Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Omnicent vrs Omnipotent vrs Logic

Okay, so we have Omnicent, and Omnipotent.
Omnicent: All knowing
Omnipotent: All powerful.
Logic: You should know what this is.

Given:
God = Omnipotent
God = Omnicent

If god is Omnicent, god knows his future def: Omnicent
If god is omnipotent, he can change his future def: Omnipotent
However, god already knows that he will function: Omnicent
change his future.
But at the same time, god can make it so he function: Omnipotent
can not know his future.

Something is wrong here.

Lets throw in free will.

Free Will: Ability to make choices.
Given:
God has free will:

God already knows his future Def: Omnicent
God has free will Given
God's future is already set out for him. Def: Omnicent

Something is also wrong here. Do you have free will if I tell you that you must do this and that? In god's mind, he knows that he will do this and that, and any changes in his thinking he already knows (Adams Gods Debris).

Okay, we'll throw in people.

Given:
People have free will.
God gives you the choice of hell or heaven.

God already knows the future Def: Omnicent
People have free will Given
God gives you the choice that you Given.
can go to hell or heaven.
God knows what your choice will be Def: Omnicent

This also makes no sense, because god isn't giving you a choice. He knows where you're going to go beforehand.

And so. I leave you off with this thought.
And another one.

"First, we postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving?
I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant.
There are two possible conditions:
One, if hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase exponentially until all hell breaks loose.
Conversely, if hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.

We can resolve this question with the 1990 postulation of Theresa LeClair, the girl who lived across the hall from me in first year residence. Since I have still not been successful in obtaining sexual relations with her, condition two above (hell freezing over) has not been met, and thus it can be concluded that condition one is true, and hell is exothermic."

Monday, January 23, 2006

Stop trying to justify yourself unless you're actually in it.

Recently, many politicians justify the War in Iraq as, "to free the people," and, "Saddam is a dictator." However, what you fail to realize is that, those two justifications coming from a politician (Bush as an example), is just playing the people. I offer my condolences to those who have lost their sons, daughters, brothers, mothers, etc in Iraq, and I can understand why you would say both of them. You would say such things because you lost a family member or a close friend on a fool’s errand. And by saying this, it makes you feel better that he hasn't died in vain.

I agree with that. What I don't agree is the politicians saying that it is fully justified to say such things. And that we're fighting for American Freedom. Look Mr. President; unless your daughters are blown apart, or decapitated on the front lines, you have NO right to say, "We did this to protect our freedom." You have nothing to justify with your loss. Why? Because you havn't lost it.

Now, I'm not going all out Michael Moore on this, because quite frankly, I hate him as much as the next republican (Yes, it IS possible you jackass). Especially after he started asking mourning senators if they would send their sons to Iraq when that actually did happen and they actually did die. And then saying, "SEE? HAHAHAHHA THEY DON'T WANT TO SEND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS OFF TO IRAQ!!!!"

Michael Moore, do some research before you make it more painful for those who DID lose family members.

But really. Unless you HAVE, you have no right to say, "For freedom." Because quite frankly, people who lost close people want to justify their act. And yes, I did say Justify, because the War in Iraq is a Fools Errand.

1. It's not for American Freedom. American Freedom is staying here fighting off the Ruskies when they invade.
2. It's also not freeing the people of Iraq. Okay, maybe it is, but there are countries that are in dire need of such, "liberation." Iraq is by far not the worst of it.
3. Saddam oppressed his people. Blah blah blah. African war-lords oppress their people. They make Saddam look like a benevolent dictator.
4. I'd rather let the terrorist train in their camps with paper targets than give them actual combat experience.
5. It's not for oil. And I remember the days when we were pissed that we were spending more than 2 bucks a gallon.

So really. I hope you've learned from this, that justifying the war in patriotic words is just disgraceful. You have no right to do so. Those who DID lose family members do.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Republicans cheer and I lose a few more brain cells.

Anti-porn laws.

First thing: It's depressing that people actually fight for this.

Anyways.

1. Several of the highly conservative people are considering the restriction of the internet. Namely, porn. This is under the, "Child Protection Act," which will be hitting the courts soon. And all I have to say is, I think American politicians are being especially retarded when they came up with the idea of this.

As a disgruntled disheveled person would say,
"Don't you have anything better to do?"

Making laws against porn is a new low for America.

2.
Parents, your kid is FINE if he sees a set of breasts. Okay? He's not going to socially impaired, he's not going to be mentally scarred, there JUST BREASTS. I mean, there are things out there that you should be wary of. Such as internet stalkers, hackers, that guy who comes and goes dumpster diving through your trash. THERE IS STUFF THAT CAN HARM YOUR CHILD. Porn is among the ones that wont.

Furthermore, if you're going to complain about this, you only have yourselves to blame. If you're so worried about your child seeing porn, don't give them internet access. Or better yet, hang over their shoulders while they're on the net (Would probably solve net-stalker issues). You get my point?

3.
The government budget is better spent on other things than this. If you're so bent on solving the internet problem, give it a security overhaul. The internet is crawling with these viruses and stuff because the creators of it never thought the internet would go public. More or less, it was just a research tool that everybody would use (similar to JSTOR). You can fix that with the government budget. But passing bills like this is just a waste.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Intelligent Design is NOT SCIENCE

For those of you readers (If any of you still remain), who believe in Intelligent Design as science, get that out of your head. Because it's not. Even if Intelligent Design is the reason of our existence, it is still not science.

Science:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomenon.

Intelligent Design:

A theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance

Now look at the definition of Science closely, and the definition of Intelligent Design. There is no observation, identification, description, or experimental investigation. The closest thing Intelligent Design comes to is theoretical explanation, but that alone cannot hold intelligent design up as science.

As I will state again
Even if Intelligent Design was the reason of our existence, it is still not science. Therefore, it should not be taught in science.

What many of you must realize is that people use Intelligent Design as a panacea of all scientific flaws. For example, one of the leading arguments of Intelligent Design is the bumblebee. The basic premise surrounding the entire controversy is that a bumblebee does not agree with the laws of aerodynamics. It shouldn't fly.

However, recently (as in this month), scientists have discovered how a bumblebee flies. The bee basically functions as a racecar. It burns a lot of energy to achieve flight.

So as you can see, many people use Intelligent Design to patch up holes. However, what you must realize is that there are things that Science has yet to discover. If we do not have the information now, you cannot say, "Hey look, this is Intelligent Design!"

Furthermore, Intelligent Design cannot be considered a theory. A theory must correlate with several boundaries.

The theory must be:

· Guided by natural law,

·Explanatory by natural law,

·Testable against the empirical world,

·Tentative, and

·Falsifiable


Now, right then and there, Intelligent Design cannot work with any of those definitions given. It is not guided by natural laws, nor is it explained by natural laws. The entire point of Intelligent Design is that some thing or some one came down and created nature. That is purely artificial. Intelligent Design is not even testable, for the reason that we have nothing to test with. Darwinism at least has observation and can place animals in a scenario where we can observe how they change. But Intelligent Design has neither.

Furthermore, it cannot be falsifiable. Even with the lack of any evidence, we still cannot get around the entire problem of.....something that leaves no traces behind. For example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

"Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease. accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course"

What is sad about this example is that it fits every description of Intelligent Design. So by teaching Intelligent Design, you can also teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The only difference of either, "theory," is that one has a somewhat accepted name, and the other one is outrageous.


Furthermore, there is no legitimacy behind ID. Like I stated before, it is just a panacea of all scientific holes that have yet to be discovered. They state that there is evidence, but the flying spaghetti monster also has evidence behind its existence.

" I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."


Yeah. That's it.

Friday, January 13, 2006

Stop Complaining about Engineers

Year after year, companies complain about the lack of Engineers.

Well, stop complaining.

Truth be told, many view the engineering department to be a waste of time. In America, no one wants to be an Engineer. They're not paid enough for what they do. Your Engineer, has to be making at LEAST 70k a year on a 9-5 basis (Not even Masters here). Why? Because there's a lot of work gone into an Engineer. If you're going to study 10+ hours a day and get a 40k job, it's not worth it. Many ask, "Why is that Business Major making more money than me? Why does that person with a Teaching Degree have a job already?"

Business, you're partly to blame for this. You over-pay your management section, and you outsource your RnD section.

Another problem with being an Engineer is the entire American mind-set. Some may realize that foreign countries, especially those from the East graduate more Engineers. Reason being, the people in the East like engineers. Here, the engineers get the crap kicked out of them. For example, in Japan, the person who does well in school is respected. The people here who are bright are the one's who write pathetic posts on friday nights. Main point being: America, you are to blame for your lack of Engineers.

Sunday, January 01, 2006