mooeypoo

I might be off track here but I couldn't help wondering: isn't the entire point of introducing the devil and when reading the biblical stories in general that the soul is assumed NOT to be powerful at all? I mean, the whole point of the long list of explicit moral laws in the bible is that without proper guidance (and strongly paying attention) anyone can fall to "sin". Doesn't that mean automatically that the soul is assumed to be weak and requires constant care to remain on the right side? I hope I'm making sense. ~mooey

Okay, we've had fun, haven't we. ! Moderator Note This thread has zero science in it, and that is not good in a science forum. Either the OP has no evidence or is not interested in sharing these evidence, we have spent enough time discussing nothing. Kris, this isn't your personal blog, it's a forum. It's not just a forum, it's a science forum. If you intend on being resistant to scientific questioning, this isn't the place for you. Clearly. Please go over our rules, including the Speculation policy. Thread closed.

No worries, I think your reply is probably much better than mine, since you actually know the subject matter. I know that in physics and sciences, you are best looking up what individual programs view as the best requirements, but it's a bit different than computers and design.

The best way to do this is to send an email to the school (or the few schools) that you want to go to in grad studies and ask them directly. I doubt that there's much of a difference unless they appreciate specifically multimedia BA over any other degree, but sometimes these programs have their own preferences. You might learn they value certain courses more than others, etc. Ask them directly, it's probably your best bet. Good luck!

He seems to be perpetually disappointed.

Yeah, but it could still be a tenet for a philosophical thought experiment. A bad one, since it will likely end in 2 seconds once you realize that there's not a lot to go out for other than to say that if 2+2=17.3 then all other math makes no sense and be done wtih it. It might be a bad example, but it's not too far off of JohnB's example of "Suppose the earth is a cube, how would it affect gravity?" --> the earth is not a cube. But you would accept the supposition as true without argument and *THEN* test if the rest follows. My point is that the debate should concentrate on the hypothetical question at hand rather than criticism about why we chose to hypothesize this specific hypothesis. I chose the wrong example, but the point itself still stands; we've been spending quite a while trying to steer this thread back to the actual question and keep going off track by criticism on the question itself. ~mooey

Also, formulating the question "Why is it true that..." assumes a question is true. Damnit, we should've hid better.

I don't understand what is so difficult here. "Let's assume 2+2=17.3; How would that affect our world?" --> that's a valid philosophical question.. a "thought experiment", see? In order to deal with such experiment, we do in fact immediately assume, without question or reservation, that 2+2=17.3 and then continue onwards to see how this changes things. 2+2=17.3 is nonsensical mathematically. That makes no difference to the thought experiment. In fact, it wouldn't have been a thought experiment if the initial premise was obvious. We would have nothing to talk about if I told you "what if 2+2=4? how would that affect you?". It wouldn't, because it is. So you can think the initial premise is nonsensical, or you can think it's offensive, or crazy, or stupid. But in order to participate in this thread properly, you need to take it as a given. That's the point. It's fine if you can't, lemur. If this hurts your sensibilities, that is perfectly acceptable. Don't participate. It's your choice. Just please make it; either participate, or leave this thread alone. It ain't that difficult, really. That said, I was thinking about something. I know about judaism more than other religions, so I started thinking about what would happen to, say, religious jews if the hypothesis in the OP happened. Honestly, I think it might shatter a few ideas, but it wouldn't shake the foundations. In judaism, the main idea is philosophizing about the messages of the texts anyways. That is, while the text is considered to have come from God (or inspired by) it is known that it has very cryptic sections -- that's why other books exist to help deal with those, like the Talmud and Zohar, etc. So I don't think a lot of Jews would necessarily lose their faith in judaism specifically even IF god came to say that the Tanach has nothing to do with him. They will likely just find something else to argue about, or will (as usually done in the biblical stories in jewish perspective) declare it "symbolic" and go on with their lives.

Then stop claiming you can, and start showing you can. Evidence, remember?

Of course you're entitled to your beliefs, but I think the "problem" that he (and I) raise here is the consistency. From what you're saying, you should be completely vegetarian. This, of course, is a valid point of view. I *personally* don't quite agree with it, but as long as it's consistent, it's valid. And, for the record, I'm using the 'vegetarian' aspect as an example. We could argue the validity of vegetarianism or veganism in another thread. I would agree in general with this, but I think that the "demonizing" is less about the act of hunting itself and more about what and how they are hunting it. There is a huge difference between hunting deer (who are not endangered, who, *usually* are killed immediately, and who are not hunted inside natural reserves) to hunting whales (who *are* all the above). Ethically speaking, there is a difference. Also, whales are on a higher level of sentience than, say, deer. I'm probably going to get a bit of flack over this statement (I'm ready for it) but there is a large body of scientific research showing a very complex set of language in Whale pods and a complex family structure. It is more similar to, say, chimpanzees and apes than deer or cows. That makes it different ethically too. You don't hunt chimpanzees, even though I'm quite sure someone, somewhere, probably likes their meat. You don't, because of very similar reasons why whale hunting is considered immoral - because they're more sentient, because they're endangered, and because we really don't have any reason to (there *is* other meat we can eat that isn't sentient or endangered). I don't think we can claim that there's no difference between a human being and an animal. I am actually a tad surprised you raised the issue that there isn't any distinction, lemur, (and I am not saying this to judge, I'm just curious) since you're a man of faith, and, I thought, even that on its own would separate us from animals. But that said, the fact they might not be completely like humans ethically speaking does not mean that we should ignore the ethical question itself. For that matter, I have no problems with the research of whales. I would even go as far as to say that I don't quite have a problem with having to kill whales for research (though I am not really supporting it either). But this is not what is done at all. The killing is disproportional, produces zero scientific gain, and is cruel and inhumane. Those are the main reasons I see against these hunting practices. Those, and the fact that these animals are endangered. It isn't the first time we stop (or "pause") the hunting of a species to let the species grow back to an acceptable number before we hunt it again. It's just one of those times where a few groups ignore that attempt and risk the extinction of an entire species. ~moo Sure, Marat, but the question is not about just killing, it's about how the killing is done and what the killing is for. We are about to drive an entire species out to extinction for no other reason than just because we don't care. There's no use for the meat, really, and there's no scientific research. Are you seriously suggesting we should ignore it because killing happens throughout the world? I think that's a fair question. Personally, I don't think we have an obligation to diminish animal death and suffering, but rather we, as sentient beings who aspire to our own morality standards, should try to avoid suffering as much as we can. If there are two options to hunt - one produces suffering and the other does not - we should choose the one that doesn't produce suffering. Otherwise, there's no meaning to anything "ethical" we discuss. We do it because we evolved beyond mere animalistic instinct to think and philosophize about our own ethical systems. I, for instance, believe that some animal research is actually needed. I'm not a die-hard animal activist who goes around protesting against any and all hurting of animals. There are cases where it's necessary, I acknowledge that. But I would like to think that even in those situations where death and/or pain is necessary, we at least try to think of alternative options. Your logic doesn't quite follow, you're making generalizations that are not supported by one another. If you want to equate humans saving humans to humans saving animals you first must show that humans and animals *are* the same. I argue they are not. It will be hard to show that they are, but perhaps you can substantiate that in what is important to this particular debate, they are equal. That's what "staunch" animal activists are doing. Personally, I disagree, but at least they try to make the argument before making a generalization. You're the one making the reductio ad absurdom, Marat. I don't think many said that whales should not be killed at all, or that whales should be cuddled and guarded from sharks or other natural dangers. Whaling is not the same as hunting, as I pointed out above. I'm not pushing the issue to the absurd at all, I'm pointing out how this issue is *different* than other cases where hunting and suffering might be warranted. This *is* different, though, hence why I think it should NOT be warranted. Where's the absurd? When you generalize animals and humans and make the statements that you did above, it's you, in fact, that makes the fallacy. You know, we're discussing issues here that might push some emotional buttons, but I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't generalize the views against yours and flatten them out into a strawman account, let alone call them "idiotic". We're all adults, and we can all argue properly without dropping to ad hominem or strawman statements. Your last paragraph had both fallacies in it, and impllies, really, that anyone who takes a stand for animals (big stand or small stand, or partial) is a fool. Let's not get down to that level, okay? Explain your point of view, rather than shooting cheap-shots at the opponents. ~moo

Here's a helpful article from the UN: excerpt: Source: http://www.un.org/works/OLD/environment/animalplanet/whale.html There are more articles out there, mainly from Greenpeace and Sea Shephard and other organizations that are active against whales, but I wanted to look for something that we could all agree is balanced. Still, most organizations have figures and quite a number of substantiated research on their sites about this. It's more about the method they employ *until* the whales die. Shooting the whales with harpoons and letting them bleed to death is not something that would count as humane in most definitions. The whales do NOT die immediately. Also, many of those methods use under water explosives that scare the whale before it dies. As such it might not be considered cruel on its own, but the problem is that since whales are incredibly sensitive to noise, these practices destroy other pods in the area, confuse them, and is said to be tied to quite a number of whale beaching (whales that get disoriented, confused, and swim up to the beach and die). You should look up some videos on youtube on whaling. The pictures aren't too nice. Of course, that's an emotional appeal, I'm aware. Still, they're not dying peacefully. They're not even dying painlessly. Mainly Minke and Fin whales, but I'm not sure about the accurate figures. You can find them online. The main problem is where they're hunting; Whale Wars (the show) is centered in the southern ocean in an area that was designated as a whale *reserve*. As in, a safe haven for whales. The Japenese are completely ignoring that and hunting regardless. They *claim* they hunt for science, but that was shown to be false quite a number of times, and the fact they're whaling excessively only goes against their claim. Sure. Hunt 100 whales for science. Why do you need 20,000? Also, hunting for scientific reasons requires some documentation. Hunt the whales and do research - but then *account* for what you're doing with these whales, right? Account for the killing. I'm not against scientific research, and if killing is necessary for it, I find it sad, but I won't compeltely argue against it. But then, I want to know the research is actually done and that results are produced from this killing, or it's just senseless killing. The companies that do this do NOT do research. They never publish anything, they don't account for their kills, and they overkill way above what you would expect seasonal research would require. They make a whole lot of money on their whales and produce zero scientific gain. So, no, I don't see any scientific reason for whaling like the whaling is done. On the other hand, there's quite a lot of scientific research done on *live* whales. That seems to be successful. I can see an occasional reason for requiring a dead whale (like autopsy) but then again.. kill limited amount and account for those kills. Also, no reason to kill off whole families if that's the case. They do none of that. ~mooey

I'm one of those who get quite upset about whaling, but I am not sure I'd go as far as comparing whales to humans. The reasons I am against whaling are quite simple: First, these animals are endangered - very much so actually - and just like we prohibit the hunting of pandas, we prohibit the hunting of whales. The fact they are at sea makes no difference in that matter. Second, the way the whalers operate is shameful. In the matter of Japan, for instance, they are hunting in places that are designated as marine reservations. Also, they don't care about killing or hurting the baby whales even though they don't use them for anything later. In fact, there are times they do that just to get the mothers riled up and easier to catch. Third, the hunting itself is excessive. Japan used to whale 20,000 to 50,000 whales per season, which is a number the whales can just not recover from. We're not talking about 100 whales a season; they're decimating the populations and pods. Whales take a while to reproduce and reach maturity, so the number of whales you kill needs to be balanced with new whales that reinvigorate the pods, otherwise there will be no more whales left. Finally, there's not a lot of reason to do it. The only "real" reason is the meat, and with due respect, there's enough alternative of animals we breed and are not under danger of completely disappearing off the planet that we can replace this with. The blubber used to be a commercial issue too, but not quite anymore, there are synthetic replacements for it. So while I wouldn't compare humans to whales so readily, and, quite frankly, I'm not against hunting in general (when done within certain limits) I do think this is a senseless hunting for a senseless use, and it's risking the environmental balance. There are quite a lot of other animals the world decided not to kill despite the fact their meat might be tasty to someone. Whales are no different. ~mooey

And I thought you're telepathic.. he is, he has all the funds, and proved it already. But that's besides the point. Even if there weren't any dollars to spend, the burden of proof is on the claimant. The "million dollars challenge" is merely a way to demonstrate the same idea. I can claim I'm telekinetic. In fact, I've been levitating dust around the backside of your head for the past four days but you just haven't seen it. Would you believe me? I assume (good lord, I hope) you wouldn't. You shouldn't. Not without proof. So.. just like you'd expect me to provide proof, we expect you to provide proof. Which, really, isn't going to be all that hard for you. If you really are telepathic, the (VERY simple) test is going to be 100% successful. So.. why not do it? Yes.

This is me being nice. So, let me rephrase: ! Moderator Note This is a moderation note from the forum staff. We are not here to argue, we are here to LET YOU KNOW that this behavior is unacceptable. If this behavior, which is against our rules (linked above) continues, you will not stay here much longer. When you signed up to this forum, you agreed to our rules. You are disobeying these rules. We are kind enough to give you a bit of a heads up warning before we take action for violation of our rules. I hope that's clearer. Any comment regarding the staff or your disappointment of our rules, from now on, will be deleted. Please read our rules, and if you don't like them, don't post here.

! Moderator Note Someone was nice enough to try and help you. Your reply was rude and unacceptable. Please read our rules and etiquette. This attitude is unacceptable in our forum.

It isn't disputed in the scientific literature, and the organizations who "dispute it" have no scientific grounds. We've had about 2 million threads discussing psychiatry and the various institutions that dismiss it. You can look them up and post on them if you think there are issues that weren't addressed. I would highly recommend against telling someone who clearly needs to see a doctor to look for solutions that are highly controversial and unsupported in the actual MEDICAL community. ! Moderator Note This thread has gone far enough. We're not doctors, and we shall not give medical advice. If the poster wishes to discuss the validity of his supposed powers, he should open a new thread. Pending moderators review, and for the sake of legality and this forum, this thread is hereby closed. I strongly recommend the OP stops listening to random advice from amateurs online and, instead, seeks professional medical advice instead. ~mooey

They're both equal to the square root of four. The trick you made doesn't say that one root equals the other. It says that the square root is equal the negative square root. The square root is BOTH negative and positive, so a part of it is also equal to the negative square root. Again, I'm not entirely sure I'm right here, we should ask one of the math experts to join in, probably. The only problem I can see with my own reasoning is that if you start your "trick" with +sqrt() instead of just sqrt (hence, you CHOSE the positive result first) then it makes a little less sense. So I'm not entirely sure. I am pretty sure this is the sort of "trick" that lies on the inconsistency of those roots. For that matter, if I follow your logic, I could, theoretically, say that since [math]\sqrt{4}=\pm 2[/math] Then I can rewrite to: [math]\sqrt{4}=-2=2[/math] Which, since it's an equality, I can get rid of the first part and just write:[math]-2=2[/math] which obviously makes no sense. I *think* the issue arises out of the roots having two possible values but the key word here is *OR*. It's EITHER positive 2 OR negative 2. Not both together. If that makes any sense? Two options for the solution. Either this, or that. Hence, equating the two up once you isolated a particular solution makes no sense. Now, uhm, I'm hoping a mathematician can hop in and explain this whole thing, I'm totally not sure i'm not talking out of my rear orifice. ~moo

I'm not much of a mathematician, but isn't it implied, whenever there is an even root, that the solution is either positive or negative? As in, sqrt(4) is both -2 and +2... so it's really +/- sqrt(4). So it seems that all you did was pluck out a possible solution out of the available ones anyways. Mathematicians, is this right?

