mmmcannibalism

From the big bang, now before that we have not developed many theories. For the purposes of this theory im going to say Im assuming there is no god interfering because that messes up anything. Pre big bang you most likely believe either god made the big bang and therefore the universe or the big bang was caused by something natural. Since science breaks down if you assume god here are my thoughts on what occured pre big bang(caution may give minor headache messed me up as I thought of a few years ago, and I dont know if any science supports this). As many people may be familiar one theory to the end of the universe is the big crunch where gravity pulls every particle in the universe back to a focal point. I feel that this will cause another big bang and a new universe, which will eventually end the same way and for a new universe etc. Now, you may have picked up that if this universe ends and causes a new universe then our universe must have been formed from a universe imploding then exploding into ours. So basically, reality has been in infinite change of universes expanding crunching and exploding, this party maintains my faith because theres something about the hopelessness of this I dont like to accept even though it makes sense to me. if someone could prove that above theory wrong id be quite happy lol.

Well, a single cell organism could possibly be formed from a chemical reaction in primordial pools on the earth leading to life developing up to the present. A signifigant amount of scientists are working on synthesizing life in a lab to prove this theory which presents an interesting question. If it is proven that life can be synthetically created in a lab, do we choose to believe that a divine being created us or that we are an amazing error of physics?

Not in any way knowledgable on europeon economics, but I find some irony in a body you claim supports free market capitalism backing to some extent, a move that is socializing energy reserves to some degree.

[hide=] Its one thing to apply the anthropic principle to something like evolution, we know that other stars exist, but to theorise a multiverse with no evidence is surely as bad as theorising a god on no evidence? I'm not saying I think it's true or more evident than god for that matter, I'm just invoking another possibility to say why god isn't necessary (in reality I'd say neither are evident at all). As far as I'm concerned, the arguments for/against god don't definitively prove/disprove the idea at all. Perhaps we can start eliminating more illogical versions of god, but I don't think we can prove/disprove the basic idea. There's always the argument from noncognitivism for that :P. 1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us , these are: a. Primary Attributes b. Secondary Attributes c. Relational Attributes. 2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existants A in order to be considered meaningful. 3. The term God lacks a positively identified A. 4. Because of this, the term God holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2) 5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless. 6. Therefore, the term God is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5) 7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid. Primary Attributesor fundamental character of a thing, may be defined as the basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existants primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified. Secondary Attributesthe character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise. Relational Attributes This is the ability of an entity to relate to other things; to interact, affect, or be connected in some such way. Causality, for instance, is an example of relationships between objects. Comparison is another (ex: that tree is taller than me). Further examples would include the descriptions of a thing as superior, inferior, or creator. God has no primary attributes ever given to him by anyone; no one has ever said what god is. God is only defined in terms of a negative, which is not qualified to make a statement of entity. For example, in an attempt to define myself, I would not say "I am not Stephen Harper", because that leaves 6 billion + other humans, and any other entities capable of making this statement. In the first place, when terms like is loving, is forgiving, and brings about are applied to God, they seem to mean something very different from what they mean when they are applied to human beings. For example, when we speak of a mother as being loving, we are referring in part to her behavior, and in particular the way she responds to her children. When we say that Jones brought about a fire, we are referring to certain of his bodily actions, such as his carelessly throwing a match onto a pile of paper. But when we say God is loving or God brought about a miracle, we cannot be referring to the behavior or bodily action of God, for he has no body. -Martin All of the supposedly positive qualities of God arise in a distinctively human context of finite existence, and when wrenched from this context to apply to a supernatural being, they cease to have meaning. -Smith Again, if I asked you, for example, what is a car? You would not respond: it is attractive, fast, and enjoyable, because that is not what a car is, and does not help me in any way. Those are secondary qualities. God is only defined in terms of negative qualities. Limitless(lack of limits), infinite(lack of time), immaterial(not material), etc, etc. It makes no logical sense for me to point to my keyboard and state that it is not a insect. http://www.strongatheism.net/library/at ... gnitivism/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism [/hide] god is an enigma almost applies as a logical attribute. Unfortunately, since the concept of god almost certainly requires a belief he exists outside of our physics and logic logical reasoning can not be used as proof of his nonexistence. Ironically, this also opens the legitimacy of things such as the flying spaghetti monster which claims the same setup and has no way of disproving. Though someone could claim the same about a law of science, it can be ignored because science doesnt care about things such as what could maybe possibly be the cause only what can be observed.

