McGill university is killing me. I can't focus on anime, can't focus on games. Can't hang out with anyone. It's really lonely being a university student 1000s of kilometres away from home. And McGill is something else
A while ago you said "world war 2 ended when Hitler lost to Russia not because of the American nukes that was only for Japan". To me, this sounded like you were saying the entire Pacific Theater of WW2 was essentially just a side-show. Do you think that's a fair interpretation of what you said, or an unfair one? If the latter, why? And do you still stand by that statement?
I think it is fair to say that it was a side show no matter how many people fought or lost. The centre was Europe and western Asia I.e basically Russia and Europe. The central nations involved were Germany on one side and the allies on the other. Even If Japan surrendered but Germany won against Russia it would not have ended there. And even if Japan did not surrender but 'won' and Germany lost the war would have been over
on 04 June 2017
The war would have been over in the Pacific but not Europe on the one hand, and on the other hand it would have been over for Germany but not for Japan, the US, Britain (Japan attacked their colonies), France (ditto), China, Russia (if they went to war like they had agreed to do), and so on... Honestly, I'm surprised that someone from Pakistan has this opinion. If Japan had "won" the war, you might have been conquered by them! I don't think they cared as much about India as they did about China, but Britain was fighting them from India, and if they took over in retaliation they most certainly would not have allowed Pakistan to break loose.
on 04 June 2017
And by "India" I meant to say the British Raj at the time which split up into India and "Pakistan" including what is now Bangladesh.
on 04 June 2017
We are not talking about local consequences though we are talking about the overall scenario. Even if Japan 'won' whatever that even means if Germany lost its the allies overall victory and similarly of Germany won but Japan didn't it would be the allies lose regardless. Even if Japan conquered India not kuch would have changed they couldn't handle such a massive nation anyways at that point so they would have to come up with a way of getting out. Perhaps Pakistan as we know it wouldn't have existed in that scenario but the overall war was much more Europe centric and Japan was not fighting in Europe that way so
on 04 June 2017
Many of the large players in the war were European, and even the USA adopted a "Germany first" strategy, but that was a strategic choice for what they felt the most efficient way to achieve victory in both theaters was. In terms of war deaths, according to what I skimmed in Wikipedia, deaths of military personnel were about twice as numerous on the European side, but in terms of total (militay and civilian) deaths it's closer, more like 41-43 million EUR and 25-35 PAC, still higher EUR but nowhere near twice as much and nowhere near a "sideshow". And "the war" would most definitely not have been over. Even just on the military side (both deaths and total number of personnel involved) it was still very massive and quite comparable even if not as big (and obviously not where it all started off).
To me it seems as ridiculous to call the Pacific Theater a sideshow to the European Theater as it is ridiculous to call the Western Front (France, Italy, Africa etc.) a sideshow to the Eastern Front, or vice versa. Although some do in fact believe those things.
On a side note, if the island nation of Britain could handle ruling India for many decades I'm not sure why you're so convinced Japan couldn't. Do you just mean they would be too busy trying to rule China instead?
You posted this in my thread and I thought it was kinda off-point but I wanted to answer it as well.
"Tell me one thing. If you know something, then how can you believe it. Believing something is completely different then knowing it. If this world really is a test to test our beliefs, then what would be the point of God revealing himself to is. Then we would not need to belief, we will know and hence the entire point of testing us would be nullified. God, if he exists, can not be perceived by us as he has made us this way. It's like how we can not percieve 4 dimensional or 5 dimensional beings. We have our limitations."
It would be very difficult if not impossible to not believe that which is known.
The test is whether or not to embrace God's commands though, right? If we don't even know if such a being exists at all then the test is invalid.
For example, even if I knew such a being existed I would have to choose whether or not to follow its commands. The revelation would not be problematic to this ultimate choice.
Most people I've encountered will claim that god is perceptible to us. I'm on your side on this one, it's like attempting to deal with an additional dimension.
However, because I'm in agreement with you on this I would expect you to agree that belief in this other dimension or this god is unreasonable since we have no reason to believe it's there.
Well what if the universe around us is all the evidence we need. I believe that there is no conflict of interest between religion and acience and only between modern atheist scientists and religious common people. I also believe that the very fact that everything in this universe has an explanation and follows laws is the best proof that I need to believe in the existence of God. Such perfection can not be random in my opinion. And that is where the difference is. Atheists claim that somehow the universe came to be and somehow the sun came to be and somehow the earth came to be and somehow life came to be and somehow humans came to be while I believe that there is a Guiding Hand that governs the universe and responsible for its creation. I also believe that humans are being tested in this world and hence we have to suffer from our mistakes and hence the world is in such a poor state.
on 10 January 2016
You need to do more to support your ideas than just make statements like "The Universe is evidence for the existence of a god."
Connect some dots. What in particular about the Universe leads you to the conclusion that there is a god?
Religion is faith-based, science is evidence-based. This seems to be a contradiction of ideals, no?
The Universe doesn't *follow* laws. The laws of nature are descriptive not proscriptive, which is to say that we have a mathematical model which offers predictions, it describes the behavior, it doesn't demand it.
What perfection?
We know how stars and planets form. If you want to learn about it, take an astronomy course.
Stating your beliefs is not fruitful. Explaining why you have said beliefs is all which interests me.
on 10 January 2016
Well what I am trying to say is that I dont understand how random events gathered enough energy for the big bang to occurm I dont understand how in a reaction in which equal amounts of matter and antimatter are supposed to form and simultaneously destory each other dissipating energy in the process, but equal amounts dont form and destroy each other just because. I am not some expert physicist but to me when these scientists show evidence that says creation was random, it further makes me think there is God
on 11 January 2016
No one understands it. It's possibly unknowable. But you know what the answer to a question that is unknowable is?
"I don't know" (honest)
NOT "god did it" (dishonest)
One of the purposes for the search for the Higg's boson was to understand why matter seemingly won over antimatter.
Why do you keep saying creation? In layman terms it could be described as such, but no physicist would call it a creation event, at least not in the ex nihilo (out of nothing) sense you are suggesting.
Maybe you're alluding to Lawrence Krauss's book "A Universe from nothing" but *nothing* here is equivalent to the *quantum vacuum* not a literal nothingness.
on 11 January 2016
Well that is it right there. We know that the big bang is what we think started the universe. But what was before that and where did energy for this to occur comes from. We are creations regardless of whether random events created us or Someone did, so I call the universe a creation. We also do not understand time and how it works and we need it to understand the beginning and whether there is one. There are so many things we do not understand and perceive and believing that God was responsible for those things does not imply that we cannot understand them and should just give up. I think everything has an explanation and if there is God, then I think and hope that he created it this way so that we can one day understand it.
on 12 January 2016
You're not asking the right questions, or rather you are but they are not quite right.
Instead of where did energy come from, you should be asking whether or not energy has always existed. If not, how did it come about, rather than where did it come from.
These are open questions.
Ah, I understand how you're using creation now. Same way I would say "I created a table".
What's bizarre is that you seem to understand that these are questions without answers yet, but you seem to think that there is a god which it in and of itself an unanswered question.
on 13 January 2016
God if he exists would be the biggest anomaly. I can say nothing further about Him. Also I am also saying how did energy begin and hence where it came from? Di an omnipotent and omnipresent being provide it. So I guess if we can fid where the energy came from(its orgin) then we can verify God's existense ir lack thereof. But that is where science is yet not or may ever not be advanced enough to confirm its origin
on 14 January 2016
Using god as an example, suppose that he reaches into the Universe. Did his arm "begin to exist" when it entered the Universe since he is not bounded by time?
Could energy not function the very same way?
Even going the other route, the question is not where did energy come from, which makes no logical sense, but how did energy come about.
Energy doesn't require space (a "from") to exist.
My point is that your belief in a god doesn't seem to have formed from reason or evidence.
on 15 January 2016
Well using my brain and my logic, I am deducing that there is God but I am also capable of understanding that we can never find "proof" of his existense directly. That is why I believe and do not know whether he exists. The day you or I find proof of his existence we will stop believing anything and know. Besides proof is a tricky word and scientists use cicumstantial "proof" for many hypothesis so can we not use circumstantial evidence to believe in God. Also when I say where energy comes from, I am not implying that there is a physical location from where it comes but I am talking about its origin. When we talk about something's origin do we not say where? Instead of who,why,when and such. So not a physical origina and as you said not an origin in time which is relative, but if you believe that energy was always just existent then your beliefs are more ludicrous then a crazy man. Also think of it like a 3d man creating a 2d video game world. He does not have to put his hand inside the screen to make changes but knows the programming and functions of the world and alters them. Hence God does not need to manifest or 'exist' in our world no more then an artist in his painting or a desiner in his virtual world. He can alter anything and everything by saying 'Be' and it is. Our perception, logic, proof, reason and science is all relative and nothing completely set in stone so think about that and reply.
on 16 January 2016
And regarding the first thing you wrote about the test being invalid is like saying you know the right answer and the test is whether you write it or not. Ofcourse if you know the right answer then you'll right it unless you are really thick headed. So the test ia still what is the right answer and whether there is only one. Its like an esaay ehere there is no correct answer but a number of thinga which you write are completely wrong. So I believe that even if you just write proper grammar or spelling or convey your idea properly then the test taker is generous enough to forgive you. Also my religion always puts human rights above God's rights and always prefers forgiveness over revenge and says that saving one life is like saving humankind and taking one innocents life is like killing humanity. So humanity is the chief principal and everything else comes second
on 16 January 2016
And regarding the first thing you wrote about the test being invalid is like saying you know the right answer and the test is whether you write it or not. Ofcourse if you know the right answer then you'll right it unless you are really thick headed. So the test ia still what is the right answer and whether there is only one. Its like an esaay ehere there is no correct answer but a number of thinga which you write are completely wrong. So I believe that even if you just write proper grammar or spelling or convey your idea properly then the test taker is generous enough to forgive you. Also my religion always puts human rights above God's rights and always prefers forgiveness over revenge and says that saving one life is like saving humankind and taking one innocents life is like killing humanity. So humanity is the chief principal and everything else comes second
on 16 January 2016
And regarding the first thing you wrote about the test being invalid is like saying you know the right answer and the test is whether you write it or not. Ofcourse if you know the right answer then you'll right it unless you are really thick headed. So the test ia still what is the right answer and whether there is only one. Its like an esaay ehere there is no correct answer but a number of thinga which you write are completely wrong. So I believe that even if you just write proper grammar or spelling or convey your idea properly then the test taker is generous enough to forgive you. Also my religion always puts human rights above God's rights and always prefers forgiveness over revenge and says that saving one life is like saving humankind and taking one innocents life is like killing humanity. So humanity is the chief principal and everything else comes second
on 16 January 2016
Okay, well provide this logic that leads to the conclusion that a god exists. I'd be happy to review it as someone fully credentialed in this capacity.
Yes, we do say where did it come from because we're talking about things in the Universe itself which is a 3D space + time. It makes sense in this abstraction, but not in yours.
In what way is it "ludicrous" to say that energy has always existed? If existence itself is comprised of energy, then it necessarily is this way since it would be self-contradictory to say that existence does not exist.
The test is invalid because it's contingent upon an unknown.
on 17 January 2016
Well if existence is dependent upon energy then the question becomes "What was there before 'existence' if anything and how did 'existence' 'come about'?" I mean come on you cannot think that energy goes back to infinity and was just.... I dont know what word to use now because every time I use a word figuratively u take it literally. Also tests are unknown, if you knew your sat test or A level test or any test then you would score a perfect grade and many times the answer is in the question and you just have to look close enough. Something along the lines of "we cannot verify conclusively if God exists but are there signs in the universe that we fail to see or just dont want to see. If so, shouldn't we try our best to verify those signs instead of just opposing or supporting our stubborn beliefs.
on 18 January 2016
Also until then, both sides are in the dark and just have to base everything on feelings and what you feel in their gut. Just as there is no direct proof of the Existence of God there is no direct proof of the reverse. So no matter how much you or I or anyone discusses either there really is no God or He is watching us and since I am no god I cannot tell what He is thinking.
on 18 January 2016
I didn't say it was a dependency. I said it could be what comprises existence. The essence of existence, the materia of reality.
It is not coherent to ask what is before existence. Existence is necessarily existent as previously mentioned.
If I may, you seem to believe that existence is comprised of nothingness, then suddenly there was *stuff*. This is creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing), and it has never been established as a metaphysical possibility.
However, is it even coherent to say that that existence is comprised of nothingness? I say no, because it makes no sense to consider nothingness a something. It is distinctly the absence of something.
If I'm taking a maths test, maths exists. The god test doesn't function the same way, because, well no one knows if god exists.
There is no reason to believe in a god without evidence. Same reason you do not believe there are horses on Pluto. No evidence.
on 18 January 2016
But there is evidence that horses do not exist on pluto. I am saying there is no evidence to support the contrary. Its like we do not know whether an eleventh or further dimension exists and we cannot say it does not exist because there is no eveidence to support its existence. Why is that? Because no evidence states otherwise. It is in neutral zone. In this case antagonists are right there as they say God can or cannot exist. But again it is what you feel. Also why does the burden of proof of his existence only lie with His believers. Why not does the burden of proof of his nin existence lie on the athiests? You tell me why you think or know or believe that God does not exist? and do not say that its because no proof of his existence has been found. Also one final note that If I am all powerful and do not want to be found out by my creation in a conclusive way then there is no damn way I'll be found. Who knows why if there is a God He does not want to be found. Maybe he thinks this is entertaining or something that we as His creations cannot perceive or ever even think of?
on 19 January 2016
Sorry wrote antagonist instead of agnostic
on 19 January 2016
Fair enough about the horses. However, if I say there are creatures on Pluto you would have no reason to believe it unless there existed evidence.
There are two schools of thought on the god's existence camp - one thinks god intervenes in human affairs, the other does not.
If god intervenes we would expect evidence of this intervention, would we not? For example, if you claim there is an invisible elephant in my room and I use thermal imaging, fill it with balloons, etc, and there is no evidence of an elephant, then I can indeed conclude that no invisible elephant is in my room because I've exhausted the possibility. The same principle can apply to god, if he intervenes.
The second camp is much more difficult to deal with, so I don't bother. I simply note that in this case it is inconsequential whether or not a god exists at all.
One thing to note about atheism is that the dictionary definition only defines what is called strong or positive atheism, those who would claim no gods exist.
The other form of atheism is more akin to agnosticism, it's called negative or weak atheism. This camp only rejects the theistic claim on lack of sufficient evidence, but does not make a claim of its own.
And to your last point - this proves the unfairness of say a Christian god for example. Because it's not about accepting Christ, it's about even suspecting such a being exists.
on 19 January 2016
Well to add to your comments I woild just say that if I create a game and know all its codes then if I change the game, will the characters in the game recognize the changes I made. Ofcourse they wont so can that not apply to an Almighty All Powerful CREATOR of the universe. Also God in my opinion has made checks and balances and rarely if ever needs to interfere with this system. If He knows everything that will happen is happening and will ever happen there's not much He needs to change and can do it through His creation. If kings did not do anything themselves Do you think The King of Everything cant do that.
on 20 January 2016
I don't think the analogy even makes sense. A character in a computer game can't *recognize* anything since it's not a conscious agent.
So you do believe that a god of the intervening variety. Then we should have evidence. What exactly is it?
on 20 January 2016
Sorry for such a really extremely late reply but whose to say we are conscious agents at all.
Metallox said: I think he's done. The better question is, when is Bernie getting the nomination? And does he stand a chance against Trump? I don't think he does that hot online... A lot of people are inclined to agree that the Democratic bid is destined to fail and that it's going to be a park walk for Trump. That's honestly what concerns me.
If anyone can best Trump, it's Bernie. A...
VG$ 1,530.00
