God Bless The U.S. of A.

[Plague]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Aside from the fact that all the politicians are guilty of it, the greatest increase in government debt has been from Reagan, Bush and Bush, the last of whom was under a Repub controlled congress!

Nice job towing the company line though.

Hmmm, maybe you should visit the library of congress sometime, take any form of US history class, or at least watch the history channel for God's sake.  Does the name "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" ring a bell?

Google it, and then come back here and post your findings on what political party he belonged to, and what the national debt was before and after his presidency.

Considering he was President during the largest war in history, that is a very weak statement.

[KobraKaine]

Considering he was President during the largest war in history, that is a very weak statement.

Take the war out of the equation and he was still the most fiscally irresponsible president in United States history.  He took advantage of the Great Depression to push through a lot of crappy legislation and pork spending at the expense of our country.

As for World Wars, FDR should be shot for treasonous crimes.  He was told repeatedly about Alger Hiss being a Russian spy, and rather than inprison him, he promoted him.  He gave Stalin a firm grasp on Eastern Europe, and is personally responsible for the Cold War (by allowing Stalin so many concessions and not prosecuting spies that were passing nuclear secrets along to the Russians.)

[rdizzle]

So you're a child molester, then?

No, I'm not catholic.

/I'll be here all night folks!

[tuple]

Does the name "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" ring a bell?

Google it,

Ok, I googled it.  I have found that you had to go back +60 years to tow the party line.  Good job.  

Hmm, now that I think about it, his Presidency was through the depression, ending in 1945.  Just so you know, my grandfather won't eat oatmeal to this day due to the fact that there was NOTHING else to eat for months on end during the depression.  I wonder if anything sickeningly expensive occurred at the end of his presidency?  Something that may require buying tanks, ships, planes, and shipping a good portion of the male population halfway across the world.

KobraKaine, you should take your own advice and read some history books.

edit: It's really easy to criticize someone, republican or democrat, 60 years later when you are NOT starving!

[floodbud]

What is this I hear?

I'll have to ask you to prove that it is even possible for a spiritual being to exist and create matter.

He isn't a spiritual being, God has a body of flesh and blood like you and me.  He knows more science than I could even begin to comprehend, and he has an incredible amount of knowledge about how to manipulate energy and matter.  He didn't create matter - that's impossible.  He just brought it from somewhere else to create Earth and all the other worlds.

Might seem like weird beliefs, but they fit in perfectly with the laws of science and matter, and are the only really sensible ideas.  I do belong to a religion, but if I said which one you might all laugh at me.  My religion is generally considered a "sect" even though it is independent and absolutely not a sect.

Anyways, go get on your knees for half an hour, and if you have a little faith in me (though it sounds strange, supernatural, off the wall, etc) you will get some personal revelation from the Big Man himself.

______________________
Floodbud

[Lucifer]

Wait so now you are saying there is an alien up in space in his ship that made all this stuff just for us and is talking into the heads of his followers for their benefit.

Either
1) This is the biggest cosmic joke ever
2) That is one bored alien
3) You are crazy
4) All of the above

[Plague Bringer]

No, he brought it here.

[sleekslacker]

I'll have to ask you to prove that it is even possible for a spiritual being to exist and create matter.

Well before I answer that question, I need you to tell me how all organisms on Earth came to existence. Don't tell me hydrogen met carbon and then later they found some fancy protein to attach to, and then they became aware of their existance complete with survival instinct. Because that's bullshit. There must have been some order put into the system, because entrophy doesn't allow this thing to happen. Who put that order in ?

[Plague Bringer]

What put that order in would be the better question.

And if your 'gods' do exist, how were they created?

Oh, and about my question you incorrectly quoted,

[quote="Plague Bringer]
I'll have to ask you to prove that it is even possible for a spiritual being to exist and create matter.
[/quote]

Don't tell me that some mystical being just magically created two people and -continue bible stories here-. Because that's bullshit.

[tuple]

Well before I answer that question, I need you to tell me how all organisms on Earth came to existence. Don't tell me hydrogen met carbon and then later they found some fancy protein to attach to, and then they became aware of their existance complete with survival instinct. Because that's bullshit. There must have been some order put into the system, because entrophy doesn't allow this thing to happen. Who put that order in ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

edit: Not just sleekslacker though, this thread is full of it
Attempting a logical argument on an unprovable concept is silly :roll:

[sleekslacker]

You made a wrong conclusion there.

What I am saying is that entities that cannot think, decide and adapt to a changing environment, cannot survive. A protein produced by colliding molecules is just an improbable, even impossible occurance. It's only logical to think next that there is/was an entity that is able to think, decide and take action to have made effect so that organisms can exist on earth.

I'm not saying what the bible saying is true. Hell I'm not even a christian. What I'm thinking is:

1) An entity that is not

- non-living things (because they can't make decision and adapt to the environment)
- living things (they didn't exist before some point in time)

has created living things. This entity can think, make decision and take action on its own.

2) That entity existed even before time itself. Something that started living after some point in time needs a creator ( according to point #1). So who is at the end of the line of creators ?

I'll leave who that is to your imagination.

[Stof]

You made a wrong conclusion there.

What I am saying is that entities that cannot think, decide and adapt to a changing environment, cannot survive. A protein produced by colliding molecules is just an improbable, even impossible occurance. It's only logical to think next that there is/was an entity that is able to think, decide and take action to have made effect so that organisms can exist on earth.

I'm not saying what the bible saying is true. Hell I'm not even a christian. What I'm thinking is:

1) An entity that is not

- non-living things (because they can't make decision and adapt to the environment)
- living things (they didn't exist before some point in time)

has created living things. This entity can think, make decision and take action on its own.

2) That entity existed even before time itself. Something that started living after some point in time needs a creator ( according to point #1). So who is at the end of the line of creators ?

I'll leave who that is to your imagination.

I can put a few names for your entity. The names are randomness and patience.

Randomness because there is only one chance on a million for life to emerge out of the primal constituents of a nascent world. Patience because you only need to repeat the experience enouth times ( universe is big and there are probably millions of nascent worlds everywhere ) and waiting long enouth for it to succeed.

[sleekslacker]

Entropy doesn't work that way. The state of disorder always increases, but only when there is an interaction. Randomness and patience can produce results only when there is something they can work on. So before everything existed, what can they work on ?

According to the big bang theory, the universe expanded from a point mass with certain critical density. Now what created this point mass ? Interaction between quantum particles. How were the quantum particles created ? Some other things interacted with another thing.

You see the pattern. Everything in the universe is always created by interactions by something else. The root of this line of creations must be an entity whose existence cannot be explained in a normal way. When we say existance, usually it refers to an entity who came to exist. The existence I'm referring to above is absolute existence, where the entity has always existed, never came to exist, and will never cease to exist.

Energy fits this criteria, but it always need an external interaction to do work. Without interaction with particles, energy doesn't do anything. When there is nothing but pure homogeneous energy, nothing will happen. But when an entity produces a fluke in the energy, then all kind of things can happen.

[Survivor]

You see the pattern. Everything in the universe is always created by interactions by something else. The root of this line of creations must be an entity whose existence cannot be explained in a normal way. When we say existance, usually it refers to an entity who came to exist. The existence I'm referring to above is absolute existence, where the entity has always existed, never came to exist, and will never cease to exist.

Sou you are saying something exists before existence, which in itself is such a fallacy of causality. If something exists there is existence, you can't say it exists out of existence because in effect you are not applying the same rules to it as to the rest of existence.

And when you say cannot be explained in a normal way then I doubt it has a good base. Why are people always concerned with the fact that science doesn't have all the answers. Humanity is filling the gaps slowly, and while ,due to probability, we can never understand everything, the knowledge increase has been exponential since we have started gathering knowledge.

Some people however say that all knowledge from holy books like the bible, quran etc, even knowledge that has been proven wrong, is right yet dismiss people who are willing to admit they are still working on understanding it all. And when someone claims they understand it all, but it doesn't coincide with what they think is right they ridicule and attack them as well.

Humanity consists of a whole lot of hypocrisy. And you can state your ideas, but make sure that rules that apply to one thing apply to all things, because otherwise your argument becomes void due to causality.

[Lucifer]

The problem if what came first is only a problem if you consider time to be a straight line.  It could along with the other dimensions actually be a very large circle or even more confusing multi dimensional shape such that the end makes the beginning, at that point causality has no basis as any point is both after and before any other point.  There was no making or beginning or prime mover it just was there, will be there, and is there.

Also you misunderstand entropy, if you take all matter and energy everywhere there will always be a decrease in order.  However if you only look at the objects that are currently interacting this may not be true.

[sleekslacker]

Sou you are saying something exists before existence, which in itself is such a fallacy of causality. If something exists there is existence, you can't say it exists out of existence because in effect you are not applying the same rules to it as to the rest of existence.

No. What I said was before something that has a temporary existence like us existed ( We came to existence, we exist, we will cease to exist when we die ), there exists an entity with an absolute existence. It didn't came to exist, it has always existed, and will never cease to exist.

And when you say cannot be explained in a normal way then I doubt it has a good base. Why are people always concerned with the fact that science doesn't have all the answers. Humanity is filling the gaps slowly, and while ,due to probability, we can never understand everything, the knowledge increase has been exponential since we have started gathering knowledge.

What I was saying about that cannot be explained in a normal way was the meaning of existence. We are so used to something that had a beginning that we apply it to existence most of the time.

Science cannot answer nor do everything. Not now, not in the future.  We'll never travel in time ( In fact time is our concept to describe the spatial properties of matter as it moves. The concept of time fails when everything stays static and dead). Teleportation of living organisms will never work. You cannot resurrect the dead.

This is not to say science is not useful, it is. To me it is the ultimate tool which we can use to make our life more interesting and easier, but at the same time the tool is limited in what it can do. Although the range and scale of things that it can achieve is vast, it doesn't achieve everything.

Some people however say that all knowledge from holy books like the bible, quran etc, even knowledge that has been proven wrong, is right yet dismiss people who are willing to admit they are still working on understanding it all. And when someone claims they understand it all, but it doesn't coincide with what they think is right they ridicule and attack them as well.

I don't know much about the books and how true they are. I only read one continuously, there is a lot of truths in it, but there are also a few concepts that I find hard to accept. Yes, I am still working on understanding my existence. I've looked at bible, but it contradicted itself after 10 minutes of reading and I considered it rubbish material.

Humanity consists of a whole lot of hypocrisy. And you can state your ideas, but make sure that rules that apply to one thing apply to all things, because otherwise your argument becomes void due to causality.

Be reminded that 'everything' is relative to who you are. Human are limited in what they can do. We can only see electromagnetic radiation of a certain range. What we can measure is also limited. Who knows whatever else existed when we never have the means to detect their existence. If I say there is a possibility that a certain zeta-ray exists, can you deny that it doesn't exist ?

Science starts to fall apart when you present findings of a normal person to a deaf & blind one. He cannot replicate the findings and come to the same conclusion. Now regard us human as the partially blind entity, who will never come to the same conclusion to the perfect truth, because we're limited in what we can sense. Science is a tool, and limited at that. It's not the be all and all.

[gareth]

stop talking in double negatives it confuses me. :roll:

[Xonya]

Funny

[Survivor]

Sou you are saying something exists before existence, which in itself is such a fallacy of causality. If something exists there is existence, you can't say it exists out of existence because in effect you are not applying the same rules to it as to the rest of existence.

No. What I said was before something that has a temporary existence like us existed ( We came to existence, we exist, we will cease to exist when we die ), there exists an entity with an absolute existence. It didn't came to exist, it has always existed, and will never cease to exist.

It isn't an entity. It simply is. If anything exists there is existence. Existence cannot create a first existence since it would be the first existence. This is why discussing the origin of existence is out of our grasp atm. We can only deal in negatives, not positives.

And when you say cannot be explained in a normal way then I doubt it has a good base. Why are people always concerned with the fact that science doesn't have all the answers. Humanity is filling the gaps slowly, and while ,due to probability, we can never understand everything, the knowledge increase has been exponential since we have started gathering knowledge.

What I was saying about that cannot be explained in a normal way was the meaning of existence. We are so used to something that had a beginning that we apply it to existence most of the time.

Science cannot answer nor do everything. Not now, not in the future.  We'll never travel in time ( In fact time is our concept to describe the spatial properties of matter as it moves. The concept of time fails when everything stays static and dead). Teleportation of living organisms will never work. You cannot resurrect the dead.

This is not to say science is not useful, it is. To me it is the ultimate tool which we can use to make our life more interesting and easier, but at the same time the tool is limited in what it can do. Although the range and scale of things that it can achieve is vast, it doesn't achieve everything.

I do not apply a start to an existence. Nor an end. See first statement for the reason.
Teleportation theoretically might work. Time travel is such a load of philosophy atm that i agree with you.
I'm worried with your last sentence though. You are seeking something to fill a void, but what void. What does it not achieve? A complete understanding? No single being, machine or force can understand or achieve everything if it not is everything.

Some people however say that all knowledge from holy books like the bible, quran etc, even knowledge that has been proven wrong, is right yet dismiss people who are willing to admit they are still working on understanding it all. And when someone claims they understand it all, but it doesn't coincide with what they think is right they ridicule and attack them as well.

I don't know much about the books and how true they are. I only read one continuously, there is a lot of truths in it, but there are also a few concepts that I find hard to accept. Yes, I am still working on understanding my existence. I've looked at bible, but it contradicted itself after 10 minutes of reading and I considered it rubbish material.

Which one do you read? Might have a look at it.

Humanity consists of a whole lot of hypocrisy. And you can state your ideas, but make sure that rules that apply to one thing apply to all things, because otherwise your argument becomes void due to causality.

Be reminded that 'everything' is relative to who you are. Human are limited in what they can do. We can only see electromagnetic radiation of a certain range. What we can measure is also limited. Who knows whatever else existed when we never have the means to detect their existence. If I say there is a possibility that a certain zeta-ray exists, can you deny that it doesn't exist ?

Science starts to fall apart when you present findings of a normal person to a deaf & blind one. He cannot replicate the findings and come to the same conclusion. Now regard us human as the partially blind entity, who will never come to the same conclusion to the perfect truth, because we're limited in what we can sense. Science is a tool, and limited at that. It's not the be all and all.

I cannot deny that it exists, but neither can you prove it. As such it is not worth discussing. If you have a lead, not proof then it might be worth discussing.
If you state it like that anything can exist, and since anything can exist there would be no single entity which could not have been created by a higher entity etc.
But you are stating as a 'blind' person that there must be a higher entity. You are saying because you cannot comprehend it it must be true. That directly opposes responsibility for your statement.

[Plague Bringer]

Fine then, about your 'god', I cannot deny that it exists, but neither can you prove it. I cannot deny that it exists, but neither can you prove it. So let's stop this discussion.

[Survivor]

You take all my toys away don't you plague

[Xonya]

Have heard also that there will be 'god' as long as human are not all knowing. When we will be advanced enough, we have no need for 'god'. God only explain things which we cannot explain with faith. And needless to say, those who live only with hope, usually ends up with miserable life, praying that higher power comes and saves them. And what is the usual what happens? Some priest comes and says, 'god has a mysterious ways'.....

You see the irony?

[Plague Bringer]

You take all my toys away don't you plague

Hey, I sent you a map to compile.

[sleekslacker]

Which one do you read? Might have a look at it.

I read the Koran. There are a few things I'm not too sure about in it, but there are many science and wonderful subject it talks about. Among other things you can find the description of the planetary system, the meetup between hot water and cold water bodies in the sea and the process in human birth, from a sperm into a complete form. There is a lot of scientifically proven things in it, and I would be surprised and completely awed if the book was really written by recording the ranting of a mad man.

Now I can go back on the topic regarding the Koran/Islam religion and it's hate-hate relationship with the US (Moslem == Terrorists). There are many statements in the Koran ordering the believers to attack the enemies all the way they can. However, it turns out that they are only allowed to draw blood if 1) the enemy chose to draw blood first, 2) the enemy attacked your homeland.

And looking back in history, the USA and UK started this terrorist war themselves. If they had not created any disturbance in Palestine by displacing the Arabs there, nobody would have touched them. Read the history of Israel. It's full of blood and involvements from the big guns. All the peace talk have mostly involved Israel getting a bigger piece of land from the Arabs. I'm not surprised they started bombing the US & UK. You touched their pride, you started the fight. Of course, you can argue that this is strategic in perspective of the US position. But don't blame somebody else when you're the one who started the war.

[Survivor]

How did we get to freedom fighting/terrorism?

[sleekslacker]

This is how the topic derailed:

US-> US economy -> don't fucking bring god into the discussion -> atheism -> will god help US economy if he existed ? -> more talk about god owns all -> someone asking a proof for god existance -> proof of a timeless entity, existence bla bla bla > arguments etc etc -> somebody brought the topic back on US : terrorists.

Hey at least I helped bringing this thread on topic . Or I tried.

[Plague Bringer]

This is how the topic derailed:

US-> US economy -> don't fucking bring god into the discussion -> atheism -> will god help US economy if he existed ? -> more talk about god owns all -> someone asking a proof for god existance -> proof of a timeless entity, existence bla bla bla > arguments etc etc -> somebody brought the topic back on US : terrorists.

Hey at least I helped bringing this thread on topic . Or I tried.

There aws no hard core evidence afaik, there wasn't even softcore evidence.

[AKAnotu]

We'll never travel in time ( In fact time is our concept to describe the spatial properties of matter as it moves. The concept of time fails when everything stays static and dead). Teleportation of living organisms will never work. You cannot resurrect the dead.

wrong, my good friend. the most famous physics equasion of all time, E=mc^2 (energy=mass times the speed of light squared) along with the theory of relativity, states that time is relative to the space your in, AKA time isn't a constant, it changes just like matter. if you travel close or faster (traveling faster is impossible except through multidimensinal means and rifts in the space-time continum) time will slow down or move backwards, because light travels at a set speed(the fastest of anything), so if you outrun it, you outrun time, and any interactions in the past will alter your time (no crap, thank you countless sci-fi movies and tv shows).
didn't think i was smart, eh?

[kozak6]

[sleekslacker]

No. If you travel close to light speed, relative to you everything else will become very slow. The most you can do is stop time, not turn it backward. You outrun time <-- time is actually relative to the person viewing it. You only outrun other's time, which means your time pass slower compared to others. Thus you get space travellers finding their friends and relatives older than they're supposed to be when they return.

You can never outrun your own time, which means you can never go back and meet your younger self. Meeting your younger self in the same time frame means some atoms in your current body exist twice.. which is just... impossible.

Slow down time, yes it can be done. Put time at a halt, maybe it can be done, but this is only relative to you. Other people continue living within their own timeframe. Make time goes backward, no way. That would mean moving all existence in the universe back to the way it was, and then adding some other atoms to create the current you in it. Conservation Law not obeyed here, since energy will be needed to create the current you, while maintaining the same past amount of energy.

Lastly, we are all time travellers, only that we are always travelling forward. Imagine yourself in a car on a highway full of other cars, moving in one direction. Now your car starts going so fast that all other cars appear to be moving backward. Now the reality is the other cars are still moving forward, they only appear to be going backward. The other fact is that your car has went forward, and your past position is now filled with a different car. Now imagine if the highway is a loop, and you drive so fast until you meet the same cars several times in your way ( you went 5 round, and the others still haven't finished 1 round). But you'll never meet your car.