Fake…just like every “blacks for Trump” ploy to pretend their paid activists are just normal everyday black folk who just realized Trump is their guy, the fake staged chick-fil-a hug, the fake AI photos (the closest trump wants to get to real black people), the racist idea that black people now identify with him because he’s been indicted for 91 felonies just like them, the gold tennis shoes…every attempt to pretend he cares about other races has been so incredibly tone deaf and racist that they all backfired incredibly badly. Trump won’t even get 8% after his response to BLM.

No actual democrat now supports Trump. Lie #1. Even Berniebros hated him, they just hated Clinton more.

Lie #2, she says she supports Trump and that aligns with her Christian values…Christian values of adultery, rape, fraud, theft, dishonesty, supporting a man who embodies false piety, sloth, wrath, gluttony, pride, greed, envy, and lust, supporting a man who puts himself before god, actually made a golden idol of himself (holy fuck could he be more clear!?), works and plays on the sabbath, dishonors his father’s legacy, has ordered many deaths, and adultery, theft, false witness, and covetousness galore.
Don’t forget he’s also selling fake, edited bibles…claimed to be real leather but it’s definitely not, made in China for $2 and sold for $70, with the constitution and bill of rights added but amendment 11-27 are missing. Hilarious he wants to omit those rights while wrapping himself in a flag…not one bit out of character to pretend the 13th and 14th and 15th don’t exist, and the 22nd is right out.

Get fucking real you idiot child.
Still waiting.

I verify through multiple sources and post those dumbed down enough that you COULD understand them….if only you had the balls to not just dismiss them because they aren’t right wing propaganda, which is 99.9% lies you believe. Derp.
One source was his Wiki page, where the quote and his political affiliations by year are listed…dumb ass….but it has fact and citation, so it’s not for you, must be leftist…..so much it doesn’t even register. Also, if you Google it, every page that comes up says the same thing.

Cranial rectosis is curable, bob. You just gotta pull out.

The quotes are real, you are afraid to admit it because you’re a sniveling baby, you don’t remember them because you have the brain of a drunken gnat. Look them up, idiot. (I know you won’t, you don’t have the testicular fortitude for such endeavors.) hilariously, you probably won’t find it on any of your Trumpist propaganda sites, but if you use something like wayback machine you could find it on every right wing site in 2015, before he took over the right wing for profit. Now the right has rewritten it’s history and gone to great lengths to erase such inconvenient facts, because you guys care so much about truth and fact.
🤦‍♂️

Hilarious you can’t ever discuss the claims, you have to just dismiss any evidence that didn’t come from another far right internet troll, and call anything that isn’t bat shit crazy hyper partisan right wing propaganda “leftist” and dismiss it, that’s why you’re a fact free moron. You prefer Trump’s blatant lies to fact or reason. You believe long dead Venezuelans interfered in our election and that the thousands of verified Trump coup warriors were really Democrats trying to steal an election for their enemy from their choice despite the long term history of every single terrorist being a hard core Republican activist.

Sorry, buddy. Trump is really a RINO by his own admission, and has repeatedly said publicly that only Republicans are dumb enough to ignore his past and elect him….he was right. Gullible know nothing idiots like you are his only true believers.

You simply deny reality, and trust the least trustworthy people you can find because they tell you pleasant but obvious lies. That’s called being infantile, bob….like a little baby.

Possible, yes. As easy, not at all. Most large outside events make it impossible to get near crowds with a car these days with barricades. Even where they aren't, vehicular murder takes far more effort than pulling a trigger.
Swords and knives, get real. You cannot be serious, so I'm walking away.

Fake.

And...why would you waste all that effort when you could take one of the other spots?

And...if it were real, you just fucked over those other cars you blocked in.

But fake.

The fires of hell are scary, man.

I had this youth councilor way back in high school tell me that the only movies that are scary are those that could be real. You know, like Hellraiser, Exocist, Rosemary's Baby, The Omen, Event Horizon. You know the REAL shit.

I don't think i've done a very good job of explaining my point, because:
1) I do not believe in the god of the gaps in any sense, i reject the notion.
2) I didn't ask for a "reason"; this is a subtle point that i'll try to make clearer.
3) I don't hold any "supernatural" beliefs in the sense you mean - not a single one.
4) I believe firmly in things that i can prove to myself, and am uncertain about things that i cannot supply any proof or reason for.

