Reveilled

The correct answer is 'I don't know'. Another answer is that we live in a universe where the basic laws of physics/mathematics are such that one plus one equals two. Or perhaps it's just because I can't imagine how one plus one could equal anything else, although when I was three I probably could. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My point exactly. The problem with why questions with regards to science, is that quite a few of them have the answer "just because". What's and hows all work fine and logically, but whys don't always make logical sense, and sometimes they're just plain crazy. And when you've got a crazy question, you need something crazy and illogical, like belief or imagination to come up with an answer. Science isn't designed to answer why questions. If we ever get answers to these, they'll come from philosophy, which is designed for that very purpose.

Ooooh, I know! I know! Two. *waits for effusive praise from teacher* <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bravo. You get a gold star. Now, for extra credit, tell me this: Why?

Righty-ho. I think I went about making my argument in a far too abstract and flowery manner. Would you allow me to try again? Okay, what's one plus one? (I'm going somewhere, I promise)

The best comedy always has an element of truth. :D Oh well, I'll know by tomorrow whether I'll be going to see them. All of you might no be interested in seeing them perform again, but since I was born after their last concert, I'm quite happy to go and see them even if it's just so I can gloat to all these young prog rockers that I saw them in concert. :D

I'm going to derail the thread by posting a serious suggestion: For last names, I suggest using the names of ancient eastern empires or cities. It gives you names like Saffra Timurin (derived from Timurid), Jasha Samarkand, or Kora Babylon. It's my naming scheme for female PCs. For first names I just pick syllables out of the air until some of them make a name. For male names, why not take, say, european cities? Romo (rome), Sparin (sparta), Milas (milan), Trondas (Trondheim), and so on.

I hope you don't mind if I deal specifically with this point. Just as a point of interest, the way we deal with this in British scools is that we have a specific class called "Religious Education". The class teaches you about the religions that people follow throughout the world. As the pupils get older, they have the option either to take it on as a subject for study, or to take compulsory more generalised lessons. The compulsory lessons are about things such as tolerance, and how people of different beliefs and philosophies make decisions. The optional ones teach about more viewpoints and beliefs, and also compare and contrast those beliefs in order to see how they hold up against the arguments of other faiths. It is in this class, rather than science classes, that we look at creationist arguments in regards to things such as evolution and the big bang, as well as the arguments of more liberal christians. Ultimately, the compulsory classes teach us to accept that other people have differing beliefs, and that we should not hate them or discriminate against them for those beliefs. The optional ones teach us to examine our own beliefs, and decide whether we ought to believe what we do. However, we are never told what religion is the correct one, and everything is handled in an objective manner that encourages the student to think about what s/he believed. It also gives creationists, who often complain their views are pushed out of school, a chance to make their argument, and let the students decide which argument holds up better. If the States had classes like this (afaik, they don't), some tension might be relieved about religion in school. Seperation of Church and State only means you can't teach the children religion. It doesn't mean, nor should it, that you can't teach them about religion. Incidentally, it was those classes that took me from atheism to agnosticism, and then from agnosticism to theism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4085966.stm If you wish to see them perform Live8 at Hyde Park, you have until midnight to enter the competition. Just in case anyone didn't know and it affects whether or not they'd enter the competition. Remember, it's for charity!

Go on. It would be lots of fun. I triple dog dare ya.

Marc Cohn - Walking in Memphis A true classic of modern music.

"Mellifluous as cats mating"...I'll have to remember that metaphor. :D But why wouldn't I like that sound? Others certainly do. As to space, why would the fact that no-one's been there yet make me want to go? As to beauty, I was thinking more along the lines of a sunset. And as to love, I meant regular old "I love you and I want to spend my life with you" love. As to that...hypothesis...I'll get back to you on that when I have my English Language degree and can make sense of more than the bare outline of it.

That argument sounds suspiciously like a rather dubious argument I've heard a great number of theists advance over the years. Ah, but those are whats and hows, aren't they? Will you ever be able to tell me why I prefer Billy Joel to Metallica? Or why I'd like to explore outer space? There are many things that I do not think can be measured or proved, things that transcend logic or science. We have units of measurement for distance, time, speed, and countless other things, but what is the unit of measurement for beauty? Or love? I believe that someday we will be able to answer any and every question of what or how something happens, but I think that there are things both in this universe and outside it that transcend and defy measurement or true understanding. But hey, don't let me stop you. If you think you can do it, it would be wrong of you not to try. I too find that certainty unnerving. As you can tell, I believe these things are beyond our knowledge. We can speculate as to the motives or the reasons of a creative power, and I believe we can get close to the right answer, but to claim that you know is to defeat the very purpose of religious belief. How can you believe in something when you claim to know already?

We don't need to end the series. Nothing compels us to do so. I subscribe to a Logical Positivistic interpretation of science, whereby a statement is not scientific unless it can be proved or disproved via observation; and truth is this Empiricist a posteriori knowledge, together with any analytic truths (propositions that is true by definition). So, nothing demands it, except my faith in a logical framework for the universe, which behooves me to apply Occham's razor to all such teleological propositions: why have a Watchmaker's antecedent?, which is logically more complex to an equivalent extention of the universe back endlessly or as as an endless series. So, you pluck your duck and I'll pluck mine. :D Hmm...can you prove or disprove via observation the statement "a statement is not scientific unless it can be proved or disproved via observation"? I'm not really a big fan of applying Occam's Razor to the question of the creation of the universe, because when I look at the universe, I see a place that makes no sense. Sure, it follows rules, but some of those rules are just plain crazy. And as much as we can use logic and science to explain those rules, and how they function, will we ever be able to use them to explain why the rules are there? Occam's Razor should be applied to questions of what is going on, and how it is going on. I don't think you can really apply it to questions of why things are going on, because the answers to why questions, even the terrestrial ones, never seem to be very logical or scientific at all. Once, I thought that logic and science would provide me all the answers I'd ever need. But now, much like Eldar, I find myself navel gazing, and feeling that when I ask why this is all here, there has to be an answer. It's somewhat ironic, I think, that many of us who are religious find ourselves envying those who can go through life content that there doesn't have to be a why, while many who are not religious have said that they wish they could believe in a god and an afterlife for the comfort and security they think it would bring them, but find themselves unable to believe something for which they have no evidence. Maybe we should all trade places.

But the "watchmaker's father" argument doesn't do anything to refute the watchmaker argument (other arguments do, but not this one). And why, pray tell, do we need to end the series? I see no reason to do that, in fact I'm perfectly comfortable in my personal theology which does allow for a continuous series.

The idea that god(dess) was not created is in fact a fairly new (in a "relative to the history of religion" sense) idea in religion. For instance, the particular deity I choose to believe created the universe (Eris, the greek goddess of quarrels and strife) was according to classical mythology birthed by the goddess of the Night, who sprung from primordial chaos, the universal equivalent of the primordial soup. There is no particular reason why a god would have to have always existed. After all, we create worlds of our own all of the time with books, films and computer games, and within those worlds, those who created them are all-powerful, and can do absolutely anything to them, even if outside of that universe, we have little or no power in our own. It may be the case that the being we believe created us herself believes in a being that is all powerful within the universe that our creator lives in. Personally, the idea that a supreme deity has always existed strikes me as an extremely strange attribute to assign to a god(dess).

I have to split this into two posts because the quote thing seems to mess up with long posts. You know, perhaps there shouldn't be, at least not in government buildings. Marriage can mean to me whatever the hell I want it to mean, because it should be up to me and my partner to define the relationship between us, not the government. "It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388 Pretty well sums up my feelings of government think tanks. I don't give a crap what a government think tank thinks is best for me. I don't want the government involved in marriage because a) it's none of their business, and b) I don't trust them. Discriminating against a group just because you think it is a good thing is very dangerous. After all, you're not happy with people who think that heterosexual marriages are a good thing, and want to give them a "small break" without also giving them to gay couples. I don't like one man with one wife and four kids all on welfare. I don't like one man with one wife getting a tax break. I consider tax breaks for married couples to be those couples and the government blatantly taking advantage of me.

