padren

If you try to fail and succeed, I can only imagine you mean "succeed at the attempt of failing" so - you succeeded, if you actually succeeded in what you attempted to fail at, then of course you failed. The only subtly introduced is that your goal was to fail - which implies some form of subterfuge as that's the only reason I can conceive of trying to fail. That is, to give the appearance of trying to succeed while intentionally failing. This is very common in people trying to remain on welfare but are required to attempt to find employment and list places they've tried to get work. Some animals I believe try to fail at simple tasks to give the impression of feigning injury as a hunting tactic, but I am not 100% sure on that.

It seems a little voodoo to me, but there is also the expectation that some of the spending will cut future costs through modernization and such. I say voodoo, because I can't imagine how accurate these predictions can be made. Plus, modernization often means automation thus reducing labor and putting people out of work - so some of those costs float around and eat into the benefits.

Still a favorite:

I understand the "enemy of mankind" thing, it is an idea I've thought about more than once though it seems to border on an emotional evaluation more than a literal one. It's easy to see sexual predators as monsters that live among us like wolves in sheep's clothing, but no loyalties to any human kind above their tastes for their preferred prey - our young - which makes it very easy to feel they are outside the "human circle" and just a predatory beast that blends in well. Piracy has the distinction of course as you said, to target ships of all nations, which does cause an additional distinction. With piracy, the emotional fears of all the things sailors and passengers faced (food, weather, shallows, navigational mishaps) to know your loved ones faced those challenges only to die at the hands of lawless, nationless pirates would really feel like loosing them to a pack of jackals. At least wars have ideology - pirates just hunt your kind for food and their own pack's strength. When it comes to the issue of negotiation, I don't think fear of death is a very valid deterrent. I don't think many people ever say "I can live with life imprisonment, but not death" - instead they say "I am way too good to get caught" because if they thought they'd get caught, they wouldn't do it. You don't make a profit if you are caught. That said, I do think that negotiating ransoms in which the pirates get paid and can pirate again does a disservice to all mariners, because it increases the profit side while lowering the loss side of the equation, making piracy that much more appealing and profitable. Negotiating life imprisonment instead of death at sea would be a fair ultimatum to put forward, but anything that allows the pirate's escape may as well be a death sentence for future mariners. Edit, Just on the death as a deterrent note: When a family faces possible eviction from their home and they struggle pay bills, attempts to get credit or second jobs or negotiate family loans or write their landlords for arrangements - things that don't arguably have a high chance of success, but if they do would save the day.....when those people do get evicted, how many have a well prepared back up plan? I would argue almost none because they put all their effort into keeping that from happening because the alternative was unimaginable. They placed the "eviction" as the "end game you loose" marker in their mind, and put everything into not loosing that game. Once they have, they wake up, blink, and wonder "what the heck are we going to do now??" because they haven't considered it in a real sense. When it comes to risk, it's easy for a human to mentally displace a horrible fail with ultimate fail in their mind, and put all their energy into avoiding that fail. When someone faces eviction, they'll saddle themselves with an extra 30k of debt just for a 5% chance of keeping their place if loosing their place is unimaginably bad. I think the psychology behind criminals that risk life imprisonment vs the death penalty is probably quite similar.

You may want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity Basically, the idea is if computer intelligence can build even smarter computers fast enough, especially when intelligence could likely be tied to simple software modifications (in addition to slower generations of growth in hardware) that the result goes beyond our ability to predict the outcome. Maybe a AI system would evaluate the fact that we are the result of evolutionary processes over billions of years as something that could be "broken quickly, but hard to put back together" and thus take into account it's own capacity to change it's own mind later as new information/algorithms may lead to new assessments on any given strategy's merits.

Common misconception. And of course I don't know of laws that came about on their own, they suffer the same issues as matter and energy in the "first cause/infinite regression" paradoxes. If you look back regarding what I wrote on energy/matter regarding the creation of the universe, the same applies for the laws. It is interesting though, that when we look at complex things such as the Earth or even a self-replicating cell, we see complexity that we can't imagine existing without some complex answer, but then we find that the exact same basic forces explain how those are probable to form, without any intervention. From everything we observe, for there to be a "creator" the concept has gone from someone creating even just the Earth over several days with pauses, consideration, and refined intent direction to at most a "perfect first action" that resulted in everything happening as a result of those first conditions set up during the big bang. I would posit that it is actually impossible to "prove" God or ID - any being capable of creating the universe would be capable of such incredible feats, that any being just less than that which didn't create the universe would be indistinguishable from the capabilities of a creator to our minds. Do not equate "no evidence for" with "does not exist" - that is the mistake here. Science simply has nothing to say about the things for which there is no evidence for - it does not make a claim one way or another. Keep in mind there is a big difference between a personal belief, and shared communal information. We share information to further our society as a whole, to exchange ideas, to consider new thoughts. For information to be accepted in a social community, it has to meet some standards, because there is a lot of inaccurate information out there in the world. You can't just accept every piece of information that comes your way. Scientific information has very rigorous standards as a result, and that has helped us tremendously as a society become more technologically advanced. Social subgroups with more casual requirements often evaluate information on the basis of whether or not it agrees with their preconceived notions - one reason politics can be so heated and diverse. This forum leans far more towards the scientific requirements, though mostly in regards to claims and assertions - opinions that are clearly expressed as such are exempt, but may be seen as somewhat moot, as opinions are a dime a dozen.

metaphor and simile anyone?

Possible yes. I would wonder as to the likelihood, and whether it is higher than other possibilities. It is also possible that the universe was created by an intelligent designer who was making something else, and we are just a byproduct of that other creation (the mold on the wall of God's shower, the stone chips from one of his sculptures, etc). Or even some "godly 3 stooges" sketch gone awry in which we were accidentally created. Or it could be an extension of what we already observe: that simple laws interacting in a consistent and unchanging manner over time create extremely complex patterns.

You didn't say that, it's a common phrase "you can't take it with you" implying regardless of all you accumulate in life you'll still leave this world with none of it, so my comment was more a play on words based on that phrase.

Well, that's the supposition, but I don't know enough to say that is a conclusive fact as a result of those observations. Regarding the coincidence factor: It's entirely possible that in an infinite number of possible universes, for some reason it needs to be flat for life to evolve (total guess, not based on any math or logic) but if that happened to be true, any life that evolved would only evolve to observe such unbelievable coincidental conditions. When I see things that appear to be "against incredible odds" I am reminded of the "lotto prayer fallacy" in which, every person in a lotto "prays" to win the lotto - who ever does win will feel that against unbelievable odds their prayers were answered, but only because they don't have access to the pool of failed prayers. So, in the case of extreme coincidence, I don't generally read unbelievable odds as supporting evidence for an intelligent design, in case that's where you were going on that. As to the universe being a flat infinite plane, I can't personally reconcile how a finite amount of energy could result in an infinite plane - so that is an interesting question for sure. Maybe someone in the astrophysics/cosmology department could shed light on that one.

They say you can't take it with you. But, I suppose I could break into CERN and take everyone with me. I am not actually so egotistical to do something like that, plus it would mean there wouldn't be anyone left to worship me after my passing.

We are well past the point of this mattering and have all moved on, but I just want to say for clarity that no, it wasn't an issue of the wrong word. The request was to step through the arguments logically, not intuit what feels most fitting. Second, even with the "fixed" wording it's still a claim that is subject to challenge. Personally, I do not find a deity solution more intuitive. I suspect people who believe in deities do, and those that find deities very odd ideas indeed would not. In what context does saying something is logical not boil down to a claim of "A follows B" in some manner? When should inaccuracies be ignored? It really has nothing to do with the word logic, just the utterance of a claim, especially when that claim is followed by a challenge as posts #4/#6 clearly did. I think that's a bit harsh, his assertion was pulled apart, but I don't think he was attacked. I think we had a good discussion on the side topic and moved on pretty well so I don't mean to drag the thread back there... I just find your assertion of language being the largest factor to be inaccurate. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI think this is what I was mentioning earlier the WMAP research: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html I believe that means if space curves it is a sphere (finite) and if it's flat it's infinite, and they not believe to within a 2% margin of error it is flat. This stuff is a bit outside my area of expertise, so not 100% sure on my interpretation of the results.

There are "true believers" there but mostly it's a combination of a troll tank and people that just like practicing their debate skills on topics they wouldn't otherwise try to defend. One of the best arguments I read there involved tectonic plates/continental drift and how it wouldn't work on a "flat earth" and cited how dinosaurs were on all the continents etc as evidence they were once all connected. So the Flat Earther suggested "how do we know dinosaurs couldn't have made primitive boats?" which while ridiculous completely derailed the thread into a near unfalseable subtopic. It was pretty hilarious.

I do disagree with your claim it takes more faith for someone to believe the universe has always existed, and I also already proposed alternative concepts that do not involve either a being creating the universe or it always existing. If you just want to share respective views that's fine, if you want to discuss how I come to my conclusions I will be happy to share the logic and we can compare the competing concepts. Well, we were but you did in a couple posts make claims that the "creator concept" was not only a more logical but the only logical conclusion one could reach, and as such it was naturally challenged. That would be like having a discussion and suddenly throwing out "and since it is only logical to see that life begins at conception" you can bet the discussion will be equally sidetracked in that case. I don't mean to belabor the point, I just want you to see the distinction in how your comments opened up this line of discussion. I do enjoy these sorts of topics. Regarding infinity in the physical universe, I think space is either curved (loops back on itself) or is infinite, but I can't recall if the measurements hit the accuracy level to reach a conclusive determination. Personally I can't imagine infinity as part of physical reality, as I can't help but to logically conclude that everything with definition (even space/time) requires/required energy to come into existence, and an infinite spatial plane would require infinite energy to create, which I just don't see happening. As I said before though, I could be wrong, I am not in that discipline.

