Whenever you go to a bar in the US, they will look at your ID before they serve booze. This is true. But what about fake IDs? If a kid in high school can get a fake id, i'm sure its not THAT difficult to get a fake ID if you got the right info to put on it.
Yes it does. You offer no means to save 'cause & effect'. You're system requires you to ultimately believe that cause & effect CANNOT be universal constant. If it were constant, there cannot be any breaks, but unfortunately, you can't explain away the break of their being no cause for universe. I still can believe its a universal constant in my belief system. The 'supreme being' or 'creator' as you call it (i really dislike the term) acts as a go-between between a reality where cause & effect is a constant and a reality where cause & effect may or may not be a constant. I solely use this entity for this purpose. Its the only way i can resolve this contradiction in the belief of cause & effect. If you still believe it and you just don't understand how the cause&effect debacle resolved itself, then really, there IS an extraordinary step taking place, you're just refusing to give it a name or to describe it. i've at least theorized what i view to be the best-fitting one with the evidence (or lack thereof) that i can think of. no matter what conclusion anyone will come up with to save cause & effect, it will always be extraordinary. i mean, whatever it was, it presumably only happened once in all existence... thats extraordinary to me.
The universe is here, I think you'd agree. Well, there too.
Yes, I'll give you that.
That means it had to get here. That's pretty safe.
Also true.
So you have to admit that it seems strange things could just appear, but that it seems less odd if less things appear, all else being equal.
Ehh, one thing appearing is much more of a unique situation as opposed to the infinite many more possible. why does one claim have to be less odd than another? (i don't posit that only two things were there, only that at least two things were there, though i don't know if i made that clear or even if i made it sound otherwise, if i did, i apologize for the confusion)
You say that something spontaneously appeared and made everything else. That posits that something that still come from nothing, but instead of a bunch of matter, that first thing in a supreme being capable of creating a universe.
Not necessarily. You're making the assumption that in this pre-existence stage that something couldn't just have existed forever. the only reason we can't apply it to our universe is that it doesn't fit with our current thinking (scientific or otherwise).
You're claiming that making rocks is too difficult for the universe to manage so it needed a creator, but that making the creator (much harder than a few rocks) was possible.
I'm claiming it was too difficult for the universe to make itself, so something else made the universe.
My claim is one step, requires a single deduction from current events, and has very little predictive power.
But it ignores all the contradictions that still exist. You just write them off with an "ehh, whatever." I tried to give an explanation.
Your claim is two steps, requires deduction, and assumption about the type of things that can spontaneously appear, but still has little predictive power.
The assumption i made about the type of things that can spontaneously appear is based off believing in cause & effect (because i do). if i don't make that assumption, it becomes a lot harder to believe cause & effect is a universal constant.
There are two ideas on the table, mine shorted, yours longer. They both attempt to describe the same current scenario. Neither offers and predictive power, so neither are theories. Further, yours relies on more assumptions about the nature of creators and universes that I don't think you have.
Yours assumes logic didn't apply right away. That's a big break in logic for me. My theory allows logic to exist as part of the universe itself. Yours
here's my logic for a creator (i prefer higher power because i don't like to personify it): first, there was nothing. then there was something. now, i do believe in cause & effect and i know you do as well (and its the only practical system to try and determine an origin... otherwise, yes, you can just make up anything). now, you must assume that this effect had a cause. the only plausible solution i can come up with is the existence of an unknown intangible element that has the physical properties of nothingness, but metaphysical properties of something. look at it as two forms of physical nothing, just one has an extra property that metaphysically makes it something... but its still nothing (its paradoxical, i know, but so is believing the universe was created spontaneously from absolute nothing with no cause). i'm not going to apply any other properties to this element other than that it exists outside of our existence. i can only postulate its existence. this is my version of the creator. you see why i hate calling it a 'creator' because it personifies it and thats not part of my belief system. however, since i can't even prove it exists, i'm not going to bother with trying to decipher its origins. since it exists alongside our existence (though not in it), its completely possible that it doesn't need to have a cause. i'm just saying that if you don't believe in anything outside of our existence, you really can't break your own rules because that means your rules are flawed and brings everything into question (in that, yea, all your rules work *most* of the time, but they didn't work all the time). now if people want to come to their own conclusions on this higher entity and give them more attributes, that's there own prerogative. maybe it is possible that it is an intelligent entity, maybe it is possible that it has communicated with people in our history. i don't personally believe it, but i won't say its certainly false. i've given you my reason for thinking something caused creation. now you give me your reasoning for how something can come from nothing without any cause. you have a dormant nothing and then magically it decides to become something... an event had to occur to cause it or else it should have been dormant forever... UNLESS you believe in a different set of rules applying to this pre-existence, in which case, you're allowed to postulate anything and its just as valid as anything else)
Occam's Razor is NOT a law. It's a belief. You can't PROVE Occam's Razor. Of course you can, because it's empiricly testable by repeated observation. For something to be shown false, a counterexample has to be shown. Do you really need me to show you counterexamples to Occam's Razor? Occam's Razor is a tool used to keep things practical. My beliefs are NOT practical. In all honesty, my believing in a higher power gives no benefit or disadvantage to my existence. My beliefs are just that. Yes, it very well may be true that we're all a part of somebody's dream, but it doesn't ultimately help us. It's better to try and keep things simple and arrive at practical conclusions that we can use to generalize and utilize various bits of knowledge.
