This is basically an opinion piece disguised as logical argumentation..here is the first unsupported assumption:

"doesn't reflect the way we tend to make moral judgements"

not relevant to proving the point. how we tend to make moral judgements is no reflection on whether something is objectively evil.

"the idea of evil is only relevant in proportion to an agents understanding"

This is a non sequiter and also begging the question. That is the entire point of the argument from morality, that evil is not relative to an agents understanding. That morality isn't relative, period. Since the argument is assuming what it is trying to prove, it is begging the question.

It goes on, asking "what do we make of a being that's decided that only one species is morally accountable?"

This is simply a red herring. It makes absolutely no difference and is not relevant what we think about God holding humans accountable and not animals. Our standard for moral behavior is not measured by the behavior of animals. The relevant difference is that the standard for our moral behavior is measured by what God chooses as morally correct.

It then leaps to the conclusion that "values are the result of the evaluation process". Says who? It continues "moral values are what *we* judge to be morally valuable or important"

Again, this is not a salient argument. Begging the question in a big way here. A proof that appeals to its conclusion as a premise does not actually prove that conclusion. So, just saying it like it is fact doesn't advance your agrument, it just shows that you have no argument..

This video seems completely devoid of logical argumentation. It's basically a fluff piece speaking to those who will instantly agree with anything that says God doesn't exist. It is certainly is not any kind of philosophical proof of anything.

I thing it's a great thing to bring death back into our culture instead of the taboo that it is now, but she might want to finetune some of the fluff (e.g. the terrible opening music). In any case, promising series!

The comments made so far are easily as interesting as the video itself.

There are those that feel the video is a positive confirmation of our innate goodness as a species.

There are those that take the video as a light piece of inspiring fluff that is meant to make you think positively about sharing.

There are those that discount the video as being unscientific and say that its result could be easily controlled and dismiss it saying that it proves nothing.

There are those that suggest that the video represents a contrast to the current socio-political state of the world where so few have so much and so many have so little.

I wonder if the people who created the video ever contemplated its potential impact in such a diverse fashion?

Let's just say we both mischaracterized eachother, I'm sorry, and move on.

What I want to say is that I really admire Stephan Hawking for this theory. I applaud his intellectual honesty. He knows that infinite universe theories, string theory, brane theories, and the like are just so much fluff, that prop up big bang cosomology. That they are just acting as place holders to keep the theory from falling under the shadow of its Ultimate Cause. He knows that time, space and matter had a beginning at the big bang and doubtless he sees the obvious implications of this. But it can't be God, so he takes the denial of a Creation to its natural conclusion. He proposes as the Ultimate Solution to the problem of the Ultimate Cause, the God of atheism, the anti-God: nothing at all. This is the Ultimate Solution for science, to get something from nothing. You see, scientists don't like the big bang theory. It disturbs them. They were much happier when they all believed the Universe had always existed. They don't want to have to deal with this, because a Universe with a beginning inescapably leads to an eternal, transcendent first cause. All Stephan Hawking has done is remain true to their logic and to their denial. He is intellectually honest enough to admit that the big bang strongly implicates God, so since God can't exist, the Universe must have been created by nothing.


Stephan Hawking was asked in an interview that if he could have any one of his questions answered, what would it be? He answered "Why is there something rather than nothing." The sad irony of this question is painful to contemplate. The mental gymnastics he has gone through to deny the obvious fact of Creation just boggles the mind.


>> ^jmzero:
@shinyblurry
Before it was "NO ONE IS SAYING SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING STUPID!"
No, that's a lie. What I said was:
No. The "Big Bang Theory" does not say that "nothing exploded".
And then here:
.before you said, that something comes from nothing makes no sense.
No, that's a lie. What I said was:
We don't know where it came from, but it's not very likely to be "nothing", as that doesn't make much sense.
I said it doesn't make much sense. I still don't think it makes much sense and I still think it's unlikely to be true. But it could be true. I could be wrong.
Maybe you think I'm being a jerk or something, but mischaracterizing my opinions, as you've clearly, clearly done is dishonest. The most charitable thing I can say is maybe you thought I meant something else. I didn't. I meant what I said.
one of the foremost scientists in the world is positing that something came from nothing and everyone is nodding sagely.
He's not a shaper of modern scientific though, despite being famous and having made some important contributions earlier in his career. The reaction to this speech that I see (and to much of what he has said in recent years) is far from "sage nodding". Rather, it was more like "Is he being serious?" - well, except from the press which reacted with predictable mania.
Look, if what you'd said was "some scientists think the Universe came from nothing, and I think that's silly", I would have just agreed with you (as I've done quite a few times in different threads, sometimes when your opinion isn't popular). But you have a continued habit of pointing out speculative science you don't like and arguing against it as though it was established dogma (you've done this here in the past with things like string theory). It really looked like that's what you were doing here.
If what you meant was "some scientists believe x", you have an odd way of saying it:
I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded
Between that, and your previous, repeated derision at the Big Bang theory, I suppose you can excuse me for thinking that's what you thought the scientific consensus was. And if you did understand that this wasn't the scientific consensus, how can you really justify your phrasing above?

@Zifnab. Level TWENTY FIVE Golden Ones????

That Galaxy Status isn't for fluff!

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Ahem. Conan is NOT terrible.


Conan is both awesome and terrible at the same time. It is awesome with its corniness and fluff. It is likewise terrible

How many times do they say, "Wrath-Amon!" Or like how the Lycan thorns that turn people into werewolves but somehow place them under the control of the witch who shot them from a blowgun?

