n8nrgim

you do realize that what you are doing is exactly how conspiracy theorists operate, even when they are wildly wrong, right? they find a random source that no one's ever heard of, then claim it's credible, and wont even consider that it's not credible, even when it's not. 

your argument is pathetic. 

To be able to really stress a point

I always propose proportionalism in response to those who say the ends can never justify the means even in difficult situations like this

that's not how it works. you can't credibly find a random source that may or may not be credible on the internet and claim it as proof of something. the burden is you, the one making the claim, to establish that you have a credible source. if what you say is true, it should be easy to find a credible source, that most people would acknowledge as a credible source. 

it's actually laughable that you think what you posted passes as a real argument. i think you are rationalizing and lacking critical thinking skills here. 

I know I said u should read from the nihilists, and I still think that. But it'd be more empowering for u to read from the existentialists. Both theist and non theist existentialists 

what denomination of christian are you? 

i dunno if that's a reliable source. a common problem from trumpsters are that they follow conspiracy theories with sources that arent credible or that we have no reason to think is credible. i'm the opening poster... im open to the idea that the election was rigged. but i need evidence from credible sources. 

it would be wise if you said trump is unfit, but you will vote for him as he is your only choice for practical purposes. that would be plausibly rational. instead, as always, you deflect and focus on things that are irrelevant. 

so if one of the entagangled electrons changes charge or postiion, that doesn't cause the other one to change? so they can be entangled at great distances, but we basically wont necessarily know for how long they're actually entangled, because what happens to one doesn't automatically happen to the other? 

if i'm understanding you right. 

if a corresponding change happened to the other even if just instantaneous and no further... itd at least be possible to use multiple entangled particles to send information to the other side. but it looks like you are saying we can't know when entanglemnt is broken on the opposite side of when one side changing. 

.....

women fuck around until 30 then have high standards for the next five to ten years, or shit happens and it takes longer. these women miss out on having biological children and lose out on finding a decent mate when pickings are best, when they are younger. yes, studies show single women are the happiest of all demographics, but many of these single women wanted a decent husband and children, and never got them, and end up rationalizing about their situation or settling in life. all those things i mentioned in my last post, definitely hurt women. 

it definitely takes a concerted effort to overcome one's own biases and to sift through propaganda in our news. some people are very skilled at defending a tribe, but its often only through a partisan lens. 

college expectations for youth, has harmed women

hook up culture, has harmed women

social media, has harmed women

internet dating, has harmed women

women are just pawns in this downfall of society.  most of the time they aren't aware of the forces at play. women get harmed, and men become the collateral damaged victims too 

are you a conservative? i dont know enough of your posts, but you look like a super smart/intellectual conservative, which to my prejudices isn't very common. 

who is worse... a hardcore libertarian, or a MAGA politician? 

well i dont have a break down of how often the governors did it illegally, and i dont have a break down beyond govenors of when it was legal v illegal. it's my impression that the governmors breaking the law was common enough to change the election. i could be wrong. i think there's at least enough doubt here to at least say the election might have been rigged. truth often lies in uncertainty and needs investigated to be established. 

i also think the fact this sort of thing isn't talked about more, is evidence the media is bias. i mean, i take it as a given, that there's a liberal bias in the media, which to me is fair given i think there's a liberal bias to reality... but sometimes the truth isn't conveyed properly in the media due to unfair bias. 

you around the forum? im curious what your take is 

it happened a lot in many states. in order to get a mail in vote thing, by law the citizen was suppose to request it. but, due to covid, many governors sent out those mail in vote things, to everyone or a lot of people. they technically broke the law by doing this. if that hadn't been done, given the election was already so close anyway in a lotta states, i'd surmise that the election would have changed for trump. another part of that logic, was it was mostly liberals who voted by mail. 

the most i've seen as far as a fair counter to this, was the republicans should have challenged this in court, and that that was their legal recourse whether they did or didn't. that's true... but the fact remains that many enough govenors probably broke the law enough, to change the outcome of the election. in short, the election was rigged. 

