1 is a non-sequitur because that is not the question. 2. You can provide no example of anything in the universe which was not a product of causality, nothing. That claim by you takes me right back to the thought that you are trolling. It could be that you are really really ignorant and believe in fairy dust and magic are real, but I'm a skeptic. Cya
Politics never has a single agenda for their "messages" to the public, there are many. We know that people don't want to pay a living wage to US Citizens to code. This is why companies like Microsoft (mentioned in TFA so not picking on them) push like hell for more Visas and Green Cards, more deregulation on moving projects overseas (including DOD work which is expressly prohibited by law, but lobbyists have been working that for 15 years), and of course more people who can "code" to reduce the market value of people who do code.
Oh I know the rhetoric. "Everyone should because", and "If you can't you don't deserve to work in IT" which is fine. We need Doctors and Nurses, mechanics and welders, farmers and chefs, etc..etc.. Most people in Engineering and Architecture don't learn how to "code" anything worth while ever, but some do some impressive stuff. Most MDs don't code at all and don't need to code.
What the Hour of Code teaches is drag and drop logic puzzles, not coding. I'd have less problems with it if they were at least honest about what it is and what it's for.
No, it's not really more complex than that. People are claiming it must be like that and people like you are excusing it, but there is no reason Congress has to vote on something they can not read or fully understand. This adding of BS to bills isn't necessarily new but it is also not supposed to happen at all, let alone to the extremes we have allowed it to get to. We have 3 AOs who are supposed to be a fail safe, which does not imply that the first AO requires baby sitters..
Your (so called?) Representatives and mine should be replaced if they behave this way because the answer is simple. The default vote should always be "NO/NAY", and if you don't understand something the default vote gets cast.
I seem to remember some politicians bringing out bills that people were trying to push and saying we need to stop, and stop allowing modifications (called pork). Read up on Earmarks and other discussions as well. The pork that was added to the bills was a problem way way back in the 70s, and it was a voting issue in the 80s and early 90s. It fell off of people's radars and has been sheltered from public debate since then.
Contrary to your statement "They never told us WHY it got rejected." they clearly stated WHY. It is the 4th solar farm in the same small town of 800 people. It further states that the reason power companies want to build in these areas is because they can acquire land from not so wealthy people on the cheap, taking advantage of the financial situation many families are in (largely due to corporate influence on Agricultural business and economics at a much larger scale). It also discusses a professor who believes this causes long term damage to the agricultural industry.
Since I actually did read TFA, it makes me wonder who actually started the disinformation campaign.
Impossible to respond fully, but here is a brief synopsis answer. 1 . In your 'they are closer' statement you ignore Judea Christian beliefs. Very few actually believe the story of Genesis verbatim as proposed by popular atheists and popular atheist rhetoric. That said, it's not the point of my comments or even close.
2. You claimed that the Universe does not demonstrate causality. Look around you and tell me by scientific standard what is _not_ caused? The Earth was caused, the Sun was caused, the minerals were caused, and even life was caused. The only argument by atheists which does not require a cause is the beginning of the Universe. That is the point of my comments.
3. You then claimed that me stating that we see effects but don't know the causes of everything is a contradiction to causality. This would also indicate that because we could not measure or detect atoms 200 years ago would indicate that H2O could never be changed. We can't measure the changes or even understand atoms, so anyone arguing that we don't know the answer is stating that there are no atoms. Why people can't determine "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer when it comes to a belief is not surprising, but it's also not scientific.
4. You here attempt to mince away a correlation between how an atheist would see the beginning of the Universe and a Religion. There is no difference. Science (atheism) claims that the Universe just was and does not require an explanation. Religion says that a creator made it happen. Theology on the other hand is an attempt to expand on the definition of a creator and put proverbial clothing on the creator. Theology is not the debate, and should not be the debate.
Perhaps I am simply biased due to people with closed ears who claim to be open minded and scientific, yet declare any discussion on the origin of the Universe to be theology and/or crazy talk. Perhaps I am biased due to what I read as incorrect and incomplete mentions of particular theologies and omissions of the same (which in fairness could be due to the presentation and format). Perhaps I am biased due to you naming specific religions who may have a belief system you like, which avoids the question of causality. Perhaps you are not intentionally trolling intentionally and simply don't see or care to see how others may perceive you. Perhaps.