Okay, folks, this is a science forum, not a scifi convention. I'm absolutely certain, VinkoRajic, that YOU are absolutely sure this is telepathy. If we were debating the scientific merits of this, you would have likely been asked to provide some evidence and comply to a (quite easy, actually) series of tests. However, you seem to be asking for medical advice, and yet using nonmedical terms. We are not doctors. We do NOT dispense medical advice here, and we do not take responsibility. I strong recommend you go see a doctor if whatever happens mentally and physically bothers you (and it sounds like it more than just a little). If you are looking for the sort of advice that will encourage you to wear tinfoil hats and think about brick walls to confuse your enemies, you arrived at the wrong forum. Go see a doctor, and (ironically), keep your mind open enough to actually understand what the problem is, rather than decide you know what it is without having any sort of proof. For that matter, just for fairness' sake, if you *were* schizophrenic (and I am not saying you are, I don't know), you would not have thought so, or discovered so about yourself. That's part of the problem. Hence, you can't really assume that since you don't think you are schizophrenic, that means you're not. Also, there are probably an entire array of medical conditions that might cause these mental and physical (perhaps, and probably, related) symptoms. You admittedly are not a doctor, and we cannot (and will not) diagnose you online. Go see a doctor and feel better. And yes, I am thinking "good luck". ~moo

This is inteeresting. The question didn't say the scriptures are evil. It wasn't even stated (or assumed at all) that the fact God removed *responsibility* from scriptures, it means these scriptures are evil. This is a conclusion you seem to make automatically. Can I suggest that there's an alternative logical option? Meaning, it is possible, in this scenario, that God removed direct responsibility for the scriptures, but that does not make them evil, just not entirely what god meant. Or, alternatively, it might mean God is not as perfect as most religions seem to describe him/her. Both options are still plausible under the scenario. Why do the scriptures have to be evil at all? If God rejected *MAN MADE* scriptures, can they not simply be *imperfect*? Why evil?

That's a completely different argument (and I disagree with you about it). Let's leave it for its own thread. Open it if you want. There is a clear question in this thread. You seem to be ignoring it and arguing against it instead of trying to follow it to a sort of a conclusion. That's not the question, though. The question clearly stated that we assume the being *proved* it is God. That means we assume it is God. Because that's the question. If you don't want to play, you can just leave this thread alone, lemur. It does, however, seem to support *MY* claim that regardless of what happens and how clear evidence is supplied, those who are stuck in their beliefs will continue to be so. Your faith works *despite* proof, which is why it's faith, and that's just fine. But this isn't question about afterlife or about why I disagree with the statement you provided. Let's try to stick to the topic. Feel free to start a new thread about whether or not the question of afterlife and spirituality can or cannot be handled by science. I know a few who'd probably participate. This ain't the thread though. Sure. But then I might ignore what *really* happens. So, I *could* replace reality with faith, but I'm not too sure how much that will help me understand how the world *actually* works as opposed to what I want to believe is the way it works. See my point? Please don't play my shrink here, it is fruitless. Beyond the fact that this is a question for a different thread (as I said above), you can't POSSIBLY know what I do or do not believe in truly. I can't either about you. Don't psychoanalyze me, and don't preach. We're dealing with a specific question here, so let's focus on it. You still haven't answered or related to the actual question, only to why you think this exercise is stupid. And I have to say, I don't see why you participate in the thread if you think it's so pointless. Okay, I'm not going to argue. You can look your own quote up. It' doesn't matter. Either way, my point stands. This claim is subjective, and hence cannot be generalized. Nice try, though. Let's say I had 5 children, they grew up and produced 5 more children each. One of those 5 children is a thief and a murderer. He is caught and brought to jail. I *physically* created my children (with my husband, which God lacks, but the point stands). I encouraged them to go a certain way, possibly, as most people do when they educate their young. I did not - and could not - dictate their thoughts, or their specific day to day actions. Nor does God, by his or her own admission in the different religious books. God is said to have created us and tried to lead us (like a parent) but not control us like puppets. If that's the case, then while God is responsible by PROXY to whatever we do, God can ABSOLUTELY take her hands off and remove responsibility for something man has made. I, the parent, can TOTALLY say "hey.. I tried to teach my child about good. They made their own choices in life." The fact I created my child physically, does not mean I control my child like a puppet. Hence, my child has certain freedom, which also allows that child to create things I disapprove of. So. Man *CAN* create things God disapprove of. Again our question: Assuming God exists. Assuming God proved herself or himself according to whatever measurements of faith you have, and this proof is undeniable. Assuming God then says they remove any and all responsibility from the religious scriptures of all religions, saying that they were created by man, but they do NOT approve of them. Assuming all that -- how would it affect you? Can you just TRY to answer the question? ~moo

Not quite in the same way that philosophical ones are made, though. In science, you need to be able to base your initial hypothesis on something scientifically or empirically logical and/or supported. In philosophy, you can decide on an agreed upon initial premise ("let's pretend X is true.") without need of substantiation, and think it through from that point onwards logically. Socrates takes these "experiments" to the extreme.. the point, though, is that in order to do the experiment, you don't need to substantiate the first claim. You just "grant it", and then see what might follow. Everyone who participates are supposed to agree that the initial statement might be totally bunk, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of the "experiment". That's the point. This isn't homework analysis, it's a philosophical question. The question is "If we grant that X, Y, Z are true, then what would A, B, C mean?". Simple enough. The question of whether or not X, Y, Z are logical at all is a totally DIFFERENT philosophical question. I agree with you that it's a warranted question, it's just not relevant to our current thread. For that matter, philosophers always "grant" stuff they disbelieve in for the sake of argument and to see if they hold true -- Descartes "grants" the atheists 'there is no god' view for a whole piece of his Meditation and follows it logically (we can argue about the type of logic he uses, but that's a different argument too) to a certain conclusion. Socrates grants quite a whole number of claims that SOUND "silly" at first just to see where his logic leads him. That's the point. No no no. Not at all. I declare the physical laws MORE than just "plausible" and absolutely NOT just by being capable of subjecting them to my thoughts or by understanding them. I do that because they can be substantiated OBJECTIVELY. For that matter, I totally cannot understand a whole bunch of physical laws (Quantum mechanics is merely a small example of such) and yet I view them as substantiated by factual objective experiments and logic. Nothing to do with my perception. Now, please, let's go back to the argument at hand here - this isn't the point. Read my previous point, andI don't understand what your point is at all. The "thought experiment" is set up quite simply. This is really a matter of whether or not you want to participate in it. If you do, then play by the rules rather than arguing with them. Assume X Y Z and now tell us what A B C will conclude. If you can't do it, don't participate in the game. Fair, no? We're talking about a case where God *ADMITTED* to *NOT* being part of those religions, not delegating to them, not having ANYTHING to do with them. That is not answered by your point. Thanks. The fact people feel better believing there's life after death does not prove the existence of life after death. You do see that flaw in your logic, don't you? It's very comforting for me to believe that my dog loves me. That doesn't make the fact I have no dog be any less real. We are all inclined to feel loved and feel like we will always be here. That doesn't mean God exists, or that there's an afterlife, or that any of the religious scriptures are, in any way, true or false. It just means we want to be loved and we really hate the fact our bodies decay. That's all it means. For that matter, lemur, there ARE people who don't believe in the afterlife and are NOT paralyzed by their fear of death. Me, for instance. You again just drop a bombshell and expect us to go with it. *YOU* might think that this is a higher state of consciousness doesn't make it a higher state of consciousness. Maybe it's just a thought? or a fear? Why is this "higher state" and enjoying an incredible piece of prose not a "higher state of consciousness"? Or solving a physical equation? Or listening to rock music? I'm curious, because you seem to be answering everything other than the original question, so let me ask a slightly different one, but more "blunt". I'd really want to see your answer: *ASSUMING* God comes down to earth and claims without a shred of doubt and without any possibility of misunderstanding that she (or he) had NOTHING to do with the religions that are on Earth, and that as far as they are concerned, these religions have NOTHING to do with God. Would it change anything for you? Answer honestly. Try to assume the first premises. That's the philosophical question here. ~moo Speaks the one who *seems* to be a tad closed off to anything except the idea God exists? Do you see that if you are the one who opens this case, it must also work on the other side. Right?

Yeah continuing on Mr Skeptic's tip, our school has an "F-drop" policy. If you retake a course, the average of both courses count (which SUCKS), so if you HAD a D and you retake the course, the best you can hope for is about a C+ or a B-, which is horrible. However, if you got an F (failed) on your course and you redid it, then the grade is *REPLACED*. You will still get an "F" next to the pervious grade but it technically doesn't count for your GPA. If you redo the course and get, say, an A, you'll have "FA" in your grade list transcript, and only the "A" will count for the GPA. As a result, many students ask the professor to fail them outright if they get under a C for a required course. Not all professors oblige. Check out the special conditions in your course. Also, I notice that actually going to the professor and talking to him/her can really help. Professors who see students that care enough about their future and their grades to make compelling explanations or formulate good "strategy" questions (like you seem to do) usually look better to the professor. Many professors actually try to help with problems. One of my professors gave me an option to give him an extra paper to improve my grade in an early class I took, because I went and spoke to him about my performance. I participated in class and did all my homework, but performed really badly in exams; obviously, I was caring enough to try and to study and not slack off - so he actually helped me out and we found a suitable solutions. I ended up getting a B+ in that course, and I probably would've gotten a C otherwise. So, I recommend you check with your campus if you have Fdrop policy, and see if you can ask your professor if he has any alternatives. If all fails, I'd go for the better grade and live through the extra year without biochem. ~moo

You guys are missing the point. This is a hypothetical "pretend" game to try and formulate a thought experiment and go with it. In order to participate, you need to pretend. As in, Assuming "all the above is true" and ignoring problems with any of it, we will test the thought and see where it leads us. Yaknow, like philosophers do. Like Plato and Descartes. For me, I think I'd be impressed and mostly curious if that happened. I'd want to understand what made God tick and what out of our understanding of physics needs to be changed (or utterly fails) to allow for the existence of a being that's otherwise "outside" the laws of physics that we know of. I think it will likely create a bit of a mess with theologians, but quite honestly, I don't see it destroying them completely. Most religions came out of pretty tough theological snafoos and remained intact. Even cults with the occasional (and repeated) "end of the world" scenario seem to keep going even after their intended expiration date expires. It's amazing what we can convince ourselves when we're just totally convinced of one particular view. I think even if God herself walked down to the Earth, proved her godliness repeatedly, and then denounced all the religious scriptures? You'd still have people study and follow them. Finally, just a few points about your last statement: The idea that the holy book can be found to be not divinely inspired doesn't make the religion wrong. The idea that the holy book can be found to be wrong does not make the religion wrong. The idea that the religion's God states they had nothing to do with the holy book doesn't mean the holy book had nothing to do with them. As in, religious folk can still claim "tapping into" spiritual truths even without God's entire cooperation. A sort of intellectual divine and spiritual viruses. Or something.

Eventually I will need a numerical solution anyways to produce a graph. The thing is, I'm not entirely sure how to do the above equation (with an array/matrix) in matlab. I'm reading over it, but if anyone has a clue of how to start, I'd appreciate it. Okay, my attempts to do this failed miserably, so I decided to test the equation with a precise x(s). m = 1; gmma = 1; x(1) = 1; x(2) = 2; dsolve('x(3)=(m/k)*(D2x(1)) - x(1) + 2*x(2)') and I get: ??? Subscript indices must either be real positive integers or logicals. Error in ==> dsolve at 173 indx(isalphanumunder(eq_str(indx-1))) = []; ??? Subscript indices must either be real positive integers or logicals. Error in ==> dsolve at 173 indx(isalphanumunder(eq_str(indx-1))) = []; Which, I guess, makes sense, since I represented x(1) and x(2) as numerical... but.. any ideas on how to do this? anyone? I have x(s), x(s+1) and x(s-1) and D2x (which x-double-dot - the second derivative of x per t). Help.