Why are we here? When i ask that question, i am not asking for a reason for our existence; a goal that humanity collectively must achieve. I am asking why do we find ourselves and our reality as we find it? We use science to describe it and become nonplussed by these amazing things but fundamentally, what is charge? Why do opposites attract? Why does mass attract mass, etc.? Isn't it all a bit weird and wonderful?

There is no answer to that question in physics. To use the term "supernatural" to describe a discussion of why/how (which lies beyond the jurisdiction of physics) is either naive or derogatory because the term is philosophy.

You reject the notion that you could go from not existing to existing, finding yourself in a world of things you don't understand. Yet you seem to find it unremarkable that at one point you went from not existing to existing, finding yourself in a world of things you didn't understand. If i put you in a fully immersive Skyrim game, unconscious and without memory, you'd play that game and think it was real. You may even believe that, once you died, you'd cease to exist. But one day, you die in Skyrim and everything ceases to be, before you're transported to a world of things you don't understand. Yet there were no mechanisms within the Skyrim universe to allow for that! In other words, what about things that exist or take place outside of our 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions, or perhaps beyond even our understanding of dimensions?

"There has to be a mechanism" is idle speculation on your part, and demonstrates your closedness to anything that might exist beyond our perspective of 3 dimensional space (which might be behind the "why?" and god of the gaps misunderstanding) - for which there is evidence and on which there is active and significant research. Besides, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is not the god of the gaps, this is acknowledging our limitations and constraining our certainty accordingly.

It's odd that you quote Sagan, because he often spoke about the spiritual and the unknowable/ineffable. I think he would be more aligned with my assessment than yours, as he was an agnostic and rejected the label atheist.

Possibly we continue to exist, perhaps we don't. Perhaps 'exist' and 'not exist' are human concepts that don't mean anything in the bigger picture, and the parts of us that exist outside of 3 dimensions bathe forever in rivers of custard (or something really weird that can't be explained in english). Nobody knows and no guess is less likely or less educated, in my opinion, which is based on my lack of certainty and absolute bewilderment that we did the not-exist->exist cycle in the first place - but i welcome any argument or evidence you can provide counter to this, and my mind is open to them.

The difference being my lenses are designed to show reality, and can self correct when a flaw is discovered. Religion glasses are fixed lenses that distort what you see intentionally.
You can't prove it only because you can't examine everything you can apply the scientific method to, but every time it's been applied to a problem/question, it has been the best method tried to answer the question, no matter what other methods are tried.
Please, explain the 'assumptions' you speak of. The assumption that reality is real, and what we measure is also real? I'm happy to make that assumption, and will admit that it is one, but a base one must assume if you wish to have a chance of understanding the real world. If you don't believe reality is real, you have little place in science, as it only attempts to explain reality.
The 'problem of induction' sure seems a misunderstanding of science, which does NOT say the laws of physics are immutable, or that a series of measurements PROVES a pattern that will continue. The laws of physics were different at and near the big bang, and patterns change. Science knows this, and accounts for it, in fact, science discovered it.
Of course I have a world view, but it is not rigid as your is. I can assimilate new information to modify my world view as it becomes available, you can not, you must modify the information to fit your view.
When my 'sources of information' are data from random experiments and studies of phenomena, they are NOT selected because they agree with my assumptions, they just happen to agree with them (usually) because I had good teachers that give me a good base to make assumptions from, and when I see the assumption is wrong, I toss it. It happens...just not about religion.
You don't listen to me seriously, because you're mind is made up, I don't listen to you seriously because you're a fallible human and can't possibly know the things you claim to 'know', nor can you prove the unprovable, and trying is a total waste of time.
Tell god to get off his ass and show me then, and we can stop all this BS...until he proves the unprovable to me, it will remain unproven.
Your awe at reality is not proof of anything except your awe, no matter how much you wish it to be proof of god. My awe at beauty is simply awe, nothing more.
I'm not looking at your last video link, I've spent WAY too much time on this already, for nothing. You can't admit you even might be wrong, and can't ever prove you're even partially right (I've explained why)...so Good night.

Oh Shiny....SOOO much and so large a failure of fact here....
A quick science fact for YOU....(cut and pasted from Google)

How many of earth's moon would fit inside the sun if it were hollow?

