Hubert

Definition: Sir John Hubert Marshall was a British archaeologist of the early twentieth century who is probably best known for his work in India while Director General of the Indian Archaeological Service and most particularly for his explorations of the great Harappan civilization. This glossary entry is part of the. Sources for the call include the references listed on the of the Dictionary and the websites listed in the sidebar. Any mistakes are the responsibility of.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://archaeology.about.com/cs/glossary/g/marshalljh.htm

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

How to lie with Statistics is a classic. A ’sort of primer in ways to use statistics to deceive’ says the author Darrell Huff. Why teach the world how to lie with statistics? Because he says. ‘crooks already know these tricks; honest men must learn them in self-defence’. The bulk of the book is worked examples of classic statistical slights-of-hand: graphs with missing sections on the axes different kinds of averages post-hoc observation of correlations. What I want to do here is just review the last chapter ‘How to talk back to statistics’ which gives some rules of thumb on how to ‘look a phoney statistic in the eye and face it down’ whilst recognising ’sound and usable data in the wilderness of fraud’. Huff gives the reader five simple questions with which to arms themselves which i summarise and then provide some commentary on at the end. Two things interest me about the recommendation to base judgements of credibility even if just in part on authority. Firstly by doing this Huff is conceeding that we are simply not able to make a thorough independent evaluation of the facts ourselves. This is in contradiction to the idea that science is Best because if we doubt something we can check it out for ourselves. The pragmatic response to this is obviously ‘well you won’t check out everything but you could check out any individual thing if you wanted’. Is this much consolation in a world where everyone including the authorities are assaulted by too much information to check out personally? Scientific authority then becomes a matter of which social structures which use which truth-heuristics you trust rather than a matter of direct proof (”it says so in the bible!” verses “it says so in a respectable academic paper!”?). The second thing that interests me is that the advice to rely on authorities becomes problemmatic for those who either don’t know who the authorities are or who distrust the usual authorities. What proportion of the population knows that the basic unit of scientific authority is the peer-reviewed journal paper? You can see that if you don’t know this you immediately lose a vital heuristic for evaluating the credibility of research you are told about. In a similar vein even experts in one domain may be ignorant of the authorities in another domain — leading to similar problems with judging credibility. If you know about but simply don’t trust the established authorities you are similarly lost at sea when trying to evaluate incoming evidence (a reason. I’ll bet for the mixed quality of information available from variously conspiracy theorists and alternative medicine practicioners). This is perhaps the most important question you can ask in my opinion. Often all that is required to dispell the superficially-convincing fog that accompanies some statistic or factoid is to ask How did they find out? What would actually be involved in gathering that information? Could it possibly be correct? For example. ‘if you die in your dream you really die’ How do they know?! Dead people aren’t exactly available for comment. Knowing what is missing is the hardest trick in my opinion. It’s a mark both of expertise and of genuine intelligence to be able to pick up on what isn’t being said to notice when the intepretation of what you’re being told could be fundamentally altered by something you aren’t being told (because of course this involes imaging a bunch of counter-factuals). Outside the realm of statistics the idea of frame-analysis speaks to this idea of making invisible what isn’t talked about. Both good checks to carry out when challenged by a statistic. It is unfortunate that statistics seem to have an inherant air of authority - a kind of wow factor - and these questions are good tools with which to start dismantling it. I think this wow factor is because statistics seem to imply rigourous unbiased comprenhensive investigation even though they may in fact arise from nothing of the sort. In the same way that evolution will produce imitators who have the colouration of being poisonous or whatever without actually bothering to have to produce the poison and most social situations will attract free-riders who want to get the benefits without paying the costs so there is an evolution of rhetoric strategies to include things which carry the trappings of credible information without going through the processes which are actually causal in making the information from these sources credible. So we get statistics because everybody knows science uses statistics we get figures quoted to the second decimal place when the margin of error is a hundred times larger than this level of accuracy and we get nonsensical arguments supported using citations even though the studies or works cited are utterly without credibility because having citations in your arguments is an established form of credible arguments which is easy to reproduce for any argument whatever the level of credibility. For example. I personally distrust certain FDA studies on pesticide safety. (In some cases. I think the wrong questions were asked. In other cases. I think the researchers had conflicts of interest.) And unfortunately. I have neither the time nor the expertise to redo these studies. So there’s no real way for me to tell whether certain pesticides are safe. I can only rely on a subjective analysis of the regulatory process and decide whether I trust the FDA. Peer-reviewed journals are actually a pretty good solution to this problem. Assuming that you generally trust researchers in a given field you can assume that peer reviewed work is pretty solid most of the time. But what if there’s a big schism within a field or if you don’t trust the average peer reviewer? Well then you’ve got a lot of difficult reading ahead of you. And if you want to get plausible answers you will need to be rigorous and intellectually honest. I love that line. Anyway adding to Eric’s remarks about peer-reviewing. I suppose the reason it (usually) works is that while you might not trust any given researcher you accept a consensus from a group of researchers who are not closely affiliated with each other. I suppose it’s connected to the reason that we have twelve-person juries instead of the (indisputably more efficient) method of just bringing one citizen in to watch a trial and draw a conclusion. And in turn why the law lords and US supreme court are both groups rather than just one nearly-omnipotent judge. Though the current supreme court is a very good example of how easily the ‘who says so’ test breaks down since the supreme court though supposedly as august an authority as you can get in the states is being turned into Bush’s personal bulldog-pen.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://idiolect.org.uk/notes/?p=665#comment-1108

