Raven

Actually, he wasnÔÇÖt caught. He simply felt guilty and began doing what he considered penance.

I donÔÇÖt know, I think he would be doing more slipping and less running with all that blood

The egg of course, after all there were eggs long before there were chickens.

quote: And a little hint, we ain't diplomats. We'll come see you, sure, but we don't come to talk. We come to bring our own sort of diplomacy. I dont know, I kind of like diplomacy Annexation, Devastation, Usurpation, and Domination Not to be confused with the four branches of arithmetic: Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision (from Alice in Wonderland, for those of you who dont know). quote: As for the Chicken Revolution, I was not joking. Some of you already have your fate sealed. :evil grin: Very true, Im just hoping Im not one of those unfortunates whose fate it is to receive orders to chase down a bunch of chickens.

By the way, do I ever get to have my name added to the list on the Gammulan website?

Interesting, but also pathetic.

My apologies for attempting to be helpful.

Sounds like a bug, you should post it in the appropriate bug thread. And donÔÇÖt forget to include your system specs in your signature (there is a thread in the archives that explains how). Oh, and make sure you actually have drones on the shuttles and such not before you try to deploy them.

I know I fly a Violon, and Dredd flies a stormcarrier, but I was wondering what the rest of the Gammulans preferred.

quote:Originally posted by Commander Elio Jason: quote:Originally posted by Buzz: Don't you mean the Resnig out of the airlock? what difference does it make? I donÔÇÖt know, thereÔÇÖs always explosive decompression.

quote: -Observation is required for quantum particles to do anything therefore someone, something must have observed the singularity out of nothing. The could be God or something completely different, science leaves ROOM for God's existence. This is the point I am trying to make. Every word in my posts on this subject is necessary to understand the concepts and points, read carefully. Again darling, I think youÔÇÖre misunderstanding this. Consider if you will, what observation is. For something to be observed it has to be detectable, so we can use whatever method there using these days to detect quanta. Now that we detect it, it registers on some type of display or readout, which either gives off light of its own or reflects light from another source, and this light strikes our eyes. This results in a series of electrochemical reactions in the brain, and thatÔÇÖs all. Quanta need to be observed to be considered to exist in a given point in space, but this doesnÔÇÖt mean that observation gives them existence, simply that until observed we use a probability curve to determine where the quantum probably is. When observed, this curve collapses, and the particle now has a known location, or whatever other property were measuring. If you can point us to another source that supports your claim, then do so, but I donÔÇÖt think your convincing anyone. quote: The chances of the universe being as complex as it is, are 100%. Because it is. Exactly right, I didnÔÇÖt bring this up earlier because I donÔÇÖt think it will convince anyone, but itÔÇÖs worth a try. quote: We are going to dicover that we are just small spec in this universe, and this universe is just a spec in a multitude of other universes. By the time we are done, we are gonna be so small comparably that some of you will have an inferiority complex. Perhaps, it certainly seams possible, though I wouldnÔÇÖt fall to in love with the idea yet. quote: discussing beliefs does not require evidence. Discuss it on the fly from what you can recall at the time. Preposterous? Really? No, not preposterous, just typical. And yes, you can have a discussion on the fly, but any good argument requires evidence, even one on the fly (which this most certainly is not). quote: I can't believe you agree with what I'm saying Scary isnÔÇÖt it. Oh well, this is what makes changing topics so much fun.

quote: I really don't aim to convince. I could show someone all the evidence they needed...and if they don't want to believe....then there is no convincing them. You say that you could show someone all the evidence they needed and if they didnÔÇÖt want to belive they wouldnÔÇÖt. This is true for many people, but not everyone, and it is also not a solid logical premis for not presenting evidence. quote: So leave evidence for the court. I am not trying to prove anything. It's a discussion, not a civil or criminal case. Preposterous! How are you suppose to have an argument (or discussion, or whatever you wish to call it) without evidence. If we were to forego evidence then we would have no way of building a solid argument, and thus no way of having a logical discussion. We could still type are views again and again until we were blue in the face, but if thatÔÇÖs the plan then count me out. quote: Yes it is unique. The brain, as opposed to a computer processor, does not come all preprogrammed. The brain learns from the different kinds of inputs during life, and that's what makes us unique. An artist that makes wooden animals with his hand and a knife will create tigers, cats, dogs, giraffes that all look the same to each other. But in the end, each one is unique. Don't we all have 2 legs, 2 arms, 1 head and 2 eyes? But that doesn't mean we're not unique. It's the same about the brain. It looks all the same to everyone, but deep inside, we're much different. Again, dead in the black, and a nice analogy to boot. quote: 1: The more we disassemble something the less we understand it. ex. Quantum tunneling: A quantum particle can exist in two places at the SAME TIME. If you fire an electron gun at a screen and register their time to impact as constant. If you place a lead wall between the gun and the screen most of the electrons will bounce off but some will hit the screen. They did not go through the wall they never existed in the wall and arrive at the screen faster than if the wall was not there. We do not know why we just know that it does. (This phenomenon is used to make the switches in transistors faster and smaller, it is not something I made up) And by finding this out do we gain or loose knowledge. Again, by examining a phenomena we gain knowledge, and we also come to a greater understanding of how much there is that we donÔÇÖt yet know. This is in no way the same as loosing knowledge. quote: 2: A quantum is the designation for any extremely small particle. Yes, but might I ask how one goes about resolving itself? quote: 3. The Hinesburg Uncertainty Principle applies to all matter. Of course it does, but on a macroscopic scale it makes virtually no difference. quote: 4: Romans kept precise records of their executions, a person named "Jesus" was crucified by the Roman Government. And archeologists have found ruins of a city that they believe to have been troy, but I donÔÇÖt hear anyone claiming how the Iliad and Odyssey are entirely true. I donÔÇÖt deny that the bible has some basis in fact, but that doesnÔÇÖt necicitate it being entirely fact. If I may point out an old trick when lying is to include bits of the truth to add credibility to your lie. quote: 5: Science is theory for nothing can be proven to absolute certainty. Yes, I have said that a few times havenÔÇÖt I. quote: 6: Science does not disprove the existence of God but actually leaves room for God to exist (see previous post) Yes, we know, but just because god canÔÇÖt be disproved doesnÔÇÖt mean that he exists. Just because I canÔÇÖt disprove the possibility of an invisible and insubstantial rabbit sitting on my bed doesnÔÇÖt mean there is one. In fact I think that were I to claim the existence of such a rabbit most people would consider me more then a little nuts. quote: 7: The odds 10^10^30 : 1 are against the possibility of the universe arriving at its present state of COMPLEXITY through random chance. Meaning all the proteins, planets, amino acids, and life itself at too complex to had been created by random luck. As far as I can tell thatÔÇÖs the probability of the universe arriving at this exact arrangement, with each and every subatomic particle in the exact position that it is. Not to disappoint you darling, but any other single arrangement of matter in the universe is equally improbable. However the shear improbability of any one exact arrangement doesnÔÇÖt negate the fact that the universe must exist in some arrangement, and this one is as likely as any other. quote: 8: Before you start attacking faith, defend your own standpoint. The brain is not just a "machine" that can be taken apart and understood. The more we look into the brain's construction the less we understand its existence. Many have said the most complex object is the human brain. And you have made nothing but a series of claims, no support. You claim that the brain is not just a machine that can be taken apart and understood, you claim that the more we look into the brainÔÇÖs construction the less we understand its existence, and you claim that many have said that the most complex object is the human brain. No evidence. None, nil, nada. Is this really suppose to convince anyone of anything? quote: 9: Encarta is even more layman than my posts for many do not wish to spend the time and energy to understand modern science. A good argumentative strategy darling, after all there is no way IÔÇÖm going to make time to read all of those books. Furthermore, no matter how well written a book is it isnÔÇÖt necessarily the truth. Now, IÔÇÖm not claiming that Encarta is the source of all wisdom, but they tend to be good at getting the gist of things in a reasonably understandable format. quote: Quantum Unreality, Infintiy, the undefined, etc. Nice words. Infinity isnÔÇÖt matter, but a mathematical concept. What you mean by the undefined I do not know, but some explanation would be nice. As for Quantum Unreality, it sounds cool, but what does it mean? Can you provide a link to a respected yet understandable source so that we may understand what your saying? quote: It is not just the we do not have the tools to understand but we are not ABLE to understand. Quantum reality is the infinite comlexity to simple matter. The brain is so extordinary that we cannot UNDERSTAND it only guess and predict. ThatÔÇÖs what computers are for darling. Look at the advances they are making in genetics, something so complex no one can understand the human genome, yet with computers they are making steady progress towards a greater understanding of the human genome. The brain is a similar phenomena. By studying it we will be able to understand it, and if it requires a computer to manipulate all of the data involved, then thatÔÇÖs no great surprise anyway.

Delighted to be aboard Sir!

quote: To believe in god, you must have FAITH that he/she/it exists. Faith does not need proof in order to believe something, that is why it is called faith. Thank you Jaguar, that is absolutely correct, Im surprised no one has brought this up before. I cant argue much with faith, but because there is no solidly logical reason to have faith in god (the so called evidence that god exists seems to become evidence only after one has faith) it also isnt an argument for belief. quote: Yes you can break down the neuro impulses of the mind into biological terms, and see how it physically works. Thats terrific, explain conciousness. Explain sentience. You keep reaching into your tool bag to dismiss these issues when all you do is skirt them, when you are completely unwilling/unable to consider that maybe you don't have the right tools. Youre correct, we dont really have the right tools; like I said, neurochemistry hasnt gotten that far. However, I believe that which is reasonable to believe given the amount of evidence and the significance of the topic, and there isnt enough evidence to prove the existence of a soul to my satisfaction. As for consciousness, or sentience, those are nothing but artifacts of our mental processes. quote: Your refutations deal only with the physical and nothing more, of course the brain works on impulses. You fail to address the essence of the soul. What is there besides the physical? Explain to me something that exists as neither energy nor matter, because the realm of the physical includes all energy and all matter. How does something that is neither energy nor matter (which, in truth, is simply energy in a different form) interact with energy and matter? It doesnt. If there is a such thing as a soul, and if it even vaguely resembles current mythology regarding it, then it is simply another physical phenomena that can be measured by science. But until conclusive proof is offered, I will remain skeptical of the soul. quote: Perhaps there is not god in the sense of some all powerful master overlooking the universe and dictating our existance. Perhaps God is internal, the metaphysical "something" that continually tells us "there is more, there is always more. What you are is something more." Perhaps this God could be called "mind" or "awareness" but you surely agree that we are as of yet unable to subjugate the "mind" to scientific certainty. Not the brain mind you, which is purely physical, but the mind, our concieousness, our soul if you will. So what? I could name my left shoe god and conclusively prove that it exists, and everyone can go back to arguing politics, happy in the knowledge that god exists. Well, at least for a few more months before it gets thrown in the trash and lost track of. Seriously though, I dont see a reason to affix the label of god on any of phenomena, they already have perfectly good names, and we are not arguing whether they exist. The mind and awareness are artifacts of our through processes, our neurology if you will. Even if there is indeed another level to our through processes (which, again, is unproven and extremely suspect) then they too will be given names at the appropriate time, but labeling them as god just confuses the issue. quote: In regards to the dual slit experiment and the multiverse... I meant to propose that the dual slit experiment somehow allows us to "observe" more than one universe at a time. If we agree that most of our existence happens in one universe and we cannot observe ourselves in other universes (assuming the many world theory is correct) then I mention the dual slit experiment as an exception where we perhaps can observe several universes simultaneously. (( what this has to do with our topic here, I'm not sure )) Again, I dont understand how you come to the conclusion that the dual slit experiment allows us to observe other universes. quote: As far as proving or disproving God, would it not be necessary to define the terms first? In other words what does God mean? If I wish to prove that 2x = x + x, I must first define what "2", "x", "+" and "=" mean. Would I not also have to do the same if I wish to prove Does God exist? Perhaps to some, God is the unifying mathematical theorem that explains all. Then we would argue (and some have!) whether or not such an equation exists! In this regard, if science discovered an equation that worked for everything and one defined God as being the unifying equation, then science would have successfully provided a proof for God. Like with goaliejerrys argument about god being consciousness or some such, by redefining god as something else (my left shoe for example) you simply confuse the issue. If you want to argue about the existence of a mathematical theorem that explains it all, do so, but by calling it god you add unnecessary confusion. The generally accepted definition of god against which I am arguing against (along with religion in general) is perfectly fine. An exact definition of god may or may not be useful, but saying that god could be anything at all doesnt help anything. quote: If we say something exists if and only if one can see, hear, touch, smell, taste or physically feel it, then that is to say that only the tangible exists and anything intangible is hogwash suspect to interpretation and belief. Lego exists but war does not. I would say that something only exists if it exists as a physical phenomena, furthermore, before I belive something does in fact exist I would like to have some evidence that it does, whether this is seeing it with my eyes, or on a radar screen, or inferring its existence through various proven theories. Concepts are just as material as any other mental process, it exists as an electrochemical reaction in the brain, which is as real as anything else. quote: Ep5, the mind is a soul. unique to everyone. the brain is a body part. everyone has a brain. and everyone's brain basically has all the same lobes...or areas in it which govern our emotional side...like this area of the brain here has activity when dreaming etc etc...we'll all have that area. So looking at the picture of a brain doesn't really fit to the mind. It's like a glove. The glove is there, but needs a hand in it to move it. Unsupported claim. If you want to convince anyone provide some evidence, preferably solid empirical evidence. quote: As for someone saying that God was there for the creation...so it was witnessed so it became. But someone says who witnessed God....so he could Be? No need to witness the Supreme. He is above all our little theories. Sort of like the constitution. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Again, perhaps some people will be convinced if a lot of different people tell them the same thing, but thats not the case for me. Evidence would be nice, though I could settle just fine for simply not believing you. quote: Without a God, morality is relative to the situation and the results of actions, not the intrinsic wrong involved in them. Thats the way the world works darling, everything is relative. Most people would say that killing is wrong, but does that mean they would object to a cop shooting a terrorist who was attempting to blow up a building or some such? Few people would. What is good and what is bad, while influenced by biology and culture, is ultimately a personal choice. Do you think that what Stalin or Hitler did was wrong? I would dare say that you would, but that doesnt mean that everyone else would agree with you. My own form of morality is based on expediency and politeness. Basically, be polite to people except when its in your best interest not too, act in a civilized manner unless there is a good reason not do, etcetera. We wouldnt agree on a lot of things when it comes to right and wrong, but thats the way it goes. quote: If i'm right about God and I follow His teachings: I'm going to be in supreme happiness after I die. If i'm wrong about God and I follow His teachings anyway: I'm going to be a much nicer person than I otherwise would have been during life, and i'll end up the same as everyone else when I die. Very good darling, I used to believe the same myself, but I figured out that Im just fooling myself if I even pretend that there is anything more then the most infinitesimally small iota of a chance that god exists in a manner even remotely comparable with what popular mythology says about him. I dont value being a nice person except in a superficial manner, personal gain (and pleasure, we cant forget pleasure) for myself and those I care about is much more important for me, and I dont see the minute possibility that there may in fact be an unpleasant afterlife waiting for me as a sufficient deterrent. Thus I gave up on that logic a long time ago. quote: Yes, but there's no evidence why those "misunderstood natural occurences" seem to happen with surprising consistency on religious objects, statues, and areas. It seems illogical to have faith towards them being natural occurances when they are both totally unexplainable AND center on belief in God. I'd expect that to lean toward more a CLUE (not proof), that there is a higher power/God, as opposed to that "it's just a fluke". No, there clues that we dont know everything, and with study they will be explained, perhaps unlocking new areas for science to explore, perhaps not.

quote: It was my understanding that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, and that the current theroy of universal structure was one in which all expands into infinity and will not ever collapse on itself again, and as a result the universe is flat, and will not collapse on itself. There was quite the quiet uproar if I am not mistaken, and this news made the cover of time as well as extensive coverage in national geographic. Conclusive proof was presented that the universe will continue to expand into infinity, so everything seemingly happens once Just give it time; they will conclusively prove something else soon enough. And no, before anyone tries to take this as a denial of my belief is science or some such, it isnÔÇÖt. One of the points I have belabored endlessly is that science progressively churns out more accurate models and theories, and that means that some theories are more evolved then others. quote: First you say that we can disprove the exsistance of god, but then you say that such an ability is pointless. I would just like to say that my considerations of God are not limited to the Christian sense, for if there is a god, no one as of yet has grasped its nature. So your referance to the fossil record is moot in my eyes, of course the earth wasn't created in seven days. But perhaps Genesis was all metaphorical? Actually I was saying we can disprove evidence that is used to support the existence of god, such as the bible. Actually disproving god, as I mentioned in my post, is impossible. But even though we canÔÇÖt conclusively disprove god, we can still discredit the belief in him by disproving various bits of evidence that are said to support his existence. quote: the brain, or the mind, is just a set of neurons that transmit or repel electrical pulses depending on the input, just like a computer, but far more complex. Seems simple, but the brain might be the most complex thing there is. And that's what makes us, us. Thank you Epsilon 5, that is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

quote: As for the difficulty or our being created by chance, well chance is independent of difficulty. While the chances may be extremely small and incomprehesible, so too is the vastness of the universe. And even if the odds are 1:1000000000000000000000, that one time could happen on the first roll. Might I also add a couple of theories that suggest that there is more then simply one roll as you put it. First of all, my understanding is that the universe follows a cycle of collapse and expansion and has followed such a cycle for an unknown span of time, perhaps all eternity if indeed the universe is perpetual. This being the case, there would be an infinite number of ÔÇ£rollsÔÇØ and thus a guarantee of an infinite number of successes. Furthermore, I would like to bring up the multiple worlds theory, in which (as I understand it) all possibilities come to exist in separate universes. quote: NOW BEFORE you reactionarys jump at me here, listen to this last point. While scientific discovery does indeed dispell the unknown, and even if the "multitude of miricles" that can't be explained now are someday explained, IT PROVES ABSOLUTLY NOTHING . For if there is no god, then discovering the natural order of the universe may well explain its origins. However, it is also conceievable that science is simply the cataloging of God's methodology. SO any scientist who thinks he's disproving the exsitance of god by discovering the workings of nature may only be explaining how god did his work. That is true, but we can disprove evidence that is used to claim the existence of god. The fossil record, for example, proves that there has been life on earth for a hell of a lot longer then the bible claims, and the earth has been around a hell of a lot longer then that. Furthermore, there is no need to disprove the existence of god; rather the existence of god must be proven. Would you accept any scientific theory as truth if it was unproven and supported only by circumstantial evidence that at best proves that a lot of things are still unknown? No, and neither would anyone else, but many people would never even consider the need to prove god exists, they simply take it on faith. quote: Put a scientific value on love... Neurochemistry hasnÔÇÖt gotten that far darling, but give it a couple of centuries. quote: Option 1: The universe has always existed, the big bang just existed and happened. By chance the Earth was created, by chance humans evolved to the level we are now, by chance there is an extremely strong belief in religion or a higher power throughout the world which people die for, and by chance miracles happen. Of course, if we exist by chance, human life isn't notably valuable and there is no need for any sort of morality or law. At that point, we are simply animals, who do not have any value other than efficiency and ability to bring pleasure. If you are not useful, you should be destroyed, since under the idea that all human life is by chance, then human life has not been made higher by a God, thus morality is meaningless. The majority and groups and power should be able to do whatever they want and oppress whoever they want since, in the end, none of it matters. Thank you ever so much for vindicating my moral philosophy First, humanities belief in a higher power isnÔÇÖt the result of chance, rather a logical conclusion of our biology. We seek to know the unknown, and for primitive civilizations that have no way to determine why things happen they make up stories explaining them. Nothing random at all about that. And of cource, human life doesnÔÇÖt have any intrinsic value, nothing does. However, we can value human life, or anything else for that matter, as much as we choose too. We are, however, limited by our biology because it is good for a species if members of said species value the life of other members of said species as it increases to chances of reproduction and thus species survival. Thus, we tend to value human life because of our biology. ItÔÇÖs the same with the rest of morality. Morals tend to be the kind of rules that, if followed, allow a group of humans to successfully live together and thus to thrive (that is, to reproduce). I have belabored the point of biological morality endlessly in previous threads so I shanÔÇÖt go into any greater detail unless asked to. quote: If you take the current odds however, and look at all the very, very, very, very, very, very, very miniscule chance that we were created by chance, and compare it to the current scientific thinking that everything has to have a CAUSE of some sort, then it is much more likely that God exists. I believe I have made my point about that earlier in this post, consider this argument invalidated. Furthermore, consider the probability against a being such as god existing. I canÔÇÖt calculate it, can you? You canÔÇÖt any more prove god exists by disproving CURRENT scientific theories then you can disprove his existence by proving scientific theories. Instead, the theory of god must stand on its own, or fall, because simply saying that MODERN science canÔÇÖt explain something does NOT prove that there must be a god, or that it is unexplainable. All of the arguments given so far that claim to support god prove only that not everything is known. I know not everything is known, you donÔÇÖt need to prove that to me. I would like to see one shred of evidence that proves god exists, not simply that there is an unknown factor involved, but that there is in fact a god. IÔÇÖm expecting this particular paragraph to be thoroughly ignored by people who are arguing for the existence of god. quote: It's probably more likely, statistically, that if I jump into the air i'll float into space and then live without oxygen than we were created by chance. So your saying that the probability of you standing on an object in low earth orbit in a space suit and jumping is greater then the probability of life somewhere in the universe (or multiverse, if you believe the many worlds theory) at some point during its existence, ever. Just make sure youÔÇÖre tethered when you jump, it would be a shame if someone had to go after you. quote: If we were created by chance, so was every other being, and all of the laws of science, and every other thing that science has proven to have order. Even if humanity was created by chance, there had to be some sort of plan or order or logic behind it all, and "chance" doesn't cut it, at least not at the level we know about chance. Sure, one day science may be able to explain most of it away, but it'll never be able to disprove the idea of God doing it. Again, proves nothing, the theory of god needs to be able to stand on its own, simply saying that I canÔÇÖt prove it false with inductive reasoning says nothing. You can never prove something 100% false (or 100% true) with inductive reasoning. Your argument goes something like this, ÔÇ£well god could exist, so he does.ÔÇØ quote: You fail to realize the inherent contradiction. If you have faith in science because it works, and then "miracles" happen now that directly contradict science and do things that science SHOULD be able to explain currently (blood coming out of statues eyes even when the statue is moved?, imprints of faces staying on cloth for years, visions?), then don't those miracles prove that the science that you believe in is flawed? At that point, having faith that God exists is just as logical as having faith that science will eventually be able to explain everything. Your right darling, science doesnÔÇÖt work, it doesnÔÇÖt offer increasingly more accurate explanations for phenomena, it doesnÔÇÖt provide increasingly more accurate models of how our world works (after all, we know that classical physics is more accurate then quantum physics) and it most certainly didnÔÇÖt provide the framework for the technology which allows us to have this argument. We have hard empirical evidence that science works and that it has disproved innumerable miracles over the centuries, and we donÔÇÖt even have a scrap of empirical evidence that solidly supports the existence of god. I donÔÇÖt really think the two are comparable, and with anything but religion neither would you. quote: I'm talking about the fact that humans are the only species that even grasp the concept of religion, and life, and meaning of life, etc. I don't see any apes even questioning or considering the idea of God. Yes, we are exceptionally good at self deception. Seriously though, IÔÇÖm not arguing that we are the most advanced species on the planet, and I donÔÇÖt think anyone will, but that proves nothing. quote: If it comes down to choosing between the universe always simply existed, and God always existed, it is much more logical to assume that God always existed, since it: 1. Is supported by science that everything has some sort of cause. 2. It takes away the concept that we somehow beat the very, very, very, very smallest odds imaginable. 3. Explains and justifies the concepts of morality and miracles. 1. 1. Yes, everything has a cause, but only religion is so presumptuous to believe that the cause is always known. The lack of a known cause does not prove that it must be god, only that the cause is unknown. 2. I have already addressed the probability of life, consider this point invalidated. 3. Morality is explained by evolutionary biology and psychology, no need for religion. Miracles prove only that not everything is known, a concept that science most certainly accepts, but which religion (which likes everything explained) tends to reject. Now, if anyone has any evidence that god exists, please present it, but IÔÇÖm tired of hearing evidence that proves only that some things are unknown.

Right, the bible, forgot about that. Ever read The Iliad or The Odyssey? Are they works of fiction or true? I think itÔÇÖs safe to say that they are not based entirely in fact, but there is still speculation on how much may be true. Was there ever a Troy? Was there a king named Odysseus? ItÔÇÖs an interesting question to ponder, but not something I worry too much about. Similarly we can look at the legend of King Arthur. There is ongoing debate as to how much of the legend is true, or if any of it is at all. I think itÔÇÖs safe to view the bible in the same context as any other legend. It may be partially based in fact, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean that itÔÇÖs all fact. I donÔÇÖt think anyone is going to try to argue that Beowulf is entirely accurate, so why should we think that the bible is. Now, to DreddÔÇÖs argument. quote: The main reason why a God of some sort has to exist is because something had to start it all. Sure, lets say an alien existed and caused the Big Bang, but how did the alien come into existance? Every effect has a cause of some sort, so there has to be one entity that is all powerful and everlasting, tangibly seperate from the reality/universe as we know it that started it all. Ok, so we canÔÇÖt explain a phenomenon and thus it must be god. Typical religious thinking. LetÔÇÖs assume that you are correct, and that some entity has to have caused the big bang (never mind that there is no evidence to suggest this). Since that entity had to come from somewhere, which is supposedly impossible before the big bang, then it has to be god. There is simply no basis for making that jump, just because itÔÇÖs something we donÔÇÖt understand DOESNÔÇÖT necessitate it being god. quote: Then the multitude of secondary reasons, such as how hard it would be that we would be created by chance, the intrinsic order of the universe that had to have put in place, the multitude of miracles that can't even be partially explained by science, the extreme uniqueness of humanity and the power of our minds, etc. Again, those are not reasons to believe in god, they are simple stipulations of the unknown. Maybe, just maybe, you could build an argument that suggests that agnostics are correct, but nothing points to the Christian god. As far as the improbability of us being created by chance, unlikely things happen. That only proves that either A: we got really lucky, B: we donÔÇÖt understand all of what went on in the process that created life, or C: all of the above. Intrinsic order to the universe? Compared, pray tell to what? You canÔÇÖt say our universe is orderly unless you have a different universe that you can say is disorderly. Where, pray tell, did you find a second universe? As for miracles that cannot be explained by science, that is unsupported. There is no reason to believe that they cannot be explained by science, simply that they cannot be explained by MODERN science. A few thousand years ago a comet, the movement of the sun and mood, the planets, these could not be explained by the current level of science, but now they are. If you were to show a laser pointer to a scientist of the 14th century (or whatever passed for scientists back then) he would assure you that it was indeed magic. But that doesnÔÇÖt mean it is magic, only that it was beyond the scope of science at the time. And what exactly do you mean when you say the uniqueness of humanity and the power of our minds. Humanity is unique in the since it is the most evolved species on earth, but genetically were are very similar to apes (I think itÔÇÖs about a 98% match with certain species). As for the power of our minds, IÔÇÖm not sure I understand. If your referring to so called psychic powers, we need to start a whole new argument, if your referring to something else kindly explain.

IÔÇÖm not all that familiar with the many worlds theory (and I believe thatÔÇÖs what your referring to with your mention of the multiverse) but I donÔÇÖt see how that relates even in the least to the dual slit experiment. Some explanation of that would be nice. Now, as far as god being bound by the laws of physics, I agree, on the infinitesimally small chance there is a god he would be bound by physics. However, assuming that he has mastery of all of the laws of physics and complete understanding is unsupported, rather he would simply have a grater understanding of physics. I believe the point is moot anyway, as I donÔÇÖt believe in god, but thatÔÇÖs no reason not to argue about him.

May I ask your reasoning?

I havent bean around in a while, but Im definitely Gamulan. Id prefer diplomacy fleetIm good at diplomacy

How old do you think I am?

First, wouldnÔÇÖt the cat observe itself getting poisoned? Assuming that you have to be human to make an observation seams a little conceited. I read IceColdÔÇÖs post knowing nothing about Quantum Theory, and I nearly gagged. It didnÔÇÖt make any sense, why does an event need to be observed before it happens, itÔÇÖs like the damn tree that falls in the woods when no one is around to hear it. Whether it makes a sound is determined by the definition of sound, whether you define it as a wave phenomena or as the electrical impulses such a phenomena generates in the human brain. Except now were saying that for the way phenomena to happen to begin with, for the tree to even fall, the proper electrochemical reaction must happen in someoneÔÇÖs brain. Gack! It makes no sense. Now, assuming this ghastly theory is correct, it proves nothing about god. I already conceded the point that science has room for god to exist, it simply is insanely unlikely, and even more unlikely that he just happens to fit in without our ideas of him. As far as proving god exists because he has to witness the big bang, it only proves that something was there to witness it, that it is god as depicted in the modern Christian mythos is an unwarranted conclusion. This is all irrelevant, however. I donÔÇÖt know where you got your idea about quantum theory, but I did a wee bit of research and you got it dead wrong. quote: The basic concept I wish to explain to you all is that nothing happens at all on the quantum level by itself. One must observe the quantum before it will resolve itself into something. A quantum, for those of us who know, is an inadvisably small particle. ItÔÇÖs not something that resolves itself into something, it just is. quote: -Nothing happens unless someone is there to observe it You got it wrong. The properties of a particle is considered to exist as a fuzzy probability, itÔÇÖs location (or itÔÇÖs spin, or itÔÇÖs momentum, or whatever your measuring) is unknown, but the likelihood of the particle being in a given location (at a given time if the quanta is moving) can be determined. In effect the particle doesnÔÇÖt have an exact location until measured. This doesnÔÇÖt mean it doesnÔÇÖt exist though, or that itÔÇÖs not somewhere, because it is, it simply is indeterminate where it is. quote: -The more we take things apart the less we understand them (in fact we don't understand them at all) This is a dreadful misinterpretation, it would be more accurate to say that the more take things apart the more we know about them, including knowing that we know only a very little. Your statement implies that by taking things apart we loose knowledge, which is clearly untrue. quote: -The quantum cannot be predicted for the very act of observing it changes its qualities. IÔÇÖm assuming your referring to HeisenbergÔÇÖs Uncertainty Principle. First of all, this is applicable only in extremely small applications where the act of measuring the position of a particle will significantly alter its momentum. Quantum theory does, however, deal in predicting where particle will be based on probability. Not very accurate for predicting the properties of a single particle, it becomes more accurate as the numbers of particle increase. To prove that I did the research, here is my source quote: The problem with evolution is that there has not been enough time since the formation of the universe to form one amino acid by random chance. Actually there has been, it may be unlikely but not impossible. Furthermore, attempting to disprove an individual theory doesnÔÇÖt disprove science as a whole, as I believe I already covered. quote: The odds of our present universe arriving to its present state by random chance is: 10^10^30 : 1 against So what? The probability of the universe arriving at any other exact arrangement is equally improbable. Just because all possibilities are dreadfully improbable doesnÔÇÖt mean that none of the possibilities will occur. ItÔÇÖs like picking a number between one and one million. ItÔÇÖs unlikely that you will pick any one number (say 5,243) but you do pick a number, and so however improbable it is it none the less is the number you pick.

Oh, this is going to be good! As I have said in previous topics, IÔÇÖm an atheist. Specifically a scientific materialist. What does this mean? Basically that I believe what is most logical to believe based on empirical evidence, that is to say I believe in science. Does this mean I have faith in science? Sure, but my faith is anything but blind. I donÔÇÖt think anyone here will argue that, despite all of its flaws, science and scientific reasoning has a very long history of working. Both insofar as science produces a series of more and more accurate models of the world around us, not perfect models, thatÔÇÖs impossible, simply a succession of models that become better and better at predicting events. What about phenomena not explained by science? What about photographs of ghosts, statues drinking milk, and all those other ÔÇ£supernaturalÔÇØ phenomena that seam to defy science? Simple, those are phenomena that simply havenÔÇÖt been explain by science yet, but (assuming we donÔÇÖt kill ourselves off or some similarly unpleasant happenstance) they will be explained by science. And how do I reason this? It stands to reason that science has been steadily generating explanations for so called miracles and supernatural phenomena since the beginning of history, and subsequently proving religious theories wrong. The sun doesnÔÇÖt circle the earth, it is not being chased by the moon, and itÔÇÖs most certainly not a fiery chariot. We know that eclipses and comets are simply natural phenomena and thus donÔÇÖt foretell doom, and no one ever blames earthquakes or lighting strikes on angry gods any more. It is a logical extrapolation that because science has been explaining the unknown successfully for all of these centuries, it will continue to explain the unknown. Similarly, religious theories have been successively proven wrong for so many centuries there is little reason to believe that they wonÔÇÖt continue to be proven wrong. Ok, so a lot of you are going to try to punch holes in my arguments by pointing out the flaws of various scientific theories. DonÔÇÖt bother, you will note that there are no references to specific theories in my argument, and that is most certainly not because I donÔÇÖt know any, but because I know them all to be suspect. Because science uses inductive reasoning to generate models that explain events these models can never be proven 100% sure, because all possibilities cannot be tested. Furthermore, ever so many theories are attempts to explain phenomena that are very poorly understood, and for which no experiments are possible. Dredd brought up the big bang, a theory that most people (myself included) have only a marginal understanding of, and which is a rather inadequate explanation of what MAY have happened. Another classic theory to trash on is evolution. Many people are aware that evolution doesnÔÇÖt explain the rate at which species have evolved, and it is often taken to mean that god is somehow responsible for the process. Ok, letÔÇÖs look at this again, evolution doesnÔÇÖt sufficiently explain how species evolved to what they are now, and therefore god must have had a hand in it. Yea, sure, like anyone would ever buy that if they didnÔÇÖt have blind faith in religion. So, anyway, the great thing about science is that you donÔÇÖt have to have an explanation for everything, and even the explanations you do have donÔÇÖt have to be perfect, and saying ÔÇ£I donÔÇÖt knowÔÇØ is always a viable response. So god might exist, right, I mean he could be perfectly explainable by science, just another one of these phenomena that havenÔÇÖt yet been explained, but eventually will be? Well, sure, theoretically god could exist, but why? There is simply no good reason to believe in god. Nothing points to there being a god, there is no empirical evidence that necessitates the existence of a divine being, or even strongly suggests it. Lets look at the existence of god as any other scientific theory. There is not solid empirical evidence, only a long tradition of belief and a number of poorly understood phenomena that are attributed to god. I donÔÇÖt know about anyone else, but that doesnÔÇÖt seem like very inspiring evidence.

I liked BW, but I didnÔÇÖt like having to micromanage my villagers and such not, and the inability of them to fight was just plain sad. BW2 sounds like a big improvement. Did anyone catch when itÔÇÖs supposed to come out?

Gack! Did this thread ever evolve! First, to address the original topic of this thread. I would say that you have to find someone to share your life with, and focus on yourself and that one other person. Make your personal enjoyment, and that of your partner, the goal of your life, and to hell with everyone else. Of course, Im a shameless hedonist and something of a sociopath, so perhaps that colors my views. As far as religion goes, many of you may recall that Im an atheist. I dont believe in miracles, simply unexplained (but not unexplainable) phenomena. If there is some supreme being (which I supremely doubt) then he (or she, or it) is a creature of science as much as we are, simply more advanced. Anything beyond a peoples ability to explain with science tends to be relegated to the category of magic. If you showed a laser pointer to a group of aborigines who had never seen modern technology before, they would think it was magic, but it isnt, its science. All the phenomena that are explained through religion, these are just that, phenomena. The existence of human life, the joy someone may take in helping another, the cruelty of an untimely death, or narrowly avoiding misfortune. Its like the laser pointer, beyond our knowledge, but not in the least magical or divine. So what does this mean for Dredds question? It means that yes, we are biological machines that exist solely because we happen to be a type of biological machine that is good at self replication and survival. It means that, as biological machine, our function is to exist so long as to reproduce and then to assist our offspring (and the offspring of others of our species) in existing long enough to reproduce, and so fourth and so on until our extinction. Pretty miserable philosophy eh? But then, the truth is so often bitter and lies so often sweet. So, youre a self replicating (though not all by yourself) biological machine whose function is reproduction and existence, what do you do? My answer would be forget about all that, forget about reproducing and assisting the next generation in existing long enough to reproduce, why bother. Have fun, either by your self or with someone you love, and to hell with the rest of humanity. Now, that I have added my humble (?) opinion to everyone elses, I would like to comment on what some of you said. quote: I mean Dredd is 18y/o!! I'm suprised people his age can stop masturbating long enough to think those thoughts. Umm thats rather ageist. I read that and I was more then a little offended, I mean Im not a dreadfully nice person, but thats just rude, not to mention crass. Making a generalization about someone because of there age is one thing, but thats an extremely strong, not to mention incorrect, statement (I mean, think about it for a moment, how long can you actually masturbate at a time anyway, one would think you would get rather raw after a while). Why do you think I never mention my age, its a prime excuse for belittling someones ideas. Ether your too young, and you will come to agree with me as you mature (objections are moot, because its obvious you will change), or else youre an old fart, with dated ideals (and perhaps a touch of senility) even if your not all that old. Bah! You cant win! quote: we have a word those persons...punks we love to lock up punks! Um Im not going to get started (primarily because I dont feel any kinship to punks) but thats more then a little hostile. Maybe Im takes this wrong, but it makes you sound like a real zealot. quote: aren't you getting a little carried away with the no church has the power to etc etc...to be quite frank no one has the power to make you do anything not just a church. but some of what you said to me...makes it sound more to me like you would be describing a "cult". A church doesn't force you or anyone to do anything. a church is a place to worship from. Actually, a church can also be a religious institution. When I say catholic church do you assume Im talking about a locality? I should hope not, and it is this second definition of church that Jaguar is referring to. quote: That is why I am agnostic, along with a few other reasons that I will not delve into here, unless invited to. I'm curious, consider yourself invited.