And trust me, never again will I go through the trouble of installing pretty things into my computer. It's just not worth the effort. It only gives an awe factor once for about 30 seconds. I'll save the rice for my car (assuming my wife will allow it... whooped I am).
However, the liquid cooling is well worth it. In order to get my 13% overclock previously, I had to install some AC fans that sounded like a lawn mower, I kid you not. And it caused so much dust I had to clean out every month. With the liquid cooling (fluidXP = no maintenance unless it leaks, for up to 3 years) I spend maybe $50 more than those fans and get an almost silent PC with the same overclock. And if I really want to kick it up a notch (BAM!), I can turn up the speed of the fans and get even more "value" out of my CPU.
The way I see it, if a mere $50 doubles the value of my CPU for a fourth the price, it's worth it.
And another one's gone. And another one's gone. Another one bites the dust. So much for KOTOR. Bioware/Pandemic, jumping on board the sinking Titanic when all the Sports Games have already taken the life rafts, and are circling while laughing and pointing fingers, is not too smart.
On the one hand, you are correct in your suggestion so long as it is "for all intents and purposes." Still it does not mean that Mr 3d does not exist, but that he does not exist as far as the people of flatland can tell.
On the other hand, you are not considering 2 obvious possibilities. Perhaps Mr 3d has discontinued his influence on flatland. Or perhaps Mr 3d is simply avoiding detection so that those in flatland who wish to believe in him must choose to do so. If there was 100% conclusive evidence to the existence of God, then there really wouldn't be a choice in the matter. Yes, you could still choose to disbelieve, in that case, but that's like me not believing that this PC exists; it's just asinine. It would be a deliberate attempt to disagree with reality, which is one of the more obvious signs of insanity.
Perhaps it is necessary to rack our brains, after all.
Go back to the Circle and Line example. If the circle is tangent to the line, then it would seem as if he was just like all the other points on the line. Now suppose that he isn't just a circle, but can change shape. If so, then he could be tangent to the line at multiple points while avoiding the shape detecting points. Now imagine that situation in 4 dimensions (or at least 3) and you'll get the idea of how a higher dimensional being could influence a lower dimensional space and remain undetected.
That you have no "free will" regarding belief in something stupid does not mean that you are not still wrong, which you are. Whether this means you have no "choice" is a philosophical question for which I have no interest.
It's interesting that you continue to argue with someone who, by your own belief, has no choice but to believe what he believes. It's not mere philosophy; it's the very core of your particular belief system. It seems almost as if you are beginning to question your faith.
You are also wrong to equate believing in something due to evidence or not believing in something due to a complete lack of evidence with "faith." This is neither "faith" nor a "belief."
The first, I agree, is a lack of options, assuming all possible evidence is available/detectable. The second is more involved. The fact that I can't see air, doesn't mean it isn't there. Making a decision when some evidence is missing is the very definition of "belief" or "faith."
That you seem to think the non-existence of "free will" would be a reason to avoid accountability speaks poorly of your moral values.
You misunderstand me. These are not my moral values, which you obviously know. The suggestion is that if "free will" is an illusion, then so is "morality." Thus, your faith leads to a lacking in morality, not mine.
This is of course to be expected of someone who calibrates their moral compass to a fairytale of a childish sky-daddy who enjoys punishing people for being the way he made them.
This sky-daddy of yours is intriguing. Is it Zeus?
You may not have read the Bible, but I have, and someone has severely misinformed you about the things God enjoys if you think He enjoys punishing anyone.
I'm not omniscient, so I can't guarantee my answers will be true, or even that they will satisfy you, but I will try. Most appear to be a question of conflicting definitions, which makes them relatively simple on a semantic level. And let me say now that I'm using the word "if" for purposes of continuing the debate. In any other case, I would most likely use the more definite "since."
can God self-destruct
My answer would be "yes," but if He defines the Universe, then His absence would also result in its destruction, thus no one would ever know when He was successful.
Create a square circle?
This could be answered as a "semantic yes." By that I mean, using the definition of square meaning "perfect." Or I could say, "Yes, using an infinite number of squares, you or I could even create a square circle (by taking all those squares and overlapping them in the shape of a circle)." But I do understand the point of the question. Can He create a circle that has all the properties of a square? And my answer is still "yes." IMHO, He would change the very system of mathematics if it was necessary. Thankfully it's not, as I think cars would exhibit some interesting side effects. But, limiting Him to the 4 dimensions defined in the Bible, He could just go back in time and influence the mathematicians of the past to use the terms "circle" and "square" interchangeably before the distinctions could be developed. Of course, such an act would obliterate the relevance of the question as well, thus making the question disappear into a puff of logic.
Many questions could be answered in this manner.;)
A rock so heavy he can't lift it?
I've heard this one before. While I firmly believe there is no such thing as a stupid question (just stupid people who make fun of people who ask uninformed questions), the question itself may be paradoxical in nature. It's not that He can't create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it. It's that such a rock could not be tested by having God attempt to lift it. It sounds like double speak, but think of it this way: if a rock were created that was heavier than all other rocks, it would be the reference point from which to lift because it would create the most gravity. There would literally be no way to lift it. He would have to create another heavier rock from which to lift it, but then that wouldn't prove anything if He did lift it because He might not be able to lift the heavier rock. It would lead to an endless cycle of creating continuously heavier rocks. Taken one step less abstract, the rocks would eventually be large enough that a black hole would be created and further testing made impossible because every rock created thereafter would be instantly collapsed into a black hole.
I haven't read the whole thread so if there's any others you'd like me to go on about (if nothing else, just for the fun of it) just reply with them. I like conceptualizing physics in "supernatural" terms. It's fun to play with what would happen if "laws" of physics were suddenly bent or even broken.
This is exactly the attitude that I have: Science is agnostic. And it will likely always be, for the reasons I outlined. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in this idea.
Even if God, Himself, came down and explained the situation to you(plural) or I (such as with Jesus), one would still lack the ability to provide independent verification in order to meet the requirements of the scientific method.
Just don't force it on others, or attempt to indoctrinate the vulnerable (eg. children) into the same belief system. Let them make up their minds when they're old enough.
Hear! Hear! But don't confuse "indoctrination" with providing options. If you do not teach a child about all of the choices they have (including atheism) then they are doomed to choose what you teach them unless they go and teach themselves later in life.
In other words, if God existed, we should be able to interact with him/her/it physically in our 3 dimensions now, today, same as flatlanders with a 3-dimensional being.
Doc Brown: You're not thinking 4th dimensionally, Marty.
Marty McFly: Right, I seem to have a problem with that.
As with Marty, you are not considering that the people of Flatland cannot move outside their plane of existence, so if Mr. 3D chooses to avoid Flatland completely, then the people of flatland could not possibly know that he exists at that point in time.
If you're willing, draw a line (1 dimension) and a circle (2 dimensions) next to, but not touching it. Now consider that anyone bound by that line (1 dimension) cannot see the circle because it is not on that line. If you can imagine this scenario with a plane and a sphere, it would be much more graphic.
What will really rack your brain is when you consider tangents in this scenario. All the other points on the line would see the circle as just another point, not ever realizing that he is something more.
I suppose not believing in free will would cause a person to possess a closed mind by definition. Just don't try to pull that as a defense at criminal proceedings. The judge may respond with, "Since I lack free will, I suppose you can blame that fact for your 30 year prison sentence."
You're wrong and no amount of [expletive deleted] is going to change that, ever.
Unless, of course, you're wrong. But then, if you don't believe in free will, then why are you even arguing with me? Your own belief (faith) tells you that I have no choice but to believe what I believe.
I understand your point, but I think you misunderstand mine. I am not redefining Christianity. I am simply using Christ's definition rather than the world's (society's) definition. And it's not that they do not act like I say they should. It's that they do not act as Christ says they should.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-Mohandas Gandhi
I apologize for the confusion, but Christians being generally hated of all nations as a group does not mean they are noticed individually by all nations.
This verse is mistranslated in the King James as well as the American Standard versions. The word "ye" in "ye shall be hated," which denotes a singular "you," should be "you," which denotes a plural "you." The greek word for "you shall be" is "'esesthe" and it is what is used here. This indicates that Jesus was saying that all Christians would be generally hated of all nations.
A true Christian does not seek, nor do they usually receive, glory, or even notice, in this life for their good deeds.
I'm sorry. If you're sarcastically attempting to suggest that I'm making up some technobabble in order to end the debate, I understand how you could see it that way. I'm a scientist/engineer at heart. I like to figure things out, and then use that knowledge to and advantageous outcome, so I have a tendency to fly over some poeples' heads like a steroid powered baseball (because I skip steps a lot).
The step I skipped here (but remembered elsewhere) is that the God of the Bible is defined as being unbound by time. This means that He has fully manipulative abilities on 4 dimensions. There is nothing defined in the Bible about any dimensional upper limit of God's manipulative abilities, but being unbound by time is defined in the Bible as a characteristic of God. This being the case, it would follow, both mathematically and physically, that it is impossible to disprove His existence using tools that are bound by time (unidirectionally manipulative about the fourth dimension) unless those tools measured at all times from negative infinity to infinity.
This does not serve as a method of proving God's existence, it only makes disproving His existence nigh impossible without either gaining the ability to manipulate time in both directions or the ability to manipulate higher numbers of dimensions than those in which God is claimed to exist or actually exists (I prefer the latter).
Either way, it secures the ability to choose for now. If it is impossible to prove or disprove then one has the ability to make a choice. Proving one or the other wouldn't be a choice... it would be a lack of options.
By the way, I like your sig. Just finished Season 3 of the current run here in the States. The face of Bo... Ha!
I'm glad you didn't take that post offensively. It's a good sign of an open mind.
I think the key is why you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. I suggest that it is because you are limited to the 3 (and half) dimensions to which we are all limited. One of the key defining characteristics of the God of the Bible is that He is not bound by time. In order to be temporally indefinite (unbound by time) a being must be at least able to manipulate our 4th dimension in either direction, where as we are forced to continuing in one direction on that dimensional measurement axis. Since we do not have the ability to measure in both directions on that axis, we are not able to measure the existence of a fully manipulative 4-dimensional being. It would appear to us that such a being can control time, when, in fact that being is just moving freely in time. Furthermore, the God of the Bible is only defined on the 4 dimensions in which we exist, not because we can't comprehend more dimensions, but because that's all in which the Bible has defined Him. He could be manipulative on any infinite number of dimensions higher than that, making Him seem even more mystical, even though His actions are rooted no less in science than our own.
Of course, your particular belief hinges on whether or not you believe that the Bible truly describes God. And choice is important, even according to the God of the Bible.
Agnosticism I can understand. Atheism just doesn't make sense to me when mathematics and science allow for so many nearly infinite possibilities.
In the interest of continuing the debate, how is it logical to try to disprove the existence of something that theoretically exists on higher planes of existence (i.e., 4 or more dimensions) using tools of this plane of existence (3 or even 3.5 dimensions) when the laws of mathematics and physics clearly makes that impossible.
When you attempt to measure a 5th dimensional object, assuming one of those dimensions is temporal (i.e., time), with a 3 dimensional measuring device, you would find the object appearing to exist intermittently over time (moving out of the 3 dimensions and moving back in at a different location), or existing in two places at once (curving in such away that the object is connected on the 5th dimension but not on the 3 being measured), or any number of other possibilities. It is literally impossible to measure the limits of such an object unless it is somehow limited to the 3 dimensions being measured, assuming that such an act is even possible for such an object (it could be a 4 or 5 dimensional object).
Please, question this argument. Without an open mind, you've lost your ability to choose, and without choice, you're nothing but an automaton. Automatons are something that neither the God of the Bible, nor any intelligent man, wants.
Along those lines, I've never understood why members within a system would seek to explain the existence of that system by taking measurements from within the system. When you need to measure the length of, say, a shelf, do you compare it's length to that of another shelf within the same house? No, you get something outside the system, something that is not relative to the system, a ruler, to measure the shelf. Otherwise, you are just approximating the length of the shelf.
My point is, science will never be accurate enough to explain this universe fully until we can exit this universe/multiverse/dimensional limitation, take measurements, and successfully return to it. Until then, we will only gain infinitely more accurate approximations until there is nothing left to increase our accuracy.
It is this view that makes these debates pointless beyond pure fun or an attempt at opening minds to possibilities that they had not considered, such as the existence of a single benevolent creator or a lack thereof.
While you're at it, shut me up. Seriously, prove that you are God by shutting me up.
Or shut [expletive deleted] up with the pseudo-logic.
;)
If you'll forgive me, I enjoy pointing out logical fallacies in the logic of those who are trying to point out logical fallacies. (Translation: I enjoy continuing a debate.)
You are confusing those who "claim to be" Christians with those who "are" Christians. It is an easy mistake to make. I often find myself doing it, and I have quite a bit of experience discerning "the wheat from the chaff." A Christian does not "love" in the way that you describe.
The most zealous Christian would most likely die unnoticed by those who are not Christians, possibly unnoticed or even hated by those who claim to be Christians, and missed, with hope of later reunion, by those who are Christians.
So that basically means that copying movies is legal in both countries (US and Germany). Of course this is assuming you are using media large enough to hold the original, which is not free, but cheap today.
But seriously, have you read the same book? I've read it a couple of times and I haven't seen these self-inconsistencies or any ignorance of physics. The manipulation of one's surroundings which can be performed in conjunction with a firm knowledge of science will seem like magic, or ignorance of "several well founded principles of physics," to an underdeveloped society.
As to it being "edited over the years," this is unfortunately true. The most complete records of the Bible were stored by scholars who removed the punctuation and spacing in order to save space and parchment. So we have the original letters and we have plenty of documents in the original language to which to compare the original letters in order to space out the words. There's no real hope for the punctuation except for translations which did survive all this time. Because of this, today's English translations of the Bible are as close to correct as any translation before them, except maybe the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) or maybe the Latin Vulgate (Latin translation).
One of the issues with Windows is LCD (Lowest Common Denominator). If you don't spell it out almost exactly (which I, too, am guilty of) most Windows users will type the command exactly as you said and when it doesn't work most Windows users will assume that you were wrong and not research the mistake. Most Windows users think that the PATH has something to do with religion.:)
In other words, I was just trying to help. I apologize for offending you, Malc.
Slashdot Mirror
And trust me, never again will I go through the trouble of installing pretty things into my computer. It's just not worth the effort. It only gives an awe factor once for about 30 seconds. I'll save the rice for my car (assuming my wife will allow it... whooped I am).
However, the liquid cooling is well worth it. In order to get my 13% overclock previously, I had to install some AC fans that sounded like a lawn mower, I kid you not. And it caused so much dust I had to clean out every month. With the liquid cooling (fluidXP = no maintenance unless it leaks, for up to 3 years) I spend maybe $50 more than those fans and get an almost silent PC with the same overclock. And if I really want to kick it up a notch (BAM!), I can turn up the speed of the fans and get even more "value" out of my CPU.
The way I see it, if a mere $50 doubles the value of my CPU for a fourth the price, it's worth it.
Hmmm... your comment points to an odd epiphany at which I just arrived...
that of "Duh!" ;)
On the one hand, you are correct in your suggestion so long as it is "for all intents and purposes." Still it does not mean that Mr 3d does not exist, but that he does not exist as far as the people of flatland can tell.
On the other hand, you are not considering 2 obvious possibilities. Perhaps Mr 3d has discontinued his influence on flatland. Or perhaps Mr 3d is simply avoiding detection so that those in flatland who wish to believe in him must choose to do so. If there was 100% conclusive evidence to the existence of God, then there really wouldn't be a choice in the matter. Yes, you could still choose to disbelieve, in that case, but that's like me not believing that this PC exists; it's just asinine. It would be a deliberate attempt to disagree with reality, which is one of the more obvious signs of insanity.
Perhaps it is necessary to rack our brains, after all.
Go back to the Circle and Line example. If the circle is tangent to the line, then it would seem as if he was just like all the other points on the line. Now suppose that he isn't just a circle, but can change shape. If so, then he could be tangent to the line at multiple points while avoiding the shape detecting points. Now imagine that situation in 4 dimensions (or at least 3) and you'll get the idea of how a higher dimensional being could influence a lower dimensional space and remain undetected.
It's interesting that you continue to argue with someone who, by your own belief, has no choice but to believe what he believes. It's not mere philosophy; it's the very core of your particular belief system. It seems almost as if you are beginning to question your faith.
You are also wrong to equate believing in something due to evidence or not believing in something due to a complete lack of evidence with "faith." This is neither "faith" nor a "belief."The first, I agree, is a lack of options, assuming all possible evidence is available/detectable. The second is more involved. The fact that I can't see air, doesn't mean it isn't there. Making a decision when some evidence is missing is the very definition of "belief" or "faith."
That you seem to think the non-existence of "free will" would be a reason to avoid accountability speaks poorly of your moral values.You misunderstand me. These are not my moral values, which you obviously know. The suggestion is that if "free will" is an illusion, then so is "morality." Thus, your faith leads to a lacking in morality, not mine.
This is of course to be expected of someone who calibrates their moral compass to a fairytale of a childish sky-daddy who enjoys punishing people for being the way he made them.This sky-daddy of yours is intriguing. Is it Zeus?
You may not have read the Bible, but I have, and someone has severely misinformed you about the things God enjoys if you think He enjoys punishing anyone.
I'm not omniscient, so I can't guarantee my answers will be true, or even that they will satisfy you, but I will try. Most appear to be a question of conflicting definitions, which makes them relatively simple on a semantic level. And let me say now that I'm using the word "if" for purposes of continuing the debate. In any other case, I would most likely use the more definite "since."
can God self-destructMy answer would be "yes," but if He defines the Universe, then His absence would also result in its destruction, thus no one would ever know when He was successful.
Create a square circle?This could be answered as a "semantic yes." By that I mean, using the definition of square meaning "perfect." Or I could say, "Yes, using an infinite number of squares, you or I could even create a square circle (by taking all those squares and overlapping them in the shape of a circle)." But I do understand the point of the question. Can He create a circle that has all the properties of a square? And my answer is still "yes." IMHO, He would change the very system of mathematics if it was necessary. Thankfully it's not, as I think cars would exhibit some interesting side effects. But, limiting Him to the 4 dimensions defined in the Bible, He could just go back in time and influence the mathematicians of the past to use the terms "circle" and "square" interchangeably before the distinctions could be developed. Of course, such an act would obliterate the relevance of the question as well, thus making the question disappear into a puff of logic.
Many questions could be answered in this manner. ;)
A rock so heavy he can't lift it?I've heard this one before. While I firmly believe there is no such thing as a stupid question (just stupid people who make fun of people who ask uninformed questions), the question itself may be paradoxical in nature. It's not that He can't create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it. It's that such a rock could not be tested by having God attempt to lift it. It sounds like double speak, but think of it this way: if a rock were created that was heavier than all other rocks, it would be the reference point from which to lift because it would create the most gravity. There would literally be no way to lift it. He would have to create another heavier rock from which to lift it, but then that wouldn't prove anything if He did lift it because He might not be able to lift the heavier rock. It would lead to an endless cycle of creating continuously heavier rocks. Taken one step less abstract, the rocks would eventually be large enough that a black hole would be created and further testing made impossible because every rock created thereafter would be instantly collapsed into a black hole.
I haven't read the whole thread so if there's any others you'd like me to go on about (if nothing else, just for the fun of it) just reply with them. I like conceptualizing physics in "supernatural" terms. It's fun to play with what would happen if "laws" of physics were suddenly bent or even broken.
This is exactly the attitude that I have: Science is agnostic. And it will likely always be, for the reasons I outlined. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in this idea.
Even if God, Himself, came down and explained the situation to you(plural) or I (such as with Jesus), one would still lack the ability to provide independent verification in order to meet the requirements of the scientific method.
Hear! Hear! But don't confuse "indoctrination" with providing options. If you do not teach a child about all of the choices they have (including atheism) then they are doomed to choose what you teach them unless they go and teach themselves later in life.
In other words, if God existed, we should be able to interact with him/her/it physically in our 3 dimensions now, today, same as flatlanders with a 3-dimensional being. Doc Brown: You're not thinking 4th dimensionally, Marty.Marty McFly: Right, I seem to have a problem with that.
As with Marty, you are not considering that the people of Flatland cannot move outside their plane of existence, so if Mr. 3D chooses to avoid Flatland completely, then the people of flatland could not possibly know that he exists at that point in time.
If you're willing, draw a line (1 dimension) and a circle (2 dimensions) next to, but not touching it. Now consider that anyone bound by that line (1 dimension) cannot see the circle because it is not on that line. If you can imagine this scenario with a plane and a sphere, it would be much more graphic.
What will really rack your brain is when you consider tangents in this scenario. All the other points on the line would see the circle as just another point, not ever realizing that he is something more.
I suppose not believing in free will would cause a person to possess a closed mind by definition. Just don't try to pull that as a defense at criminal proceedings. The judge may respond with, "Since I lack free will, I suppose you can blame that fact for your 30 year prison sentence."
You're wrong and no amount of [expletive deleted] is going to change that, ever.Unless, of course, you're wrong. But then, if you don't believe in free will, then why are you even arguing with me? Your own belief (faith) tells you that I have no choice but to believe what I believe.
I understand your point, but I think you misunderstand mine. I am not redefining Christianity. I am simply using Christ's definition rather than the world's (society's) definition. And it's not that they do not act like I say they should. It's that they do not act as Christ says they should.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-Mohandas Gandhi
I apologize for the confusion, but Christians being generally hated of all nations as a group does not mean they are noticed individually by all nations.
This verse is mistranslated in the King James as well as the American Standard versions. The word "ye" in "ye shall be hated," which denotes a singular "you," should be "you," which denotes a plural "you." The greek word for "you shall be" is "'esesthe" and it is what is used here. This indicates that Jesus was saying that all Christians would be generally hated of all nations.
A true Christian does not seek, nor do they usually receive, glory, or even notice, in this life for their good deeds.
I'm sorry. If you're sarcastically attempting to suggest that I'm making up some technobabble in order to end the debate, I understand how you could see it that way. I'm a scientist/engineer at heart. I like to figure things out, and then use that knowledge to and advantageous outcome, so I have a tendency to fly over some poeples' heads like a steroid powered baseball (because I skip steps a lot).
The step I skipped here (but remembered elsewhere) is that the God of the Bible is defined as being unbound by time. This means that He has fully manipulative abilities on 4 dimensions. There is nothing defined in the Bible about any dimensional upper limit of God's manipulative abilities, but being unbound by time is defined in the Bible as a characteristic of God. This being the case, it would follow, both mathematically and physically, that it is impossible to disprove His existence using tools that are bound by time (unidirectionally manipulative about the fourth dimension) unless those tools measured at all times from negative infinity to infinity.
This does not serve as a method of proving God's existence, it only makes disproving His existence nigh impossible without either gaining the ability to manipulate time in both directions or the ability to manipulate higher numbers of dimensions than those in which God is claimed to exist or actually exists (I prefer the latter).
Either way, it secures the ability to choose for now. If it is impossible to prove or disprove then one has the ability to make a choice. Proving one or the other wouldn't be a choice... it would be a lack of options.
By the way, I like your sig. Just finished Season 3 of the current run here in the States. The face of Bo... Ha!
I'm glad you didn't take that post offensively. It's a good sign of an open mind.
I think the key is why you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. I suggest that it is because you are limited to the 3 (and half) dimensions to which we are all limited. One of the key defining characteristics of the God of the Bible is that He is not bound by time. In order to be temporally indefinite (unbound by time) a being must be at least able to manipulate our 4th dimension in either direction, where as we are forced to continuing in one direction on that dimensional measurement axis. Since we do not have the ability to measure in both directions on that axis, we are not able to measure the existence of a fully manipulative 4-dimensional being. It would appear to us that such a being can control time, when, in fact that being is just moving freely in time. Furthermore, the God of the Bible is only defined on the 4 dimensions in which we exist, not because we can't comprehend more dimensions, but because that's all in which the Bible has defined Him. He could be manipulative on any infinite number of dimensions higher than that, making Him seem even more mystical, even though His actions are rooted no less in science than our own.
Of course, your particular belief hinges on whether or not you believe that the Bible truly describes God. And choice is important, even according to the God of the Bible.
Agnosticism I can understand. Atheism just doesn't make sense to me when mathematics and science allow for so many nearly infinite possibilities.
In the interest of continuing the debate, how is it logical to try to disprove the existence of something that theoretically exists on higher planes of existence (i.e., 4 or more dimensions) using tools of this plane of existence (3 or even 3.5 dimensions) when the laws of mathematics and physics clearly makes that impossible.
When you attempt to measure a 5th dimensional object, assuming one of those dimensions is temporal (i.e., time), with a 3 dimensional measuring device, you would find the object appearing to exist intermittently over time (moving out of the 3 dimensions and moving back in at a different location), or existing in two places at once (curving in such away that the object is connected on the 5th dimension but not on the 3 being measured), or any number of other possibilities. It is literally impossible to measure the limits of such an object unless it is somehow limited to the 3 dimensions being measured, assuming that such an act is even possible for such an object (it could be a 4 or 5 dimensional object).
Please, question this argument. Without an open mind, you've lost your ability to choose, and without choice, you're nothing but an automaton. Automatons are something that neither the God of the Bible, nor any intelligent man, wants.
That's an interesting and valid point.
Along those lines, I've never understood why members within a system would seek to explain the existence of that system by taking measurements from within the system. When you need to measure the length of, say, a shelf, do you compare it's length to that of another shelf within the same house? No, you get something outside the system, something that is not relative to the system, a ruler, to measure the shelf. Otherwise, you are just approximating the length of the shelf.
My point is, science will never be accurate enough to explain this universe fully until we can exit this universe/multiverse/dimensional limitation, take measurements, and successfully return to it. Until then, we will only gain infinitely more accurate approximations until there is nothing left to increase our accuracy.
It is this view that makes these debates pointless beyond pure fun or an attempt at opening minds to possibilities that they had not considered, such as the existence of a single benevolent creator or a lack thereof.
Using your own logic, you shut him up.
If you're God, you can shut him up.
While you're at it, shut me up. Seriously, prove that you are God by shutting me up.
Or shut [expletive deleted] up with the pseudo-logic.If you'll forgive me, I enjoy pointing out logical fallacies in the logic of those who are trying to point out logical fallacies. (Translation: I enjoy continuing a debate.)
You are confusing those who "claim to be" Christians with those who "are" Christians. It is an easy mistake to make. I often find myself doing it, and I have quite a bit of experience discerning "the wheat from the chaff." A Christian does not "love" in the way that you describe.
The most zealous Christian would most likely die unnoticed by those who are not Christians, possibly unnoticed or even hated by those who claim to be Christians, and missed, with hope of later reunion, by those who are Christians.
Actually, unless I'm mistaken, hermaphrodites are sterile.
...if I were exit polled, I'd deliberately give false answers to poison the data because I believe exit polling is inherently flawed to begin with.And it's people with attitudes like that which make it "inherently flawed to begin with."
So that basically means that copying movies is legal in both countries (US and Germany). Of course this is assuming you are using media large enough to hold the original, which is not free, but cheap today.
Sounds like a cry for help to me.
If they really want to charge her for something, it should be attempted suicide.
Everybody's a critic! ;)
But seriously, have you read the same book? I've read it a couple of times and I haven't seen these self-inconsistencies or any ignorance of physics. The manipulation of one's surroundings which can be performed in conjunction with a firm knowledge of science will seem like magic, or ignorance of "several well founded principles of physics," to an underdeveloped society.
As to it being "edited over the years," this is unfortunately true. The most complete records of the Bible were stored by scholars who removed the punctuation and spacing in order to save space and parchment. So we have the original letters and we have plenty of documents in the original language to which to compare the original letters in order to space out the words. There's no real hope for the punctuation except for translations which did survive all this time. Because of this, today's English translations of the Bible are as close to correct as any translation before them, except maybe the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) or maybe the Latin Vulgate (Latin translation).
One of the issues with Windows is LCD (Lowest Common Denominator). If you don't spell it out almost exactly (which I, too, am guilty of) most Windows users will type the command exactly as you said and when it doesn't work most Windows users will assume that you were wrong and not research the mistake. Most Windows users think that the PATH has something to do with religion. :)
In other words, I was just trying to help. I apologize for offending you, Malc.
If you want a project with a world class cock wallet in charge, look to OpenBSD. ... or look to Microsoft...