poker and god?!

[Luv4TheDuece 0]

God loves to donk out

comedy...pure comedy

[jamthepot 0]

kind of. think of the big bang like this, rather than "something coming from nothing":-at the time of the big bang, "something" and "nothing" don't mean anything, since all of extended space is condensed just as matter is. if you think of "something" as being extended as drawn on a piece of paper, imagine that before the big bang happened, that piece of paper was crumpled infinitely small. the stuff in it still "existed," but it was all smushed together into something really small, just like the space(-time) in which it is extended.

okay, so you're saying that something existed before anything existed. how did that "stuff" originate?

science doesn't really say anything about that, since time is also a dimension of that paper that was "squished" into a very, very small ball. by the big bang story, this means that most of the expansion of the universe happened within the first 10^-34 seconds after the little ball of crap blew up.

i respectfully disagree. i think both science and logic states that it is impossible for something to not have an origin. what you're saying is that there never was a time where something didn't exist and that requires a giant leap of faith.

[mosley 0]

These are two of my new favorite quotes:

i do not accept that 2+2=4 in every place and time, but it works for me so far, so i'll roll with it.

Where to begin on this one? Let me know the place or time where if you have two apples and get two more apples you don't have four apples. You can substitute anything for apples that can be represented by an integer.

1) it created itself(big bang)but something cannot come from nothing and if there was nothing in the beginning, there would be no volatile gases to create an explosion.2) the universe is eternalno, it would eventually die of heat loss.

What a great understanding of Big Bang theory and Cosmology. There were no volatile gases at the big bang, true, but that's because the concept of gas, or molecules really for that matter, didn't really exist until long after the big bang (long, of course being a relative term).Also, as to number two, the universe dying of heat loss is one of the possible outcomes of the universe as proposed by Friedmann. It's called the Big Chill (not to be confused with the film). It depends on the shape of space-time that exists in our universe which is related to the average density of our universe.

i can't PROVE to you that 2+2 does not equal 4, any more than i cannot prove to you that time is simply a construct of the feeble human mind. many people, however, have the capacity and finances, to take you up in even a fast airplane, and show you with the use of two atomic clocks, one in the plane, and one on the ground that there will be a MEASURABLE difference in the times they display after a short trip. this is a principle of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Another principle is that the idea of space is also a construct of the human mind. space wraps around on itself and objects such as your apples can be and are, in more than one "place" at a time.this is not fantasy, it is quantum physics, and it has been generally accepted and proven again and again to be true, to the best of our current abilities, since the 1960's.integers? give me a break. you're mind is operating in quick sand. you want me to disprove mathematics (or your highschool understanding of it) by using gradeschool mathematics. well, that i can't do.so, without trying to sound like the kid in the Matrix, the apple does not exist until you look at it. even then, it may only exist in your mind as a series of electrical impulses but that is enough for you to make up a story of it's existance in your head. is it real, or is it just in your head? it's real to you, so that is all that matters (to you).so everybody knows 2+2=4 just like everybody knew the earth was flat and that the Sun was pulled across the sky by a giant chariot. some of these ideas are outdated and have proven to be ridiculous while some, such as the idea of basic integer mathematics have proven to work well enough in our endeavors, that we can ignore the known fact that they are flawed, askew, imperfect, and do not apply to the reality of the universe on both a grand scale and a microscopic one.

[brvheart 1,752]

Now the part where u see the contradiction is in verse 2:18-19 in which where God says it is not good for many to be alone so he formed all the beasts. Yes from an english standpoint this makes no sense and i agree with you that it seems troubling. The problem isnt that its a contradiction though, the problem is how the translation reads when switched from hebrew to english.

If there is one thing that I know for absolute certain.... It's that Steppin Razor was 'troubled' by this 'contradiction'.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Now the part where u see the contradiction is in verse 2:18-19 in which where God says it is not good for many to be alone so he formed all the beasts. Yes from an english standpoint this makes no sense and i agree with you that it seems troubling. The problem isnt that its a contradiction though, the problem is how the translation reads when switched from hebrew to english.

If there is one thing that I know for absolute certain.... It's that Steppin Razor was 'troubled' by this 'contradiction'.

haha...u know what i meant...

[Pupsta 0]

all you people bitching about where things came from...where did god come from? what did he do before he 'created' the earth and the other planets? did he just chill out by himself and plot how he'd create 28734682767825697823647892364892 planets and then hope that his followers would be naive enough to believe that they're the only life and that he cares about each and every one of them?if christianity is correct, i'd rather go to hell than live an eternal life of "i told you so" with all of the obnoxious christians

[brvheart 1,752]

These are two of my new favorite quotes:

i do not accept that 2+2=4 in every place and time, but it works for me so far, so i'll roll with it.

Where to begin on this one? Let me know the place or time where if you have two apples and get two more apples you don't have four apples. You can substitute anything for apples that can be represented by an integer.

1) it created itself(big bang)but something cannot come from nothing and if there was nothing in the beginning, there would be no volatile gases to create an explosion.2) the universe is eternalno, it would eventually die of heat loss.

What a great understanding of Big Bang theory and Cosmology. There were no volatile gases at the big bang, true, but that's because the concept of gas, or molecules really for that matter, didn't really exist until long after the big bang (long, of course being a relative term).Also, as to number two, the universe dying of heat loss is one of the possible outcomes of the universe as proposed by Friedmann. It's called the Big Chill (not to be confused with the film). It depends on the shape of space-time that exists in our universe which is related to the average density of our universe.

The rules for adding base 2 numbers are simple.0 + 0 = 00 + 1 = 11 + 1 = 101 + 1 + 1= 11For example, adding the two numbers below:(don't forget to carry a one over if the column is 1 + 1 = 10) 10101101 + 1011110 100001011So 2+2 in a different base, would in fact, not be 4.

[Luv4TheDuece 0]

boy this is gonna start an uproar but I have to agree.

Agree with what? Was this even written in English? I gave up trying to find a coherent thought after sentence three.To the OP:If, as I guess, this is another anti-religion rant by the forces of moral relativism that form such a prominent part of this board, then my message to you is to shut up. Really. Just shut up. No one cares about your pseudo-intellectual pablum about the lack of God and the evils of religion. Go read some Nietzsche and leave the rest of us alone who choose to exercise some faith in something other than ourselves. You don't have to believe what people of faith believe. In fact, many people of faith died for you to have just such a right. No need to thank them, but you might take some little care to not denigrate the things they died for.Finally, for a person to come on a forum run by a person who is an avowed Christian, and then castigate that person for writing about their beliefs in their own blog, is the height of stupidity. If you don't like it or do not want to be exposed to religious content, go elsewhere.

what kind of an argument is that?if your gonna post, then at least come with an argument. dont just tell the guy hes stupid and to shut up, what are you in the 3rd grade??i take it no one ever had a debate team at thier HS. it has become clear that DN is no longer the subject of focus on this post, but rather science vs. religon is the main focal point now. there are some really good arguments from both sides on this post, but i have to admit, some of the religous dudes are really pissed off at some of the scientific arguments. why??? the science guys arent calling you morons for believeing in god, they simply are offering a counter point. why not just offer your opinion instead of calling people stupid and to shut up. like that one guy said, debates and discussion are cool as hell(no pun inteneded) but you guys have to at least make some form of an argument. im not saying all the religous statements were crap, some were rather good...but some of them are crapIMPORTANT FACT FOR ALL-more people have died for religon than any other cause in the history of the world...just look at the Crusades, the Middle East, The Conquistadors, 9/11, i could keep going but you get the idea..

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The rules for adding base 2 numbers are simple.0 + 0 = 00 + 1 = 11 + 1 = 101 + 1 + 1= 11For example, adding the two numbers below:So 2+2 in a different base, would in fact, not be 4.

No. You are comparing apples and oranges. There is no 2 or 4 in a base two system. Here's how it really works:2 is the same as 10so: 2 + 2 is the same as 10 + 10=100=4 since:0=01=110=211=3100=4Using a different base is just the same as using different words to label two and four. But the concepts that they stand for are the same.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

These are two of my new favorite quotes:

i do not accept that 2+2=4 in every place and time, but it works for me so far, so i'll roll with it.

Where to begin on this one? Let me know the place or time where if you have two apples and get two more apples you don't have four apples. You can substitute anything for apples that can be represented by an integer.

i can't PROVE to you that 2+2 does not equal 4, any more than i cannot prove to you that time is simply a construct of the feeble human mind. many people, however, have the capacity and finances, to take you up in even a fast airplane, and show you with the use of two atomic clocks, one in the plane, and one on the ground that there will be a MEASURABLE difference in the times they display after a short trip. this is a principle of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Another principle is that the idea of space is also a construct of the human mind. space wraps around on itself and objects such as your apples can be and are, in more than one "place" at a time.this is not fantasy, it is quantum physics, and it has been generally accepted and proven again and again to be true, to the best of our current abilities, since the 1960's.

You are misunderstanding the implications of Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The relativistic time dilation that you describe above does not mean that the basic system of mathematics is wrong. It only means that the way that these mathematics are applied to describe the real world are altered. Quantum mechanics doesn't break the rules of mathematics. On the contrary, it is deeply and beautifully rooted in mathematics. It just changes the type of mathematics that we use to describe the world.And please don't talk down to me about my knowledge of physics or mathematics.

