Mr Skeptic

True, but the way it is stated is much less convenient for my argument than the law of conservation of energy. Same thing, different statement. [math]dU = \delta Q - \delta w[/math], bleh. A rose by any other name wouldn't rhyme, yada yada.

Then you need to learn to use logic. Your conclusion would be that there cannot be an effect. Hence, your conclusion is that the universe cannot have started (since the change from non-existent to existent is an effect). Strawman. I said nothing about men in monkey suits. To hold the view that the universe came from nothing is the most likely explanation, you would have to prove that that is more likely than from it to have come from the flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, collision of branes, and anything and everything else I could think of. But that is your assumption. If there is something before (as the conservation laws might imply), then there could be causes and effects. How about you jump off a cliff? After all, the laws of gravity are nothing more than mental abstractions that describe the behaviour of this universe, no more real than the law of cause and effect. Why not? How about this: if a prime number never became prime, than it would not be prime. What is wrong with the concept of "it has always existed"? They're both effects, and both require a cause. My distinction here was to not disallow a big crunch scenerio where our universe has always existed but has started expanding. I have no problem with things existing in other universe, or in a metaverse (the whatever before the big bang). But our universe exists in our universe. Others are arguing that the universe was created from nothing without a cause. No need to get militant just because I said "created", BTW, or to put words into my mouth. Oh, and you also contradicted yourself by equating "whatever" with "nothing"; try to calm down you're getting too excited. No, it is stated to apply to a closed system (BTW, the law of conservation of energy is the one I am referring to. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics is more heat oriented). ---- Also, you don't need a cause to keep existing if you already exist, any more than you need a cause as to why you don't turn into a purple frog.

Isn't that what undergrads are for?

Probably not, but it would still scare the $H!T out of the Iraninans

By always existed I mean never started existing. Rejecting the law of cause and effect is also an assumption, and a less reasonable one because there is no evidence thereof. All you have shown that you are convinced that the universe did not have a cause. If there is not explanation, how is there a possibility of an explanation? Cause and effect and the conservation laws have always been observed to be true. It may be presumptuous to assume that they will hold without the universe, but it is even more presumptuous to assume that they will not hold. Also, if the law of cause and effect did not exist before the universe, what caused the law of cause and effect to start existing? By having existed forever, I mean never started existing. As to time before the universe, I can only speculate. The law of cause and effect seems to require change to have existed before he start of the universe, and ordered change (the cause cannot be after the effect). Hence, something timelike (ordered change) would have existed before the universe.

God does not need a cause if he has existed forever. This is the same reason why many believe that there was something before the Big Bang. Anything that has existed forever does not require a cause, because existence is not an effect. Anything that started does require a cause because something must have caused it to change. If you reject the law of cause and effect, you reject any possibility of an explanation -- a dead end. So you've shown that the law of cause and effect is wrong, that the conservation laws are wrong, etc? Or you can say it always existed. Hence, an uncaused cause, but never an uncaused effect.

There's a word for that. Perception.

You know, I think that atomikpsycho likes us. He's given up posting at all the other forums and only seems to be posting here. Or is that because he can only spam one forum at a time?

Bases will disintegrate most proteins. So yes, pH can destroy proteins.

True. It would only be a valid test for the literalists, but not for the metaphorists. And the fact that science actually works is a test of these assumptions, and confirms that they are reasonable ones to make. How can you tell that science actually works? Without using the assumptions of science, of course. Otherwise it would be a circular argument. I'd also like to point out that the Bible says that the Bible is true Oh, and for good measure, I think that you also have another unsubstantiated belief, the belief that there are no contradictions. That one seems to have been demonstrated to be unprovable BTW.

Many people think that (special) relativity would have been discovered about that time whether Einstein was there or not. There is a view that in the case of most new science, the cards were right for the new advances, and they would have occurred about that time whether there was a great scientist around or not. The great scientists would mostly speed things up. In some cases, though, there were significant discoveries that were not based on earlier science -- eg Newtonian mechanics.

Do you know how painful it is to carve wood into a chain? With iron or plastic it is much easier. But with wood you can do this, though it will take a while...

Very nice link. I hope that this thread does not get trashed by closed minded people...

You're right, I got confused. It would be a hugely elongated orbit, most of which would be far below ground level. It would have a funny shape too, because it would get less gravitational attraction the deeper it went. I suppose it probably couldn't even be called an orbit if it is mostly inside the earth.

Our universe is expanding; it can't have been expanding forever; hence something must have caused it to start expanding. Huh? Yes, it does. Existance requires no cause, but creation does. So anyone who believes the universe was created/started from nothing rejects the law of cause and effect. And the conservation laws. Hence why I said that there must have been something before the Big Bang.

It is also an issue with the militant ateists, and anyone else who likes to rub science in the faces of the creationists. I'd go so far as to say that most people who are want "The Missing Link" to be found are want it for this rather silly reason. As opposed to wanting to understand our biology and psychology better, or simply wanting to get the species tree completed, which would be much better reasons. Hence why I said "Yay!", put exclamation points everywhere, used the "Jesus" bubble, and was dripping with sarcasm. Mush of the less educated public seems to think there is this one missing link, "The Missing Link", hence "the Holy Grail". A good parallel because of the number of people searching for both these items. Makes a much better headline to find the missing link than just a missing link, so the evil journalists perpetuate that myth. I suppose it is somewhat accurate because there is only one common ancestor between two species. Lots of links have been found, and lots have made headlines as The Missing Link , hence why I said "Again." No one appreciates my brilliant satire It also expresses my opinion on this subject in a very succinct manner, which is why I put it here rather than elsewhere. I'd also note that they aren't even certain what they found, "N. nakayamai could be close to the last common ancestor of the extant African apes and humans.", but it is The Missing Link anyway.

Or stay in orbit at ground level?

Think about this: what would the scale say if you were in free fall (ie, falling at g)

You're right, there is enough info, but only if you make a very reasonable assumption. Here's the assumption: [hide]You need to assume that she drives as fast in each direction.[/hide]

Did you mean that she picks him up 10 minutes earlier than usual?

Not enough info.

I think an extra "you must agree to abide by these rules" type of agreement before being allowed to post there would be better than just a sticky. That way no one can complain that they didn't know.

Wow! Thanks, iNow. That does seem central to all the definitions. Lots of the definitions iNow found included the capability to learn as part of the definition. So, should we conclude that intelligence requires learning? We might ask, "Can someone who cannot learn be intelligent?" Can someone with severe amnesia be intelligent? --- It may also be a good idea to define some related terms such as learning, creativity, etc

It would be if you were busy making plans to get married when you said that. Also, what she said was "I don't have any intentions or plans for running". I am fairly confident that at the very least she wanted to give the impression that she would not be running without actually saying so, which would be intentional deceit. It's not like she hadn't thought of that question or asked as sneaky question like this one. She could have easily said "currently" or "maybe" or "I don't know" if she wanted to convey uncertainty rather than that she wouldn't run. As a politician she should be well aware of that. As I said, I do and did think she already had plans when she said that, but I won't argue that since I can't prove it. Also, most people agree that you can lie without saying things that are untrue, like in the Dihydrogen Monoxide website, or Satan from the bible. Actually, I said "apparently countless others". There's a book if you want to read it. Though I am of the opinion that the average politician is a professional liar, so I'm kind of biased.

Yep. All part of the re-training when you switch.