Remember that this is the UK, not the US. "Snooping" is guaranteed to the government, there is no fight about a Constitution. MI5 and MI6 have full access to anything you do in this product.
Sure, there is some cost benefits to using "Cloud" but that comes at the risk of Security. People may not like it, but I refuse to use Ubuntu for the same reason I would not use this product.
First, California is a Liberal^WDemocratic State. It is, and for decades has, mostly voting Democratic, with huge dollars in the SF Bay area going to Obama in the last 2 cycles (count the cash by party, Republicans didn't receive much) and continuing with Obama and Clinton Fund raisers in the wealthiest areas of SF. (E.G. Palo Alto).
That is enough to prove you wrong and trolling, but I have to add the obvious. Republican no longer means what you think it does (how much it ever did is an interesting debate). Just because you are stupid enough to believe Arnold Schwarzenegger was a "Republican", as in the historical depiction of "Republican", does not make it true. It is like believing that Trump is the same type of "Republican.". Republican and Democrat are not any different except in self claims. Both receive cash from the same groups, both vote the same way, and behind closed doors where they can laugh at the public they pat each other on the back for their great acting.
That last sentence should explain at least some of Mr. Trumps success. Most people get that politicians have become two sides of the same coin. One thing we can say for sure is that Mr. Trump is not the typical politician that we have all begun to despise.
Just to be clear, this is not attempting to promote or knock Donald Trump, the Dem/Rep party, or the great Ahnold. It is knocking the current state of politics and pointing out that _YOU_ don't get what most people do.
You are arguing that a Universe cannot come from nothing, and therefore are making a claim that needs support. I am arguing that, for all we know, it could have. I'm not claiming to have the answer, but rather claiming that you don't.
Read the thread, and read your responses, especially "What we can't do, scientifically, is to determine whether it's a delusion or a true perception. For that reason, I'm tolerant of religions (although they're not necessarily tolerant of me), but sometimes think they're too much respected. " and "The idea that the Universe can come from nothing is neither irrational nor illogical. As far as we've been able to tell, the Universe isn't really causal." which is absolutely arguing that all Religions are wrong and a "delusion" while your science is correct.
I'm not going to bother re-quoting my statements, you can read history as well as I can and thankfully Slashdot does not allow editing. Time to wash my hands of this conversation.
I'm not sure how this is being spun where you are, but think for a minute. 650,000 students are being sent home because of a "credible" threat. I might be convinced that a school was threatened, but the complete district of LA is bullsh$*. Someone is attempting to change the definition of the word "credible" here.
Before you "but the children", give me the percentage of terrorist activities or even bombings where someone gave warning.
No matter what though, you can bet your ass this will be used as propaganda to argue for more government and more freedom loss to the same.
First, lets toss out any enforcement issues and look at just the language. If your boss gives you a signature form to sign stating that "You should go talk to HR about benefits" it's a suggestion and hey, maybe you will get some better benefits or save a few bucks if you do. There is nothing really binding there, and you would probably think "wow, my boss is forced to prove he gave us a suggestion or really playing CYA.
Alternatively, if your boss gives you a signature form stating that "You shall go to HR to discuss your benefits" it's a demand, and if you don't do it there will be some form of repercussion. This is not him covering his but, this is him making a demand and you are agreeing with the demand by signing the form.
Whether or not you could be fired, fined, demoted, etc.. for not following what you signed is not at question. That one word "should" vs. "shall" makes a huge difference.
I am with GP, there is no way this was a "mistake" but intentionally done. It was an attempt at pulling a fast one on people. Even if there is no binding punishment, the rhetoric "they failed to keep their pledge/promise/bargain/etc.." is damaging and can be used as leverage.
