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: | 5 |
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. | 100% |
Arguments: | 5 |
Debates: | 0 |
I actually believe the metric system simplifies many of the measurements (powers of 10) and consequently would benefit the students greatly. I do, however, agree with your assessment that full implementation may be to expensive under our current fiscal environment.
My apology for the hyperbole. To clarify, fundemental understanding of the metric system and consistant use of it will better prepare students for success in college - especially those with majors heavily dependant on science courses. It of course is not the sole indicator of success, but it significantly increases the probability of success.
There are a multitude of reasons, but the here's the most simple: anyone who wants to succeed in college, or just understand the complexities of our world will need to understand the metric system, because most scientists describe the world with the metric system.
The problem with the First Cause argument is the claim of "creation". The idea that something comes from nothing, or the nature of non-existence is incapable of being observed or scientifically studied. Theists misrepresent the concept of creation by suggesting that in the process, something is brought into existence (i.e. a watch is created by a watchmaker) but in reality the watch was merely fashioned from existing material that were already present. There was no actual creation in the manner in which theists imply something came into existence from nothing.
Like many arguments of this nature, theists make a special pleading to exempt God from their argument. If everything that exists must have a cause, who created God? Variations of this argument employ the first law of thermodynamics to imply that God has always existed because the first law of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Nice notion, but it still doesn't prove there's a God. It merely suggests there's more for us to understand, and every day scientists get closer to addressing these issues without referencing God or anything supernatural.
If there's a recurring theme in any of these arguments, it's that theists pick and choose which tenets of science they want to embrace (the ones that help prove their claims) and ignore all the rest as if they don't exist. These theories are part of a complex interconnected system. It's intellectually dishonest and unethical to ignore evidence that counters your supernatural claims. The First Cause Argument ignores huge amounts of contradictory evidence, as do many of the arguments herein.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |