ydoaPs

It depends where it was drilled. You'd either run into the sides immediately, or have some sort of harmonic motion until you run into the sides or equalize in the centre.

Which you've demonstrated continuously in this very thread.

There's no causation at a distance with entanglement.

That's the rule for those with less than one thousand posts.

That's closer to a guidance counselor than a psychologist. No wonder you don't know anything about psychology.

Khan Academy has some good videos.

So, you do not in fact believe that at least one deity exists. Congratulations, you're an atheist.

Nope. You see, there was never a time when the universe didn't exist. It began (in a trivial sense), but it has always existed.

Good thing the universe didn't come from nothing, then, isn't it?! There was never a time when the universe did not exist. How hard is this to grasp?

yes

Seriously, dude, pick up a psych book. Everything you've said about the incident screams false memory. Indeed.

It "began" in a trivial sense. It's eternal in a non-trivial sense. Why are you ignoring this? No, they're not. I've shown in this thread that they're not. There was never a time when the universe did not exist; it has always existed. Option 1 has not even been close to disproven. Also, you left out the "uncaused" option. I'm going to repost my initial post in this thread. Hopefully you'll read it this time. The theorem only shows that the universe began to exist in the trivial way that "object A is said to begin to exist at time t if and only if there is no time before time t at which object A existed". If you'd look at the theorem instead of reading dishonest hacks like WLC, you'd know that the theorem just says that the expansion of the universe had a beginning. All of the mass-energy in the universe today was present at time epsilon of the big bang, so it also fulfills another definition: "object A is said to be eternal if and only if there is no time at which object A does not exist". So, the universe both had a finite beginning and is eternal; you are wrong about the implications of the theorem. Premise 1 is entirely unsupported. Now, you're going to say something to the effect of "every day experience PROVES premise 1". Well, it really doesn't. There are two types of "comes to exist" that are relevant to the argument. There is creatio ex nihilo which premise 1 talks about (things popping into existence out of nothing) and there is creatio ex materia which people use to justify premise 1 (things "come into existence" because other things rearrange; no new thing is actually made). If we are to make an induction about whether or not an ex materia beginning requires a cause, we are completely unable to do so due to a lack of any evidence at all. In fact, the evidence we have gives us an inductive inference of "whatever comes into existence comes into existence ex materia". As I said above, the universe only began to exist in the trivial sense; it always existed. Kalaam (which didn't start with Aquinas, btw) fails horribly on all counts. And it began to exist by neither ex-materia nor ex-nihilo. The argument is entirely irrelevant to this kind of beginning.

And here I thought appeal to authority was a logical fallacy.

Why should we believe it's true when it has all of the earmarks of something which is susceptible to false memory?

Also, the lack of hymen doesn't necessitate virginity. They can be torn through sports, exercise, etc.

And here I was just going with demonstrated ignorance.

Like I said, it's as though someone came in here claiming to be a retired physicist and says "Trust me, guys, Newtonian mechanics will hold at 99% c.".

I'm not the one claiming to have been a psychologist yet demonstrating zero knowledge about the workings of false memory. Try reading the links I've provided. Good, so you've just admitted it's the perfect example of an incident susceptible to false memory. You said you wrote it down AFTER the visit. We all know that confidence in the memory's accuracy has no correlation with its actual accuracy, so how do you know that there was no revision? Psychologists everywhere would love to know.

This is demonstrably false. For serious, read a paper once in a while. Unsurprisingly, you're wrong. When did you write it down? Let's assume your family knew of your leanings toward belief in psychic stuff. You arrive at the hospital to see your son and tell him of the coincidence about you having stomach trouble at the same time and how weird that coincidence is. He says something to the effect of "we must have a psychic link or something!". That would be ALL it takes for the initial revision to produce false memory. And this would implant the false memory before writing. Let's say you told some people the edited story this, but before writing about the event. Each telling rewrites the memory and each reaction is an opportunity for suggestion to work its magic. You've given absolutely zero reason to think this is not a false memory.

What I did was point out that it is a prime candidate for memory revision. Anyone with any psychology experience would be able to do the same. You've literally done nothing to show that it's not except outright denying it (and apparently not knowing that such things happen initially). I'm not determined to spin anything; you've just given me zero reason to think otherwise. Being "a very simple sequence of events" is irrelevant, actually. But then, who can be arsed to actually read papers? Amirite, guais?

The event in question happened when the dinosaurs still roamed the earth, there's an emotional component, the story has been retold and thus rewritten repeatedly, and there's obvious factors of suggestion involved. So, what you're saying is, you were either the most incompetent psychologist since Freud, or you weren't one at all? Unless, of course you're immune to all of the factors that cause memory revision AND you've found a way to distinguish revised memories from real memories in cases where independent verification is impossible. It's been pointed out that this specific case is a textbook example of how memory could be expressed, but you're all "nah, brah, I'm confident that it happened exactly how I remember it despite the fact that confidence in memory accuracy has zero correlation with actual memory accuracy". You may as well claim to be a retired physicist and say "trust me, brah, Newtonian physics holds at velocities near c".

Ok, let's put it this way. If an atheist is a person who believes that no gods exist and a theist is a person who believes that at least one god exists: I don't believe that any gods exist, but I don't believe that no gods exist. What am I? (if you say "agnostic", I will reach through your computer screen and slap you)

I'm pretty sure he was a vampire hunter.

So, you're denying the fact that your conviction that your memories are true has absolutely zero correlation to whether or not they are true? Interesting.