Cap'n Refsmmat

I want to know why you're posting this discussion simultaneously on at least seven different websites, (probably more, judging by your previous posts that are on more than a dozen) particularly when your previous topics on SFN have been closed for being political before you have permission to access Politics. What exactly are you doing here?

Untestable answers aren't answers, because there is no logical way to determine their truth or falsity. This is why scientists reject theistic arguments for the origins of the universe. On the other hand, untestable scientific hypothesis for the origin of the universe are equally useless. This is why there is so much pressure on cosmologists to make testable predictions. For example, when Penrose made the claim that there is evidence of a cyclical universe, people took notice: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44388 There were many previous scientists who suggested it, but nobody seriously considered the idea because it was untestable. Now it is, and as it turns out many scientists contest Penrose's evidence. Science can answer these questions. It just hasn't, yet. The evidence has yet to be gathered.

You should try restarting the computer in Safe Mode and re-running your antivirus software. Some instructions: http://www.computerhope.com/issues/chsafe.htm Also in safe mode, you should make backups of your important data to an external disk. Don't use that external disk in any computer if you can avoid it -- it might end up spreading the virus. If all else fails, you can reinstall Windows and copy the data back, after you've done a complete Windows update and run antivirus scans on the data.

Anyone know if this family was visiting Israel?

Suffering and pain are physiological, not mental. Are you suggesting that if I'm tortured, I can choose not to feel the agony of it, since I'm an innocent person?

God is omnipotent, isn't He? Are you saying He can't overcome laws of nature to stop evil? He is powerless in the face of a murderer with a gun? And what of the cases in which no external force is there -- the innocent baby with a painful terminal illness? How does free will make that necessary?

Isn't it possible to have free will but also to not allow suffering? Free will does not necessarily imply that I will be able to carry out anything I will -- only that I be able to make the attempt. I could, for example, freely will to run up my walls and onto the ceiling, and I could cheerfully make the effort as much as I want. Likewise, I could freely will to go shoot my neighbors, but if God intercepted the bullets just before they hit, nobody would say I was acting deterministically or lacked free will. I wasn't acting as a zombie with no free will at all. I did exactly what I wanted, but just didn't succeed.

Pardon? No purpose at all, or no overriding purpose that causes some innocent people to suffer?

Omnibenevolence would seem to require the creator to eschew purposes that cause suffering.

So is it not possible for God to cause harm to innocent people?

If he's so merciful, why does he let Satan exist to do evil things to us?

If he's so merciful, why does he let such bad things happen to us?

The fact of his plan doesn't negate the lack of moral perfection implied by allowing immoral things to occur.

Is it possible you and your family are allergic to something in your house or in the environment? (It'd be funny if you were all allergic to the Christmas tree...) Allergies would produce the cold symptoms and the conjunctivitis. Combine this with a bout of flu at the start of the month and it'd be consistent with your symptoms. You might try some over-the-counter allergy medicines and see if that does anything. Otherwise, I'd suggest seeing a doctor...

I'd say yes.

The idea of the necessity of noncoding DNA was proposed as early as 1972, long before the human genome project or genome sequencing in general: http://www.junkdna.com/ohno.html

What?

No, but [math]\int_0^x f(x)dx=F(x)-F(0)![/math]

And what job was that?

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

@ means the person is a chatroom moderator. + means they have "voice", which actually doesn't mean much besides they visit fairly often and someone added them to the list of people who get voice.

My mom's a professional translator who works with Word every day. This previous summer, I upgraded her computer from an old one running Windows XP and Office 2003 to a new computer with Office 2010. Understandably, she was not happy with the new interface. She's been using Word since the 90s, and the sudden change meant she had to re-learn the locations of all of the old menu items. For a few weeks I had to help out occasionally when she couldn't figure out how to do something she used to do in Word 2003. Now, six months or so later, she's just fine with Office 2010. I think she may even be faster at finding settings and tools. Microsoft's stated goal with the "ribbon" interface was to make it easier for new and inexperienced users to find the features they need, and in that extent I believe they were successful; when there's something you've never used before, it's easier to find it in the Ribbon. But it does take a while to get used to if you were used to Office 2003. Perhaps they miscalculated. After all, they have such a large market penetration that nearly everyone's used older versions of Office and gotten used to them. Redesigning the entire interface and forcing those users to re-learn isn't so good when you're doing it for the benefit of the ten people who've never used Office before...

I believe it was an obscenity law, under which written descriptions could be considered obscene. I'm sure his lawyers will have a good time fighting that one off, though. First amendment and all that.

How would one test this hypothesis?

No, show all of your work, from the beginning.