Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 52 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 94% |
Arguments: | 52 |
Debates: | 0 |
I know nothing about Roblox modding, if there even is any, but Minecraft has a HUGE selection of them to choose from, and you can do a LOT more with them. My two favourite mods are Tekkit and Thaumcraft 2 (Soon to be a part of tekkit/technic =D) and there are some benefits just from the publicity Minecraft gets on it's own.
On a side note, what the hell is wrong with everyone getting so angry about this debate? It's a game. A waste of time in the eyes of a productive society. If you bother to take it seriously enough as to use it as an ego booster or competition, rather than just enjoying it for what it is, you need get your head out of the sand.
The vast, VAST majority of the scientific community accepts the Big Bang theory as true.
From my experience, most quantum physicists also accept the Big Bang theory, they propose a different start to it though.
This is currently pseudo science, and is no more compelling than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I wasn't supporting the theory. In fact, I completely disagree with it. I was simply using it as an example to show the extreme degree of variety among scientists, and how the simplest of paradigm shifts can lead to drastically different theories. Somebody just took causality and pretended it was a biological organism; the logic could yet be considered valid, though, which is also why all yet-to-be-proven theories even as popular as the Big Bang should be taken with a grain of salt.
But we can apply the basic laws of logic to it. Via inductive reasoning, we can conclude that the universe required a cause.
I doubt that the answers to the mystery of the universe and it's creation can be deduced just from the logic process of humans. Quite simply, I think we need something much, much more concrete before accepting something as entirely true. This is not to detract from the value of theories like the Big Bang, but rather used with caution, and the fact that it is a theory should be kept in mind before declaring that we know how it all started.
But then that becomes wing and a prayer style thinking. If something is horribly improbable, it should not be considered the superior theory.
Allow me to clarify my statement a little with an example. Say our current universe is one of many, many different outcomes resulting from a sort of creation event. The laws of physics were determined at that point in several other possible outcomes, each of which produced a form of life with entirely different constructs, each individually with an absurdly low statistical likeliness such as ours. If the lifeforms in each outcome were capable of thought and logic the way we understand it, would they think the same way if they were the result? How can we determine the probability of life in a more general sense, or with different mechanics? We understand our universes laws of physics. If those are altered, what basis do we have to say life couldn't form even more easily, but in a different way? And how many different outcomes are there to examine? Are there an infinite number of outcomes, or just a few thousand? What percentage of these contain life at all? If it's something like 40%, for example, then it's entirely plausible for life to pop up, and why couldn't it have been ours? If I'm understanding the concept properly, then our existence can't marked with a percentile.
Yes, but this does not disprove objective morality.
No it doesn't. Actions have consequences, and thus judgments must be made. The consequence is objective, thus the action is objective. For example, the consequence of pregnancy is objective, thus the action of intercourse is objective. The same applies to morality. If the consequence of negative well being is objective, then the action of immorality must be objective.
How doesn't it disprove objective morality? The concept is that there are certain and specific right or wrong actions, correct? But like I said, these vary between cultures. In history, there have been sacrifices which were considered completely appropriate, for example. In the modern world, however, our morals are completely different regarding the subject, and mostly unified due to media and the like. Negativity and positivity are also human psychological constructs; Food good, no food bad. If someone gets screwed, they'll be angry about it and give the responsible party a hell of a time. But if said party gets away with it, they have a positive experience. Simply labelling everything as objective in no way suggests that there is a God, and Karma hasn't been verified as a law of nature.
I'm an avid gamer, and I've played and seen plenty of violent crap. It hasn't negatively affected my behaviour at all, as far as I know. I'm certainly not a violent person. So, as a simple argument from experience, I'd say that video games are not at all responsible for violent behaviour.
Why the hell is everyone getting so pissed off in this debate? It's a joke. Laugh at it, or figure out you don't fancy the humour and move on. It's pretty moronic to attack the guy. And come on, British accents are amazing.
And seriously, who cares? I thought we were finished with the whole Red Scare attitude?
But it isn't a conscious choice, dude. It's a primal part of the brain that makes either sex attractive. It's an organ function. I don't think many people choose to have kidney failure, after all. They just break sometimes.
Note; Yes, I just said homosexuality is a flaw... No hate, though! It just ruins the reproductive model in a sense of efficiency. You need one of each set of genitals to make a baby. =S
I think I'm a freak of nature in the sense that I can drink coffee every day for a few months, then go without it for the same amount of time without any negative effects. Sure, I end up being tired earlier in the day, but I'm returning to my normal schedule without caffeine rather than going into a deficit. Besides, coffee doesn't have any seriously ill effects for most people, unless you're using it to completely regulate your metabolism with 3 cups a day and your body ends up depending on it to function.
|