Let me guess: first, you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything, even a contradiction. Then, you show that this leads to a contradiction. However, if you believe that contradicitons are possible, you cannot use proof by negation.
All but God can prove this sentence true.
That statement is false. And I am correct, I said so myself.
Omnipotence must necessarily include omniscience; an omnipotent being could just ``use its omnipotence'' to give itself omniscience.
If it wanted to...
Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?
An omniscient being would know that question has no "yes" or "no" answer?
Or, as I like to say, given enough dice and enough time, eventually you will roll a trillion 1's in a row.
Not anywhere in the (visible) universe, it won't. Suppose you are using a 2-sided dice (a coin). Chance of getting 10 thousand heads in a row is less than 2^-10000 (which is the expected number of times you will flip 1 million heads in a row), or about 10^-3000. At about 10^80 atoms and 10^18 seconds since the Big Bang, the probability (given 100 flips per atom per second) would be 10^-2900 (10^-300 is considered impossible). That is the point of irreducible complexity: if it must be done all at once, it effectively can't be done.
Cute, but Pastafarianism *is* ID. The question is whether they should teach theism, since they are (arguably) teaching atheism, to cancel out religious involvement by the state.
What's really interesting is that nobody is peddling this crap to religious schools, or other private schools. They could teach it with complete impunity.
The government has no business with private schools. However, since people are forced to go to school, and many can only afford public school, the issue of separation of church and state rears its ugly head. Is the government allowed to teach that atheism is true? (while some people have no trouble mixing evolution with religion, they forget Occam's Razor. Also, Jesus's geneology, traced to Adam, is not metaphorical)
You are misdefining "falsifiable", or just confused? Here's a challange for you: I suggest how to falsify ID, and you explain why I am wrong, and also give an example of how to falsify any scientific theory.
How to falsify ID: Examine DNA of different creatures bit by bit. If the changes look like predicted by any naturalistic explanation, then ID is false.
You're right. Speciation is even easier among plants (get one to double it's chromosomes, and it is a new species). However, when I think of macroevolution, I think of big changes, along the lines of gaining new body parts or cell types.
The macro/micro evolution distinction is no more than a human contruct, there is no difference between the two in nature.
Families and species are human constructs, and I daresay there is a difference between the two in nature. To take an example consider the mathematical series (1+1/2+1/4+1/8...) The series gets big enough to reach 1.1, 1.6, 1.9, but not 2.1. Just because we observe small incremental changes, doesn't mean that these changes will add up to much.
I think students should be told that our model of reality is not perfect. I think they should be told that Evolution has problems, that F does not really equal MA, and that we don't know what dark matter is.
Minor point: F=M*a is a definition, and so must be true (tautologies are always true, even if they make for bad arguments). On the rest I agree. Always questing the most widely accepted theories: then you can laugh 100 years down the road. As for Intelligent Design, it is currently an argument from ignorance, and will remain so untill we can intelligently design life, or study differences in DNA at a level to say that they are clearly (not?) created by nature. The latter I suspect will be possible within 20 years.
"Not only are research costs low, but there is a skilled work force to conduct the trials," he said. In the rush to reap profits, Philpott cautions that drug companies may not be sensitive to how poverty can undermine the spirit of informed consent. "Individuals who participate in Indian clinical trials usually won't be educated. Offering $100 may be undue enticement; they may not even realize that they are being coerced," he said.
"Doctors are easier to recruit for trials because they don't have to go through the same ethics procedures as their Western colleagues," Ecks said. "And patients ask fewer questions about what is going on."
Hmm. There are obviously some ethical questions here, but I think that it is for the best. Cheaper trials means more research, and the tests are only conducted when it is almost certain to succeed. The US is much too stringent with medicine, because of lawsuits. People with shorter life expectancies don't care quite as much about the risks of testing drugs, and the sooner drugs are out there helping people, the better.
Cue comments about how this is the most evil thing ever, and that nothing is as valuable as a human life (which is why, instead of buying christmas presents, you will donate to third world countries' medicine.)
If you need a tool like this in order to parent, you've already failed.
I got the implication that he only thought it would be convenient. Because good parent or no, kids will do stupid shit. They'll do stuff they're told not to do. Occasionally, they do stuff *because* they were told not to do it. Tracking them might make it easier and quicker to find out when they are misbehaving. Not unlike how Big Brother doesn't need to track our cell phones to see if we are misbehaving, but would like to be able to do it anyways.
Not to be a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist, but can't cell phone companies track you already? IIRC, it is even required for when you call 911, though they (generally) track you always, I think.
She told me nothing was going to change. She was wrong. I changed banks to one that had Safari / Camino / Firefox browser support.
She was indeed wrong. If her boss found out, she would get a serious talking-to. Apparently, she hasn't heard of vaporware.
On the other hand, it would be nice if there were some way of rewarding honesty in the public relations department. Maybe if there were a list of honest companies, or something.
When I think of x-mas, I think of baby Santa Claus lying in a manger, under a plastic x-mas tree with a pile of presents. Tis the season for spending money!
There aren't many people who have ever originated their own words. I don't recall ever creating a new word.
But you certainly can create a new word, and, in some cases, people would understand what it means. The reason we don't much do this is because we have a very complete language. Now consider that these chimps were taught (almost certainly) less than 100 words, and you would expect them to create a few.
Slashdot Mirror
...there's a sucker born every minute.
Or in this case, at least 10,000 in 4 months.
4*30*24*60/10000 ~= 17
So, that makes a sucker born every 17 minutes...
Just make sure that atheism is not a religion...
As for a proof against omnipotence,
Let me guess: first, you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything, even a contradiction. Then, you show that this leads to a contradiction. However, if you believe that contradicitons are possible, you cannot use proof by negation.
All but God can prove this sentence true.
That statement is false. And I am correct, I said so myself.
Omnipotence must necessarily include omniscience; an omnipotent being could just ``use its omnipotence'' to give itself omniscience.
If it wanted to...
Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?
An omniscient being would know that question has no "yes" or "no" answer?
Blind spot? I don't see any blind spot...
Or, as I like to say, given enough dice and enough time, eventually you will roll a trillion 1's in a row.
Not anywhere in the (visible) universe, it won't. Suppose you are using a 2-sided dice (a coin). Chance of getting 10 thousand heads in a row is less than 2^-10000 (which is the expected number of times you will flip 1 million heads in a row), or about 10^-3000. At about 10^80 atoms and 10^18 seconds since the Big Bang, the probability (given 100 flips per atom per second) would be 10^-2900 (10^-300 is considered impossible). That is the point of irreducible complexity: if it must be done all at once, it effectively can't be done.
Cute, but Pastafarianism *is* ID. The question is whether they should teach theism, since they are (arguably) teaching atheism, to cancel out religious involvement by the state.
What's really interesting is that nobody is peddling this crap to religious schools, or other private schools. They could teach it with complete impunity.
The government has no business with private schools. However, since people are forced to go to school, and many can only afford public school, the issue of separation of church and state rears its ugly head. Is the government allowed to teach that atheism is true? (while some people have no trouble mixing evolution with religion, they forget Occam's Razor. Also, Jesus's geneology, traced to Adam, is not metaphorical)
Just like Buddhism is not a religion.
...
Also, what about people who are religiously atheistic? If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck,
You are misdefining "falsifiable", or just confused? Here's a challange for you: I suggest how to falsify ID, and you explain why I am wrong, and also give an example of how to falsify any scientific theory.
How to falsify ID: Examine DNA of different creatures bit by bit. If the changes look like predicted by any naturalistic explanation, then ID is false.
You're right. Speciation is even easier among plants (get one to double it's chromosomes, and it is a new species). However, when I think of macroevolution, I think of big changes, along the lines of gaining new body parts or cell types.
The macro/micro evolution distinction is no more than a human contruct, there is no difference between the two in nature.
Families and species are human constructs, and I daresay there is a difference between the two in nature. To take an example consider the mathematical series (1+1/2+1/4+1/8...) The series gets big enough to reach 1.1, 1.6, 1.9, but not 2.1. Just because we observe small incremental changes, doesn't mean that these changes will add up to much.
I think students should be told that our model of reality is not perfect. I think they should be told that Evolution has problems, that F does not really equal MA, and that we don't know what dark matter is.
Minor point: F=M*a is a definition, and so must be true (tautologies are always true, even if they make for bad arguments). On the rest I agree. Always questing the most widely accepted theories: then you can laugh 100 years down the road. As for Intelligent Design, it is currently an argument from ignorance, and will remain so untill we can intelligently design life, or study differences in DNA at a level to say that they are clearly (not?) created by nature. The latter I suspect will be possible within 20 years.
Actually, *all* mersenne primes have a prime number of digits.
I think you got my point, but not that I was making it.
I think he is stating a fact, as viewed from the corporations' eyes. If there were no ethical questins, this wouldn't have made the news.
"Not only are research costs low, but there is a skilled work force to conduct the trials," he said. In the rush to reap profits, Philpott cautions that drug companies may not be sensitive to how poverty can undermine the spirit of informed consent. "Individuals who participate in Indian clinical trials usually won't be educated. Offering $100 may be undue enticement; they may not even realize that they are being coerced," he said.
"Doctors are easier to recruit for trials because they don't have to go through the same ethics procedures as their Western colleagues," Ecks said. "And patients ask fewer questions about what is going on."
Hmm. There are obviously some ethical questions here, but I think that it is for the best. Cheaper trials means more research, and the tests are only conducted when it is almost certain to succeed. The US is much too stringent with medicine, because of lawsuits. People with shorter life expectancies don't care quite as much about the risks of testing drugs, and the sooner drugs are out there helping people, the better.
Cue comments about how this is the most evil thing ever, and that nothing is as valuable as a human life (which is why, instead of buying christmas presents, you will donate to third world countries' medicine.)
If you need a tool like this in order to parent, you've already failed.
I got the implication that he only thought it would be convenient. Because good parent or no, kids will do stupid shit. They'll do stuff they're told not to do. Occasionally, they do stuff *because* they were told not to do it. Tracking them might make it easier and quicker to find out when they are misbehaving. Not unlike how Big Brother doesn't need to track our cell phones to see if we are misbehaving, but would like to be able to do it anyways.
Not to be a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist, but can't cell phone companies track you already? IIRC, it is even required for when you call 911, though they (generally) track you always, I think.
She told me nothing was going to change.
She was wrong.
I changed banks to one that had Safari / Camino / Firefox browser support.
She was indeed wrong. If her boss found out, she would get a serious talking-to. Apparently, she hasn't heard of vaporware.
On the other hand, it would be nice if there were some way of rewarding honesty in the public relations department. Maybe if there were a list of honest companies, or something.
Thank you Microsoft, tis the season for giving!
When I think of x-mas, I think of baby Santa Claus lying in a manger, under a plastic x-mas tree with a pile of presents. Tis the season for spending money!
Since when does Microsoft admit it is not the best and recomends a competitor? OK, so they quit support, but still...
It is one thing to be sanguine about the loss of polar bears to natrual selection. The loss of human populations, that's another thing.
Really? I, for one, favor improving our gene pool.
How much Linus Torvalds donates? Look here, how much is that worth?
Goatse.cx -- where most statistics come from.
Wikipedia has less errors, you say? We'll be fixing that shortly...
-- The Britanica Team
There aren't many people who have ever originated their own words. I don't recall ever creating a new word.
But you certainly can create a new word, and, in some cases, people would understand what it means. The reason we don't much do this is because we have a very complete language. Now consider that these chimps were taught (almost certainly) less than 100 words, and you would expect them to create a few.