Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Depends what constituancy you are in - Oxford has some far left councillors for example. It also depends on whether you are planning on wasting your vote at a national or council level. On a national level, you might be best voting Lib Dems, who are kind of centre-left on most issues, but quite far right on state interventionism. Failing that, there's the CPGB or the IWU.

If ytou want my advice, vote for whichever mainstream party you want, but get involved in socialist politics by joining trade unions, and maybe even voulenteering at a homeless shelter or something.

I guess you mean Anarchy the political system - I don't think it's an intelligent system at all; the sort proposed by unintelligent early-teens as a knee-jerk anti-state reaction.

With exam season upon us Brits, I thought you might be interested by a philosophical argument I came across while trawling through my notes, advanced by Wittgenstein.

It is almost indisputable that you cannot prove the existance of God - and hence the veracity of religion - through conventional, rational, argument. The four classic proofs for His existance are unlikely to convince anyone but someone who already believes

However, another school of thought says that 'proof' in a classical sense is not needed. Just like the truths of maths or sense-data, belief in God does not need any other beliefs to shore it up. For example, the fact that 'God exists' could be just as certain as '2+2=4'. It is a "basic" belief.

Obviously, some people do not believe in God. This is not because God does not exist, but because the non-believer has never had the necessary God-like experiences. If he did, he would have no choice but to affirm that God exists. By way of comparison, if someone had never seen the colour "green", it is ludicrous to suggest that "green" exists for me, and not for him.

A major objection to this seems to be that any amount of beliefs could be claimed to be "basic" - we should not afford special privilages to the Abrahamic God - we could just as well say "Thor exists"

Regardless, do you believe that belief in God should - or can be - justified with conventional argument, or do you believe an appeal to foundationalism (such as this argument) is the way to proceed?

At 6/1/07 09:23 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: Now on to what he actually said. Yes, it dose bring the concept of god a little more in line with what science has found, but it's still not correct, and doesn't give a good reason of why this has to be so.

I think I agree with you, if I understand your argument correctly. You're saying that although assuming God had no "creative input" into designing the universe allows for a fully scientific explaination, it adds another layer of unnecessary complication (specifically that you have to believe in God) that can be done away with and still retain a coherant argument?

And thanks for the FYI, I didn't check my facts properly :-(

Philosophy 101 stuff coming up, but medieval thinker Plotinus argued that God had no choice but to create the universe - it was a sort of spontanious superabundance of His being. That puts the "God causes Big Bang hypothesis" and "Big Bang was prime mover hypothesis" a bit closer.

Course, it does mean you have to reject the traditional account of God to a degree

At 3/8/07 03:38 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 3/8/07 02:57 AM, poxpower wrote: Anyways, reincarnation doesn't really work with evolution, i.e. in those first few years of life, there were only a couple bacteria around... so yeah...I guess there was only one "soul" to go around in the first place.

Musta been a big soul... >_>

Its their God, Brahma. In, Hinduism is very pantheistic

Its certianly a well-written essay, but I'm not sure the logic stacks up. While no-one disagrees that the "baddie" Muslims should be stopped, just attacking Islam as a religion might provoke, rather than aleviate, the problem

Equally, we should not criticise Islam unfairly. Fundamentalist Christianity (America) and Judaism (Isreal) are at least as worrying. Are the 'silent majority' of Christians in the wrong?

At 2/8/07 07:07 AM, goozebump wrote: 4 people hijacked 4 different planes simultaneously with no US miltiary jets to intercept them.

From the 9/11 commission report:
Right after the Pentagon was hit, NEADS learned of another possible hijacked aircraft. It was an aircraft that in fact had not been hijacked at all. After the second World Trade Center crash, Boston Center managers recognized that both aircraft were transcontinental 767 jetliners that had departed Logan Airport. Remembering the "we have some planes" remark, Boston Center guessed that Delta 1989 might also be hijacked. Boston Center called NEADS at 9:41 and identified Delta 1989, a 767 jet that had left Logan Airport for Las Vegas, as a possible hijack. NEADS warned the FAA's Cleveland Center to watch Delta 1989.The Command Center and FAA headquarters watched it too. During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft. The report of American 11 heading south was the first; Delta 1989 was the second.

NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it. The flight never turned off its transponder. NEADS soon learned that the aircraft was not hijacked, and tracked Delta 1989 as it reversed course over Toledo, headed east, and landed in Cleveland.156 But another aircraft was heading toward Washington, an aircraft about which NORAD had heard nothing: United 93.

Then there is the remarkable flight skills that not even microsoft flight sim would teach you.

Uh? What exactly are you talking about? Flying a plane is really not that difficult - landing and taking off is a bitch, granted, but a trained pilot could hit the WTC towers as many times as he wanted.

How about WTC 7 crumbling almost perfectly.

False, the building fell leaning slightly to the south. It spread out over 150 metres.

The bs about the plane "dissovling." The engine is made of titanium and steel alloy.

The planes didn't dissolve. There are bits of them all over the place.

At 2/5/07 04:08 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Spot the logical inconsistancy

I'll never change my decision

vs

I've changed my views of the bible several times. And I plan to do so quite a few times more in the near future.

On another note...

The whole concept of parallel time confuses me - I'll accept that its possible, since I see no reason why you'd want to mislead me, but I'm afraid I don't ever think I'll understand it properly. Thanks for at least trying to put it in layman's terms for me.

At 2/4/07 07:58 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Great answer - I don't think I can give intelligent replies to all of it and stay on topic, but its nice to find someone who can think in such objective terms (On an unrelated note, how you doing Dre-man?)

Imaginary time seems just like you push back the boundry of when 'time' begins. In universe 'P', running parallel to this universe 'U', there must be a finite beginning to time too, surely? Doesn't universe P need a creator outside of space-time, even if universe U does not?

I have a niggling feeling I might have just totally misunderstood the whole concept

At 2/4/07 10:42 PM, Tancrisism wrote: The only area where the imperial system is better is the "Farenheit", in my opinion, as it's much more specific.

Maybe time too - its still done in minutes and hours, and deciseconds wouldn't make much sense. Its useful to have the smaller units in metric, though.

I don't know about America, but in the EU, the only reason we keep subsidising farmers is becaus the French protest (farmers' direct action campaigns can get... smelly... not to put too fine a point on it). I don't think anyone in the EU seriously thinks the subsidies are fair, even within the EU.

Racism as the downfall of humanity? Maybe... but I don't think I buy it.

I think I might have missed the point a bit - I'm sorry if I did

Sorry to show my ignorance, but I don't understand how protection from cervical cancer either promotes or influences promiscuity in any way.

Even if it did, I don't understand why people can argue, about their own children, that cancer is better than them having sex.

At 2/4/07 10:36 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/4/07 07:04 AM, Goldensheep wrote:

ooo, 12, that's sooo hard. My Spleen!

Try doing 14.67 x 12, then 14.67 x 10 and tell me which is the easier to work out.
Also bear in mind that you only need to remember four prefixes (mili, centi, nothing and kilo) in order to talk about weight, length, magnitude of force, electric voltage, current and data storage. You need to remember four different names for each of these under an imperial system.
Metric can be seen as 8 + n (eight different prefixes, assuming you go from yoctometres - smaller than an atom to Gigametres, further than the moon, plus 'n' different types of measurment)
Imperial can be seen as 4n (four different lengths of measurment, for each different thing you wish to measure)
You can see that if you have just THREE things you want to measure (length, force and weight, for example) metric is the sensible system to use. Added to that, I padded the result, so not only is it the more convenient system, but it can measure things to several orders of magnitude better than imperial, without becoming more complicated

Point is, I don't have to remember so much like you, all the while the way I do it works just fine.

Agreed. If the way your doing it works, that's fine. I'm just pointing out that your way is archaic and stupid to teach people. For example, you could solve calculus problems through trial and error, and get exactly the same result as someone who knew about differentiation. Its just stupid to protest that trial and error is a better system "Because it is simpler to remember".

B) I get enought math during school so i'm not going to work on some boy's problem over the internet on a weekend.

Right. I think that proves my point. I could do that in my head in slightly under a minute using metric system. Even allowing for the fact I'm a supergenius (which I'm not) even the most retarded metric user should be able to do it in less time than it takes you to do all your unescassary calculations. It barely qualifies as maths, when done metrically.

At 2/3/07 05:15 PM, Memorize wrote:

A) Easier, less to remember.

How can you possibly cling to this belief? Although he names might be easier to remember - inches is shorter than centimetres - the conversions between feet and inches are painful to remember. Centimeters and milimeters, however, are simple. Even better, it is the same factor as centilitres and mililitres, or centi(measurment) and mili(measurment). But I set you a challenge.

A box, of sides 4 inches by 7 feet by 2 yards has what volume, in miles cubed? Once you have that answer, assume that one inch cubed weighs 15 ounces. How much does it weigh in stone?

Don't use a calculator, but feel free to use a bit of paper - I wouldn't need one to do it in metric, assuming the units were as easy as I've given you there, but I'm giving you a fighting chance.

Once you've done that, tell me if you think imperial is easier.

Right, I'm bored of annoying Dre-man with my unfair use of causal logic and scientific proof. I'm going to come out of the proverbial closet and claim I'm a theist, although I'm not sure exactly what form God\Gods might take. My main reasons:

1) The Universe had to start from somewhere. I realise this is a bit of a "God of the gaps" explaination, but nothing in current physics can make something come from nothing (any bastard who quotes the Casimir effect at me gets beaten to death). Even if the 'God' that started everything off is an evil, stupid, vindictive God, there still must be an all powerful being to have started things off. Maybe; I'm open to further evidence.

2) Without a God, or religion, I do not see how you can defend absoloute moral standards, which I believe are vital. Otherwise, my argument that "murder is fun" is just as valid as your argument "murder is bad". Whether or not you agree, say, euthanasia is always wrong, you can be justified in saying that "Euthanasia is certainly either wrong or right", it does not depend on personal opinion.

3) I cannot see a way out of the ontological argument. Kant tried, but Plantinga has come up with another theory, which is much better. Anyone who knows about these theories (myself included) finds them intuitively implausable, but no-one I know or have read has ever disproved them to my satisfaction. However, this does not mean that the "Greatest being" is, say, omnibenevolent. It just means he is the "greatest being".

4) I don't like the idea of just ceasing to exist after death, so to a certain extent I kid myself.

At 2/3/07 04:11 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

But that doesn't mean I'm not a creationist.

Wasn't it Anslem of Canterbury who added up all the ages in the Bible to make around 6000 years old the age of the Earth? Assuming he got his maths right - and I have no reason to doubt he added it up wrong to mislead anyone don't you have to accept that humans were not around at the creation, or that the geneologies in the Bible are wrong? Doesn't that mean you have to accept at least a trivial point about the Bible is false?

If you have an answer for this - and I have no doubt you do - could you explain what you believe about the creation?

Uh, nothing

OK... I'm not sure I agree with you, but that's your opinion I guess

if you REALLY want to dig deeper be my guest, but I'm not going to spend all of my time explaining this to you.

Well, the big point for me is that in order for the flood to be a proper flood, it would have needed to cover all world. This is a lot of water. The current sea level is about 12,756.3km, measured from the centre of the earth and averaged to account for the bulge in the Earth (this is favourable towards the global flood explaination). The height of Everest is 8,850m heigher. This is 12,764.2km, measured from the centre of the Earth.

Consequently, the amount of water needed to cover the tip of Everest is 4/3(pi)r3 - the volume of the Earth. This works out as:
4/3(pi)(radius of earth and everest)3 - 4/3(pi)(radius of Earth)3
4/3(pi)(6382)3 - 4/3(pi)(6378)3
1.1 x 10^20 - 1.1 × (10^19)
= 9.9 × 10^19m3 of water

Even if my maths is wrong - lets be honest, it probably is - you can see that a huge amount of water is unaccounted for. Please could you tell me what happened to it?

At 2/3/07 03:21 PM, Memorize wrote: There thought i'd add that in for you worthless metric system which only useful scientifically.

? As far as I can see, the metric system is more useful than the imperial system, for the reasons I gave above.

But suppose you tell me why your system is more convinient than mine? Other than the fact you, personally, know it (which, if you ask me, is a very ethnocentric view)

At 2/3/07 01:48 PM, Dre-Man wrote: stuff

Dre-man, you just said that you did not believe in creationism. But you also said that it was impossible to prove the Bible wrong. How do you reconcile these two statements? They seem contradictory.

Secondly, is there anything which, for you, would disprove Gods existance. I realise that you might consider this a stupid question, since you believe He exists beyond all doubt, but please try and humour me. What could cause you to believe God does not exist? I'd be happy to answer the corollory, if you'd like me to.

Finally, could you please explain, to the best of your ability, exactly how you believe the flood in the Noah's ark myth happened, so I can try to disprove it using any science I might be able to bring to bear on the subject.

Thanks

Point is, all you need to remember is "mili-" "centi-" and "kilo-" in order to get an accurate feel for the metric system. They are the same for distance, mass, force, current, all sorts of things.

Even better, on the metric system, its easy to tell how many times 7 milimeters go into 4 kilmeters, whereas I offer my unconditional respect to anyone who can tell me how many times 9 inches goes into 14 miles without using a calculator

Moreover, scientific notation uses multiples of this (e.g. "Nanotechnology" or "Microscope" or "Megabyte"). Imperial is useless for this.

The only reason America doesn't convert is that it would be politically unpopular.

At 1/30/07 04:13 AM, Togukawa wrote: Energy can't be destroyed, but matter is a form of energy that can be transformed into other forms of energy.

He's right - that's what E=mc(squ) means.

Bound within the five senses? We're perfectly able to work with abstract concepts like vector spaces and so on. Logic is completely and totally unconnected to "the five senses". Logic needs an axiom system and that's it.

Only if you're a rationalist. If you're an empiricist, logic requires the five senses in order to remain consistant. Empirists would argue we cannot work with vector space - we need to transform it into something concrete in order to express ourselves. Wittgenstein (not an empiricist as far as I'm aware) says something quite similar about language.

"God" is a well-defined entity

Hah! If asked to give the name of the least well defined being in the history of human thought, the answer is always going to be "God". Why else do you think there is all the religious violence in the middle east, or different scisms of Christianity?

I appreciate all the people who have pointed out that God could do these things in (say) non-Euclidian geometry, but I personally think this is avoiding the question. If I rephrased "Can God make a rock e.t.c.... in Eucledian geometry?" you wouldn't have that route.

It seems inarguable to me that God cannot do the logically impossible, but a philosopher I've been reading has suggested a solution. (Anthony Kenny, if anyone's interested)

If God is omnipotent, He can suspend his own omnipotence
As long as He never tries to make this rock, He remains omnipotent
He is therefore currently omnipotent
Were He to try and make this rock, He would not longer be omnipotent

At 1/26/07 02:37 AM, dELtaluca wrote:

At 1/26/07 12:51 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Do some research before you parade to the world how dumb you are.

you do realise, wireless electrical transfer is already around, please dont show how dumb YOU are.

Agreed - learn some physics before flaming in a physics-related thread

I'm not sure how practical sending large amounts of energy a long way is - as you'll be aware, P = I(squ) * R, and as distance increases, so too does resistance (unless you're using electromagnetic induction). Consequently, you need huge amounts of current to generate the power. This in turn leads to high voltages from V = I * R, and so could be dangerous if pointed at someone.

Electromagnetic induction, on the other hand, would work great, but there is not a magnet on earth powerful enough to do any real good (magnetism varies with the square of distance - I think the equation is F = k * s(squ), but someone might want to check)

Yeah, if the economy is producing more than the people in a country are buying, then deflation will occur. This is also bad.

At 1/22/07 08:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: There hasn't been anything in religion that sceince has disproven

It has as good as proven 6 day creationism is wrong, the flood could not have happened and that prayer does not affect the outcome of flipping a coin. I think if you deny this, you're using 'proof' in an incorrect way.

and no religion that can outwit science.

Science cannot offer a set of ethical guidlines for running your life, nor comment on the possibility of an afterlife.

At 1/21/07 12:34 AM, intrinsik2 wrote:

I think you could use many more intermediary proofs, because as it stands now, almost all of your points are not supported by anything.

How so? I thought most of them just rest on the premise "God exists and is omnipotent" and "I exist"

At 1/19/07 05:05 AM, fli wrote:

At 1/18/07 05:20 PM, Goldensheep wrote:

Besides, Nietzche wasn't known for his love of God

No...
Nietzche wasn't known for his love of religion. Although, it's understanable to believe that Nietzche didn't like God because his works may have seemed anti-theist.

Sorry - I haven't read any Neitzche, only some commentries. Thanks for putting me right :)

At 1/20/07 06:11 AM, shin-tenshu wrote:
now, anyways. my beliefe is that what ever you believe in is true.

"I believe the rape of children is fully justified." I think you need to clarify your theory a bit.

I wonder if the people rejecting evolution on the grounds of 'no hard proof' might also like to reject all sources of visible light, on the grounds that we cannot prove they exist, only measure their effects. Same goes for gravity. Same goes for other people living in the world.

Evolution is about as well backed up as any theory in science. Sure, when dealing with 40,000 years of evolution, over the surface of the entire world, we're unlikely to find every link you request. But, equally, creationists (or ID proponents) have yet to provide a single shred of evidence which cannot be ripped apart by anyone with half a mind to do so.

I'll keep backing evolution, then, until the balance of evidence is against it.

At 1/20/07 03:00 AM, packow wrote: A Sciencologist is a blind, evangelistic follower of the doctrine of scientific principles.

I think like all atheist attemps to buttonhole religious groups into catagories, you definition doesn't address the nuances of what you call "Sciencology". Just as some Christians are rabid fundamentalists, some are more liberal in their approach. The same can be said for "Sciencology"

Many atheists do believe that scientific doctrine will render religions obsolete. I do not believe this. However, no sensible person should believe that religions make science obsolete.