Because you can't spend thirty minutes in safety writing a perl script to break into cars and drive them to your chop shop, and then run around town using it on every car in sight.
Of course it is equally possible to prove the existance of God as it is to disprove his existance through raw logic.
Namely both are impossible.
God of the Christian faith (or at least my interpretation there of) is an infinite being in all respects. (Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, ect...) Man is a finite being, and therefore would not be able to perceive anything that is truly infinite. Just as it is impossible to find if a mathmatical set is infinite just by iterating through it with a finite value.
To interact with man God can take a finite part of himself of arbitrary non-infinite size and expose man to it. Man however can only truly interact with this finite segment, and because the segment is finite, man can not determine whether the whole itself is infinite.
Thus God popping by would prove nothing to you either way. You could determine that this person claiming to be God is standing in your yard shooting fire from eyes and parting your birdbath is more powerful than an actual human, but you could never logically establish that he is God.
The main point I'm trying to make here is that your belief system is no more or less irrational than anyone else's, and nobody gains anything from sweeping statements from either side.
I personally am getting very tired of proselytizers on both sides shoving their supposed axioms on others without provocation.
I am also tired of people actually giving provocation that stirs the proselytizers up into such an indiscriminate rage.
Even if you are agnostic your original post was heavilly atheistic.
And before you point out - correctly - that with a sufficiently large energy input we could indeed synthesize all the components that make up "dirt" out of hydrogen, you haven't solved the problem.
Indeed. Where would they get the hydrogen and the energy? All methods of energy "production" that we are capable of are really just methods of converting what is already there.
My personal theory of LUE (Life the Universe and Everything) is that God made man to explore the creation of God of which man is a part. Which is why I have little problem with Darwinian evolutionary theory other than the fact it is stated as if it was utter unassailable truth.
The problem that it runs up against as a foil to creationism is that Darwinian evolution is basically tied to efficientcy in a certain environment. Whatever form of life (or to a point for any structure of matter) is most compatable with the underlying physical structure of the universe becomes the most prevalent. Thus any Darwinian evolution that occurs relies on the universe actually having a defined set of "win-conditions" for a living creature.
Now you could just say that it is only random chance that a universe came along that is so friendly to the development of the pattern commonly refered to as life (Even a small change in physical constants would spell DOOM for life (as we know it)link).
Because of this it is equally impossible to disprove the Christian Creationist point of view for the formation of the universe as it is the Secular Scientific one. Each makes assumptions about the underlying causes for the effects that we observe, and each are as valid to an objective study by the scientific method since both are unreproducible by experimentation, and as such are both unprovable and impossible to completely disprove.
The only way to run an effective experiment for those theorums is to create a completely independant universe without using any resources from this one which is impossible since we ourselves are resources of this universe. Our actions to perform the experiment would in themselves corrupt the experiment, and that is without taking into account the whole observer affects outcome paradox.
In the end our limited objectivity makes it so that we can not dismiss the idea of an all powerful god. Nor can we dismiss the idea of complete random chance.
Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth, And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings; Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth Of sun-split clouds...and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of...wheeled and soared and swung High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there, I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung My eager craft through footless halls of air. Up, up, the long, delirious burning blue I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace Where never lark, nor even eagle flew. And while with silent, lifting mind I've trod The high untrespassed sanctity of space... ...put out my hand, and touched the face of God.
Any parent that allows their child to have the unmonitored access to a computer that is required to download a pirated game is neglecting their duties to their child.
We had a whole bunch of those keyboards at my school. Strangly in any class I went to they all began losing keys.
Re:Looking forward to it!
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The interesting thing is unless they fixed it age degradation transfers over.
So if your pet died of old age then the clone will die soon as well because it's DNA is a copy of the old dna with the shortened protein buffers around the edges.
Sexual reproduction solves this by using the redundancy of the two sets of DNA while simpler creatures such as bacteria don't need the hugely complex dna chains of animals and plants.
The discrediting was discredited, but then the discreditor's discreditor's discreditor came forward and discredited him. However the discreditor of the discreditor's discreditor was found to be by the discreditor's discreditor's discreditor's discreditor that the discreditor himself was the discreditor's discreditor's discreditor and was thus discredited. Currently I belive that the discreditor, the discreditor's discreditor, and the discreditor's discreditor's discreditor are all being beaten with socks full of soap, but I may be discredited in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you can't spend thirty minutes in safety writing a perl script to break into cars and drive them to your chop shop, and then run around town using it on every car in sight.
He bought a Dodge... he must have thought it was installed by default.
Of course it is equally possible to prove the existance of God as it is to disprove his existance through raw logic.
Namely both are impossible.
God of the Christian faith (or at least my interpretation there of) is an infinite being
in all respects. (Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, ect...) Man is a finite being, and therefore would not be able to perceive anything that is truly infinite. Just as it is impossible to find if a mathmatical set is infinite just by iterating through it with a finite value.
To interact with man God can take a finite part of himself of arbitrary non-infinite size and expose man to it. Man however can only truly interact with this finite segment, and because the segment is finite, man can not determine whether the whole itself is infinite.
Thus God popping by would prove nothing to you either way. You could determine that this person claiming to be God is standing in your yard shooting fire from eyes and parting your birdbath is more powerful than an actual human, but you could never logically establish that he is God.
The main point I'm trying to make here is that your belief system is no more or less irrational than anyone else's, and nobody gains anything from sweeping statements from either side.
I personally am getting very tired of proselytizers on both sides shoving their supposed axioms on others without provocation.
I am also tired of people actually giving provocation that stirs the proselytizers up into such an indiscriminate rage.
Even if you are agnostic your original post was heavilly atheistic.
Indeed. Where would they get the hydrogen and the energy? All methods of energy "production" that we are capable of are really just methods of converting what is already there.
My personal theory of LUE (Life the Universe and Everything) is that God made man to explore the creation of God of which man is a part. Which is why I have little problem with Darwinian evolutionary theory other than the fact it is stated as if it was utter unassailable truth.
The problem that it runs up against as a foil to creationism is that Darwinian evolution is basically tied to efficientcy in a certain environment. Whatever form of life (or to a point for any structure of matter) is most compatable with the underlying physical structure of the universe becomes the most prevalent. Thus any Darwinian evolution that occurs relies on the universe actually having a defined set of "win-conditions" for a living creature.
Now you could just say that it is only random chance that a universe came along that is so friendly to the development of the pattern commonly refered to as life (Even a small change in physical constants would spell DOOM for life (as we know it)link).
Because of this it is equally impossible to disprove the Christian Creationist point of view for the formation of the universe as it is the Secular Scientific one. Each makes assumptions about the underlying causes for the effects that we observe, and each are as valid to an objective study by the scientific method since both are unreproducible by experimentation, and as such are both unprovable and impossible to completely disprove.
The only way to run an effective experiment for those theorums is to create a completely independant universe without using any resources from this one which is impossible since we ourselves are resources of this universe. Our actions to perform the experiment would in themselves corrupt the experiment, and that is without taking into account the whole observer affects outcome paradox.
In the end our limited objectivity makes it so that we can not dismiss the idea of an all powerful god. Nor can we dismiss the idea of complete random chance.
But would the sweater keep you warm in the winter?
Could be strange hearing the following
KID:Mom turn up the air conditioning.
MOM:Go put on a sweater.
Actually the brain is remarably plastic when dealing with new inputs and outputs.
For instance this little experiment.
Except that the bone would still be touching the titanium in the cap...
Yes and when the kid is 17 you can back off a bit because he has more freedom. Including the freedom to play violent video games.
I know I lost weight while I worked there.
Even though I had a 20pc chicken nugget every day.
Any parent that allows their child to have the unmonitored access to a computer that is required to download a pirated game is neglecting their duties to their child.
McRibs have a huge cult following.
There are people who followed them from state to state as the campaign moved along.
The Simpsons even did an episode about that.
Ah but are you truly watching the TV and listening and typing?
Try to sing a song while you type something completely unrelated and then tell me what the guy on TV was saying while you were doing it.
Uh oh. We slashdotted nasa.
I think that might be a federal crime!
Latin : et, and + ctera
Translates to "the rest"
Heh.
We had a whole bunch of those keyboards at my school. Strangly in any class I went to they all began losing keys.
The interesting thing is unless they fixed it age degradation transfers over.
So if your pet died of old age then the clone will die soon as well because it's DNA is a copy of the old dna with the shortened protein buffers around the edges.
Sexual reproduction solves this by using the redundancy of the two sets of DNA while simpler creatures such as bacteria don't need the hugely complex dna chains of animals and plants.
Link for more info.
Everyone knows the NSA has legions of bored fourteen year olds constantly monitoring all MMORPGS.
Thats why whenever you get a monster to yourself suddenly *BOOM* kill stealer.
And clone bandits was far better than the buggy piece of crap that unwheel is.
Prince of Persia said so.
The discrediting was discredited, but then the discreditor's discreditor's discreditor came forward and discredited him. However the discreditor of the discreditor's discreditor was found to be by the discreditor's discreditor's discreditor's discreditor that the discreditor himself was the discreditor's discreditor's discreditor and was thus discredited. Currently I belive that the discreditor, the discreditor's discreditor, and the discreditor's discreditor's discreditor are all being beaten with socks full of soap, but I may be discredited in the future.
I'm talking offical game cartridge.
Complete with Nintendo seal of approval.
They already came out with a basic movie episode player for the GBA (Mostly just pokemon episodes and such)
The Dual seat thing suggests to me a sort of data disk functionality like the memory cards for a PS2.
Like what should have been in an OS from the start?
Okay then.
I'll buy your neighbor's car from you and lets see how far we get.
Why not?
Its all code. It shouldn't be that difficult to write a gba rom that wraps gb(c) roms.
What I wonder is if you can programmically access the data in the GBA slot with the NDS game image.
If so it could open up a whole range of options for coolness. (Like an mp3 player NDS cartridge that uses GBA cartridges as disks.)