Slashdot Mirror
Superheroes vs. the Westboro Baptist Church
sv_libertarian writes "They've faced down humans time and time again, but Fred Phelps and his minions from the Westboro Baptist Church were not ready for the cosplay action that awaited them at Comic-Con. After all, who can win against a counter-protest that includes robots, magical anime girls, Trekkies, Jedi, and... kittens?"
I had to actually RTFA. *angry face*
I rather liked the guy dressed as bender with a sign that said kill all humans. Honestly people should get together and do stuff like this more often it makes for some rather amusing pictures. perhaps even the people who are serious protesters will realize how crazy out their they are.
I think there may be hope for the middle east.
Satirical counterprotests of Fred Phelps are getting a bit boring, aren't they? That's basically what everyone does these days when they show up.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I can't believe people still are religious in public. That is like telling everyone you have aids. FYI: I am from Sweden.
I don't understand Americans. Why don't you just beat them up?
os trabalhos e os dias: http://zmoreira.net
He is a retired lawyer, two of his kids are lawyers too. He has this wonderful way of tying the government in knots. For instance his clan/cult have a big house. This is a church. The swimming pool is a baptismal font. All income is tax free due to being a religion. IRS was not pleased, but he beat them.
His views are totally wacko but playing the govt off against itself is just awesome.
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
God Hates Haters.
just sayin
As someone's sig says "taxes buy civilisation". Phelps wants it both ways: he wants the Government to let him sue anyone who crosses him, and he doesn't want to pay for it. This, in my book, makes him a leech.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
perhaps even the people who are serious protesters will realize how crazy out their they are.
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/07/14/1235220/Given-Truth-the-Misinformed-Believe-Lies-More
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I could also have used "lack of evidence for any gods". Or even "you are atheist too, you disbelieve in thousand of gods, I disbelieve in just 1 more than you". Basically the GP had it right. There is no rationality in having faith. None whatsover. Which is fine as a personal choice, as long as it STAYS personal, and don't try to ruin the life of others, or refuse them equal SECULAR rights. Just don't claim to have done a rational choice, it is a terrible lie.
All the good Christians are the ones who dump the violent, prejudiced, intolerant bullshit that infests any religion and concentrate on DOING GOOD. And yes, I'm an atheist, I don't need the threat of punishment to do good.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
I should do the same - dream up some ridiculous position to advocate and then see if I can get CNN to cover it. Maybe I'll start a group demanding that gorillas get the right to vote, or that we execute illegal immigrants, or insisting that everyone adopt a strict fruitarian diet like this guy.
I bet I could pull it off. If I didn't have anything productive to do.
However, we do think you are all delusional.
Fellow atheist here. Although, I prefer to say "I don't believe in God." instead. Yeah, I'm an atheist but atheism is developing its own dogmatism and I'm not interested, so I'm trying to distance myself from it.
Anyway, getting in people's faces about their religion is as bad as when religious folks get in ours about our lack of belief. If we show more respect for one another,maybe,just maybe most folks will chill.
Sure, there still will be the Phelps crowd and others who will have a problem, but if you'll notice, even folks of the same faith consider them (Phelps' crowd) to be kooks.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
fucking cancer, all of it
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I am a Christian and I love superheroes. I know a lot of people who do too.
In fact, my church's pastor talked about Superman and Spider-Man in his last Sunday's sermon! http://www.evfreefullerton.com/audio/cel/2010/cel_071810.mp3 for the audio sermon recording.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?
Ever plan on fixing the comment threshold bar, assholes?
You are joking, it fails at step 1: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". How can the universal quantifier be justified in this case, it certainly isn't a necessary truth more like a "more of the same" inductive argument. "Everything we have seen coming into existence has a cause, therefore everything must have a cause. One could also use David Hume's argument on causality to undermine as well. What it certainly isn't is "intuitively obvious", which is just hand waving rhetoric.
The second premiss: "The universe began to exist." is also dubious. Again, it isn't an argument from necessity so how does one justify it? Empirically the best we do is to say that the universe was in existence after the Planck epoch.
Which renders the conclusion: "Therefore, the universe has a cause" unsound.
And even if the argument was sound, it doesn't justify the claim that the cause of the universe was the god of a tribe of cattle sacrificing primitives.
The wikipedia summary is not very good. The original Kalam argument basically went as thus:
1) Time cannot have started an infinite amount of time ago, because adding a finite amount of time to a negative inifnity will never result in the present day.
2) Therefore the universe cannot be infinitely old
3) Therefore it had a starting moment
4) Therefore it is more likely it was created than not.
The fact that they reasoned this from pure logic what science would confirm hundreds of years later still amazes me, really.
Cheers.
>4) Therefore it is more likely it was created than not.
I don't see how 1,2,3 implies 4. What did they base the likelihood on?
Also:
>1) Time cannot have started an infinite amount of time ago, because adding a finite amount of time to a negative inifnity [sic] will never result in the present day.
Then for how long has the "creator" existed? If you say forever, then by (1) the "creator" can't have created the universe, because "adding a finite amount of time to a negative inifnity will never result in the present day", with the present day being the birth of the universe.
1) Time cannot have started an infinite amount of time ago, because adding a finite amount of time to a negative inifnity will never result in the present day.
2) Therefore the universe cannot be infinitely old
3) Therefore it had a starting moment
4) Therefore it is more likely it was created than not.
Sadly, this isn't even valid. At least the modern, three-premise version of the argument (as defended by William Lane Craig) has that going for it. However, something like this is appropriated by Craig as justification for his second premise. Unfortunately, his arguments for the impossibility of an "actual infinite" fail just as badly.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
Thank you, slashdot. I learned a new word today. I had never encountered the word "cosplay" before and had to look it up. I must lead a sheltered life. Get Off My Lawn!
Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
I agree with what you say, though I myself am not a theist. I think the root objection that I have to Dawkins is that he has merely substituted "rationality" as his ultimate source of authority, on the basis that "rationality" works. However, the constant counter-intuitive discoveries of physics show that rationality is a constantly moving target. Today's rational argument from a priori axioms is tomorrow's misapplication of bad science. We cannot argue against the existence of a prime mover by any rational argument, because any rational argument may be superseded by new discoveries. "Scientific rationalism" cannot go any further than agnosticism, and to try to do so is to resort to blind faith in atheism. On that basis, Dawkins is as delusional (in his terms) as the people he mocks, because he demands more authority for his beliefs that they warrant.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
No, actually, there isn't. Aside from the bible itself -- which is self-referential, similar to trying to use a Tom Clancy book to prove the existence of his character Jack Ryan -- there is exactly zero contemporaneous evidence that in any way backs up the claim that Christ existed.
There's another problem with the bible, and that is that it contains much that disqualifies it roundly as a historical document. From voices in the sky to people being transmuted into pillars of salt, it is peppered with many telltales of invented fiction. For the bible to be taken seriously, it needs extreme confirmation of the core events; and that confirmation has, so far, been entirely lacking.
Every bit of "historical evidence" is from after 33 AD; every one is a reference to the existence of Christians, not to Christ (and no one is arguing that Christians existed, just to be clear. They annoyed the authorities quite a bit, and that's the context in which they are most often written into history.) But there is not a single contemporaneous word about Christ himself.
The claim that there is contemporaneous proof for the reality of Christ is often floated, and has rarely been countered, and that is why it has persisted. But in fact, there is no such proof, and it is (finally!) no longer certain censure (or worse) to say so. Now, having said that, if you think you know of such proof, by all means put it on the table for everyone to see.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
let's do a quick substitution here: in clause 2 i'd like to replace "the universe" with "god". now simply re-read the argument.
do not read this line twice.
Does this remind anyone else of a scene in I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/I_Now_Pronounce_You_Chuck_and_Larry (See the first sentence in the third paragraph of the plot summery)
I just find it (the counter protest) funny that something similar happened in real life.
Thanks - that always drove me crazy-eight bonkers.
Link #1: http://kanewj.com/wbc/
"Phelps does not believe what he is doing. This is a scam." If you believe this guy (and he makes some telling observations), Phelps is in the business of pushing people's buttons so he can sue them for violating his rights. That's his and his family's living.