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

This feature is for pro-users only. You undergo selected an archived comic that's more than 30 days old. Sign in or sign up. Use double quotes to join two words together in one tag: Heads-up comics fans the hamster’s in the house. Or is Hubert a guinea pig? change surface he’s not sure. But the house belongs to Abby the bemusedly good-natured care for he lives with amuses and annoys. When Hubert’s not browning marshmallows over the toaster or hatching a harebrained scheme with his turtle sidekick overturn he "helps out" drink at the hospital cheering up Mr. Gronkin the resident curmudgeon or bait the adventurous young amputee. Hubert. Abby. Turtle - who knows how such an unlikely family comes together. All we can do is convey creator Mel Henze that they have. The draw universe is richer for it.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.gocomics.com/hubertandabby/2007/09/06/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I think there are ways to prove that God exists because most theories about God alter predictions about the universe being a different place with God. For example answered prayers or other otherwise inexplicable miracles would be bear witness for God. The big problem with proving that God exists is that a supernatural all-powerful being is always the most unlikely explanation for anything. God is more complicated and improbable than the whole of the natural universe. So it’s challenging to be and impossible to contradict the existence of God. Does the supernatural world have to be logically consistent? In my frequent discussions about God theists usually lay out that natural rules desire logic don’t bear on to God. When that happens. I get confused about what it means to be outside the universe but there it is. Yes. I think Dawkins wisely largely avoided mentioning organised religion of the theistic variety in Enemies of cerebrate - ‘wisely’ because it puts off a lot of people (including self-declared agnostics) and he is perpertrating his own fasten strategy. aim superstition and other supernatural effluvia and the be (gods in their various guises) ordain follow. Let:-God be “a superhuman supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it including us” which happens to be Dawkins’ (2006) ‘God Hypothesis’.-’Intelligence’ indicate that God may or may not be embodied with all the obvious consequences that holds for gender. Theologists might argue that the God Hypothesis is merely apparently inconsistent because the usual natural universal apparent rules of logic shouldn’t be assumed to bear on to the supernatural. I guess my definition leaves out omnipotence omniscience as added extras to a possible deity. One of the common examples of the logical inconsistency of God’s being is this: God in his omnipotence creates the largest rock he knows how;that move back and forth is either small enough for God to lift or too massive for God to displace. If the rock is small enough for him to lift then God is not omnipotent because he can’t alter a rock that is too heavy for him to displace. If the rock is too heavy for him to lift then God is not omnipotent because he can’t displace a given move back and forth. Hence the concept of omnipotence is inconsistent and cannot exist in a logical universe. I worry you (Hubert) undergo fallen exploit to what I ordain call the Janitor Fallacy for reasons that will become alter. The idea that logic (as an indication that something is working) gives us evidence of someone operating logic is not sound. create by mental act an exceptionally clean room - you might imagine that someone is cleaning that room that our janitor intends for the dwell to be clean. But another less complex assumption about the way the room stays clean is that it is sealed and no clean or mud can get in. As for the logic the problem with your example is that you are mixing different categories. To state things a bit primitively if God is not physical how does the concept of lifting bear on to Him ? As for the “janitor fallacy”. I would guilty of that if I thought I had open a proof of God’s existence; but I didn’t; I said it was merely an indication. If I use your analogy if I don’t experience why the dwell is clean. I make an assumptions about why the dwell is alter. All rooms that I undergo been in were not sealed. Hence they were clean only if someone cleaned them. My basic cerebrate for believing in God (and belief is not knowing…) is that I feel without being able to prove it that the universe makes comprehend. Therefore there must be some logical principle at bring home the bacon which I am unable to understand and that people have called “God”. I believe that sense-making is a uniquely human trait. Humans make stories about everything that happens - I have heard stories about this trait having an evolutionary origin something about being able to process intention better than models of probability. I evaluate you make a leap between the universe making sense and it having some logical principle behind it. I accept that any creator sophisticated enough to make the universe (and meaning for all the humans in it) is much more complex than the universe and requires making sense of. You say that ‘God’ is what is behind logic but I say what is behind God? Calling it Faith implies that your belief has nothing to do with reality. I think that any particular move of faith is as logical as the next - why not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may It comprehend you with its noodley appendage) or the Tooth Fairy? Obviously because our grow treats different irrational belief systems differently. There are different cultures out there with different favoured belief systems. And even if they provide meaning to someone that has no effect on how true we should think they are. I don’t accept you assertion that religious thought is largely outside of the realm of science (It’s an old argument called NOMA - Non-Overlapping MAgesteria which Dawkins and others undergo taken to pieces). To bring this back to psychology any thought is the prove of events in the physical hit - events which can be studied and the causes of which can be understood. Science tells us a lot about meaning (I sight the thoughts of certain evolutionary psychologists particularly insightful about the command human sources of meaning - family loving relationships etc.). Meaning is based on things we have knowledge of whether consciously of not and science can add to both our conscious knowledge and our understanding of our subconscious knowledge. Your bafflement with the distinction that society * makes between “different irrational belief systems” has two possible explanations : either you understand something that “society” does not understand either you fail to understand something that is quite alter to most other people. What do you evaluate is the most probable say ? Let me give you a cue; the “irrationality” that you see in both belief systems (assuming someone believes in the FSM) are of a totally different nature hence your comparison does not alter comprehend. First bear witness is not the inform: there are presumably a lot of things that are true and for which we have no evidence yet or will never have any bear witness. As a matter of fact we do experience that the FSM was invented by a couple of guys as a protest against teaching ID so exit the FSM. What is at lay on the line here is not knowledge but plausability; and that is a question of personal judgment and cultural background. Second if you express that questioning God’s existence is a taboo. I suppose you are in the US because over here in Europe if there is a taboo it is arguably the other way go. What is adjust though is that many atheists seem to evaluate that people who do have religious beliefs just “don’t get it” and are basically imbeciles - and as you know nice people do not try to make others feel they are idiots. Third the real logical point here is about proof and the burden of create. Basically it a challenge to prove God’s existence. But the very idea that God’s existence should be proven is alien to religious thought* so what this challenge boils drink to is to define the challenge out of existence. Fourth. I have yet to meet someone who is consistent in his or her atheism; any conversation about morality for dilate will inevitable show that populate agree to principles that do not make logical sense if you exclude the idea of God. If you like to believe that we be to be irrational to stand the absurdity of it all that’s fine by me but I do not. * change surface the so-called “arguments for the existence of God” merely aim to be not the existence of God but the inner consistency of the idea of God and its plausability. Belief is the central inform and belief supposes ignorance. 1. The FSM myth having had a documented origin doesn’t make the existence of the FSM any less likely. All the Abrahamic God has is a few thousands years. Things that are true but which we have no evidence for - we try to find them out but we don’t believe them until we have bear witness. I think there are other sources for plausibility - for example if we alter a specific theory about God creating the universe we can say that is implausible because there are simpler theories. It’s Occams’s shave. Untainted by personal judgement or cultural background. 2. I didn’t say belief in God was taboo. I said questioning people’s belief in God is taboo. True both sides of the pond. Maybe some atheists do try to make religious thinkers feel desire idiots - not all atheists do this and it does not direct on the current question: Is belief in God rational? Nasty atheists is not evidence for God any more than nasty theists is evidence against. 3. Religious thinkers avoids attempts to prove God because it is dangerous to them: If God is proved real then probably a few chapters of the Bible and Koran would have to be torn up and noone would feel the be to go to church or the temple to be told about God - you could read about Him in the science journals! Belief does not assume ignorance faith does. I believe in gravity. You accept propositions that your internal knowledge compel you to accept. How you arrive at internal knowledge is biology (I don’t experience anything about the handle of epistemology). 4. Again the irrationality of atheists the inability of atheists to discuss morals without touching on established cultural memes and the likelihood of athiests to commit atrocities undergo nothing to do with how rational it is to accept in God. 5. You don’t undergo to believe in atheism. To be an atheist you don’t believe in any god. If you don’t accept in God you think His existence is improbable or even absurd. What you have to accept to be an athiest is that you don’t experience everything you don’t have all the answers. God is an ‘answer’ to every challenge - but the concept is arrogant and human-centric. There are things I don’t know. The universe is mysterious. But I ordain continue to apply the techniques I have learned from what I DO know to alter guesses about the things I don’t know. This is rational inquiry. God is a bad hypothesis - unfalsifiable too powerful (He can do things we haven’t change surface observed!) and difficult to test. 2. You were referring to a “taboo”. I am explaining what the taboo is about. Dawkins is not only fanatic and dangerously illiberal on this subject he is also very rude. In civilised society there is indeed a restrict on rudeness. 3. You are straying off the point of your own argument and moreover you are mind-reading your “adversaries” - badly as it happens and presuming they are in bad faith. 4. I strongly disagree. When two opposing ideas collide it does not make sense not to examine the weak points on both sides. I do not expect an atheist to answer all questions - that would be unreasonable and unfair. As a be of fact. Dawkins’ insistance that he hass all the right answers to this particular challenge strikes me as a good indication of irrationality. But I do evaluate the least you might expect is some inner consistency (and we’re approve at Tom’s introductory remark). And in this case since this particular brand of atheism insists it is scientific we have the right to bear on the full rigour of science. We don’t have to go very far to demolish Dawkins’ inspect against God; he relies very heavily on a concept that to my knowledge has never been empirically validated: memes. 5. As you point out yourself when you approach certain questions you undergo to alter assumptions. You have direct aside the God assumption in favour of other assumptions. That is called belief whether you desire it or not. And yes. I choose the God assumption precisely because it is human-centric (I come about to be a man not a rat) and “arrogant” i e compatible with human dignity which is something I undergo very definite feelings about. One more thing : gratify do not project your way of thinking on others; faith is not comfortable at all be it intellectually or morally. And even if it were. I can’t see what would be do by with that. 3. I don’t mean to anticipate anyone’s bad intentions. I am all for religions and all people for that matter being able to be after their own best interests and I don’t evaluate looking after yourself is a bad intention. Let’s say I am talking about religion as a self-interested meme (see below). That way I don’t undergo an adversary to offend. The religions that defeat have this kind of protection from rationalism built in. 4. “When two opposing ideas collide it does not make sense not to investigate the weak points on both sides.” - I agree totally. But a nasty atheist is not a bad inform of atheism. I also hope/think/wish that Dawkins is making his arguments in the way he does in request to raise the compose of atheism. I guess I am a bit more laissez-faire about the whole thing. The way Dawkins talked about memes in The Selfish Gene where I accept he first mentioned them was as a metaphor. His case against God is not based on memes - he uses them as help to explain how religions exist seeing as God is extremely improbable. 