They're not actually moving that fast (there is no spoon). There are no laws of physics for them to violate.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
While that was an awesome scene and pretty revolutionary for it's time, I always thought that given you've just seen the agent has reflexes quick enough to dodge bullets, wouldn't saying "dodge this" give it more than enough time to take the gun off Trinity?
I know, rule of cool and all, but still..

Lets go even farther and take into account inertia and momentum etc. If the agent and neo can move that fast shouldn't they be subject to some form of physical law that says if you move fast enough to become a blur your energy should be dissipated in some form ?
The whole thing is full of odd holes, but all in all its a neat movie.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

While that was an awesome scene and pretty revolutionary for it's time, I always thought that given you've just seen the agent has reflexes quick enough to dodge bullets, wouldn't saying "dodge this" give it more than enough time to take the gun off Trinity?
I know, rule of cool and all, but still..


Lets go even farther and take into account inertia and momentum etc. If the agent and neo can move that fast shouldn't they be subject to some form of physical law that says if you move fast enough to become a blur your energy should be dissipated in some form ?

The whole thing is full of odd holes, but all in all its a neat movie.

While that was an awesome scene and pretty revolutionary for it's time, I always thought that given you've just seen the agent has reflexes quick enough to dodge bullets, wouldn't saying "dodge this" give it more than enough time to take the gun off Trinity?

I know, rule of cool and all, but still..

Having watched the first 30 seconds again and thought about it, with Craig's ...Premise Two cannot be proven, and that's Craig's argument completely sunk, and it could have been the end of the video too.

I think you're looking at the argument from the wrong perspective. Let's examine the premises:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist:

The basic question here is, in the absence of God, is there is any objective difference between good and evil? That, if there is no God, is the difference between good and evil like the difference between coke and pepsi? An example Craig gives is, is the difference like which side of the road that you drive on, which varies from culture to culture?

So, this is where you would make an argument for valid and binding objective moral values outside of Gods existence. You can invalidate the whole argument right here, but you have to provide a logical foundation. I have yet to see anyone refute premise one.

2. Objective moral values do exist

Now, to say this premise is false is to admit that objective moral values do not exist. IE, you will have to admit that torturing babies for fun isn't actually wrong. I have actually debated people who tried to defend it, but I give them credit for being intellectually honest, because that is the logical conclusion; that if objective moral values do not exist, torturing babies for fun isn't absolutely wrong. However, I think we both know that it is, therefore objective moral values do exist.

So, this is a rather tricky argument for an atheist. Qualia soup gets the whole thing wrong here. The basic trouble for you is, if you want to dispute premise one, you have to come up with a foundation for objective moral values outside of God. If you admit there is no such foundation, then we move to premise 2, and there you have to argue that objective moral values do not exist. If you can not argue it, or if you admit objective moral values do exist, then you are forced to accept premise 3, that therefore God exists.

For example, can we just accept that you and I exist, one independent of the other, neither a figment of the other's imagination? Can we accept that our normal external sensory input can be accepted as correct for the purposes of this conversation, (except in the trivial cases of optical illusions and so forth)? You probably know what I'm saying. I hate it when I get into an argument and think I've made a very strong point, only to have my opponent come back with, "Everything's subjective; you can't prove anything is real," or, "Maybe you imagined the whole thing, I mean, you can't prove you didn't," or, "You can prove anything with facts," or, "Well, you have your beliefs and I have mine," or some crap like that where I'm not talking about subjective facts or my own beliefs.

Yes, I can agree with all of this. I believe that the Universe is tangibly real, and is generally how it appears to be, in that it is not a malicious deception or a meaningless illusion. I believe we are both individuals made in the image of God with an independent existence and a soul. I believe we can come to meaningful conclusions about reality, and that there is a truth which is tangible, accessible to reason, and which does not change based on our interpretation or personal preferences.

Also, in theological arguments, I must insist on a couple things. The first is that words must have meaning. If you say something, you can't later say that it's not to be taken literally, or that that word has a different meaning when applied to God. The second is that everything logically entailed by a statement must stand with the original statement, and any other statement. If there's any inconsistencies, then at least one of the statements must be false.

I am very consistent when it comes to meanings. This is one of the hallmarks of literal interpretation, that the words in the bible, while they can sometimes be applied in a metaphorical sense, always have an intended meaning which is absolutely true in all circumstances.

Also, please don't assert supernatural things like the existence of Satan, or your knowledge of how he works, telling me these things like I'm ignorant of them, rather than fully aware of the stories, but sceptical. Say that it's what you believe or have come to believe or whatever, but don't say it like objective fact. Same goes for Bible verses. I don't accept them as fact any more than you'd accept Skeletor quotes as fact. To me that book is best treated as fiction, though it's possible it conveys some details of events that really happened, but pronouncements of the way the world is I absolutely do not accept as the word of God, especially since I don't believe he exists. I don't care if the Bible predicts atheists/sceptics. All that tells me is that people have been doubting the veracity of the word for 2,000 years, and someone took the precaution of adding a word or two against non-believers into the text so believers down the line would have justification "from God" for dismissing my arguments as guided by Satan, or whatever.

I generally won't propose arguments that would take faith to accept. I understand your natural skepticism because I used to be equally skeptical. I will just submit that when you are deceived, you don't know you are deceived:

2 Corinthians 4:4

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I admit the possibility that I could be deceived, so I think if we both can admit this, we will have a more fruitful conversation.

know you don't think Qualia's line of reasoning holds, but I don't know what you think of Craig's argument. Is it valid, in your mind? And here, I'm mostly interested in how you think. As I've said, the video was only intended to take apart the argument of one Christian apologist, and not to prove or disprove anything.

I think it is logically airtight. That if you cannot prove there is a foundation for objective moral values outside of God, and you cannot disprove that some actions are objectively wrong, that you must accept the conclusion of the argument.

I'm 99% sure you said in a comment somewhere that you're dubious of science. Could you explain what you mean by that? Science isn't a system of faith or a set of theories. It's a process of testing theories. Are you dubious of the process? What parts of it specifically do you mean?

I am dubious of the philosophy of empiricism upon which science is founded upon. Empiricism assumes that truth can only be discerned through our senses, and that our minds merely processes and categorizes this truth. I reject this view because there are clearly truths that empiricism cannot evaluate, including the validity of empiricism itself. I'll bring in craig again for this one:



I apologize for the title..it's just the best clip I could find.

Is it accurate to say that the sum of your experience of God is subjective, that's to say, is based solely on your own experience in your head, and possibly in things in the objective world that you have interpreted in a subjective way, and is not borne out in any demonstrable way in the measurable material world?

I would say my experience is generally subjective but is objectively confirmed, both by other people, and my daily life. You can say I have interpreted those experiences subjectively, and I am just fooling myself, of course. Personal experience is something hard to prove, as the other person is naturally skeptical of the other persons ability to evaluate what is true. All I can say is that truth is paramount to me and I am incapable of believing something just because I want it to be true. I would rather have nothing and die a meaningless death than live out a comfortable lie.

Please describe God. Where is he? When is he? What is he capable of? What does he feel? Is he immutable? Please add anything you can about why he did things like create the universe and animals and us and disease and suffering and inequality and joy, why he cares for us, why he cares what we do, why he made some things moral and some things evil, and any other informative facts. Is there a God the Father anymore, or just Jesus? Did Jesus have a human form and a godly form, or did he transmute from one to the other? What was Jesus before he was born? Was he born of the virgin Mary?

This is a rather large subject. I'll do my best..

God is perfect. He is holy, loving, and just. He exists outside of time and space in His own realm, which is called Heaven. He is capable of doing anything that can be done. As far as what God feels, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you can say God feels love, but by definition, God is love. In general, from the bible, it seems God can be pleased, can be jealous, has compassion, is kind, is loving, can be grieved and can be angered. His nature is immutable, in that He is goodness itself. He is light and there is no darkness in Him. That doesn't change. He can however change how He interacts with us.

God created us out of the abundance of His love. It wasn't out of a need, as He already had perfect love within the relationships of the Holy Trinity, but it was an overflowing of that love. He created us to be in relationship to Him, as His children.

There were no diseases, or any inequality before the fall. He created the world perfectly, and He set us in paradise, to learn and grow under His care. However, because robots would be undesirable, He gave us free will to be obedient to Him or not. Unfortunately, we abused that, and broke fellowship with God. Sin and death were brought into the world because of it, and since then this has been a fallen creation. If you have something perfect, and introduce an imperfection, then it is no longer perfect and neither can anything perfect ever come from it. Sin and death ruined that perfection, and they are the cause for all of the disease and inequality today.

Because of this, God brought the law into the world, to give us a minimum standard for moral behavior. The law in itself was not capable of fixing the situation, as everyone fell short of the law, but rather it highlighted our need for a savior. This is the reason Jesus Christ came.

He came to Earth, putting aside His glory and position to live as a man, being the first human being since Adam to be born without sin. He lived a perfect life, though He was tempted in every way that we are, and fulfilled the entire law. Finally, He sacrificed Himself on the cross for the sins of mankind, as a substitutionary atonement for our crimes, and He tasted death for all men. God proved all of this by raising Him from the dead. So, Christ defeated death and sin on the cross, and imputed His righteousness, the righteousness of God, back into mankind. Therefore, anyone who accepts His Lordship will have his sins forgiven and receive eternal life. It is by the imputation of Gods perfect righteousness and substituionary atonement that the effects of the fall have been countered, and we are again reconciled to God and can enjoy perfect relationship to Him as His children.

God is three persons, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus ascended to Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, making intercession on our behalf. Jesus was born of a virgin, and was both God and man; He had two natures, which were united for one purpose in submission to the Father. Jesus, before He was born as a human being, existed as God. "Before abraham was, I am."

John 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Hope that answers your questions.



>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

>> ^braindonut:

Both the single player and the multiplayer are wonderful. I enjoyed the single player campaign in BF3 FAR more than the last two Modern Warfare games. (Didn't even finish Black Ops and I have no plans on buying MW3...)
Zero Punctuation is hate packaged as comedy. It's not actually a place to go for objective game reviews. The truth is, yes, BF3 has some flaws, but overall, there's a shitload of fun to be had and I feel sad for anyone who is so jaded and cynical that they couldn't find that fun.


Objective Game Reviews? How would you even do that?
Also: IMO Battlefield is BY FAR the best multiplayer-online-shooter out there. For me it's like a combination of CoD 1, Counter-Strike and Battlefield 1942. And this is the holy trinity of online-gaming - again if you ask me.

Remember that he was only 27 years old (just) at the Trinity test, the end of the 6 year project. I find it hard to pin a whole lot of blame on a young man who was part of the team, but not the one who made the decision to deploy the devices, or how to deploy them.

They do like to complicate things, eh. It's like the Christians Trinity; are they three, or one? Argh!!

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^hpqp:
@NetRunner: the keyword you're looking for is "false flag", the conspiracy theorist's go to term when trying to blame something on Big Guvmint, the NWO or the Illuminati.

But their insanity isn't even that basic. Even a false flag assault theory is MUCH simpler if you just declare the hijackers in the planes were part of the conspiracy, and that's still what took down the towers. The whole controlled demo stuff is just a recruitment tool to draw the insane and paranoid into the fold.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well firstly, the pope is a type of antichrist. The catholic religion is not Christian, which may suprise you. It suprised me too because before I became a Christian I didn't know the difference. It is a pagan religion which derives from Christianity but is in every way is antithetical to biblical teaching.
Second, I am saying the magic bracelet isn't completely fake. I am saying it will appear to grant the properties and characteristics expected by the wearer. This is due to spiritual deception by Satan. It isn't that it is wrong for people to have strength and balance, it is the source they are trying to get it from..ie, not God.
If you take a piece of wood and worship it, a demon will assigned to it to receive that worship. Whenever you're calling upon something other than God, Satan can and does use it to mislead and corrupt. These things always have spiritual connotations. Even the flying spaghetti monster has become a false idol, and receives worship. http://www.venganza.org/
I did in fact say this isn't a new deception, just an old one in new packaging. Pagans have been using this kind of spiritual systems for thousands of years, impuing objects with special powers and using them to manipulate reality. This is sorcery for the masses.

>> ^albrite30:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's a satanic deception. This is simply new age mysticism, and people enmasse are being trained to embrace and accept it. The principles of it stem from occult practices which have been practiced for a milennia. It is quite simply magic, or the attempt to gain power over reality by human willpower and directed intention. Since you are blind you don't see the spiritual consequences of these things, but they are plainly obvious . People are being taught to rely on mysticism and esoteric knowledge rather than God, to believe that they themselves can be gods, just as the serpent promised in the garden. There is nothing new under the sun; this is a very old deception. Satan doesn't have any new tricks, and he doesn't need any, because the old ones keep paying off.
>> ^KnivesOut:
Lol you're just as deluded as the idiots who buy this crap thinking it will change their life for the better.
Pro-tip: its an inert piece of plastic, not a fucking magic talisman.>> ^shinyblurry:
This is a spiritual issue. Anyone wearing this bracelet is engaging in sorcery, because this is basically magic. This leaves them open to deception from the enemy. The wearers of these bracelet may well be perceiving a tangible benefit because of this spiritual deception. It is just one of the tacts the enemy uses in spiritual warfare, getting people to rely on themselves or magic devices, or things like "the secret".



I don't see the difference between "new age mysticism" and old age mysticism. What the message seems to be in this video is that some object can bring about strength, endurance, and balance. Why is that so wrong to you shinny? What do you think the holy trinity is other than a mass propagated symbol of strength, endurance, and balance. The value of the message is a universal desire for that kind of thing in a person's life. People are NOT being trained these days to accept new deception, rather they have been trained for thousands of years to accept the same deception from various faiths in existence today. Seems to me that if you are losing members of your flock to gadgets such as these, it may be time to get a more charismatic preacher. Maybe if the pope signed off on the iRenew you would be singing a different tune.



Who should I speak to about getting my piece of wood assigned a demon? I pity your insanity.

Well firstly, the pope is a type of antichrist. The catholic religion is not Christian, which may suprise you. It suprised me too because before I became a Christian I didn't know the difference. It is a pagan religion which derives from Christianity but is in every way is antithetical to biblical teaching.

Second, I am saying the magic bracelet isn't completely fake. I am saying it will appear to grant the properties and characteristics expected by the wearer. This is due to spiritual deception by Satan. It isn't that it is wrong for people to have strength and balance, it is the source they are trying to get it from..ie, not God.

If you take a piece of wood and worship it, a demon will assigned to it to receive that worship. Whenever you're calling upon something other than God, Satan can and does use it to mislead and corrupt. These things always have spiritual connotations. Even the flying spaghetti monster has become a false idol, and receives worship. http://www.venganza.org/

I did in fact say this isn't a new deception, just an old one in new packaging. Pagans have been using this kind of spiritual systems for thousands of years, impuing objects with special powers and using them to manipulate reality. This is sorcery for the masses.



>> ^albrite30:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's a satanic deception. This is simply new age mysticism, and people enmasse are being trained to embrace and accept it. The principles of it stem from occult practices which have been practiced for a milennia. It is quite simply magic, or the attempt to gain power over reality by human willpower and directed intention. Since you are blind you don't see the spiritual consequences of these things, but they are plainly obvious . People are being taught to rely on mysticism and esoteric knowledge rather than God, to believe that they themselves can be gods, just as the serpent promised in the garden. There is nothing new under the sun; this is a very old deception. Satan doesn't have any new tricks, and he doesn't need any, because the old ones keep paying off.
>> ^KnivesOut:
Lol you're just as deluded as the idiots who buy this crap thinking it will change their life for the better.
Pro-tip: its an inert piece of plastic, not a fucking magic talisman.>> ^shinyblurry:
This is a spiritual issue. Anyone wearing this bracelet is engaging in sorcery, because this is basically magic. This leaves them open to deception from the enemy. The wearers of these bracelet may well be perceiving a tangible benefit because of this spiritual deception. It is just one of the tacts the enemy uses in spiritual warfare, getting people to rely on themselves or magic devices, or things like "the secret".



I don't see the difference between "new age mysticism" and old age mysticism. What the message seems to be in this video is that some object can bring about strength, endurance, and balance. Why is that so wrong to you shinny? What do you think the holy trinity is other than a mass propagated symbol of strength, endurance, and balance. The value of the message is a universal desire for that kind of thing in a person's life. People are NOT being trained these days to accept new deception, rather they have been trained for thousands of years to accept the same deception from various faiths in existence today. Seems to me that if you are losing members of your flock to gadgets such as these, it may be time to get a more charismatic preacher. Maybe if the pope signed off on the iRenew you would be singing a different tune.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's a satanic deception. This is simply new age mysticism, and people enmasse are being trained to embrace and accept it. The principles of it stem from occult practices which have been practiced for a milennia. It is quite simply magic, or the attempt to gain power over reality by human willpower and directed intention. Since you are blind you don't see the spiritual consequences of these things, but they are plainly obvious . People are being taught to rely on mysticism and esoteric knowledge rather than God, to believe that they themselves can be gods, just as the serpent promised in the garden. There is nothing new under the sun; this is a very old deception. Satan doesn't have any new tricks, and he doesn't need any, because the old ones keep paying off.

>> ^KnivesOut:
Lol you're just as deluded as the idiots who buy this crap thinking it will change their life for the better.
Pro-tip: its an inert piece of plastic, not a fucking magic talisman.>> ^shinyblurry:
This is a spiritual issue. Anyone wearing this bracelet is engaging in sorcery, because this is basically magic. This leaves them open to deception from the enemy. The wearers of these bracelet may well be perceiving a tangible benefit because of this spiritual deception. It is just one of the tacts the enemy uses in spiritual warfare, getting people to rely on themselves or magic devices, or things like "the secret".




I don't see the difference between "new age mysticism" and old age mysticism. What the message seems to be in this video is that some object can bring about strength, endurance, and balance. Why is that so wrong to you shinny? What do you think the holy trinity is other than a mass propagated symbol of strength, endurance, and balance. The value of the message is a universal desire for that kind of thing in a person's life. People are NOT being trained these days to accept new deception, rather they have been trained for thousands of years to accept the same deception from various faiths in existence today. Seems to me that if you are losing members of your flock to gadgets such as these, it may be time to get a more charismatic preacher. Maybe if the pope signed off on the iRenew you would be singing a different tune.

It's actually quite creepy to see these people in person. Trinity St. Clair is a tiny tiny little girl.

She looks more like trinity then lex.


>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> Lex according to the cracked.com comments.

Excellent find.

Fry and Laurie... who will complete the Holy Trinity?

@MaxWilder: "Essentially, they are all the same entity, except for the times when the story needs them to be different entities."

BEST. TRINITY EXPLANATION. EVAR. (The theologians can pack their books and do something meaningful at last )