Link #2: http://www.robertslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/phelps/bl_phelpscourt.htm
Addicted to Hate: The Fred Phelps Story is an exposé written by Jon Bell for the Topeka Capital-Journal that was suppressed by the paper because they were too chickenshit to take on Phelps. Bell sued the paper to either publish it or, if they refused, let him have the rights to his work, but he got neither. Instead, the full text was entered in the court record so it is now a public document that anyone can read whether Phelps likes it or not. So it's kinda long, but if you want a portrait of what a twisted gruesome mofo Phelps really is, here's your chance. I pity his children -- they never really had a chance.
"The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
You can't fool me. It's turtles, all the way down.
Point 1 is faulty, and causes any conclusions cast from it to be suspect.
Why do I need to add to a negative infinity to get to "the present" or "now"? Why not add from yesterday, last month or subtract from next year? Pick a point of reference, use it, and bammo, we can calculate "now" whenever we want.
What it's really saying is "because I can't add to a negative infinity in the same manner as I can add to a zero, the negative infinity must be impossible". But negative infinity and zero are not interchangeable.
He loves everybody. Period. He despises homosexualiTY, not homosexuals. But then, he also despises things as mundane as lying. Everybody sins. Nobody is perfect, nobody. Surrendering to the natural desire to disobey god is why some people, unfortunately, go to hell.
People who are biologically driven to be homosexual simply have their own burden to bear with regards to trying to live up to God's standards. Nevertheless, God can and will give them the strength to resist the desire to act on that nature if they fully trust him.
I can't say that I understand exactly why God said that things which seem perfectly natural to us are actually wrong, but God is still good, and he does have a reason... just not one that we are likely able to understand in this limited form we call being human.
People can go on ahead and think that their standards are "higher" than Gods because they show what may seem to be an increased amount of love for everybody, but ultimately they are deluding themselves, and will, eventually discover that - if not before they die then shortly afterward.
I'm Fred Phelps, you insensitive clod!
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
Want to hit him where it hurts? Protest at HIS family's funerals. And those of his congregation. Fire with fire. Let him know what it feels like.
Satire? Oh please. Do you REALLY think they will get the "joke"? These people are immune to it. Anything that involves deep thought is useless against something like Phelps. It slides right off them. This is the flaw of people like you, you think the snide geek humor and inside jokes only your subculture gets have any real weight once it escapes the basement. Take it from a top dweller: it doesn't. You're as clueless as Phelps. Want to really do something instead of using "ironic" humor? Instead, hit them emotionally and give them a taste of their own medicine. Dressing up in spandex carrying in-joke signs, they only laugh at YOU even more, even pity you. But now destroy the sanctity of their own family, you WILL get their attention.
But those are the laws. He uses them to his advantage. That he succeeds at the expense of others just magnifies the hypocrisy of it all.
Not really sure if he is seriously believes his wacked shit, or just taking the piss.. Either way, buy some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show! :)
You must admit he has some large diamond hard balls..
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
Fred's got entirely no interest in being martyred for his cause, because his cause is "people paying attention to Fred Phelps" and "suing people who harass him". It's not the kind of cause you can be a martyr for - he's just a fake who wants attention, and is very good at getting it. If one of his followers got killed, he might be okay with that, because he could get a *big* lawsuit out of it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You didn't read my answer properly. I have not the slightest expectation of influencing Fred Phelps - and I don't think your proposals would either. He and his few fellow fanatics are completely immune to reason. It is the rest of the world I am trying to influence. If Phelps is the only protester seen, his ideas will gradually gain weight and become regarded as more mainstream by ordinary people. Whereas if, wherever he is seen, larger numbers of more interesting and witty counter protesters are seen, his views will be seen as the extremist positions that they are. The need is that, whenever Phelps appears in the media, anti-Phelps appears larger.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Free speech is the core of Fred Phelps's Troll business. Governments aren't allowed to harass him, and he can sue them if they do. If individuals harass him to an extent that's illegal, he can sue them, or sue the governments that failed to protect him. If individuals harass him in ways that aren't quite enough for a lawsuit, that's still good for publicity as long as the press spells his name correctly or close enough. You can't shut them up, because what they believe in isn't a set of religious beliefs they could doubt, it's that publicity is profitable, and shouting them down is publicity.
The way to get rid of him is for everybody to stop paying attention and the press to stop publishing his activities. The press is unlikely to do that, because he's offensive and makes good trashy news, and if he's not getting enough press, he'll find more ways to be more offensive and trashy. There needs to be a thorough enough and long enough boycott for him to stop making money, but it's not like he's got anything else to do for fun.
The real question is whether his daughter will continue with the trade after he dies. He's 80, and could live another decade or two.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
They don't even care about that - because Phelps and his gang aren't True Believers who want other people to agree with them, they're sociopaths and professional trolls who want attention, and negative attention is the best kind because it might give them another lawsuit. The best case they can get is a town trying to ban them, but if they can't get that, then having somebody punch them when there's a cop around means they can sue the guy who did it and also sue the cops for not protecting them would work.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Citation? Explanation? Topologically speaking, circles (without boundary, but limited in extent), lines (a "circle with infinite radius," if you like, without boundary and unlimited in extent), rays (unlimited in extent, but "bounded below"), and line segments ("bounded above and below") are all quite "one-dimensional" (we can describe our position with a single number). Which is not to say the OP can't define things such that his statement is true.
Moreover, in some sense, his definitions need only be consistent with logic to be possible. Generally, and with good reason, science prefers theories to be consistent with empirical evidence, as well, but there's no logical reason God might not be Descartes' evil demon, crafting dinosaur bones to deceive us into disbelieving Genesis.
This is of course why science looks for the simplest theory that is sufficient to explain the evidence, and leaves claims of necessity to philosophers and divines. No one claims the insufficiency of the "God hypothesis," which is sufficient to "explain" everything, if we're only willing to accept that "the best explanation" amounts to "shut up and get back to work, you'll understand when you're older."
These are just words. If we define "universe," loosely, as "everything that is the case," then your God would be part of the "universe," no? To put it in a more Slashdot-friendly idiom, you define "universe" as userland, I claim the universe includes code running in kernel mode. Neither is "wrong," we're just using the word "universe" in different senses. You claim processes can't create themselves, so something outside the "universe" must exist, which you call the "kernel." I don't necessarily disagree — I'm just saying we can look at the kernel as "just another process," and that any explanation that purports to explain "how the universe was created" needs to explain how the origin of all processes, not just those running in user mode.
Again, we're just playing with words. Athiesm is simply not holding a certain belief, namely, the traditional belief in "some sort of supernatural being," itself not now, nor never, really, particularly well defined. The only way your assertion that athiests believe "nothing" created the universe makes any sense is if you mean that there is no general consensus among atheists as to why the universe exists, which, while true, is no less true of "theists" taken as a group. "Devoutly religious folk," on the other hand, tend to claim God not only exists, but that He's actually given them His telephone number.
Phelps, on the other hand, believes God not only exists, but that He's an asshole. A viewpoint which is, sadly, perfectly consistent with the Hebrew scriptures. If you ask me, I think he's taking the bit about man being made in God's image rather personally.
["Funny"]
I've thought of several funny semi-violent responses...
Get five or ten street-boys to jizz in a squirt gun, use said squirt gun to "anoint" WBC while holding "WBC shows gay spunk as Phred hoped" sign.
Get geek to factor wind biases and then use "Bear Spray" suitably up-wind.
[Serious]
But in truth, if WBC ever showed up in my region I would file a "reckless child endangerment" complaint against them with the department of child and family services. They are clearly trying to incite violence with "fighting words", to the degree that the cops have to show up to protect them. They are also using their children basically as "human shields" by bringing them, and putting them in harm's way, without regard to the safety of the minor children.
If they _don't_ think that the children would be in danger, why do they pre-arrange police protection?
I think WBC needs to be dragged through family court whenever they show up with kids and make them hold signs that inspire people to punch people in the face.
If the adults want to do it, then fine. But not the kids.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Is it just me or does "Fred Phelps" sound like one of the evil old guys on scooby doo that's always wearing a ghost costume?
If I understood Hawking's "Brief History of Time" correctly, which I certainly won't guarantee, and if I'm remembering it correctly N years later, which is also dubious, having a one-dimensional timeline doesn't guarantee having a beginning. Spacetime might be a closed set, including Time 0, or might be an open set, including all times above 0 but not actually including Time 0 itself. So there might not have been a beginning, even if there's asymptotically close to having been one.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I think they know very well that they're trolls - just because they're sociopaths doesn't mean they don't have some insight into what they're doing. It's possible that they're trolls who actually do hate gay people, as opposed to merely finding them convenient targets, but they're in the Professional Trolling Business, making money by having towns ban them and people assault them and suing.