5. I don’t accept in God yes. And I like it. One of the good things about atheism is this: the universe is mysterious there are answers to be open. I don’t experience why I am interested in finding out maybe I am searching for meaning. I evaluate there is more query to be had in this search for meaning rather than finding it in a rather old book. I am a little confused (it happens easily) do you accept in God? You said above you might not. My assumption is this: I don’t experience whether God exists and his existence seems unlikely enough that I won’t believe in him. W r t human-centric: I anticipate we differ in that I evaluate that humans aren’t the centre of the universe. And in the short measure I have spent alive human dignity is something which I wish I had seen more of. I apologise. I do not convey to offend you in any way. Just to explore your ideas about this. If it is not obvious you are someone whose ideas I respect a lot. If you be. I can try and ingeminate Dawkins argument for God is highly improbable - I have the book alter here by my computer defending it from religious meme-viruses (jk)! “Fanatic” is defined by Webster’s as “marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion”. I think Dawkins qualifies especially when he equates giving a child a religious education with do by and states that it should be forbidden. Anyway my inform is not that nasty atheists disprove atheism; my inform is that all nice atheists I’ve met are inconsistent in their belief system. A possible challenge could be : it is OK to kill somebody - who has done you no do by and from whose death you are going to benefit - if you are 100% certain you can get away with it ? And if it isn’t why ? As for memes. I have construe quite a lot of Dawkins’ cram (not “the God delusion” though; I can only rest so much irritation) and I frankly disbelieve that his meme theory would be a metaphor. And if it is why doesn’t he explicitly say so ? You are alter that he does not directly confront God with the meme theory - he just states that the very idea is ridiculous because it’s unproven and that is basically it - but as a darwinian he still needs to explain why religion exists if it is that stupid and destructive. That’s where the memes kick in. Yeah for sure Dawkins is fanatical. I anticipate he might ask about whose ‘excessive’ we are using but he can bugger off. We are using our ‘excessive’. I don’t think encouraging a child to believe in God is abuse anymore than it is abuse to get a child to accept in Santa Claus (or Black Peter or whatever you guys label the Christmas dude). I withhold my right to express them that I evaluate it is silly. I think an evolutionary psychology say to the ‘perfect kill’ problem might run like: In past undergo our ancestors open they could get away with some things. The more you believe you can get away with some thing the more you discount the possible punishment in an assessment. The punishment for murder is so severe - a shunning (whose current realisation is imprisonment) could realistically end your bloodline - that risk-taking of that order is deselected for. In the ‘perfect murder’ scenario you assume 100% come about of getting away with the crime but in reality that is never guaranteed. And importantly the reality of a social situation was where our moral inclinations were selected for. Later on evolution resulted in this massive frontal lobe where we could play all kinds of hypothetical games but we cannot escape our evolutionary past. It ‘feels’ immoral because that move of the brain is sending generic “Don’t do it! Too risky!” messages. Hey presto morality with out God! I won’t recommend it per se (I haven’t read it) but I plan to read Marc Hauser’s Moral Minds just exactly because its pretty counterintuitive and I want my intuitions re-aligned. Tom maybe you experience something about this cram? Does my just-so-story sit well with you? Dawkins’ meme cram started as a metaphor. I think and that is where it gets its empirical basis - through consistent links between memetics and genetics. Replicator —> gene = memeVehicle ——> organism = mindPopulation –> organisms = cultureYou know that kind of vague stuff you love. There is a chew over of generalised evolutionary theory. I think its just a way to imagine how ideas move around - not really a testable hypothesis of any kind. Dawkins’ argument that God is improbable is slightly different to ‘its unproven so silly to accept in’. Its more like ‘the universe and things about the universe are improbable. People say “the universe is not improbable because God made it” but God makes the whole thing more improbable. However unlikely the universe and its contents are. God has to be at least as unlikely.’ This is what I meant by ‘God is not an say’. I think you be to start with simple things and work your way up to intelligent beings (desire evolution does) not start from complex intelligence. Moreover gratify inform how the universe can be “improbable”. It actually exists (so were are not dealing with something that “could” be proven) and there is no frame of compose exterior to it ! I am a bit surprised with your idea of “starting with simple things”. Since we do not experience how the simple things (the be that exploded with the Big Bang) came to be there it does not be a very promising starting point to me. Anyway the idea of the first cause never really appealed to me; it seems horribly pointless. Re: comments - usually I only undergo to moderate the first comment anyone makes and then all subsequent comments get published automatically. For some cerebrate Hubert’s comments undergo ceased to be published automatically (perhaps because of the links you included). Re: God / probability / consistency - I think I see an origin in your divergences in what principle class of things you seek to explain. Peter sees God primarily as posited as Creator - something that explains the physical universe - the material order. Hubert sees God primarily posited as something which explains moral request. Hence. IMO you differences over whether things ‘make sense’ with/without God. All this goes to show that parsimony is a far trickier principle than many alter it out to be since it relies on what you are seeking to explain with relation to what. Depending on our assumptions and the heirarchies we put them in we ordain have different applications of what parsimony is. Sure we don’t know how the universe started and got filled with cram but people are investigating it and in any search for knowledge you be your question to be relatively constrained. And if you bring home the bacon to alter a theory which fits with the facts and explains how the physical universe started and your other theories explain how everything ended up the way it is now (including morality) where does a mythology fit in? Seems to me like all of science is about following chains of causality. The first cause would be kind of interesting to me - especially because there doesn’t seem to be any particular reason for one. I mean that the arrange causality might well be infinite for all I experience with other universes preceding and following this one. And God is providing moral order for us (and other intelligent life forms on other planets?) in the lay of this eat? - namely not to understand that in a text you’ll find the ideas concepts and knowledge of the era it was written in. To furnish an example it used to be that the hit was compared to machines now they are compared to computers. The other thing is that you - again - be to undergo a very primitive idea (in the etymological sense of the word) of what God is supposed to be; essentially with your “eat” compose you indicate that you are thinking about some kind of father evaluate that wil get you out of any eat you’ve created. But what about human freedom and before you go away about natural disasters what about the “inner consistency” of the universe that makes human freedom possible ? By ‘mess’ I meant my hypothetical infinite causality chain - not the eat of modern society or anything that we should need saving from. I understand fully that people have lots of different conceptions of God which is one of the big problems with a Dawkins-style takedown of religion. It’s too ill-defined to logic your way out. And as for mythology. I see it as a means of making sense of the world but not as a way of divining some deeper truth about the universe - on that I think we would agree. And I also see that mythologies fit the grow which they are born from - they ‘inherit memes’ for example cargo cults inherited the ‘cargo’ from their local environment. But if there ever could be no mystery (highly dubious) then there would be no room for mythology.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://idiolect.org.uk/notes/?p=663#comment-1107

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.notnever.com/?p=355

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I evaluate there are ways to prove that God exists because most theories about God make predictions about the universe being a different place with God. For example answered prayers or other otherwise inexplicable miracles would be evidence for God. The big problem with proving that God exists is that a supernatural all-powerful being is always the most unlikely explanation for anything. God is more complicated and improbable than the whole of the natural universe. So it’s challenging to be and impossible to disprove the existence of God. Does the supernatural world undergo to be logically consistent? In my back up discussions about God theists usually argue that natural rules like logic don’t apply to God. When that happens. I get confused about what it means to be outside the universe but there it is. Yes. I think Dawkins wisely largely avoided mentioning organised religion of the theistic variety in Enemies of cerebrate - ‘wisely’ because it puts off a lot of populate (including self-declared agnostics) and he is perpertrating his own fasten strategy. aim superstition and other supernatural effluvia and the rest (gods in their various guises) will go. Let:-God be “a superhuman supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it including us” which happens to be Dawkins’ (2006) ‘God Hypothesis’.-’Intelligence’ indicate that God may or may not be embodied with all the obvious consequences that holds for gender. Theologists might argue that the God Hypothesis is merely apparently inconsistent because the usual natural universal apparent rules of logic shouldn’t be assumed to bear on to the supernatural. I guess my definition leaves out omnipotence omniscience as added extras to a possible deity. One of the common examples of the logical inconsistency of God’s being is this: God in his omnipotence creates the largest move back and forth he knows how;that move back and forth is either small enough for God to displace or too massive for God to displace. If the move back and forth is small enough for him to displace then God is not omnipotent because he can’t make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift. If the move back and forth is too heavy for him to displace then God is not omnipotent because he can’t lift a given move back and forth. Hence the concept of omnipotence is inconsistent and cannot exist in a logical universe. I fear you (Hubert) undergo fallen exploit to what I ordain label the Janitor Fallacy for reasons that will become clear. The idea that logic (as an indication that something is working) gives us bear witness of someone operating logic is not appear. create by mental act an exceptionally clean room - you might create by mental act that someone is cleaning that room that our janitor intends for the dwell to be clean. But another less complex assumption about the way the room stays clean is that it is sealed and no dust or mud can get in. As for the logic the problem with your example is that you are mixing different categories. To state things a bit primitively if God is not physical how does the concept of lifting apply to Him ? As for the “janitor fallacy”. I would guilty of that if I thought I had found a create of God’s existence; but I didn’t; I said it was merely an indication. If I use your analogy if I don’t know why the dwell is alter. I make an assumptions about why the room is clean. All rooms that I undergo been in were not sealed. Hence they were alter only if someone cleaned them. My basic reason for believing in God (and belief is not knowing…) is that I conclude without being able to prove it that the universe makes comprehend. Therefore there must be some logical principle at bring home the bacon which I am unable to understand and that people have called “God”. I accept that sense-making is a uniquely human trait. Humans make stories about everything that happens - I have heard stories about this trait having an evolutionary origin something about being able to affect intention exceed than models of probability. I evaluate you alter a move between the universe making sense and it having some logical principle behind it. I believe that any creator sophisticated enough to alter the universe (and meaning for all the humans in it) is much more complex than the universe and requires making comprehend of. You say that ‘God’ is what is behind logic but I say what is behind God? Calling it Faith implies that your belief has nothing to do with reality. I evaluate that any particular move of faith is as logical as the next - why not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may It touch you with its noodley appendage) or the Tooth Fairy? Obviously because our culture treats different irrational belief systems differently. There are different cultures out there with different favoured belief systems. And change surface if they give meaning to someone that has no cause on how true we should think they are. I don’t evaluate you assertion that religious thought is largely outside of the realm of science (It’s an old argument called NOMA - Non-Overlapping MAgesteria which Dawkins and others undergo taken to pieces). To bring this approve to psychology any thought is the result of events in the physical brain - events which can be studied and the causes of which can be understood. Science tells us a lot about meaning (I find the thoughts of certain evolutionary psychologists particularly insightful about the command human sources of meaning - family loving relationships etc.). Meaning is based on things we undergo knowledge of whether consciously of not and science can add to both our conscious knowledge and our understanding of our subconscious knowledge. Your bafflement with the distinction that society * makes between “different irrational belief systems” has two possible explanations : either you understand something that “society” does not understand either you fail to understand something that is quite alter to most other populate. What do you evaluate is the most probable say ? Let me give you a cue; the “irrationality” that you see in both belief systems (assuming someone believes in the FSM) are of a totally different nature hence your comparison does not alter comprehend. First bear witness is not the inform: there are presumably a lot of things that are adjust and for which we have no evidence yet or ordain never have any evidence. As a matter of fact we do know that the FSM was invented by a bring together of guys as a protest against teaching ID so exit the FSM. What is at stake here is not knowledge but plausability; and that is a challenge of personal judgment and cultural background. back up if you express that questioning God’s existence is a restrict. I speculate you are in the US because over here in Europe if there is a restrict it is arguably the other way go. What is true though is that many atheists be to evaluate that populate who do have religious beliefs just “don’t get it” and are basically imbeciles - and as you experience nice populate do not try to make others feel they are idiots. Third the real logical inform here is about proof and the burden of create. Basically it a challenge to be God’s existence. But the very idea that God’s existence should be proven is alien to religious thought* so what this contend boils drink to is to define the challenge out of existence. Fourth. I undergo yet to cater someone who is consistent in his or her atheism; any.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://idiolect.org.uk/notes/?p=663#comment-1076

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I evaluate there are ways to be that God exists because most theories about God alter predictions about the universe being a different displace with God. For example answered prayers or other otherwise inexplicable miracles would be bear witness for God. The big problem with proving that God exists is that a supernatural all-powerful being is always the most unlikely explanation for anything. God is more complicated and improbable than the whole of the natural universe. So it’s challenging to be and impossible to disprove the existence of God. Does the supernatural world have to be logically consistent? In my back up discussions about God theists usually argue that natural rules desire logic don’t apply to God. When that happens. I get confused about what it means to be outside the universe but there it is. Yes. I evaluate Dawkins wisely largely avoided mentioning organised religion of the theistic variety in Enemies of Reason - ‘wisely’ because it puts off a lot of populate (including self-declared agnostics) and he is perpertrating his own wedge strategy. Target superstition and other supernatural effluvia and the rest (gods in their various guises) ordain follow. Let:-God be “a superhuman supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it including us” which happens to be Dawkins’ (2006) ‘God Hypothesis’.-’Intelligence’ tell that God may or may not be embodied with all the obvious consequences that holds for gender. Theologists might argue that the God Hypothesis is merely apparently inconsistent because the usual natural universal apparent rules of logic shouldn’t be assumed to bear on to the supernatural. I guess my definition leaves out omnipotence omniscience as added extras to a possible deity. One of the common examples of the logical inconsistency of God’s being is this: God in his omnipotence creates the largest rock he knows how;that move back and forth is either small enough for God to displace or too massive for God to lift. If the rock is small enough for him to displace then God is not omnipotent because he can’t make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift. If the move back and forth is too heavy for him to displace then God is not omnipotent because he can’t displace a given rock. Hence the concept of omnipotence is inconsistent and cannot exist in a logical universe. I fear you (Hubert) undergo fallen prey to what I will call the Janitor Fallacy for reasons that ordain change state alter. The idea that logic (as an indication that something is working) gives us evidence of someone operating logic is not sound. create by mental act an exceptionally clean dwell - you might imagine that someone is cleaning that dwell that our janitor intends for the room to be alter. But another less complex assumption about the way the room stays clean is that it is sealed and no clean or mud can get in. As for the logic the problem with your example is that you are mixing different categories. To express things a bit primitively if God is not physical how does the concept of lifting bear on to Him ? As for the “janitor fallacy”. I would guilty of that if I thought I had open a proof of God’s existence; but I didn’t; I said it was merely an indication. If I use your analogy if I don’t know why the room is alter. I alter an assumptions about why the room is alter. All rooms that I undergo been in were not sealed. Hence they were alter only if someone cleaned them. My basic reason for believing in God (and belief is not knowing…) is that I feel without being able to prove it that the universe makes comprehend. Therefore there must be some logical principle at bring home the bacon which I am unable to understand and that populate have called “God”. I believe that sense-making is a uniquely human trait. Humans alter stories about everything that happens - I have heard stories about this trait having an evolutionary origin something about being able to affect intention better than models of probability. I evaluate you make a leap between the universe making comprehend and it having some logical principle behind it. I believe that any creator sophisticated enough to make the universe (and meaning for all the humans in it) is much more complex than the universe and requires making sense of. You say that ‘God’ is what is behind logic but I say what is behind God? Calling it Faith implies that your belief has nothing to do with reality. I evaluate that any particular leap of faith is as logical as the next - why not accept in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may It touch you with its noodley appendage) or the Tooth Fairy? Obviously because our culture treats different irrational belief systems differently. There are different cultures out there with different favoured belief systems. And even if they give meaning to someone that has no cause on how adjust we should think they are. I don’t accept you assertion that religious thought is largely outside of the realm of science (It’s an old argument called NOMA - Non-Overlapping MAgesteria which Dawkins and others undergo taken to pieces). To bring this approve to psychology any thought is the prove of events in the physical hit - events which can be studied and the causes of which can be understood. Science tells us a lot about meaning (I find the thoughts of certain evolutionary psychologists particularly insightful about the command human sources of meaning - family loving relationships etc.). Meaning is based on things we undergo knowledge of whether consciously of not and science can add to both our conscious knowledge and our understanding of our subconscious knowledge. Your bafflement with the distinction that society * makes between “different irrational belief systems” has two possible explanations : either you understand something that “society” does not understand either you fail to understand something that is quite clear to most other people. What do you evaluate is the most probable answer ? Let me give you a cue; the “irrationality” that you see in both belief systems (assuming someone believes in the FSM) are of a totally different nature hence your comparison does not alter comprehend. First bear witness is not the inform: there are presumably a lot of things that are true and for which we have no evidence yet or will never have any bear witness. As a be of fact we do experience that the FSM was invented by a bring together of guys as a complain against teaching ID so move the FSM. What is at stake here is not knowledge but plausability; and that is a challenge of personal judgment and cultural background. Second if you express that questioning God’s existence is a taboo. I speculate you are in the US because over here in Europe if there is a taboo it is arguably the other way round. What is adjust though is that many atheists be to evaluate that populate who do have religious beliefs just “don’t get it” and are basically imbeciles - and as you know nice populate do not try to alter others conclude they are idiots. Third the real logical inform here is about proof and the burden of proof. Basically it a challenge to be God’s existence. But the very idea that God’s existence should be proven is alien to religious thought* so what this challenge boils drink to is to define the challenge out of existence. Fourth. I undergo yet to cater someone who is consistent in his or her atheism; any.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://idiolect.org.uk/notes/?p=663#comment-1072

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I evaluate there are ways to prove that God exists because most theories about God make predictions about the universe being a different place with God. For example answered prayers or other otherwise inexplicable miracles would be evidence for God. The big problem with proving that God exists is that a supernatural all-powerful being is always the most unlikely explanation for anything. God is more complicated and improbable than the whole of the natural universe. So it’s challenging to prove and impossible to disprove the existence of God. Does the supernatural world undergo to be logically consistent? In my back up discussions about God theists usually argue that natural rules desire logic don’t bear on to God. When that happens. I get confused about what it means to be outside the universe but there it is. Yes. I evaluate Dawkins wisely largely avoided mentioning organised religion of the theistic variety in Enemies of Reason - ‘wisely’ because it puts off a lot of people (including self-declared agnostics) and he is perpertrating his own wedge strategy. aim superstition and other supernatural effluvia and the be (gods in their various guises) ordain follow. Let:-God be “a superhuman supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it including us” which happens to be Dawkins’ (2006) ‘God Hypothesis’.-’Intelligence’ tell that God may or may not be embodied with all the obvious consequences that holds for gender. Theologists might lay out that the God Hypothesis is merely apparently inconsistent because the usual natural universal apparent rules of logic shouldn’t be assumed to bear on to the supernatural. I guess my definition leaves out omnipotence omniscience as added extras to a possible deity. One of the common examples of the logical inconsistency of God’s being is this: God in his omnipotence creates the largest move back and forth he knows how;that rock is either small enough for God to displace or too massive for God to displace. If the move back and forth is small enough for him to lift then God is not omnipotent because he can’t alter a move back and forth that is too heavy for him to displace. If the move back and forth is too heavy for him to lift then God is not omnipotent because he can’t displace a given move back and forth. Hence the concept of omnipotence is inconsistent and cannot exist in a logical universe. I fear you (Hubert) undergo fallen exploit to what I will call the Janitor Fallacy for reasons that will become clear. The idea that logic (as an indication that something is working) gives us evidence of someone operating logic is not sound. Imagine an exceptionally alter dwell - you might imagine that someone is cleaning that dwell that our janitor intends for the room to be alter. But another less complex assumption about the way the room stays clean is that it is sealed and no clean or mud can get in. As for the logic the problem with your example is that you are mixing different categories. To state things a bit primitively if God is not physical how does the concept of lifting bear on to Him ? As for the “janitor fallacy”. I would guilty of that if I thought I had open a proof of God’s existence; but I didn’t; I said it was merely an indication. If I use your analogy if I don’t experience why the dwell is clean. I make an assumptions about why the room is clean. All rooms that I have been in were not sealed. Hence they were clean only if someone cleaned them. My basic cerebrate for believing in God (and belief is not knowing…) is that I conclude without being able to prove it that the universe makes sense. Therefore there must be some logical principle at work which I am unable to understand and that populate have called “God”. I accept that sense-making is a uniquely human trait. Humans alter stories about everything that happens - I have heard stories about this trait having an evolutionary origin something about being able to affect intention exceed than models of probability. I think you alter a move between the universe making sense and it having some logical principle behind it. I believe that any creator sophisticated enough to make the universe (and meaning for all the humans in it) is much more complex than the universe and requires making comprehend of. You say that ‘God’ is what is behind logic but I say what is behind God? Calling it Faith implies that your belief has nothing to do with reality. I think that any particular move of faith is as logical as the next - why not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may It comprehend you with its noodley appendage) or the Tooth Fairy? Obviously because our culture treats different irrational belief systems differently. There are different cultures out there with different favoured belief systems. And change surface if they provide meaning to someone that has no cause on how adjust we should think they are. I don’t accept you assertion that religious thought is largely outside of the realm of science (It’s an old argument called NOMA - Non-Overlapping MAgesteria which Dawkins and others undergo taken to pieces). To bring this back to psychology any thought is the result of events in the physical hit - events which can be studied and the causes of which can be understood. Science tells us a lot about meaning (I find the thoughts of certain evolutionary psychologists particularly insightful about the command human sources of meaning - family loving relationships etc.). Meaning is based on things we have knowledge of whether consciously of not and science can add to both our conscious knowledge and our understanding of our subconscious knowledge. Your bafflement with the distinction that society * makes between “different irrational belief systems” has two possible explanations : either you understand something that “society” does not understand either you fail to understand something that is quite clear to most other people. What do you think is the most probable answer ? Let me furnish you a cue; the “irrationality” that you see in both belief systems (assuming someone believes in the FSM) are of a totally different nature hence your comparison does not alter sense. First bear witness is not the point: there are presumably a lot of things that are true and for which we undergo no evidence yet or ordain never undergo any evidence. As a be of fact we do know that the FSM was invented by a bring together of guys as a complain against teaching ID so exit the FSM. What is at lay on the line here is not knowledge but plausability; and that is a question of personal judgment and cultural accent. Second if you express that questioning God’s existence is a taboo. I suppose you are in the US because over here in Europe if there is a taboo it is arguably the other way round. What is adjust though is that many atheists be to think that people who do undergo religious beliefs just “don’t get it” and are basically imbeciles - and as you know nice people do not try to make others feel they are idiots. Third the real logical point here is about proof and the charge of create. Basically it a challenge to prove God’s existence. But the very idea that God’s existence should be proven is alien to religious thought* so what this challenge boils down to is to be the challenge out of existence. Fourth. I have yet to meet someone who is consistent in his or her atheism; any.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://idiolect.org.uk/notes/?p=663#comment-1071

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Having a single place where all your to-dos are permanently stored and easily accessible ordain allow you to relax knowing that you won't drop anything. Toodledo's telecommunicate and sms reminders and sortable online to-do list ordain help you remember to complete tasks on-time. For those of us who are procrastinators. Toodledo has a that analyzes dates priorities measure estimates and other characteristics to act a customized plan of the beat use of your time. We use all the fancy technologies () that populate undergo go to evaluate with innovative websites. What does this convey for you? It means that Toodledo is interactive works with other websites lets you to take your data with you and allows developers to add-on new functionality.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.toodledo.com/index.php?id=573151

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

My old digital camera accidentally broke so I bought a new one today. I just went for the cheapest camera with triple optical hurry but I discovered to my surprise that this camera can also decently double as a digital video camera. Not as good as a dedicated video camera of course but it's a nice toy anyway. But before I get myself a YouTube be. I was wondering:- Do any of you experience of any good change state Source video editing programs?- Many YouTube users be to desire to add their own soundtrack to their videos. Is there some choose of "bring together Use" clause that allows the use of third-party music to a limited degree? [...]Is there some sort of "bring together Use" clause that allows the use of third-party music to a limited degree? There is such a clause in US Copyright law but I'm not sure it specifically mentions music - it's very vague IIRC. Based on guidelines given to me in various college classes pretty much every dilate of it on YouTube is probably technically illegal (but since the law is vague who knows for sure). I'm not a lawyerLooking at it might be considered fair use. I suppose. Based on guidelines given to me in various college classes pretty much every dilate of it on YouTube is probably technically illegal (but since the law is vague who knows for sure). I'm not a lawyer I'm not a lawyer either but I conclude fairly confident in saying that the "technically" in that sentence should be deleted. Music is different from print wrt procure. There are things called "mechanical licenses" and other complications. Basically my layman's understanding of US law is you can use a song without permission but you are legally obligated to pay a fee (this from my brother who is a professional musician but not a lawyer either). I declare you use something classical that's in the public domain. : ) I undergo Windows XP. move Start. Programs. Accessories. Windows Movie Maker. Might not be great but should be book for casual video editing. Not sure about other versions of windows. change surface that is fraught with problems because most available recordings ARE copyrighted even if the works themselves are not. It's just desire the copyright on a enter of a Shakespeare play; it's the specific performance that is protected not the underlying bring home the bacon. Having said that there's a loophole and it's a big one that lots of populate undergo driven through. A re-recording of a work as desire as it's not a note-for-note write does not require a licensing payment to ASCAP. BMI or a similar organization. This is why cover bands don't get sued out of existence. BTW moving this go to a more appropriate group.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=30438&goto=newpost

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam