Anesthesia

My comment was based purely on what I've seen on american TV and films, where a few weeks before 'prom night' its like "omgomgohnoes must get a date for the prom, who r u goin wif? who are u goin wif? i wanna go wif valerie but im too scared to ask lollers!"

The problem with the sony walkman is that it is made by sony and that means you need to install some of their software on your machine to use it. Do you trust them? I don't.

Yes because it would be feasible to render 10,000+ spectators in the same detail as the couple of guys who your eyes will be fixed upon 90% of the time.

Don't proms just single out the people who can't get dates? And before anyone bothers to post suggesting I only mention that because I can't, there has only been one 'prom' in my life and I went with my long term girlfriend.

I see where I went wrong, when you said that it is begging the question either way you look at it I thought you meant either way you look at what I said, as opposed to referring to your own viewpoint as well.

"Blading themselves", wrestlers self-harm? No wonder so many kids are doing it nowadays. If they see it on TV then they think it is cool. Does that make wrestlers emos/goths?

After re-reading this, no. Of COURSE my conclusion assumes the premise, that's what any conclusion does. The premise, however, does not assume the conclusion. I would like you to point out just how it does. As Pete_The_Viscous described above, it is possible for an infinite amount of time to fit within an infinite amount of time, and this is not disprovable. For a better example of circular reasoning, see the one I posted above.

...And yours doesn't? Premise: The bible is inspired by god so must be true Conclusion: God exists Is that not the whole basis of your religion? Is it not an even larger assumption to say that there are dozens of angels, a devil that lives below us, all sorts of various magical entities which magical powers? One certainly has to invent a lot more 'facts' to get to the idea that an infinitely old entity created a finitely old planet, or that he just said so and suddenly a whole species came into existence. The element of 'mine' that did was that of infinite time having passed. What's more, that was only an if (as you will notice if you read it). "...IF there has never been a beginning of time and time is always passing then an infinite amount MUST have passed." In fact that point was just by the by, it was not even central to the rest of my argument. However it is not as though I just made this all up on a whim, it is not my theory it is that of dozens of renowned scientists and mathematicians. If you're wanting to say 'my' theory is fallacious, you'll need to point out why these are. Feel free to read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillatory_universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countably_infinite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_theory I've just presented the wikipedia links because it is easier to find them all on one site for me. I think what is more likely than it actually being flawed is that I did a poor job of explaining it all. I did not create these theories so I am not in a good position to defend them, I'm not a mathematician or an astrophysicist.

When neither is provable nor disprovable the difference comes down to how much you value knowing the truth. Where my view takes theories which assume little and are constantly subject to peer review and change, staying as close to accurate as possible when new evidence is discovered, yours assumes a baroque combination of angels, demons, stories etc. which are beyond question. To have a spartan view of how things work which is subjected to constant change as new evidence emerges is more likely to be accurate than a complex one which cannot be changed or rejected to accomodate new discoveries.

How do you know it isn't possible in actuality? I say that a god creating things isn't possible in actuality. As for the circular reasoning, of course it assumes the premise. This is a theory. There is no proof for the premise because it would be impossible to prove. It would also be impossible to disprove.

Convenient for me, yes. Convenient for you, no. If god was uncaused then what did he do before he created the earth/universe/whatever - sit around twiddling his thumbs? Planning the earth? No, it's obviously not the second one. No, it isn't impossible. Well, read on. It is very hard to explain because it is very hard to comprehend. Also hard because I'm not a mathematician. One way of explaining: Imagine the numbers 1...2...3..4.. right up to infinity. Now, you know that there are numbers that lie between those numbers such as 1.5, 3.7, pi, etc. How many of these real numbers exist between 0 and 1? Infinity. How many exist between 0 and infinity? Infinity. The answer to the second question is obviously a 'bigger' infinity than the answer to the first. Or you could think of the size of the set of integers and the size of the set of all real numbers. George Cantor in his continuum hypothesis shows that the set of integers (whilst still infinite) is still strictly smaller than the set of real numbers (also infinite). Another way: You say that an infinite amount of time cannot pass, I say read this wikipedia article which I'm not going to try and paraphrase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number Some highlights for if you can't be bothered: Aleph numbers are a series of numbers used to represent the cardinality of infinite sets. The cardinality of the set of natural numbers is aleph-null; the next larger cardinality is aleph-one, then aleph-two and so on. A bit of a conclusion An infinite amount of time can't pass. However, it can have passed if you extend the boundaries backwards. If you're going to say that an infinite amount of time can't have passed, if there has never been a beginning of time and time is always passing then an infinite amount MUST have passed. No, it doesn't. The oscillatory/cyclic universe model means that whilst it won't have had infinite chances to happen since the start of THIS cycle, it has had infinite chances to happen at the beginning of A cycle. And this is the one it happened in. We wouldn't be noticing its absense in the previous cycles because, well, it led to us so we weren't there. BUT take this with a pinch of salt because that only explains OUR existence. I think that it would be hilarious to assume that we are the only life in the universe, or the first. Given the overwhelming (if not infinite) size and age of the universe it would be irresponsible to assume that. I propose that given the infinite and number of cycles which are available, life has not only sprung up THIS cycle, but in an infinite number of cycles Considered by you. In an infinite universe nothing involving time is impossible. I'm guessing this post will be a bit scatty as I was doing other things whilst composing it.

Have I not been trying hard enough?

Hahaha, so by that rationale anything written about god by any christian is 100% accurate? This bit is particularly funny. Do you know what a zealot is? You are fanatical to the degree where any rational person would consider you dangerous.

I am pretty sure I saw a very very early stress test of Crysis over a year ago, around the 1st quarter of 2005 at a time when it was just called "The Project". It was on a coverdisk of PCZone magazine, to see how your equipment could handle it. It had depth of field blur then and in full motion it was very very annoying and looked utterly stupid. It only looks good in screenshots where it makes it look as though they are photographs.

From some of the pics I've seen it has depth of field blur. That is not necessary and it just gets annoying - our eyes are only focused on one point at a time so there is no need to blur out the rest for us artificially, it is only a hinderance.

Do you take yourself so seriously that you can't have a laugh at yourself Atticux? I'm British but I'll still laugh when jokes are made about us eating roast beef all the time, having bad teeth and drinking tea.

Again off topic, but worth mentioning: Why do you have to look at what they were thinking, what their intentions were, or why they were that? How are these people of over 200 years ago qualified to run a country today? What do they know of how a country needs to operate? Not just towards Ghostranger's post, but to anyone who is bringing up any constitution or document over 200 years old that is used to govern a country today. How do the people of those days know how to best govern a country 200 years in the future? I'm not an american (and glad of it) so my facts my be hazy to say the least.

Not impossible, improbable. What you crazy theists don't seem to understand the concept that time is infinite. It's so alarmingly egocentric to think that a world was created JUST for us, just as egocentric as thinking that the sun revolves around the earth. With INFINITE time before us it is not only possible for that situation to occur, it is impossible for it NOT to occur. Intelligent design proponents seem think that there must have been a start to everything - well that's just ludicrous. To suggest that there was an ultimate start to everything suggests that there was a nothingness before. If there was a nothingness before, what caused that nothingness? What came before it? They propose that god caused it, but who caused god? If god was never caused and is infinitely old then was was he doing before he caused everything? It has more holes in it than swiss cheese and just screams about the lesser man's need to think he is the centre of the universe.

I think the best word for him is a runt. It conveys how mature he is, how threatening he is and how funny he is.

Would it kill you to read the stickies? How can anyone help you if you don't give any details?

Okay bye, but don't forget to attack the server.

If you're such a leet haxxor why can't you get it yourself?

cadburys_egg I suggest you are careful what you say to him, he obviously wields a great deal of power. I suggest we back off and try and appease him. By the way, the odds have changed now. No ban = aleph-1:1 3 days = 75:1 1 week = 50:1 1 month = 25:1 Perm = 3:2 Honestly, if he can't spell properly I doubt he can attack anything beyond his acne.

I smell a frustrated spotty <15 year old :( I understand you're going through a lot of hormonal changes right now but you must be aware that it is completely normal and all people do at your age.

Taking bets on how long his ban is for: No ban = 10000000:1 3 days = 3:1 1 week = 2:1 2 weeks = 4:1 1 month = 10:1