Big words to shrink down my overly verbose explanations, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Existing outside existence wouldn't make sense, but existing in a different way does. I don't exist in the same way a computer program exists, without running a program I can construct its logical here's and there's. I suggest a "computer programmer" sort of metaphysical explanation as one of a near infinite number of non-contradictory ways a "god" could exist. It is also likely he not exist. For me, the jury is out, but I like to not rule things out or mock them when they are still on the table, even if I can't show one way or they other...perhaps even especially then. Many of Einstein's great ideas can be traced back to the "wacky" metaphysics of Schopenhauer, but who knows what even greater "wackiness" awaits us behind discoveries next great door...the imagination tingles with anticipation. Like Popper suggests, great theories are born from great imaginations, the once impossible becomes possible with the changing of the guard of certain theories of physics or the like. I would suggest that dreamers have made the bold leaps in science more than the lab tech. Strick adherence to testing and retesting still leaves us lacking in the truly creative ways to construct them and bind them together.

O wait, hijacked again. I liked the part in the video where people posted annotations in a very cruel way to mock a person who had the best of intentions, it reminds me of something I have seen somewhere else before?!

>> ^gwiz665:

You're just saying big words to sound smart now, obfuscating the transreal statements with vagueries and doubletalk like a true soothsayer.
You are essentially saying we are dreamed up by the being that exists outside of existence. That sorta disproves itself, doesn't it?
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^gwiz665:
If he defines what "God" is, then I'll happily disprove it. If I have to define it as well, then I'll just do an easy one: Creationism. False. There, disproved.

What about a being of multidimensional time considering the platonic relationship of transfinite ideas, and thus, summoning all existence? That the ordinals and cardinals of it's maths are the thing we call existence?
O wait, this is a funny video. I farted, hehehehe.

You're just saying big words to sound smart now, obfuscating the transreal statements with vagueries and doubletalk like a true soothsayer.

You are essentially saying we are dreamed up by the being that exists outside of existence. That sorta disproves itself, doesn't it?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^gwiz665:
If he defines what "God" is, then I'll happily disprove it. If I have to define it as well, then I'll just do an easy one: Creationism. False. There, disproved.

What about a being of multidimensional time considering the platonic relationship of transfinite ideas, and thus, summoning all existence? That the ordinals and cardinals of it's maths are the thing we call existence?
O wait, this is a funny video. I farted, hehehehe.

>> ^gwiz665:

If he defines what "God" is, then I'll happily disprove it. If I have to define it as well, then I'll just do an easy one: Creationism. False. There, disproved.


What about a being of multidimensional time considering the platonic relationship of transfinite ideas, and thus, summoning all existence? That the ordinals and cardinals of it's maths are the thing we call existence?

O wait, this is a funny video. I farted, hehehehe.

I didn't catch why this is hilarious until I switched the annotations on. Make sure you turn them on.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Anybody else think this might need a nsfw?


Sorted dude

Crikey, that was bloody quick. Cheers me man

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Borat, your tea is ready.
*promote

One has to click thru to YT to get the annotations. But it is worth it.

*french @ctrlaltbleach. Here is a weird concurrence of two very different cultures!

>> ^vairetube:
5/2009
really what we're talking about here is insanely increasing the resolution of the original photo to begin with, so the manipulation software isnt the issue... maybe you have video technology that takes multiple levels/layers/scenes and can on demand get that data... thats more of an issue with the recording technology then analyzing.


http://www.petapixel.com/2010/05/07/omni-focus-camera-boasts-infinite-depth-of-field/

5/2010
Researchers at the University of Toronto have come up with a new video camera that can achieve infinite depth of field even when objects are immediately in front of the camera. What they did was stuff an array of video cameras into a single camera, with each camera focused at a different distance.


2009:
http://cg.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn/montage/main.htm
System that composes a realistic picture from a simple freehand sketch annotated with text labels. The composed picture is generated by seamlessly stitching several photographs in agreement with the sketch and text labels

Present:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/23/1325247/brain-imaging-reveals-the-movies-in-our-mind

"Brain activity evoked by the second set of clips was used to test the movie reconstruction algorithm. This was done by feeding 18 million seconds of random YouTube videos into the computer program so that it could predict the brain activity that each film clip would most likely evoke in each subject. Finally, the 100 clips that the computer program decided were most similar to the clip that the subject had probably seen were merged to produce a blurry yet continuous reconstruction of the original movie"


----


So maybe you just need to find a witness then you can read their minds! Blows the incredulity over CSI out of water.

FYI: If you turn the annotations on, you get a more detailed explanation of why each scene made the list.

[edit] you might have to watch it at youtube since some of the annotations are cut off on VS for some reason

ANNOTATIONS not captions

attn youtube: annotations were the worst idea ever

I don't agree with craig on many of his views, so why should I have to defend him? I'll speak to my own views, thanks. Although I appreciate craigs philosophical arguments, I don't particularly agree with his theology. I'm not going to defend the views of every theist in the world. If you want to play guilt by association, I've got plenty to work with..we can start with stalin and pol pot if you like.


>> ^hpqp:
ah @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://religion.videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry , always ready to rip a new one for whoever dares criticize your holey book (even when that person is a child who seems to have more knowledge thereof than yourself... or maybe especially because of it?)
I suggest you take a page from her book and consult the skeptic's annotated Bible (as she obviously has).
While you're defending the atrocities condoned/ordered by Yahweh, perhaps you might like to tell us what you think of the justification your fellow apologist W. L. Craig offers (for God's orders to kill men, women and children) in the link below?
>> ^hpqp:
William Lane Craig is a KING of the sophisticated theology that people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and so on just don't get. My favourite example so far is how he explains the morality behind the brutal massacres of children in the Bible, and argues ever so convincingly that the true victims are the poor murderers, who must have been simply traumatised doing God's bidding.
Read and learn, amoral heathens!

ah @shinyblurry , always ready to rip a new one for whoever dares criticize your holey book (even when that person is a child who seems to have more knowledge thereof than yourself... or maybe especially because of it?)

I suggest you take a page from her book and consult the skeptic's annotated Bible (as she obviously has).

While you're defending the atrocities condoned/ordered by Yahweh, perhaps you might like to tell us what you think of the justification your fellow apologist W. L. Craig offers (for God's orders to kill men, women and children) in the link below?

>> ^hpqp:

William Lane Craig is a KING of the sophisticated theology that people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and so on just don't get. My favourite example so far is how he explains the morality behind the brutal massacres of children in the Bible, and argues ever so convincingly that the true victims are the poor murderers, who must have been simply traumatised doing God's bidding.
Read and learn, amoral heathens!

Deleted 5 instances of it but I don't think it changed anything. Anyway, you can turn on annotations by clicking the little menu in the lower right of the player.