You beat me to it. Though, to play Devil's Advocate, in the TV show they were referred to as amphibians more than once. Perhaps in a universe in which toxic waste can turn animals into sentient English-speaking (sort of) bipedal martial artists, turtles have a different evolutionary heritage.
Sensible to you maybe. The American way reads the way the date is normally spoken. We usually say "March 14th 2012", not "the 14th of March 2012. Sometimes other people do things differently. We also drive on the wrong side of the road! Get over it.
Nostradamus made lots of predictions too. With retrospect, it's easy to pick and choose which predictions you want to reference. You've left out all the predictions that were wrong. What do those say? I am blown away by your complete lack of understanding of everything you've attemted to use. Go learn science. I'm done with this stupidity.
How could a control group of "people who we know nobody is praying for" be established? However many people are in each group, they are statistical noise compared to the prayers including one or both groups, e.g. prayers for "all the sick people of the world". You do know how a control group works, right?
Do you? Ask some people to pray for their own health, and some not to pray. Ask some to pray for specific people, etc. Ask many people to pray for one person. NO observable effect, ever. Or is your position that prayer is non-testable as well? How convenient that it's impossible to verify your beliefs.
here's a peer-reviewed study on NDE's,
This is just baffingly ignorant. NDEs have been scientifically explained by neurological phenomena. I actually thought this was common knowledge. And you accuse me of being ignorant.
Knowing that whether it corresponds to -your preferred- methodology matters not in the slightest way, have you tested it?
Have I asked god for evidence? Yes, and have been disappointed. I was raised a Christian and reluctantly becamse an Athiest as an adult when I was convinced of the evidence.
No asnwer about using the Appeal to Mass Opinion fallacy twice? Do you actually tthink that's valid?
It has plausibility, as a statement of fact, given the evidence present and reviewable at will. Your ignorance of facts doesn't alter them.
I'm hardly ignorant of the facts. Studies have repeatedly found no evidence of prayer having any effects, presence of ghosts, or anything supernatural at all.
Your guess as to the maximum lifespan of man for the next 3000 years, starting with an overwhelming information advantage for you relative to a "goat-herder"? Within two years, please, interpreting absolutely every aspect of the question in favor of making it as easy as possible for your side of this challenge.
WTF are you talking about? Not only did you not pose this question to me, but I have no idea what you are getting at or the relevance to anything at hand. I have absolutely no idea what you are asking or how to respond.
Sorry, words have specific meanings. You have claimed it is "ridiculous". Back that up, with actual content, since the only other metric (preponderance of opinion) is squarely against your claim.
I've done so, but you have refused to acknowedge it. The scientific idea of a non-testable god as an explanation for the universe is ridiculous. You may not think so, but don't accuse me of not answering your question. And preponderance of opinion again, huh? Are you aware this is a logical fallacy? When Christians were the minorty in Rome, was it not as true then? The fact that you present this ridiculous argument not once, but twice after being reminded it's a logical fallacy, just emphasizes my point about lack of critical thinking being taught in school.
-Any plausibility- given to NDE's, accuracy of all prophecies being greater than.5 probability (not even a challenge), reports of personal experiences (of which there are thousands), takes care of this immediately.
I give NO plausibility to personal exerpiences, that are as non-testable, non-repeatable, and non-falsifiable as the scientific idea of god itself. You are using circular logic. God exists because people believe it. Try again.
Again, though, you must have -some- model of explanation of the Big Bang,
Yes, the scientific one supported by the Catholic Church. The Big Bang singularity represents the beginning of our universe since the laws of physics break down at that point, and nothing that happened before it is relevant. It may have been another universe that went through a Big Crunch, an infinite series of universes going through that cycle, nothing at all, or something completely different. There is no evidence for and no need to call in any creator to explain anything.
Ah, okay, well since you aren't taking a stance on whether you agree with the previous poster or not,
I'll take a stance. Calling God a magician is simply using a metaphor. It's like saying someone is a dog. They are both a dog and not a dog at the same time. What's the big deal?
do you want to start by showing the slightest way in which it is "ridiculous", using your own words?
I find the whole thing ridiculous. That people like you try and defend the ancient superstitions of illiterate scientifically-ignorant goat-herders as superior to modern directly observable scientific evidence. I find it deeply insulting I am expected to give any credence to these primitive superstitions and find it appalling that our eduction system allows people to move through with such a lack of critical thinking skills.
Given the majority of people on Earth say directly otherwise, your characterization is absurd on its face.
Appeal to mass opinion, a common logical fallacy. Millions of people smoke, believe in pyramid power, and are unable to name the closest star to earth. Millions of people are stupid. Try and do a little better.
Hilbert space continuum, fuzzy logic, quantum theory, multi-universe theory, big bang theory, you name them, compared to the simplicity of the GOD, all of them looks ridiculous.
Yes, some are counter-intuitive and strange. So what? The Catholic Church has supported the Big Bang Theory. Quantum Theory is supported by all available evidence. Did God make the universe this strange? What does that say about your creator?
All the math and physic laws are EQUAL in both cases, so, i am asking you, who made the difference??? Who made one object moving, and another staying still???
This is so strange a question, I suspect you just really have no idea what you're talking about and I've give you too much credit. For starters, you're using a leading question. Do you still beat your wife?
Sorry you don't understand what Occam's Razor is, such that you don't understand what "passing" it would me
I used passing in the sense of handing off, not satisfactorily completing. As in, passing it from one question to another. Sorry, I thought that was clear.
Occam's Razor simply says, -all else being equal-, the simpler description is preferred, for the purposes of human conceptual economy--and says absolutely nothing, ever, on any subject, about what is -true-.
And all else is equal. We have one universe and two competing explanations for its origin. One is unnecessarily complicated, non-testable, and non-falsifiable. It applies.
As for "parsing it", it's quite simple--if -you yourself- thought "magician" is an equivalent term to "God" in this context
First of all, if use use fewer quotes, hyphens, commas, etc it might be easier to keep track of what you are saying. Second, I never used the word magician. Another poster did. I commented on why the scientific concept of god is ridiculous. So the rest of your weird rant about my psychological issues is just well, weird.
Given that God -- as understood by Aquinas -- is not material, he has no parts at all and no internal interactions, and so is trivially simple in that sense.
So god is trivially simple and was not created. But should be worshiped for some reason? And why aren't there quadrillions of these simple spontaeously generated gods floating around? Yeah, that was answered beautifully.
Can you provide even one specific one of those "all ways" in which it is "ridiculous"?
For starters, it explains nothing and simply passes the question of "where did stuff come from?" to "where did God come from?" If the answer is "God always existed" then why not use Occam's Razor, and just say the universe always existed (from big bang to big crunch and back)?
Even granting your blatantly intellectually-dishonest "consider my term 'magician' the same for the purpose of conceptual equivalence, and different for the purposes of rhetorical effect, simultaneously" recasting from standard descriptive term and -actual- conceptual content of "God".
In addition, if the existence of complex things means a creator, what does the existence of simple things imply? Would a universe full of simple things mean a creator wasn't necessary?
No. Hudna is a deliberately temporary truce for the sole purpose of rearming to continue the war. It goes back to the time of Muhammad. This is the first google result for Muhammad and hudna. Not sure what this site is, but this description seems pretty accurate, or at least consistent with the history I have read in a couple of books (disclaimer: I am an Intelligence Analyst, and track this kind of stuff for a living).
Iran has been at war with us since the revolution.
More like America has been at war with Iran since 1953, when the CIA overthrew their popular democratically elected leader for oil profits. Learn some history. The 1979 revolution was payback after years of being under an American puppet leader.
Eventually, they will ride the peace train long enough to arrive at Nuclearville.
In Islam, they have a word for this: Hudna. Basically, a call for peace, or temporary cease-fire, when you need to reload. The fact that the religion/culture of this area of the world is taught this concept, and has a word for it, should speak volumes. Bin Laden called for peace when he was being bombed in 2001. Hamas has called for peace when they were attacked by Israel. None of them seriously want peace; just time to reload.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because the United States government is one unified whole, and the NSA and the FCC sit in the same office and have the same goals.
You beat me to it. Though, to play Devil's Advocate, in the TV show they were referred to as amphibians more than once. Perhaps in a universe in which toxic waste can turn animals into sentient English-speaking (sort of) bipedal martial artists, turtles have a different evolutionary heritage.
Whenever someone is cutting up a pie, I ask for 22/7th. There's usually a pause and a groan.
Sensible to you maybe. The American way reads the way the date is normally spoken. We usually say "March 14th 2012", not "the 14th of March 2012. Sometimes other people do things differently. We also drive on the wrong side of the road! Get over it.
I works for my employer very well too.
(a room filled with books on two walls and a giant map on the third)
Yes, I was quite poor too and lived in an incomplete house!
Nostradamus made lots of predictions too. With retrospect, it's easy to pick and choose which predictions you want to reference. You've left out all the predictions that were wrong. What do those say? I am blown away by your complete lack of understanding of everything you've attemted to use. Go learn science. I'm done with this stupidity.
How could a control group of "people who we know nobody is praying for" be established? However many people are in each group, they are statistical noise compared to the prayers including one or both groups, e.g. prayers for "all the sick people of the world". You do know how a control group works, right?
Do you? Ask some people to pray for their own health, and some not to pray. Ask some to pray for specific people, etc. Ask many people to pray for one person. NO observable effect, ever. Or is your position that prayer is non-testable as well? How convenient that it's impossible to verify your beliefs.
here's a peer-reviewed study on NDE's,
This is just baffingly ignorant. NDEs have been scientifically explained by neurological phenomena. I actually thought this was common knowledge. And you accuse me of being ignorant.
Knowing that whether it corresponds to -your preferred- methodology matters not in the slightest way, have you tested it?
Have I asked god for evidence? Yes, and have been disappointed. I was raised a Christian and reluctantly becamse an Athiest as an adult when I was convinced of the evidence.
No asnwer about using the Appeal to Mass Opinion fallacy twice? Do you actually tthink that's valid?
It has plausibility, as a statement of fact, given the evidence present and reviewable at will. Your ignorance of facts doesn't alter them.
I'm hardly ignorant of the facts. Studies have repeatedly found no evidence of prayer having any effects, presence of ghosts, or anything supernatural at all.
Your guess as to the maximum lifespan of man for the next 3000 years, starting with an overwhelming information advantage for you relative to a "goat-herder"? Within two years, please, interpreting absolutely every aspect of the question in favor of making it as easy as possible for your side of this challenge.
WTF are you talking about? Not only did you not pose this question to me, but I have no idea what you are getting at or the relevance to anything at hand. I have absolutely no idea what you are asking or how to respond.
Sorry, words have specific meanings. You have claimed it is "ridiculous". Back that up, with actual content, since the only other metric (preponderance of opinion) is squarely against your claim.
I've done so, but you have refused to acknowedge it. The scientific idea of a non-testable god as an explanation for the universe is ridiculous. You may not think so, but don't accuse me of not answering your question. And preponderance of opinion again, huh? Are you aware this is a logical fallacy? When Christians were the minorty in Rome, was it not as true then? The fact that you present this ridiculous argument not once, but twice after being reminded it's a logical fallacy, just emphasizes my point about lack of critical thinking being taught in school.
-Any plausibility- given to NDE's, accuracy of all prophecies being greater than .5 probability (not even a challenge), reports of personal experiences (of which there are thousands), takes care of this immediately.
I give NO plausibility to personal exerpiences, that are as non-testable, non-repeatable, and non-falsifiable as the scientific idea of god itself. You are using circular logic. God exists because people believe it. Try again.
Again, though, you must have -some- model of explanation of the Big Bang,
Yes, the scientific one supported by the Catholic Church. The Big Bang singularity represents the beginning of our universe since the laws of physics break down at that point, and nothing that happened before it is relevant. It may have been another universe that went through a Big Crunch, an infinite series of universes going through that cycle, nothing at all, or something completely different. There is no evidence for and no need to call in any creator to explain anything.
Ah, okay, well since you aren't taking a stance on whether you agree with the previous poster or not,
I'll take a stance. Calling God a magician is simply using a metaphor. It's like saying someone is a dog. They are both a dog and not a dog at the same time. What's the big deal?
do you want to start by showing the slightest way in which it is "ridiculous", using your own words?
I find the whole thing ridiculous. That people like you try and defend the ancient superstitions of illiterate scientifically-ignorant goat-herders as superior to modern directly observable scientific evidence. I find it deeply insulting I am expected to give any credence to these primitive superstitions and find it appalling that our eduction system allows people to move through with such a lack of critical thinking skills.
Given the majority of people on Earth say directly otherwise, your characterization is absurd on its face.
Appeal to mass opinion, a common logical fallacy. Millions of people smoke, believe in pyramid power, and are unable to name the closest star to earth. Millions of people are stupid. Try and do a little better.
It's like they made a little car!
Hilbert space continuum, fuzzy logic, quantum theory, multi-universe theory, big bang theory, you name them, compared to the simplicity of the GOD, all of them looks ridiculous.
Yes, some are counter-intuitive and strange. So what? The Catholic Church has supported the Big Bang Theory. Quantum Theory is supported by all available evidence. Did God make the universe this strange? What does that say about your creator?
All the math and physic laws are EQUAL in both cases, so, i am asking you, who made the difference??? Who made one object moving, and another staying still???
This is so strange a question, I suspect you just really have no idea what you're talking about and I've give you too much credit. For starters, you're using a leading question. Do you still beat your wife?
Sorry you don't understand what Occam's Razor is, such that you don't understand what "passing" it would me
I used passing in the sense of handing off, not satisfactorily completing. As in, passing it from one question to another. Sorry, I thought that was clear.
Occam's Razor simply says, -all else being equal-, the simpler description is preferred, for the purposes of human conceptual economy--and says absolutely nothing, ever, on any subject, about what is -true-.
And all else is equal. We have one universe and two competing explanations for its origin. One is unnecessarily complicated, non-testable, and non-falsifiable. It applies.
As for "parsing it", it's quite simple--if -you yourself- thought "magician" is an equivalent term to "God" in this context
First of all, if use use fewer quotes, hyphens, commas, etc it might be easier to keep track of what you are saying. Second, I never used the word magician. Another poster did. I commented on why the scientific concept of god is ridiculous. So the rest of your weird rant about my psychological issues is just well, weird.
Given that God -- as understood by Aquinas -- is not material, he has no parts at all and no internal interactions, and so is trivially simple in that sense.
So god is trivially simple and was not created. But should be worshiped for some reason? And why aren't there quadrillions of these simple spontaeously generated gods floating around? Yeah, that was answered beautifully.
Can you provide even one specific one of those "all ways" in which it is "ridiculous"?
For starters, it explains nothing and simply passes the question of "where did stuff come from?" to "where did God come from?" If the answer is "God always existed" then why not use Occam's Razor, and just say the universe always existed (from big bang to big crunch and back)?
Even granting your blatantly intellectually-dishonest "consider my term 'magician' the same for the purpose of conceptual equivalence, and different for the purposes of rhetorical effect, simultaneously" recasting from standard descriptive term and -actual- conceptual content of "God".
Could you parse that so it makes sense?
(special capacitors, obviously)
Like, a flux capacitor?
the idea of GOD is not scientifically ridiculous
No, it's just irrelevant since it's non-testable, non-replicable, and non-falsifiable.
In addition, if the existence of complex things means a creator, what does the existence of simple things imply? Would a universe full of simple things mean a creator wasn't necessary?
No. Hudna is a deliberately temporary truce for the sole purpose of rearming to continue the war. It goes back to the time of Muhammad. This is the first google result for Muhammad and hudna. Not sure what this site is, but this description seems pretty accurate, or at least consistent with the history I have read in a couple of books (disclaimer: I am an Intelligence Analyst, and track this kind of stuff for a living).
http://www.wnd.com/2005/02/28857/
It's a temporary ceasefire. Learn to read. As in, they deliberately plan on it being temporary while they rearm and prepare for war.
Iran has been at war with us since the revolution.
More like America has been at war with Iran since 1953, when the CIA overthrew their popular democratically elected leader for oil profits. Learn some history. The 1979 revolution was payback after years of being under an American puppet leader.
Eventually, they will ride the peace train long enough to arrive at Nuclearville.
In Islam, they have a word for this: Hudna. Basically, a call for peace, or temporary cease-fire, when you need to reload. The fact that the religion/culture of this area of the world is taught this concept, and has a word for it, should speak volumes. Bin Laden called for peace when he was being bombed in 2001. Hamas has called for peace when they were attacked by Israel. None of them seriously want peace; just time to reload.
A symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as photograph of oxygen to a drowning man.
Yeah, it'll be just like the last World War that started when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility in 1981.
For everything there is a season. A time for war...