From now on I am going to have more fun with my reputation comments.

Distance as measured has effects on us, which we may shorthand mentally to equate with distance. Distance then, becomes a "separator" that inhibits your ability to see someone, but a webcam overcomes that effect of distance - causing a false sense that distance is an illusion. This is simply caused by the false association in the mind of distance with the classic effects of distance. Distance as a measure between two points remains as real as ever and unaffected.

Social deregulation is not business deregulation. Reagan was not in favor of social deregulation very much from what I can tell. (Not to get too sidetracked) But essentially, yes, social deregulation is good, if you can't demonstrate a good reason for infringing on a person's liberties.

First, I don't think many people say "your belief is wrong" but address how that belief is applied to an argument such as this one. If they want to argue it is wrong, let them throw the logic they want to use forward - if they are trying to prove a theory false that is unfalsifiable they simply won't get far. If they are just saying "I think your belief is wrong" that's just there counter belief. Second - if a belief cannot be proven false (such as faiths, conspiracy theories, etc) isn't it still fair to point out that the theory is effectively dead if it has no capacity to rise above the background white noise of equally unfalsifiable and equally "unfit" theories? Just because a theory can't be proven false doesn't make it a fair argument, if the merits of that theory are so weak as to (should it be accepted) warrant the acceptance of a huge range of equally weak theories, many of which conflicting, than shouldn't that theory be effectively moot? People start seeing unicorns in posts around this point. It doesn't mean that theory is wrong, just that it is without any meaningful merit. The believer doesn't have to stop believing it, just accept (or continue debating) the arguments so far put forth do not make it meaningful to anyone else any more than any random theory on star charts or unicorns.

I don't know of a Catholic church that will marry gay people but not divorced people, gay marriage is far less tolerated in the catholic church than divorce - but why is that relevant? It seems completely beside the point to me, it's their church and they can do what they want... to each their own and all that. This whole "yard sale" business is precisely why government is getting the hell out of "narrow cultural definitions" and backing off to the point of just determining what legal marriage requirements are, and letting the various subcultures figure out their own wants and needs for their own various ceremonies and whatnot.

I like #31: The biggest thing to look out for though is the "simple by proxy" retort, to the effect of "It's no more complex than X and we've been talking about THAT all day!" at which point, you have to pull out some superficial difference to argue he's missing some complexity in his analogy or the original tactic will have backfired.

Well if that was true then basically this forum condones trolling and has moderators that are clearly lazy or just don't care about the quality of this place so obviously everyone has left and no one posts here anymore - oh wait, they still do, so I guess your assertion is pretty ridiculous. Besides, Sayonara³ says that trolling is an insta-ban offense, so unless you are calling him a liar you may want to reevaluate your assertion.

Do you understand though, when you start to debate the basis of a certain state of the universe, such as the cause of gravity, the cause of the universe, the nature of dark matter or dark energy, the possibilities of faster than light travel, that any proposition will be will be evaluated based on it's merits, regardless of whether the origin is one of faith, observation, logical workflow, LSD binges, or any other source? Consider these various arguments: 1) gravity is caused by God/Allah/Zeus 2) gravity is caused by Satan and/or supported by other subservient demons and fallen angels. 3) gravity is caused by contracting vibrations in particles interacting with subspace ether that has absorbed energy from dark matter. 4) gravity is caused by the gyrations of hula dancers in a hula dancing competition in Valhalla - which just happens to have gone on since the beginning of known time in the universe. Then consider those premises will be supported with some sort of logical or observational argument as to why that is the proper model to embrace. If everyone was just sharing their own idea (and we do that at times) no one steps on those ideas - you want to believe something that's fine. Someone may ask why you believe that and really if you say "it's just my belief, I don't expect anyone else to find it fits them" then that's all well and good - no harm done. The moment you try to build a case for your belief that case is subject to critique. Whether someone believes gravity is the result of demons or vibrating neutrinos, both are equally fair under the doctrines of faith. Both are also equally fair game when presented as a theory for general adoption by those you are communicating with. If you contend it is a logically sound model that fits the evidence you have to be prepared to defend that idea. Where it becomes a double standard is when we (rightly so) rip apart a person's math or observations or logical arguments regarding how dark energy vibrations cause gravity - but that becomes taboo if they mention "god" in their theory. If we don't rip into those theories we'll never know if one happens to be fit enough to remain standing. That includes arguments that mention "god" when they are proposed as theories to explain the nature of the universe. Anything less would be a double standard. That's the whole point.

Well I think it started here: He has a belief - that's fine. Then he states his belief is the only logical one which brought three facets of response: 1) That there are other logical answers 2) The absence of other logical answers does not improve the viability of a given logical answer 3) That the logic posited is in fact not very logical. At that point it started to get a little rough. You stated (correctly) that he has the right to believe what he wants. That was a misnomer however as that was not part of the discussion - the only issue was the quality of the logic he was proposing as a result of this beliefs. iNow's video was in direct response to his proposed logic, which was based on his belief. The general message is while it's nice to have answers simply "choosing one" through circular logic does not make the answer more sound than not having an answer. With regards to the question iNow asked pointed out a valid double standard: 1) The OP posited the physical creation of this universe is logically the result of a creator being. 2) You stated he has the right to believe what he wants. 3) iNow points out if he had a similar theory that described say, the cause of gravity (instead of the cause of the universe) that involved similar logical fallacies as his theory on the origins of the universe, you probably, as an engineer, would take issue with it instead of accept it at face value. He mentioned centaurs because it's a well known fact that iNow has a thing against centaurs (darn centaur bigot), but more importantly that centaurs introduce an element that makes you ask "why this?" as it's unsupported and oddly complex, just like the idea of a creator creating the universe makes you ask "why this?" if you find the idea of a creator as foreign to your psyche as centaurs. All in all though, we get into these discussions regarding "insulting faith" when faith becomes the basis of a posited logical argument that then gets the same treatment as all other posited logical arguments. You should see what happens in the Pseudoscience & Speculations forum to poorly defined theories - there is no bias against faith based theories, just a common correlation that faith based theories tend to be shredded as easily as anything you find in PS&S due to the strength of their evidence and logical framework. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, is it a fallacy to say the universe is in a certain state right now? I ask that honestly as I don't get all the probability math that well. The reason I ask is, we exist in a certain state, with certain properties that are one way, and not any other way. That state exists due to the prior state of the same system, and on backwards until the initial state of the system (if infinite regression does not exist.) If infinite regression does exist, then we loose that initial state of the system that has lead to it's current state with it's current properties. How can such an issue be resolved in an infinite regression model? To me it seems as equally perplexing as first cause.

Isn't going to a science forum and stating you are doing research and concluding people should have more fun... kinda like going to a race and concluding people are always in a hurry? We come here to joke, have fun, discuss politics, and to a large degree dwell over knowledge... but that doesn't mean that's how we spend the majority of our time.

Let me put it this way: We have our universe, in which time and space and all kinds of good things exist. If there is anything outside this universe "influencing" it, either we'd have trouble understanding why the laws of physics seem to be "influenced" by outside forces, or they'd affect things in a way we can't observe and we wouldn't know they are happening. Since we don't see the former, when it comes to the latter, what if something beyond our current space/time framework could actually "affect" the layout of space/time in our universe? If it changes something, then it would "always" have been changed from our perspective. We would never be able to observe these occurrences. If something lead to the creation of space/time, and all our tools involve exploring what occurs in space/time, how would we begin to probe such a thing? Maybe some new math may explain "first cause" effectively but due to the appearance that our universe (or set of manifolds or whatever the totality of dimensions and time and probability and anything else in it) is a close system I don't know how one would go about probing it. Just a note regarding people being offended: I don't think even iNow goes around harassing people with religious views - the issue is when you posit your religious views are more logical than other views that you open the doors for debate. That debate can be very callous in terms of affording very little refuge to ideas that do not stand up to cold hard logic. It will be afforded as much reverence as any other social argument in public, something that shreds most scientific theories to the point they fail before they start. I respect anyone's right to hold any views they wish. I understand that people are often religious for very personal reasons and I personally will never try to "assault" those reasons because I don't have direct experiences of them. However, the moment they leave your mouth or keyboard and the shelter of your personal faith to posit a point - they hit the harsh conditions of peer review and can be shredded thusly. At that point, I have zero sympathy for any hurt feelings - and really if you posit them for logical debate you should enjoy the discussion and not worry too much as when they are picked at it's not the same as picking apart you. Newton, Galileo, Einstein and countless others chose to take their ideas and bring them into public scrutiny and they suffered far more adversity than most religious arguments. Your personal beliefs are respected, your public views and logical claims will be scrutinized and even mocked at times - accept the peer review or not, but don't posit a logical claim and then call "faith basher" when the logic is called into question.