Such a horrible and frustrating disease.
In the last year my 89year old grandma started to deteriorate. She lives alone but get a home-attendant nurse 5-7hours a day. Lately she started to forget which medications she has to take, my and my dad's phone numbers. I have this depressing, dark feeling for the future...

Similarly, we can instantiate in enough physical rules to get the "chance" universe you describe going, and its rules could get it to the current state either determinalistically or with some element of randomness. I guess I understand how you're using "chance" here... but I don't know that it's terribly useful. Why should "what humans can predict" be of any relevance philosophically? And if we're using it that way, couldn't we similarly describe God's actions as chance? I mean, surely humans (or angels) can't predict everything he's going to do. Chance seems like a pejorative when applied to God.. and to me it seems like a pejorative when applied to the operations of the universe (except where, again, that operation is actually random).

However, again, I don't think this difference is terribly important. I think I understand what you're getting at, I just see things very differently.

The difference between chance and design is the most important distinction there is. If you don't like the word chance, I will use the word "unplanned", or "mindless". An unplanned Universe has no actual purpose; it is just happenstance. Meaning, your life is just a product of mindless processes, and concepts like morality, justice, and truth have no essential meaning. It means you are just some blip on a grid and there is no rhyme or reason to anything. It also means you will never find out what happened or why it happened because no one knows what is going on or ever will. This will *always* lead you to nihilism.

A designed Universe, on the other hand, does have a purpose. A purposeful Universe means that life was created for a reason. It means that there is a truth, a truth that only the Creator knows. Which means that all lines of inquiry will lead to the Creators doorstep, and that trying to understand the Universe without the Creator is completely futile. It is like looking at a painting with three marks on it..you could endlessly speculate on what the painter was thinking when he painted it. However, no matter how clever you were, you don't have enough information to be sure about anything. To refuse to seek the Creator would be to stare at that painting your whole life trying to figure it out when you have the painters business card with his phone number on it in your pocket.

I don't think you're phrasing this in a terribly fair way. Yes, many people assume there's a natural explanation for abiogenesis. This is partly because having another explanation introduces arbitrariness into the system. Say I'm a geologist and I discover Devil's Tower. It's really weird, but my inclination from the very start is that it was formed by similar processes to ones that have explained weird things in the past. Even if I can't postulate even a guess as to why it has those weird columns, I'm not crazy to guess that eventually we'll figure out an explanation that doesn't involve, say, new physical laws or aliens. (And it's certainly not helpful to say "maybe it was made in the flood").

The whole thing is arbitrary to begin with. Naturalistic explanations are assumed apriori, and then the evidence is interpreted through the conclusion. That isn't how science works. You come to the conclusion because of the evidence, not the other way around. I would also note that you would never accept this kind of reasoning from a creationist. Neither does a mountain of circumstantial evidence prove anything.

Abiogenesis is a bigger problem and it's also one that's "lost to time" a bit. It almost certainly requires a mechanism we have yet to identify (or a mechanism someone has guessed at, but hasn't provided good details or evidence for). But, like Devil's Tower, there's no reason to expect that mechanism won't be identified - or that it will require significant changes to our understanding of the rest of science. Again, there's plausible ideas already floating around, and I think we'll probably recreate the process (though likely not with the same actual process) within the next 30 years or so.

Anything sounds plausible, apparently, when you have billions of years to play with. As the earlier quote said, time itself performs the miracles for you. How do you know that the mechanism hasn't already been identified but you have rejected it?

http://creation.com/devils-tower-explained

No... that, I think, is probably our strongest point of disagreement. I'm very much OK with "I don't know", and literally everything I believe has a bit of "I don't know" attached (kind of similar to how everything you believe in has a bit of God attached).

I'm not worshipping ignorance or something - knowing IS better than not knowing. But I'm also not scared of not knowing things - and I'm certainly not just going to pick something and believe in it because I don't like having some of my answer pages blank.

For you, is Scientology better than "I don't know"?

The point I'm trying to make is, I don't know isn't a theory. What most atheists mean when they say "I don't know" is "I know it isn't the Christian God, but otherwise I don't know". The next thing they say is, you believe in God because you're afraid. That I "chose" God because I am scared of death, or because the Universe is too big and scary for my mind to handle the uncertainty of not knowing.

I have to say that this idea of a bunch of hokey. The Christians I know believe in God because they have a personal relationship with Him. It has nothing to do with making a choice..God chose us. He would chose you too, if you were open to Him.

Neither was I afraid of death when I was an agnostic, and I wasn't afraid of saying I don't know (that's why I was an agnostic, because I didn't know). I believe in God because He revealed Himself to me, and that is the only reason. If He hadn't, I would still be an agnostic.

It is credible to believe that the Universe was designed and created by God. We can see that whomever made the Universe is unimaginably powerful, intelligent, exists outside of space and time, etc. Scientology isn't credible and explains nothing. God can explain everything.

Also, thanks for using the big boy version of the Bible. I quite like the Bible artistically, but I can't stand some of the new translations (despite whatever benefits some parts may have in terms of clarity).

Most of the new translations butcher the scriptures. They remove entire verses, words, water down meanings, or just flat out mislead. I can't stand them either. The KJV is the best word for word translation that we have, and although the language is archaic, it is comprehensible with a little research.

>> ^jmzero

He asked for the phone number of the lady who rides backwards on the pony.

You can make it as convoluted as you like..in the end, it is all either the product of design or chance. If you disagree, come up with an alternative.


I apparently haven't been clear in what I'm trying to say.

The existence of "anything" isn't design or chance or anything like that - those are the wrong kinds of concepts for answering the fundamental question. Design and chance and other "ways to summarize operations" (see also: decay or evolution) can get moving once we've instantiated "something" - but to start with our options are "arbitrary", "arbitrary" or "more arbitrary". If there's always been an eternal God, that's arbitrary. If the universe is some cycle of foam and explosions then that's arbitrary.

Maybe a simpler example: the universe could have sprung into existence in 2011 at that current state. I can't imagine evidence to the contrary. What is the reason I don't believe that? Because it's more arbitrary than other possibilities. That's part of why someone might accept evolution; it seems very arbitrary that all these animals should just happen to exist - it requires less arbitrariness if somehow all of these creatures could have come from a smaller set of simple ones.

Similarly, having a God reduces the number of things we have to start with. All you need is one thing: God. Then, by his desires and actions, you get all the other stuff for free, without having to assume in more things. God is a better explanation than having all things start at their 2011 state, partially because it requires far fewer arbitrary assumptions (just one big one).

I'll also say that you're putting way too much stock in "chance". Science currently sees a certain amount of true randomness in the operation of physics, but the gross physical mechanisms involved in, for example, evolution are not precluded by a fully deterministic universe. The world (or a world very similar to ours) could be explained by an arbitrary start state and arbitrary deterministic rules without chance being involved at all. Again, I don't think "chance" is a terribly useful concept for this discussion.

And to be doubly clear, there is no fundamental dichotomy between "chance" and "design". Chance needn't exist for a God or Godless universe, and "design" (as a vague concept, not specific theory) seems to exist either way too (though it could be illusory). I believe that I design things - so as an explanation for "how things are", most people are going to invoke design as a mechanism either way.

No, because God has given me sufficient evidence that I can be certain of it. A person receiving absolute confirmation of Gods existence has a justified true belief in God, regardless of what someone who has no such revelation perceives as reasonable. Indeed, a person on the outside of this revelation is irrational and incapable of determining what truth is.


I was using the term "possible" to mean "not absolutely impossible". I think perhaps you're using the word "certain" in a less absolute way.

For example, I'm certain about my phone number. I'm more certain that, for example, I have been alive for longer than a day. But I can't absolutely certain. We can imagine a universe that is intent on tricking me about this fact - and I have no way to rule out that universe based on my experience or logic.

Similarly, my choice of question for you wasn't random or intended to be silly. Imagine a universe with more than one powerful supernatural agent (I called one a demon), some of whom were intent on deceiving humans. Their actual motivations are completely inscrutable, but for whatever reason they take some joy in tricking you into believing in God.

