gc1765

The proof was shown above, remember? The whole thing about the uncertainty principle? We started arguing because you asked me how I could prove that God was not omnipotent. I provided that proof. If you want to argue the omnipotence of God, as we have been doing all along, then I would be happy to. If you want to change the subject as you have done and argue the existance of God, there isn't much point as you've already stated that we agree that the idea of a God (though that term would need serious defining to have any meaning in this discussion) has not been disproven (to my knowledge). But if someone could give a more concrete definition of such an abstract idea as "God", then perhaps that definition could be disproven.

Yes, I've never argued otherwise. If you didn't bother to read it (and I suggest reading other sources besides Wikipedia, but I thought that would be a good start) then how can you make an informed decision? Is that what having a rigid dogma is all about...someone shows you proof of something and you decide to ignore any evidence/proof that contradicts your dogma. I said that I am not 100% confident that some sort of God (however you can define that) exists. What I can say with confidence is that an omnipotent, all knowing God does not exist.

It makes perfect sense. I have no reason to believe God exists (despite many people trying), just as I have no reason to beleive that Geoffrey is an alien. It's important to note that I can not say with 100% confidence that Geoffrey is not an alien just as I can't say with 100% confidence that some sort of God exist. But it seems highly unlikely that either are true. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle God (and the Universe) can not have existed forever (this can easily be shown). Therefore, God can not have known the initial conditions of the Universe. Without that, it's impossible to tell what is going to happen.

But scientific theories are based on, and confirmed by, evidence. If further evidence contradicts that theory, then yes it would have to be modified. The problem is that there is no verifiable evidence at all that God exists. If there was any evidence at all, then the theory could be taken seriously. It's like asking me to prove that you are not an alien. I can not prove that you are not an alien, but I have no reason at all to believe you are. Therefore, it's safe to say that you are probably not an alien. Also, science can disprove many aspects of individual religions, for example a lot of the bible can be disproven. Also, science can disprove the idea of an omnipotent, all-knowing God. Common sense would also suggest that it wouldn't make much sense for the God who created us to also judge us. Afterall, how can we help but be 'sinful' when we are nothing but God's creatures? By judging us, He is really judging himself. Doesn't make much sense to me

The thing is, many of those quotes are related to important issues. For example, Harper's quotes about Iraq indicate his stance on Iraq. It's important to know a person's stance on an important issue such as Iraq. So, I don't see a problem in debating it.

Proven by whom? And by the way, it was Lemaitre (a catholic priest) who proposed the big bang theory. Many of the most important scientific discoveries happened "by accident" (quantum theory, relativity etc.). That is, the premise turned out to be wrong, the results did not match what was expected. So, that theory had to be abandoned and a new theory had to be developed. If you already know (or think you know) the result of your experiment, you won't learn much....unless of course you don't get the results you expected. In that case, the explanation can overturn what was believed previously. This is unlike religion, where the dogma is so tightly held, that it's almost impossible to change. Only when it is undeniable, like the fact that the earth goes around the sun (and not vice-versa), will religion change it's mind. And in that particular case, only after the church threatened scientists (ie galileo) with their life for proving them wrong.

I'm not on the map "Economic Left/Right: -1.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56"

At least Tommy's quote was a step forward. At the time, homosexuality was illegal (or very recently legalized?). He was suggesting that it should be legal, not a huge step forward, but a small step forward. When Stockwell day said it in 1992, it was a step backward. By that time, it was legal, and most people would recognize that it's not a "mental illness". If Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery, but did not give blacks the right to vote, should he be criticized or regarded as a hero? Lincoln made a (big) step forward, but he didn't go all the way. Should we still criticize him for not giving blacks the right to vote? (hypothetically speaking, who knows what he would have done if he lived longer)

"If Johnson leaves the Senate, the Republican governor of South Dakota could appoint a Republican to fill the remaining two years of Johnson's term - keeping the Senate in GOP hands with Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking power." Wouldn't it make more sense just to have a by-election? Anyways, so long as he is healthy enough to do his job, he shouldnt be forced out.

Actually, I agree with you. I'm not religious, but I celebrate Christmas. A lot of people are the same way. Very few people I know are actually religious, but aside from Jews, Muslims etc. everyone I know celebrates Christmas. IOW, I can't think of anyone I know who is not religious and doesn't celebrate Christmas. Obviously a Christmas tree doesn't offend me personally, though I don't think the ten commandments should be displayed in something like a court. But, who knows, perhaps there are people out there (just not many) who feel the same way about a Christmas tree as I and many others feel about the ten commandments.

Oops, I thought he was referring to this comment: "I can think of three former Liberal leadership candidates who would love to run there." My bad.

Ummm, did you click on the link above?

Martha Hall Findlay? (not a guy by the way )

I disagree with both of you. Sorry for getting off topic, but I always thought John Baird looks like Peter Whitmore. Peter Whitmore John Baird

I agree. I was just adding another way of looking at the argument.

I agree. That's the argument I was waiting to hear, but so far, I haven't seen anyone mention that in this thread. However, what about the argument that many dropouts are 'irresponsible'....and I don't want to generalize here, certainly a lot of dropouts go on to do great things, but most of the dropouts I knew back in high school were very irresponsible and very bad drivers. It's certainly not true that all dropouts are bad drivers, or that all high school graduates are good drivers, but is there not at least some correlation between the two?

Some of them, yes. Probably moreso than Muslims living in the "west". I agree with that.

It's not off-topic, we are talking about the dangers of driving, specifically the dangers of a 16 year old driving. It's no more insane to prevent a 16 year old from driving than it is to prevent a 16 year old from drinking. Yet, previous governments didn't lower the drinking age to 16, so does that mean that every premier in recent history (don't know what the drinking laws were like way back when) was "playing father" by preventing 16 year olds from drinking, as mentioned in the opening post: "Premier Dalton McGuinty wants to play everyones father..."

If you're comparing the dangers of driving vs. drinking, it doesn't make any sense to talk about drinking AND driving. I could just as easily ask you, how many people are hit and killed by a 16 year old driving drunk or a 16 year old just plain drinking? What does make sense is to ask, how many people are killed by a 16 year old ONLY drinking vs. killed by a 16 year old ONLY driving.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home Could it be that Muslims are not as intolerant as some people like to believe?

Hmmm. How many people are hit and killed by a 16 year old drinking, how many are hit and killed by a 16 year old driving?

Does it cause harm for a 16 year old to drink? Does it cause harm for a 16 year old to drive? Why the difference?

I'll go with the party that cut my taxes (Liberals) rather than the party that raised them (Conservatives) Conservatives have reduced greenhouse gases? That's news to me. I'll take the party that created CIHR and more than doubled funding for health research (Liberals) Nothing for me vs. nothing for me. Tough choice. I'll go with for SSM. I am not naive enough to believe that any of the current party leaders are going to be "accountable". I'd prefer to vote for the candidate with the best policies, rather than discriminate based on which region of the country they come from. And I can understand Dion's English perfectly well. How's that going by the way?

Is it not within the Premier's powers to set the legal driving age? Is it "playing father" to not allow minors to drink?