ydoaPs

Who determines the proper use? That's a false analogy how, exactly? Well, Bayes's Theorem says this is actually far more likely. Statistically, it does. It also statistically means a higher chance of being a criminal, a higher chance of a lower IQ, and (on a societal scale) a higher chance of social illness such as murder, infant mortality, and STDs.

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"-Matthew 4:8 Yeah, that's some good physics right there! Everyone loves a flat Earth.

Why should we listen to you about relativity if you don't even know the language in which the theory is written? It's like someone trying to give a 'simple' explanation of "The Count of Monte Cristo" when your only exposure is English translation Cliff Notes. You're trying to give a book report when you've not even tried to read the book.

Quick question for A-wal: what's the difference between a covariant and a contravariant tensor?

So you're not interested in doing actual conversation or science. </thread>

A-wal?

I like that if a post is positive repped and then neg repped, it still shows up in your reputation feed.

The fast and dirty version of Plantinga's argument: Let's take a look at omniscience. Omniscience is typically defined as :"S is omniscient iff for every proposition p, if p is true then S knows p is true". It should be pointed out that Plantinga endorses a stronger version of this. For Plantinga, not only is knowing the truth value of all propositions a requirement for omniscience, but also having no false beliefs. From here, we can search for propositions whose truth value a Maximally Excellent Being cannot know. So, we need to find a true proposition P such that "The Maximally Great Being cannot know P is true". Now, P could be anything. P could be "Buttered toast always falls buttered side down" or "Luna always has the same side facing the Earth", but there's no real reason to think that the Maximally Excellent Being cannot know that they are true (assuming, of course, that they are indeed true). What if we try recursion? Let's let P be "The Maximally Excellent Being cannot know P is true". This has potential. Let's see if it has a clear truth value. An easy way to do this is to try an indirect proof. 1)Knowledge is "justified true belief". (there are special cases where this is not considered sufficient, but it is necessary for knowledge) 2)S is omniscient iff for every proposition p, if p is true then S knows p is true 3)Assume, for the sake of argument, "The Maximally Excellent Being cannot know P is true" is false. So, "The Maximally Excellent Being can know "The Maximally Excellent Being cannot know P is true" is true". 4)From (1), "The Maximally Excellent Being cannot know P is true" is true. 5)This contradicts our assumption that "The Maximally Excellent Being cannot know P is true" is false. 6)By indirect proof, "The Maximally Excellent Being cannot know P is true" is true. 7)Therefore, there is at least one true proposition that the Maximally Exlellent Being cannot know is true. 8)From (2), the Maximally Excellent Being is not omniscient. Now, let's put it all together. 1)A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W 2)A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. 3)Therefore, if a maximally great being exists, it exists in every possible world. 4)Knowledge is "justified true belief". (there are special cases where this is not considered sufficient, but it is necessary for knowledge) 5)S is omniscient iff for every proposition p, if p is true then S knows p is true 6)Assume, for the sake of argument, "The Maximally Excellent Being cannot know P is true" is false. So, "The Maximally Excellent Being can know "The Maximally Excellent Being cannot know P is true" is true". 7)From (4), "The Maximally Excellent Being cannot know P is true" is true. 8)This contradicts our assumption that "The Maximally Excellent Being cannot know P is true" is false. 9)By indirect proof, "The Maximally Excellent Being cannot know P is true" is true. 10)Therefore, there is at least one true proposition that the Maximally Exlellent Being cannot know is true. 11)From (5), the Maximally Excellent Being is not omniscient. 12)By (1), the Maximally Excellent Being does not exist. 13)Following from (2), there is no world in which the Maximally Excellent Being exists. 14)Therefore, it is necessarily the case that the Maximally Excellent Being does not exist. It's just some playing around. I may take the feedback here and make a more serious version for a paper or I may not; I've yet to decide.

lol ViXra........home for crackpot "peer review".

It was from me. Hi, dimreeper! Hostility towards rational discussion gets a neg rep from me. It's one thing to not know how to have rational discourse; it's another thing altogether to actively oppose it. If something can be destroyed by facts and rationality, then it should be.

My bad.

YOU made the claim, so the burden started with you; there was no shift. That darn iNow requiring posts to follow the rules of rational discourse on a Science Forum. How unthinkable! Massachusetts has been performing same-sex marriages since 2004.

Maine wasn't the first.

If it helps, I always manually type the math tags. That would mean that mine only get eaten when used manually. Idk if it happens when you try to use the math function. I'm not even sure how to use a math functionality on the site software aside from manually inserting them. Might this be fixed by switching to the dollar sign type of LaTeX formatting like you said we would "soon"? Ah, you have to click the "Special BBCode" button and select LaTeX and then type in your code. That seems like a pain.

If the US wants you dead, then there's simply nothing you can do. That is a fact. Also, the whole "we have to be able to defend ourselves from the Government" is advocating for committing the only crime defined in the US Constitution.

Actually, since I became a Petty Officer so quickly (I made Second Class in just over 2 years after enlistment), I never had KP. I do know we can kill you from a boat when you can't even see the ocean and your Bushmaster won't help you at all. I do know that we can fly a drone over your house and blow you to bits and your Bushmaster won't help you at all. I know we can fly any manner of jet over your house and carpetbomb you and your Bushmaster won't help you at all. As I said, the "we have to be able to defend ourselves from the government" argument is COMPLETE bullshit and *everyone* knows it.

If he had nukes, drones, seasparrows, carpetbombs, etc. like our government does would having AR-15s make ANY difference? If the USA wants you dead, you're completely screwed no matter what weapons you have. The "we have to be able to defend ourself from the government" argument is COMPLETE bullshit and *everyone* knows it.

FTFY

Now where did I put that Baez scale?

Are you implying that a Bushmaster is any match for an unmanned drone? Indeed.

We should have known the world wasn't going to end this year. It's going to end when Peter the Roman dies!

...on A Theory.

The 2nd amendment doesn't give anyone the unrestricted right to any type of weapon they like. In fact, it uses the phrase "well-regulated". Let's get on that regulation part. If you can go into a gun show and buy an assault riffle with cash with no background check and not even a record of your name, there is absolutely no regulation. You could require a few psychiatric sessions to actually judge that to get a license instead of just taking the person's word for it. And maybe yearly check-ups required.

And for some reason, it puts my text inside the quote tags. I don't particularly like this new software for the editor.

It looks like we got a caterer for the next SFN meetup! I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but those beings in other universes wouldn't be you. They'd be like an identical twin loaded with memories similar but not quite identical to yours. I'm not sure why you think you could "predetermine our outcomes" or what that even means.