Wait, I am the idiot for telling the truth, and you are the smart guy by repeating a friggin fairy tale? Use your head! If I borrow a gun from my friend, under any pretenses, and go shoot someone, it is NOT MY GUN! If they are not my guns I could not have possibly acquired them legally, I never applied for the license, and I never went through a background check. Changing or adding a law regarding the purchase and acquisition of guns is useless because that was NEVER the problem! See how that works? OMFG, LOGIC! This is not really difficult logic either, it is very simple.
Perhaps simple logic is beyond you, or you just like repeating what puppets want you to hear.. either way... you are either trolling or mentally retarded so no point in further responses to feed the deficient.
Liar! Who owned the Guns? It sure as fuck was not the people that used them, hence they were not legal. Legal in California means that the guns were licensed to the person using the gun. If you take guns from relatives, but you don't call it theft, you are the worst sort of manipulative liar.
I don't have to account for anything because I am not arguing that a Universe can come from nothing, nor am I arguing that a Theology has the correct answer. You on the other hand are arguing that the premise of the Universe having a creator is wrong, but you don't have a better answer. Even to the point of an absolute lie, whether intentional or not.
A in this equation is simply a 0 or a 1. Something (which we can't understand) caused the Universe to be, or it popped into being. The latter defies logic much more than the former. The lie I mentioned your imaginary virtual particles which are not virtual at all. If you can measure an effect and know the cause, it's not a virtual particle but something you can't measure. Absolutely everything we know is cause and effect, without exception. We may not know all of the causes, and in one case we will never know (unless a Theology is correct).
Again, I'm not saying I have the absolute answer. I am saying that other people make such a claim, and they claim that their science god is the answer. That thinking is no different than a theology teaching that their god/God is the answer. Teach the question, teach people reason, they can come to a rational conclusion. Power hoarding prevents that though, and has since we have been able to measure and discuss politics (see Socrates).
Stop being biased and consider the math previously stated. If you have C and don't know A you can not know B.
Sorry that you fail to see the absurdity of your claim. There are zero items or events we can say came from nothing. Even using the Kraus's argument of "but Quantum particles can zip in and out of existence" as true, we have a dilemma that Physics, Space, Time, Matter, and energy all must be present for a quantum physics explanation.
Somehow when it comes to the beginning of the Universe, people lose their minds and claim that nothing can cause it.
Sure, we don't know what it is, but causality can not be negated with fairy dust, which is what happens when you claim that every rule of Physics can't apply to that event.
I should not waste my time on this easy to disprove generalization fallacy, but here are facts. The San Bernadino shooting, which started this discussion, was not carried out with Legal guns. Sandy Hook and the whack job from Colorado were also not using legal guns. "Many" does not come close to "most", and California where the shooting mentioned here occurred has THE strictest gun laws of any State. Meaning we can not honestly claim that Gun laws could or would fix the problem.
The reason we have a 2nd amendment is that the Government can not protect the citizens from every possible crime or negative event. To believe they can is a delusion I don't believe medication can fix. If you want to come close, go live in China or North Korea where the Government attempts to do that. Even with the best intentions laid out by Karl Marx you have corrupt cops and politicians who benefit from some crimes so ignore them or are complicit in them.
No matter how good you plan Government, human nature exists. Bad people will hold power and use that power for personal gain. The founders of the USA knew this, so build in the 2nd amendment. Give that up and you have a pretty hard time overthrowing a tyranny (which the US is really not that far from).
No, you are protecting your belief system. There is an overlap between the people that use science as Religion and atheism, but you are attempting to separate the two and claim that one is innocent. Bill Nye and Larry Kraus are two people that immediately come to mind. If you don't believe in the expanding quantum vacuum theory, and you don't believe that the theory discounts a creator, and you teach alternative beliefs to your kids, they both want you jailed for child abuse. Don't start down the slipper slope.
You seem to have the same belief system, or at least very similar. You just stated that you support a tyrannical society who outlaws anyone believing differently than you. You state specifically that religions are delusion and that the world would be better if they were illegal. Yet you don't have a provable answer for how the Universe began either and probably refuse to understand that the answer "a Universe can come from nothing", as the two above spout as fact, is completely irrational and illogical (though you may vehemently disagree with that statement if your belief trumps logic, which is actually the definition of delusion).
In very simple terms, you are attempting to claim that A then B so C, without knowing the value of A (and B != C). If you don't know what A is, it is impossible to know the value of B. That is not different than a formal Theology who claims that A is static so they can know what B is, but they don't know the value of A either. Both sides are irrational in a claim to know the value of B.
Scientific method: Reduce the arguments to their basic level and resolve. It has taken me decades to be able to do that without my beliefs getting in the way without effort. It took years of investigation and self reflection to determine and admit where I was inserting beliefs and not using logic. I'll say that most people won't even attempt to do this.
But is the scientific method a tool to discover what is true? Is truth the same as "ever more accurate and predictive models"? It's not a scientific question
No, that is correct. The scientific method is a method of determining if something is possibly true, and then rate the truthfulness. For example, we can use the scientific method and analyze the evolution of species and conclude that it's "probably" true. We have not witnessed it so have no "proof", but the evidence we have seems to indicate that it's not only possible but probable. The more evidence we have, the more accurate the scientific method becomes.
Socrates once said that the only wisdom he had was in understanding how little he knew.
A bit simple, but works. He actually said that the Oracle of Delphi told him he was the wisest person in the world, and that the gods tasked him to find someone wiser (which he never could).
What do you say today? How much do we not know ? How could you even answer such a question? It's not a scientific question.
At great risk to my Karma I'll point out that Science has become a Religion. As a several decades long student of Philosophy, I find that many people claiming to be scientific and atheists trust certain scientific theories just like a holy book. You have your evangelists attempting to convert believers in other faiths to their ways of thinking, and even have the zealots trying to make other Religions illegal.
Given that some questions are only Philosophical, such as the beginning of the Universe, you get similar answers to a formal Theology. "Philosophy" is taught to be a dirty word to the "science" religion, they can be as impossible to debate as any theological believer.
82 years old with no fucking clue what she's talking about.
I don't buy the ignorance gag for a minute. Politicians can hear both sides of every argument, and generally do. They are all well educated, and have well educated staff around them all the time. When it's convenient for them to look dumb, they play their role and look dumb. And the asinine measure that people pushed back against becomes an incremental step toward their agenda, and in extreme cases Black Projects that the citizens don't know about for decades.
For nearly half a century I have seen people believe the idiot gag and remain amazed at how far down the shitter we have gone in so little time. Meanwhile, a few people said what I just did.. and they have predicted correctly.
And with one out of how many Religions in the world being called out, you don't see this as splitting hairs. Got it! I bow to your wisdom oh Guru of the Split hair and Master of Cherry Pick. (not really bowing, more laughing)
People using Facebook already receive information censored by Facebook. You get what they want you to see so that they can shape your view of the world. If you don't agree with the progressive agenda, you soon will.
You are splitting some mighty fine hair to claim that immigration is the same thing as free speech. That is not to deny the existence of xenophobia, but separate that from the very broad definitions given in the First amendment. That is also not to deny that our First amendment rights have not already been trashed (which assembly and press have been).
You ignored "Politicians tend to swing to which ever way the wind blows, but mainly toward pro censorship anti gun, because it improves people's dependency on their aspirations." so as the next person says, he does not count (but for obviously different reasons). I can pick any politician and get pro first, anti first, pro 2nd, anti 2nd, etc... If you trust a politician, shame on you. Obama for example was going to jail those bankers, and be the most open and honest President in history. Up until he was in Office that is, and don't expect any different behavior from _any_ of the current pools of candidates.
I'm not sure where you find the pro 2nd anti 1st crowd. I see the opposite in terms of who attempts to undermine and want's to cancel the First Amendment. Mainly the same people that want Government spying on them so anti 4th amendment, and believe that the only way to be safe is by living inside the government fist so anti 2nd. Politicians tend to swing to which ever way the wind blows, but mainly toward pro censorship anti gun, because it improves people's dependency on their aspirations.
Slashdot Mirror
1 is a non-sequitur because that is not the question. 2. You can provide no example of anything in the universe which was not a product of causality, nothing. That claim by you takes me right back to the thought that you are trolling. It could be that you are really really ignorant and believe in fairy dust and magic are real, but I'm a skeptic. Cya
Politics never has a single agenda for their "messages" to the public, there are many. We know that people don't want to pay a living wage to US Citizens to code. This is why companies like Microsoft (mentioned in TFA so not picking on them) push like hell for more Visas and Green Cards, more deregulation on moving projects overseas (including DOD work which is expressly prohibited by law, but lobbyists have been working that for 15 years), and of course more people who can "code" to reduce the market value of people who do code.
Oh I know the rhetoric. "Everyone should because", and "If you can't you don't deserve to work in IT" which is fine. We need Doctors and Nurses, mechanics and welders, farmers and chefs, etc..etc.. Most people in Engineering and Architecture don't learn how to "code" anything worth while ever, but some do some impressive stuff. Most MDs don't code at all and don't need to code.
What the Hour of Code teaches is drag and drop logic puzzles, not coding. I'd have less problems with it if they were at least honest about what it is and what it's for.
No, it's not really more complex than that. People are claiming it must be like that and people like you are excusing it, but there is no reason Congress has to vote on something they can not read or fully understand. This adding of BS to bills isn't necessarily new but it is also not supposed to happen at all, let alone to the extremes we have allowed it to get to. We have 3 AOs who are supposed to be a fail safe, which does not imply that the first AO requires baby sitters..
Your (so called?) Representatives and mine should be replaced if they behave this way because the answer is simple. The default vote should always be "NO/NAY", and if you don't understand something the default vote gets cast.
I seem to remember some politicians bringing out bills that people were trying to push and saying we need to stop, and stop allowing modifications (called pork). Read up on Earmarks and other discussions as well. The pork that was added to the bills was a problem way way back in the 70s, and it was a voting issue in the 80s and early 90s. It fell off of people's radars and has been sheltered from public debate since then.
Time to get and keep this front and center.
Contrary to your statement "They never told us WHY it got rejected." they clearly stated WHY. It is the 4th solar farm in the same small town of 800 people. It further states that the reason power companies want to build in these areas is because they can acquire land from not so wealthy people on the cheap, taking advantage of the financial situation many families are in (largely due to corporate influence on Agricultural business and economics at a much larger scale). It also discusses a professor who believes this causes long term damage to the agricultural industry.
Since I actually did read TFA, it makes me wonder who actually started the disinformation campaign.
Impossible to respond fully, but here is a brief synopsis answer. 1 . In your 'they are closer' statement you ignore Judea Christian beliefs. Very few actually believe the story of Genesis verbatim as proposed by popular atheists and popular atheist rhetoric. That said, it's not the point of my comments or even close.
2. You claimed that the Universe does not demonstrate causality. Look around you and tell me by scientific standard what is _not_ caused? The Earth was caused, the Sun was caused, the minerals were caused, and even life was caused. The only argument by atheists which does not require a cause is the beginning of the Universe. That is the point of my comments.
3. You then claimed that me stating that we see effects but don't know the causes of everything is a contradiction to causality. This would also indicate that because we could not measure or detect atoms 200 years ago would indicate that H2O could never be changed. We can't measure the changes or even understand atoms, so anyone arguing that we don't know the answer is stating that there are no atoms. Why people can't determine "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer when it comes to a belief is not surprising, but it's also not scientific.
4. You here attempt to mince away a correlation between how an atheist would see the beginning of the Universe and a Religion. There is no difference. Science (atheism) claims that the Universe just was and does not require an explanation. Religion says that a creator made it happen. Theology on the other hand is an attempt to expand on the definition of a creator and put proverbial clothing on the creator. Theology is not the debate, and should not be the debate.
Perhaps I am simply biased due to people with closed ears who claim to be open minded and scientific, yet declare any discussion on the origin of the Universe to be theology and/or crazy talk. Perhaps I am biased due to what I read as incorrect and incomplete mentions of particular theologies and omissions of the same (which in fairness could be due to the presentation and format). Perhaps I am biased due to you naming specific religions who may have a belief system you like, which avoids the question of causality. Perhaps you are not intentionally trolling intentionally and simply don't see or care to see how others may perceive you. Perhaps.
I would have won faster if you had "Webscaled", "sharded", and "runs in the Internet of Things!" but hey..
Remember that this is the UK, not the US. "Snooping" is guaranteed to the government, there is no fight about a Constitution. MI5 and MI6 have full access to anything you do in this product.
Sure, there is some cost benefits to using "Cloud" but that comes at the risk of Security. People may not like it, but I refuse to use Ubuntu for the same reason I would not use this product.
I did not say to give me an example of when it happened, I said to show the percentage. Hint: It's closer to 0% than 1%
First, California is a Liberal^WDemocratic State. It is, and for decades has, mostly voting Democratic, with huge dollars in the SF Bay area going to Obama in the last 2 cycles (count the cash by party, Republicans didn't receive much) and continuing with Obama and Clinton Fund raisers in the wealthiest areas of SF. (E.G. Palo Alto).
That is enough to prove you wrong and trolling, but I have to add the obvious. Republican no longer means what you think it does (how much it ever did is an interesting debate). Just because you are stupid enough to believe Arnold Schwarzenegger was a "Republican", as in the historical depiction of "Republican", does not make it true. It is like believing that Trump is the same type of "Republican.". Republican and Democrat are not any different except in self claims. Both receive cash from the same groups, both vote the same way, and behind closed doors where they can laugh at the public they pat each other on the back for their great acting.
That last sentence should explain at least some of Mr. Trumps success. Most people get that politicians have become two sides of the same coin. One thing we can say for sure is that Mr. Trump is not the typical politician that we have all begun to despise.
Just to be clear, this is not attempting to promote or knock Donald Trump, the Dem/Rep party, or the great Ahnold. It is knocking the current state of politics and pointing out that _YOU_ don't get what most people do.
I think you are trolling.
You are arguing that a Universe cannot come from nothing, and therefore are making a claim that needs support. I am arguing that, for all we know, it could have. I'm not claiming to have the answer, but rather claiming that you don't.
Read the thread, and read your responses, especially "What we can't do, scientifically, is to determine whether it's a delusion or a true perception. For that reason, I'm tolerant of religions (although they're not necessarily tolerant of me), but sometimes think they're too much respected. " and "The idea that the Universe can come from nothing is neither irrational nor illogical. As far as we've been able to tell, the Universe isn't really causal." which is absolutely arguing that all Religions are wrong and a "delusion" while your science is correct.
I'm not going to bother re-quoting my statements, you can read history as well as I can and thankfully Slashdot does not allow editing. Time to wash my hands of this conversation.
I'm not sure how this is being spun where you are, but think for a minute. 650,000 students are being sent home because of a "credible" threat. I might be convinced that a school was threatened, but the complete district of LA is bullsh$*. Someone is attempting to change the definition of the word "credible" here.
Before you "but the children", give me the percentage of terrorist activities or even bombings where someone gave warning.
No matter what though, you can bet your ass this will be used as propaganda to argue for more government and more freedom loss to the same.
First, lets toss out any enforcement issues and look at just the language. If your boss gives you a signature form to sign stating that "You should go talk to HR about benefits" it's a suggestion and hey, maybe you will get some better benefits or save a few bucks if you do. There is nothing really binding there, and you would probably think "wow, my boss is forced to prove he gave us a suggestion or really playing CYA.
Alternatively, if your boss gives you a signature form stating that "You shall go to HR to discuss your benefits" it's a demand, and if you don't do it there will be some form of repercussion. This is not him covering his but, this is him making a demand and you are agreeing with the demand by signing the form.
Whether or not you could be fired, fined, demoted, etc.. for not following what you signed is not at question. That one word "should" vs. "shall" makes a huge difference.
I am with GP, there is no way this was a "mistake" but intentionally done. It was an attempt at pulling a fast one on people. Even if there is no binding punishment, the rhetoric "they failed to keep their pledge/promise/bargain/etc.." is damaging and can be used as leverage.