[mosley 0]

okay then, my objects of choice are minutes.the first two minutes will be measured on terra firma. the second two minutes will be measured in said rich dude's airplane.we will then add two minutes to two minutes and see what they equal.does this qualify as a situation where 2+2 is not equal to four or would you like to qualify one of the twos as hurtling-through space-though-in-a-fixed-postion-on-earth2 and the other as hurtling-through-space-in-a-slightly-different-direction2?

[Pupsta 0]

okay then, my objects of choice are minutes.the first two minutes will be measured on terra firma.  the second two minutes will be measured in said rich dude's airplane.we will then add two minutes to two minutes and see what they equal.does this qualify as a situation where 2+2 is not equal to four or would you like to qualify one of the twos as hurtling-through space-though-in-a-fixed-postion-on-earth2 and the other as hurtling-through-space-in-a-slightly-different-direction2?

wouldn't it still be four? taking two minutes from two different places, regardless of the "actual" time elapsed, is still two minutes plus two minutes.

[clowneyas 0]

all you people bitching about where things came from...where did god come from?  if christianity is correct, i'd rather go to hell than live an eternal life of "i told you so" with all of the obnoxious christians

Thank you, oh, thank you, Pupsta! Anyone else see that sign in Vegas at the "biggest gift shop", it's a plaque signed by "God" and it says:"You think it's hot here?"And whoever else said that shi-ot about how "God"-lovers just demean atheists, without providing a good argument, thanks also. It's like arguing with people who support Bush & the Gang. They just scream "liberal, dun't yee know nuttin'" and don't provide a valid argument. And, to repeat, there's a few in here trying to argue with real points (according to Theology, that is), pointing to what scriptures say or whatever, so that's good. That's what I like, factual arguing, even though of course it's still all just heresy, not proveable, but it makes you look a little smarter!And don't forget, big FCP tourney tomorrow night.!"God" vs. "Atheists" --- The Death Battle It'll be for 50 people and a minimum of 10, so I hope to see a lot of people there. It'll be $10, and I think at 7 PM, but I'll post it again when I set it up, around 11 AM.

[mosley 0]

no, it would not be four.it is not the place which changes this but the velocity.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

okay then, my objects of choice are minutes.the first two minutes will be measured on terra firma. the second two minutes will be measured in said rich dude's airplane.we will then add two minutes to two minutes and see what they equal.does this qualify as a situation where 2+2 is not equal to four or would you like to qualify one of the twos as hurtling-through space-though-in-a-fixed-postion-on-earth2 and the other as hurtling-through-space-in-a-slightly-different-direction2?

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. So the two clocks read different times because the time of one has been dilated due to its velocity. So, after two seconds on one (say the one on the plane) the other one will not read two seconds. It will read two seconds and a little bit. Let's call this little bit epsilon. To reiterate, the clocks read as follows:Clock 1: 2 secondsClock 2: 2 plus epsilon seconds.So, let's add the two times as you suggest:2 seconds plus 2 seconds plus epsilon seconds = 4 plus epsilon seconds.What was this trying to prove again?

[mosley 0]

i was trying to and succeeded in proving that by our measurements, we spent two minutes on earth and two minutes at a slightly greater relative speed. the two minutes at greater speed were, indeed, exactly two minutes to us, as were the two minutes on earth. they do not, however equal four minutes when added together.

[Pupsta 0]

i was trying to and succeeded in proving that by our measurements, we spent two minutes on earth and two minutes at a slightly greater relative speed. the two minutes at greater speed were, indeed, exactly two minutes to us, as were the two minutes on earth. they do not, however equal four minutes when added together.

that's like saying "let's add 2 centimeters and 2 inches, i'd bet they won't equal four centimeters!"sigh.

[mosley 0]

i was trying to and succeeded in proving that by our measurements, we spent two minutes on earth and two minutes at a slightly greater relative speed. the two minutes at greater speed were, indeed, exactly two minutes to us, as were the two minutes on earth. they do not, however equal four minutes when added together.

that's like saying "let's add 2 centimeters and 2 inches, i'd bet they won't equal four centimeters!"sigh.

i fail to see how adding minutes to minutes is like adding centimeters to inches.

[Pupsta 0]

i was trying to and succeeded in proving that by our measurements, we spent two minutes on earth and two minutes at a slightly greater relative speed. the two minutes at greater speed were, indeed, exactly two minutes to us, as were the two minutes on earth. they do not, however equal four minutes when added together.

that's like saying "let's add 2 centimeters and 2 inches, i'd bet they won't equal four centimeters!"sigh.

i fail to see how adding minutes to minutes is like adding centimeters to inches.

because you're using a measurement that's measured differently at different locations.let me make sure i'm understanding this correctly. if i'm not, tell me, because i'm surely no expert on the matter.you take a clock and measure it at point A. two minutes elapse.you take a clock and measure it at point B. two minutes elapse, but the two minutes that elapsed at point B would be measured 2.01 minutes by a clock located at point A.either way, two minutes elapse at point a AND point b, so 2 + 2 = 4.

