obfuscator

Well my sub runs out today....gotta agree with Nadril that leveling was the best part, although heroics were nicely challenging. I never really pvp'd before cata so I can't really comment on that though.

I'll have to watch highlights, heard it was insane haha.

So why does this ONE issue of the physical world get to be answered by philosophy instead of science? Because science can't answer it, and you've already admitted multiple times. I mean creative force - and a creative force by definition has some sort of intent or purpose. This is exactly what I'm trying to say. What I've been reiterating over the past few pages is scientific evidence for the reasonable existence of, at very least, some kind of creative force to whom all the laws of our universe cannot apply. Interesting - yet the big bang has never been observed, yet many seem content to take that theory as evidence.

Trading away reimer makes no sense. I think they will try to do precisely what you suggest with Giguere though. It all depends on what happens with Gustavvson really.

None of those really stand out to me as better goalies then what they have already in Reimer(depending of course on how Gustavsson turns out). They may well pick up someone though, I don't see them resigning Giguere.

Yep, Mubarak has stepped down. It'll be interesting to see what happens next...

I couldn't name a capital of a province in Canada either, but I dont live there. The only one I know is Edmonton of Alberta. I can name a few provinces though. Can Canadians name all 50 states? It's fine if you can't because most Americans can't name 10. I'm pretty sure I can :P Let's see (I won't google till I have to) [hide] Arkansas Alabama Texas New Mexico Rhode Island Georgia South Dakota North Dakota Illinios Michigan New York Washington Washington DC Massechusets(sp?) California Nevada Colorado Oregon Ohio Indiana Virginia West Virginia Hawaii Alaska Florida Tennessee new jersey Nebraska Wyoming Louisiana Arizona Utah Conneticut North Carolina South Carolina Minnesota California Wisconsin Delaware [/hide] Well I didn't google for any of that, not bad...can't believe I forgot so many though lol, they're probably really obvious ones too.

A philosophical answer is not a scientific answer - and the existence of God is infinitely more complex than just science as it has many moral and philosophical offshoots. You're missing my point. My point deals with the creation of the universe as well know it, as well as anything outside of that. My point holds true no matter how many layers of alternate universe there are - if there is no creator it must still have been created randomly. This is where I disagree - a fervent disbelief in God is as much of a belief as the opposite. Yes, that is the logical conclusion (to your first sentence). I never said you should lump all the "came from somewhere" theories into a "God" theory - but you can lump them all into a "creator" theory, or at least some kind of higher guiding power. I hold philosophical belief in God. I accept that by strict scientific definition there is no direct evidence for God. Evidence for God (from science's perspective) boils down to theories and hypotheses.

I wouldn't call that God, perhaps...but I would at least say the role of creator had been fulfilled. The anthropic principle applies indeed, but at the same time it's simply demonstrative of the consequences of many completely random chances. Once again, the question arises that, if there is a creator, why would he have given us intelligence if not to attempt to discover him? He clearly created an enormous variety of other life forms with various degrees of sentience - why make humans the (so far) only exception? To my knowledge, all religions believe in some sort of soul-like object. Of course, the specifics vary tremendously.

Apparently they're still looking at trading Versteeg or MacArthur...I really hope both of them stay. However, I guess we'll see what they can get...

Atomic radioactive decay merely creates an illusion of randomness, as have the other examples. It is easily predictable precisely because it follows a definitive pattern - just because we haven't fully analyzed the specifics of the causation doesn't mean there isn't one. This is precisely my point. If there is some causality in our origins, that fulfills the creator role. If you argue there is no creator and the universe was created without causality, it cannot have been anything but random. Of course, but then all you're left with is a battle of probabilities, which is exactly where we started. Is it more probable the universe began without or with causation? If we were to assume that it would at least merit thought - I don't believe we can know very much at all about the creator or creators of the universe. I'm merely suggesting that the makeup of the universe dictates that some sort of creative force (the specifics are up for grabs) is not unlikely. I agree that it is a gigantic leap forward, as we know next to nothing about other species that may exist, where they exist, and what they are like. I find it further hard to believe that we could merely be "just a curiosity in the huge symphony of astronomical events he create for his own delight". We could be just a curiosity, yes - but the fact that we've been given intelligence enough to understand and question our origins would make it nonsensical to not care.

Indeed :) No thoughts on the trade? :P

Howso? Say I grant you that the existence of our universe and the life in it boils down to random chance. What does that gain you? Read my responses to wep - I find it hard to believe that universe could have been created by random chance since random chance does not exist in our universe.

Of course - Occam's Razor is a philosophical construct most aptly used when scientific constructs do not apply - such as in this situation where you freely admit science has next to no idea where we came from. Well, one can reasonably assume that there mere existence of a creator (ignoring other factors) is a fairly straightforward yes or no question. A creator either exists, or he does not. The definition of random, as I've already said, stipulates an occurrence or series of such with no interference from an outside force. If there is no creator, there can be no outside force. Once again, a creator either exists or does not. Therefore, if a creator does not exists, then the universe must have created itself - and therefore the only way this can possibly happen is to have been randomly. So once again we reach the great divide - you choose to believe that science will one day answer the question in favour of no creator. I choose the other path. Neither is right nor wrong. A corollary to that is your "multiple universe" theory. While you may not think of another universe as a God - if it is a "higher universe" and it created the universe we currently inhabit, then it fulfills the creator role nonetheless. I agree that believing in a designer merely serves to add more questions, or at very least reiterate the questions already posed by other theories. I think theists and athiests can share common ground in this regard - we can both agree that our current knowledge of the laws of our universe make it difficult to see how exactly creation could have taken place - hence the theist theory of God and the (some)atheist theory of a higher universe. Allow me to disagree - the question of randomness is crucial rather than semantic.

Would raise a lot more questions, yes...successfully violating Occam's Razor in the process. I also never claimed that the universe suddenly appeared - I imagine it was a process spanning several billion years. It doesn't change the fact that if there is no creator or higher being, it can only have occurred randomly, and since true random doesn't exist in any manner in our universe I find that theory hard to believe. I'm not attempting to show this demonstrates definitive proof of God - but for me this is certainly a question I feel is not sufficiently answered by science and thus makes me wary of ruling out a creator as an origin for our universe.

The reason we're talking about randomness is quite simple. For something to be truly random, it must have no outside force exerting influence on its behavior or outcome. People such as yourself maintain that the universe we live in was formed without any outside force exerting influence on its behavior or outcome. If there isn't anything truly random, how could the universe have possibly came from such?

I'm talking about something that was truly random. You can flip a coin, yes, but the result is directly controlled by things like wind speed, coin weight, and how hard you flick it, so that there's in fact nothing random about the coin flipping. It merely has the appearance of being random. Same goes for pulling paper out of a hat, using a computer to generate a "random" number, etc etc. Yes, I'm using the proper definition.

Are they? I've yet to see a situation in our present life where true random has been replicated. And my point was merely to address the point some people were making saying that the universe was not random.

I never said it was improbable? I said that if you say a creator does not exist, then the universe cannot have been created anything but randomly. See above.

A set number of rules(physics) like you said, were followed to create the current universe. Where did these laws of physics come from? Randomly, according to "our best scientific guess". Disregarded the second part as I wasn't claiming such a creator existed.

Ahh such a nice car. Ridiculous that you got that as your birthday present though lol....

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with feeling compassion and being generous to someone, even if it is only an online game.

Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that there were several billion years of random before the earth was formed. Not to mention, of course, that these "laws of nature" you speak of were also created randomly. It's still somewhat a misnomer to call it "random". Procedural would be more precise. That also doesn't change that there's no evidence for any kind of creator. I hate to argue over the little things but procedural clearly implies some sort of guidance. If, as you claim, there is no creator, nor can there be; even evolution cannot have been procedural.

Indeed. They also put John Mitchell on waivers :D All we need now is Lebda on waivers as well and we're good to go :P EDIT: :o Beauchemin to Anaheim for Lupul, Gardiner and a 2013 4th...interesting. Good trade I think, depends on how Lupul plays though (possible 30g a year, more likely 10-15 though). Gardiner played pretty well for team usa in Juniors (and has a good point total as D).

Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that there were several billion years of random before the earth was formed. Not to mention, of course, that these "laws of nature" you speak of were also created randomly.