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

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
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.

Stormie, sweet girl - I'm guessing you're the 8 year old kid who thinks she has an average IQ? Just to remind you, it took _weeks_ to debunk some of the faked photos from 9/11. It took a team of historians to prove that Stalin had been rewriting history by redoing famous photographs - and that was long before the digital age.

"But we can have a current newspaper in the photo!" Yes, sweetling, and the newspaper image can be imposed in the photograph, just as modern cereals and soft drinks are being inserted into vintage television shows and images.

Not to mention that the current newspaper still wouldn't prove that the man in the photograph was Norfleet. But here's a lollipop for a nice try, kid.

And by the by, Stormie - defending one person isn't the same as attacking another. But as someone reminded me that it's "Be kind to the differently enabled week", I'm not going to attack you today.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
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.

Since you like "At least / only one of these four need be true" games, here's one for you.

#1 : God is a sadist, given the way the world is.
#2 : God isn't a sadist, but isn't omnipotent either, or the world wouldn't be the way it is.
#3 : God isn't a sadist, he is omnipotent, but he forgot about us and thus the world went to ****.
#4 : God isn't a sadist, and he is omnipotent, but he's also incompetent and can't fix the mess he made.

One of the four must be true.

(Which is of course BS, but so are the four possibilities you mentioned.)

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Cainehill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
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.

Stormie, sweet girl - I'm guessing you're the 8 year old kid who thinks she has an average IQ? Just to remind you, it took _weeks_ to debunk some of the faked photos from 9/11. It took a team of historians to prove that Stalin had been rewriting history by redoing famous photographs - and that was long before the digital age.

"But we can have a current newspaper in the photo!" Yes, sweetling, and the newspaper image can be imposed in the photograph, just as modern cereals and soft drinks are being inserted into vintage television shows and images.

Not to mention that the current newspaper still wouldn't prove that the man in the photograph was Norfleet. But here's a lollipop for a nice try, kid.

---

Congratulations Cain, you have finally figured small part of this simple puzzle. So there is hope for you after all. Who knows, maybe you even will get to the average IQ in the future for your age group, if you will try really hard. After all, brain and intellectual capacities can be developed, to the certain degree, up to the certain age. Don't give up!


Unfortuantley you are still not geting it, obviously. Now put your anger over humiliations and your romantic feeling to the Norfleet aside, and try to think a bit harder my friend. How it can be proved, beyond all reasonable doubts, that the person on picture with T34 is indeed Norfleet, and not some fabrication made out of old or modern photos?


Here is a hint for you - Norfleet is NOT a Stalin, neither he is the World Trade Center, surprising as it may be. C'mon Cain, I am telling you the truth - it is not that hard. Just try to think a little bit about it, that strange unpleasant sensation in your head will fade away eventually, I promise.


With best regards,
Stormbinder

[ July 29, 2004, 22:40: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Arryn]

I'm always amused by people blathering on about an omniscient and omnipotent deity. Any such fictional construct would have to, by definition, be able to know, and to alter, the quantum state of EVERY particle in the ENTIRE universe, and to be able to do so instantly. An external oberver cannot observe the quantum state of a particle without altering it. Only the particles "know" their state. So, by deduction, such a omniwhatever deity would have to *be* the universe. If the deity embodies the universe (and is indistiguishable from it) it ceases to have an identity seperate from it. It's everywhere. Including in the humans that inhabit the universe. So (shocking as this may come), Norfleet is God. As am I. As are you. Of course, we, the "atoms" of God, still have a wee bit of a problem with the omnipotent ability to alter any particle, anywhere in the universe, instantly. This violates so many laws of physics that if it were true the universe could never have come into existence and possess the traits that we observe currently.

Well, the universe does exist, and we're having a very silly discussion, so God cannot possibly be omnipotent/omniscient or this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
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?

When you start talking about proof, you're no longer doing science. The Theory of the Big Bang is just that, a theory. No-one has proof that the Universe started that way, even though it does do a good job of explaining the isotropic background microwave radiation.

I thought we were talking about the state of mainstream contemporary scientific thinking here, which definitely doesn't support your theory.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Arryn:
An external oberver cannot observe the quantum state of a particle without altering it. Only the particles "know" their state.

Yes, but that's only because we have to observe particles by operating on them in a physical way, such as arranging a collision with another particle.

As the creator of the physical Universe, I think we can safely assume that God has non-physical powers at His disposal, and so is free of the Heisenberg constraint (which He imposed in the first place).

And although the volume of information involved with being omniscient is staggering, there's no real limit on God's capacity to know stuff either. So I can't see that there's a metaphysical problem although, as I said before, it may cause problems with the consistency of Christian belief.

Regarding omnipotence, people always try to debunk it by pointing out that no being, no matter how powerful, can perform a logical contradiction or paradox. I think that's just linguistic trickery. We need to use the word "omnipotent" in the same way as the people ascribing that property to God, and I think those people probably meant that He could perform any logically valid physical (or spiritual, I suppose) operation.

Which would kind of make sense if He made everything in the first place.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Arryn:
I'm always amused by people blathering on about an omniscient and omnipotent deity. Any such fictional construct would have to, by definition, be able to know, and to alter, the quantum state of EVERY particle in the ENTIRE universe, and to be able to do so instantly. An external oberver cannot observe the quantum state of a particle without altering it. Only the particles "know" their state. So, by deduction, such a omniwhatever deity would have to *be* the universe. If the deity embodies the universe (and is indistiguishable from it) it ceases to have an identity seperate from it. It's everywhere. Including in the humans that inhabit the universe. So (shocking as this may come), Norfleet is God. As am I. As are you. Of course, we, the "atoms" of God, still have a wee bit of a problem with the omnipotent ability to alter any particle, anywhere in the universe, instantly. This violates so many laws of physics that if it were true the universe could never have come into existence and possess the traits that we observe currently.

Well, the universe does exist, and we're having a very silly discussion, so God cannot possibly be omnipotent/omniscient or this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

The God do not play dices with the Universe, huh?

I could try to play a devil's advocate here, but I think I'll pass, or we may go too deep into the realm of Godel's theory, provable and unpovable, and Geinzerberg's principle from the quantum theory, that you were refering to.

[ July 29, 2004, 23:28: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Just a reminder to keep the barbequesqe personal remarks to yourself and future "Memoirs of People I Loathe". Those of you who are toeing the line know who you are.

[PrinzMegaherz]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Of course, we, the "atoms" of God, still have a wee bit of a problem with the omnipotent ability to alter any particle, anywhere in the universe, instantly. This violates so many laws of physics that if it were true the universe could never have come into existence and possess the traits that we observe currently.

You lost me there. I completely agree to the first part of your posting. I do not understand however what you want to say with the qouted part. Lets assume we are the atoms of god, and earth might be a cell. Does a cell in my heart need to understand why it has to beat? Are the atoms of those cells even aware that something is beating?

[Arryn]

Originally posted by spirokeat:

quote:

---

Arryn the agnostic and skeptic

Surely as a skeptic you would be first in the house to put forward possibilities of how something could be outside the boundries of a prescribed theory ?

---

Not my job. The burden of PROOF is upon those making the fantastical claims. If you say that you see and talk to a invisible, 6-armed, purple rabbit (or a deity), it's *your* problem to prove it. If I claim to have discovered cold fusion, it's my responsibility to prove it (provide evidence).

Skeptics study evidence to ascertain if the evidence is real.

There is NO evidence of diety, only hearsay. Until such time as there is quantifiable evidence, diety remains a fanciful concept that can neither be proved, nor disproved.

BTW, to the ancient Greeks, Zeus was as real as Allah is to folks today. 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. Ergo, either way, religion is a falsehood. Prove otherwise. With hard evidence that can be subjected to scientific (or logical) testing.

Have fun.