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

[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)

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
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.

I'm going to go with 3. The "fundamental laws" of physics, as it is, is simply something that we've fabricated based on empirical observation. It is, by no means, inviolate: If empirical observation in the future refutes these laws as being incomplete, as has happened in the past, we'll acquire some new understanding of how things work.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:

quote:

---

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?

---

LOL. Good argument Zap. Also it reminds me of old existential discussion that we had several mounths ago.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
Do you guys never sleep or spend your time anywhere else?

Rarely.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
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.

What, on the floor? Then the only thing you're going to get a picture of is my feet! Besides, what exactly would you have me *DO* with these pictures? I'm not wasting the film just so I can mail you pictures of my feet.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Not with the @#$#@ Bush Dynasty trying to rework the USA's politics and system.

The repeated elections of FDR inspired the 22nd Amendment. I wonder how long it'll take for the Bush Dynasty (Tyranny) to inspire a 28th Amendment (the anti-"hidden monarchy" amendment)? Hopefully not too long ...

[spirokeat]

It is a mistake to apply the mathematics of probability to existential questions

Oh, I dunno.....I mean, you can apply a 'certain' ammount of logical reasoning to man in the white robes.

Lets take a look.

Example 1....God exists

You believe in him, live a cosmically short life of devotion and moderation then recieve a cosmically long afterlife in paradise.

You dont believe in him, live a cosmically short life of debauchery and recieve a cosmically long afterlife in eternal torment.

example 2.....God doesnt exist

You believe in him, live a cosmically short life in devotion and moderation then recieve quiet oblivion.

You dont believe in him, live a cosmically short life of debauchery and then recieve quiet oblivion.

If you want the best for yourself, then we all better get praying.

Spirokeat.