ydoaPs

You could try NewEgg. If you need something cheaper, there's always craigslist or eBay.

You can apply to be a moderator via PM, but the process takes 8 years before the council votes on the appointment.

And it means that Problem of Evil proof works.

We don't? You just said your way out of the Problem of Evil has been proven unworkable.

Unity is a game engine with which one makes games. It's like Unreal Engine 4. They aren't games themselves. You use them inconjunction with C++, C#, or Bluprint to construct a game. While they are free* programs, they are industry standards. You could use them to make computer games, tablet games, or console games. *if you commercially distribute the game, the engine companies get a cut of your profits If you can't figure out how to do it inside Unity, you could always build the cave in Blender and import your meshes.

Yet you agree that the way out of the "number one way that the existence of God is undermined" isn't actually a way out.

You agree with them? Good. They're pretty airtight. So, since your OP says: I'm going to assume that you're an atheist now.

Actually, python is probably a good choice. It's one of the default languages for big data and machine learning, because it has great third party libraries like numpy, pandas, and scikitlearn. There is also a QT wrapper for python (with a graphical designer) for your gui development. Continuum has a bundle of these packages that you can use instead of using the standard python library and downloading individual packages. It's called "anaconda" and is what is typically used when people do big data/machine learning in python, since it has the computational and scientific packages built right in.

When you click on the notification for being quoted, it takes you right to the post that quoted it, so I was very confused until I scrolled up a few posts. lol The section of my post that was quoted, UI, is literally a couple of logical proofs (with rules cited). The premises are from tautology and from the generally accepted definitions. Where is the flaw?

It only seems like a simple answer until you give it any thought. Upon any reflection, it's not even a plausible answer. (1) God can do all that is logically possible. [premise, def: "Omnipotent"] (2) Either Morally Perfect Natures are are consistent with Free Will or they are not. [premise, tautology] (3) If Morally Perfect Natures are consistent with Free Will, then God could have created beings with both Morally Perfect Natures and Free Will. [Conditional Proof; (1), (2): Modus Ponens] (4) If Free Will and Morally perfect Natures are inconsistent, then: (a) God does not have Free Will. [(2), (3): DeMorgan's Law] and/or (b) God is not morally perfect. [(2), (3): DeMorgan's Law] (5)If God exists, at least one of the following is true: God could have created humans with both Morally Perfect Natures and Free Will, God does not have Free Will, or God is not morally perfect. [(2), (3), (4): Constructive Dilemma] Now, the Free Will Defense assumes that a world in which there is moral evil but humans have Free Will is better than one in which there is no moral evil but humans do not have free will. Thus, Free Will is a "Great-making Property", which by definition means God has Free Will. So, using (5) as a premise: (1) God could have created humans with both Morally Perfect Natures and Free Will, God does not have Free Will, or God is not morally perfect. [conclusion of the first argument] (2) God has Free Will [premise, Free Will is a Great-Making property] (3) God is morally perfect [premise, definition of God] (4) God could have created humans with both Morally Perfect Natures and Free Will or God is not morally perfect. [(1), (2): Disjunctive Syllogism] (5)God could have created humans with both Morally Perfect Natures and Free Will. [(3), (4): Disjunctive Syllogism]

The laws of thermodynamics aren't stricly true. They're great thubrules, but there are 'violations'. Conservation of energy, for example, is only guaranteed when there is time translation symmetry. GR tells us that this is not the case. The second law is a theorem of neither classical mechanics nor quantum mechanics. One can construct a theoretical "Maxwell's Demon" in both classical and quantum systems.

Is there any theory in physics in which the Grandfather Paradox could actually occur? As far as I can tell, there isn't. In General Relativity, for example, time is co-ordinatized. Time and space are inseparable, so an event is just a place in a manifold. The time machines usually talked about are closed timelike curves. That's just a trajectory through spacetime that does a loop to back before the initial endpoint of the trajectory. It's not like going through a closed timelike curve lets one get a do-over. It's the same event. It is what it is. To get the do-over, you'd need some sort of meta-time which is absent in GR. It's simply a fact that, if you go back in time, you cannot kill your grandfather before your parents are conceived. Our present is already the result of any future time travel to our past. There is another kind of time travel that is possible in a multiverse. This is analogous to the "timeline" talk in sci-fi, but not exactly. Time travel to the past, in this time travel, isn't actually time travel at all. It's a wormhole to a different spacetime altogether. You leave our universe and enter a similar one. There's no strict notion for your destination of before or after, since our spacetimes are incommensurable. One could travel to an extremely similar universe to a point in that universe where goings on that have already happened in our universe have yet to occur at one's point of entry into the other universe. This is functionally similar to the "timeline" version of time travel, in that you could "time travel" and kill "your" grandfather before "your" parents were ever conceived. As far as I can tell, the only physics that allows the grandfather paradox scenario is folk physics.

It's pretty obviously a hoax, even before the googling. What is a "semi-radius", let alone a "semi-radius tachyon"? If semi-radius tachyon's a theoretical, how was Kaku doing an experiment with them? Then you go on Google and find that these stories have no source other than these stories.

A long long time ago, protoJudaism was polytheistic. They worshiped the Canaanite pantheon. Over time, they shifted from polytheism to henotheism. At that point, they still believed in all of the pantheon gods, but YHWH was they're tribal god. That gave way over time to monotheism where they believe in only YHWH. Though, hints of the henotheistic and polytheistic past of the tradition are still apparent in the texts if you know what you're looking for.

! Moderator Note What do you have so far? How do you think you should go about it? We're more than happy to give homework help, but we don't give homework answers. Is there anything about the problem specifically that you don't understand?

We did a while back, but I can't for the life of me remember any of the account names. The puppeteer even had them have little fights. It was a tad odd.

Sort of. While IP addresses can be masked, our most accurate way is the AI we've got running in the background. It analyzes users on 42 levels of content and style similarity and metasimilarity. The larger the corpus of posts is, the more accurate the bot is. It's really amazing. It takes up a bit of processing, though, so we don't run it on the same server as the site as it would crash the forum server. Sometimes we just query the matrix. While the bot is fancy and awesome, querying the matrix is often faster.

No, I'm quite clearly implying that the popular vote in fact hasn't been measured, because it's unmeasurable. Any claim to the contrary is made by someone who: (a) doesn't know what they're talking about. or (b) is lying. Which are you?

20% of the states have caucuses. Those are completely uncountable, because of how caucuses are conducted. That's no minor error bar. We simply have no idea what the popular vote is.

No, the implication is that the people who say Clinton has a 3 million lead in the popular vote either: (a) don't know what they're talking about. or (b) are lying. There's literally no way to justify the claim that Clinton has a 3 million vote lead. It's a baseless talking point and nothing more.

I never made that claim or any remotely like it.

As I said before, that little talking point is almost certainly false as there's no real way to get a vote count from the caucuses. He could, but probably won't.

If the party wants any hope of winning, then yes. Both R and D each make up ~25% of the electorate. I makes up ~40%. It's just good sense to listen to them when they tell you which of your potential candidates they'd vote for and which they wouldn't. Enacting your own rules without quorum vote is not adherence to existing rules. Motioning to adjourn while there is an existing unresolved motion is not adherence to existing rules. Seconding your own motion to adjourn is not adherence to the existing rules. Adjourning when there are far more nays that yays is not adherence to the existing rules.

It's a bit more complicated than that. You can't really count caucuses, so the numbers are really bogus to begin with. On top of that, the largest voting block in the country (which happens to favor Sanders) isn't allowed to vote in most primaries. As far as the General Election goes, take a look at the map of states Hillary won and subtract the states that always go red. Unfortunately, it's looking like no matter the delegate counts, the DNC won't let Sanders get the nomination at the convention. The Nevada convention was held last night and the DNC literally cheated for Hillary. The national convention is being planned and is already being geared to favor Hillary (of 75 committee appointees, only 3 of Sanders's picks were chosen).

Obviously you've never seen a psy-fi film before. Well, aside from the one in this thread.