Fred Meyers Camcorders For Filming

2011: Starts own good ...

Astaroth, 80: "Now I give you a slap, how can you not understand? No, you can not get pregnant if you lemons"

Despite the opinion Instead of my horoscope even in these days I could not resist the temptation to enter the wonderful R & D section of Yahoo! Answers. Among the amazing responses I've read the classic existential questions of man ( God exist? Where are we? Some from me? ) Special mention must be made for those who practice the sport of ' scrambling . Soon an Olympic sport this activity is finding holds even where there are to add value to their beliefs. Because of its very nature this occupation takes the most time of the average believer, when it's not a sin and then repent.

The latest idea in this discipline is scrambling to copy a standard and then stick a little 'anywhere, certainly not in keeping with the spirit of sport but it obviously saves a lot of time and headaches those who want to force the vertical face of smooth glass.

In this case (you can find it here ) copy-paste from chissadove about an athlete very attached to R & D that we want to prove logically (or logically) the existence of God but does not like (bow) IPO in his blog arguments with short, clear and perilous numbered, no, he prefers to get around the arguments with great (or imaginative, or annoying) turns of phrase, we see that (italics, as usual, mine):

First, there 's ontological argument. The most popular uses of the ontological argument, in essence, the concept of God to prove its existence. We start with the definition of Dio come “Colui rispetto a cui non si può concepire qualcosa di maggiore”. Ecco, quindi, che si argomenta che l’esistenza è maggiore della non esistenza, ( ??? ) e che pertanto debba esistere il maggior essere concepibile. Se non esistesse, allora Dio non sarebbe il massimo essere concepibile, ma questo contraddirebbe la definizione stessa di Dio.

Capito? Visto che la definizione di Dio è quella di essere la cosa superiore concepibile, e siccome non si può pensare a qualcosa di superiore a Dio questo non può non esistere altrimenti verrebbe meno la sua definizione. C'è qualcosa che non va, no? Tutto questo speech is based on the assumption arbitrary nature of God, or that it exceeds the conceivable. Let me explain:

1 - Santa Claus, by definition, brings gifts to children

2 - If there could not bring gifts to children

3 - O its definition is wrong or there, do not you?

Jesus, who sees all, read this argument.

Secondly, there the teleological argument, alleging that since the universe displays such an extraordinary project, there must be a divine plan.

This is the classic argument that it is expected to come out sooner or later, those who want to prove the existence of the Almighty. As for me everything is beautiful and perfect there must be someone who designed it.

One would write a whole post on the absurdity of this assertion, I will say only that the universe is absolutely perfect as it is expanding (Hubble's law) and that what we see (or rather, what the human race has seen throughout its history ) is only a poor part of the history of our small planet. How to deal with perfect precision a universe in constant flux?

For example, if the Earth were even a few hundred miles closer or farther from the sun, would not be able to keep most of his life that is on it. If elements of our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, every living thing on Earth would die.

Another classic mistake when it stumbles talking to creationists. They have not yet realized that they are life forms that have evolved to adapt to the environment, not otherwise.

In addition the argument that if the earth were a little more remote and close to the Sun there would be no life is, of course, untrue. The Mars missions are designed to bring a number of plants on Mars to create an atmosphere and plants, dear, are living beings in all respects. But Mars is a lot farther than us from the sun ...

The speech of the elements of the atmosphere is of course a lie: The atmosphere is not the same all over the planet, near the volcanoes there are gases that are found to a lesser extent in other places, in the mountains there less oxygen, not to mention the oceans (or nothing to do with marine life?) yet we have life forms, even the places where it would be impossible for us to survive.

The chance to form a single protein molecule by chance are 1 in 10,243 (ie 10 followed by 243 zeros) (which is written: 10 243). A single cell is made up of millions of protein molecules.

The talk of probabilities are the workhorse of every good creationist. The history of our planet, however, tells us that for more than half of its existence there were no life forms ed è solo recentissimamente (in paragone alla storia della Terra, naturalmente) che si sono sviluppate tutte le forme di vita. Insomma ci sono voluti parecchie milioni di anni perché si formasse la singola molecola proteica che poi, mutando e combinandosi, ha dato via alle decine di migliaia di forme di vita che conosciamo.

Una terza argomentazione logica sull’esistenza di Dio è definita argomentazione cosmologica, secondo cui ogni effetto deve avere una causa. Questo universo e ogni cosa che c’è in esso sono un effetto. Dev’esserci qualcosa che ha fatto in modo che venisse tutto all’esistenza. In Ultimately, there must be something "uncaused" cause of everything else that came into existence. That something "uncaused" is God

Frankly it does not get it. Everything must have a cause, and this contradicts the very idea of \u200b\u200ba divine cause, but no, he is God and therefore has no cause. In short, the discourse of the principle of cause and effect should apply to all except for my imaginary friend ...

A fourth argument is known as moral argument. Throughout history, every culture has had some form of law. Everybody the sense of what is right and wrong. The murder, lying, theft and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where does this sense of what is right and wrong if not a holy God?

call this social organization rather than divine will, every culture has had to impose and enforce laws to allow very survival of the group.

The idea, then, right or wrong is given by our culture and education not fall from the sky: you can see their mothers, how often are forced to repeat to the children what is right and what it's wrong before they understand. If this "holy God" that right now there imprimesse mothers around the world would work a lot less difficult, not only among human beings. Yeah, so that others understand what animals can or can not do this only through experience. Just like humans, looks a bit '.

not convinced me much, I much prefer the demonstrations in IPO, no appeal, of which one at random here: