zapatos

Yes, it is traditionally defined that Gods are omnipotent. But an omnipotent God does not imply that a person in need will be helped, and therefore that criterion should not be used to determine whether or not something exists. It's not reasonable to say "God could have helped me but he didn't, therefore he does not exist". It's a bit like saying that I could have won the lottery last week, but I didn't, therefore the lottery does not exist. However, if you are going to change the criteria to 'he is omnipotent and he is not a bit of a shit', then yes, I agree. If he can help, and if he is not a bit of a shit, then him not helping indicates he may not exist. I am, however, unaware of any religion that claims that God will always do what is asked of him.

Ok, so no recent changes. That sounds reasonable. Although how long ago did Homo Sapiens emerge? I am not sure why you are telling me about monogamy and the marital system. You said, "Yes, we evolved in small groups so we are unable to really show much compassion and concern for those who are outside of what we regard as our group." My question is, how do you know that evolving in small groups caused us to have the inability to show much compassion for those outside our group? Perhpas it is the other way around. Perhaps we started with an inability to show much compassion beyond a limited number of people, and therefore we only formed small groups. Perhaps the limited compassion started well before humans evolved.

What has omnipotence got to do with it? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you will do something.

Perhaps God does not go around helping people. I mean, using your argument, you could explain why you don't believe in most people. For example, just plug in 'Bill Clinton' in place of 'God', and you have successfully argued that you don't believe in him either.

Also...much...better...without...all...the...periods.............................................................

How can you possibly know this? Perhaps the way we can relate to smaller groups of people is what drove us to the group size we lived with, and not the other way around. Given that there is so little data about interactions between groups in our distant past it may have been that we interacted in much larger groups, but only lived in smaller groups. Perhaps our level of compassion and concern has absolutely nothing at all to do with group sizes in our past.

I know this is off topic but just wanted to comment on this statement. It is wrong to think we would have wings if we needed them. Or that the reason we don't have them is because we didn't need them or it was better not to have them. You also have to be presented with the option. Wings may be the best thing that could ever happen to man, but if no mutations led in that direction, then we would never get the chance to select for them or not.

Correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief 'Belief in the Big Bang' is to hold the proposition of the Big Bang to be true. If you think that 'Belief in God' is equivalent to 'converting one's neighbors and telling homosexuals that they are going to burn for eternity', I can understand your confusion. I think that taking a group as large and diverse as 'those who believe in God' and making a sweeping generalization about them is a terribly flawed and biased idea.

I assume you are talking about the people who believe in the Big Bang? You aren't trolling, are you?

Your evidence is good, their evidence is bad. Of course you will find the comparison flawed. We have evidence that makes belief in the big bang reasonable to you. Such evidence for belief in God is absent for you. The interpretation of the evidence pointing to the Big Bang could be flawed. Even the evidence could be flawed. The evidence is not proof, and you know that. But to you it is good enough. People look at evidence of God and the interpretation of that evidence. Most know the evidence or interpretation could be flawed, but for them it is good enough. You are drawing a line that says your level of required proof is sufficient for belief but their level is not. That seems exceedingly unfair to me. Why do you get to draw the line? Why not criticize everyone who believes in anything without absolute proof? Or perhaps we could accept that people should be allowed to make up their own minds about their beliefs without fear that they will be labelled as broken by those who have a higher standard of proof than they do. I'm reminded of a George Carlin skit. He said that while driving, everyone feels that anyone who is going faster than them is an idiot, and anyone who is going slower than them is a jerk, and that the speed they are going is just right. Doesn't matter if I drive 60 and you drive 80, we both use the same model for determining who is and idiot and a jerk.

