A Tripolation

So you think that the program needs to be regulated? Can you think of any negative economical impact it would have?

Yes. I agree with you on that. I'm afraid regulation would cause such a thing.

Working as a cashier at a bread-and-eggs Walgreen's near my university, I've often heard from the other cashiers that work there that the government should regulate SNAP (Food Stamps) more than they do. Now that it's been pointed out, I agree with it for the most part. I do not see why being able to buy cases of Red Bull or Monster is necessary nutrition. Or 6 24-packs of Mountain Dew. I'm by no means against a family being able to get some sugary drinks, or being able to give their kids Oreo's or treats, but I think there should be a limit. Something similar to this maybe? I myself can't afford to drink Mountain Dew or Coke regularly anymore. I tend to opt for cheap tea, or just plain tap water in a bottle, and it is troubling to me to see a family buy nothing but pop and cookies, on taxpayer money. So I'm asking you all, what are the negatives that would come through such regulation? Or am I just being elitist and have no point whatsoever?

A list of amazing schools. Of course, these schools are almost all impossibly hard to get into. But if you think you can, go for it. No need to shout. I can't help you with international-student things. I'm wholly unfamiliar with them.

How what works? International-student applications? Aid? I'm not even sure if people who aren't citizens can receive Federal Aid. I'll have to check up on that. What state were you thinking about?

No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't be in the same category of questions. It would have been like if Bill had asked Silverman for the solution to P vs NP. I wouldn't expect anyone to know that, or even be able to guess about it, except for a dedicated mathematician. Tides have been well explained for some time. I feel he should have known it. But in a world where tides are mysteries, atheism would still be justified. I do not think "Goddidit" is an acceptable answer for anything.

Well, you know, random ethnic guys in athletic uniforms is always a possible outcome when doing maths. Why, just yesterday, I was trying to sum the forces in a truss bridge, when a random Asian guy in basketball clothing flew out of the pages. It's crazy stuff.

Here's a very thorough treatment of the tides, on a mathemtatical, yet readable, level. And the math/physics isn't anything past General University Physics. I can most certainly derive them, but it would be very tedious. As for the faith thing, for my physics course in my senior year in high school, we were required to give a presentation about physics in our everyday lives. Some chose cars, some chose buoyancy, some manufacturing. Guess who chose the tides? So yes, I do understand them fairly well. And if you'll notice, I never required that Silverman be able to derive equations of any sort. I just wanted him to know that gravity affected water too.

http://tinyurl.com/4kx72dz

The machine does not make it easier to exert the force. You always exert the amount of work that is put into it. When you push down on the gas pedal, the throttle responds proportionally. The chemical energy in the bonds of gasoline are what makes the car move. Think about what you're saying. You seem to be confusing yourself.

...umm...Yes? Why wouldn't I? Do I need to write out an explanation? I just feel that if he's going to represent atheists, and go around calling christianity a scam, he needs to brush up on his facts and general knowledge. And I think he meant that only God could make the tides function on such a rigorous schedule.

No. God isn't testable, AFAIK. I'm saying one needs to have a solid handle on what we know about this world before they start slinging ideas out about the metaphysical realm. That is a scam. That is so terrible that they are bringing those back... And it doesn't matter if he can't explain it. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that if he doesn't understand basic physics, I'm not going to listen to his ideas about theology and the metaphysical realm.

Sure. We can posit that that might be true. All I know is what was in the video. And in the video, he showed a dreadful lapse of basic science. Which is most atheists' bread-and-butter. All I know is that when someone tells me my God is a scam, yet they do not understand a simple ramification of gravitational attraction, I write them off as idiots. Silverman is an idiot, if the video is true.

No. I actually think one needs to have an extensive background in physics and math before I'll take there refutation of Christianity to have any merit. And I think a theist needs to have an extensive background in evolutionary biology before they even start to talk about getting ID in schools. I do not believe it's a dichotomy. God may not exist. God may exist. I can't answer that. But unlike some atheists/theists, I'm not going around calling either side a scam. That's what bothered me about Silverman. He bashes religion without even understanding what makes the world work. It seems hypocritical to me. That's the point though. It's NOT a random bit of physics. It's one of the most basic concepts we have. And he doesn't understand it. Atheism is justified in my opinion. But it does not make you more rational, or more intelligent, or anything of that sort.

Yes, I agree with this logic wholeheartedly. IA's belief that the universe exists, but is not a god, doesn't make him a believer to those who believe that the Universe is God. Similarly, if he believed in the Christian God, but did not consider him to be a God or worthy of any devotional, myself and most other theists wouldn't consider him to be a christian or theist in any way.

I bit the bullet on one. It was the one about square circles. I said an omnipotent God could create square circles, because it was only an arbitrary name we placed on certain geometric shapes. Even a human could change sign convention. Hm. Not too bad for a YEC, crazy republican. No theory ever becomes a law. It doesn't work like that. Laws are not higher truths. Laws are generalizations about what has happened. They pertain to observational data. An ability to predict in other words. Gravity is a good example. There is obviously an attraction between all things with mass. And from it, we can predict certain behaviors. That doesn't mean we understand everything about gravity (we have a pretty good handle, but there are still varying theories on gravity). In the same sense that nature is not obliged to agree with our theories, it is not obliged to obey our laws.

Well I live in the US, so I'm not too familiar with anything Canadian. Except Canadian Bacon. But this is the most promising result that came up from a quick google search. I'm not sure if Canada offers as much government assistance as the US does. My entire schooling is paid through various grants and exceedingly low-interest loans. Maybe you can find out how it works up there.

Ok: Was I being rash in thinking that you included human suffering with horrific suffering?

You implied it by using "human suffering" as a reason god(s) couldn't exist.

A God that is omnibenevolent doesn't have to eradicate all suffering to still be all-good, or all-loving.

Based on what you interpret those attributes to mean. A god that is omnibenevolent doesn't necessarily need to conform to your definition.

From those things, you cannot conclusively state god(s) do not exist. You can only state that the primitive men who decided to write a holy book didn't quite get things right.

This is all operating on preordained concepts of how YOU believe an omnipotent entity should behave. Your statement carries as much weight as my campus squirrels thinking they have me behavioral attitudes down-pat. AFAIK, the Big Bang Theory describes the initial expansion, and says nothing of the initial [math]t = 0[/math] condition.

For now and the near future, God isn't a falsifiable concept. He is not testable or observable. Therefore, science cannot answer the question of whether or not He exists. Our theories currently work without the complexity of an omnipotent entity. So, there is no evidence for, or against, the existence of a supreme creator. Some choose to believe out of faith, others do not, based on the lack of any evidence whatsoever.