Well, the radius of the moon is about 1,080 miles, and the radius of the Sun is about 432,687 miles. The moon and the sun are both spheres, and math tells us how to relate the volume inside a sphere to its radius. I don't know how much math you have done, so let me just tell you the answer and you can maybe ask your teacher for more information. The answer is that you could get about 64.3 million moons inside the Sun if it were hollow.
Do I need to say the rest of your grasp of the science involved is not firm?

I must also tell you, being able to say "we don't know exactly" about what happened BEFORE the big bang is no where near 'faith'...'faith' is making up some BS and claiming 'See, my fairy tale tells me that giant bean stalks are real, you're just deluding yourself that they're all tiny. Just because you (along with everyone else) has never SEEN a giant one means nothing, my book said they're real, so they're real'. Science says 'we've never seen a giant bean stalk, ever, and genetics and physics tell us they never can exist'. The 'faithful' then say 'science is wrong and delusional and ignores all our evidence of giant bean stalks...namely the stories in our book, and look, I found this large bean, it's proof that there are GIANT beans out there.'. If you don't 'believe' the book is 'true', it's useless as 'proof'. Just consider all the other 'holy' books you discount...that's how I see ALL holy books. I only took it one step farther than you, though, before you think differently.

This is a scam. Once you click on the link from the description, the one saying the concept might be real, you reach some site where you get infected. My antivirus warned me about "Google Earth" trying to add something like "Google.exe" from Windows Temp into startup. First, I don't have Google Earth installed, second, unlike Chrome, Earth had no service or startup entries not even for updates, third, it only happens when I go to that website, not before, not after.
Watch out what you click on.

Entropy is a son of a bitch.......and so are the people trying to sell this as something other than what it is, garbage.

If this was real, you would expect to see this engine accelerate uncontrollably.
Instead, it reaches a peak speed and stops accelerating. This speed will be determined by the potential energy given to the rotating wheel, from the distance drop of the magnet.

Once it reaches the fastest that potential energy can push it, the system reaches equilibrium. If you try and take the slightest bit of energy out of this system, it will grind to a halt.

Real. You can't convince me otherwise.




...Probably

I think we have to take certain things for granted because not everything can be proven empirically. There is no way to empirically prove that the Universe is actually real. To say that it is real you have to rely on your senses and reasoning. You can't say those are valid without using viciously circular logic. "My reasoning is valid because my reasoning says so" Without assuming certain things, apriori, the world would be unintelligable. Neither could you do science. To do science you have to assume the uniformity in the nature. How do you prove it? By assuming the future will be like the past. What is the evidence that the future will be like the past? The past. It's the same vicious circularity.

As far as Gods existence goes, I never assumed either way. I knew I didn't have enough information to say either way, so I was agnostic by default. I only changed my mind when I received evidence. I wasn't under any pressure to do so, nor was I even looking to do so.

So, while science has a pitiless indifference to how you feel in regards to what is true, it is not the sole arbitor of what is true. This idea that empiricism is the only way to determine truth cannot be proven empirically, ironically. It is an assumption that materialists make with no actual evidence. The argument seems to be that since we can build a space shuttle, empiricism must the way. Yet, that isn't a logical argument. Empiricism might be useful, but it isn't the only method of inquiry that is useful. Everything has its place, and empiricism has a hard limit to what it can prove.

Yes, there certainly is material out there. Does that we can see and test material means that material causes are the only possible solution? We can't see dark matter, dark energy, other universes, other dimensions, yet scientists have no trouble postulating about what we can't see. So why not postulate that the Universe has a non-material causation? Why not an intelligent causation? I would say the evidence is a lot more convincing for intelligent design than other Universes, yet science only considers one to be plausible. Don't you think that is irrational?

I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence. Isn't it possible that you are staring at something divinely ordered but don't realize it?

>> ^gwiz665:

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.
I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.
It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.
Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.
If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

Aside from other obvious aspects of it the most telling thing is that no person would fly that high without safety equipment especially with this kind of device.

other obvious points

1) the body language of the people walking away is really ridged

2) the volume decreases specifcaly so you can hear what the guy says its likely they redubed the sound over the top of the video. ( yet used crap quality film cameras)

3) wings are to small to provide life at such a low forwards momentum and flapping would simply detract from the lift provided.

4) if it was windy enoughf for lift then the guy would start to get lift before he moved ( you will see when birds go to fly if its a windy day extending there wings is prity much all it takes for them to begin flying.

5) you can see that the way he bobs up and down dosent look right at all

6) If you were doing this for real you would film it all with HD camaras and probably get sponsorship from a company to pay for it all.

