MTG Salvation

Quick question, isn't the whole point of believing in god not believing in science? How can someone believe that the world was created in seven days or from Blagthor's forge while simultaneously believing in science's assertions that it took billions of years of rocks slamming into eachother?

And KurCe, the flying sphaghetti monster... I really am a full-blooded agnostic. As there is no conclusive proof for or agianst the monster I remain open to the posibility of its existance, the same way I remain open to the possibility that I am currently in a coma and halucinating all of this. The willingness to question our current beliefs, no matter how obvious or practical, keeps our minds sharp and our wills strong. Also, it keeps us on the right track - avoiding all the biggest misconceptions and lies.

Quote from bocephus

Here we go again... living off ideas. Manufacturing is a need for a world power. If we become dependent on any other country for anything we are vulnerable in that area. Not to mention the fighting over who thought of what when. People and companies will be spending more time in court fighting over who thought of what when, then it would be worth thinking up 'new' ideas. Again, we need to focus on needs and out produce the world in those needs. Basing your country on ideas to better a want is asking for failure in the long run. I hope I never live to see the masses lined up at court fighting over who thought of something before someone else. It would be worse then the technology spying we have going on now.

As for the credit debate, until they start to mandate the teaching of personal finance in public schools, credit will always be abused. So many 18 and 19 year olds in credit problems so early in life is not good. Some dont know where to turn and that hurts everyone.

Interesting you bring up Bill Gates. He made millions off stolen technology he sold to IBM.

Whazzaaa???

I know I'm echoing the above Phyrexian, but I can't find any better way to respond.

It certainly could be, in the same way that a computer assembled by an intelligent agent is more believable than even a simple screwdriver assembled by the random interactions of natural forces. But then, you begin with the a priori assumption that an extra-natural intelligence could not possibly influence the world. Which is why your next assertion is just more beating of a very dead horse.

Panda, once again you have my argument entirely out of context. While it may seem like an easy correlation between an intelligent designer being more probable than a random connection of parts and Jesus being more likely than... Well, something or other, your argument falls down in twos key areas.

1) While it seems more likely that a computer in the hardware store is built by a guiding intelligence rather than a random set of ocurrances, what happnes if there is evidence to the contrary? What if the chafing around the joining of parts indicates random collisions? What if some parts are significantly older than others? What if the programming is a mix of several languages, rather than a more efficient uniform one? What if the screws are of varying sizes and show evidence of being slammed in at various angles by external force - instead of being placed into pre-drilled holes?

As Jefferson once said, "I'd rather believe that a Yankee Professor would lie than that a stone can fall from heaven". He was talking about meteors. It's easier to believe some scientist made it up then to believe in meteors. But once the evidence starts piling up... Then the Jeffersons have to start eating their words.

We have evidence showing things contrary to the bible. That makes the bible's words suspect.

Moreover, a hyper-intelligent multi-dimensional alien would have an easier time of creating a computer than a lowly human. But this isn't considered because the alien isn't an option, no proof of its existance resides. So, while a god might have an easier time of creating the universe than a set of random colisions, that's only if it exists! If we have no evidence of god, it isn't an option and we have to rely on chance... Same way the alien gets passed over in the computer origin theory.


2) If an intelligent designer is more likely than no designer at all, who created god? Something must have existed first. Which is more likely to exist as a product of the big bang, a bunch of random energy and matter that slowly, very slowly, takes on real forms or a fully intelligent super-being with magical powers? If we assume something must come into being spontaneously, the magical super-being is a lot less likely then some random matter. It's like the monkey types out a string of jiberish instead of the complete works of william shakespere.

Panda... Are you really trying to tell me that a virgin birth that brought forth a magical superman is MORE believable than an improbable series of key pressing? The monkey thing COULD happen in the natural world. The other is not only unlikely but impossible by definition, since religion exists outside natural law.

The train of thought seems to go like this:

1) The events the bible describes couldn't possibly have happened or be explained by any amount of human knowledge.

2) The events in the bible must be true!

3) Since these events must be true and can't be explained by natural forces, the only explanation is that a wizard did it. Err... I mean god.


Notice where the logic falls down? (Hint: Step 2)

I agree that we need to produce things, but I heartilly disagree with the claim that we should manufacture things. I think we should produce ideas, new programs, new chip designs, new ways to improve funtions. Those are a lot more valuable than making a radio. Just compare the wages of a brilliant inventor to a hard-working assembly line.

Also, why on earth is buying on credit bad? There is a major difference between good debt and bad debt. If Bill Gates had refused to take on any debt (being, "fiscally responsible") he would have had to work several lifetimes before saved enough money to start microsoft. Using debt as leverage is essential to building wealth. Of course, it depends what the debt is used on. If the debt buys an inventment yuou wouldn't have been able to afford otherwise... it's good. No one likes taking out student loans but they agree its better than not going to college. The payments suck, but the debt is a good tool. Maxing out a credit card to by new sports car... Bad idea.

We should not, should not eliminate buying on credit. We just need to teach people the difference between good debt and bad debt. Luckily, there's public school for this. I still can't believe the government hasn't made finace, at least personal finance, a requirement nation wide. Espescially since ERISA passed and the DB pension funds were replaced by DC plans (401ks).

Call me crazy, but I think Nicol Bolas is superior to Cruel Ultimatum. Ultimatum is one of my favorite cards ever, but Bolas is just SO much scarier. Since he's not a sorcery and doesn't target a player he can't be messed with by twincast, hindering light or wild ricochet. He's less mana-specific than the ultumatum and costs just one more. In this kind of aggro-control deck that's important. Also, he wins the game no questions asked. He's a terror against creature decks since he's virtually impossible to kill (an awesome +3 ability coupled with creature stealing will do that) his steal ability eats reveillark alive, his plus ability destroys control decks' precious lands (not to mention enchantments such as bitterblossom and oblivion ring... Oh, and the ocassional Ajani Vengeant) and his ultimate ability puts Cruel Ultimatum to shame. If you ever resolve that, there is no possible way your opponent can come back. You can just land lock them while you build back up to do it again and steal any creature they play.

It's possible to come back from an ultimatum. It's also possible to mess with one. Nicol Bolas? Not so much. Just having him in the deck makes your opponents adjust their play.

I much prefer Bolas. He's so good against pretty much everything.

Agreed. Though hilarious in a sad, painful and tragic way for people. Still, schaudenfreude at it's best.

Bant Panorama. Can't get my head around it.

Oy vey! So much theoretical discussion!

Distilling the Argument: Baseless claims are baseless. Acknowledging something as possible isn't as good as proof that it existed. It's possible that I am a monkey who randomly typed all these posts in a way that expresses a logical train of thought and responds to various arguments at appropriate times. That doesn't mean I'm a monkey! Just because an idea COULD be true isn't any base for believing that it IS true.

What's more - the Jesus thing is not even possible by any natural standard. While a monkey COULD type all this out a long-haired superman with mystical powers born to a virgin is outside the realm of natural explanation... Unless you go through spontaneous regrowing of cells and material ressurection and such.... But if we act under the assumption that it was all chance precipitated by natural law then it wasn't supernatural at all and Jesus was no son of God!

And if we act under the assumption that what supposedly happened can't be explained naturally... You can't rationally believe in Jesus until you believe a Monkey is typing this. And a fish. Fish can flop on a keypad you know =).

Yeah, people tend to like those things when they loose confidence in paper assets. They like something they can touch and hold that isn't made up in some stock-broker's book. It's times like these we start talking about going back to the gold standard. It's weird, because gold has no actual inherrant value - it's just a soft metal collectors and jewlers like. It's value is much more artificial than actual commodities like wheat or flour. But it's shiny, got to remember that =).

So yes, I think there will be a lot more gold frenzy spikes in the future.

While I can't say what will happen, or even positively what should happen I can say what looks like is going to happen. Judging from recent surveys surveying the American mood as well as trends of consumer mentality over the past few decades... I think Americans are going to look for other ways to invest their money than the stock market. Even though almost no one thinks this is true, the American consumer has a VERY long term mentality. That's how Wall Street was able to pitch the idea of buying stocks and holding onto them for your entire life. Conversely, we have a desire for immediate gratification which makes us look for good deals on anything and everything in the moment after we've invested whatever percent we feel like. We're not likely to invest extra money, we're likely to spend it.

In short, it seems like Americans will (and have allready) develop a HUGE distrust of Wall Street investments. Usually, this would move money to banks' saving accounts but now said banks are even more distrusted than stock brokers (quite the accomplishment that).

I predict a lot of buying of gold and other commodities. A lot of recent business books about how to invest in so-called, "stable" commodities are being written and widely read. Just check your local book store's business section =). The people who don't do that will hide money under mattresses or invest in government bonds.

But, of course, that's just a guess.

The reason we were the leaders in almost everything is because the rest of the world had just gone through horrific wars. Sure, countries can grab minute advantages from moment to moment but my whole point is that it's not sustainable. We tried to do too much at the same thime and ended up getting beat by opther coutnries that specialized - which is why our products NOW have less international demand.

Bocephus, you're arguing both sides at once. You say we can be the best at everything and we have before and then bemoan how we can't produce the best of much any more - completely ignoring the fact that the main reason we're no longer the best at all this is because we tried to do too many things at once.

If you spread your focuses too thin you can't possibly become great at everything. This is a tried and true and ultimately obvious point - demonstrated in micro and macroeconomics time and time again.

We're not two roommates, the United States is a nation of some 300 million people. And when one of the roommates gets mad at the other they dont just move out as they would in your analogy, they goto war and people die.

Whoozaonthewhatnow? What does this have to do with comparative advantage? Not only is it grossly off-topic for my analogy - but dually profitable trade has been shown to stop wars, not encourage them. Eeither way, that has nothing to do with my analogy. Did you read my entire post? Or was it really that confusing?

Quote from bocephus

Agricultures down fall didnt not come from the lack of slaves.. it came from the american government paying farmers not to grow crops trying to control the market.

Actually, I don't think Agriculture ever experienced said downfall. In fact, that was my whole point - that it flourished despite a lack of slave labor. Less than 2% of America is involved in agriculture and we not only produce enoguh food for ourselves but a good bit of the rest of the world! Paul Erlich predicted that it was a fantasy India would ever feed itself. Didn't happen that way. World food production has mad astonishling leaps over the past century or so. Downfall of agriculture? I think not!

What is americas specialization? We could be the best at whatever we wish.

That is a pretty ridiculous and unforgivably arrogant statement. Face the facts, America isn't the best at everything. Americans aren't born any more intelligent than other cultures (actually, the Chinese language seems far better at encouraging brain development due to its tonal nature) and while our natural resources are nice they aren't the best out there. Besides, its impossible to be both the cheapest manufacturers of base materials and goods like cotton and T-Shirts while at the same time outpreforming everyone else in scientific research. Even if we could, it would be awful to force our citizens into horribly low-paying jobs for the sake of national pride. Paying them more isn't an option, since all commodity-based businesses suceeed because of their low costs!

We're not the biggest country, we don't have the most resources, we CERTAINLY don't have the largest population...

Is there something we can be the best at? Definitely. But we can't possibly be the best at evertything at once. If nothing else, we just don't have enough people to do it all - even if they were all geniuses. Nor should we. That's the basic principle of comaprative advantage, as Blinking Spirit points out. Even if we COULD be the best at everything, we should specialize at doing something so that other countries can find their special talents and all can work more efficiently.

Example: You and your room mate are about to host a party. You're okay at cleaning, you can get the whole apartment cleaned pretty well in two hours. However, you're horrible at cooking. People would literally pay you NOT to cook for them. Your room mate on the other hand is a regular Martha Steart (minus the insider trading scandal). She can clean the whole house in an hour and can cook so well the masters on Iron Chef tremble in muted terror (though it will take her two hours to do so). Since the party is in two hours, how do you divide up the work?

Simple! Your room mate cooks and you clean. Though she can do both jobs better than you, the cost of you cooking is so terrible that everyone's much better off if you clean (unless you really don't like your guests).

So... Not only is it ludicrous to believe that America can do everything better than anyone else - even if we could we STILL shouldn't try to do everything!... Since we can't do everything at once.

Peace Out.

Highroller... this is getting redundant. Every post we ask you to support your position with facts, examples, studies, logic ANYTHING... And you respond by just saying the same things over and over with absolutely no basis!

A question such as, "If god's so good why would he save Joe's baby but not Amy's?" Results in, "You can choose to see the good or the bad in the world." This translates directly into, "No, something doesn't support my opinion doesn't matter, because I can choose to ignore it!"

Someone asks you why theists think they're so special in gods eyes and you reply that, "everyone is special in god's eyes". This doesn't answer anything. It's like me asking, "Why do cars in Oregon have engines?" and you responding, "All cars have engines." Well, sure but WHY DO CARS NEED ENGINES?!?

When finally backed into a corner you hide behind statements about how you can't be wuestioned because you're basing your statements on personal experiences. That's fine. But you need to explain what those experiences are and why they support your opinion! And if you say something like, "I felt god was with me" - that doesn't support anything at all! We need logic, not baseless beliefs. That's the whole issue in the first place.

I'm sorry to say this Highroller, but it DOESN'T all come down to faith. Faith is belief without proof or logic or anything resembling actual reasons for your belief. I must say, you do an excellent job of conforming to this definition.

That's fine.

Just don't post about it in a debate thread.

America was built on slavery too and agriculture worked very efficiently when we had slaves. But that's not an option, it doesn't get to be considered because it's barbaric. War, no matter how economical you might think it is, doesn't get to be considered as the basis for a society. It's just wrong.

And what's so great about being self-sufficient anyway? The whole point of specialization, which is the basis of any and all human progress, is that people should do what they're best at and work together. Why is this different on a country to country basis? Pretty much all modern economics agrees with the idea of comparative advantage - that countries should stick to what they can do best and exhange their prowess with ogther countries who can produce other things more efficently. It just makes sense... Which is refreshing in economics.