I like the Pink Floyd soundtracks ('La Vallee' and 'More'), mostly because it was music of an era and so unlike anything before or since...

(Little known 'rumour' is that the 23-minute epic on the B-side of the Meddle album, Echoes, was composed to serve as a soundtrack to the final sequence of Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- entitled Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite. A different song was ultimately chosen for the film, but one can, if one was so inclined, cue up the song at the title card for this sequence and notice how nicely it fits with the psychedelic imagery of this portion of the movie.... Not so unlike Dark Side & the Wizard of Oz).

Jupiter was bigger than the sun in their solar system model there at the end.

Man, Saturn and Jupiter get all the love.

How 'bout some Mercury and Neptune attention round these parts?

Europa has a thick layer of ice, maybe a few or several miles thick, under which is a very deep liquid ocean, but "its bulk density suggests that it is similar in composition to the terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of silicate rock." According to the researchers, "GJ1214b’s radius could be explained by a bulk composition consisting of an ice-rock core surrounded by a H/He/H₂O envelope that has a water mass fraction of 50-85%."

GJ1214b is a giant ball of water 2.7 times the Earth's diameter (Uranus is about 4 times, Saturn about 9). The water must be (tens of) thousands of miles deep. There's nothing like it in our system. I can't even begin to imagine what happens to water at that kind of depth and pressure. What bizarre properties it must have. They mention superfluids and hot ice in the article, but I suspect it's even weirder.
>> ^gwiz665:
Isn't Europa actually made almost entirely of ice? Europa the moon around Jupiter, I believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28moon%29

Isn't Europa actually made almost entirely of ice? Europa the moon around Jupiter, I believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)

A flying teapot explains exactly nothing; it has no explanatory power. The idea of God does. Between evolution and special creation you have exausted all the possibilities. You have faith in a self-creating universe, I have faith that it was designed by an all powerful being. I see evidence of design, and since it is mathematically impossible it happened by chance, God is a far more plausible hypothesis according to the evidence.

>> ^botono9:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, Hitchens tried to cloak himself in the vast and endless void of unbelief, yet Lane quickly cornered him and he was forced to admit that he did not in fact believe God exists, which is the assertion of atheism, regardless of how you try to game the definition. Did you miss that part? Of course he didn't have any arguments for this assertion. I think Hitchens fell far short of even the most objective measure of success here.
Do you believe there is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Jupiter and Neptune? Please present your evidence for or against. Any refusal to present evidence will be taken as proof that you failed the debate.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, Hitchens tried to cloak himself in the vast and endless void of unbelief, yet Lane quickly cornered him and he was forced to admit that he did not in fact believe God exists, which is the assertion of atheism, regardless of how you try to game the definition. Did you miss that part? Of course he didn't have any arguments for this assertion. I think Hitchens fell far short of even the most objective measure of success here.

Do you believe there is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Jupiter and Neptune? Please present your evidence for or against. Any refusal to present evidence will be taken as proof that you failed the debate.

There is one off Jupiter too, as some kind sifter pointed out when I sifted this video.

i.e.

it's an artifact of trying to mask the bright planets off the scene

Do you see the problem? To prove Premise 1, Craig had to define OMVs as independent of human opinion, but in his (and your) proof of OMVs' existence, he invoked human opinion, which, by the original definition, must be irrelevant. As soon as you redefine OMVs as something humans can validate, they cease to require a God to have determined them, as we could have determined them ourselves.

As Premise 1 and Premise 2 cannot both be proven true with consistent definitions of the term "objective moral values", the conclusion that God exists remains unproven.

And this is all that is required, as nobody is trying to prove that God doesn't exist, nor explain the existence of our innate sense of morals.

There is no problem with the definition of OMVs here. This is a standard definition that you will find in any dictionary or philosophy handbook, and both premises are consistent with it. The problem is that you are bringing up two unrelated issues and conflating them. If you want to observe Jupiter and you use a microscope and don't observe it, does this mean that Jupiter doesn't exist? Does the method you use have any bearing on whether it exists or not? Then neither does how we determine whether OMVs exist have any bearing on whether they do actually exist or not. If you to argue we cannot know objective facts by making subjective determinations then we will be exactly where you said you wanted to avoid..this is my reality, that is your reality, and no objective world between us, but only mere opinion.

