Cantousent

Maybe I'll change my religion to Democracy. After all, I believe in it with all my heart and soul. Sometimes I don't like how my fellow citizens vote, but I would rather suffer through the bad decisions of my fellow citizens than enjoy the false prosperity of any tyranny.

Apparently, I'll be spending a lot of time patching before I play the game anyhow. The patch goes on... *Sung to the tune of "The Beat Goes On" by Sonny and Cher.

Anyone who adheres to a dream of communism should not ridicule me for believing in God. As far as the game goes, it looks like I'll pass, but I'm always keeping my ear to the ground on these games. I don't like to let my first impression keep me from taking a second look. Of course, there are exceptions.

Well, I'm downloading the game right now. It's huge. It's close to one GB. Wow. I think of this as a temporary measure while I consider something more permanent. If it turns out to be great, I'll be happy. If it's not that awesome of an experience, then I'll keep in mind that it's a free trial. If I find I hate the online experience, then I'll come back to the proposition of online gaming. Don't let one good or one bad experience confuse you.

Posts in Way Off Topic don't count.

Okay, I've signed up for Anarchy online and I should be playing sometime soon! ...And it's cool that it's free for the time being.

...And yet you still make assumptions and present them as science, metadigital. For instance, you wrote: "You are also not including the later corollory to the Big Bang, which includes the "Big Crunch", so that all the matter and energy in the universe will reach a point where the energy released from the Big Bang is exhasuted and gravity is still strong enough to reverse the process and drag everything back into the single point again. Then it all happens again, a perpetual exploding implosion. The other outcome is that the energy released is not exhausted before universal gravity is overcome, and instead of a Big Crunch, there is a slow, lingering cooling of the universe as everything just keeps careening off forever into limitless space, forever. Simple really." Is it so simple? You give two alternatives for the nature of the universe where, in reality, the true answer is not known at this point. This isn't the argument over evolution. The evidence for these things is sparse. Finding some evidence to support a theory is not the same as proving the theory. Furthermore, you state: "The universe is infinite. But matter is finite." How do we know for certain that the universe is infinite? You make a bold claim in order to support your statement. ...But the basis for your argument is, at the end, reliant on supposition as much as anyone else in this thread. When you're in a corner, then you respond with "it just is." You write: This is what seperates us, though; my inability to explain something scientifically does not make me reach for a complex diatribe of convoluted, translated, abridged and edited aphorisms and fables in the hope that, by geographic accident, this particular book and no other is the real word of the alleged creator, and that I and people I necessarily entrust, can and will faithfully interpret it to our and my best interests. That's a lot of faith. (If it came to it, I would sooner be Jewish; at least their religion is reasonable.) I did not state that you should believe in God. I was engaging in a discussion. You, on the other hand, have been far more concerned with religion than have I. After all, I have proposed two ways of looking at the issue: either religious or scientific. In either case, the prime cause is an area for legitimate discussion. You write: I have no issue with your belief in a creator (the Alpha and Omega, as it were), I just believe it is not necessary as I have faith in logic. You, on the other hand, would have me believe in a God, because you cannot conceive of a universe without one. When did I tell you it was necessary that you believe in God? I only propose that you should not ridicule me for my personal beliefs. I don't even think you've helped your own case. Really, the waters are muddied when the discussion at hand never relied upon God. Sure, some folks believe in God. I am such a one. Nevertheless, you could do well to argue for your scientific answers rather than argue against another's religous beliefs. If your science is true, then it will be convincing. You write: Why stop there? Why not simply use all of antiquity as your palate? The Earth is stting on the backs of two giant turtles, isn't it? Just because science hasn't given us the raw information from which we can jump off the cliff of blind faith, doesn't mean we have to jump now. ...And yet I'm not the one who broached the subject of Socrates, you are. I was just making it clear that I am familiar with the subject of ancient philosophy. The fact that you used Socrates as part of your argument makes your preceeding statement all the more strange. You need not believe in God. I will think no less of you if you do not. Nevertheless, you really should not pretend that I have been recalcitrant. I'm willing to accept that you don't believe in God far more readily than you are to accept that I do. Finally, you write: Actually I was giving a simplistic view of the Big Bang, and commenting that yours and others' predeliction for a magical cause because you haven't found a scientific one is patently illogical. But that's okay, you are a person of faith, and faith abhors proof, lest it deminish to nothing. Where did matter ultimately derive from? I don't know, yet, but I'll keep looking, rather than scream in fear and say "It must be GOD!" ...And this is the cruelest characterization of all. After all, I thought better of you than to think that you would claim that I "scream in fear and say 't must be GOD!'" I answer that I have not. I have stated the fact that science does not account for the creation of matter. I also claimed that science will continue to seek the answer to the question. In the meantime, I will believe in God. I will not scream at you to believe in God, but I'll be damned if I will be ashamed of myself for my beliefs. (pun intended) ...And I know that I was not particularly kind in my post and that you were responding likewise. Let us not forget that we are both gentlemen. I respect your right to your views and, by and large, I actually respect and appreciate your views. I hope that mine are not always so loathesome to you.