Uh, that's entirely false. A subset by its very nature remains a part of the larger set, and so everything that applies to the larger set applies to the smaller. it's probably my fault for using the wrong terminology. I really shouldn't have used it like i did. Let me explain it another way in case you weren't able to get what i meant. Hypothetically, I can create a virtual reality machine with completely different physical rules inside it then outside it. It exists within our reality but OUR rules don't apply inside. Think the matrix sort of. that's what i really meant. i wasn't very clear with it and i apologize. if i want to keep the same analogy, i'd have to instead say that rules that apply in our subset don't necessarily apply in the superset (logic, reasoning, cause & effect, etc. don't have to exist outside our reality).
by the way, just for fun, i just NEED to do this:
Why would the term "fact" even exist if there was nothing to which it applied? why would the term "God" exist? I'm not saying God exists (I don't believe he does) but I'm trying to just show how that's definitely faulty reasoning. How about the (original) term "ether"? It was believed that there was this substance that covered all living things (or everything... i can't remember) and i don't really remember what it was for, but it was supposed to be an intangible material substance that made up the heavenly bodies (it was the fifth element). Now, most people these days would find it silly to believe in such a thing (i don't, though that doesn't mean its not there), but according to your logic, since we have a word for it, it must exist.
If down is the directions things fall when dropped, then anything dropped falls down. Can't be wrong, it's a tautology. what? let's reword that (without changing meaning) "If things fall down when dropped, then anything dropped falls down." You're stating a condition and then giving a conclusion. However, your conclusion IS your condition. Here's another tautology. "If the universe was created by some sort of higher entity, then a higher entity created the universe." It's a tautology. It's intellectually bankrupt because it says nothing. "If x, then x." Duh.
Prove to me how the universe started spontaneously. It's an outrageous claim. Something from nothing? Sounds outrageous to me. Breaks the law of conservation of energy. I want the hard evidence. It's upon your shoulders to prove it, is it not?
I'm not trying to say you're wrong or I'm right. I'm just trying to say it really can't be said with certainty that the origins, intent, and core principles of religion have no grounding in truth. It's just as ignorant to say that science has no grounding in truth either. I'm not trying to refute science. I firmly believe that science and religious beliefs can coincide in harmony(obviously not all... the religious beliefs that hold science is the devil's handiwork obviously wouldn't fit the bill, same with the science fanatics that refuse religion). I just think that there is so much that we don't know, that it's a little early to say that we know what's going on. So believe what you will, but just don't be like a religious zealot who refuses to believe in something no matter how much evidence you put in front of them. You have just as much evidence (re: none) about the beginning of the universe as any person in known existence does. So i fail to see how your theory should somehow be the winner.
i'll concede to saying that you *think* things fall down when you drop them as being fact. i will not concede to things fall down when you drop them as being absolute fact. *i* think things fall down when dropped and thats a fact as well. moses parting the sea has not actually been disproved (though many alternative theories have been proposed, such as it was a completely different sea, i forget the name, that during certain times, there's a land bridge straight through it. the idea being it was exaggerated how far behind the romans really were when following them and it was exaggerated how much it really parted). there's no proof jesus didn't rise from the dead, and there's DEFINITELY no proof that God did not create the universe. I personally don't ascribe to any of these beliefs. However, I won't say that the bible is 100% false because there's quite a possibility that they are all exaggerations of various stories back then (and who knows, maybe some of them were miracles, but i honestly doubt it). however, it can't be conclusively disproved. and to say they can be easily disproved is almost comical. did you go back in time and watch it not occur? plus, you can't disprove a claim based on saying its faulty reasoning. you can give doubt by destroying its reasoning, but it does not disprove the claim. if i say 2+2=4 because coca-cola tastes better than pepsi. the reasoning is by far very faulty, but i doubt people will say my claim is false. plus, you have yet to show any faulty reasoning behind believing anything. i personally don't believe in God, but i don't find faulty reasoning behind those that say he exists. Just because you don't agree with the reasoning does not actually make it invalid. Plus, lack of evidence DOES NOT imply a claim is incorrect. So, i'm not wrong about anything I claim without possible proof, regardless of how many times you say it. There are a lot of ideas in science that lack proof, but the idea just fits by certain standards (and there will be scientists who disagree... however, that doesn't mean one is definitely wrong or right). and that is not the nature of religion. thats a negative connotation you've attributed to it. there are plenty of people who believe in religion who believe in evolution (there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution too). There are plenty of people who will accept whatever science you give them and most of the time it can be completely intertwined with religion. as many people have said in the past, religion and science may just be two sides of the same coin. they don't have to be mutually exclusive. many scientists (GREAT scientists) were religious. many of the theories you hold as fact were described by scientists who believed strongly in God.
Occam's Razor is NOT a law. It's a belief. You can't PROVE Occam's Razor. Just because it stops us from believing there is a chocolate teapot orbiting Jupiter does not make it a law. It just keeps things in the realm of practicality which is a convenience more than anything.
history isn't necessarily fact. You can't actually prove that everything isn't happening instantaneously or that memories are made up, etc, etc, etc.
Your comment about Einstein's Law replacing Newton's, I'll just respond again with anecdotal evidence. You can't rule out the possibility something out there will just cause it to fall apart when applied to it. I don't claim to know the existence of everything in the universe. There could be something that affects physics in such a way that most of our laws collapse. So, while they may hold together here and now to the point that its practical to assume its a fact, there's still a chance that its assuming a bunch of things are constants which very well may not be.
if you have a made a test of what qualifies as art and what doesn't, i'm pretty sure it'd be pointless to continue this conversation.
This universe is a subset of whatever else is out there (if anything). A subset can fall under the same governing rules as the entire set. However, the rules that govern the superset may not apply to all its subsets.
Pure science is the knowledge of these powers,
causes, or laws, considered apart, or as pure from all
applications.
sooo... "science" DOES refer to the collection of knowledge. and what was the ONLY thing i was trying to say? that the knowledge ISN'T fact. I didn't say that this PROVES religion or believing in a higher power. i also didn't say that this higher entity has to be a LEADER. I just said that neither science NOR religion offer any factual description of the universe. yes, how each is arrived at is vastly different (for the most part). I never asked for proof. I think you think i'm saying things I'm not. I don't actually see what it is you're going off on. You spend a LOT of text saying, for the most part, the same thing I said about science. All I tried to say is its not fact. Ask any scientist if he believes there's a chance that he's wrong about something, chances are, he'll say, yes there's a chance. It's close-minded to think otherwise. And just to point out, you defied your own semantical argument (where i said science is the collection of knowledge and you said it was like reading... but then you defined it as knowledge... sooo, i dunno). I never claimed to say that what I believe is any more than fact either. I reasoned out as much as I could through logic (a higher entity offers a lot more benefits than just explaining the creation of the universe, socially and scientifically). I never even went so far as to say the two cannot coexist. I believe in other posts that I said, for the most part, I find science sufficient enough to apply to everyday life. The original reason I brought this up is that someone said science is fact (which I responded with its not) and they said religion was disproven (which I said it was not). I'm not even able to find your point anymore. Also, I NEVER EVER said I followed the Bible in any way shape or form. Can you PLEASE stop making me out to be some sort of fundamentalist? All I said is I believe in a higher power (thats IT... seriously. I have no clue of the characteristics or attributes of said being). You're going off on some tangent as if I want to go on another Crusade. Goddamn. What are you smoking? I never said I had any truth. I said that, as it stands, science isn't dogma (obviously without the religious aspect). I also said that religion (at least the bigger principles of such) have not been disproven. Sure a lot of the small ish is off-point, because it was written by people with agendas a long time ago. However, that CANNOT be used to refute the entirety of it. I'm a HUGE supporter of science. I despise those that think creationism is a scientific alternative to evolution. I BELIEVE in evolution. I'm just one of those people who refuse to be close minded enough to think that there is no possibility of something above us. i'll never assume that we can ever know anything as fact. you're talking to a computer engineer with a minor in philosophy. i can't even prove you're nothing more than words on a screen. i can't prove that the person sitting across from me actually thinks. i can't even prove that i'm not the only person who CAN think. i'm fine with going all out on science. i'm disappointed when it gets cutbacks. i think we're falling behind others. i never, once, said that science is for naught. Not once did I EVER MENTION THE WORD GOD (until now of course). I can tell you're an intelligent individual, but I can also tell that you have a huge blind spot when someone says they believe in some higher power. Again, just like you've done with science, you apply all of these assumptions. However, in this case, THEY ARE ALL WRONG. I don't know anything about this higher entity. I just think that some force had to cause the creation of th
It wasn't; nothing can be proven beyond a doubt. But it was proven firmly enough to be accepted as fact. Occam's Razor is not a law. Occam's Razor has been, can be, and will be wrong at times. "All things being equal, the simplest solution TENDS to be the right one." please stop spouting on about Occam's Razor as if it really held any water.
and no, it has not been proven to be accepted as fact. if it were fact, it wouldn't be disputable in any school of thought... which unfortunately is not the case. show me an experiment where it has been proven. some scientists have even hypothesized that we may have it backwards a effects may cause the cause. hell, people aren't even completely agreed on time in this aspect. so, no. cause and effect are NOT fact. they are as solid as evolution. so, while i tend to think that cause and effect most likely are true or at least close to being some form of truth and therefore will base my assumptions on the world on it, i will not say its absolute fact. we might very well be wrong.
False. Although new theories arise, the predictions made by the previous ones remain accurate across a huge domain - it's only in the newest areas that the theories disagree. You could live well based on the state of science at any point over the last century. Being close does not mean its true. Newton's Laws are "good enough," but they actually fall apart at a certain point. So, while they may be good enough to apply today, there's no reason to think that in the future they'll still apply.
Well, no, because it doesn't have all the usual attributes of a religion. i'm surprised you've come up with a concrete list of what defines a religion. are you going to give a list of what qualifies as art next?
If you're disputing the truth of my statement I'll find a source; do you actually not believe me, or are you just complaining to make yourself look better? I didn't say what you said was wrong. I was referring to the logical fallacy of using anecdotal evidence as proof. Just because it happened on occasion does not mean it will always happen. Here's a mathematical analogy: extrapolating a line from a single point. It really can't be done.
The universe coming spontaneously into existence is a more satisfactory explanation - a higher being only makes things worse, because you now have to explain the existence of the higher being, and the higher being gives no explanatory power or ability to make predictions. i don't have to explain the existence of the higher being. that existence is outside the realm of my own. i do not, nor will i ever claim to be capable of understanding something that exists completely outside of our reality. i don't have to bother with explaining their existence, only mine for now. one step at a time. we cannot apply our logic outside of its own bounds. logic exists as a system within this universe. trying to apply it outside of it doesn't make sense. So i'm done with just saying something else created existence. i'll leave it to the entit(y/ies) that created existence to ponder their own existence.
your correction amounts to semantics. some people refer to science as that body of knowledge that has been compiled over the (many) years. i feel like more people would use it as a noun as such as opposed to a verb (there's a reason you can't conjugate it... cause its not a verb). my whole point was that science doesn't LEAD to fact if you want to get technical about it. and anyway, the rest of your post kind of agreed with it. so i'd say half your post was being pedantic and the other half was providing an extra argument in favor of my position (which is that science can only guess *really* well at things, but it can never lead to certainties).
and if you really want to get technical, you really can't say its a proven fact because its practice is based upon cause and effect (hence the whole thing of needing to be able to REPEAT an experiment). saying something that relies solely on an assumption is fact? that doesn't seem very prudent. but that's getting VERY technical and under normal circumstances i won't go that far, but you seem like you enjoy trying to be technical.
Au contraire. This can be, and is, tested, and to a certain extent this is done in every scientific experiment. when was cause and effect tested beyond a doubt? (notice the lack of of the word "reasonable," because for absolute certainty, you have to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever).
Of course; you can't prove something universally. But it's a lot more reasonable to assume that this holds than that it holds in the particular locations we have tested it, and doesn't somewhere else. Occam's razor, and good sense. In a word, science. you seem to be using an arbitrary usage of the word reasonable. plus, i never was referring to location. i was referring to repeatability. you can repeat an experiment a billion times, but you technically you cannot prove beyond any doubt that it will occur the same way every time after that. each experiment only proves that during the time you tested it, whatever idea or theory you were testing still held true. however, just because it was true before does not mean it will be true forever. plus, science gets rewritten over and over again. nothing is ever true for that long. what was true yesterday may not be true today. could science just be a religion that isn't afraid to change its mind when faced with new knowledge?
Go on and prove that. Less than 150 years ago there were people saying no matter how far science advanced it would never be able to explain what the stars were made of. anecdotal evidence is not proof, its completely circumstantial. right now, science really can't explain to any degree of certainty whatsoever what was in existence before the creation of the universe. just because we held that something in the past was unknowable, but figured it out, does not mean that every single thing we run into in the future will be explainable. i know that we do not know it now nor do we have any way of knowing. i'm am fully capable of changing my mind in light of new evidence. but until someone gives me a simpler explanation than a higher being (not God, but a higher being) putting forth such an improbable scenario such as existence, then fine. its true that other people may go too far and what not, but when it comes down to it, i'm not close minded enough to think that science is infallible. i won't close my mind to anything, i'll just pick what seems to be the best explanation at the time. there's nothing wrong with changing your mind.
you're fine in believing what you want. i just don't think you should be so close minded as to say someone else is incorrect because obviously your set of beliefs is definitely the correct one and to say it with such certainty. though, don't get me wrong, i don't think any of this alternative way of thinking should *EVER* be taught in science, because it is definitely without a doubt not science.
religion has never been proven an incorrect fact. nor has it been proven a correct fact. to spout that god has been proven to not exist as a fact is just as silly to claim white supremacy.
people who try to force their religious beliefs on others are troublesome. i don't disagree. however, there are plenty of them who are fine with keeping it to themselves. you can be follow a religion and still believe all the science that we have.
and on a further note, science has yet to ever be proven as fact. there's one assumption that is always made and can never be proven (just as one could say a higher power could never be proven, therefore you can only assume there is or there isn't); you assume that a cause will always have the same effect. the only reason people accept this as true is because no one has disproved it. repeated tests are only circumstantial tests at best. don't get me wrong, i fully believe that science is true, but i'm just saying, there's still the same amount of assumption as there is with a higher power and even moreover, you can believe both science and in a higher power. they are not mutually exclusive.
also your adam sandler analogy has got to be one of the worst analogies i've ever seen. even removing that terrible analogy, the idea behind it is far from being any well-constructed thought. as someone who believes in a higher power (though not a follower of any religion), i can tell you thats NOT the reason i think my opinion is valid. i believe my opinion is valid because no matter how much science you bring behind you, you will never be able to explain its creation (of existence, not of the earth... i believe creationists are retarded).
so, in summation, there are a lot of religious folk who are stupid. however, not ever religious person is stupid.
and using your definition of bigotry, i'm gonna have to say yes, you do seem like a bigot. before this last post of yours, you didn't. i found the joke hysterical as well. in fact, i bet even some religious people can find it humorous. though, with this last post, you have definitely shown a lack of credulity as someone who can form a well-structured opinion.
sounds like its not that national law trumps eu laws in respect to its subjects, but that they're allowed to apply *stricter* rules to its subjects. so, if the eu forbade something, national law can't trump it and allow it. at least thats what it looks like to me. i could be completely wrong though. i'm basing it solely on that excerpt you copied.
plus i have a wireless router in the same room about 2 feet from the consoles and its wireless n & b/g. n craps out on me every so often (even before the 360), but thats pretty much a given with it. i haven't noticed it get any worse with the 360 either.
A small college is experience problems with their new wireless network equipment in the presence of a few xbox's. however, apparently all over the rest of the country, in huge universities with thousands of xbox 360s... there's no problem whatsoever. the only bit that doesn't fit with this is that they said the IT staff had issues using their bluetooth headsets. now, the only comment i can make on this is that i think they have cheap bluetooth headsets. they said the 360 makes the signal even when its not turned on... just plugged in. i have both a ps3 & 360 virtually one on top of the other (a shelf plus a few inches of space in between) and the ps3's bluetooth controllers work just as fine as they did before i got the 360. so, all in all, i think this is a load of bull. the 360 has been out for way too long for this to not have been noticed. i think something else is screwing with their headsets & wireless network. or maybe its just the wireless network thats screwing with the headsets and they're looking for a scapegoat.
yes, its true, some people will go to the 'dark side' in various games because they like that aspect. though, sometimes, its a completely utilitarian view. sometimes the abilities afforded the player vary depending on how 'good' or 'bad' they are. sometimes a player might like playing a certain way and the abilities afforded to the bad side just play to his/her strengths better. some people look at it as a moral choice, others look at it as a challenge, some look at it as total game completion (yea, i finished the game saving the little sisters, now i gotta play it and not save them), or in the same idea, just changing the game so its less boring (i saved 'em all last time, i want the game to be different, so i'll kill them every now and then when it suits me).
Honestly, if they do it, instead of giving negative names to bad choices and positive names to good choices, it should just be names biased to that side. like on the good side, you'd have titles like protector, savior, etc. and on the bad side you'd have names that people wouldn't mind having or that are 'cool' like dark lord or some ish.
The reason we can choose in games is so we can get a more interesting experience, not so we can be embarrassed by it.
no one is saying that digital should be x% because its digital. they're saying digital should be x% because the perceived value is x%. you seem confused and think that consumers pay what they think a product cost to make. they don't. they will *NEVER* pay more than its worth to them. period. a consumer will only buy a product if the perceived value is greater than or equal to the cost. the only exception are monopolies and necessities. if the perceived value of a digital good is 10% of the normal, then you better believe people will expect to pay 10%. i don't care what the costs are that go into making it. if they can't sell it at consumer's perceived value, it will fail. that was my point with the ps3. the ps3's price drop is NOT so it can be a loss leader. it was to boost sales. people weren't willing to spend the initial amount they offered it for. until they can offer it at the price consumers will pay, it just won't sell.
I understand that the manufacturers of a product only have so much leeway in determining the price. However, if that leeway isn't enough to lower the costs to what a consumer is willing to pay, that product will fail. This is my point. Until electronic copies are priced at what people perceive their value as (which is much, much less than the hardcopy), it will never take off the way digital music did. Even movie downloads aren't taking off because they can't bring the costs down to what people are willing to pay.
On another note, textbooks aren't the books that we're talking about. its fiction, since thats a majority of whats being sold for the kindle. You got an author, proofreader, and editor. Anything else is extra and people are hesitant to consider footing the bill. While other things may be necessary to the business model itself(marketing, etc.), its not necessary to the consumer.
that guy writes whether it be paper or digital. i'm talking about the production of a physical book. if you think all that money goes to the author, you're sorely mistaken.
if you price something at x dollars, but consumers don't find that much value (no matter how much it cost to make it, whether it be x or more), consumers won't buy it unless its a necessity and they can't get it elsewhere cheaper. imagine if the ps3 went on sale for how much it cost sony to produce each one... i'm sure they'd be in a much better position, right?/sarcasm
your faulty logic is that consumers will pay whatever the content owners want. if a consumer does not see the same value, they won't purchase it. there's no room for negotiation. the consumer either will or won't purchase it based solely off of whether they value the product to be as much or more than what they are paying. no ifs, ands, or buts. the only exception are monopolies on things that people can't resist.
Slashdot Mirror
But requires no extraordinary steps.
Yes it does. You offer no means to save 'cause & effect'. You're system requires you to ultimately believe that cause & effect CANNOT be universal constant. If it were constant, there cannot be any breaks, but unfortunately, you can't explain away the break of their being no cause for universe. I still can believe its a universal constant in my belief system. The 'supreme being' or 'creator' as you call it (i really dislike the term) acts as a go-between between a reality where cause & effect is a constant and a reality where cause & effect may or may not be a constant. I solely use this entity for this purpose. Its the only way i can resolve this contradiction in the belief of cause & effect. If you still believe it and you just don't understand how the cause&effect debacle resolved itself, then really, there IS an extraordinary step taking place, you're just refusing to give it a name or to describe it. i've at least theorized what i view to be the best-fitting one with the evidence (or lack thereof) that i can think of. no matter what conclusion anyone will come up with to save cause & effect, it will always be extraordinary. i mean, whatever it was, it presumably only happened once in all existence... thats extraordinary to me.
The universe is here, I think you'd agree. Well, there too.
Yes, I'll give you that.
That means it had to get here. That's pretty safe.
Also true.
So you have to admit that it seems strange things could just appear, but that it seems less odd if less things appear, all else being equal.
Ehh, one thing appearing is much more of a unique situation as opposed to the infinite many more possible. why does one claim have to be less odd than another? (i don't posit that only two things were there, only that at least two things were there, though i don't know if i made that clear or even if i made it sound otherwise, if i did, i apologize for the confusion)
You say that something spontaneously appeared and made everything else. That posits that something that still come from nothing, but instead of a bunch of matter, that first thing in a supreme being capable of creating a universe.
Not necessarily. You're making the assumption that in this pre-existence stage that something couldn't just have existed forever. the only reason we can't apply it to our universe is that it doesn't fit with our current thinking (scientific or otherwise).
You're claiming that making rocks is too difficult for the universe to manage so it needed a creator, but that making the creator (much harder than a few rocks) was possible.
I'm claiming it was too difficult for the universe to make itself, so something else made the universe.
My claim is one step, requires a single deduction from current events, and has very little predictive power.
But it ignores all the contradictions that still exist. You just write them off with an "ehh, whatever." I tried to give an explanation.
Your claim is two steps, requires deduction, and assumption about the type of things that can spontaneously appear, but still has little predictive power.
The assumption i made about the type of things that can spontaneously appear is based off believing in cause & effect (because i do). if i don't make that assumption, it becomes a lot harder to believe cause & effect is a universal constant.
There are two ideas on the table, mine shorted, yours longer. They both attempt to describe the same current scenario. Neither offers and predictive power, so neither are theories. Further, yours relies on more assumptions about the nature of creators and universes that I don't think you have.
Yours assumes logic didn't apply right away. That's a big break in logic for me. My theory allows logic to exist as part of the universe itself. Yours
your argument of it spontaneously appearing from nothing with no cause also arguably lacks any testable predictions...
here's my logic for a creator (i prefer higher power because i don't like to personify it): first, there was nothing. then there was something. now, i do believe in cause & effect and i know you do as well (and its the only practical system to try and determine an origin... otherwise, yes, you can just make up anything). now, you must assume that this effect had a cause. the only plausible solution i can come up with is the existence of an unknown intangible element that has the physical properties of nothingness, but metaphysical properties of something. look at it as two forms of physical nothing, just one has an extra property that metaphysically makes it something... but its still nothing (its paradoxical, i know, but so is believing the universe was created spontaneously from absolute nothing with no cause). i'm not going to apply any other properties to this element other than that it exists outside of our existence. i can only postulate its existence. this is my version of the creator. you see why i hate calling it a 'creator' because it personifies it and thats not part of my belief system. however, since i can't even prove it exists, i'm not going to bother with trying to decipher its origins. since it exists alongside our existence (though not in it), its completely possible that it doesn't need to have a cause. i'm just saying that if you don't believe in anything outside of our existence, you really can't break your own rules because that means your rules are flawed and brings everything into question (in that, yea, all your rules work *most* of the time, but they didn't work all the time). now if people want to come to their own conclusions on this higher entity and give them more attributes, that's there own prerogative. maybe it is possible that it is an intelligent entity, maybe it is possible that it has communicated with people in our history. i don't personally believe it, but i won't say its certainly false. i've given you my reason for thinking something caused creation. now you give me your reasoning for how something can come from nothing without any cause. you have a dormant nothing and then magically it decides to become something... an event had to occur to cause it or else it should have been dormant forever... UNLESS you believe in a different set of rules applying to this pre-existence, in which case, you're allowed to postulate anything and its just as valid as anything else)
by the way, just for fun, i just NEED to do this: Why would the term "fact" even exist if there was nothing to which it applied? why would the term "God" exist? I'm not saying God exists (I don't believe he does) but I'm trying to just show how that's definitely faulty reasoning. How about the (original) term "ether"? It was believed that there was this substance that covered all living things (or everything... i can't remember) and i don't really remember what it was for, but it was supposed to be an intangible material substance that made up the heavenly bodies (it was the fifth element). Now, most people these days would find it silly to believe in such a thing (i don't, though that doesn't mean its not there), but according to your logic, since we have a word for it, it must exist.
Prove to me how the universe started spontaneously. It's an outrageous claim. Something from nothing? Sounds outrageous to me. Breaks the law of conservation of energy. I want the hard evidence. It's upon your shoulders to prove it, is it not?
I'm not trying to say you're wrong or I'm right. I'm just trying to say it really can't be said with certainty that the origins, intent, and core principles of religion have no grounding in truth. It's just as ignorant to say that science has no grounding in truth either. I'm not trying to refute science. I firmly believe that science and religious beliefs can coincide in harmony(obviously not all... the religious beliefs that hold science is the devil's handiwork obviously wouldn't fit the bill, same with the science fanatics that refuse religion). I just think that there is so much that we don't know, that it's a little early to say that we know what's going on. So believe what you will, but just don't be like a religious zealot who refuses to believe in something no matter how much evidence you put in front of them. You have just as much evidence (re: none) about the beginning of the universe as any person in known existence does. So i fail to see how your theory should somehow be the winner.
i'll concede to saying that you *think* things fall down when you drop them as being fact. i will not concede to things fall down when you drop them as being absolute fact. *i* think things fall down when dropped and thats a fact as well. moses parting the sea has not actually been disproved (though many alternative theories have been proposed, such as it was a completely different sea, i forget the name, that during certain times, there's a land bridge straight through it. the idea being it was exaggerated how far behind the romans really were when following them and it was exaggerated how much it really parted). there's no proof jesus didn't rise from the dead, and there's DEFINITELY no proof that God did not create the universe. I personally don't ascribe to any of these beliefs. However, I won't say that the bible is 100% false because there's quite a possibility that they are all exaggerations of various stories back then (and who knows, maybe some of them were miracles, but i honestly doubt it). however, it can't be conclusively disproved. and to say they can be easily disproved is almost comical. did you go back in time and watch it not occur? plus, you can't disprove a claim based on saying its faulty reasoning. you can give doubt by destroying its reasoning, but it does not disprove the claim. if i say 2+2=4 because coca-cola tastes better than pepsi. the reasoning is by far very faulty, but i doubt people will say my claim is false. plus, you have yet to show any faulty reasoning behind believing anything. i personally don't believe in God, but i don't find faulty reasoning behind those that say he exists. Just because you don't agree with the reasoning does not actually make it invalid. Plus, lack of evidence DOES NOT imply a claim is incorrect. So, i'm not wrong about anything I claim without possible proof, regardless of how many times you say it. There are a lot of ideas in science that lack proof, but the idea just fits by certain standards (and there will be scientists who disagree... however, that doesn't mean one is definitely wrong or right). and that is not the nature of religion. thats a negative connotation you've attributed to it. there are plenty of people who believe in religion who believe in evolution (there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution too). There are plenty of people who will accept whatever science you give them and most of the time it can be completely intertwined with religion. as many people have said in the past, religion and science may just be two sides of the same coin. they don't have to be mutually exclusive. many scientists (GREAT scientists) were religious. many of the theories you hold as fact were described by scientists who believed strongly in God.
Occam's Razor is NOT a law. It's a belief. You can't PROVE Occam's Razor. Just because it stops us from believing there is a chocolate teapot orbiting Jupiter does not make it a law. It just keeps things in the realm of practicality which is a convenience more than anything.
history isn't necessarily fact. You can't actually prove that everything isn't happening instantaneously or that memories are made up, etc, etc, etc.
Your comment about Einstein's Law replacing Newton's, I'll just respond again with anecdotal evidence. You can't rule out the possibility something out there will just cause it to fall apart when applied to it. I don't claim to know the existence of everything in the universe. There could be something that affects physics in such a way that most of our laws collapse. So, while they may hold together here and now to the point that its practical to assume its a fact, there's still a chance that its assuming a bunch of things are constants which very well may not be.
if you have a made a test of what qualifies as art and what doesn't, i'm pretty sure it'd be pointless to continue this conversation.
This universe is a subset of whatever else is out there (if anything). A subset can fall under the same governing rules as the entire set. However, the rules that govern the superset may not apply to all its subsets.
Pure science is the knowledge of these powers,
causes, or laws, considered apart, or as pure from all
applications.
sooo... "science" DOES refer to the collection of knowledge. and what was the ONLY thing i was trying to say? that the knowledge ISN'T fact. I didn't say that this PROVES religion or believing in a higher power. i also didn't say that this higher entity has to be a LEADER. I just said that neither science NOR religion offer any factual description of the universe. yes, how each is arrived at is vastly different (for the most part). I never asked for proof. I think you think i'm saying things I'm not. I don't actually see what it is you're going off on. You spend a LOT of text saying, for the most part, the same thing I said about science. All I tried to say is its not fact. Ask any scientist if he believes there's a chance that he's wrong about something, chances are, he'll say, yes there's a chance. It's close-minded to think otherwise. And just to point out, you defied your own semantical argument (where i said science is the collection of knowledge and you said it was like reading... but then you defined it as knowledge... sooo, i dunno). I never claimed to say that what I believe is any more than fact either. I reasoned out as much as I could through logic (a higher entity offers a lot more benefits than just explaining the creation of the universe, socially and scientifically). I never even went so far as to say the two cannot coexist. I believe in other posts that I said, for the most part, I find science sufficient enough to apply to everyday life. The original reason I brought this up is that someone said science is fact (which I responded with its not) and they said religion was disproven (which I said it was not). I'm not even able to find your point anymore. Also, I NEVER EVER said I followed the Bible in any way shape or form. Can you PLEASE stop making me out to be some sort of fundamentalist? All I said is I believe in a higher power (thats IT... seriously. I have no clue of the characteristics or attributes of said being). You're going off on some tangent as if I want to go on another Crusade. Goddamn. What are you smoking? I never said I had any truth. I said that, as it stands, science isn't dogma (obviously without the religious aspect). I also said that religion (at least the bigger principles of such) have not been disproven. Sure a lot of the small ish is off-point, because it was written by people with agendas a long time ago. However, that CANNOT be used to refute the entirety of it. I'm a HUGE supporter of science. I despise those that think creationism is a scientific alternative to evolution. I BELIEVE in evolution. I'm just one of those people who refuse to be close minded enough to think that there is no possibility of something above us. i'll never assume that we can ever know anything as fact. you're talking to a computer engineer with a minor in philosophy. i can't even prove you're nothing more than words on a screen. i can't prove that the person sitting across from me actually thinks. i can't even prove that i'm not the only person who CAN think. i'm fine with going all out on science. i'm disappointed when it gets cutbacks. i think we're falling behind others. i never, once, said that science is for naught. Not once did I EVER MENTION THE WORD GOD (until now of course). I can tell you're an intelligent individual, but I can also tell that you have a huge blind spot when someone says they believe in some higher power. Again, just like you've done with science, you apply all of these assumptions. However, in this case, THEY ARE ALL WRONG. I don't know anything about this higher entity. I just think that some force had to cause the creation of th
and no, it has not been proven to be accepted as fact. if it were fact, it wouldn't be disputable in any school of thought... which unfortunately is not the case. show me an experiment where it has been proven. some scientists have even hypothesized that we may have it backwards a effects may cause the cause. hell, people aren't even completely agreed on time in this aspect. so, no. cause and effect are NOT fact. they are as solid as evolution. so, while i tend to think that cause and effect most likely are true or at least close to being some form of truth and therefore will base my assumptions on the world on it, i will not say its absolute fact. we might very well be wrong. False. Although new theories arise, the predictions made by the previous ones remain accurate across a huge domain - it's only in the newest areas that the theories disagree. You could live well based on the state of science at any point over the last century. Being close does not mean its true. Newton's Laws are "good enough," but they actually fall apart at a certain point. So, while they may be good enough to apply today, there's no reason to think that in the future they'll still apply. Well, no, because it doesn't have all the usual attributes of a religion. i'm surprised you've come up with a concrete list of what defines a religion. are you going to give a list of what qualifies as art next? If you're disputing the truth of my statement I'll find a source; do you actually not believe me, or are you just complaining to make yourself look better? I didn't say what you said was wrong. I was referring to the logical fallacy of using anecdotal evidence as proof. Just because it happened on occasion does not mean it will always happen. Here's a mathematical analogy: extrapolating a line from a single point. It really can't be done. The universe coming spontaneously into existence is a more satisfactory explanation - a higher being only makes things worse, because you now have to explain the existence of the higher being, and the higher being gives no explanatory power or ability to make predictions. i don't have to explain the existence of the higher being. that existence is outside the realm of my own. i do not, nor will i ever claim to be capable of understanding something that exists completely outside of our reality. i don't have to bother with explaining their existence, only mine for now. one step at a time. we cannot apply our logic outside of its own bounds. logic exists as a system within this universe. trying to apply it outside of it doesn't make sense. So i'm done with just saying something else created existence. i'll leave it to the entit(y/ies) that created existence to ponder their own existence.
your correction amounts to semantics. some people refer to science as that body of knowledge that has been compiled over the (many) years. i feel like more people would use it as a noun as such as opposed to a verb (there's a reason you can't conjugate it... cause its not a verb). my whole point was that science doesn't LEAD to fact if you want to get technical about it. and anyway, the rest of your post kind of agreed with it. so i'd say half your post was being pedantic and the other half was providing an extra argument in favor of my position (which is that science can only guess *really* well at things, but it can never lead to certainties).
and if you really want to get technical, you really can't say its a proven fact because its practice is based upon cause and effect (hence the whole thing of needing to be able to REPEAT an experiment). saying something that relies solely on an assumption is fact? that doesn't seem very prudent. but that's getting VERY technical and under normal circumstances i won't go that far, but you seem like you enjoy trying to be technical.
you're fine in believing what you want. i just don't think you should be so close minded as to say someone else is incorrect because obviously your set of beliefs is definitely the correct one and to say it with such certainty. though, don't get me wrong, i don't think any of this alternative way of thinking should *EVER* be taught in science, because it is definitely without a doubt not science.
religion has never been proven an incorrect fact. nor has it been proven a correct fact. to spout that god has been proven to not exist as a fact is just as silly to claim white supremacy.
people who try to force their religious beliefs on others are troublesome. i don't disagree. however, there are plenty of them who are fine with keeping it to themselves. you can be follow a religion and still believe all the science that we have.
and on a further note, science has yet to ever be proven as fact. there's one assumption that is always made and can never be proven (just as one could say a higher power could never be proven, therefore you can only assume there is or there isn't); you assume that a cause will always have the same effect. the only reason people accept this as true is because no one has disproved it. repeated tests are only circumstantial tests at best. don't get me wrong, i fully believe that science is true, but i'm just saying, there's still the same amount of assumption as there is with a higher power and even moreover, you can believe both science and in a higher power. they are not mutually exclusive.
also your adam sandler analogy has got to be one of the worst analogies i've ever seen. even removing that terrible analogy, the idea behind it is far from being any well-constructed thought. as someone who believes in a higher power (though not a follower of any religion), i can tell you thats NOT the reason i think my opinion is valid. i believe my opinion is valid because no matter how much science you bring behind you, you will never be able to explain its creation (of existence, not of the earth... i believe creationists are retarded).
so, in summation, there are a lot of religious folk who are stupid. however, not ever religious person is stupid.
and using your definition of bigotry, i'm gonna have to say yes, you do seem like a bigot. before this last post of yours, you didn't. i found the joke hysterical as well. in fact, i bet even some religious people can find it humorous. though, with this last post, you have definitely shown a lack of credulity as someone who can form a well-structured opinion.
sounds like its not that national law trumps eu laws in respect to its subjects, but that they're allowed to apply *stricter* rules to its subjects. so, if the eu forbade something, national law can't trump it and allow it. at least thats what it looks like to me. i could be completely wrong though. i'm basing it solely on that excerpt you copied.
says people believed he could predict the future... i guess he didn't see this one coming.
plus i have a wireless router in the same room about 2 feet from the consoles and its wireless n & b/g. n craps out on me every so often (even before the 360), but thats pretty much a given with it. i haven't noticed it get any worse with the 360 either.
A small college is experience problems with their new wireless network equipment in the presence of a few xbox's. however, apparently all over the rest of the country, in huge universities with thousands of xbox 360s... there's no problem whatsoever. the only bit that doesn't fit with this is that they said the IT staff had issues using their bluetooth headsets. now, the only comment i can make on this is that i think they have cheap bluetooth headsets. they said the 360 makes the signal even when its not turned on... just plugged in. i have both a ps3 & 360 virtually one on top of the other (a shelf plus a few inches of space in between) and the ps3's bluetooth controllers work just as fine as they did before i got the 360. so, all in all, i think this is a load of bull. the 360 has been out for way too long for this to not have been noticed. i think something else is screwing with their headsets & wireless network. or maybe its just the wireless network thats screwing with the headsets and they're looking for a scapegoat.
yes, its true, some people will go to the 'dark side' in various games because they like that aspect. though, sometimes, its a completely utilitarian view. sometimes the abilities afforded the player vary depending on how 'good' or 'bad' they are. sometimes a player might like playing a certain way and the abilities afforded to the bad side just play to his/her strengths better. some people look at it as a moral choice, others look at it as a challenge, some look at it as total game completion (yea, i finished the game saving the little sisters, now i gotta play it and not save them), or in the same idea, just changing the game so its less boring (i saved 'em all last time, i want the game to be different, so i'll kill them every now and then when it suits me).
Honestly, if they do it, instead of giving negative names to bad choices and positive names to good choices, it should just be names biased to that side. like on the good side, you'd have titles like protector, savior, etc. and on the bad side you'd have names that people wouldn't mind having or that are 'cool' like dark lord or some ish.
The reason we can choose in games is so we can get a more interesting experience, not so we can be embarrassed by it.
no one is saying that digital should be x% because its digital. they're saying digital should be x% because the perceived value is x%. you seem confused and think that consumers pay what they think a product cost to make. they don't. they will *NEVER* pay more than its worth to them. period. a consumer will only buy a product if the perceived value is greater than or equal to the cost. the only exception are monopolies and necessities. if the perceived value of a digital good is 10% of the normal, then you better believe people will expect to pay 10%. i don't care what the costs are that go into making it. if they can't sell it at consumer's perceived value, it will fail. that was my point with the ps3. the ps3's price drop is NOT so it can be a loss leader. it was to boost sales. people weren't willing to spend the initial amount they offered it for. until they can offer it at the price consumers will pay, it just won't sell.
I understand that the manufacturers of a product only have so much leeway in determining the price. However, if that leeway isn't enough to lower the costs to what a consumer is willing to pay, that product will fail. This is my point. Until electronic copies are priced at what people perceive their value as (which is much, much less than the hardcopy), it will never take off the way digital music did. Even movie downloads aren't taking off because they can't bring the costs down to what people are willing to pay.
On another note, textbooks aren't the books that we're talking about. its fiction, since thats a majority of whats being sold for the kindle. You got an author, proofreader, and editor. Anything else is extra and people are hesitant to consider footing the bill. While other things may be necessary to the business model itself(marketing, etc.), its not necessary to the consumer.
that guy writes whether it be paper or digital. i'm talking about the production of a physical book. if you think all that money goes to the author, you're sorely mistaken.
if you price something at x dollars, but consumers don't find that much value (no matter how much it cost to make it, whether it be x or more), consumers won't buy it unless its a necessity and they can't get it elsewhere cheaper. imagine if the ps3 went on sale for how much it cost sony to produce each one... i'm sure they'd be in a much better position, right? /sarcasm
your faulty logic is that consumers will pay whatever the content owners want. if a consumer does not see the same value, they won't purchase it. there's no room for negotiation. the consumer either will or won't purchase it based solely off of whether they value the product to be as much or more than what they are paying. no ifs, ands, or buts. the only exception are monopolies on things that people can't resist.
drm-free content that can be resold. doesn't take a genius to see that a system like that will be horribly abused.