i ain't a trumpanzee either, and most of trumpanzee ideas are baseless conspiracy theories... but these facts are accurate, and they are what they are. 

sounds like u can't catch a break in life, eh? 

thanks for the quantum mechanics 101 lesson. i thought i already knew the basics, but apparently not 

Does religion include social convention too? I don't see poor atheists murdering the rich... tho I suspect many of them r more religious than they r self aware of

see my last post to double 

so how would you address the science? thermodynamics as far as we know, requires something of lower entropy to produce something of higher entropy. this is a firm rule, as far as we know. the only science that i see skeptics use, is the fact that empty space has quanta. sure, that's true, but the glaring hole in this argument is that space and particles are all a part of space... therefore it doesn't necessarily follow that we can extrapolate to the beginning of the universe like that. we have a firm rule being violated for those who think something caused the universe, and an illogical proposition from skeptics. all you are doing, is reverting to philosophy when confronted with the science.... but like i said, it's possible philsophy can have no bearing on reality, like math sometimes. 

I know some folks say good faith, or honesty in lay men's terms, is what the legal standard already is for him. But some people debate it.

But just in terms of justice, would it be fair to find him guilty if he was lying about his reasons to overturn the election, and let him go if his reasons for trying were honest?

I think there's a certain justice there, tho it looks like he knew he was lying, sometimes, while other times he had no grasp of reality and probably believed his own bullshit 

If the charge of the particle changes, wouldn't the charge on the other end also change? Can't that phenomenon be manipulated? If it even works that way

It looks like u r into software, r u a developer? How r u so conversant on quanta phenomenon? Is it job or hobby related?

I think there's reasonably clear proof of God, but atheists deny all terms and conditions so they hold on at best to plausible deniability. 

You should philosophize on the after life more. There's a growing number of atheists who believe in the afterlife but most of the time they r completely idiotic/irrational

Every developed country has a social safety net. Only undeveloped countries don't. The real question is to focus on how much of a net is best. The USA spends about what other developed countries spends, if private Healthcare is included in USA. USA has less of a social net cause we spend twice as much on Healthcare and our military is bigger than the next biggest counties combined

It's possible to use math in a way that has no real world application. It's the same with logic and philosophy. U have good points logically but u spend too much time ignoring the science. Like my last post says I think theists have a stronger argument scientifically and that is what should inform our philosophy. I realize saying I don't know is superior, but given u r taking a skeptic position to something causing the universe, you have no choice but to engage scientifically... otherwise u have empty logic and rhetoric 

The whole point of entanglement is that what happens to one particle, also happens to the other, no matter how far away, at the same time. So isn't your description inaccurate? 

I don't know if entanglement can be manipulated beyond a single peice of info, movement, tho, and it seems that that would be the issue

To be fair to these guys, those r trumps personal attributes. Not that I think his policy and presidential attributes r much better

Can the absence of something produce something? We don't enough info to think the nothing that we know of, with quanta, can produce the universe, but we thermodynamics still must be accounted for to explain how our universe came to be. We have a firm issue with my quibble and only speculation scientifically and philosophically with the atheist quibbke

i dont know that question is relevant to this debate, but i suspect as do most scientists that there's life out there in the distant universe, if not in our own solar system. that's the conventional wisdom, actually. as a theist, suspect something must be special about life theologically for it to be as rare as it looks... but this is just me musing as a theist. 

i used to say it doesn't make sense for there to be nothing and then an infinite something, like we currently see. how can something be infinite in one direction and not the other, and how can that play out such that it happens to be our reality when it seems like it should have run its course by now? but the thing is, if 'uncaused causes' are possible, then maybe the universe is an uncaused cause, and all my quibbles are what uncaused causes look like. 

you are good at getting deep philosophically... but in simple terms, why is it so unreasonable to think something other than the universe, caused the universe? i know you dont like the idea because it's outside of what we can objectively know based on what we currently accept as reality, but i guess my question is, dont you think a reasonable person can think something other than the universe caused the universe? 

also another thing we've all been circling around, there's 'accepting' something as objective truth, and there's accepting something as a running hypothesis, and there's aceepting something as debateably the best hypothesis.

"If it is the best answer then accepting any other answer is not logically justifiable."

a few things wrong with that idea. one is that you yourself seem pretty keen on not sticking to it... you are clearly defending the atheist view point. also, if someone has a hypothesis and not the truth established... it's fair and actually good to argue back and forth about the hypothesis, for what you suspect the truth is. 

there's 'nothing' and then there's 'nothing'. in the vaccum of space, there is a lot of nothing to the layman, but scientists know there's quanta out there. but what exists outside the universe? what everyone is circling around, is that some say that's a non sense question, but others point out that at least philosophically, maybe it isn't. you point out only the nothing of what we know of can produce something... but can the nothing of what we dont know produce something? 

that looks like a great series. too bad our streaming system is so convoluted that we can't easily watch these things. i have netflix, and roku, maybe prime is cheap for month to month streaming.

that's fair enough, i dont know, and possibly the best answer, but i think it's fair to have an opinion and then defend it. 

the only logical conclusion from your arguments is that the universe came from nothing. you act surprised when people reject that idea. 

talking about necessary and contingent and such is philosophy. it might be true or not true. but when we look at the science, such as theormodynamics, the philophy starts to make sense. like i said, it looks, scientifically, like something other than the universe, caused the universe. 

it looks like the universe is an effect. can the universe be an uncaused caused? yes, but it doesn't look like it. can something that caused the universe be an uncaused cause? yes, that's possible, and even if there's an infinite chain of cause and effect before the universe, it's an uncaused cause, a fortiori, and is still the cause of the universe. 

maybe 'god' doesn't necessarily answer the question when it gets to specifics, but to think something caused the universe, is, in short, fair and the most reasonable conclusion. 

we need both schools of thought. we need facts, and we need to be able to draw conclusions from those facts. empiricists might be right that we can't know anything a priori, but for all intents and purposes, they wonder off into lacking common sense since they deny what our perceive. they are technically correct, but for practical purposes, it's all a charade. 

i do realize quantum computing is different than communication, but i just wonder if you are as aware to the current science. 

i still would think it's possible in theory to use the quantum state, even if it just means using morse code based on the manipulation of on and off. if morse code can be done, higher level communication should be possible. if i'm making sense, i'm not sure. 

you are better at being able to articulate the ideas than me, but what do you think of this sixty minutes clip?

if i remember right, they said they can currently do computation with quantum mechanics, it's just not currently faster than traditional computers, and it's error prone. they have a proto type at the cleveland clinic. 

they also said they expect to have them functional within the next five or so years.... tho that it, granted, just their claim. 

I know quantum computing is right around the corner based on 60 minutes and the experts. I just assumed quantum communication could be too, cause it's at least possible in theory, but I might be wrong to make the assumption for practical purposes. Freezing complex organisms to me I wouldn't just assume is possible. Like last poster showed, tardigrades can be frozen for a long time but they can survive almost anywhere 

just got too use to posting in religion forum, should have posted science

it's too difficult to freeze and unthaw humans after thousands of years. it's too difficult to maintain a civiliization on a spaceship. but it's feesible to liter the galaxy with embryos, who will use quantum communication with earth, and use artificial intelligent robots to raise the embryos that have human connections through communication. if quantum communication doesn't pan out, at least use robots to raise kids. it's more likely artificial intelligence will work out, than cryo or spaceshipcivilitions will work out. 

how trying to date or choosing to date sometimes doesn't make sense 

your arguments weren't adding up, cause i think the proper way to address it, is by arguing that 'an eye for an eye' wasn't meant literally.