>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?

Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.

Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.

>> ^ghark:

I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.

Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.

You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.

Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.

This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.

So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.

It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

It's easy to calculate the real probability. A single byte can represent 256 different values, so for example in ASCII each character is encoded as a single byte, since there are less than 256 characters in the alphabet. Lets assume that the monkey's keyboard has keys for all 256 values, for simplicity. Let's also assume the complete works of Shakespeare add up to 10 megabytes. The chance that the monkey gets any single byte correct is 1/256. The chance that he gets two bytes right is (1/256)^2, three bytes is (1/256)^3, and so on. So then the chance that the monkey gets it all right is (1/256)^10,000,000. That's 1 divided by (256 raised to the 10 millionth power).

You could get a more accurate number by making x be the number of different types of characters and punctuations in the works, y be the actual count of all those things, then the probability would be 1/(x^y).

all valid points about movies cinemas etc....but seriously why is no-one talking about how crappy of a movie this is?

Its about a horse tied into wwi. Its like legends of the fall but instead of people...theres a horse. Or maybe its nothing like legends but still...seriously..... wwi patriotism repackaged with a horse

If you like war movies.....that was probably all the war scenes you're going to get.

'Be careful [sir dashing aristocratic dweeb) with me horse sir' ...'No problem (peasant boy) who despite his peasant baseness somehow managed to raise this noble horse despite....No wait, BECAUSE of his peasant simplicity managed to raise a fine noble horse and will somehow woo the wealthy girl.

*facepalm*.... to each their own.

We have two 'theories'

1 - Steel Skyscraper collapses due to office furnishings burning for roughly 7 hours
2 - Steel Skyscraper collapses due to controlled demolition

Problems with theories.

theory 1 - No steel skyscraper has ever suffered a complete collapse due to fire.
theory 2 - It looks like demolition but demolition implies conspiracy.

My opinion is that theory 2 is the simplest theory that explains the evidence I have seen. However Occam's razor isn't much use in this scenario since all the evidence was destroyed before the investigation took place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Overview

The principle was often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, however, since in practice the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[3] That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.

>> ^Skeeve:

How cute, you actually believe it was about oil.
For the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, America could have bought well over a billion barrels of oil at its current price.
Even better, for a minute fraction of the cost, America could have secured deals with oil producing countries to get their oil at lower prices in perpetuity.
Instead, America invaded two countries: one has no oil and the other's oil producing capability was reduced by the war itself. So, America made the price of oil go up, used more per year than ever before in their wars and lowered the amount of oil produced worldwide.
If the WTC attacks were about oil, it was planned by a team of retards.
>> ^Peroxide:
What matters is that the deaths of 3000 Americans was used to justify a war for OIL.



Well, it was about the military industrial complex forming an essential part of the make up of the U.S.'s GDP, and their political culture. But I just say oil for simplicity's sake.

*quality

Hah, what do you know. Just last month, we had a few words in the lounge about how it has been more than two years since the last discussion about this subject. I brought it up simply because I was looking for some book recommendations.

For simplicity's sake, I went with a few books that were turned into somewhat interesting movies. Namely Robert Ludlum's "The Bourne Identity/Ultimatum", Stephen Hunter's "Point of Impact" and "Time to Hunt", Tom Cain's "Accident Man" and "The Survivor".

Only lasted a month though, so on Thursday, despite my dislike of fantasy novels, I picked up Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire". "Game of Thrones" is the only one I have almost finished so far (page 728), and it's already much more to my liking than the tv show.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
How did the debate become so simple? Raise taxes, build unions and universal healthcare versus cut taxes, free-market, personal responsibility. Does everything break down to this high school level prom-running event?
Call it pessimism or fatalism (Which it is not since I am trying to affect change for the better) but we complain like Rome when it fell--not like we should, not in a healthy way...
Sorry for the rant, which this last section was.


That post was packed to the gills with ideas, so forgive me for only trying to really respond to this one.

From where I sit, left vs. right is really about complexity vs. simplicity. It winds up being a binary choice, mostly because the right is unified behind a ridiculously simplistic philosophy (erase the government and life will be awesome), while every other possible idea gets lumped together as being "left".

Want to talk about policy we can put in place to make markets more efficient? Left-wing social engineering. Want to try to systematically cure poverty? Socialist, or maybe Communist. Want to try to find a way to keep us from killing ourselves with pollution? Nazi, clearly. Want to end wars, well, unless it's because you don't think government should have the power, you're obviously some kind of dirty hippie.

That accounts for a lot of the differences between the left & right political movements. We're mostly unified by being anti-right, rather than some idea of what we want to do. We'd probably still have trouble getting bills passed through Congress even if every seat was held by a Democrat.

@heropsycho and @Mikus_Aurelius Thanks for your great replies. I will continue this conversation some more after I get home, but I wanted to say mikus raised a really good point that I couldn't wait to investigate further. The "income=expenditures" does seem a rather bad assumption. And I would like to offer my own pontifications a probable solution, I also put in an email to their info station. I present it here for reading.

"Hello. I imagine you won't have time to respond to this email, but I
have a question about one of the graphs in the FAQ. In Figure 2, the
graph assumes to make a balanced rate based on income = total
spending. That seems like a rather dubious assumption, as lower
income families will spend a disproportionate amount of their total
income when compared to someone of higher income whom will save more.
Was this just done for simplicity, because it would seem like the
actual rate would have to be higher all around given that money being
spent from the upperclasses isn't nearly has high, or I assume isn't
nearly as high. Is their any evidence to support the claim, is what I
am asking, that total income is directly equal to total spending. It
seems like to bold a statement to take on face value without some
reason to believe that. I love the idea of the fair tax, this
question seems to be burning in my mind as needing an answer."

Now, income is a strange beast. Steve Jobs only gets 1 dollar a year from his job, so how is that graph mapping it in relation to his income? Who knows, perhaps that is why it is so directly correlated, that most all money will get spent in the end regardless of salary. And I think the other graph still holds in spite of the figure 2 one, that total spending seems to be more steady then total income. You can think of income as a fire, and spending as the ember. People are always going to find money to spend, perhaps even hidden money like we all did in monopoly...that no one REALLY knows about. I still have lots more questions than answers on many of the different ways we could do taxes, but there is one thing I do know. Complex systems favor large businesses. The rules of scale mean anyone with a payroll department already can factor off some of the cost of compliance with normal business costs. Small businesses can't do this as easy. Also, complex systems are breeding grounds for lobbies getting special exemptions for their pet business. The entropy of the intent of a complex, income based system seem like something we could do without.

In closing, I am sad we ended up talking about which one was "more or less effective". Unless the cost is astronomically different between the 2, we shouldn't let that even be a topic. Reason being is we were talking about which one is right or wrong, and if one is morally wrong, it really shouldn't matter if it is cheaper. It is kind of like lawyers and the public defender. We could cut costs of the justice system by snubing out the public defenders, but we would be doing something we see as wrong by saving money in this case (I am not saying I support public defenders, just an example). So the rightness and wrongness of something should be the first focus, and its effectiveness a very much latter criteria. I don't have time to get into that real argument, but I thought I would add those 2 little tid bits before I had to get back to the grind.

>> ^VoodooV:

Sorry, but reality disagrees with you.
Demand for health care is not unlimited, it is finite. Sure it is a large demand, but it is quite finite. You're making a strawman argument because no one is advocating the absurd prolonging of life you're accusing others of.
News flash, we don't exist in a vacuum. We don't live in a universe where our decisions only affect us alone so your Ayn Rand fantasy utopia of everyone taking care of themselves and fuck the other guy doesn't exist..it never will.
It benefits everyone to give quality healthcare to all. We are more productive and contribute more when we don't have to bankrupt ourselves paying medical costs. We pay large amounts of money already because people don't have proper health care and don't do anything about it until they show up at the emergency room at death's door. Taxpayers foot that bill when they can't pay. So the question is simple: Do you want to pay for it now while it's cheap and easy to treat, or do you want to pay more later when it's a LOT worse and a hell of a lot more expensive.
Besides, you don't seem to mind spending other people's money and taking their lives when it comes to defense spending and invading other countries. And as the video already pointed out. We don't see Republicans sticking to their conservative "principles" and refusing Medicare/Medicaid when they need it....only when other people need it. So stop being such a hypocrite.


Most of the costs are borne by people who are retired, so I fail to see how borrowing trillions we don't have on life prolongation does anything but doom the future to crushing taxes and inflation for something the present desired but weren't productive enough to pay for. You can't do that, it's not fair, and many young people are waking up to the fact that this essentially a generational ponzi scheme with nothing in it for them. The first SS recipient contributed well below what she received and the final one will have paid in far more than they will receive in benefits. SS and Medicare, by their end, will have impoverished more people than any government programs in the history of mankind. Every naive socialist program is a sentimental black hole that accomplishes the opposite of what it intends. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, made it easier to get a loan, but in doing so increased the price of homes and thus the size of the loan. Because suddenly you've got this "magic bottomless guarantee" to print up a loan, and now you've got damn near everyone seemingly capable of bidding up the prices. Of course, now we realize it wasn't bottomless after all, it just seemed that way for a while.

You've successfully convinced me that you really, really want health care at some future untold person's expense. The populace as a whole is resisting taxes. Their money has been devalued so thoroughly that they can't budget in broad tax increases today, so what makes you think the future can? It's also true that employers are not poor people. We've had nothing but more and more government involvement in this sector and, just like education, the costs have risen with how much the government is able to tax and borrow. I used to work for an online college called Kaplan. Kaplan's price IS what the government takes and loans. Why would they price below that? You just don't seem to understand how markets work. Look at something like LASIK and PRK aren't covered by private or public insurers. It's had nothing but price declines and quality improvements. Look at computers, constant price declines and quality improvements. When people are forced to spend their own money, the fear and greed offset works. When they're spending a pool of forcibly appropriated funds, they lose sight of its true cost to them and the future and become reckless.

Oh, and I'm not a Republican in favor of military adventures. I sympathize less with that nonsense than I do with you. I understand that public roads are of lower quality than toll roads, but I'd rather we bear that cost for the simplicity of not having to dick with toll booths. Everything governmental has that dynamic, but I say the government should be completely disallowed from borrowing in excess of revenue. If you want something now, pay for it now, the end. If you can't raise the revenue, don't cry about it and don't steal from the future.

And yes, demands are infinite. Austrian economics 101. You offer someone everything on earth for $100, they'll probably take it. Problem is, supply ISNT infinite, so the price will never be that low. If you found some way of making planets full of shit cheap and abundant, you'd see that demand is indeed infinite.

I really like this machine.

I don't know why, but it's easy to personify it - and it's easy to imagine it liking its job. I suppose its a mix of the simplicity and performance or something, but it seems like a happy machine.

I'm probably crazy.

Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.

There never was nothing, that's the entire point. Either "someting" is eternal, or you couldn't have anything. If time and space began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe is immaterial and transcendent. You have the idea of nothing never existing which means the ultimate cause is eternal. So between those two things you have a match to God, who is immaterial transcendent and eternal. A Creation is indeed the simpliest explanation for this.

Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.

Like what?

Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.

Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^RedSky:
Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.
Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.
Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.>> ^shinyblurry:
The description of the origin of the Universe is uniquely described by the judeo christian belief as a creation from no prior material. If time and space originated in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is immaterial. The chance of existence being eternal is 100 percent unless you want to explain how nothing could create something. All of this confirms an eternal transcendent supernatural Creator..the appearance of design in the Universe further confirms it. It is the best and most simple explanation of the origin of all things.
>> ^RedSky:
Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.
Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:
The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.

Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.

Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.>> ^shinyblurry:

The description of the origin of the Universe is uniquely described by the judeo christian belief as a creation from no prior material. If time and space originated in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is immaterial. The chance of existence being eternal is 100 percent unless you want to explain how nothing could create something. All of this confirms an eternal transcendent supernatural Creator..the appearance of design in the Universe further confirms it. It is the best and most simple explanation of the origin of all things.
>> ^RedSky:
Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.
Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:
The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

The description of the origin of the Universe is uniquely described by the judeo christian belief as a creation from no prior material. If time and space originated in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is immaterial. The chance of existence being eternal is 100 percent unless you want to explain how nothing could create something. All of this confirms an eternal transcendent supernatural Creator..the appearance of design in the Universe further confirms it. It is the best and most simple explanation of the origin of all things.

>> ^RedSky:
Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.
Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:
The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.

Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:

The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.

>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.