213374U

And why does it need to exist inside of anything? You are applying a mundane, limited approach which may not be valid since it's the framework we are talking about, not what's inside it. Space exists in itself, and has some observable properties. If you think that "the fabric of space" exists within a reality of nothingness that you refer to as "space", you are introducing an unnecessary entity into the reasoning. Occham's razor? There is the assumption I was talking about before. You may believe that science may be a pathway to the ultimate philosophical answers, but that's just a supposition. Take for instance the notion of "luck". An idea as old as mankind itself, and still we have found no explanation for it. In all of this time, science has not come a single step closer to answering metaphisical questions than it was when we first began to develop numerical systems. You have faith in science and logic, but as any belief, it is not something absolute, not a self-evident truth. Is it so hard to picture that there may be something beyond the feeble grasp of our reason? No. It's more like "I would rather say 'I don't know' and forget about it". If Sir Isaac Newton had had the same attitude, he wouldn't have formulated his Principia. I'm not talking about religious revelations, mind you, because for starters, I'm not a religious person. However, "God" is a metaphysical entity needed to explain reality and existence in certain philosophical schemes. You might not accept those schemes, and that's just fine. But trying to prove them wrong wielding other arguments based in different kinds of faith is absurd.

Since the degree of demagogy in the previous post clearly proves that the poster above does not care much for the finer points of international politics or diplomacy and places terrorist acts in the same scale of warranted military actions, I will simply point out the obvious: Their might gives them the right. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

I believe in democracy, but not as it is now. I don't believe in a "natural right" for everyone to vote, and the idea that every vote is worth the same is ludicrous. So I guess the answer would be no.

NWN had music? Anyway, my all-time favorite has to be TIE Fighter. Not only were the tracks great, it featured dynamic music that meshed with the action better than in any other game I have seen since. Some other games worth mentioning are SoA, WC1/2, and Half-Life.

Glorious indeed.

Of course it's my opinion. However, you won't find many people who consider McGregor a better actor than Harrison Ford.

That's pretty rich. Jackson only plays a minor role. Lee's character dies within the first 10 minutes. McDiarmid overacts in quite a few scenes, and I'm not referring to the "cackling fool" ones. Christensen has improved, but he's still not at the level of the rest. And while McGregor is good, he's nowhere near Harrison Ford. He will never be, sorry. It's a matter of acting talent.

There's nothing magical about God. And there's no need to scream in fear either. You see, it's the default explanation, until we can get us a better one. You are defending the idea that we are, and I agree with you. But simply accepting that we have always been is like not wanting to know more. And as for God always being there, it's not really a double-standard or a contradiction because while we need to find logical mechanisms for the Universe, the same may not be true for God if he exists outside this universe, and therefore outside logic. I don't believe it's that way, but I see no fault with that reasoning. Unfortunately, you have to make assumptions (some would call them beliefs) either way to reach a conclusion. But obviously, the validity of said conclusion depends on the assumption being true. And since, by definition, those premises can't be proven, we have effectively reached a dead end.

Is it? I'm not so sure, since space and time are closely related, and it looks like time began with the Big Bang. Theoretically, it is space that is bent in the presence of large masses creating the effect known as a gravitational field. While we tend to equate "vacuum" and "nothingness" with "space", they are not the same thing.

However, emptiness does exist, too, even if only as the reality within we exist. It is a necessary part of it. Much like before carrying out operations within a mathematical space you need to define that space. Did you read my post? I'm actually tempted to quote myself. Perhaps religious people will, but I'm not religious so the point is moot. And just "Universe" is an even more ineffective and incomplete explanation than God -> Universe. You could try to apply the same reasoning to the Law of Gravity claiming that stuff falls just because it does. However, gravity needs to be introduced in order to satisfactorily explain why does it fall. It's only called a "fallacy" by those arrogant enough to think they can disprove the existance of God by means of logic. As I said, who or what created God is a different issue. The idea that God exists and created the Universe takes us to an infinite loop of "who created the creator of the creator of the creator...?", that much is true. But that does not warrant the use of Occham's razor to simplify God from a reasoning in which he is necessary.

Contrary to popular belief, the chances of finding ph4t 1007 in Diablo were actually rather slim. You found loads of crap, though.

Yes. But those elements are all infinite in their dimensions (including the point which is nothing but a perpendicular axis to the rotation plane), therefore, the next element in the scale should be infinite, too. The problem with considering it a cube of finite dimensions is that if the orbit radius was long enough, the cube could be considered for all intents and purposes a point, and therefore, the eight-dimensional rotation could be impossible. You could consider it a cube of infinite dimensions, or the element generated by a "plane beam" in which the parameter takes every (infinite cardinal) value. ...or something.

Is it? They allow lots of trash in their forums. Does that mean they are in the business of er... garbage dumping?

Assuming that you could find a definite answer using "pure, blunt logic" (and that's an awful lot to assume), that is a flawed reasoning. Occham's razor only serves to simplify unnecessary entities from propositions, but in this case, God is not an unnecessary entity. It serves as cause for the existence of the universe, since the idea that the universe just "existed forever" or "created itself" isn't any more sound, from the standpoint of a "pure, blunt logic". Who or what created God is another matter. No. A cube is a finite entity. If a plane is generated by the revolution of a line, then the logical evolution would be to revolve a plane, generating the tridimensional space. Thus, an eight-dimensional cube would rotate around a space of infinite dimensions. It can't, in a tridimensional space. From a mathematical standpoint it should be possible, I guess. Well, if God created an empty space AND the nice set of tidy laws it obeys, which in turn allow for the creation of matter, that would not be so... unimaginative.

Well, there is no doubt about it. On that issue, Bly is the only clone from Aayla's force to survive. And when she gets shot it goes like: "Hmm, it's too quiet here. You think it may be the droids, Bly?" "No." *proceeds to make her a new back-hole*

Or space, for that matter. It's difficult to imagine how or what is like "outside" space itself or what happened "before" time because our perceptions and the very way our mind pictures ideas are both conditioned by our existing within this reality. "What happened before the Big Bang?" may very well be a question without answer, or at least without an answer we can rationalize, much like n-dimensional spaces. They are easy to work with from a mathematical standpoint, but you can't imagine one, no matter how hard you try.

You never cease to amaze me with the products of your ever increasing stupidity.

Actually, it should be you the one posting links to it, since it's you who's making the assertion. But no, I don't have any links. I remember a movie dealing with it, but I haven't found any reliable info about it. Which isn't really surprising considering that it makes no sense to formally disprove something that lacks scientific rigour to begin with. A smell is a physical, tangible reality, composed by molecules. So far, the soul (or whatever you want to call it) is still in the realm of the metaphysical.

Urban legend.

You and the rest of mankind. That's probably why so many things have been made up about this topic. I don't care much about this, I'll find out eventually anyway.

BTW, what comic is that pic from? I thought I'd read all of the new SW comics.

I see. And if he was referring to that, what's wrong with it (apart from pedophilia, obviously)? And why is my question concerning incest bait? It is a perfectly legitimate question. Incest between two consenting adults harms no one, just like homosexuality, as long as there is no procreation. Your moral scale notwithstanding, there isn't really a difference.

Yeah, only attached to a crab. Probably the best alien villain ever.

I always find it amusing when people call others "bigots" and then they proceed to defend some random traditional value. So tell me. What's wrong with swingers? And as long as there is no actual procreation involved, what's wrong with incest between consenting adults?