the working class takes the assets from capitalist bosses. Perhaps some Marxist are interested in alternative methods, but the group of communist members with which I was able to discuss this topic with were not concerned with that.

They demonized and dehumanized capitalist and talked about them as if they were not worth saving, and it was this kind of rhetoric that turned me off from their cause.

Though, it was also their rhetoric which presumed racism and sexism would be solved if we all just view eachother as workers. This seemed to underplay the effects these caste systems have on people.

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.

Is it possible that there is a better a solution to the issues of Capitalism which doesn't involve the liquidation of entire groups of people?

Being a person who have visited communist meetings, this is my biggest gripe with the ideology. Yes, capitalism today has become corrupted, perhaps even beyond repair. But, I refuse to believe that the only solution is to round up and kill the capitalist bosses in order to bring back power to the working class. At this point, we would be dehumanizing an entire group of people which wouldn't make us much better than what the far-right does.