Myweponsg00d

See, that's relatively unimportant because the same logic still applies to whatever existed before our current definition of the universe. As before, the point still stands. Even if the origin of the universe does not have the same meaning of "existence" there is still a point where our current meaning of existence becomes real and plausible, and at that point we have no explanation for "something" being "created" from "nothing". Bro I just explained this but I guess I will say it again. OUR universe is a special place where this type of logic holds true, due to the relatively low value of fundamental universal constants such as Planck's constant. Our meaning of existence is only good for our universe and for objects who have a somewhat large mass. For objects outside of our universe, and for objects in our universe with a very small mass (or no mass, such as a photon) our very idea of existence begins to break down. We see evidence of this in the behavior of elementary particles. In a different universe, where Planck's constant has a much different value, you certainly would see very strange things, such as things coming into and out of "existence" as we would define it. However, for intelligent beings living in that universe, things popping in and out of their universe would be quite common and would become part of their idea of "existence", where objects frequently come and go. They wouldn't see a problem with "something" coming from "nothing". Perhaps in this other universe, people would ask the question "Since things often come and go randomly, why is the universe permanent?" The problem of "something" coming from "nothing" is only a problem in our universe. Seeing that I operate in the rest of my life based on logical conclusions that are verified with evidence, I see no reason why I should jump to conclusions about anything else. If my roof started leaking, I wouldn't automatically just try to make a random guess as to the reason why and then assume I was correct. I could, for example, assume that an intelligent being is trying to sabotage me and has placed a swimming pool on my roof. I could start living like this and not go seek evidence that tells me what is actually going on. Or, I could do what a rational person would do, and seek the answer for why my roof is leaking. Most people don't operate by making irrational conclusions about causation in their daily lives. I fail to see why it makes any more sense to jump to an irrational conclusion about the origins of the universe without having some type of substantial evidence for which to make a conclusion from. Exactly. Seek the answer. Don't make guesses. Simple things, like you say " I fail to see..." Ask yourself who is the "I" that fails to see. What is I? You will find an answer, then question that answer. Eventually you get to a point where basic logic or science can't help find you the answer, then you have to really try and look by yourself. Don't give up on the question just because others say they have found the answer. Look for yourself. This doesn't make any sense. You seem to be suggesting that I should use philosophy to answer the origins of our universe. Why? We don't use philosophy to explain where animals come from, how to cure diseeases, etc. This really doesn't make any sense. Who am I? I am a bag of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. Humans are nothing special.

DUH You can't prove that axiom in math, you have to assume or believe it to be true. How is God any different? We assume lots of things to be true. However we make lots of observations that lead us to the fundamental assumptions of math. An assumption based on evidence is certainly MUCH DIFFERENT from an assumption based on no evidence. A scientist has to operate based on the assumption that what he sees under the microscope actually exists and is not an optical illusion. Is he silly for doing so? No. However, one could also make the assumption (again I will use this example) that he is constantly being followed by invisible monsters that are ready to strangle him. Is this person right in living his life cowering in fear from these monsters? No. There is little evidence that seems to confirm his assumption. Here's the thing - nothing in our universe comes from nothing. Everything we see on earth is an evolution of matter that previously existed. The matter that previously existed was a further evolution of matter that previously existed, and so on, and so forth. The big bang theory stipulates that there was nothing, no matter - that became matter. But if this was possible, a fundamental rule of our universe had to have been broken in order for this to happen. If we assume that the big bang was actually the universe creating itself from nothing, then the law of the universe "nothing can come from nothing" can be considered to not be a law at all, as it would have been broken in the very creation of the universe. However, if this is the case, one wonders why we see no evidence of such behavior currently. If it was possible for the universe to create itself, for nothing to come from nothing, why, then, does the same no longer apply? (at least to all we've seen thus far). The only explanation is that a force to which the laws of the universe DO NOT apply had to create the universe with it's laws as present. God, thus, is a logical conclusion (or at very least, some force we know nothing of). All science has told us we know, really, is how little we know. You have been misinformed of what our current understanding of the "universe". Our universe is a space that does have certain laws, rules, patterns, etc. However, we operate in a very unique dimension. The big bang theory does not say that our universe came from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. We believe that our universe came from SOMETHING. The thing that existed before the big bang is referred to as "the singularity". We aren't yet sure what this thing is, or where it existed, but we are relatively certain that the singularity existed in some other form of space with more dimensions. Also, we have observed plenty of things that violate the "common laws" of our universe, such as the behavior of photons. We used to think that "existence" means that an object is at a certain place, at a certain time, moves around predictably, etc. However, photons do not really exist in a point in space until you actually try to observe them. Until a photon is observed, it exists not as a particle but as a wave of probability. We think that the origins of the universe are something similar. The existence of the singularity is not an existence like the coffee cup on my desk. The singularity which became our 3 dimensional universe is thought of as being a "probability dot" in a multi-dimensional existence where the "rules" of our individual universe are not necessarily similar. Seeing that I operate in the rest of my life based on logical conclusions that are verified with evidence, I see no reason why I should jump to conclusions about anything else. If my roof started leaking, I wouldn't automatically just try to make a random guess as to the reason why and then assume I was correct. I could, for example, assume that an intelligent being is trying to sabotage me and has placed a swimming pool on my roof. I could start living like this and not go seek evidence that tells me what is actually going on. Or, I could do what a rational person would do, and seek the answer for why my roof is leaking. Most people don't operate by making irrational conclusions about causation in their daily lives. I fail to see why it makes any more sense to jump to an irrational conclusion about the origins of the universe without having some type of substantial evidence for which to make a conclusion from.

