aswitcher
Jul 12, 06:33 AM
I really hope they are right about a the low cost single chip version so we can make good home multimedia center.
intoxicated662
Mar 18, 02:17 PM
You get what you deserve and for those of you who kept telling others about an Unlock and to suffer the consequences, KARMA.
Torrijos
Apr 13, 07:56 AM
People don't even realize the amount of work necessary to bring a project like this to term.
I really hope all this goodness is going to trickle down the rest of Apple's software offering, from OS components to the rest of the Pro apps, through iApps (the iWork suite is in dire need of a refresh, Numbers has tons of bugs and slows to a crawl with complex projects).
I really hope all this goodness is going to trickle down the rest of Apple's software offering, from OS components to the rest of the Pro apps, through iApps (the iWork suite is in dire need of a refresh, Numbers has tons of bugs and slows to a crawl with complex projects).
rasmasyean
Mar 14, 08:30 PM
So, if they have a serious meltdown situation, the whole site could become so contaminated that no one who wants to live more than a few hours will be able to get anywhere near the other cores to keep the hoses on them? It would seem like one meltdown will take the rest of them with it, in a sort of chain reaction.
Yeah, the folks living in the western US are really looking forward to the "divine wind" from Japan.
Well, I don't think they expect any explosion of the cap spewing a volcano of radioactive metal like Chernobol. If anything, worse case is they build a structure arround it like in Chernobol and hope the radioactive stuff doesn't seep into the water when it melts into the ground.
Theoretically, if the geography allows, I would presume they can dig arround and under the reactor and build some form of shield structure and leave it like that forever. Or until technology allows a real cleanup in the future.
Yeah, the folks living in the western US are really looking forward to the "divine wind" from Japan.
Well, I don't think they expect any explosion of the cap spewing a volcano of radioactive metal like Chernobol. If anything, worse case is they build a structure arround it like in Chernobol and hope the radioactive stuff doesn't seep into the water when it melts into the ground.
Theoretically, if the geography allows, I would presume they can dig arround and under the reactor and build some form of shield structure and leave it like that forever. Or until technology allows a real cleanup in the future.
beaster
Sep 12, 05:41 PM
Nail on the head, imo.
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
I don't doubt the device will be capable of outputting HD resolution. But they still have 2 big problems to solve before they have me as a customer - bandwidth of the wireless network and content. Maybe they can solve (have solved?) the wireless bandwidth problem with a new wireless protocol or some really slick new compression technology - I sure hope so. But then they need HD content. Maybe that'll be a Blu-ray drive in the Mac. But HD downloads for feature-length movies? That's a lot of bits to move and store somewhere - will fill up a typical hard drive in no time. So you need a way to archive those movies - writeable Blu-ray maybe, or more hard drive space. My point is that there's still some kinks to work out to deliver HD content through this device to a TV. Until those problems are solved, I'll pass.
-Sean
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
I don't doubt the device will be capable of outputting HD resolution. But they still have 2 big problems to solve before they have me as a customer - bandwidth of the wireless network and content. Maybe they can solve (have solved?) the wireless bandwidth problem with a new wireless protocol or some really slick new compression technology - I sure hope so. But then they need HD content. Maybe that'll be a Blu-ray drive in the Mac. But HD downloads for feature-length movies? That's a lot of bits to move and store somewhere - will fill up a typical hard drive in no time. So you need a way to archive those movies - writeable Blu-ray maybe, or more hard drive space. My point is that there's still some kinks to work out to deliver HD content through this device to a TV. Until those problems are solved, I'll pass.
-Sean
PeterQVenkman
Apr 13, 01:03 PM
Well it was rumoured for some time and we all waited with baited breath but was Apple seriously going to end the pro app that started them off to stardom? Sadly yes they have. What genius decides to make a pro app accessible to the masses? We who use FCP have to make money from our business, so we need a little bit of smoke and mirrors to make our business needed, otherwise our clients will just get a 16 year old in off the street, download FCP (sorry imovie Pro or whatever they have decided to call it) and there you go we are out of work!
Competing with 16 year olds is a bad position to be in.
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
The Canon Rebel T3 (EOS 1100D)
Canon EOS Rebel T3 / 1100D
Canon Rebel T3/EOS 1100D ISO
canon eos rebel t3 eos 1100d
Canon Rebel T3 / EOS 1100D
Canon EOS 1100D/Rebel T3
The Canon EOS 1100D / Rebel T3
The Canon EOS 1100D / Rebel T3
Canon Rebel T3 / EOS 1100D
Canon EOS 1100D Rebel T3
The Rebel T3 features HD movie
Canon Rebel T3, EOS 1100D.
The Canon 1100D / Rebel T3 is
Competing with 16 year olds is a bad position to be in.
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
DHagan4755
Oct 28, 04:12 PM
Maybe Apple will replace the 2.0 and 2.6 models with the 1 new quad-core Clovertown. They are probably less expensive for 1 than 2 Woodcrests. This would allow Apple to drop the entry level pricing and raise the bar so to speak.
Standard configuration:
One 2.66GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor
2GB memory (4 x 512MB) 667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive
16x double-layer SuperDrive
$2,499
Configurations — Low to High
- One 2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor (subtract $299)
- Standard configuration
- Two 3.0GHz Dual-core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" processors (add $799)
- Two 2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processors (add $1,399)
What do you think?
Standard configuration:
One 2.66GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor
2GB memory (4 x 512MB) 667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive
16x double-layer SuperDrive
$2,499
Configurations — Low to High
- One 2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor (subtract $299)
- Standard configuration
- Two 3.0GHz Dual-core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" processors (add $799)
- Two 2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processors (add $1,399)
What do you think?
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read.
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read.
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
Sydde
Apr 26, 11:53 PM
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical. But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81 (see "biblical apocrypha (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha)"). Then there are fascinating tales such as the Gospel According to Judas Iscariot (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) and the Gospel of Barnabas (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas), which relate a rather different account of the last days of Jesus.
Finally, one cannot ignore the Nag Hammadi texts (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) nor the books summarily left out (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) of the new testament.
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81 (see "biblical apocrypha (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha)"). Then there are fascinating tales such as the Gospel According to Judas Iscariot (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) and the Gospel of Barnabas (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas), which relate a rather different account of the last days of Jesus.
Finally, one cannot ignore the Nag Hammadi texts (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) nor the books summarily left out (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) of the new testament.
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
GooMan
Aug 29, 11:48 AM
I could not care any less.
Although, I do know of one thing Apple does that hurts the environment. They make me drive 3 hours to get to the closest Apple Store and 3 hours to get back home plus sitting in all the traffic in Atlanta. However, I drive a Nissan Armada (of course it has a V8) so I'm not too worried about gas consumption. ;)
Although, I do know of one thing Apple does that hurts the environment. They make me drive 3 hours to get to the closest Apple Store and 3 hours to get back home plus sitting in all the traffic in Atlanta. However, I drive a Nissan Armada (of course it has a V8) so I'm not too worried about gas consumption. ;)
ArnehWB
Sep 26, 08:31 AM
I'd pay for them to try and do a low voltage Clovertown like they did Woodcrest with the 5148LV. That one had a TDP not far off of Merom.
Intel do have a LV Clovertown planned. Its a 4x1.6Ghz with 8MB L2 (2x4MB) part with a 50W TDP. See http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=671378&starttime=0&endtime=0 for more info.
-Arneh
Intel do have a LV Clovertown planned. Its a 4x1.6Ghz with 8MB L2 (2x4MB) part with a 50W TDP. See http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=671378&starttime=0&endtime=0 for more info.
-Arneh
aristobrat
Apr 20, 09:00 PM
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
Apparently Lion will support that, somewhat. From reading the dev preview thread comments, the default view in Finder doesn't show the user's Library folder anymore.
Apparently Lion will support that, somewhat. From reading the dev preview thread comments, the default view in Finder doesn't show the user's Library folder anymore.
Backtothemac
Oct 8, 10:02 AM
Yea, OSX uses libraries, but not specifically poorly designed libraries like winblows. .dll files are attributed to the majority of crashes on a PC. The structure of windows .dll and libraries in Unix are totally different. And yes, the X 86 structure sucks. ;)
SactoGuy18
Mar 14, 07:55 PM
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
Actually, thorium-based nuclear reactors have been successfully tested since the early 1960's! If you read this article from Wired magazine:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
The idea of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor has been around since the 1950's. Ever since Alvin Weinberg's pioneering research, improved technology has made it possible for the LFTR to be competitive against light-water uranium reactors, and of course there's all the advantages I mentioned earlier.
Best of all, thorium-232 is many times more available than fuel-quality uranium, and it's estimated the continental USA may have 20% of the world's supply of thorium that can be mined out--not including the 175,000 tons the US military mined and stored as part of the Manhattan Project!
Like I said earlier, what are we waiting for?
Actually, thorium-based nuclear reactors have been successfully tested since the early 1960's! If you read this article from Wired magazine:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
The idea of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor has been around since the 1950's. Ever since Alvin Weinberg's pioneering research, improved technology has made it possible for the LFTR to be competitive against light-water uranium reactors, and of course there's all the advantages I mentioned earlier.
Best of all, thorium-232 is many times more available than fuel-quality uranium, and it's estimated the continental USA may have 20% of the world's supply of thorium that can be mined out--not including the 175,000 tons the US military mined and stored as part of the Manhattan Project!
Like I said earlier, what are we waiting for?
Periastron
Apr 6, 01:15 PM
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but Command-Up does this.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but Command-Up does this.
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:49 PM
Not if you believe HBO! All Roman women were raging lesbians (or at least bi-sexual).
The hunky men, not so much� *sigh*
:p
Shhhh... don't let them know that...
Lucy Lawless *swoon*
Screw you people, I'm allowed to have my one stereotypical crush (yes, and I'm a raging Xena/Gabby shipper... Don't judge me :()
The hunky men, not so much� *sigh*
:p
Shhhh... don't let them know that...
Lucy Lawless *swoon*
Screw you people, I'm allowed to have my one stereotypical crush (yes, and I'm a raging Xena/Gabby shipper... Don't judge me :()
dudemac
Mar 19, 07:51 AM
As of this morning sometime it seems that it is no longer able to download, but still allows browsing and account login.
philbeeney
Mar 11, 02:38 PM
Yet another one. 6.6 off the north west coast. Here's a link to the USGS website showing all the quake locations in northern Japan.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/10/140_40.php
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/10/140_40.php
eleven59
Apr 10, 11:00 AM
This must be me but I've never cared to have a program maximized on my Mac... Not even games. I always prefer to see multiple programs so I can click easily on any when needed.... It's also nice that just hovering over one let's you scroll thru it without actually clicking on it....
And resizing.. That takes me less than a second to drag and resize a window to what I want it to be.. if I even have to
And resizing.. That takes me less than a second to drag and resize a window to what I want it to be.. if I even have to
matticus008
Mar 20, 10:49 PM
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.
If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.
onicon
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
Knowing how bullying feels like when it's done to you, no matter why or what the difference is, i really appreciate them doing this.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Quobobo
Mar 18, 06:46 PM
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.
Except with one key difference: you're paying for the music. If you can buy a CD and rip it to any format you like, why should you have to have DRM on files you (legally) download? This is why I never use online download sites, I don't understand why I should pay for files that are inferiour to what I can download for free. When I pay for music, I'd rather buy a CD that doesn't have any DRM.
Except with one key difference: you're paying for the music. If you can buy a CD and rip it to any format you like, why should you have to have DRM on files you (legally) download? This is why I never use online download sites, I don't understand why I should pay for files that are inferiour to what I can download for free. When I pay for music, I'd rather buy a CD that doesn't have any DRM.