Wait, I am the idiot for telling the truth, and you are the smart guy by repeating a friggin fairy tale? Use your head! If I borrow a gun from my friend, under any pretenses, and go shoot someone, it is NOT MY GUN! If they are not my guns I could not have possibly acquired them legally, I never applied for the license, and I never went through a background check. Changing or adding a law regarding the purchase and acquisition of guns is useless because that was NEVER the problem! See how that works? OMFG, LOGIC! This is not really difficult logic either, it is very simple.
Perhaps simple logic is beyond you, or you just like repeating what puppets want you to hear.. either way... you are either trolling or mentally retarded so no point in further responses to feed the deficient.
Liar! Who owned the Guns? It sure as fuck was not the people that used them, hence they were not legal. Legal in California means that the guns were licensed to the person using the gun. If you take guns from relatives, but you don't call it theft, you are the worst sort of manipulative liar.
I don't have to account for anything because I am not arguing that a Universe can come from nothing, nor am I arguing that a Theology has the correct answer. You on the other hand are arguing that the premise of the Universe having a creator is wrong, but you don't have a better answer. Even to the point of an absolute lie, whether intentional or not.
A in this equation is simply a 0 or a 1. Something (which we can't understand) caused the Universe to be, or it popped into being. The latter defies logic much more than the former. The lie I mentioned your imaginary virtual particles which are not virtual at all. If you can measure an effect and know the cause, it's not a virtual particle but something you can't measure. Absolutely everything we know is cause and effect, without exception. We may not know all of the causes, and in one case we will never know (unless a Theology is correct).
Again, I'm not saying I have the absolute answer. I am saying that other people make such a claim, and they claim that their science god is the answer. That thinking is no different than a theology teaching that their god/God is the answer. Teach the question, teach people reason, they can come to a rational conclusion. Power hoarding prevents that though, and has since we have been able to measure and discuss politics (see Socrates).
Stop being biased and consider the math previously stated. If you have C and don't know A you can not know B.
Sorry that you fail to see the absurdity of your claim. There are zero items or events we can say came from nothing. Even using the Kraus's argument of "but Quantum particles can zip in and out of existence" as true, we have a dilemma that Physics, Space, Time, Matter, and energy all must be present for a quantum physics explanation.
Somehow when it comes to the beginning of the Universe, people lose their minds and claim that nothing can cause it.
Sure, we don't know what it is, but causality can not be negated with fairy dust, which is what happens when you claim that every rule of Physics can't apply to that event.
I should not waste my time on this easy to disprove generalization fallacy, but here are facts. The San Bernadino shooting, which started this discussion, was not carried out with Legal guns. Sandy Hook and the whack job from Colorado were also not using legal guns. "Many" does not come close to "most", and California where the shooting mentioned here occurred has THE strictest gun laws of any State. Meaning we can not honestly claim that Gun laws could or would fix the problem.
The reason we have a 2nd amendment is that the Government can not protect the citizens from every possible crime or negative event. To believe they can is a delusion I don't believe medication can fix. If you want to come close, go live in China or North Korea where the Government attempts to do that. Even with the best intentions laid out by Karl Marx you have corrupt cops and politicians who benefit from some crimes so ignore them or are complicit in them.
No matter how good you plan Government, human nature exists. Bad people will hold power and use that power for personal gain. The founders of the USA knew this, so build in the 2nd amendment. Give that up and you have a pretty hard time overthrowing a tyranny (which the US is really not that far from).
No, you are protecting your belief system. There is an overlap between the people that use science as Religion and atheism, but you are attempting to separate the two and claim that one is innocent. Bill Nye and Larry Kraus are two people that immediately come to mind. If you don't believe in the expanding quantum vacuum theory, and you don't believe that the theory discounts a creator, and you teach alternative beliefs to your kids, they both want you jailed for child abuse. Don't start down the slipper slope.
You seem to have the same belief system, or at least very similar. You just stated that you support a tyrannical society who outlaws anyone believing differently than you. You state specifically that religions are delusion and that the world would be better if they were illegal. Yet you don't have a provable answer for how the Universe began either and probably refuse to understand that the answer "a Universe can come from nothing", as the two above spout as fact, is completely irrational and illogical (though you may vehemently disagree with that statement if your belief trumps logic, which is actually the definition of delusion).
In very simple terms, you are attempting to claim that A then B so C, without knowing the value of A (and B != C). If you don't know what A is, it is impossible to know the value of B. That is not different than a formal Theology who claims that A is static so they can know what B is, but they don't know the value of A either. Both sides are irrational in a claim to know the value of B.
Scientific method: Reduce the arguments to their basic level and resolve. It has taken me decades to be able to do that without my beliefs getting in the way without effort. It took years of investigation and self reflection to determine and admit where I was inserting beliefs and not using logic. I'll say that most people won't even attempt to do this.
But is the scientific method a tool to discover what is true? Is truth the same as "ever more accurate and predictive models"? It's not a scientific question
No, that is correct. The scientific method is a method of determining if something is possibly true, and then rate the truthfulness. For example, we can use the scientific method and analyze the evolution of species and conclude that it's "probably" true. We have not witnessed it so have no "proof", but the evidence we have seems to indicate that it's not only possible but probable. The more evidence we have, the more accurate the scientific method becomes.
Socrates once said that the only wisdom he had was in understanding how little he knew.
A bit simple, but works. He actually said that the Oracle of Delphi told him he was the wisest person in the world, and that the gods tasked him to find someone wiser (which he never could).
What do you say today? How much do we not know ? How could you even answer such a question? It's not a scientific question.
At great risk to my Karma I'll point out that Science has become a Religion. As a several decades long student of Philosophy, I find that many people claiming to be scientific and atheists trust certain scientific theories just like a holy book. You have your evangelists attempting to convert believers in other faiths to their ways of thinking, and even have the zealots trying to make other Religions illegal.
Given that some questions are only Philosophical, such as the beginning of the Universe, you get similar answers to a formal Theology. "Philosophy" is taught to be a dirty word to the "science" religion, they can be as impossible to debate as any theological believer.
82 years old with no fucking clue what she's talking about.
I don't buy the ignorance gag for a minute. Politicians can hear both sides of every argument, and generally do. They are all well educated, and have well educated staff around them all the time. When it's convenient for them to look dumb, they play their role and look dumb. And the asinine measure that people pushed back against becomes an incremental step toward their agenda, and in extreme cases Black Projects that the citizens don't know about for decades.
For nearly half a century I have seen people believe the idiot gag and remain amazed at how far down the shitter we have gone in so little time. Meanwhile, a few people said what I just did.. and they have predicted correctly.
And with one out of how many Religions in the world being called out, you don't see this as splitting hairs. Got it! I bow to your wisdom oh Guru of the Split hair and Master of Cherry Pick. (not really bowing, more laughing)
People using Facebook already receive information censored by Facebook. You get what they want you to see so that they can shape your view of the world. If you don't agree with the progressive agenda, you soon will.
You are splitting some mighty fine hair to claim that immigration is the same thing as free speech. That is not to deny the existence of xenophobia, but separate that from the very broad definitions given in the First amendment. That is also not to deny that our First amendment rights have not already been trashed (which assembly and press have been).
You ignored "Politicians tend to swing to which ever way the wind blows, but mainly toward pro censorship anti gun, because it improves people's dependency on their aspirations." so as the next person says, he does not count (but for obviously different reasons). I can pick any politician and get pro first, anti first, pro 2nd, anti 2nd, etc... If you trust a politician, shame on you. Obama for example was going to jail those bankers, and be the most open and honest President in history. Up until he was in Office that is, and don't expect any different behavior from _any_ of the current pools of candidates.
I'm not sure where you find the pro 2nd anti 1st crowd. I see the opposite in terms of who attempts to undermine and want's to cancel the First Amendment. Mainly the same people that want Government spying on them so anti 4th amendment, and believe that the only way to be safe is by living inside the government fist so anti 2nd. Politicians tend to swing to which ever way the wind blows, but mainly toward pro censorship anti gun, because it improves people's dependency on their aspirations.