Or how everything surprises Conan like some cheap ninja film? Including, I might add, ninjas? And poison...

I find it fun and awesome. But I will respect the Jigga in this matter. (Also @legacy0100)

exercise and fitness clubs.

>> ^mtadd:

Does anyone watch this fluff anywhere besides airport terminals?

>> ^Porksandwich:

Ripped off it's tail.


Tail's still there, I believe the "Fluff" falls off rather easily.

Does anyone watch this fluff anywhere besides airport terminals?

A major problem is that America's news outlets are all profit driven.

Charlie Sheen is the lead story because Charlie Sheen draws eyes. Eyes mean $$.

How do you fight human nature? Especially when it is in the major corporations' best interests (ie $$ and more $$$) to "sell" the fluff?

I fear for us.

>> ^Jinx:
Oh, and I love Yahtzee all the more for his comment on TF2 hats. I remember when Valve went on and on about restricted colour palettes, instantly recognisable silhouettes and setting...then they went on to add a bunch of hats that shat all over that philosophy and my framerate.


QFT I hate the hats in TF2. It completely ruined the game. Valve indeed set that game out to have clear class silhouettes and color palettes indeed and when everyone started running around looking so odd you couldn't tell what was what until you were fired upon, it completely ruined the game. I used to play so much TF2, played probably about as much as I did the original TF. But now I never touch the game and I hear the community is quite a bit smaller as others have left the game. If they would release a server option to remove all that hat fluff, I'd hop back on and set the browser to only find servers with that option.

>> ^Mcboinkens:
You realize that list had no content, right? It was a list of items with no details. Anything can add a new topic to it since you don't need any actual research. When's the last time you heard about a breakthrough because of the ISS? That was my point. I support the ISS, but to tear into a budget because it is "useless" can definitely be applied to NASA as well.
Reviewing the list, it pretty much just covered anything possible "under microgravity conditions". How practical is that? Are we really planning on going to other planets at the moment? We can't even go back to the moon, and that's what my whole point was. Shift funds to what is the most useful. I would much rather have an upgraded Hubble or even new version of the hubble. Studying how viruses work in space isn't particularly useful when we have no reason to be in space to begin with, and so on.
EDIT: so that it doesn't seem like I am talking out of my butt, take a look at one of their "accomplishment" powerpoints: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168741main_AIAA_2007_ISSProgress.pdf
It's pretty easy to see that it's mostly fluff, and I realize that its an old document, but it was the top result and I was lazy. It talks a lot about what they WANT to do, or what they did, but nothing really came of it.

WTF are you talking about a list with no content? Did you even read ANY of the 720 reference linked in the wiki? And do you realize scientific discoveries take time? Oh you know, we're just running a lab IN SPACE. Let's give it a few years after it's finished assembling before we let our ridiculously shortsighted negativity take over, ok?

[redacted]

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

My DVD sits and tells me not to copy it for 10 mins...I think I would rather download it that have that inconvenience forever.


This is why even on DVDs I own I have to re-rip them to get rid of all the junk you are forced to watch because of PUOs (Prohibited User Operations by the way). Being able to hit Root Menu without the stupid cross symbol = yay.

>> ^gwiz665:

Lol, they torrent from the worst sites.
The real deal is exactly the opposite.
The pirate gets the movie before the DVD owners.
The pirate can see the movie without warnings, commercials and trailers.
The pirate can use his $30 on beer and socializing.
The pirate doesn't need a crappy dvd box.

As long as pirating offers a better service and/or product it will continue getting bigger.


Exactly this as well, why I stopped paying $20 a pop for the "real" thing when you can get high quality rips now that go straight to the movie, do not pass go and do not show annoying advertisements. I understand with Netflix and rentals now they are putting out special "degraded" discs that are lacking special features but from what I've seen they can keep that extra fluff. I think I have about 230 retail DVDs and of those I may have looked at the special features on perhaps 10 movies. Often they are poorly done as well and lopped on to give you a sense of value.

If I start lending it out then I'll just lose it again!

Usually if I find myself typing a lengthy post I'll stop myself and try to think about the subject from a different perspective. After two or three attempts I can usually get a pretty good idea of what is needed and what is fluff.

On the other hand, if I can't cut it down to a manageable size I just end up not posting. I think it mostly comes down to thinking of efficient and appropriate examples to illustrate an idea, which is deceptively difficult. My success in that regard depends greatly upon the subject.

Also, I've worked in public relations and teaching jobs dealing with people who tend to glaze over if I take more than three sentences to describe anything, so that may have something to do with shortening my posts. =)

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
How come you can easily sum up in 2 short paragraphs what it has taken me, and failed in me, 5 comments of walls of text! I hate my brain, can I borrow your's from time to time?
In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Statistically speaking Gods do not and can not exist.
[...]
Some statistics are absolute. The probability of a deity existing are finite:infinite. In other words 0.

By that logic humans can't exist, because the probability of any specific individual you could imagine existing is practically 0.

You can point out a lack of evidence in the existence of gods, and I would agree with you on that point, but statistics cannot disprove the existence of something.

If you want to think of it in mathematical terms... 1/X approaches zero as X approaches infinity, but 1/X cannot equal 0. You can't just divide something by infinity and proclaim it is therefore impossible. Mathematics do not work that way, goodnight.