that is the most moronic comment i have heard from you, Christianity did not cause rome to fall, unrest and barbarian attacks on citys did, with a long list of other crap, but i can't be fuckin arsed putting it all down.
Entropy.
Yet apparently its impossible for the universe to do the same thing?
Why do religious types always end up using slander when their argument falls apart?
Well when you call one of the most well educated atheist Dorkins instead of Dawkins it appears that way.
So just coincidence that they ruled for a thousand years yet in the 100 years that christanity was prevelant rome managed to lose everything they had gained? I mean why bother expanding your country when you can just wait and live forever in heaven
the empire was in trouble WELL before the Christians came along.
It doesn't seem possibelfor the universe to do it, given that it's a zero net-energy brane floating on/in a multiverse, but any itself is a largely unknown quantity, and moreover implying that the multiverse (or something beyond that, e.g. an ubermultiverse) isn't infinite raises much harder logical questions such as "what caused it then" and specifically "how could something cause the universe if it didn't exist as soemthing that doesn't exist can have no causality". Entropy is great, but the same logic impleusThat was a spelling error, though it hardly qualifies as slander. I'm a great fan of Dawkins, having watched and read much of his material, though I find him a little militant sometimes, he generally makes good arguments and has made me a lot more militant.Which brings me onto the fact that I'm an Atheist.Actually a pretty strident, vocal one, however in my case that's because I've reasoned a lot through arguments from both sides before coming to my conclusion (if you did the same rather than picking a side and sticking with it maybe you wouldn't be a Communist ) I reason that the whole idea of a God is quite absurd. The strongest evidence is circumstantial, easily explicable through othe means and exactly in line in terms of quality and quantity with what I'd expect if the majority of the human race just had faith and was scrabbling to justify it. That doesn't mean I'll deny any religious argument simply because of its conclusion - a lot of very smart, rational people accept that there are some half decent religious arguments and some acutally believe in God. But congrats on taking my bait
you come off sounding alot more agnostic than atheist. An weak atheist maybe?
No an Atheist. Knowledge makes you stronger, not weaker.
a weak atheist doesnt mean your weak :sunnies:
yes it goes on and on my friend.....[next line plz]
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was...
A post about the healing power of prayer
It doesn't seem possibel for the universe to do it, given that it's a zero net-energy brane floating on/in a multiverse, but any itself is a largely unknown quantity, and moreover implying that the multiverse (or something beyond that, e.g. an ubermultiverse) isn't infinite raises much harder logical questions such as "what caused it then" and specifically "how could something cause the universe if it didn't exist as soemthing that doesn't exist can have no causality". Entropy is great, but the same logic above implies that the there may be soemthing that transcendes it, otherwise there would be no present universe (either no beginning and no entropy, or something which is uncaused).
what i can understand is why do athiets have to prove christians wrong? if they believe theres nothing out there and when you die nothing happens couuldnt they just leave christians alone and let them live their life how they want. whats so important to them about how another person lives?
Just as everything has a beginning everything has a ending. Why should god be any different?
Branes dont float they coexist like slices of bread in an overall loaf.
The universe is not infinite because there is a definite 'outside' of the universe, beyond the background radiation.
'How could something cause the univese if it didnt exist as something that doesnt exist can have no causality' - The same way that God could exist without a cause. Adding God as the cause for the universe when refusing to accept the Universe being its own cause..... well. You can derive your own comment there.
The only thing that transcends entropy is, of course, zero dimension.
That's a slightly pedantic distinction - floating on/in is an acceptable and commonly used metaphor
Logically whether the we consider the Universe to have been created by a God, or to have formed some other way, we appear left with the causality paradox. Which is what I am saying; there's little sense in using a 'but who created God?' argument to guarantee a God didn't create the Universe. This is not in any way indicative of a God having created the universe, I'm simply pointing out the presence of a near identical and often ignored problem in either scenario
I just don't understand the maths well enough to have any real input on Zero dimensional maths, but I believe I understand what you are saying on a conceptual level.
But the cause for God falls afoul of Occams Razor. You of all people should know that.
Actually your understanding of the 'Zero' dimesion is pretty spot-on. It is either:a) The container for everythingb) The place where all the calculators go when they dieNeither of which is mutually exclusive, but are cause for debate
The Catholic Bishop of Sydney has come out against a government proposal to add an R18+ designation to Australia’s current video game rating system.As reported by the The Catholic Weekly, Auxiliary Bishop Julian Porteous expressed a belief that violent games desensitize players to real-world violence: The causes of violence and crime in society is a very complex problem… We know from psychological research that exposure to violent video games can desensitise people to real-life violence. We need not add to this problem with games that numb our natural repulsion to violence and, with regard to sexually explicit games, reduce women in particular to mere objects of instant self gratification.Bishop Porteous pointed to studies conducted by Iowa State researcher Craig Anderson and University of California professor Sonya Brady: Dr. Brady’s study not only reconfirms associations between real-world violence and risky behaviour, her experiments show a direct cause and effect between exposure to violence and attitudes toward risky behaviour. Video game violence can change a person’s attitudes in the real world… There is a risk that exposure to media violence will increase the likelihood of subsequent aggressive behaviour; video games with explicit sexual content are also at issue here.
whats "risky behaviour" ?
