Looks like a lot of "innovation" for the court, which will probably turn out to be vapor, but at least they're excersizing their "freedom to innovate", by tying everything together so tightly that it'd be nearly impossible to split the company.
I thought of this too, but no, they'll simply split it so the MS-Apps company (Microsoft, Inc. with president and CEO Bill Gates) gets all the.NET stuff, along with everything else (Office, Internet Explorer, MSN, Hotmail, DirectX, the X-Box, Halo, etc. etc.).
Saying that God is outside anything we believe in and anything we could ever comprehend is just a very convenient way of not offering any proof of his existence. Once again I find this explanation much more unlikely than one that says he does not exist.
Although believing everything the Bible says about the original sin, ten commandments, resurrection, etc. is somewhat complicated, believing that we were created by a Creator is pretty simple. Also, if this universe was created, it doesn't really make sense that the Creator would reside within this universe, does it? Makes sense to me that He'd be outside of it, looking in....
--
Re:If you're in the shower, Occam's a fraud
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for bringing some sanity into this discussion!
Occams Razor. If God exists, why does he not prove he exists? The simplest explanation is that there is no God in the first place.
That's exactly what I was talking about when I said I was pointing out bias. The alternate view: The simplest explanation is that God created the universe and everything in it. Why bother going to the trouble of coming up with alternate ways to explain our existence, when Occam's Razor says simple is best?
"Free will" says that when I wake up tomorrow morning, I can go downstairs and decide to make a cup of coffee if I want.. even if God wrote that I was going to have a glass of orange juice.
You're asuming that God exists in the same linear timeline that we do, and that He knew in the past what you will be doing in the future. God created our linear timeline, and therefore exists outside of it. For reference, check out the Deep Space Nine episodes where Sisko meets the aliens inside the wormhole.;-)
Which brings us back to the dealbreaker. Why believe in such a God? He refuses to do anything for or against you or anyone else anyway.
Once again, why believe in an alternative? Why do you assume that believing we all evolved from pond scum over billions of years is basic, while believing that the universe and all life in it was created is a stretch? Try the reverse approach: we were probably created, but if you really want to you can find an alternate explanation that doesn't involve a Creator.
(Note that in this particular rant I'm not arguing about the existance of God; merely pointing out bias.)
The NIV has a footnote on Leviticus 11:19: "The precise identification of some of the birds, insects and animals in this chapter is uncertain."
The passage in Deuteronomy is worded a bit differently: "You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat:....and the bat." The implication is that bats are birds like all the others, but technically it's only saying that you can't eat them.
No idea about the rabbits.
As for four legs: "There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat..." The phrase "on all fours" (or "that goeth upon all four" in the KJV), I suspect, just means crawling as opposed to upright, and wasn't intended to be a leg count - at least that's what it sounds like to me. I can't imagine that there would have been any confusion about something this obvious.
A footnote in the New American Standard version says that by "melts" they meant "secretes slime".
No idea about the eating dirt thing.
As for the world being flat, just how spread out was the civilized world at that time? Weak argument, I know, but you could probably see a large portion of it if you were high enough.
Many Christians love to talk about the Bible, but few can be bothered to actually read it.
I don't claim to be great at this, but many atheists bash on the Bible without reading it either. Thanks for calling this to my attention.:-)
Talk about unfair business practices to promote an OS.
If Corel were anywhere near to having something that resembled a monopoly on anything, this might bother me. As it is, I say yay for them. If I don't want to use it, I don't have to, and if they can make money on it, they should.
--
Re:so.. what's in it for me?
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
I fail to see why this was moderated as Flamebait.
This could certainly be the case, but it can never be proven or disproven, so what is the point of believing in this? This is why I do not believe in God. Until he can be proven or disproven, why believe?
What's the point in believing in an alternative, then? Note the difference between atheism and agnosticism.
FreeXDSL? Er, no. According to their draconian service agreement, you agree to switch to their cable or phone service if the price is right, and to pay $500 if you terminate in less than 5 years. No thanks.
Ehhehe, neat. Not something I'd really looked into; thanks. I'm looking forward to getting service with a real ISP soon anyway.:-)
He mentions that a key point is that the technique of reverse engineering was completely cleared, opening the door to creating PS2, Dreamcast, and even X-Box emulators in the future (once PC hardware speeds are capable of it).
I would think that emulating an X-Box on a PC wouldn't be terribly different, since it uses an x86 processor...
...people who, by the sheer dint of their occupation (bible writer)...
That was usually not an occupation. Take, for example, the book of Luke, written by a medical doctor. The introduction:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4, NIV)
As an atheist I find it offensive that Christian churches don't pay tax and are permitted to blatantly persue discriminatory hiring practices that would get secular organizations sued...
Churches are non-profit organizations. Secular non-profits don't pay taxes either.
Not sure exactly what discriminatory hiring practices you're referring to; probably something that varies by denomination.
If current systems for dating is so inaccurate, how the hell do you arrive at the number 6,000 or 8,000 for that matter? What are those numbers based on?
Biblical accounts. The numbers are approximate, based largely on geneologies and such, and although there are scientific theories which are consistent with these dates, there really isn't any proof as far as I know. Feel free to disregard.
Just looking at the expansion of the universe gives is good idea about the age of it. Accellerating or not, it didn't just pop into existence the way it is now (though it did pop into existence, at least that is the best explanation I have heard. But as a result of a quantum flux, not an act of god).
Of course it didn't, but who's to say God didn't pop it into existence and cause it to gradually expand over time, leading up to its current state?
Your timeline, does it include dinosaurs living side by side with Aztecs and Egyptians? I mean, we have other methods of determining the age of these civilizations (such as written records) so did the dinosaurs evolve and die within the timespan of a few years or what?
This timeline assumes a global flood around 2,000 B.C. The dinosaurs survived on Noah's Ark, but were unable to survive in the dramatically differernt climate that followed. No, I can't prove it, but it's certainly not impossible.
Right. So (for just a few examples) bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud, insects have four legs, the Sun revolves around the Earth, and the universe is 6,000 years old. These are not inaccuracies.. they are out-and-out whoppers. Look, you can derive whatever meaning and teaching from the Bible that you desire, but don't go making claims of inerrancy or complete accuracy, because such claims are ridiculous and smack of zealotry.
Huh? Last I checked, bats were mammels (completely unrelated to birds; bats' wings are flaps of skin spread between really long fingers), rabbits are kinda like cats (I really have no idea on this one), insects have six legs, the Earth revolves around the Sun every 365 or so days, and yes, the universe is 6,000 years old, give or take (not much less, but no more than 8,000). What the hell have you been smoking?
Most of the methods used to determine that the Earth is billions of years old have been shown to be inaccurate and unreliable, and it has been demonstrated that if you assume the occurrance of catastrophic events such as a global flood, 6,000 years is plenty of time for fossils, coal, the Grand Canyon, the Himalayas etc. to form.
Oh, good point! So we can calculate not only that God exists, but also where he lives...!:)
Hint: If you've watched Star Trek V, that wasn't God.:-)
Actually it makes little sense to me that God occupies a particular location in this universe, but rather He exists outside of this dimension and is therefore able to look at all of our time and space all at once.
Imagine drawing a little stick figure guy on a sheet of paper. He can only see if front of him. You can sit back and look at the whole sheet of paper.
Where it gets really interesting is when you crumple the sheet of paper into a ball, and the stick figure guy doesn't know it because he only exists within the plane of the paper, crumpled as that plane may be.
--
Re:Tell me all your thoughts on god...
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Secondly, I do believe that there is the possibility that our "God" is really some 12 year old 31337 H4>0R playing Sim Universe on their alien equivalent of a VIC-20.
I was thinking more along the lines of a college student working on a senior project....
Quite correct. Many of the miracles recorded in the Bible have been demonstrated to be natural processes, presumably set in motion by God - for example, the Star of David that appeared to the magi when Christ was born has been calculated by astronomers (adjusting for weird rotations of things over 2,000 years, etc.). Sure, He could have just snapped His fingers and made a star, but why do it that way, instead of arranging things for it to all work out according to His plan, since He is a timeless being? Noah's flood was similarly a "natural" occurrance, although some of the details are still being debated.
Not only do science and God not have to be mutually exclusive, they shouldn't be mutually exclusive.
Define God. To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from God. Isn't that what Carl Sagan's book Contact was about?
Technology does not give us intelligent design and planning. Technology is a tool. Computers can reproduce the works of Shakespeare or Beethoven; computers cannot create the works of Shakespeare or Beethoven.
Secondly, unlikey events do not mean divine intervention - we've been through this debate over and over, and one can't assume god just because things are unlikely. Everything is unlikely, anyway.
Unlikely events do not mean divine intervention, but neither do they preclude the idea. The existence of God cannot be proven empirically - not because it would be inconvenient to do so, but because the question is outside the scope of empirical science. Neither can the existence of God be disproven.
We can observe that unlikely events have occurred. We can formulate theories to explain the occurance of these events. One such theory is that the universe is the result of an explosion and we all evolved from pond scum. Another such theory is that the Bible is a factual account of God's Creation. Neither theory can be proven, and neither has been disproven yet (note that while God can't be disproven, the accuracy of the Bible can, but hasn't, which is why many historians, archaeologists and anthropologists rely on it in their work).
FreeDSL.com is only free if you buy a $250 (or so) DSL router, or if you already have one, or if you spam everyone and everything you can think of and get LOTS of referrals.
I've heard FreeXDSL.com is better.
Personally, I want good service, so I'll pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought of this too, but no, they'll simply split it so the MS-Apps company (Microsoft, Inc. with president and CEO Bill Gates) gets all the
--
Microsoft, obviously, will go backwards on this one, so doesn't that kind of negate the other two points somewhat?
--
Although believing everything the Bible says about the original sin, ten commandments, resurrection, etc. is somewhat complicated, believing that we were created by a Creator is pretty simple. Also, if this universe was created, it doesn't really make sense that the Creator would reside within this universe, does it? Makes sense to me that He'd be outside of it, looking in....
--
--
That's exactly what I was talking about when I said I was pointing out bias. The alternate view: The simplest explanation is that God created the universe and everything in it. Why bother going to the trouble of coming up with alternate ways to explain our existence, when Occam's Razor says simple is best?
--
You're asuming that God exists in the same linear timeline that we do, and that He knew in the past what you will be doing in the future. God created our linear timeline, and therefore exists outside of it. For reference, check out the Deep Space Nine episodes where Sisko meets the aliens inside the wormhole.
--
Once again, why believe in an alternative? Why do you assume that believing we all evolved from pond scum over billions of years is basic, while believing that the universe and all life in it was created is a stretch? Try the reverse approach: we were probably created, but if you really want to you can find an alternate explanation that doesn't involve a Creator.
(Note that in this particular rant I'm not arguing about the existance of God; merely pointing out bias.)
--
The NIV has a footnote on Leviticus 11:19: "The precise identification of some of the birds, insects and animals in this chapter is uncertain."
The passage in Deuteronomy is worded a bit differently: "You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat:
No idea about the rabbits.
As for four legs: "There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat..." The phrase "on all fours" (or "that goeth upon all four" in the KJV), I suspect, just means crawling as opposed to upright, and wasn't intended to be a leg count - at least that's what it sounds like to me. I can't imagine that there would have been any confusion about something this obvious.
A footnote in the New American Standard version says that by "melts" they meant "secretes slime".
No idea about the eating dirt thing.
As for the world being flat, just how spread out was the civilized world at that time? Weak argument, I know, but you could probably see a large portion of it if you were high enough.
Many Christians love to talk about the Bible, but few can be bothered to actually read it.
I don't claim to be great at this, but many atheists bash on the Bible without reading it either. Thanks for calling this to my attention.
--
Perhaps He can, but simply chooses not to? Perhaps it's more interesting this way?
--
If Corel were anywhere near to having something that resembled a monopoly on anything, this might bother me. As it is, I say yay for them. If I don't want to use it, I don't have to, and if they can make money on it, they should.
--
Have you meta-moderated today?
--
What's the point in believing in an alternative, then? Note the difference between atheism and agnosticism.
--
Ehhehe, neat. Not something I'd really looked into; thanks. I'm looking forward to getting service with a real ISP soon anyway.
--
I would think that emulating an X-Box on a PC wouldn't be terribly different, since it uses an x86 processor...
--
That was usually not an occupation. Take, for example, the book of Luke, written by a medical doctor. The introduction:
--
Correct. I never said otherwise.
--
Churches are non-profit organizations. Secular non-profits don't pay taxes either.
Not sure exactly what discriminatory hiring practices you're referring to; probably something that varies by denomination.
--
Biblical accounts. The numbers are approximate, based largely on geneologies and such, and although there are scientific theories which are consistent with these dates, there really isn't any proof as far as I know. Feel free to disregard.
Just looking at the expansion of the universe gives is good idea about the age of it. Accellerating or not, it didn't just pop into existence the way it is now (though it did pop into existence, at least that is the best explanation I have heard. But as a result of a quantum flux, not an act of god).
Of course it didn't, but who's to say God didn't pop it into existence and cause it to gradually expand over time, leading up to its current state?
Your timeline, does it include dinosaurs living side by side with Aztecs and Egyptians? I mean, we have other methods of determining the age of these civilizations (such as written records) so did the dinosaurs evolve and die within the timespan of a few years or what?
This timeline assumes a global flood around 2,000 B.C. The dinosaurs survived on Noah's Ark, but were unable to survive in the dramatically differernt climate that followed. No, I can't prove it, but it's certainly not impossible.
--
Excuse me? Would you mind pointing out to me where the Bible says any of that?
--
Huh? Last I checked, bats were mammels (completely unrelated to birds; bats' wings are flaps of skin spread between really long fingers), rabbits are kinda like cats (I really have no idea on this one), insects have six legs, the Earth revolves around the Sun every 365 or so days, and yes, the universe is 6,000 years old, give or take (not much less, but no more than 8,000). What the hell have you been smoking?
Most of the methods used to determine that the Earth is billions of years old have been shown to be inaccurate and unreliable, and it has been demonstrated that if you assume the occurrance of catastrophic events such as a global flood, 6,000 years is plenty of time for fossils, coal, the Grand Canyon, the Himalayas etc. to form.
--
Hint: If you've watched Star Trek V, that wasn't God.
Actually it makes little sense to me that God occupies a particular location in this universe, but rather He exists outside of this dimension and is therefore able to look at all of our time and space all at once.
Imagine drawing a little stick figure guy on a sheet of paper. He can only see if front of him. You can sit back and look at the whole sheet of paper.
Where it gets really interesting is when you crumple the sheet of paper into a ball, and the stick figure guy doesn't know it because he only exists within the plane of the paper, crumpled as that plane may be.
--
I was thinking more along the lines of a college student working on a senior project....
--
Not only do science and God not have to be mutually exclusive, they shouldn't be mutually exclusive.
--
Technology does not give us intelligent design and planning. Technology is a tool. Computers can reproduce the works of Shakespeare or Beethoven; computers cannot create the works of Shakespeare or Beethoven.
Secondly, unlikey events do not mean divine intervention - we've been through this debate over and over, and one can't assume god just because things are unlikely. Everything is unlikely, anyway.
Unlikely events do not mean divine intervention, but neither do they preclude the idea. The existence of God cannot be proven empirically - not because it would be inconvenient to do so, but because the question is outside the scope of empirical science. Neither can the existence of God be disproven.
We can observe that unlikely events have occurred. We can formulate theories to explain the occurance of these events. One such theory is that the universe is the result of an explosion and we all evolved from pond scum. Another such theory is that the Bible is a factual account of God's Creation. Neither theory can be proven, and neither has been disproven yet (note that while God can't be disproven, the accuracy of the Bible can, but hasn't, which is why many historians, archaeologists and anthropologists rely on it in their work).
--
I've heard FreeXDSL.com is better.
Personally, I want good service, so I'll pay for it.
--