Leaderboard

Quantum Mechanics isn't relevant to the problem, because the free-will debate is purely ontological and concerns only the conceptual relationship between one's notion of personal identity and one's notion of physics and is therefore not a scientific question. The question of free-will is independent of the empirical implications of any particular physics theory. It is only dependent upon one's ontological and psychological interpretation of a physics theory which has no testable empirical implications. Generally, if a body is conceived as being a separate entity to it's surroundings and as possessing its own independent existence, and furthermore if only the motions of the body are considered and not the motions of it's surroundings, then the body is naturally describable as being causally controlled by it's surroundings, and give rise to the impression that its surroundings constitute some sort of externally imposed causal agency. For example, the Earth considered "in and of itself" might be described as being controlled by the gravitational effect of the Sun. On the other hand, suppose the motions of the Earth and the Sun are considered together and simultaneously. Which controls which now? For all we have is a system of gravitation equations describing and relating the simultaneous motion of two objects in some frame of reference. Perhaps we might want to say that the Earth and the Sun don't control each other when they are considered as a joint-system, but are together controlled by an independent gravitational field. But then the notion of causal agency once again disappears if the motions of the Earth, Sun and Gravitational Field are modelled together. Also consider that if an event A that occurs on the earth cannot interact with an event B occurring on the sun due to it requiring faster-than-light travel, then A and B do not have a well-defined temporal ordering according to special relativity. People commonly seem to think that determinism in the sense of a fully predictable universe constitutes an opposing thesis to freewill, which as a consequence produces the illusion that the question of free-will is scientific and scientifically testable. But this is a mistake in my opinion, partly because of the empirical impossibility of distinguishing so-called 'true' randomness from the pseudo-randomness generated by an algorithm, and partly because the psychology of the "free will" question has little to do with predictability and everything to do with the divided self.

I would also add that historians can also be biased by their lack of faith, or perhaps a determination to cast doubt on a religion that they may view as dangerous in one way or another. A biased agnostic/atheist historian may be more determined to expose elements that may have been overlooked by chistian historians, likewise, a biased christian historian may be more determined to delve into the contextual elements and bring to light something that may've been overlooked by an agnostic/athiest historian. Thankfully, we don't have to rely on pro/con bias since biased people are still capable of making objective arguments that speak for themselves. What do you mean, "you people?" Those weren't excuses, just observations of the context illustrating what Paul was actually addressing in his letters. Your only argument is to say that Paul should've been "saying this" and "doing that." As I said before, It's just a very weak argument from silence - and that's being generous given that in several instances I gave you references to where Paul actually did "say this" and "do that." So you can keep calling my answers ludicrous, but at some point you'll have to actually address those answers specifically or it doesn't mean anything - it's something you haven't done yet, either because you can't or because you refuse to. Again, the only ludicrous thing here is you putting Paul in a box and basically saying how dare he write anything about contemporary Christianity apart from the daily activities of Jesus's life. . . Sez the guy who admittedly didn't even read the vast majority of that small collection of epistles. It's reminiscent of creation scientists rambling on against evolution when they don't even find it worthwhile to read the origin of species. It's the least one could do, so please excuse me if I'm more inclined to take seriously those of us that have actually taken the time to read the text we're discussing before even attempting to make "ludicrous" claims. Not to mention those that have spent years earning a Masters/PHd in the subject. I can understand that it may not be as substantial as you'd like it to be, but you stated that Tacitus made no claim about Jesus, but he did. He said that he "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." That is a very specific claim regardless of the subject matter. It also nullifies your claim that the only connection between Pilate and Jesus is through Paul's writings. Are you going to own up to your minor, but careless mistake or not? That's a great point. I was waiting to share a similar sentiment, but I'm glad you beat me to it. For the most part, I think your arguments have been more honest and substanative (dare I say objective?) than others sharing a similar perspective in this thread. Having said that, it's interesting how some of the most skeptical critics here will take as gospel, scholarly opinions that portray a negative image of scripture. For example, some here don't seem to question the "consensus" about which books/letters are considered forgeries. But when it comes to whether or not Jesus was real, they suddenly shout "what consensus!" It all seems a bit disingenuous, if that's even the right word for it. Perhaps "ignorantly biased" is more accurate? I mean, do they even bother to look into the criteria used to deem a book/letter a forgery? Do they look at the weakness of such arguments, or just the strengths? Do they even bother at all? As already demonstrated in this thread, some don't even bother reading the biblical texts they're attacking. The point is that we're not certain. Which is pretty much what you've been arguing the entire time. And as you've already stated, the historicity is of little consequence, especially when considering that the entire religion is based on faith. Christians simple apply to their daily lives certain biblical principles, and it works for them. It provides all the personal evidence needed to sustain their faith. While Christians are still persecuted in a few select countries around the world, the primary source of "maltreatment" against the protected class of Christians in the U.S today (as minimal as it is) is typically limited to a perceived "embarrassment" through "intellectual mockery," if you will. And that's nothing new - take for example Alexandros Graffito. And Christianity has survived much worse, such as the Roman persecution by Nero in 64 C.E to the Edict of Milan in 313 C.E If Christianity has proven anything, it's that it only grows stronger through adversity, both collectively and on an individual level as well, which is why it continues to persist.

She gets "raped" and was still attending parties in the same social scene? Whatever the case may be, every position, regardless of the prevailing fashionable sentiments for the MeToo movement, must be viewed dispassionately... just as they would be in a court of law. This is not a court case but the bar should be set the same in this case.

That this is not a trial is an important point, and one that some folks don't appreciate — this is a job interview. The threshold for saying "Next candidate" is much lower here. Nobody is entitled to a seat on SCOTUS.

Sure, this is easy enough to correct. Nobody is saying that people should believed simply due to their gender and the nature of the crime. The idea is that we have historical experience here which strongly suggests women don't tend to lie when making these accusations, but men do. Therefore, the default position should be to lean toward trusting them and work to investigate further to see if that leaning toward trust is warranted. Leaning toward disbelieving women who make these claims suggests a blindness to the reality of their day to day lives and the reality of our past where men more often than not are truly guilty when accused of such things. In the Kavenaugh case specifically, all of the accusers and all of the people who believe them support a proper investigation, yet the accused and all of the people standing behind the accused with their support not only are avoiding any actual investigations, but are also trying to rush through the confirmation. The GOP learned last week of other accusers, and instead of working to slow the process to find the truth, they instead sought to accelerate the vote. After public pressure, they gave 3 whole extra days, but still no proper investigation. Further, the testimony from the original accuser doesn't start for another 30 minutes, yet many GOP reps have already confirmed they plan to vote in support of Kavenaugh... Be damned what they hear today. None of the other accusers (I believe there are now 4, plus an ex-girlfriend of his friend who was in the room who is willing to testify under oath to the Senate that his friend in the past confided in her that he'd gone too far with women who were not conscious enough to consent)... none of them have been invited to testify. No other potential witnesses have been called... others who were at the party... others who saw the same things... No other evidence of people talking about this issue over the past decade... former classmates who have been emailing each other about this for years... therapists who had to help the women deal with the trauma of their assault... and even though all of these events happened well before Kavenaughs nomination... none of it is being considered. So yeah... I'm open to seeing where the facts lead and will make my conclusion after. I think these women are telling the truth, and am willing to change my mind. Unfortunately, too many people have concluded that they ARE lying and are selecting/ignoring facts which confirm this preconceived conclusion. tl;dr? Pretty much everyone here that believes the accusers do so provisionally and with a willingness to change their mind, however pretty everyone who disbelieves them suffers from the same absolutism you decry and has made their conclusions regardless of the mounting evidence. Maybe they're too emotionally attached...

Thank you for the feedback, and I agree that some of the book is a bit off. Do u know of a book that can at least hone my knowledge of quantum field theory?

I think it is great that it got you interested in science. I was fascinated by things like this (and science fiction) when I was young. But it is important to think critically about it. Here is an article pointing out some of the problems with her books: https://dmitrybrant.com/2007/09/05/the-non-science-of-lynne-mctaggart

Depends. Some space probes have a very small plutonium reactor (e.g. Voyager), but they are not based on nuclear fission, but the natural decay of plutonium. Plutonium-238 is so highly radioactive that the heat of this decay is enough to produce electricity with it. Then there are other types of fission reactors, e.g. aqueous homogeneous reactors, that are pretty small: But they also work just with highly enriched Uranium-235. In the article the KEMA Suspension Test Reactor is also mentioned ("the reactor consisted of a reactor vessel (ø310 mm, content 18.3 liter"): My father worked at KEMA (but he was not associated with the reactor laboratory). You brought back a few melancholic associations with your question... And last but not least, there are experiments in Germany with nuclear power for smart phones. Sorry, I only found a German video of its promo, but I think you can understand what it is about, just looking at the video. It is worth it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nezImUP0w

I remember back in 2003 when Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for Governor a stunt women Rhonda Miller came forward claiming Arnold had sexually harassed her. In response Arnold's campaign falsely advertised that Miller was a felon convicted of prostitution as a way to diminish her. Miller took them to court and In 04' Schwarzenegger struck a deal with her. In 06' Arnold again settle a libel case between his campaign and Journalist Anna Richardson who had also been defamed during the election in 03' after she came forward. Fast forward a few years after Arnold was out of office and it was revealed that he had a love child behind his wife back with their maid. Actress Brigitte Nielsen also came forward and revealed having an affair with Arnold behind his wife's back. Today Arnold is still making movies, hosting TV shows, is in commercials, and etc. Being outed for sexual harassment and then re-harassing his victims by slandering them publicly hasn't negatively impacted Arnold Schwarzenegger. This is just one example but the pattern is pretty clear. When wealthy men are accused of sexual misconduct they just slander the victim and trot the women in their lives out to defend them. Arnold's wife at the time, Maria Shriver, did interviews defending her husband and talking about what a great man he was. Can you imagine what a piece of work Arnold must be to trot his wife out to sing his praise while he knows damn well that he has a love child behind her back, has had multiple affairs, and the women accusing him are telling the truth. Truly despicable stuff. So while men, primarily self described conservative men, break out the tiny violins to serenade Bret Kavanough's pity party it is worth remembering that plenty of the time victims are merely slandered and dismissed when they come forward and the men continue on their merry way. Anita Hill din't keep Thomas off the bench any more than Donald Trump's 19 sexual misconduct accusers kept him out of the White House.

I don't think she's lying but, deep down, I find it highly disturbing that she chooses this point, many years into the future, to destroy a persons's reputation at a critical point in his career. It smells of a politically-motivated move to stop a conservative candidate. I find myself in conflict because you really don't need another conservative judge and this is one way to do it but, on the other hand, he's a highly accomplished person, irrespective of his politics, who has conducted himself properly apart from an immature moment when he was a youth. Is a person to be condemned for the rest of their life for such an immature moment. Maybe this is the future and we must all act like virginal nuns from the day we are born unless we want to be subjected to 'trial by internet' at some later stage. The overarching point, I feel, is that peoples actions are increasingly, in the internet age, having no sell-by date and they are being preserved in perpetuity, never allowing a person the possibility to change and grow. A biblical reference: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I will acknowledge that we must be cautious and not allow any accusation whatsoever to be the cause of someone’s downfall; that it’s important to look at evidence in context and avoid conclusions before enough information is available. I will also state clearly that I have ZERO reason to disbelieve this woman or question her motives. People who are lying don’t try to demand an FBI investigation before testifying. With Kavenau specifically, the question for me is... if we stipulate that this event definitely happened... is that enough to prevent him from winning a lifetime appointment in the highest court in the land? My follow up question is if our response would be the same if he weren’t a WASPy conservative, but was instead black or Hispanic, liberal or leftie. Finally, I think all contributors to this thread thus far are fairly long-standing online friends and should avoid talking with talons.

Right when minorities are pepper sprayed, tased, shot and so on without being guilt of any crime the many argue they didn't follow commands well enough. When wealth white men are approached regarding legal issues the cases must be air tight and proved in advance or else they are being mistreated. Sometimes even after they are proved (Manafort comes to mind) people claim it is unfair.

Part of the ongoing recent events involving former members of the Trump crew is that people are outraged about actions involving prominent white men, but the fact of the matter is that poorer people, often minorities, are treated the same or worse in their interactions with the law.

Nobody says anything about a god. As you keep repeating this, where you were already corrected several times, not just by me, this amounts to trolling. I am done with you here.

A nuclear reactor is basically hot metal with some coolant taking the heat away. A lot of the bulk is with materials and equipment to contain and use the nuclear material safely I agree with stinky

Matthew is the new testament. But he's the one you're taking seriously, when you discuss the Nazareth question. You should try to be a bit more consistent. You are rubbishing his writing here, but relying on it as a clue. If no historian would take his gospel seriously, then it's case closed. You're just cherry picking from the gospels, in the same way that your beloved "consensus" has done for years. Matthew wrote " that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." That shows his motivation. Whether it's right or not is immaterial. You posed the question why. You have your answer. Having said that, if Matthew got it wrong, you would have thought that he would have been called out on it at the time.

Suits me. Your expectation of a pat on the back, for the lamest of argument is tiresome. And claiming a consensus for it, as justification is laughable. What it says is, I can't justify it with my own words, but these clever people think so too. There's a consensus of clever people in the Vatican. Sorry, like a fool, I disagree with them.