This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Meganerdbomb
3141
« on: December 12, 2010, 09:38:40 PM »
Just start out with a cube, attach components onto it and see if it works.
That's more or less what I'mma do.
3142
« on: December 12, 2010, 08:19:18 PM »
how epic is Monster Energy ?
(Image removed from quote.)
It couldn't be any more epic that it already was, but that's still awesome. Who is this MKB? Why do his initials resemble mine? I think I need to challenge him to a duel.
3143
« on: December 11, 2010, 03:40:12 PM »
Maybe you shouldn't go all-in before the flop?
3144
« on: December 04, 2010, 03:42:21 AM »
No means no, but snoring means maybe, if you're quiet.
3145
« on: December 02, 2010, 04:43:26 PM »
They're 1 over 10 to the 67th, or practically zero.
Well no crap the odds were against it, but it happened anyway. It's a pretty rare occurrence, we're (and by that I mean the human race) the only documented case. Just because the odds were against it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
It's kinda like this story I head about a woman who's parked car got hit by a meteor about the size of a baseball. Now the surface of the earth is roughly 510,072,000km2, and lets say the car was about 2 meters wide and 5 meters long (an area of 10m2). That means that there was about a one in five hundred billion chance that the meteor could have hit anywhere on that car, and there's a much lower chance for hitting the particular area that it did. Despite the 1/500,000,000,000 chance of it happening, the car got hit by the meteor anyway.
Alright, but 1/ 500,000,000,000 are much better odds than 1/ 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Which is greater than the age of the universe. I won't even say that this means abiogenesis couldn't have happened, I'll just say that you can't say that your beliefs make any more sense than mine. Abiogenesis is really just a variation of spontaneous generation, which was disproved by Lois Pasteur. The only real difference is abiogenesis uses the convenient explanation that anything can happen if you wait long enough, ****ing miracles.
3146
« on: December 01, 2010, 02:19:08 AM »
I haven't studied the original original of life for some time, so I don't remember all the details so well.
The point still stands - life didn't come about because some deity came about and said "ORGANISMS GET!"
More like, life didn't start because a bunch of random chemicals sprang to life of their own accord. Do you know the mathematical odds of a chain of amino acids randomly combining to form DNA? Well, I'll tell you. They're 1 over 10 to the 67th, or practically zero.
3147
« on: November 30, 2010, 02:48:24 PM »
3148
« on: November 30, 2010, 01:24:27 AM »
In other words ... life started somehow.
Not just somehow. We have narrowed down the likely conditions of the start of life.
We? Are you a biologist?
I don't see you holding any scientific degrees. If what you're saying refutes his statement, then by nature everything you've said over the course of this entire thread in regards to science can't be taken seriously either.
Did I say I was refuting his statement? I was simply venting on one of my pet peeves of English usage. His statement does not require refuting.
3149
« on: November 29, 2010, 06:40:52 PM »
In other words ... life started somehow.
Not just somehow. We have narrowed down the likely conditions of the start of life.
We? Are you a biologist?
3150
« on: November 29, 2010, 05:49:36 PM »
Oh, and on that note that MNB made about a giant explosion happening randomly and 'life start[ing] somehow'...WTF?!?!:
-Big Bang - A singularity in multiple dimensions, which contains the entire weight of the universe, suddenly expands in terms of our '4 dimensions'. That single point is the 'center of the universe', and must be a gravitational center to the universe, as otherwise the expansion of the universe wouldn't be slowing down. I wouldn't exactly call this a radical theory.
-'Life started somehow' - There are plenty of theories based around plenty of evidence. I don't see that this is a problem. It could have been due to a reaction of chemicals in the depths of the ocean (perhaps around geothermal 'hotpoints' where we can now see that see life thrives), which caused the chemical bases for dna to form, and thus for life to occur.
In other words, a random explosion and life started somehow.
3151
« on: November 20, 2010, 11:08:20 PM »
Meganerdbomb is just like the coolest ing name ever. So I use it, cuz I'm the coolest ing person ever. Well, not really, I use it, because it's unique, so I've never had to worry about duplicate names. Oh, and a friend of mine used it to describe some really nerdy kid in school like a looong time ago; that's where I got it.
3152
« on: November 19, 2010, 05:42:20 PM »
I have a rape fetish. 
3153
« on: November 17, 2010, 01:59:17 PM »
I knew this one would rear it's head eventually.
The main problem with this argument is in point 3. We don't have any definitive evidence that rules out the idea of infinite chain of causes. You can't just say "that can't happen" unless you have facts to back it up.
Even if you're right, what about your god? Your god is supposed to have existed since forever and continue to do so forever. Why would it be that your god could have always existed but the universe could not?
For your second question, because God exists outside of the universe, and by the Ontological Argument, existence is a necessary property of God. For the first, allow me to try and convince you with an analogy. Imagine, if you will, a train. At the end of this train is a caboose. You ask, "What makes the caboose move?", and I answer, "It's being pulled along by the boxcar in front of it." So, of course you ask what makes the boxcar move, and I answer that it's the boxcar in front of it, ad infinitum. Now, in this imaginary train with an infinite number of boxcars, we have an explanation for why any one car in the train moves. However, we do not have an explanation for why the train as a whole moves. You should, in fact, be able to see that this train cannot move at all. In order for the train to move, it would need an engine. In order for the universe to move, it would need an unmoved mover. Your definition of omniscient then still breaks his omnipotent. Because he "can" do everything, there's no such thing as "knowing all possibility" as that too will be infinite due to his Omnipotent. Your definition then, creates a God that knows nothing.
Just because your mind is too small to understand infinite does not mean it will solve the omniscient/omnipotent contradiction.
Your definition of omniscient also breaks his omnipresent. Again, he is everywhere, he is part of everything of all time, there is no "can" as he is everything. The only way those two are compatible is by replacing "can" with "is". In such case you end up with a passive body without a will, which can be labeled as natural force.
Your definition of omnipotent also contradicts with his omnipresent. Because nothing is impossible to him, except that he already covered everything that is and are everywhere. Anything else God do will require him to repeat himself. So then he's actually powerless as all is already covered and there's nothing God can do except repeat himself an infinite amount of time. Even then the amount of diversity has not increase.
You've actually been making a lot of sense up until now, but this time, you were trying too hard. Your first argument: Because God must have infinite knowledge he therefore knows nothing? Your argument is nonsense. Your second: God being everywhere is not the same as being in everything, that's pantheism, not omnipresence. Your argument is invalid. The third: Once again, your thinking of pantheism, not omnipresence. Also, I think your grammar is off, because that last sentence makes zero sense.
3154
« on: November 16, 2010, 04:52:04 PM »
Alright, I'm not going to quote this time to avoid a massive wall of text. I'll just clear up a few things this time. First: @Noodle, I admit I actually did not bother to look into Mr. Meyers' background. I see you may be right about his bias. I first got the information form a Psychology textbook, and just looked up the source reference in the back. Oh well, I think that post still served its purpose. Also my statement wasn't that atheists can't deal with the fact that there is a god, but that the very concept is just so horrifying to them, that they refuse to even consider that there might be a god. @123savethewhales & NFX. You are being extremely limited in your thinking because you are trying to constrain God to the confines of this physical world. By Omnipresence, I do not mean that God exists everywhere in this dimension, but that God exists in infinitely many dimensions. God is not confined within the physical limitations of time and space, and is not made up of anything that we can measure. By Omniscience, I do not mean simply that God knows everything that's going to happen, but everything that can happen. God can see the infinite possibilities in every choice we make, and that He makes. He knows every possible implication of every possible action ad infinitum. Finally by Omnipotent there is NOTHING that is impossible to Him. The things that to you seem like logical impossibilities are nothing to a being who has infinite possibility. The fact that your mind is too small to grasp infinity does not make it impossible. Finally I refer once again to the Unmoved Mover argument: - There exists movement in the world.
- Things that move were set into motion by something else.
- If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
- Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
- From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
- From 4, there must be an unmoved mover
That's all for now.
3155
« on: November 15, 2010, 11:55:17 PM »
New studies are revealing predictors of subjective well-being, often assessed as self-reported happiness and life satisfaction. Worldwide, most people report being at least moderately happy, regardless of age and gender. As part of their scientific pursuit of happiness, researchers have examined possible associations between happiness and (a) economic growth and personal income, (b) close relationships, and (c) religious faith. Surprise surprise. A "self reported" scale of happiness with obviously rigged in favorite of certain "religion" that tells their believer to be contempt with the little that they have, or be burn in eternal hell. Being happy and reporting moderately happy are two different things.
Plus a survey that ask both a person's religion and happiness is totally rigged. Asking an Atheist "What 'religion' are you" is like asking the Tea Party "which democrat candidate do you support", or a black person "which white supremacist would you support". To add insult to injury, "None" is probably placed as the last choice. No wonder Atheist answer more negatively in the rest of the survey.
You are an idiot. The study had the people rate their overall "happiness" than asked them some basic questions such as their financial situation and how important religion was to them etc. This was a scientific study that was published in a psychological journal, not some bullsh** survey conducted by a religious institution.This could simply mean, as Noodle said, that ignorance is bliss, but the information is valid.
I choose option C, indifferent to other people's imaginary friends. I recognize that I cannot refute every version of tooth fairies or invisible pink unicorn that people made up. An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God just happens to be the more ridiculous of them. To be consistent with believing any of those nonsense, I would need to check under my bed every morning to see if a million dollars magically spawn when I was asleep. After all, in the world of magic where the inability to disprove == grounds to believe, money spawning under my bed is a very believable concept.
I simply believe an Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God makes a lot more sense than, "a ball of matter existed for eternity before it randomly exploded and made the universe then life started somehow." Now, I respect your free choice to believe differently, but if I don't expect to see puddles of mud spring to life. The Unmoved Mover argument applies here.
3156
« on: November 14, 2010, 02:08:12 PM »
Alright, I'll admit I was using troll logic, but you gotta admit, incredirobotwars was asking for it with a post like that. Still other than the lack of a god, Atheism is still very much like a religion, albeit a loosely organized one. You still have your own beliefs that you hold to with great faith. Sure, you claim to follow only reason and logic, but really, a lot what you believe makes no more sense than anything any other religion believes. And really your reason for not believing in God boils down to wanting to claim independence. You don't like the idea of being beholden to something greater than you, so you deny its existence. You'll deny anything that conflicts with your view and you in fact, want religion, as you said "wiped off the face of the earth". So, who sounds extremist now? You can accuse me of continuing to use troll logic, but it's still mostly true.
3157
« on: November 14, 2010, 01:28:41 PM »
Not really, since Athiesm is a religion, the most that will happen is the takeover of a new religion, just like Christianity in Europe during the first and second century A.D. Also, this is now just an argument about who's religion is better, which is one of the things you Athiests seem to dislike about religion. Therefore, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Therefore, my work is done.
Me: 1
Athiests: 0
3158
« on: November 14, 2010, 01:12:48 PM »
Find one that suits our tastes? OK...Atheism!
Sweet, I just you to admit that Athiesm is a religion! My work here is done. 
3159
« on: November 13, 2010, 02:45:34 PM »
Besides, scientific studies show that people with religious beliefs are happier on average than those without them
Please show me them, or at least the source of this info.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11392866
3160
« on: November 12, 2010, 09:14:15 PM »
Atheists need to stop being so anal about religion. It's really a fascinating subject. Besides, scientific studies show that people with religious beliefs are happier on average than those without them, but it doesn't really matter what religion you believe. Just go find one that suits your tastes, and be happy.
|
Show Posts