[Steppin Razor 0]

I think it is the Bible that was being obvoxious and pious toward you. If 'MATT' is a Christian, he HAS to believe this verse.

That's a bit absurd. The bible also has verses written that god created the animals and then man, and in the next chapter that god created man and then the animals and brought them to be named by man.It's not meant to be literal, that's why it's so easy to find seemingly contradictory sections of the bible.

LOL. If you think that just because you don't think the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally.... then it's true. Then you are absurb. Christians, "We believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God"Steppin Razor, "No listen, I took this religious studies class at the university and my professor pointed out the there seems to be a contradiction in the Genesis account, so the Bible is just made up."Christians, "Oh crap! Steppin Razor is right! F!uck Christianity!"Give me 1 day and I will post the Christian response to your 'contradiction' claims. My point is that Christians have a plausible reason as to why Genesis is written in such a way, and your.. I mean, your professors opinion makes no difference to them.To many Christians the Bible is infallible, and if an error, or even a small 'contradicition' was found, they would then believe that the entire religon was total crap. Non believers have had 2000+ years to find an unexplainable contradiction, and I could be wrong, but I believe many have tried.

Actually, I went to an Episcopalian Middle and High school, was required to read the bible and study it for two years and attend chapel every Wednesday.The fact that there are different Creation stories does not make the bible fallible or wrong.

So we know that the OT has been around for a long while. We know that Jewish scholars never doubted Genesis 1 and 2 so there must be a reason for this.

There is a reason.

Now the part where u see the contradiction is in verse 2:18-19 in which where God says it is not good for many to be alone so he formed all the beasts. Yes from an english standpoint this makes no sense and i agree with you that it seems troubling. The problem isnt that its a contradiction though, the problem is how the translation reads when switched from hebrew to english. The most correct way to read verse 19 is: "Out of the ground the Lord God HAD formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky,...." now youll see that this no longer contradicts chapter 1. Again that is the problem when you dont read the original language. We are forced to rely on gaining the same meaning from something that wasnt meant to be read in this language. I hope this clears up that for u

I don't know Hebrew, so I can't say I've ever read the Old Testament in its original language. However, I suspect that at some point in history, through the translations and versions of the bible, a pretty accurate translation into English would not be too hard.One can only conclude that this apparent contradiction (note I wrote apparent) has a purpose for being there.There is also Genesis 2:5 to 2:8 which is a different account than chapter 1 of when man was created.I don't want to get into the specifics of this verse or that verse. It's neither here nor there - they can both be true. It was only an example that verses have meaning beyond the literal. Literal, word-for-word-it-can-only-mean-what-it-says is missing the forest for the leaves.

[Suited_Up 2]

i was trying to and succeeded in proving that by our measurements, we spent two minutes on earth and two minutes at a slightly greater relative speed. the two minutes at greater speed were, indeed, exactly two minutes to us, as were the two minutes on earth. they do not, however equal four minutes when added together.

that's like saying "let's add 2 centimeters and 2 inches, i'd bet they won't equal four centimeters!"sigh.

i fail to see how adding minutes to minutes is like adding centimeters to inches.

I fail to see how either one has any bearing on this discussion.

[GodOfEntropy 0]

i was trying to and succeeded in proving that by our measurements, we spent two minutes on earth and two minutes at a slightly greater relative speed. the two minutes at greater speed were, indeed, exactly two minutes to us, as were the two minutes on earth. they do not, however equal four minutes when added together.

I believe the point of relativity that you are misunderstanding is the most fundamental, albeit difficult, one - that by moving from reference frame to reference frame, each observer can arrive at the measurments made by an observer in the other reference frames by simply employing the mathematical machinery of physics. There are no paradoxes in relativity and there are no violations of basic mathematics.

[mosley 0]

sorry, i stand corrected. carry on about your business, nothing to see here.

[guinevar 0]

there is no god.

F'd your P.

You do realize, that to be able to make such a claim, allin, you need to have absolute knowledge, which you do not. To be able to say "there is no god" you have to have complete knowledge of everything.You don't have that knowledge, thus your statement is foolish.

[Pupsta 0]

there is no god.

F'd your P.

You do realize, that to be able to make such a claim, allin, you need to have absolute knowledge, which you do not. To be able to say "there is no god" you have to have complete knowledge of everything.You don't have that knowledge, thus your statement is foolish.

and you making an absolute statement of "there is a god" is equally foolish.