Yes, we determine premise 2 subjectively. I apprehend an objective moral realm which imposes itself upon my moral choices. There is nothing logically inconsistent here, and certainly nothing that invalidates the argument. We can affirm an objective truth with a subjective interpretation, it doesn't make it contingent on that interpretation. So, premise 2 will stand regardless of whether we subjectively determine it or not. OMVs can be apprehended subjectively and still exist objectively. The question is, what do you believe? That is what is truly relevant to the argument.

If you want to take a position of moral skepticism, then feel free, but you don't get to dismiss the argument over it. How we determine whether premise 2 is true or false is at the heart of how you approach this entire problem. How about you engage the argument rather than trying to break it apart so you don't have to take any position? It would be nice if we could advance the discussion.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry
PART 1 OF 2
Logical discourse
It seems we
[edited for a few very minor things]

Personally, I'm ready to just do the sensible thing and let Chicchorea back after a week ban or so. Then we can put all of this behind us once everyone is back.

And we'll all go back to being civil and the world will be aligned with Venus, and Jupiter aligned with Mars, and I promise not to go to dag's dinner parties and call someone a horse fucker. Mainly because he lives in Brisbane and not somewhere cool like Whitsunday or Syndey, so I wouldn't go to his house anyways. But if I did, I still wouldn't call @NetRunner a pig fucker.

>> ^gwiz665:

Given a limited scope you can absolutely prove a negative. "There are no muslims in congress" is provable. "There is no God in the United States" is also provable.
The problem is that if you have an unlimited scope, then it becomes impossible.
"There are no fairies in my basement."
vs.
"There are no fairies."


As already pointed out, by *definition* you can't prove a negative.
As per your other threads shinyblurry, we can argue semantics all day so it's kind of pointless, but I'm going to anyway, because it's actually at the nub of the statement "you can't prove a negative".
I've also used an online dictionary you've sited in your other posts.

prove/pro͞ov/Verb
1. Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
2. Demonstrate by evidence or argument (someone or something) to be.

Note the use of the affirmative "the existence" / "to be". There is no scope for a negative here.

Also it's worth pointing out the etymology of the word "proof". It comes from the Latin "probare" meaning "to test". So it you've got proof of god's existence, it's got to be testable. Similarly if I want to "prove" there is no god I need to formulate a test that will give a definitive result.

Now, moving away from semantics....

So yeah, he's using a linguistic trick to try and recontextualize the statement "you can't prove a negative". That statement is generally used as a shorthand in an argument not only as a reference to the above definition, but also as a more general indication of the vast impracticality of proving a blanket negative statement such as "there is no god". In that context it is never meant as an absolute.

By adding a very restricted location, as William Lane Craig has in the video above, a negative statement of course becomes provable. I don't think any atheist would disagree that the statement "there are no coins in my pocket" could be proven simply by looking in my pocket.

For example - If as an atheist I was to say "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence" in order to prove it I would then have to trawl through every every steet, house, closet, drawer, toilet cistern, dessert, mountaintop, quarry pit, top secret inaccessible military bunker in the world, then undertake extensive excavation all the way to the earths molten core.

At his stage a believer could say "Well I have just had a personal revelation from God who spoke directly to me and told me that the grail is being kept safe underneath the icy surface of Jupiter's 6th moon Europa"

So after I've convinced NASA to undertake "The Program for the Recovery of Christs Holy Grail from Under the Surface of Jupiter's 6th Moon Europa" I'm told by the believer that they've had another personal message received directly from god that he was angry at being tested, and so has moved the grail to a divine and indestructible vault at the heart of the distant sun Omicron Beta....

However, if I make the statement - "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence in my desk drawer" - I just have to open the drawer to look and the statement can be proven.

And the above examples are with definite physical objects. Think how impossible it is to prove the statement "there is no god" when the idea of how god is defined is so widely and radically disputed depending on what religion you subscribe to, and when almost every individual within each of these religions will have their own definition of what god is.

Apollo was a Greek god for which the Romans had no equivalent (unlike Zeus/Jupiter, Poseidon/Neptune, etc.) so the Romans adopted him under that name. Some later Roman poets referred to Apollo as Phoebus but it wasn't as common.
>> ^grinter:

Didn't both the Greeks and Romans use the name Apollo?
Someone set me straight here.

Plutocracy anyone? Anyone?

Donald has been around for three weeks and went with the birther crap (to get his "base"; really pathetic); overnight he becomes the Tea Party front-runner and second place Republican (Tea Party members hiding behind a R). This should scare people as it OUTRIGHT shows that there is a huge amount of racism at play here.

It also shows us that the average intelligence is group oriented with very little concern for truth or even facts about Trump. Trump would be a crappy president for one character flaw that he has that is HUGE. He is insecure about himself. We're talking about someone that wears a hairpiece that makes Qaddafi look stylish...

Even when his business practices have failed he never once owned up to it and always found a scapegoat. All we can expect from him is a new Fox Reality show (not surprising with Fox's ties...), some new "one liners", his hairpiece coming off and flying through the air breaking Fabio's nose again, and the most self-absorbed/ego-driven president ever. He would eclipse Bush Jr. in a month (my wager).

P.S.- I noticed that he has a large tendency to flat out lie, but worse his Ego is the size of Jupiter and he creates lies to fulfill that ego. He literally believes that he'll jump in the chair and it will end... This is a nation-wide issue with a lot of people at fault and not helping. You have Republicans right now trying to shut-down the government so that Fox can spend four weeks talking it up (meanwhile Japan just had another quake at the 7.4 range); they did this to Clinton as well. They are completely useless and still people vote these morons in. We truly deserve our self-created fiasco. I hope it's good enough that we are NOT the number one power anymore, as Republicans hold onto that as though it's pre-ordained scripture. I don't think Trump realizes yet that the president, alone, has very little power--he seems to think that it grants you Godhood for four to eight years...

edit- My point about his ego showing up before they really even start the interview just watch the clip from about :44 to 1:05. He has a personality disorder, atleast! The Tea Party people need free funding for schooling as they need education BADLY... At 3:00 I thought he was going to go ahead and tell us how he belongs to MENSA and has been to MIT (on a tour, but those are just facts that can change, duh).

Cheers!

In reply to this comment by shagen454:
And you know, I think this might be breakout - black hipsterdom meets pop success. I mean I'm only a white guy but I feel like I can chart artistic white man's black man's underground hip hop in pretty inaccurate accurate way. I feel like a lot started with Kool Keith aka Jupiter, aka Automator 5, aka Dr Octogon... underground and innovative enough to have been on a "power-violence" record by the legendary and far more underground band Spazz, or a group like dalek that had a record with 70's innovative german band Faust which eventually ended up influencing pretty innovative labels like the now defunct Definitive Jux. A lot of this stuff is and was influenced by punk. And I'm not talking Ramones, etc.

These guys are like a white hipster savvy Onyx; but I really do like it and just like the now popular Das Racist you hear references to noise punk / hardcore classics. That is the new hip hop.

And you know, I think this might be breakout - black hipsterdom meets pop success. I mean I'm only a white guy but I feel like I can chart artistic white man's black man's underground hip hop in pretty inaccurate accurate way. I feel like a lot started with Kool Keith aka Jupiter, aka Automator 5, aka Dr Octogon... underground and innovative enough to have been on a "power-violence" record by the legendary and far more underground band Spazz, or a group like dalek that had a record with 70's innovative german band Faust which eventually ended up influencing pretty innovative labels like the now defunct Definitive Jux. A lot of this stuff is and was influenced by punk. And I'm not talking Ramones, etc.

These guys are like a white hipster savvy Onyx; but I really do like it and just like the now popular Das Racist you hear references to noise punk / hardcore classics. That is the new hip hop.