So why are you then arguing in favour of doing to polygamists what homophobes are doing to gay couples? I never said I wasn't going to tell anyone. I just said it was none of their business. As in, they should not be interfering. If they don't want me to marry the woman, they can't do anything about it, because it's none of their business. That doesn't men I'll keep it a secret. And if the family should be able to challenge my wish to assign my spouse springing power of attorney, why shouldn't they be able to challenge my marriage? Yes, but I've clearly invalidated this particular reason for marriage, as your justifications for this reason apply to people who are not married. Therefore, if you wish to use this as a reason, you have to give said benefits to everyone it applies to, or quit using it as an argument. Well, in that case, shouldn't we give the tax break to folks who're not married? After all, since "most people judge their future by their present take home income", if they can't afford a child before they get married, maybe they won't get married at all. As to the second point, why the hell would it? At most, a tax break is intended to help you along, not give you a free ride. Besides, there's no reason why you couldn't just increase the tax break, if you had a problem with that. You still haven't explained why legislation of marriage is necessary for people to form lifelong couples, nor why if the legislation is removed, people will all of a sudden stop doing it. It's irrelevant! How can you justify a policy of discrimination on a measly 3%? If I have a problem with any of the above, I can go to court. If I or my wife wish to prevent such occurences, we can sign contracts to deal with ownership, just like any two other people in the entire country. Well, gays aren't discriminated for being gay. They have not made a commitment to someone of the opposite sex yet. So allow people to designate on, say, their health insurance one non-blood relative who will have equal visitation rights as the rest of their family. Then the doctor can just look at the health insurance certificate.

So, if the studies show kids are more successful in a heterosexual household, should we ban gay marriage? If the studies show kids are more successful in a single race household, do we ban interracial marriage? It's no one's business but that of the people being married whether you are spending your life with someone else. If I'm injured and I want my spouse to be able to make decisions for me and stay with me, I can assign her springing power of attorney. So, are you then dismissing this argument, or carrying it to its logical conclusion and advocating assigning the tax break to everyone? I hardly think that if the tax breaks are removed, people will all of a sudden stop having kids. Besides, this has nothing to do with marriage. We already give tax breaks for having kids. That's got nothing to do with marriage. When I said organised government, I meant things such as fixed states with ordered transfers of power. I am willing to bet that monogamous relationships predate tribal government. And you have ignored what I said about taxation. Oh, and you still haven't explained why legislation of marriage is necessary for people to form lifelong couples, nor why if the legislation is removed, people will all of a sudden stop doing it. It's still a tiny percentage. A difference of less than 3% is hardly sufficient to base a whole argument on. Said figure is easily within a fluctuatable margin. It should not. It is not for the government to decide what belongs to whom, that's for me and my spouse to decide. And my life certainly does not belong to my wife. But why should all of these things come as a package deal? Why does the old widower have to marry his best friend for him to visit? It's not fair. If I'm single, I should be able to specify whoever the hell I want to have visitation rights. Maybe I'm not interested in a life-long monogamous relationship right now. Why should I then be discriminated, just for my choice of lifestyle? After all, it's wrong to discriminate against gay people for their choice of lifestyle, but if the person is single, or in an unmarried couple then it's perfectly fine. Every law abiding citizen is entitled to the same rights. Everyone. You cannot give people special treatment because of their race. You cannot give people special treatment because of their gender. You cannot give people special treatment because of their sexuality. You cannot give people special treatment because of thier marital status. It's wrong.

Maybe Canadians just have better things to do? Then again, it's hardly likely that anyone will play any sport that doesn't involve ice in a country that encompasses the magnetic North pole. (They do play Ice Hockey well, after all.) You can't play cricket on an ice rink. :D Or can you? I'm sure someone said that about grass hockey once. Plus, Ice Cricket might actually be interesting, unlike cricket. I too never could see how Americans could eat the god-awful abomination that is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Just peanut butter is plenty fine for me, I only wish those bastards at Sun-Pat hadn't taken away their American Style and their Creamy varieties. That, or I wish they'd bever changed the original recipie. The new stuff they are attemptin to pass off as peanut butter tastes like it is made with rotting nuts. The first time I tried it, I was worried I might have swallowed a maggot, or something. Bleuch. But Tesco's own brand tastes like fairly decent british peanut butter, and Morrisons' is much creamier than any kind I've tried since the Sun Pat creamy stuff came off the shelves. What I really wish, though, is that an American brand would sell their brands here. The only place I know of that sells them is CostCo, which is outside of fair green Glasgow. I even tried New York-style Delicatessens, but even they contained no joy. Alas...

Alas, I don't know enough gangspeak either. I can do a ned version though: No wan wid huv buliev'd inni last years uv thi nineteenf senchry tha this place wis been watch'd pure hard by the polis--ah mean--"intelligences" pure way bigger than that pure smart poof frae school bu' still as chibbable as he wis; that as abody went doon the welfar oaffis an bumping car radios they were been watch'd, proably like a pure brainy bastart wae a microscope might look at aw that wee crap frae science. Waeoot daen edgy guys wur daen stuff that didnae really ma'er, pure certain a wha' wis goin on.. Ah bet aw that wee crap does'i same. Nae wan gave a toss abou' aw tha' big crap inni sky, sept in pure poofy shows like Star Trek, but aw that crap was pure stupid. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. Some wankers though' there wur other poofs oan mars, even poofier than them an jis waitin fer them tae come over. But away up there in space, even brainier poofs than even like Einstein, were checkin oot the Earf ciz' they wanted tae bump it, an after a while they decided tae chibb us.

Personally, I find a far more compelling argument for the existence of a creator in the fundamental forces. Look at magnetism. It's a completely crazy and stupid thing to exist. Why the hell should chunk of metal project an invisible field that attracts other chunks of metal? Jeez, it sounds like some completely crazy spell from Dungeons and Dragons. I mean, invisible lines of force? Come on! Sure, science can explain what magnetism does, and how it does it, but you can't use science or logic to explain why the **** such a nonsensical force like magnetism would be part of the universe, all you can use is your gut feeling. Some people's gut feeling tells them there is no creator, and for most of my life, so did I. But now, after thinking about it, and being confused by it, my gut now tells me that someone had to put all this here*. Is it scientific, or logical? No. Can I prove it? Nope, not a word. Am I all that bothered if you don't think the same way? Not at all, and I don't imagine the creator cares much either. But despite all that, do I believe it? I do. *Please note that by put all this here I do not mean put all this hear fully formed in the way in which we see it today. I mean start off the universe in the form of the Big Bang, and set the ground rules for how the system would operate.

It's strange though that every major colony of Great Britain developed a good cricket team...except Canada. Same with Rugby, at least for the white colonies. The only decent conclusion we can come to is that Canada sucks. Sorry Canada, but that's just the way it is. Actually, I could care less about cricket. But not much less. Usless info: Morrisons' Peanut Butter actually tastes like proper American peanut butter. Now that I have made this discovery, I will be making regular trips to said supermarket just to buy peanut butter.

But the alternative, to "modernize" the script, would be worse. To wit: Check it out homies, While the crew are doing the deed, Some other gang from Mars are making moves on dem, ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually that doesn't sound so bad. Gang War of the Worlds! :D

I love Dead Ringers. It's a bit like the thinking man's impression show with all that satirical comedy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The best sketch I think was probably the one where they had Tony Blair going round a shopping centre and rummaging around in people's shopping for WMD. It's a shame it isn't there. "Now, you see, as we can clearly observe on this bottle of shampoo, there is the label 'contains chemical agents' and it is just this sort of weapon, that we are looking to, remove, from the possesion of Saddam Hussein." "Also, if you can see here, we have, a napkin. Now, it is just this sort of napkin, which could be used, and is being used, to conceal weapons of mass destruction." Gold. :D

I found a bunch of Dead Ringers clips on their website, if anyone's interested. Some of it's a bit UK specific and there are not other Obi-Wan ones on there, but it's all good.

I thought the Time Machine was the most boring book I'd ever read. I often wonder when people talk about that book if I read the same book they did, because I've never seen a story about time travel done worse than it was in The Time Machine. Personally, I prefer the backwards flavour of Time Travel.