the more well defined a religious god is defined the more likely it is to be flawed. My basis against the christian god has always been the fact the bible contains at least one reference of god killing people just for being gay, that doenst prove/disprove anything on the existance of any god but it proves that if the christian god is all loving he must have given his people the wrong book. Im sure pretty much any religion could have a critical flaw about it pointed out by an obvious contradiction in its scripture, again that doesnt disprove god but means that religion cannot be accurate. There is no "reason" to believe in god just how their is no "reason" to not believe in a god. Simply because no matter what "reason" you can come up with I can bring up an opposite point that contradicts it, causing to contradictory points to be equally true.(hard to explain sorry) Whether you choose to believe there is a god or after life or whatever is wholly a personal choice backed by whatever reasoning you choose. I choose to believe in some god which I cannot understand simply because I dont feel existence ends at death, I cant give you any proof that is true and you cant give me any proof I am wrong, its simply my choice

Well then I suppose very few of us can comment on the standard of many Middle Eastern, Asian or 3rd world countries and their standard of living since very few of us have ever lived in those countries. It's a pretty redundant statement. You do have a legitimate point but only up to a certain level. It is fairly objective to say that some place like north korea has a severe food shortage starvation problem, though it is tricky to decide things like which country is better if you are comparing two first world countries because you can have a pro and con column and it becomes a matter of "taste". edit--One thing I have always had a problem with is this desire to bash America for the sake of it, America definetely has its sever problems but what country doesnt? I think a lot of the anti American sentiment comes from the fact that for a good while America has been the leading economic and military force in the world, once you get to the top everyone just wants to tear you down. Im not trying to say America is better to live in then any country(well probably better then being in iraq) but it does seem that a lot of people just want to bash America to cover up their own countries problems.

You didn't seem to understand the nature of science, so I corrected you. You're right that it's my opinion that science is the most accountable, malleable system of understanding we have (perhaps I should have added the word "objective" in there), but to say that it's a rock that can't be changed is simply wrong. agreed Science is always going to be wrong in some small way; what makes science the key to objective understanding of the universe is being in a constant state of fixing the errors so the picture becomes clearer and clearer as time passes. Sure, the errors will always be their but we can reduce the number until they are one in ten billion

First off, I would like to point out there is a difference between going into a war with bad intention and screwing up so badly the result turns out bad. The conspiracy theory about JFK really doesnt belong in a debate on the morality of the US because even if there was a conspiracy the rationale behind it is impossible to be certain of. There is more then one reason you may want the president dead afterall We went into Vietnam to prevent North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam because South Vietnam did not want to be communist. In fairness, I am not too familiar with the Vietnam situation but we were trying to protect a country from being conqured not attack them for being communist, though in many ways it was a war to prevent communism from being spread. On the UN propositions, I dont have time to research them all and I agree there are probably a few mistakes in there; however, one must have context if they are trying to prove such a strong statement. Unless you know the reason the US government has given for each vetoe, and are familiar with what the bill would have fully done and not just a one line summary, you cant judge the intentions of the US. Again, Im not saying the US was right on all or any of those bills just that context is important in history. Finally, I dont intend to start a flame war over the morality of the US, I am not nearly familiar enough with post WW2 history to be able to properly defend my points. Everone trying to condemn the US should be careful though, and realize sometimes things that start with good intentions turn out making you look very bad. Like how creating a jewish state after the holocaust seemed like a good idea, but you can see how that has/is blowing up and causing a lot of trouble for everyone.

Is it possible the base unit of matter is a type of energy we havent discovered yet? That could account for how it is not divisible I just have to go on their being a basic particle, or realize that if there isnt we will keep breaking down matter till we go extinct so it doesnt matter whether there is an end or not.

thanks for the response Ill check for updates to info. I kind of figured that 1. and 3. werent that important but since its a boss monster I figured might as well mention the non pray penetration

I would consider religious faith to be a barrier to curiosity. If you trust in dogmatic scriptures then there's really no reason for you to investigate anything. If by religious faith you mean standardized churches then I agree with you; however, belief in God by itself does not have to impede natural curiosity.

Well funniest sub I can remember has to be for my history class last year. The normal teacher for the class is pretty relaxed and didnt make us do much work and made the tests really easy, pretty cool guy so noone minded the class even if they hated history. Well, we had a sub for the class one day who seemed a bit weird but assignment was to read so I just opened book and started reading. About 10 minutes into the class he got mad at everyone talking and not reading and shouts "your supposed to be reading" really loudly and while looking like he was having a mental breakdown, after which he went back to acting calm. Best part is that next day the regular teacher was back and the first thing he said was "so I heard your sub was a little bipolar".

Id prefer to keep every rapist rotting away in jail personally, not one to believe in risking more victims for the sake of saving money(and Im talking specifically actual rapes not statatory rape caused by age difference). Murderers depending on circumstances, should be kept locked up, its fine to give people parole if they killed someone with reckless driving but shooting another person deserves strong punishment.

+1 and the GE also. I have to agree, cant imagine only being allowed 28 items :shock:

wyvern would have been my second choice hard decision fire winged thingy or ice winged thingy, I happened to hold with those who favor fire but I think I know enough to know that ice would have sufficed yes, I just butchered that awesome poem

Because that would cause a massive blood bath when the prisoners all fought and would leave us responsible for a number or murders equal to the number of people we dumped. I figure we either need to work on prison reform or realize we need to start investing in labor camps of some kind. You cant just have reoffendors sitting in prison not being productive. Maybe they'll realise that they need to work together to survive and won't kill each other? Meh probably not but then it'll be more their fault for not using basic survival skills. If this was the same amount of random civilians Id say maybe wed have a decent turn out, but if you assume everyone being sent already commited a crime in regular society then I have little faith they would decide to create laws to self govern elsewhere.

Because that would cause a massive blood bath when the prisoners all fought and would leave us responsible for a number or murders equal to the number of people we dumped. I figure we either need to work on prison reform or realize we need to start investing in labor camps of some kind. You cant just have reoffendors sitting in prison not being productive.

I understand your point. It's possible for a situation to exist where a feather kills thousands of people. I'm speaking on a very general level of course though. More often than not, nuclear bombs are dangerous. More often than not, feathers are not. You people are taking my words far too far... I was just commenting on the way he worded it: "In no way is it bad." My point was that there are ways it can be bad. Generally, I don't think it's bad but that's not to say that no negative results come out of it. I was actually joking, realized when i read that it does sound like I was trying to make a points oops :shock: . Sorry about the misunderstanding I need to be more careful with wording lol.

So extremely accurate, it is so annoying when people blame all problems on religion. True, a lot of problems may be in some way exacerbated by religion but that doesnt mean its the cause of the problem. If you noticed sex before marriage has always carried some social stigma regardless of the religion present, making it more of a societal issue(kind of like how murder is bad everywhere) though obviously this issue is of a smaller scale. and Zierro, dont underestimate those feathers, and to whoever said the butterfly effect does exist but its pretty hard to measure since you cant test ex, I cant go back and stop the assassination of the (royalty I forget detail of name and nation) that started WWI to see if the war would still have occured or not

I dont think 4 day school weeks are a good idea, sure a 3 day weekend sounds good but 4 days of 10 hours each would not be worth it. Would also really interfere with homework and extracurricular activities, sports would be much harder to schedule if getting out at 1 for a game meant missing 4 hours of school as opposed to 2 etc.

I dont see any way for jagex to ban this trick, what will they do say you have to skill in combat gear and decide what you will wear for you? The pvp gear was not meant to cost a ton of money and be merchanted. Jagex intended for it to be used by whoever received it as a drop to boost their pking ability while it lasted, besides the stuff was being sold as junk so it dropping in price is the appropriate response. If prices of non pvp equipment objects are being lowered by this trick (allegedly, could just be from pvp drops legitimately) then jagex should look into changing the drop rates .

I think its acceptable to tolerate public breastfeeding assuming the woman is at least trying to be respectable about it. ex. blanket or at least trying to be discrete about it, sure they have the right to but they should at least be reasonable about it.

Just some information I picked up during my first attack on the phoenix in the repeatable minigame after "In Pyre Need" 1. The phoenix cannot hit through your protect mage prayers and the reborns in the caves are also unable to hit through the relevant prayer. 2. The stat lowering effect some players noticed also halves your mage level, this effect seems shorter then 10 seconds id estimate maybe 5. The attack that lowers your stats shows up as a puff of smoke in front of the phoenix, this attack can splash but it can reduce your stats through protect mage. 3. Although the reborns cannot be walked through, engaging them in combat and running back can be used to move them to open paths, as opposed to fighting them, though I dont feel like this is a valid timesaver as it requires a good bit of effort.

very true actually, Im sure someone really good at drawing could explain some complex use involving shading lol.

is mathematics really a seperate science, I mean isnt it just the basis of every science? um for that list my order 1. math--just love the stuff started calc this year and so cool 2. chem--I have a good bit of trouble in it but if you understand what you are learning its just amazing how things work 3. physics--plan on doing as my major, dont enjoy it yet because my school makes you take a real low level class before the good one so I feel insulted lols 4. bio--taking the pure bio class next year, just have had so much trouble that I dont like it. Im hoping I develop an understanding next year so I have decent skill at every core science