7) the method of control would be too inprocise even if you went for automated flapping you would use some linear input for the pilot as a human does not have an intuitive sense for how arms should be flapped and then the whole system to translate that would be needlessly complex.

prevouse videos they have made all seem to have stiff acting , sound of the robotics added on top of the video and composited CGI.

Are you for real? You seem to think "Fallacious arguments" are arguments that state or imply that Ron Paul is not the solution to every issue under the sun.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

You got any solutions, bro?
Or just more fallacious arguments?

Semantically this doesn't contradict the possibility of OMVs, but doesn't logically prove anything either. So Premise 2 remains unproven. As long as it's unproven, Craig cannot claim his conclusion proven, even if you both know in your minds that it's true. Even if you're right in your knowledge that god is real, you have to admit that this particular formulation of the argument fails to prove it.

The argument does not just rest upon the fact that there are UMVs, although their existence is actually positive evidence for OMVs. The reason being, UMVs are exactly what you should expect to find if OMVs do exist. You're acting like OMVs are removed from human experience, and that is not true; although they are objectively determined (by God), they are subjectively experienced. They would be in fact ingrained into human beings. Which leads to the other part of the argument, which is that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. I apprehend an objective moral realm which imposes itself upon my moral choices. It tells me that some things are absolutely wrong, and this sense precedes my opinions. So the reason why there are UMVs is because of this innate sense of right and wrong that everyone has, which aren't determined by mere opinion. This is sufficient evidence in my opinion to establish that UMVs are OMVs, in which case premise 2 stands.

You've misread my statements. I first said that disproven beliefs/theories are not on par with unproven beliefs/theories. Demonstrating that my theories aren't proven (or even provable) doesn't make them equal with beliefs that cannot be rationally held. Then I said that many believers annoyingly think it's a victory to point out that my beliefs aren't provable in response to my doing the same to theirs, when I had never made any claim that mine were absolutely true, but they had.

This isn't a relevant issue in this discussion. I have good reasons for what I believe, which I can sufficiently demonstrate. Remember, I used to hold the same beliefs you do, or near to them, about origins and so forth. And when I became a Christian, I was willing to integrate them into my faith. I was convinced to change my mind based on the shockingly weak evidence they are founded on, not because of a leap of faith.

And by "evidence", I'm going to infer from the context that you mean "proof". Scientific theories are not proven, and most are unprovable, but there's mountains of objective evidence that "suggests" scientific theories are true, but none whatsoever to suggest any single religious belief is true. Sometimes the theories change too as their early incarnations are proven incorrect or incomplete, as Einstein did to Newton, and as the folks at CERN may be doing to Einstein right now. That's the way of science, and it's the strength of science, not the weakenss. What I'm not comfortable with is religious beliefs/theories that are internally unchallengeable due to a part of the theory itself -- it's own infallibility. Imagine if science was based on the premise that by definition none of it's theories are false. Laughable, right? That's what I think of religion.

There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe. Before the big bang theory, scientists believed in the steady state theory which postulated a static and eternal universe. Because it was accepted as fact, they would use it to scoff and ridicule anyone who dared to suggest the Universe had a beginning. Yet, they were all wrong and the creationists were right. If they had listened to them, they would have made the discovery much earlier. Robert Wilson, one of people who discovered the CMBR that confirmed the theory, said this:

"Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis"

This isn't science evidence and creation evidence. It's all the same evidence. The difference is that we are interpreting it differently, and that is through the lens of our respective worldviews.

You also miss out on the fact that the ultimate goal of science is to discover a theory of everything. It is seeking towards that very notion of infallibility that you are scoffing at. That Christians already claim to have it is no mark against Christianity; it would only actually be evidence of the superiority of its truth, or not. Consider this quote by Robert Jastrow, a noted Astronomer:

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Your beliefs lack proof. But you claim yours have proof. I claim yours don't. This is the main issue raised by this video, and the only one I'm interested in laying to rest. Everything else in the other several comment threads you and I have going is just conjecture, an exchange of ideas. It's not logically sound of me to say that your beliefs are unproven simply because I have different ones. Mine might be total crap and not stand up to any scrutiny, so I don't present them here.

Well, I am sure we will come to your beliefs eventually. In the meantime, I am happy to provide evidence for what I believe, and you can evaluate it as we go along.

>>

>> ^messenger>> ^shinyblurry:
<comment reference link>