# woffer

Members

14

0 Neutral
1. ## Please help, somebody who is good at math

I am trying to figure out this really easy problem and I feel really stupid, can somebody show me how? Ok, If you have 2/3 of a cup required for 8 servings. How many cups do you need for 30? This is set up as a proportion like this: 2/3 cup x ---------- = ----------- 8 servings 30 servings If anybody can show me how to do this it would be greatly appreciated.
2. ## Isolation of the AIDS virus...

Does anybody know for sure the factors leading up to the isolation of the AIDS virus? For example, was animal testing involved? The whole thing happened before my time so obviously I don't rembember, and I can't really find any information on the history of it either.
3. ## Does god exist? Is the universe finite?

In the following essay I shall elucidate both the positions of the proponents and opponents of the cosmological argument for gods existence. First, I will outline the proponent's cosmological argument for the existence of god. Then I will outline the opponent's position, followed by analysis of both positions, followed by my position, critical analysis of my position, and finally, my conclusion. Somebody who believes the cosmological argument proves gods existence would say something like this, 'Look around the world, everything you see is either caused or uncaused.' 'Most or all objects/entities rely on something else for its/their existence.' 'There cannot be an infinite series of causes, so there must be an uncaused first cause.' 'The uncaused first cause is in part what we mean by god.' 'Hence, god exists' Or 'The world contains a collection of contingent things.' 'The argument from contingency states that everything in the world could not be contingent.' 'If everything in our world requires reasons for why it exists and why it has the properties it does then we believe that the same is true for anything.' 'The argument asserts that our existence is a necessary condition of the uncaused first cause, and that uncaused first cause is god.' Opponents of the cosmological argument would raise several objections, such as the infinite series objection. Why can't there be an infinite series of causes? Another problem with the cosmological argument is that it fails to identify the uncaused first cause with god. For example the uncaused first cause may have attributes god does not have, eg: a will and self-awareness. And even if there was an uncaused first cause, that uncaused first cause is not necessarily god. The argument from contingency applies necessity to god, in other words, it claims that god is a necessary being. But we cannot apply necessity to an entity, necessity only applies to propositions When we use a propositional linguistic in referring to god we can say whatever we want, ie: 'god is a necessary being.' But in reality, god is what he/she/it is and our propositions do not apply to god in reality. The opponent makes many valid objections to the cosmological argument, it would seem that our propositions about god would not affect reality in any way. For example, I could propose that all dogs are named fido, but that does not mean that in reality all dogs are actually named Fido, and even if all dogs were named Fido, our words are inert and therefore allow for no way of altering Fido in any way in terms of pure physical reality. The same is true when we apply 'necessity' to god. We can say what we want, but our statement is not a determinant of reality. Here are some reasons to worry or doubt the objectors positions. - Many human beings tend to over estimate their ability to predict the properties of the universe, we tend to think we can disprove even the most obvious facts such as looking out into the sky and believing that there is some sort of divine intelligence, maybe doubting that fact is the same as doubting 'I am reading an essay right now.' - In this information age we tend to think we can explain anything and everything, we sometimes feel almost invincible and eternal. It could be this mind state that leads us to believe that when we die we will be saved by a god and live an eternal life. I align my position on this issue with the infinite series objection. I think that it is just as hard or harder to contemplate infinity as it is to contemplate the absence of infinity. For example, it may be very hard for many people to imagine a universe with no boundaries, and no end. But it becomes even harder to imagine a finite universe, suppose I travel to the edge of the hypothetical finite universe, what happens when I take one more step? Do I step into a hypothetical brick wall, or can I keep going just one more step. If I can keep going, the universe is infinite, if I am stopped by some kind of barrier or obliterated by a black hole or something the universe is indeed finite. But if there is nothing on the other side of the barrier, where would I be? It becomes very scary to think about what nothing might look like or be like. Therefore I think it is reasonable to assume that just like the universe could have no barrier, so too could there be an infinite series of causes. I think that our universe was caused by another universe, and that our entire existence(universe included) is contained within a higher universe. For example our entire universe could be contained in its entirety within the dumpster behind Wal-Mart or some higher universe and perhaps that higher universe is contained in its entirety behind the Albertsons of yet a higher universe. As so on. What I am getting at is that I think it is ludicrous to think that there could somehow be an uncaused first cause. I could be wrong because my feeble mind cannot understand how it is that god/ or an uncaused first cause might cause himself to exist. But in all probability, even if god was uncaused and did cause him self to exist, there had to be something that gave him/her/it that power to do so. Something cannot come out of nothing.
4. ## What would you do? -

Think about it, this is time travel related... Ok, so I just got my paycheck and took it to the bank and cashed it. For some strange reason they were stupid and gave me my check back. They didn't make any markings on it, but I have no idea whether or not they already ran it though the computer or not. It seems they usually just look at the check and put it in the drawer to be processed later, but I don't know. Should I take the check and go deposit it again in one of my other bank accounts? Or do you think that would come back to bite me in the ass? If there are any bank tellers among you your advise would be especially helpful.
5. ## My 3 days in a parallel future universe

What proof do you have of this claim, the whole thing sounds made up to me, "everything looked more futuristic".
6. ## How many of you have tried mushrooms or LSD?

I tried mushrooms once. I think it helped open my creative mind.
7. ## Crazy dream experience

About the difference between dream time, and reality; I read that your brain stays active for another 6-12 minutes after you are dead,. And if a few minutes of dream time can seem like hours then think about it, that could be an entire hallucinogenic second life you can live and explore after you die. It wouldn't be real, but in theory, that dream life could be every bit as real as the life we are living now. When your brain completely dies and shuts off you may cease to exist and become nothing, or perhaps go to heaven or hell. Depending on what you believe.

9. ## seing in the past

"Doesnt this mean that the reflection actually exists at all points of time and space?" Very interesting question. Two people can be looking at the same object from 2 different places and see 2 different things. I would conclude that it does exist at all places in space and time whether somebody is there to see it or not.
10. ## seing in the past

Ok, so then by your reasoning if we somehow had an ultra powerful telescope and could look far into space at some alien planet we wouldn't actually be seeing the aliens walking around in real time, but rather we would see the delayed image as it takes time for the image to reach our eyes. Time itself is not traveling, but the image we see is. Time is relative. So time would stay the same for the aliens on their planet as well as on our planet. Does time travel? Or does it just merely exist? What if, we could launch a satellite into space and view our earth from the satellite, or maybe even from some the far off alien planet, if we could do that then we can watch our own history happening. Interesting. Of course, we would only be able to see as far back in time as when we first launched the satellite, assuming our satellite is traveling at light speed. If our telescope we launched into space could somehow go faster than the speed of light then I guess that would mean that we might be able to see time from before we launched the satellite. And of course this is assuming that the satellite is capable of instantaneously transmitting the image of our earth back to us, which is impossible as far as I know. Does anybody know of any theory that suggest that it may be possible to travel faster that the speed of light. Light speed could theoretically be possible someday, so why not faster?
11. ## seing in the past

Yes, I can understand that the light from stars is old. But is it the same with regular objects? Such as a rock, dog, person, or tree sitting 10 feet in front of me? Are you saying I am seeing that particular object, but a fraction of a second in the past? Light travels, we all know that, but does the image of a rock we are looking at actually travel to us? Or do we just see it in real time.
12. ## seing in the past

Interesting, but how does the fact that something is far away while we are looking at it mean that we are actually looking at the past?
13. ## seing in the past

so then by this theory if we use an ultra powerful telescope to look into space at a far far off planet then the events taking place must actually be from some time back in the past.
14. ## Zero Point energy may allow for time travel

Wow, that whole story did seem a little bit far out, but it was a good read nevertheless. I liked the part about the hypothesis that the earth is oscillating, and who knows, perhaps if we did find some way to exclude ourselves from the rest of the universe or "shield" ourselves as the were saying, then we might just be able to move around in time while the earth is oscillating.
×
×
• Create New...