Remember a few years back when the KKK held a rally in Simi Valley? A friend of mine was on the city council at the time. The Klansters weren't locals, they were from out of town, and they were *very* disappointed that the town didn't forbid them to march, and didn't let the counter-protesters try to beat them up, because their real objective was to get banned and have a lawsuit they could easily win.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You're still treating them as if they mean what they say. They don't really care - they're just looking for the most offensive positions they can find, because that gets them the most publicity and the most antagonism they can use to generate lawsuits.
This kind of gig works a lot better when there's a First Amendment protecting free speech; in the Old Days they would have had to actually lead mobs of followers so they could steal the houses of the witches/Jews/blacks/gypsies/etc.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I don't think they seriously believe what they say, though they may very well hate gays and enjoy antagonizing whoever's fun to offend. I think they're deliberate trolls, doing this because they like the attention and get to sue anybody who interferes with their freedom of speech. It doesn't take any dissociation from reality; they're just effective sociopaths who've got a profitable gig going.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Who said the following:
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: - by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
All right, we'll start with Josephus. He's a good example of just what I'm trying to tell you.
First of all, Josephus, AKA Yosef Ben Matityahu, A.D. (37 ~100+), had not been born when Christ was supposed to be walking around. So he is not contemporaneous - he literally "came after", and he never saw, or heard, Jesus or any of his claimed works; he didn't see the crucifixion; everything he has to say is second hand, or worse.
Secondly, considering he was born in AD 37, we can safely assume he didn't write anything scholarly for, oh, let's totally give him the benefit of the doubt, let's call it sixteen years later. We'll assume he was a prodigy. And we're also going to ignore that a large number of scholars -- Christian scholars, at that -- consider that Josephus' writings about Christ were partially or completely sourced elsewhere. See wikipedia for starter studies on that -- there is of course much more than you'll find there, but you'll get the gist. In any case, so we have Josephus, reporting on the doings of Christ, who is the hero of the Christian cult, whom he has never met, never seen an act done by, and for which reports he is at least twenty years late to the party.
This makes it very clear that while Josephus, if we take him seriously and stipulate to the authenticity of his writings, can be assigned directly to those who believe there was, in fact, a person named Christ, what we cannot do is take him as direct evidence there was a Christ, because he cannot have ever seen the man or his works -- what he knew of, again only if indeed his writings are actually his, is the Christian cult's reporting of Christ. He presents no evidence; he simply parrots the Christian line (which is one reason his words are doubted by many... the presumption is his writings have been corrupted in the copying by biased parties. Again, read Wikipedia for starters.) I would also point out that Jospehus never claims to have seen Christ, so it's more than a little disingenuous -- or simply misinformed -- to try to claim him as evidence for Christ's actual existence.
Finally, Jospehus actually says very little. He mentions James, a brother of Jesus in one passage; and in another, he delivers about a paragraph of vagueness, no notable details or dates other than mentioning Pilate -- who, we note, as fifth prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26–36, also didn't do anything in front of Josephus. Pilate, too, was long gone by the time Jospehus had learned to speak, much less write scholarly treatises.
None of this stands even weakly as evidence for the actual existence of Jesus. What it does show, even if taken completely at face value, scholarly doubts aside, is that Christians were around, and telling the story as of AD 53 (probably much later... remember, we're giving Josephus the honor of assuming he wrote all this when he was 16.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I wanted to go to Comic-Con this year but didn't have the funds at the right time. Had I known Westboro would be in my city then I'd have gone anyway just to watch the hilarity.
I still love the idea someone on Kotaku had when they saw the Team Fortress 2 spy cosplayer with the 'GOD HATES SENTRIES' sign: He should have been standing in the midst of the WBC crazies, with one of THEIR signs, wearing 'a moron mask'.
The whole thing is just absolutely hilarious though. Good on them for mounting the counter-protest! Those WBC people are assholes.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
I saw this title and the first thing that came to my mind was two guys dressed up as the ambiguously gay duo joining them in protest....
All this geek-fu and their website still stands? OK, it's built on Centos, but surely we can do better than that!
Server Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) X-Powered-By PHP/5.1.6 Vary Accept-Encoding,User-Agent Content-Encoding gzip Content-Length 6960 Keep-Alive timeout=5, max=500 Connection Keep-Alive
Do as you would be done to.
Fine... and you'd still have been writing about someone you'd never met, about whose existence -- and magical acts, and birth, and resurrection -- you didn't witness, and which were of little import to you because there were very few Christians, and you weren't one of them (one of the reasons scholars doubt his remarks about Christ... they resonate as if written by a Christian, and use forms of language found nowhere else in his writing.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Louis Theroux, a BBC documentary presenter, produced a very inside look at these "people."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOrz5k0jWdU
Worth a watch of the whole thing if you can find a torrent.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
To put it another way, it is impossible to get to the present from an infinitely distant past.
But there is one thing that is a common touchstone across all religions: misogyny. The proof is their equally vehement denial of the fact.
Phelps and his crerw got punked by TREKKIES and FURRIES. That has the be the greatest laugh I've had all year. All glory to the hypno-toad!!!
Yes... and no!
Freedom of speech does means the ability to state your views (freely, without fear of punishment for holding or expressing those views).
Freedom of speech as it is implemented in the [USA's] constitution refers to the government's inability to restrict you from expressing your views (as well as to related concepts like the ability to compel speech in certain circumstances).
But in real life there is more to freedom of speech than what the US (or any) government may do. Arguably corporations have even more power.
Once again, there is a bit of both. Humans are inherently deserving of some respect, and a certain dignity of treatment, by virtue of their humanity. Beyond that, respect can and should be earned, or may be lost.
But however heinous someone's views, they are still worthy of a certain dignity - to accord them less is to diminish yourself.
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
Just imagine how much less national debt we would have if corporations had to pay taxes.
Impossible. Any government imposed fee placed upon a corporation will simply be transferred to those that purchase the services they render as a "cost of doing business". Corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do.
First off I want to make apparent the number one logical inconsistency of this argument. The glaringly obvious error is that postulate 4 (it is more likely that the universe was created) does not follow from the previous three postulates. Even if the previous three postulates held true (which they do not by necessity), then number 4 would not necessarily follow. Supposing that the universe does have a starting moment, this starting moment could easily have been a stochastic event, rather than a probabilistic one. In other words, the universe could have "just happened" just like how radioactive decay "just happens." There is no necessity for it to be created.
However, suppose you want to ignore that logical hole, let's move on. The first postulate, that adding a finite amount of time to a negative infinity betrays the arguments ignorance of limit theorems in mathematics. When taking Calc 3 in college, we learned that various infinite limits certainly could result in finite sums. In fact, this is the basis for the modeling of all trig functions if I remember correctly. That is to say, given the appropriate function, one can look at the limit as a variable approaches infinity and mathematically determine the result to be a finite number. This also holds true for negative infinity. Thus, if we suppose that reality, as we describe it, is modeled by a function of similar nature to those I just described, one could see how time could, in fact, approach negative infinity but still result in a finite value (that finite value could be the necessary number to equal present day). Thus, time very well could be negatively infinite and still result in a finite universe given the appropriate underlying mathematical engine.
So, your first postulate is an unwarranted one at best. As such, the second and third postulates do not necessarily follow and the leap to postulate four is unnecessary. In other words, your entire argument is a logical failure at postulate one as I have successfully demonstrated one system that disproves its truth. Therefore, even if the Kalam Argument somehow justified creationism in the first place, the fact that it is flawed leaves the theory of creationism in the realm of fantasy.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
All Glory To the HYPNO-TOAD!
Lawsuits are a lot cheaper if you're doing the work yourself and not paying a lawyer. They could fly somewhere if they're in a hurry, but driving a camper is probably cheaper and gives you a place to stay, and for the most part they can pick and choose targets for convenience.
And they can keep winning lawsuits because they keep annoying towns or cops into violating their civil rights or people into punching them or whatever. And if people wise up and stop doing that, the Phelpsies just think of new ways to piss people off.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks