ydoaPs

Yes, because a definition that assumes the existence of at least one god is going to give you an unbiased definition.

Let's try out this plausible scenario: You went out camping for a few days and felt ill, so you came back. You find your son in the hospital with an ulcer (co-incidence, no?). Finding him in the hospital by itself was an emotional event which could have led you to create the "visual image" part of the memory. That and the numerous retellings (since, as you should know since you were a psychologist, autobiographical memory is rewritten every time it is recalled) and the time since the incidence could have easily adjusted the story especially depending upon the reaction (suggestion) of those who heard the retellings. It's exceedingly likely that your 10lb bass was really a minnow. Are you seriously claiming to be a psychologist with zero understanding of memory and things that can affect it? There are anecdotes aren't evidence.

One would think a "former psychologist" would know the basics of revision of episodic autobiographical memories due to time, retelling, emotion, and suggestion. Since you claim to be an expert in the area, how about you tell me about autobiographical memory and how you somehow are not subject to these facts of the human brain. Someone with your claimed level of expertise would know how coincidence and suggestion are obvious factors to consider in this case.

And there's the bit where there's zero eyewitness testimony in the gospels.

What historical account? Ok, let's go with the obviously biased sources we have that were written by non-eyewitnesses generations after the fact. The author of Matthew places the birth of Jesus at the latest 6BC and the author of Luke places the birth of Jesus at the earliest 6AD. This is a gap of 12 years minimum and the events used to place Luke's 6AD are a direct result of the events used to place Matthew's 6BC. When was Jesus born? Oh, how about the sky turning black and the giant earthquake that supposedly happened when he died? It's odd that none of the historians or astrologers of the time noted that one, isn't it? What about the earthquake and the rising of the dead that the gospels say happened during the resurrection? 'tis a tad bit suspicious. No, it's not. It's actually not even close to being that.

So, you quoted my post but didn't read it? It's also quite telling that you'd positively reference someone as dishonest as Craig. Go and READ what I wrote. There was never a time at which the universe never existed. Hence, it didn't "come from nothing" at all let alone do so uncaused. I did and you didn't respond to my explanation. "Before time" is logically contradictory.

No

The number on an IQ test varies so much from test to test as to be essentially worthless.

Episodic memory is edited every time it is recalled. This is a fact attested by several studies. To one of which I linked above. For someone who claims to have been a psychologist, you don't seem to know much about the human brain. Here's another: http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/soco.22.5.555.50764 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jwxVKrn6u9cC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=edited+autobiographical+memory&ots=YQbanUhVkB&sig=-6Rg2Dd7jg-r9jpGXPlM0mhwjlY#v=onepage&q=edited%20autobiographical%20memory&f=false

A deterministic world does not have an ontologically open future; that is, there is only one possible result. However, non-omniscient entities do not know what that will be. So, for those with limited options, the future is epistemically open. What the human will does is take the epistemic options, deliberate them, and determine the ontological future. Let's take an example from my previous profession. We have a tank whose level is regulated by a valve. In a deterministic universe, we could calculate exactly what the level of the tank would be at any given time. This in no way means that the valve doesn't regulate the tank level. It is the act of deliberation which causes the future course of action regardless of whether or not such a course could theoretically be predicted.

Leave the philosophy to the philosophers. "Why" can be answered by science, but is the wrong question to ask here.

Good thing there's a philosopher in the room. The wave equations derived from the Maxwell Equations are the descriptions of what light "is". The speed term is made solely of terms that are constant and invariant. That's as close to why (technically why is about the intent of a causal agent, but it's vernacularly close enough here) as one can get. So, the philosophically correct answer here is that "why" is a silly question to ask.

Why wouldn't an agent be able to choose between epistemically open options in a deterministic world? How? Again, how does adding in randomness make the situation better rather than worse?

So, coincidence and heavily edited memory seem like a good start. Suggestibility may even play a role here. http://www.weizmann.ac.il/neurobiology/labs/dudai/uploads/files/Science-2011-Edelson-108-11.pdf

Indeed, length contraction and time dilation are just ways of converting between co-ordinates of differing reference frames. These transformations follow from the above assumptions of c being constant and invariant as well as all inertial frames being equally valid. But, to restate the OP, why is c constant? DrRocket tells us it's the Maxwell equations. Maxwell equations: [math]\bigtriangledown\cdot{E}=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\times{E}=-\frac{\partial{B}}{\partial{t}}[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\cdot{B}=0[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\times{B}={\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial{E}}{\partial{t}}[/math] These are the equations that describe how electric fields and magnetic fields interact. Think of [math]\bigtriangledown\cdot[/math] as describing whether or not a vector field is pointing inward or outward, think of [math]\bigtriangledown\times[/math] as describing which in which direction and how tightly a vector field is curled, and think of [math]\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}}[/math] as being the rate of change of the vector field. A vector field is a space where there is a vector at every point. A vector is a mathematical object with both a number and a direction. Having no charges to worry about with light, we can set the charge density equal to zero which makes the equations: [math]\bigtriangledown\cdot{E}=0[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\times{E}=-\frac{\partial{B}}{\partial{t}}[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\cdot{B}=0[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\times{B}={\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial{E}}{\partial{t}}[/math] Now, let's take the curl of the curl equations and see what happens. [math]\bigtriangledown\times\bigtriangledown\times{E}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}}\bigtriangledown\times{B}=-{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial^2{E}}{\partial{t^2}}[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\times\bigtriangledown\times{B}={\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}}\bigtriangledown\times{E}=-{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial^2{B}}{\partial{t^2}}[/math] Since [math]\bigtriangledown\times(\bigtriangledown\times{V})=\bigtriangledown(\bigtriangledown\cdot{V})-\bigtriangledown^2{V}[/math] for any vector field V, we can write: [math]-{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial^2{E}}{\partial{t^2}}=-\bigtriangledown^2{E}[/math] [math]-{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial^2{B}}{\partial{t^2}}=-\bigtriangledown^2{B}[/math] which we rearrange to get: [math]\frac{\partial^2{E}}{\partial{t^2}}-\frac{1}{{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}}\cdot\bigtriangledown^2{E}=0[/math] [math]\frac{\partial^2{B}}{\partial{t^2}}-\frac{1}{{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}}\cdot\bigtriangledown^2{B}=0[/math] which are the electromagnetic wave equations. The speed term is [math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}}}[/math] where [math]\mu_0[/math] is the permeability of free space and [math]\epsilon_0[/math] is the permattivity of free space. Plug in the numbers and that's how we get c. Do any of those numbers depend on the speed or reference frame?

How is the idea that determinism and free will are entirely compatible a "cop out"? Furthermore, in what way could adding randomness possibly help the situation?

How long ago did this happen? How many times have you retold the initial story?

It 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". 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. A few things here. 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. As time is the separation of states, this is nonsense. You see, any action is a state change. That means there are two states and they are separated by time. To cause anything to do anything requires time. Also, the notion of causing something which does not exist to do anything is entirely unintelligible.

Indeed

Good luck. Owl started the thread with a false dichotomy and experience tells me that he cares neither for logic nor evidence. This thread will most likely be garbage. A note for the quantum woo people, entanglement doesn't work anything like what they tell you. The entanglement is broken with the measurement of the entangled state. Also, there's no "push this one and the other one moves" in entanglement contrary to what "What the Bleep Do We Know?!" would tell you. No information is transmitted faster than c. If you don't believe me, I'm sure swansont will be happy to pound it into the ground for you.

That's a nice false dichotomy you've got yourself there.

Like I said, it's a magic trick; there is no missing dollar.

Indeed. This is the calculation of how much the men paid in total. They paid $25 for the room and the bellhop took $2 for himself. 25+2=27. Here the tip is being added again. The tip is accounted for twice. Let's take the above calculation and relate it to the total the men paid in the beginning. $30-$27=$3 Now we see that we have just found the refund the men got due to the discount and the bellhop's thievery! As I've shown above, there is no missing dollar. It's simple misdirection-a magic trick. But by all means show me the "real" answer.

Then what do YOU think the answer is?