That's okay I edited my post in the interim. heh heh

"You are also not including the later corollory to the Big Bang, which includes the "Big Crunch", so that all the matter and energy in the universe will reach a point where the energy released from the Big Bang is exhasuted and gravity is still strong enough to reverse the process and drag everything back into the single point again. Then it all happens again, a perpetual exploding implosion. The other outcome is that the energy released is not exhausted before universal gravity is overcome, and instead of a Big Crunch, there is a slow, lingering cooling of the universe as everything just keeps careening off forever into limitless space, forever. Simple really." Apparently, I'm guilty of skimming also. I didn't read the highlighted portion of your quote. At the time, I believed that you were leaving it off with "[t]hen it all happens again, a perpetual exploding implosion." My biggest beef with your post, then, was the fact that you were stating something as fact when even that issue was in dispute. I'll tip my hat in that regard. EDIT: Okay, I'm a wimpy Christian. I actually feel guilty for attacking you, meta. You've always seemed like a decent fellow. ...A good sort, even. It's not that I want to attack you. It's just that I thought you were trying to be tricky concerning religion rather than discuss the actual issue. I apologize and humbly ask for forgiveness. Note, however, that my argument remains largely the same. I shoud have acted with more restraint when making it.

Socrates has said many things, by reputation. Since Socrates did not write anything in his own person, we'll have to take for granted those writers who claim to speak on behalf of Socrates. I've had the pleasure of reading both Plato's and Xenophon's apology of Socrates in which Socrates most vehemently defends himself against the charge that he worshiped different gods than the state deities of Athens. Actually, though, he was defending himself against the charge of atheism and, at least from what Plato tells us, his philosophy was quite respectful of divinity. In fact, divinity comes part and parcel of Socrates' philosophy. So, you cite Socrates in order to say that it is "...I think (perhaps you are different) that it is a less complex statement to say that it has always been here -- in some form (matter or energy in a zero dimensional Big Band, or spread out across the universe as we see it now) -- than it is to add a creator of "this"." Indeed, you are quite different. In fact, you are quite different from the mass of humanity, both believers and non-believers, because humans look for both causes and effects. Since you're an expert on Socrates, then perhaps you have an understanding of other ancient philosophers as well. For instance, Plato (writing in Socrates' person), Plato (writing in his own person), and Aristotle all write about both gods, god, the god, and all sorts of variants. What is the purpose of these gods? To define a prime cause for things that have no discernable cause otherwise. It is not simpler, ultimately, to believe that we "just are." The reason that humans have belief in God is that they can't fathom anything less than supernatural for that first cause. Some folks do, but it's notable that science itself looks for the preceding cause the second the current cause is found. It's more acceptable to say things "just are?" Perhaps, but it is not nearly so neat as you apparently propose. "Occham's Razon" surely doesn't suggest that we ignore facts that exist. Effects have a cause in our universe with one sole exception... matter exits. So, we accept this odious and, I will say, cowardly response that things "just are?" That's your idea of philosophy? How eloquently put. I'm sure that we can all rest now knowing that metadigital has put to rest the burning questions of mankind. We no longer need to explore the nature of our universe. It "just is." Please understand, I'm not ridiculing you as a person, but your position deserves all the scorn I heap upon it. Of that there is no doubt. Actually, you've managed to torture logic to your own ends, as the question remains unanswered by your own reasoning. After all, the initial question revolved around the creation of matter. If I'm understanding your mental gymnastics, then it's clear that you don't care to discuss how matter came into existence. Fair enough. It's a cop out, largely so you can argue against the reality of God. What's odd to me, however, is that we've managed to take a discussion about the nature of our origins, argued by and large along scientific lines, and turn it into a freshman philosophy course. There's one thing that proves the lie in your assessment that it's more simple to believe it all just exists: folks don't seem to believe it. Scientists continue to search for answers in science. Believers continue to search for answers in God. Virtually everyone searches for meaning, even those who have no God. Now it's your turn. Regale me with quotes from Socrates. I'm waiting with baited breath for you to flex your mental muscles.

The UN and Bush the elder were both responsible for what happened in Iraq at the end of the first gulf war.

Not quite. Logically, Occham's Razor is used to simply complex propositions. The universe exists. Axiom: I am here and I exist, whatever that means, therefore whatever this is is here, whatever that means. Adding another, unknown and unknowable quantity, like "God" or a creator for "this" is unwarranted and unreliable. You may choose to do so, but pure, blunt logic tells me "this" is here and that is all that is required. Hence Occham's Razor says that a creator is unnecessary for the existence of the universe, and, furthermore, sloppy logic and error-prone. We have a 100% "provable" statement "I 'exist'" to a completely unreliable one "God must have created me". Non sequtur. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Apart from the factual errors in your previous post, which I will address later, this is rather sloppy in and of itself. You suggest that I equate one statement, "I exist," as somehow equivalent with another statement, "the universe exists." The fact that I exist is self evident, and my reason for existing is not really the subject of debate at any rate. The question regarding the existence of the universe didn't relate to a question of reality. The issue under discussion is the nature of creation of matter and energy. Your fervent desire to use "Occham's Razor" has created a bit of a problem, as you've rushed headlong into a discussion of whether the universe exists and away from a discussion about how and why the universe exists as it does. The very question of how and why are the basis for science, and yet, to argue against God, you've gleefully run forward waving "Occham's Razor." Well, what am I to say? After all, I thought we were discussing the creation of matter. Furthermore, we have no understanding in our human existence of something "just being." It not only flies in the face of divinity, but also of science. You'd best be careful taking shots at me in regards to my religion lest you end up shooting yourself in the foot, as I submit you have already done. Science will never be happy to say, "it just is." ...And yet, as part of a rather clumsy attack, you are. Since science has not found a logical answer, and since the creation myths of the various religions are in dispute, there is a discussion. ...And, yes, the idea that we "just are" is quite a bit foreign to humanity, regardless of how many "Occham's Razors" you pull out of your coat pocket.

Yes, and you'd be surprised at how little we argue in my DnD sessions. Actually, you can't build a network with one other person, even the xbox. ...But he's the one really in control of the network. I'm just another grunt.

Is that an unemployed journalist, or either unemployed or a journalist? If you're going to pursue an advanced degree in ancient history, get ready to take alot of ancient Greek and Latin classes. Of course, if your Greek and Latin are up to snuff, then you'll have no problems on that end. As Walsingham says, the trend in history has really gone over to cultural, ethnic, or gender based approaches. It's a pain, since I think political history is far more entertaining. True military history is such a specialized field, I don't know why folks would want to pursue the study. You could specialize, though, and teach at West Point or the Citadel. Cool, huh? Anyhow, history, as taught these days, is a lifeless, soulless, and boring discipline. Pages upon pages of information but nothing flowing like a true story. Heaven help you if you create a narrative. My first BA was in history, and I've come to hate the field. On the other hand, I love HISTORY. That's why I took on the effort and expense of switching to Classical Studies. Sure, it meant going back to square one and taking several years of languages. ...But it also opened new doors to me, such as ancient philosophy and literature.

doofus :eldar'sshakinghisheadwithaseverelookicon: I'll worry when my xbox serves as my wife, and if that were the case then I'd definitely be buying all three consoles. Why have a marriage when you can have a harem? :D

Xbox is supposed to be cheaper. I just wonder if you'll need to buy special equipment to run DvDs with it. My current xbox serves as my DvD player right now. It's not that it's better than my previous one, but I sure as hell wasn't going to take the space for two things that did the same thing and my DvD player didn't run games. As it stands, that's probably the reason I won't get two consoles. I won't take the space for them. That Kingdom Heart thing Shadow Paladin talks about might be interesting, and he's pretty much sold me on trying FFX, but I'm not buying a console just to try a couple of games. If xbox gets them, then I'll try them. If not, then I'll have to enjoy PS3 games vicariously through others. EDIT: Okay, dammit, I fixed the "DnD player." Are you happy now?!?!

