Tonto_Icy_Tripod
-
Posts
1.177 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tonto_Icy_Tripod
-
-
Time is our way of describing something we observe (in this case change).
-
200?
-
-
Wasn't it renamed when it became the capital?
-
I'd hate for this to get into a big heated debate, so everyone please think atleast twice before you post
-
227?
-
There is
-
No, POW #1 was the first and only POW that said anything.
Sorry, no such luck
-
I don't quite follow the triangle thingie, but that might be cause I can't seem to think straight right now. I'll take another look tomorrow, and if I can't understand it then, I'll blame it all on you
What should I be relying on if not observation? In fact, observation is the only way to conclude anything, so I wouldn't say that's a fault of physics. Maybe I misunderstood you, but even so, I don't think physics is such a bad thing to use to prove stuff. After all this topic is about technological people and God.What I'm saying here is that obviously, according to physics, matter cannot be created. Seeing as there is matter, and that must have been created somehow at some point, physics is obviously wrong. My point was simply that, physics is used to describe what we can see, and if we can't in some way see it, we can't describe it. In other words, physics explains the world that we see, but that doesn't mean it can explain what we can't see (aka stuff that happened before people started observing, or before there were people). Hope I made it a bit more clear
Well I think I might agree with you if I understand this right. God is above the laws of physics in the universe, as he is the creator of the universe. And physics then, would not be able to understand or prove some of the things he's done. Creating the universe would be one of these.exactly
BTW those two arguements that you likened I don't believe are the same at all. The first you quoted is a more philisopical argument. The second is talking just about matter in the universe. Where did it all come from?I think you can interpret it in different ways. The first time I read it (which was what I based my reply on), was that there is always a loss in some way when energy changes form (heat mostly). That way, the two quotes fit quite nicely together methinks
OTOH, reading it again, I think I see it in a different way. That something cannot create something that is greater than itself. I could be misreading it, in which case I'll use the same excuse as not understanding the triangle
-
Wow, nice post eken
Now I'll try to pick some of it apart -Motion: Since nothing can move itself, there has to be an "unmoved mover", which brought about motion. (personally I think this is a really strong arguement, I'd like to hear what others think )The fault here is that you're relying on physics. The fault with physics is that it relies on observation. In other words, just because something hasn't been observed doesn't mean it can't happen. Basically what I'm saying here is that physics obviously can't explain how it all started. Then how you choose to explain it, whether by disproving physics or by claiming there's a god, is entirely up to every individual.
Descartes (paraphrased): Our idea of a being could not have come from an imperfect source, for the effect cannot be greater than the cause. Thus it must have come from God. (well, I don't exactly understand this one, but alright...)This is basically just this argument
-Matter: A creation supposes a creator. (all creations suppose a creator, but think, where did the matter of the universe come from. I like this arguement too)but in other words.
We all know Pascal's triangleActually..nope. Care to explain?
-
Swedish right now. I just hate reading books 100+ years old, that I have no interest in. I'll hopefully still get an mvg on it though (ig=fail, g=pass, vg=pass with distinction, mvg=pass with...loads of distinction
). -
No idea, so I'll just guess, none?
-
How about...he wasn't the first to speak? The others had both said white before, and been correct, so there were only black beenies left. That of course doesn't explain how the others knew, but it would explain how POW#1 knew.
-
darkness
-
-
(1+sqrt of 13)^2?
-
The US. They'll keep doing that for quite a few years to come I think.
-
Being active has nothing to do with number of topics, but rather active topics. What we have now is very good methinks
Considering the number of members we have now that is. As soon as we get more members, expect the postcount to increase as well 
-
The last one sounds like the easiest
-
-
I missed the game, didn't even know we were playing
I've got no idea what's up with the norwegian team, you've got some great players (solskjaer). With a good coach it'll hopefully get a lot better, which would be fun, since there hasn't been any real competetion in scandinavia the last few years
Now, if only the swedish coaches would understand that the game's about attacking and not defending, I'd start caring again...
-
-
He deserves an A++++++++ for that
-
I stay out of the way of impossible tasks
The hardest thing for me right now is to stay motivated in school, but that's a relatively small problem...
Time ?!
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
Nope. But notice how you can't describe what's happening without using time. First it's in one place, and then in another. Without time that'd happen at the same time, which in reality it clearly doesn't.