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

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
No thanks. Why don't you post picture of YOU on top of your tank instead, in your undeground bunker? That would be at least *some* proof to your lunatic claims.

Even if I wanted to do such a thing, who would hold the camera?

---

ROFL. This is the lamest excuse I ever heard. You may take a cigar. Ever heard of auto-shoot cameras? Where you set up a few seconds timer and go "cheese"? Even cheapest soapbox cameras have it these days. Or better just ask your parents to press a button, frankly I am starting to believe the Graeme's "stupid teenager living with his parents" Version, based upon your recent Posts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
I am just repeating you own words silly, in case you have forgoten already. You said you used LAWS weapons to blown up cars with some unknown dudes on the highway, who were shooting at you with their automatic weapons for no apperent reason.

No, I did not. I said I attempted to aim one at such an enemy vehicle, but did not get a clean line of fire, so didn't actually fire it. I also never said that dudes on the highway were firing automatic weapons at me. They appeared to be armed with standard, semi-automatic pistols and rifles. You are greatly exaggerating the case, as I said. Small shootouts like this happen with not-uncommon frequency.

---

That's not how you described it. You really have to remeber your nut stories better, you know.

[ July 29, 2004, 03:55: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Cainehill]

[quote]Originally posted by Stormbinder:

ROFL. This is the lamest excuse I ever heard. You may take a cigar. Ever heard of auto-shoot cameras? Where you set up a few seconds timer and go "cheese"? Even cheapest soapbox cameras have it these days. Or better just ask your parents to press a button, frankly I am starting to believe the Graeme's "stupid teenager living with his parents" Version, based upon your recent Posts.

So, Stormwhiner - do you get wood when insulting your obsession?

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
ROFL. This is the lamest excuse I ever heard. You may take a cigar. Ever heard of auto-shoot cameras? Where you set up a few seconds timer and go "cheese"? Even cheapest soapbox cameras have it these days.

Yes, but this still necessitates I have somebody or something *AIM* and *HOLD* the camera. They don't just hover in the air, you know.

That's not how you described it. You really have to remeber your nut stories better, you know.

Given that you never listen to anything I say anyway, it's clearly your memory that is at fault here.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Even if there is only a .0000000001% chance that God does exist is more then enough reason to do what's right or risk burning in Hell eternally.

I couldn't resist responding to this one, since it's the exact fallacy parodied by my signature :-)

It is a mistake to apply the mathematics of probability to existential questions. In this case, that's easily demonstrated by proposing the existence of a different god (who I shall call Frank) who is the real creator of the Universe, and whose will happens to be the exact opposite of the will we attribute to Jehovah. By making up an associated scripture that is more plausible and consistent than the Bible, I could even argue that Frank's "probability of existence" exceeds Jehovah's.

So now, what do we do? Avoid the risk of offending Jehovah, or do the exact opposite to avoid offending Frank?

Fire and brimstone arguments (with or without the reference to probability) are an attempt to garner converts by intimidation, and I think that most of the successful religions have used them in some form. And of course, no more than one distinct religion can be telling the truth.

Originally posted by NTJedi:
God doesn't stop mankind from doing Evil actions such as killing, suicide or abortion, however mankind is expected to stop Evil.

Which brings up an interesting question about God's Will. Consider the following 2 Bible passages. Firstly, from Leviticus, a passage that unambiguously identifies homosexuality as a crime against God, and the penalty for said crime as death:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. - Leviticus 20:13

Secondly, from Matthew, we have Jesus telling us just as clearly that there's no wriggling out of the law of the Old Testament just because He's shown up to redeem us:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:17-19

So then, is killing a homosexual evil? Or is it merely implementing God's Will? Or is the Bible wrong?

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I can't think of any other analogue that would explain why a being would willfully create the universe, an object which seems to serve no particular purpose.

Not knowing anything about God's nature or environment, it's hardly surprising that we can't fathom His motivation for any particular action. That in no way implies that said motivation doesn't exist, and certainly doesn't imply that the true motivation is recognizable in terms we can understand (such as boredom).

Originally posted by Norfleet:
That also doesn't fit the depiction as given by mainstream religion.

Quite. Redefining the term "God" to mean something other than the popular conception (sentient being with an independant will, which includes the desire to be worshipped) is simply an attempt to dodge the issue of whether or not that popular conception is existant.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
ROFL. This is the lamest excuse I ever heard. You may take a cigar. Ever heard of auto-shoot cameras? Where you set up a few seconds timer and go "cheese"? Even cheapest soapbox cameras have it these days.

Yes, but this still necessitates I have somebody or something *AIM* and *HOLD* the camera. They don't just hover in the air, you know.

---

Of course, I understand. I should reilize that puting the camera on the floor, and aiming it at your fictional T34 with the help of a book or two, is way too complecated for your IQ level. My appologies.

[Jack Simth]

Either a few of the fundamental laws of physics are wrong, we are sitting at a rediculously improbable (chance n/infinity = 0) point in history, the universe doesn't exit, or God (not necessarily of any specific form) does - I even have a proof for it:

Consider: Entropy and Conservation of energy, and the universe as it seems to exist:
1) Energy is always conserved
2) Entropy always increases
3) there is both energy and order in the universe as it exists today.
4) (1) implies that the energy of the universe (using the widest, most inclusive possible definition of the universe) must be of infinite age.
Justification: energy is conserved -> the energy that is somewhere at time X must also have been somewhere at time X-1. However, as X is an arbitrary varaible, mathematical induction applies; if energy exists now, it existed at now-1, now-2, now-3, ..., all the way back to now-infinity. Thus, the energy of the universe must be of infinite age.
5) (2) and (4) imply that one of the following is true: A) after an infinite amount of time, entropy should have reached a maximum, excluding order, and thus there should be no measureable order left in the energy of the universe. B) Entropy is on some form of infinitive, and the change in entropy is only measureable for some finite segment of the infinity, which we just happen to be in.
6) as (5a) contradicts (3), it must be false if (1), (2), and (3) are true. As (5b) has a probability of some finite number over an infinite number, it has a probability of 0. Thus, (5b) must be false if (1), (2), and (3) are true. Thus there is a contradiction among (1), (2), and (3).

Given the contradiction above, one of the following must be true:
1) We are at a probability 0 section of time.
2) There is no energy in the universe (a.k.a., the universe doesn't exist).
3) One of the fundamental laws of physicis (either conservation of energy or entropy) is false.
4) Some being which can ignore the laws of physics (God) exists.

Please, discuss.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

Consider: Entropy and Conservation of energy, and the universe as it seems to exist:
1) Energy is always conserved
2) Entropy always increases

I believe that none of the conservation laws are held to have operated at T=0 (the Big Bang)