It is difficult because you are being ridiculous. You are operating under a mathematical assumption that 16 is 15 + 1, but you arent operating under the mathematical assumption that 1 != 0 By saying that 1 = 0 you are violating one of the fundamental assumptions of mathematics. If you aren't following the rules of mathematics then 16 is not necessarily 15 + 1. You can't just randomly decide to ignore the fact that 1 is more than 0, but at the same time assume that the properties of addition still hold true. 15 + 1 does not necessarily equal 16. Where are you getting the fact that 15+1=16? You are getting it from a fundamental assumption of how math works. But you are alligning with SOME rules of math but not ALL. You think that 15+1=16 is true but you don't think that 1 != 0 is true. Neither I nor any other respectable atheist would say that god does NOT exist. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the worlds most respected and outspoken atheists, talks about god as someone who "almost certainly" does not exist.

I understand where this is going now. So, a fundamental particle can't just exist in the universe without a creator? What is the alternative theory? That a super-intelligent being can exist without a creator? WHY? How is that any better? What made god? We don't know what came before the universe, and we dont know why it is here. But that doesn't mean that we suddenly need to invent the theory that it exists via a magic act performed by a super intelligent being. How does that answer anything? Where did he come from? There does not have to be a creator. Because like you said, what made god? I am not trying to point you in that direction. You think you are talking with someone who believes that there is a higher-being. You are not. I just want you to think, what is before all of these forces and particles? I already provided you with an answer to that question: we don't know. But if the universe can create itself, why can't God? He could. But I am not the one saying that something can't exist within itself. My argument isn't "Where the hell did god come from? Therefore he doesn't exist" I was providing a counter for the argument "Where did the universe come from? Therefore god is reasonable?" My argument is that that theory of god is totally useless, because it doesn't answer any questions. You are trying to answer "Where the hell does this all come from?" and if you say "God made it" well...then you just have god coming from nothing instead of the universe coming from nothing. It doesnt solve any problems, and it isnt an argument for god.

Okay. And when I presented you with 5*2 = 16, you made sense of it by using the definition of 5. I want you to make sense of 5*2 = 16 using 1 = 0 The only way you can do it is by trying to use our definition of what 5 would be, which DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE CONSIDERING YOU ARENT EVEN USING THE DEFINITON OF 1. HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE?? You claim that all math makes sense if 1 = 0, but thats only because you are randomly ignoring some definitions but not others. Your claim is that all math makes sense with 1 = 0, so make sense of 5 * 2 = 16.

5 in math is defined as 1+1+1+1+1? Well guess what? Guess what 1 is defined as? 0+1 You are holding the definition of 5 to be true, but you aren't holding the definition of 1 to be true. This is such complete nonsense. I understand where this is going now. So, a fundamental particle can't just exist in the universe without a creator? What is the alternative theory? That a super-intelligent being can exist without a creator? WHY? How is that any better? What made god? We don't know what came before the universe, and we dont know why it is here. But that doesn't mean that we suddenly need to invent the theory that it exists via a magic act performed by a super intelligent being. How does that answer anything? Where did he come from?

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GETTING AT? How do "all equations make sense" if 1=0?? What about 5*2=16? How does that make sense if 1 = 0? Yes, it does, because 0*0 = 0. How are you linking 0*0=0 with 5*2=16?

What are you talking about man? First of all lets set a few things straight. A chemical reaction happens between molecules, not between atoms. An atom is a particle that is composed of electrons, neutrons, and protons. These atoms will bond together to form molecules. The particles which compose atoms (electrons, protons, neutrons) are held together by a combination of the two nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force. These particles are composed of gluons, leptons, quarks, etc. These fundamental particles are currently thought of as existing of strings and superstrings. Did I answer your question? I don't quite understand what you are trying to even get at. Are you asking me how the fundamental particles of matter formed together to make the objects we see around us? I think that might be a tad difficult, seeing that you don't even have a basic understanding of the fact that atoms are not chemically reactive. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GETTING AT? How do "all equations make sense" if 1=0?? What about 5*2=16? How does that make sense if 1 = 0?

Deep down, I think it boils down to atomic interactions and chemical reactions in the brain, all emotions, memories and feelings. It is mechanical and purposeless, at the bottom. What is below those chemical reactions? What the HELL are you talking about? "Below" what? Duh, I said that. A definition isn't a proof though, and you have to believe the definition for everything else to work. This is getting quite frustrating to argue with people who don't understand the basics of reasoning. I provided you with everything else you need to indeed prove, with high certainty, that 1 is not the same as zero. What we call 0 is what happens when we look for something and instead find nothing. How many rocks am I holding in my hand right now? This is what zero means. Now if I add a rock, how many do I have? This is what 1 means? Furthermore, if you are suggesting that since nothing is actually able to be proven with 100% certainty, and therefore religion is viable...lets examine all the other stuff in life that we do. Are we certain that an invisible monster is not standing behind us, ready to strangle us? No. We are not certain. But does this mean that it would be justifiable to live one's life based on the fear that an invisible monster is always right behind you? Of course not. Whether or not something can be proven without 0.0001% chance that it is false does NOTHING to help the case of religion.

Bro I don't typically like to fling mud but I must say that your argument is completely bone-headed. One doesnt equal zero by pure definition. As a society, we have defined the concept of "zero" to mean "nothing" or "completely lacking". Our word "zero" describes how many objects are in my hand when no objects are in my hand. "One" is how many objects are in my hand when there is more than zero but less than two. It is a single object. It exists. You most certainly can prove, in the sense that we use the word to mean "it is almost certain", that an object that IS somewhere almost certainly is not "zero". Something is more than nothing. Now lets define the concept of "a god" as somebody who magically and spontaneously created the earth as it exists today no more than a few thousand years ago. Then, we find fossils that are millions of years old. Right there, we see a contradiction between what we call "creation by god" and what we call "age". These two ideas have a contradiction with each other. I would also like to point out...if religious people lived the rest of their lives as they choose to "believe" in a diety, here would be a glimpse at the life of a religious person: -You would find it totally acceptable to not take medicine. After all, medicine actually is not PROVEN to work. We just are relatively sure that it does work. Stop taking medicine and just pray to god. Why wouldn't you? -You probably shouldn't get an education. Theres no proof that you aren't going to win the lottery tomorrow. Why not just bank on it? Why not just live your life with a little faith? Is it that hard to have faith in something? -You could randomly decide to go hide in a bomb shelter right this very minute. Theres no stone cold evidence that a 10 megaton bomb isnt falling from the sky right now. -Stop eating. Are you SURE that food gives you nurishment? I mean...REALLY sure? Scientists really haven't provided an infallible proof that food is something we should eat. So since it isn't really PROVEN yet, I should just believe whatever the hell I want to believe. My body only needs air to survive...thats my belief. You can't disprove it! As you can see, most religious people don't live their lives this way. Why? Because they are human. Humans have a logical brain for a reason. We naturally know how to make observations and develop predictions that are in accordance with evidence. Most of our actions are governed by evidence. Yet religion comes along and JUST BECAUSE there are billions of people who spread the superstition, people think that this area of our life is not worth living rationally.

Yes. Religion is a delusion, and so is rationality or even delusions. Everything is a delusion :) And for some reason it's okay to disrespect one delusion but not another. It's somehow absurd to think that the religious man's delusion is less a delusion than Weapon's, here. I'm not religious. Didn't think I'd have to point that out again but everyone seems to think I am. Weapon's post - both versions - exemplifies what I hate about antitheists. Namely, the belief that their beliefs are untouchable but anyone else's are worthy of mockery. This is a total misconception of what it means to even be an atheist. Atheists don't take "beliefs". By "belief" I mean that a belief is something that is basically irrational and held onto for no reason. For example, it is not my BELIEF that the earth orbits the sun. It is a fact. Atheists don't believe in god because we don't "believe" in anything. We observe things the way they are and act according to what evidence suggests. A lot of people erroneously think that "atheism" means that, no matter what, we REJECT the idea of a god. This simply is not true. If there were a god that communicated with us, took place in our daily lives, showed proof of his existence, et cetera...people who are currently athiests would not "blindly" reject his existence. If there happened to be scientific proof of a magical being who creates things and answers prayers, people who are "atheists" would not just plug their ears and be like "lah lah lah NO THERE IS NO GOD!!!" However, this is what creationists do. They have their BELIEF and they stick to it no matter what. It truly aggrivates me when I get condemned for being "closed minded" as an atheist. If anything, atheism has allowed me to be way more open minded than any sort of religious belief would. If I took up a religion, I would have to live my whole life thinking that there can only be one true story for how and why we exist, and this story is the one of the scriptures. With atheism, I am free to observe new evidence, reshape my thoughts about the universe, and continue to analyze my existence as new information arrives. The life of an atheist is not one of closed-mindedness; it is a life of wonder, curiousity, and discovery. I use the word "delusion" because it is the only word that I know to describe a belief that is firmly held despite evidence to the contrary. Do you know of any other words I could use? For example: thinking that if you step on a crack, you break your mother's back. That is a delusion, from my understanding of the word. I could call it "superstition" if you perfer. I still suspect that I would recieve a negative reaction for using that word to describe religious beliefs though. Which brings me back to my original point. If someone claims that they are living their lives in fear because they accidentally broke a mirror, you would call them superstitious or even delusional. Yet if you hold religious beliefs (which have just as little evidence as the mirror-breaking thing) you aren't crazy or delusional; you're just religious. I seriously don't understand.

Religion is all around frustrating. First and foremost, the most aggrivating thing about religion is how much "respect" it gets. If a man goes on the street and tried to tell people that the aliens are coming, he's crazy. If you go around and tell people that santa claus really does exist, you'd be evaluated for mental illness. If you wanted to go into a school and tell them to stop teaching kids that our Sun is a star, but instead that it is actually a giant diety -- you'd be laughed at. Yet, if you want to believe that Earth is no more than thousands of years old, and that it only originated due to supernatural intervention, people have to "respect" that because it is "religion". It is simply a delusion and should be treated just like every other delusion. Just because billions of people suffer from the same delusion doesn't make it any less insane or irrational. There is no reason that religion should be viewed as a highly untouchable subject. If someone goes around and says stuff like "I believe women shouldn't have the right to vote" then we all have the right to argue with this person, question his belief, and express how crazy we think he is. But if someone says "I believe some guy named Jesus was the son of god and his death has saved the human race" well we aren't allowed to argue with him. Why? Cause it's his religion, of course! Religion is anybodys excuse to believe whatever the hell you want to without having to worry about thinking or having to defend your beliefs.

No. It really doesn't. I mean this is how I consider which protein to buy: 1. Taste 2. Price 3. Brand Brand DOES matter somewhat -- there is a difference in the quality of the protein. However, it is never really a huge difference. Now...some people are starting to think that they should only buy organic/natural whey protein. I haven't tried any of those yet and I don't know enough to comment on it. But yeah, this is my favorite: http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/gn/myofusion.html Chocolate peanut butter flavor is THE BOMB.

Hi. Protein powder is not going to magically make you bigger or stronger. The only reasons that athletes use protein powder is 1.) It is a super cheap way to eat more protein 2.) It is fast and easy source of protein 3.) Whey supposedly has a quicker "absorption rate" than say, if you ate chicken after a workout. If you are serious about getting BIGGER there are some basic rules -Eat at least 1g of protein per pound of bodyweight. So if you are 160 lbs you need 160g of protein each day. -Eat roughly 0.4g of fat per pound of bodyweight. People make the mistake of avoiding fat cause they think "If I EAT fat, I will GET FAT" This simply isnt true. Your body needs fat to produce testosterone. And your body needs testosterone to, you guessed it, build muscle -Eat slightly more calories than you burn. Calories are your body's source of energy. To build muscle, your body NEEDS ENERGY. Muscle can't simply appear out of nothing. Use an online calculator to estimate how many calories you burn each day. Try to eat between 100-300 calories in excess. So if you find that you burn 2500 calories per day, eat 2600-2800 PM me if you want any more advice. Or we could continue to talk here. Whicher. Oh....and my favorite whey? Myofusion. Any flavor. I get it at bodybuilding.com

Bro, at 5'11" 158 lbs you are nowhere close to "turning into arnie" If you just lost your bodyfat right now and didn't put on a significant ammount of muscle, you wont look hot or sexy or good. Youd look like a twig. Please post a picture of your torso, with a picture of what you think you would like to look like. I almost guarantee that the physique you want would require some hard hours in the gym and a high protein diet for building muscle. This whole "lean out" and "I dont want to get bulky" is a common misconception. Most movie stars and stuff who don't LOOK very big actually have a LOT of muscle. Muscle weighs a ton. PS: There is lots and lots of very silly advice in this thread. Not gonna call anyone out on it though. If you'd like to discuss this with me in private chat I can hook you up with solid info.

If you ever managed to actually sucessfully smite somebody, then you were fighting against an idiot.

Providing general information about nutrition is perfectly legal. Providing specific information that is supposedly tailored to an individual is not legal without a license. So basically as long as you don't go around and tell people what specifically to eat for the entire day, when to eat it, how long to eat it for, and tell them that it is made specifically for them...you should be fine. Basically, the law isn't ridiculous. If you just provide people with information that you know and understand, you should be good. It would be hard to accidentally break this law, unless you tell people a bunch of stuff that you don't understand. For example, I doubt that anyone without a dietetic degree would be able to take someone's age, bodyweight, medical history, family history, bloodwork, etc...and create something that they think is going to definitely be good for that person. Anything short of that is likely legal. Even if you were to provide someone with a menu of what to eat, I don't believe it is illegal unless you are presenting this information under the pretense that the patients individual medical needs have been taken into factor.

Yes, you guys are right. I mistakenly thought for some reason that reducing a lower number of high hits would cause the total damage reduced to be a lower number. I was confused because if you have a total of say 500 hits, composed of 400 high hits and 100 low hits, and you randomly reduce 70% of those hits, obviously less of the high hits will be reduced. So in my example, 70 of the high hits would be reduced and 280 of the low hits would be reduced. I thought that this would end up leading to a lower overall damage reduction, but what I failed to realize is that 70% of each type of hit should still end up being reduced, statistically speaking.

Something I have a question about: does the ely special activate on zero hits? Or do you have to take damage for it to roll the dice? If it has a chance of activating on all hits, ely has another bad factor working for it: GWD generals and DK spins. Suppose you are soloing GWD. This means at all times during a boss, you will have 3 generals on you and 1 boss. You will be deflecting one style so really 2 generals and one boss. Since there are more generals than bosses, this means that an attack from a general is more likely to be "absorbed" than an attack from the boss. Therefore you are less likely to absorb higher hits and the average damage reduction is actually less than 17.5%...Also, since you are praying one style, this means that you are actually recieving even less attacks from the boss. Let's say that maybe the boss gets a hit on you once for every 4 minion attacks. If the max boss hit is in the 300s and generals only 200s then this will significantly lower the average percent absorption of the shield.

Yeah the game is ruined by people asking for free stuff. Just like real life is ruined by people asking for free stuff. I mean I basically want to kill myself when I walk past a homeless person and have to ignore his request for money. Oh wait it isn't really bothersome at all, I just walk right past...

We need 4 more votes for incompetance

They're not talking about games, she's asking him about the music or something like that :wall: Naw if you search for like "COD interview" on youtube bro youll see the original. The subtitles are about COD so this person must have removed those ones and put in the ones about RS Trust me they're talking about the club and the music, nothing else. So how do you explain the subtitles about the videogame? I mean its a really popular vid dude. If you look on youtube youll see that theres lots of these videos made where they removed the discussion about call of duty and replaced it with a discussion about something else.

I'm confused. So this is the loot from JUST the past 10m? The clue loot is from more than that though, right?

They're not talking about games, she's asking him about the music or something like that :wall: Naw if you search for like "COD interview" on youtube bro youll see the original. The subtitles are about COD so this person must have removed those ones and put in the ones about RS

Wow I can't believe they would talk about Runescape in like a night club or whatever that was. yes thats right, the were actually talking about runescape in a night club........ :wall: I think they used the same vid to review black ops or something :thumbup: and it's in russian Oh yeah...thats right. That interview was about COD. I thought I recognized it. Still very strange that they would talk about a video game in a place like that!!