OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Perhaps you can explain, since you say energy can't come from nowhere - where did Dog come from? Is God not energy, if he exists? If Dog can come from nowhere, so can energy. So can free beer and the tooth fairy.

And unlike God - I've seen evidence of free beer and the tooth fairy.

If you go back and read the proof I posted earlier, you might note that the only required property of God (as one possiblity of 4) I had listed was:

Some being which can ignore the laws of physics

- in which case, origins need not apply, and your question is rather moot.

[Jack Simth]

This apparently got lost in the shuffle, so I'm bringing it back to the top for a moment.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arryn:
If they were suffering from mass delusion, then logically so are all believers today. And if today's believers aren't delusional, then by corollary, neither were the ancient Greeks, and thus modern Judeo-Christian-Islam is wrong and there are many gods.

Could you expound on the specifics of the "logically" you are using? To the best of my knoweledge, two Groups believing opposing things about a single thing necessitates neither both being equally right nor both being equally wrong.

---

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
The definition of "reasonably proven" I'm using for this debate is looser than you seem to be wanting to use - any theory that has carried through on a reasonable number of tests will suffice for these purposes.

The more extravagant the claim, the more rigid must the proof be. If I claim to have a degree from MIT (I don't), you might believe me. If I claim to have seen a UFO, I'd be asked to provide photos. If I claimed to have been abducted by ETs and that they did experiments on me, I'd have to (at the very least) show that I had been missing and show physical evidence on my body of having been 'probed'. If I claimed to *be* an ET, you can be assured that I'm going to be rather thoroughly examined -- by a psychiatrist if the physicians find nothing.

I can repost the conclusion of my proof from earlier (a one of four must be true) if you like, but mostly my supposition is that you can't logically refute the existance of Him as readily as you appear to think you can.

As Zap pointed out, the (current) laws of entropy *begin* at time=0 (the bang). The laws do not apply, do not exist prior to that point. And time also begins at that point. There is no such thing as "big bang minus 3 days". Time has no mathematical meaning before the "bang". Ergo, the universe is not infinitely old. (And it does not have infinite energy either, even if it was infinitely old.)

Your whole "proof" falls apart because it is based on bad assumptions and outright ignorance of cosmological physics.

BTW, had your assumptions been correct, the proof would still have failed because you did not rigorously derive God from the presented facts. You jumped to a conclusion.

It'd be the same thing as saying "I see an object in the sky I cannot identify, so it must be a Russian bomber". It *could* be a Russian bomber, but it doesn't *have* to be one. It could be almost anything.

Ignorance of reality != proof of God. QED

[atul]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Sorry, I overlooked a mistake you made. The are no unusual physics involved with the "event horizon" of a black hole. It is simply a mathematical region where matter inside that radius must travel faster than the speed of light if it were to escape to the other side of the "dividing line". The center of a black hole (a singularity in some theories) and the singularity of the Big Bang (again, in certain theories) is where the laws of physics (as we presently understand them) break down.

Hm, it hasn't ever been quite clear to me what's the stuff with the black holes anyway, so thanks for the clarification. Okay, not the edge, the center. The discussion goes far too theoretical for us little engineering physicists...

Anyone else noted that the original topic has gained some heat on itself also, by the way?

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Arryn:
The more extravagant the claim, the more rigid must the proof be. If I claim to have a degree from MIT (I don't), you might believe me. If I claim to have seen a UFO, I'd be asked to provide photos. If I claimed to have been abducted by ETs and that they did experiments on me, I'd have to (at the very least) show that I had been missing and show physical evidence on my body of having been 'probed'. If I claimed to *be* an ET, you can be assured that I'm going to be rather thoroughly examined -- by a psychiatrist if the physicians find nothing.

quote:

---

I can repost the conclusion of my proof from earlier (a one of four must be true) if you like, but mostly my supposition is that you can't logically refute the existance of Him as readily as you appear to think you can.

As Zap pointed out, the (current) laws of entropy *begin* at time=0 (the bang). The laws do not apply, do not exist prior to that point. And time also begins at that point. There is no such thing as "big bang minus 3 days". Time has no mathematical meaning before the "bang". Ergo, the universe is not infinitely old.

---

It is a very extravagant claim to say that the laws of physics do not apply past a certain point. Do you have any proof of this? Any reliable, citeable observations of a case where physicis were suspended?

Originally posted by Arryn:
(And it does not have infinite energy either, even if it was infinitely old.)

Where did I say the universe had infinite energy?

Originally posted by Arryn:

Your whole "proof" falls apart because it is based on bad assumptions and outright ignorance of cosmological physics.

BTW, had your assumptions been correct, the proof would still have failed because you did not rigorously derive God from the presented facts. You jumped to a conclusion.

It'd be the same thing as saying "I see an object in the sky I cannot identify, so it must be a Russian bomber". It *could* be a Russian bomber, but it doesn't *have* to be one. It could be almost anything.

Ignorance of reality != proof of God. QED

Apparently you didn't read the logic closely - I did not jump to the conclusion that God exists; I went to "...one of the following must be true..." and you seem to have assumed a conclusion of a specific one of those four / all of those four. This one of your counter-arguments falls apart on the basis that you are not arguing against my specific arguments. Shucks, I'd even mentioned in the section you quote (i've just now added italics to that specific piece of where I quoted you quoting me - it wasn't italicized in the original) that only one of the four need be true, with no reference as to which one.

Seeing as how you clearly aren't reading my Posts very carefully, there isn't much point in further discussion, is there?

Edit: fixed a grammer mistake

[ July 29, 2004, 16:04: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by atul:
Anyone else noted that the original topic has gained some heat on itself also, by the way?

I'm not a lawyer (though I might occasionally play-act as one around here), but to my understanding of copyright law, Woody's statement quoted in the article's Last paragraph on page 2 should invalidate any attempt to enforce the copyright by the new copyright holder. Woody, in effect, says "the song is mine, I'm claiming credit for it, but the use of the song is in the public domain". Of course, our legal system favors those with money and power over the rights of the public at large, so despite what I think is a clear-cut issue, I have little doubt some moron of a judge will rule against Jibjab and in favor of the anal-retentive music company.

EDIT: typo

[ July 29, 2004, 16:25: Message edited by: Arryn ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
LOL. The point is that you don't have one. You don't even know how big or how small it is, as you just clearly demonstrated.

And where, exactly, did I say I didn't know how big or small it is? I never claimed to know much about photography, sure. As far as I'm concerned, I point, aim, and shoot. I do know that it would seem unreasonably difficult to try and focus a camera that is sitting on the floor, given that I'd have to pick it up and look through it to do so, which would change its position, thus undermining the point of the exercise.

And man, this thread just goes all OVER the place.

[ July 29, 2004, 18:33: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
I snuck into the backwoods of Montana and onto the Norfleet estate, decoying the free roaming attack dogs with pork chops swathed in peanut butter, and, after a long arduous stealthy approach, managed to snap a picture of Norfleet's T34:



Nice ride!!

LOL. This tank could surely fool me.

Soapyfrog, watch for the booby traps, minefields and sniper rifles, that Norf remotely controls from the secret lair in his nuclear shelter. Geting in is one thing. Geting out may prove to be even harder. You see, once the word gets out that norf don't really have tank, THEY , who are out there to get poor old norf, will grow bolder. He can't afford it to happen, so watch your back.

[ July 29, 2004, 19:59: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Cainehill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
You are realy dumb norf. No insult, just frank observation. How about puting your camera 20 feet away? Or 30 feet? That would be enough distance for the standard camera to show you, and several of your very own T34 tanks on top of each other.

Are you really that desperate for fantasy fodder? I mean, now you have an obsession with having a picture of Norfleet for some perverted reason.

After all - a photo does, and proves, nothing. Unless you already know what Norfleet looks like (hint - he probably doesn't look like his avatar), in which case you're more obsessed than even I thought, given that you've managed to hunt down photos of him.

Even with that - photographs are easily doctored. Any idiot (and probably even you) can find a photo of an old tank in a book, the library, or (gasp) the internet, and digitally alter it to put in a acne-covered teenager - oops, that'd be you, I mean, a bearded old coot.

Heck - no need to alter it unless you do have Norfleet's picture on the ceiling above your bed, because he could find a picture of _some_ oldish coot beside an old tank and provide it, and you'd never know the difference.

Flooding perverted idiot.

---

I wouldn't go so far as calling your pervented idiot Cain, but since you said so yourslef I have no choice to agree with you, since your letter prove it quite clearly. Man, please, your homosexual fantasties regarding Norfleet hold no interest to me, although they certanly explain why you are the only person in the entire forum defending him. Maybe you shold try personal love letters next time, huh? Forum is kindof tough medium for expressing your tender feeling my friend.

As for the pictures and tanks - c'mon, I expected you to be at least a little smarter than norf. Was I wrong? Sorry dude, I don't want to rain on your parade, but can't you think of very simple way to prove that these pictures are norfleet's, and not some random person from the internet?!? If you can't, I can give you a hint, but I knidof hope you will be able to figure it out yourslef, it's not hard, really.

And friendly advice - next time before hoping on your favorite horse and raiding to rescue the love of your life, try to think a little bit before you write, otherwise you will look very stupid, like you do now, when you couldn't even think of simple way to profe autenticity of the photo, when any 8 year old kid with average IQ could quickly come up with logical solution for this mindbogling problem.


Regards,
Stormbinder

[ July 29, 2004, 19:57: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Perhaps you can explain, since you say energy can't come from nowhere - where did Dog come from? Is God not energy, if he exists? If Dog can come from nowhere, so can energy. So can free beer and the tooth fairy.

And unlike God - I've seen evidence of free beer and the tooth fairy.

If you go back and read the proof I posted earlier, you might note that the only required property of God (as one possiblity of 4) I had listed was:

Some being which can ignore the laws of physics

- in which case, origins need not apply, and your question is rather moot.

---

If one being can ignore the laws of physics - they aren't laws. If one being can break the laws - other beings, entities, energies, and objects can.