When you buy an item on amazon, do you go throught the +200 review or you just look at the summary?
I look at the star rating, and then I read 10 of the 4 star reviews, and then 10 of the 1 star reviews. I dont even read 5 star reviews. I feel that gives me the best idea of the truth of the product.
I just spent a lot of money building a gaming rig, and overclocking it to get another 20% boost. Every bit matters in games. So, -10% is still huge to me. Intel should offer some compensation. Maybe not a whole new chip, but maybe at least a voucher of say $100 on a new CPU.
So, if I am to boil down what you said, I think we agree that:
1) The universe had a beginning
2) Anything with a beginning must have a cause
3) Anything without a beginning does not necessarily need to have a cause
Where we disagree:
1) The first cause is not necessarily "god"
2) The first cause could come into being and cease being (and come into being again); Does not need to be eternal
First, the first cause must be god. While the cosmological argument may not be enough for you, look into the ontological and moral arguments for god. Though, it stands to reason the first cause would need to be greater than the thing being created. Think about it, if the universe was created, then it would follow that a highly intelligent and powerful creator is required.
Second, it does not follow that the First Cause could come into and out of existence. That is illogical because you come back to the something out of nothing problem. If this were the cause, you would need an even higher being to cause this being to exist/not exist.
Third, to address your discussion of the He pronoun. God himself takes on that pronoun, but being a spiritual being does not have a physical gender. I don't think this gets in the way of the argument at hand anyways.
Fourth, I would argue that the First Cause would need to be self-aware. Otherwise, you have random chance causing everything to exist. but any material for existence (including the quantum vacuum) would need to first exist for "random chance" to happen. Otherwise you get something from nothing; an illogical proposition. Now, I will grant you that the cosmological argument does not prove the God of the Bible, but rather the existence of a god of creation. That's not to say we cannot prove the God of the Bible, but not via this argument.
Finally, to address your last point about attributing the cosmological argument to a god because of influence of my faith. Well, you commit the genetic fallacy here. You neglect the argument at hand because of the source, instead of the merit of the argument.
You say "How did God come to be?" But an eternal being has no beginning, and therefore a cause is not needed. At some point, something needs to cause the universe to exist. It cannot happen by chance. To think otherwise is to have greater faith, because that is not scientific either. But the theory of God has many other arguments that we can get into. And again, the quantum vacuum is "something"! You're not getting something from nothing. Something had to create the quantum vacuum.
You're right about the little g in god, I'm just used to typing a capital.
Next, your event horizon argument to me is equivalent to the notion that god exists outside the universe, which he created, and we exist in the universe never getting outside. You still have the problem of how did that creation happen. I understand what you're saying about we could have this eternal event horizon situation, so I suppose I'll grant you that possibility.
If you claim things can happen without a cause, then that could be shown with a scientific experiment. The law of cause and effect would disagree. The Cosmological argument is airtight because we know the universe had a beginning, and therefore must have a cause. That cause must be not a physical cause, but something outside the universe itself.
Finally, for your objection about the first cause positing a god. I'm not really sure why this is an objection. If something has caused the universe to come into being, then it would logically follow that this being would have the attributes of [a] god. From here we could delve into other arguments for god, that would suggest an all-loving creator (Moral Argument). But if we are just talking creation, then we could leave it at a divine being in general.
Yes, so God would be the un-caused first cause since He is eternal. However, I agree with you, this would not assume the God of the Hebrew bible, but rather A God in general; a deity. The Cosmological argument does not go further than to prove philosophically that a deity had to have created the universe. We could show that the Hebrew God is the true God with other arguments, but it is not necessary here, as we are discussing the creation of the universe.
Now, to address your assertion that the big bang was an eternal event, well that does not make sense. Scientifically, we can show that the universe had a beginning, and that it is expanding, and with entropy. There are even mathematical proofs to show there had to be a beginning. The only other possible argument you might have, is that the universe is eternally expanding and contracting. Eternal big bangs, if you will. That is your only way out of the requirement of an eternal, un-caused, first cause. And that notion doesn't really impress me.
Let me address a couple things in your post. First, you imply that the universe could be created by chance, since we see chance in the already existing universe. The problem is you are saying that we could get something from nothing. But that cannot possibly happen. In order for the universe to come into existence by chance, then something would have to already exist outside the universe for that to be possible (cause and effect).
The other point you make is about this leading to a causal loop. For this, let me refer to the philosophical argument called the Cosmological Argument. This states that: Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
So God could create the universe, but God Himself does not need to have a cause, since God is eternal.
The problem with science is that it cannot get outside itself. For example, if the universe had a beginning, science cannot get outside that point. So if God created the universe (something had to), then science can never prove that. Hence faith. Science also presupposes other things in order for the scientific method to work. For example, logic.
Your comment makes no sense. Gopro are the ones that decided to break off from DJI and make their own drones. Gopro is the knockoff. And with their fiasco that is the Karma, your comment looks really stupid.
Lol, in high school all I had was qbasic. I got a book "Qbasic games and more" that provided a TSR that allowed you to use the mouse in Qbasic. On topic, I wrote a Paint-like program in qbasic where you could draw shapes (rectangle, ellipse, etc) and it also did 3d boxes! My program would save to image binary format, OR generate qbasic statements to redraw the graphics. I used it to do my final project in programming class where we had to use graphics statements to make a picture. Of course, my picture was a very detailed christmas scene, complete with an animated train around a christmas tree, and background music!
The problem is that what you're seeing has to match perfectly to your movements, or you will get sick. When we can get 4k or 8k resolution at like 120fps maybe we will be there.
They pretty much solved the motion sickness thing. For example, I was just playing robot recall, and you kinda pick a spot to move to, and then like teleport there. Not entirely elegant, but solves the issue. Plus, the rift is so smooth and has very good head tracking.
No it doesnt. Although I would do a geforce 1080. I just build a rig for a VR project at work, and its a core i5, 16gb ram, water cooled, with asus rog strix motherboard and 650 watt power supply, PLUS the geforce 1080. Total: $1300. And this machine is mosty likely overkill.
The sound is not louder. Rarely have I experienced a movie theater with reference level sound. In fact, My home theater with a 8 inch sub sounds louder.
Of course we all know their stores mostly sell used games. Recently I built a gaming PC and wanted GTA V for it. Searching online Gamestop.com had it cheapest at like $30 and said brand new on their website. Foolishly, I ordered it. It came a few days later, and the box for the game was so battered and ripped, and the game was clearly used. The discs were scratched. I was surprised it actually installed. I was pissed, but at least I was about to play the game. Until the game asked for the activation code. Looking in the box--- no code, actually not even any manuals or anything but the discs. Now I was pissed! So I initiated a return, and the customer service person said that I will be refunded, but MINUS THE SHIPPING!! Can you believe that? They sell me worthless discs, and I'm out money? The game + shipping was $38. Well, after they refused to refund shipping, I did a chargeback and the credit card handled the refund. Turns out, walmart had it in store for $39.99 fully brand new perfect, unopened, and most importantly had the activation code. F you gamestop.
Slashdot Mirror
When you buy an item on amazon, do you go throught the +200 review or you just look at the summary?
I look at the star rating, and then I read 10 of the 4 star reviews, and then 10 of the 1 star reviews. I dont even read 5 star reviews. I feel that gives me the best idea of the truth of the product.
Uh, or get a $2 usb-c to micro usb adapter. They didnt go proprietary, they went with the new standard.
I just spent a lot of money building a gaming rig, and overclocking it to get another 20% boost. Every bit matters in games. So, -10% is still huge to me. Intel should offer some compensation. Maybe not a whole new chip, but maybe at least a voucher of say $100 on a new CPU.
Thats actually a great idea
Can someone translate this to english?
I always thought that George Lucas should have asked for a couple billion more. Why did he sell so low?
I've ripped my entire collection via MakeMkv. What are you waiting for?
Yes, which is why you now use Vivaldi
I started reading in 1999
Same here, but didn't sign up until a number of years later. Who knew that a UID would become so prestigious?
So, if I am to boil down what you said, I think we agree that:
1) The universe had a beginning
2) Anything with a beginning must have a cause
3) Anything without a beginning does not necessarily need to have a cause
Where we disagree:
1) The first cause is not necessarily "god"
2) The first cause could come into being and cease being (and come into being again); Does not need to be eternal
First, the first cause must be god. While the cosmological argument may not be enough for you, look into the ontological and moral arguments for god. Though, it stands to reason the first cause would need to be greater than the thing being created. Think about it, if the universe was created, then it would follow that a highly intelligent and powerful creator is required.
Second, it does not follow that the First Cause could come into and out of existence. That is illogical because you come back to the something out of nothing problem. If this were the cause, you would need an even higher being to cause this being to exist/not exist.
Third, to address your discussion of the He pronoun. God himself takes on that pronoun, but being a spiritual being does not have a physical gender. I don't think this gets in the way of the argument at hand anyways.
Fourth, I would argue that the First Cause would need to be self-aware. Otherwise, you have random chance causing everything to exist. but any material for existence (including the quantum vacuum) would need to first exist for "random chance" to happen. Otherwise you get something from nothing; an illogical proposition. Now, I will grant you that the cosmological argument does not prove the God of the Bible, but rather the existence of a god of creation. That's not to say we cannot prove the God of the Bible, but not via this argument.
Finally, to address your last point about attributing the cosmological argument to a god because of influence of my faith. Well, you commit the genetic fallacy here. You neglect the argument at hand because of the source, instead of the merit of the argument.
You say "How did God come to be?" But an eternal being has no beginning, and therefore a cause is not needed. At some point, something needs to cause the universe to exist. It cannot happen by chance. To think otherwise is to have greater faith, because that is not scientific either. But the theory of God has many other arguments that we can get into. And again, the quantum vacuum is "something"! You're not getting something from nothing. Something had to create the quantum vacuum.
Lol, do you realize that the quantum vacuum is still "something"? You can never get something from nothing. Thinking otherwise is illogical.
You're right about the little g in god, I'm just used to typing a capital.
Next, your event horizon argument to me is equivalent to the notion that god exists outside the universe, which he created, and we exist in the universe never getting outside. You still have the problem of how did that creation happen. I understand what you're saying about we could have this eternal event horizon situation, so I suppose I'll grant you that possibility.
If you claim things can happen without a cause, then that could be shown with a scientific experiment. The law of cause and effect would disagree. The Cosmological argument is airtight because we know the universe had a beginning, and therefore must have a cause. That cause must be not a physical cause, but something outside the universe itself.
Finally, for your objection about the first cause positing a god. I'm not really sure why this is an objection. If something has caused the universe to come into being, then it would logically follow that this being would have the attributes of [a] god. From here we could delve into other arguments for god, that would suggest an all-loving creator (Moral Argument). But if we are just talking creation, then we could leave it at a divine being in general.
Yes, so God would be the un-caused first cause since He is eternal. However, I agree with you, this would not assume the God of the Hebrew bible, but rather A God in general; a deity. The Cosmological argument does not go further than to prove philosophically that a deity had to have created the universe. We could show that the Hebrew God is the true God with other arguments, but it is not necessary here, as we are discussing the creation of the universe.
Now, to address your assertion that the big bang was an eternal event, well that does not make sense. Scientifically, we can show that the universe had a beginning, and that it is expanding, and with entropy. There are even mathematical proofs to show there had to be a beginning. The only other possible argument you might have, is that the universe is eternally expanding and contracting. Eternal big bangs, if you will. That is your only way out of the requirement of an eternal, un-caused, first cause. And that notion doesn't really impress me.
Let me address a couple things in your post. First, you imply that the universe could be created by chance, since we see chance in the already existing universe. The problem is you are saying that we could get something from nothing. But that cannot possibly happen. In order for the universe to come into existence by chance, then something would have to already exist outside the universe for that to be possible (cause and effect).
The other point you make is about this leading to a causal loop. For this, let me refer to the philosophical argument called the Cosmological Argument. This states that: Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
So God could create the universe, but God Himself does not need to have a cause, since God is eternal.
The problem with science is that it cannot get outside itself. For example, if the universe had a beginning, science cannot get outside that point. So if God created the universe (something had to), then science can never prove that. Hence faith. Science also presupposes other things in order for the scientific method to work. For example, logic.
Your comment makes no sense. Gopro are the ones that decided to break off from DJI and make their own drones. Gopro is the knockoff. And with their fiasco that is the Karma, your comment looks really stupid.
Lol, in high school all I had was qbasic. I got a book "Qbasic games and more" that provided a TSR that allowed you to use the mouse in Qbasic. On topic, I wrote a Paint-like program in qbasic where you could draw shapes (rectangle, ellipse, etc) and it also did 3d boxes! My program would save to image binary format, OR generate qbasic statements to redraw the graphics. I used it to do my final project in programming class where we had to use graphics statements to make a picture. Of course, my picture was a very detailed christmas scene, complete with an animated train around a christmas tree, and background music!
The problem is that what you're seeing has to match perfectly to your movements, or you will get sick. When we can get 4k or 8k resolution at like 120fps maybe we will be there.
They pretty much solved the motion sickness thing. For example, I was just playing robot recall, and you kinda pick a spot to move to, and then like teleport there. Not entirely elegant, but solves the issue. Plus, the rift is so smooth and has very good head tracking.
No it doesnt. Although I would do a geforce 1080. I just build a rig for a VR project at work, and its a core i5, 16gb ram, water cooled, with asus rog strix motherboard and 650 watt power supply, PLUS the geforce 1080. Total: $1300. And this machine is mosty likely overkill.
If it's too loud, I believe that's an indicator that you're too old.
The same crap that happened to cable tv, will eventually happen to online tv. Queue the added commercials soon.
The sound is not louder. Rarely have I experienced a movie theater with reference level sound. In fact, My home theater with a 8 inch sub sounds louder.
Of course we all know their stores mostly sell used games. Recently I built a gaming PC and wanted GTA V for it. Searching online Gamestop.com had it cheapest at like $30 and said brand new on their website. Foolishly, I ordered it. It came a few days later, and the box for the game was so battered and ripped, and the game was clearly used. The discs were scratched. I was surprised it actually installed. I was pissed, but at least I was about to play the game. Until the game asked for the activation code. Looking in the box--- no code, actually not even any manuals or anything but the discs. Now I was pissed! So I initiated a return, and the customer service person said that I will be refunded, but MINUS THE SHIPPING!! Can you believe that? They sell me worthless discs, and I'm out money? The game + shipping was $38. Well, after they refused to refund shipping, I did a chargeback and the credit card handled the refund. Turns out, walmart had it in store for $39.99 fully brand new perfect, unopened, and most importantly had the activation code. F you gamestop.