I implied no such thing. You, on the other hand, are implying that they are common to all who believe in God. Surely that cannot be. I am also not conceding the fact that people can be considered broken due to belief. I was stating believers are all in the same boat regardless of what it is they belive in. That is, if one set of believers can be considered broken, then so can the other set. The reason I addressed the belief characteristic is because that is the only thing known to be in common between all members of all groups, whether a belief in God or a belief in the Big Bang. To suggest that all people who believe in God are broken, then they must have something in common that makes them broken. The only thing they are known to have in common is belief. And they also have belief in common with people who believe in the Big Bang. We cannot say that all believers in God are irrational or refuse to accept contrary evidence, since there are so many different beliefs in God. A person who believes in the God of the bible is much different than the person who believes that God created the conditions that would allow our universe and has not been involved with us since. My response would have been different if the OP had been "People who believe in God and who are irrational or refuse to accept contrary evidence are broken". Of course at that point the OP could have been "People who believe in the Big Bang and who are irrational or refuse to accept contrary evidence are broken".

Can you please clarify where the electrons come from? If from a battery it sounds like they come from a chemical process, but what if the electricity comes from something like a hydro-electric source? Since the current flows in a circuit, does that mean that an individual electron can/will end up back at the power plant? If I had a problem with my electrical device and the current was flowing to the ground, are the total number of electrons involved somehow 'reduced'?

Same is true for a black hole. But remember that the escape velocity increases as you get closer to the center of mass. Since a black hole is so small you can get relatively close to the center of mass. Eventually you reach the critical point at which the amount of mass is great enough, and the distance from the center of mass is close enough, that no amount of energy will allow you to reach escape velocity. We are circling a black hole right now that resides at the center of the galaxy, but we are far enough away to be able to escape its gravitational pull.

Everyone on this site believes in something. If you are broken for believing in God then you are broken for believing in anything else that could turn out to be untrue. Anyone here believe in string theory? The Big Bang? Life on other planets? That we have been visited by aliens? That your spouse would never cheat on you? That man came out of Africa? That they know what the interior of the earth is made of? What level of evidence is enough to make you believe in something? What did the scientific minds believe in 1000 years ago, or 500, or 50? Something you believe in right now will turn out to be wrong. When it does you will realize you did not have sufficient evidence to believe, but that you were willing to believe anyway. If theists are broken, then so is everyone else.

The escape velocity is the velocity you need to achieve to break free from the gravity of a body without any further propulsion. By 'break free' I mean that once the escape velocity is achieved, the gravity of that body will never be able to pull you back to it. The closer you are to the center of mass of the body, the higher the escape velocity. The further you are from the center of mass, the lower the escape velocity. If you maintain a continual upward thrust of 4 kph you will eventually break free from the gravity of earth. The distance from the earth where you break free is the distance at which the escape velocity is 4 kph, which would be somewhere far out in space. It is much more efficient to break free from the gravity of the earth at high speeds rather than a continuous slower speed, because at the slower speed you have to lift the rocket just as far, but you have to provide fuel to fight gravity for a longer time. Because it is more efficient to 'sling' the craft into space, that is the way we do it, and that is why the text books speak in terms of escape velocity.

Yes. The other difference of opinion is that the ontologists think the scientists should agree with the ontologists, while the scientists don't care if they agree or not.

Are your folks also the ones who described to you the horrors of pro-girl sexism?

Try Googling 'documentaries about american jews'. Quite a few came up.

Yes, I have a question. What evidence do you have that those products were developed from extraterrestrial technology?

How are these companies any different from, say, Google? Is it really a new kind of company of just those that happen to be good to their employees? Some of the benefits at Google: http://www.google.com/jobs/lifeatgoogle/benefits/ I picked Google as my example because it was an easy pick, but there are plenty of good companies to work for. I'm trying to understand how those you describe are different or better.

Are you saying this because it is impossible, or are you saying this because it is exceedingly unlikely? If two black people each had one white and one black parent, isn't it possible, however unlikely, that the offspring of those two black people could inherit only the genes of the white grandparents?

Just as an aside, I once had a doctor tell me that everyone would die of cancer if they lived long enough.

Well, in response to your "So what?" When you say "you have the freedom to kill", and that "Laws are not created to take away those freedoms", you are saying there are no laws created to take away your freedom to kill someone. I gave two examples of laws (conspiracy and attempt) that were created that take away your freedom to commit murder. These laws do not wait for a murder to occur before coming into play, thus falsifying your original assertion. Putting you in jail for conspiracy to commit murder is not an 'incentive' to not commit murder.