**I posted this and then thought it was too didactic. Finally, I decided that I don't care if I'm didactic, and so I'm posting it again.** I have no doubt that some folks are evil. However, I think you're going to find more evil in folks when you stack the deck in favor of evil actions. A truly legitimate study would take place in our normal environment. So, while some folks are more predisposed towards evil acts and some folks are more predisposed towards good acts, the best judge for the nature of humanity will always be the broad swath in the middle. It seems to me that we start out in life with a large dose of self-interest. That's a good thing, as our survival as individuals is tied to our survival as a species. As we travel on our way through life, we are subject to a variety of experiences in which we develop our personality. In all of us, there is that seed of self-interest which is the source of our selfish acts and natural tendency to disregard the needs of others. However, most of us are also exposed to kindness. Nature, when it gave us an innate understanding of self-interest, also included an innate desire to care for and love our young. Our survival as a species is tied to our survival as individuals. The vast majority of us, and all of us here by the very nature of these boards if nothing else, live in a society amongst other people. We must learn to live with others and help others live with us. We develop morals, ethics, and other philosophical devices by which we judge right and wrong. Ultimately, I see that we each have the seeds of both good and evil. In the end, I believe that most of us are misguided but rather good on the whole. Man's history of evil acts is quite extensive, but I see humanity and I am personally filled with hope. The fact that we still debate good and evil; that we still shout in outrage at injustice; that we weep at the suffering of others... these all tell me that most people are pretty decent at heart. For myself, I'm a weak neutral, but I know I have the capacity to be so much more with a little help. I strive for the good and, even though I may fail, I know the good is there somewhere to be found.

I've downloaded the utility for Anarchy online and I'm looking at Utopia right now. I don't mind paying a monthly fee, but I'm waiting for the time being before a I buy a new game, so I might as well look at some of the free ones.

It is a tough call. For myself, I'm for every advance science can make. If I have a crisis of faith, it most certainly does not arise from science. Science describes our reality. It doesn't really concern itself with God at all. Science, as a discipline, is far more interested in proving science than it is in disproving God. So, with that in mind, I don't think it's a choice of happiness or reason. How the Universe came into being is a mystery, and I will go so far as to make one claim: a little mystery is a good thing for humanity. It is good that there are mysteries beyond our understanding. The end of mystery will be our end as well.

Yes, I'm familiar with the idea, although I lack the education in the related field to make more than cursory observations about it. The whole stopping point, whether you believe in a spontaneous burst of energy or spontaneous creation of matter (and, at some point, matter and energy are equivalent), is that human beings naturally look for causes and effects. It really doesn't matter whether you contend that it is energy that created matter or matter that created the energy, humans will want to know why. The whole concept of science is based around how and why. To suggest that something "just happened" is just as much a stretch for the human mind as suggesting that it was created. I submit that we will never, on this earth, know the first cause. Science hasn't really gotten closer to knowing the why, only possibilities of the how. I find the how fascinating at any rate, and so I always read these threads with interest.

This is an intellectual exercise in which folks try to explain something for which we have no real explanation. The reason it's a theory is simple: there is no logical explanation for the spontaneous existence of matter. Atheists are compelled to submit a reason for the existence of matter and so this line of reasoning continues. For what it's worth, there must still be some reason for matter spontaneously spawning in a vacuum. This need not be a believer vs. atheist debate, though. It's fascinating to consider exactly the mechanics by which matter exists in the universe.

Well, it's true that you use more miniatures when you play a miniatures game! :Eldar'sshakinghisheadwithawrysmileicon: I've always wanted to play a game of warhammer, but I haven't had the chance. I have played Mordheim, which was fun. It's hard enough getting DnD games going, though, without trying to branch into miniatures.

China has been far more inept than you concede. With the wealth of human and natural resources to be found in China, one would assume that they would already be in the driver's seat. Of course, it's popular to sell the west short in these threads, which is fair enough. Still, Japan and Germany were closing pretty damned fast on the United States at one time. The Chinese are certainly a rival, and only a fool would believe otherwise. Are they an enemy? Probably not at this point, but they certainly act in their own interests and against ours. Makes sense, we return favor. Still, the Chinese are far from the shining example of culture that some would have us believe. Are they predictable? I suppose the students at Tianamen square should have predicted that they would be murdered. Undoubtedly Christians in China can predict persecution. It's easy to sit in the comfort one's home and rail against the United States for its success, and it's all but a waste of time to argue with folks who have it set in their minds to see every action the United States takes, Bush in particular, in the worst possible light. Metadigital writes, "[w]ell, there's going to be a showdown between China and the US, it's just a matter of when and where." This showdown will undoubtedly follow the "showdown" that is inevitable between the Soviet Union and the United States. After all, the showdown between the USSR and US has been much longer in coming, has it not?

...And yet the Dutch declined and England became an increasingly powerful nation.

There was a plane that was forced to make an emergency landing on Chinese Island. It was a pain getting the crew and plane returned. I'm not even sure if the plane were ever returned. In regards to China, they aren't all bad. They've been kind enough to be inept. They're gaining power, it's true, but they've made a number of significant mistakes over the years.