I'm not saying this universe is in any way likely or that it should compete with your current understanding of the world. So to clarify: my question to you is "do you agree it's not absolutely impossible that is the case". If you're leaving your answer to this clarified question as "no", what possible evidence could you have to rule this situation out? What evidence or experience couldn't be falsified by a devious supernatural agent? What if they could mess with your very process of reason (and I see no reason why they couldn't - again just as hypothetical)?

(@shinyblurry)

Wow, another group of people/culture/neighborhoods we should put on the list, right Chilaxe?>> ^bareboards2:

http://videosift.com/video/Barbra-Walters-interviews-Sean-C
onnery-on-smackin-btches
I found this video when trying to research the story behind this video.
My god.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I'll upvote for jail time--not before.


As long as videos better people's life outcomes, it's probably prosocial and humanitarian to not hide them.


The women I know who have had this happen would have been better off with more data from which to draw when deciding whether to control risks by walking around questionable neighborhoods or taking a cab.

I think it's easy for men to downplay the experiences of women, but because of size and strength differences, even relatively mild events like shown in this video can confine women to bed for weeks.


It's annoying to get nighttime calls from sobbing women who are close to you.

I wonder what condition makes a person
1) slap a woman he never met just because of refusal to give phone number
2) hit a woman from behind and drop her on the floor just because your friend slapped her
3) film the whole ordeal while laughing about it
4) putting it on the internet for the world to see what an animal you are.

Absolutely no doubt about it--he says, "fucking coons."

[Edit: I would imagine that he has changed that phone number by now]

This is a list of all the US Senators and their stance concerning PIPA. Currently, there are 38 in support, 19 opposed, 7 leaning toward no, and 36 undecided. If you click a senator's name you can see their information, including the phone number of their office that you can call and voice your opinion. These offices WILL have someone answering the phones so I called both of my senators to tell them to vote no and was done in less than one minute.

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/pipa#roll_call

>> ^Yogi:

Someone accidentally bumped our flower bucket at the end of our drive. Left a handwritten note on our door with their phone number and an offer of restitution. We didn't bother with it since it's just a cheap bucket but it was a very sweet thing. I almost like it better a little bit crushed.


Some guy backed into, (more like "touched") my classic Mustang in a parking lot. It wasn't in all that great of shape (pre-restoration) at the time, but I spent the rest of the afternoon going through videotape from different stores. Figured out who it was, got a sweet shot of him hitting it in one camera, getting out and looking, then driving off. Another camera got his plate number. Spent months making sure he got screwed over by insurance and police.

Last year someone scraped the tailgate on my truck (much better shape than the Mustang, btw). Way more damage, monetarily. They left their contact info and a fairly heartfelt apology. I was about to have the whole truck painted (colour change) so I just tossed the note.

Accidents happen. Act honourably, and I'll likely forgive you out of laziness if anything. Act dishonourably and I'll fuck up your whole life.

Someone accidentally bumped our flower bucket at the end of our drive. Left a handwritten note on our door with their phone number and an offer of restitution. We didn't bother with it since it's just a cheap bucket but it was a very sweet thing. I almost like it better a little bit crushed.

Pepper spray police officers personnel information.

Anthony Bologna D0x
NYPD Deputy Inspector
Patrol Boro Manhattan South - 212-477-6181

-Possible phone number: (518) 989-9051

Aditional Information
Anonymous divulges pepper spray police officers personnel information.

Pepper spray police officers personnel information.

Anthony Bologna D0x
NYPD Deputy Inspector
Patrol Boro Manhattan South - 212-477-6181

-Possible phone number: (518) 989-9051

Aditional Information
Anonymous divulges pepper spray police officers personnel information.

>> ^eric3579:

Anonymous divulges pepper spray police officers personnel information.

Anthony Bologna D0x
NYPD Deputy Inspector
Patrol Boro Manhattan South - 212-477-6181
-Possible phone number: (518) 989-9051


I agree with some of the commenters on that page--there is no reason to target this mans family.

Him yes; family No.

Pepper spray police officers personnel information.

Anthony Bologna D0x
NYPD Deputy Inspector
Patrol Boro Manhattan South - 212-477-6181

-Possible phone number: (518) 989-9051

Aditional Information
Anonymous divulges pepper spray police officers personnel information.