That sums it up? Really? Do you believe that anything that's debated is useless? I didn't say that the entire issue is up for debate, mind you, merely that it is debated. Further, I didn't regurgitate Stephen Hawking's explanations, but discussed the nature of his work in such a way as to provide a response. To suggest that an explanation that includes information from outside oneself is somehow illicit is simply ludicrous. None of us truly has an original, unprovoked thought, and our knowledge as a race has significantly depended upon effectively using the knowledge of others from which to build.

The actual answer I offered is in the process — in the very fact that there is uncertainty and the leeway for debate — and that is the answer I provided to you. It is in the uncertainty that some theists believe they are justified in belief. That was my answer, which you continue to ignore.

You claim that I wish to engage in an endless debate about millions of unproven scientific theories. First, it's not millions of theories; it's only one question of singularity with two general options that speak directly to the question of first cause and have very specific conclusions depending on which is the case. I stated earlier, however, that neither option excludes anything in regard to an antecedent cause. You've ignored everything I've offered to help in understanding why or how theists might feel justified — using very real possibilities based on current data about the nature of causation (which is the question you're asking) — and then you accuse me of wishing to engage in an endless debate. And, regarding the "endless debate," following is what I said in my initial post:



I am not looking to debate you or anyone here. I truly thought you were seeking understanding and I hoped to help in that way. I was wrong, clearly. You need not waste any further time in responding to me, because I honestly don't care what you have to say anymore. I was willing to help when I thought that was what you wanted, but I won't continue to fuel your hostility toward theists or provide you with fodder to promote your own myopic world view.

--



Of all the things you've written in this thread, this is the only one that offends me. I haven't taken anything I've written in this thread from any other source except what I've learned over the last several years about the work of physicists and mathematicians, and nothing I've mentioned about that could be considered any sort of intellectual theft. Otherwise the thoughts are mine, and I have not plagiarized from any source or lifted my words from any other web site. As some here can attest, I try to provide sources if I'm using someone else's argument or when quoting a passage; and when I cannot because I no longer have access to my reference materials, I disclose that information as well.

I am explaining the _real_ argument, not the limited way in which you understand "believers' logic." You insist on refusing anyone's explanation and demand a "simple answer" to your "simple question." You don't want an answer, because the one I've provided is also the one that theistic and atheistic scholars are currently debating, yet you reject it as somehow being outside the parameters of your question.

When you assert that believers claim that "nothing can pop out of nothingness and had to be created," you are alluding to the law of causation — whether you acknowledge it or not. Even your wording — "pop out of nothingness" — suggests existence with beginning, exactly the subject with which the law of causation deals. However, each time I elaborate on the law of causation and explain why it doesn't apply to a concept of a God that has no beginning, you insist that the law of causation isn't relevant.

It has become clear to me that you are not interested in an explanation of belief or how people feel justified in their belief. You merely wish to argue. Most of what I have stated in my previous posts is directly relevant to your question and answers how believers can feel justified in their belief, and I've phrased the points three different ways because your responses led me to believe that I wasn't being clear enough in my explanation. Your refusal to accept any of what I've written, however, plainly indicates that you are uninterested in having a deeper understanding of theistic thought or how it applies to your question of first cause.

I am an atheist (or agnostic with atheistic components), as I stated before, and I tend to consider most theistic thought to be misguided, but not on this point. Many theists acknowledge the uncertainties, but feel justified in their beliefs because what they believe to be so is _possible_ or, in some cases, they believe it to be _probable_. That was the point I made in my last post, that many people feel justified for reasons of possibility, but are they even justified in such rationalization?

I now realize that you have no interest in engaging in a deep discussion, so I won't trouble you further. I do hope, however, that my words weren't entirely wasted and that someone here found my posts helpful and relevant in their own pursuit of understanding the concepts and problems associated with first cause.

(A friend of mine has/had a book on this subject, and it dealt pretty deeply [in part] with the philosophical concepts without getting deep into the mathematics. It was a bit biased toward theistic justification, but I found it interesting nonetheless. If anyone is interested in reading the book, I may be able to get the title and author's name from my friend and pass it along.)

Please, reread my post. I never said that everything was created. Further, the complicated concepts used in my reply discuss directly whether it is justifiable to believe in the possibility of a creator God. To reiterate the point that directly addresses your original question:

The concept you are indirectly referencing is one of first cause. The law of causation says that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. The law is worded this way because it deals with only those concepts of which we have empirical knowledge. We know nothing of the possibility or the nature of entities that have no beginning, and thus the law does not apply to such situations. Theists believe that there is at least one God, and that such God (or gods) exists outside of space and time in the ways we perceive them and has no beginning. If God exists and has no beginning, then the law of causation does not apply. The law of causation cannot be applied to something that has no beginning because we have no reference for such existence. The relevance of my original post is that it describes how scientists and theoretical mathematicians are attempting to illustrate whether our universe might have no beginning — which would be a remarkable discovery — essentially opening up the possibility that our universe has no cause.

If you want it in simpler terms, basically it comes down to whether anything with no beginning is possible. If yes, then an uncaused God is possible — just as an uncaused universe is possible. If no, then the universe needs a cause, but so does whatever caused it. I can't reduce the concepts any further than that.

Your question has been answered, but the logical inquisitive progression is, "is it justifiable to believe in something for which there is no evidence if it is merely possible?" That question works both ways, of course, because all the theories I've mentioned that result from the law of causation are nothing more than possibilities. We cannot even determine what the probability of these theories might be until we have considerably more knowledge — which may lie in the work of Stephen Hawking or his contemporaries.

funches: Please read the rest of my post again. (I know — it was very long and a pain in the ass to read the first time, but it covers most of the big concepts of first causation.) The question is neither a matter of simple logic, nor does a brief explanation cover the topic. I attempted to cover the basics in my response, but it is cursory at best. The gist of what I wrote is this: If our universe has a singularity (apex of creation), according to the law of causation there must be a cause. While that proves nothing further, many people hold to faith that God is the "uncaused cause." We cannot apply any knowledge of entities that have a beginning to potential entities that do not — we have no basis, no reference point. A singularity hasn't been proven or disproved, and what either discovery would mean is not entirely clear.

Most people believe something similar to what they were taught as children; many others rebel entirely and believe something vastly different. Very few people put a great deal of thought into what they believe, though many do put a great deal of thought into justifying their beliefs. The uncaused cause problem isn't really a problem in simplest terms. Some scientists theorize that the universe is a closed system with no beginning and no end, and they believe that to be a valid model (but with uncertain veracity). If they are right about the validity and wrong about the veracity, then it would be fully justifiable to believe in a God with the properties they are seeking within the universe itself. Therefore, believers maybe be justified in having hope that God exists, even if they are ignorant of what that justification entails.

I guess I'm concerned that the faith of others seems to bother you so much, to the point that you press hard for an answer from believers when there can be none. It's an approach that will encourage people to push back with similar force, but without really exploring the issues at hand. If you truly wish to enlighten the masses then hostile confrontation (while fun) is not as effective as leading by example. Being too aggressive will drive people away and turn them off to your ideas, but being open and helpful in your approach will lead to people asking questions of you and seeking your advice. You'll catch more flies with honey, my friend.

I'm sorry if I've missed any responses that cover the following, but I didn't see anything from my preliminary glance through the posts in this thread.

First, I don't think anyone is afraid to comment on this topic. Not everyone is well-versed in philosophy or capable of such thought. That's not a criticism, but merely a fact. Few people will be able to respond to your question in any meaningful way because the concept requires a deep understanding of philosophy and mathematics/physics.

Second, the argument is often erroneously stated as "everything that exists must have a cause." The actual concept is, "everything that _begins_ to exist must have a cause." The distinction may seem trite, but it's actually rather important.

The importance of this law of causation is thus: If the universe has no beginning, then there is no absolute requirement that there were a creator. If, however, the universe has a apex of origin (or a singularity, as it is known), then there must be an external source. The significance is twofold, of course, in that a created universe can have a creator (e.g., God) that has no beginning — and the law of causation does not state that an entity with no beginning necessitates a cause.

Stephen Hawking has worked out a theoretical mathematical model that describes our universe as having no singularity — in essence (and overly simplified), a closed loop. However, his equations are entirely theoretical and have not yet been proven with real data. Some claim that this disproves his theory, but what it truly proves is that our understanding of the universe is considerably deficient and that the very nature of existence eludes us. This topic is really the tip of the iceberg, and our knowledge of the universe hinges largely on the question of origin (or lack thereof).

The argument is flawed, however, when people take a rather large leap from the fact of our ignorance to assertions of fact. In particular, if there is a singularity, many people assume that God has been vindicated and that such is proof of God's existence. That's a premature conclusion, however. Other possibilities exist, including a death of one universe giving life to ours. I'm not suggesting that such a scenario is the reality, and to jump to that conclusion would be irresponsible, just as jumping to the conclusion of God as the source would be irresponsible. There simply is no evidence to support any particular theory without considerably greater knowledge.

Another flaw exists, however, in that people assume that the law of causation implies that an entity with no beginning is possible. That isn't what it says. In fact, it doesn't actually deal with any such topic. The statement is limited to what we know — items that began to exist — and what we can conclude from that knowledge. We do not have knowledge, directly or indirectly, of anything that never began to exist, so we don't know if such is even possible.

I am in no way qualified to discuss the mathematical theories behind what I've put forth. There are frustratingly few people in the world who understand that level of mathematics, and I'm certainly not among them. I understand the overarching theory, but even 20 years of intense mathematical study wouldn't bring me anywhere close to the level of understanding of which Hawking and his colleagues are capable. For any of us here to claim that we "know" much of anything beyond the details of our day-to-day lives is ridiculous.

Many will say that I'm being hypocritical because I label myself as an atheist, a view that clearly deals in absolutes. My atheism, however, deals with a very specific contradiction, as I see it, that precludes the existence of a man-conceived God (or gods), and I believe that there is nothing in any realm of existence that is without a rational, scientific answer. These topics get into a much longer conversation (or series of conversations) than I'm willing to begin here, but my point is this: I don't know what secrets the universe holds, or how many other universes exist or what foreign form they may take. To my insignificant mind, the wonders of all existence — no matter how scientifically logical and reasonable — would seem so magnificent that I'd be incapable of seeing them in any way except as metaphysical. Intellectually, I would understand that it's my own limitations that make it seem like a metaphysical, other-worldly existence. I would be tremendously arrogant to think that just because I don't understand how something is possible or how it works that it necessarily involves a metaphysical explanation.

I guess the actual point of my rant is to bring about a certain amount of tolerance in regard to these religious topics. Discourse is good and healthy and can bring us to deeper understanding, but many people don't discuss issues so much as debate with the goal of convincing others that they are right and others are wrong. None of us knows that what we believe is true, though the devoutness of faith of each person should not be questioned. Why do we continue to ask hostile questions, or present topics that state there are "questions that believers are afraid to answer?"

If any among us has every answer on ever topic, please stand up; I'm sure your knowledge will be in great demand. However, I'll be taking a seat.

Thank you DKW!



Well, not exactly, but I thought I'd poke my head out of the cave before returning to the never-ending project at work.

Wasn't it God who said, "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam?"

A fellow, new to the neighborhood, is tending his lawn. In a matter of a few weeks, he's cleared out the dead undergrowth, seeded, fertilized, and watered the lawn, and planted some beautiful flowers. His neighbor sees him working his yard one day and remarks, "Golly! It's just amazing what you and the Lord have accomplished with this yard." "Yeah," the man replies, "you should have seen it when God was taking care of it all by himself."

I've seen many beautiful women with short hair. Granted, long hair looks better on some women, but some women look beautiful with short hair or with a shaved head. Basically, don't feel the need to conform to what someone else has to say about your hair. All that matters is that your style is one that suits you and with which you are comfortable.

You ask what you should do, but then disregard advice that might actually be helpful — as opposed to many of the "punish her for her sins" responses. You merely came here looking for validation that telling your brother is the right thing to do, regardless of the consequences, under the pretense that you are concerned for his emotional well-being and the future of his family: "What should I tell my brother ( he is very sensitive and he is about to have a second kid.)"

Lulu is right, that you can't know what's going on except through your limited perspective which may have given you a false impression of the situation. If you really think that I'm lecturing on the ethics of non-involvement, then you've missed the point entirely — but now I _am_ lecturing. You are dealing with the lives of real people about matters you aren't qualified to assess in a manner you aren't justified in executing, and your own need to exert power in the lives of others is appalling. You don't want to help them; you want to hurt her — and apparently without regard for what will happen to their marriage or their children. Further, I'm not condoning cheating — within or without a marriage — and if she's having an extramarital affair then she is quite possibly undermining her relationship. However, if you take it upon yourself to actively destroy their marriage and split up their family, you are much worse than she is.

If you present her with an ultimatum (that either she tells him or you will), you will most likely be forcing a divorce — which may happen regardless, but none of us knows that. If you truly believe yourself to be judge, jury, and executioner in this situation, nothing I say or anyone else says will change your mind. If, however, you want solid advice and care about your family as you claimed in your original post, you will let them deal with it in their own way and in their own time without outside involvement. Those of us who have seen relationships destroyed, as well as those healed, after an infidelity can tell you that outside interference always causes more problems than it solves. Relationships that recover generally do so when they work through their problems (not just sexual infidelity) in their own way, and seek help of their own accord.

This is the last I have to say on the subject. I'm really not looking to argue with you or engage in a pïssing match, and I suspect you will end up doing whatever you want regardless. But this isn't the same as asking for advice about whether to pursue your high school sweetheart or how to handle forgetting your girlfriend's birthday. This is a much more serious situation with more serious repercussions than the _possibility_ of infidelity. I genuinely hope for the best for your brother and his family, and to that end I truly hope you reconsider your intended action.

I disagree with just about everyone here. Do NOT tell him. You don't know the circumstances or the details, and you aren't even sure it was her. The only things to come from you telling him is a broken marriage, kids torn apart by divorce, and hurt feelings all around.

Here are a few scenarios to consider:

- She had no intention of cheating, but just wanted someone to contact her to let her know she's still desirable — something she may not be hearing from your brother much these days.

- She may be looking for friendship only, especially if your brother works long hours or has become emotionally distant recently, and the only conversation she has all day is with a two-year old.

- Perhaps she and your brother were interested in role-playing and this fits into that scene somehow.

- He might know about it and support it, and is their sexuality really something you want to get into with them?

- He may have cheated and she found out, and now she's feeling abandoned and looking for comfort elsewhere.

- Hormones may be driving her crazy (making her feel lonelier than she might otherwise be), and after she has her baby she will be too busy to worry about it and eventually return to "normal."

I'm not saying any of these is necessarily the case. All I'm saying is that you don't know what the situation entails and it's a personal issue between them (regardless of whether he knows about it). It's simply not your place to interfere in such matters.

On a final note, let's assume for a moment that the woman you saw is your sister-in-law and she's looking to cheat on your brother. Women rarely go out of their way to cheat on a whim. There is almost always a deep, underlying problem in their relationship that makes them seek comfort in the arms of another man. It's rarely because sex isn't satisfying at home, either — that's a male-centric concept, but for women it's usually something deeply emotional.

In short, stay out of it. The odds are that your interference will cause more harm than good.

I guess for me, it wouldn't be apparent that there was an "odd woman out." I would neither be intimidated nor predatory; I would just be clueless.

I don't think that's entirely the point, AMPdog. It isn't that people act differently, but that they have a different outlook at different ages. People of the same stage in life are more likely to want similar things out of life at the same times. People separated by twelve years — especially in their late teens, 20s, and early 30s — are typically looking to get different things out of life. Life is largely about experience and growth, and the likelihood is that someone 30 years old is far beyond the 18 year old in both areas.

I'm not saying it can't work out, but it is important to understand the issue of experiential disparity and approach a serious relationship with that in mind. People facing such a situation may have to work a little harder at making the relationship successful, or may decide that their goals and desires for the relationship are vastly different and insurmountable. The decision is to made by those involved in the relationship, and them alone. None else can make the decision for them.

People love bumper-sticker sayings, like, "love conquers all" and "age is just a number" — but the reality is that age is quite indicative of a stage of life. At 18, she's just getting her feet wet, able to make important decisions for herself for the first time in her life. She likely isn't ready to truly settle down, even if she thinks she is. At 30, you're starting to focus on stabilizing your life and planning for your future. You probably aren't looking for the "what do I want to do with my life?" journey that she's on — you've been there before and have moved beyond that.

The older you are, the less significant an age difference like this becomes — but at such an early stage of life, your experiential levels are likely vastly different.

That said, these things occasionally work out well. You and your girlfriend are really the only ones who can decide if you have enough in common, similar values, compatible goals, etc. to make a go of it.

Whatever happens, good luck to you.

It sounds to me that you have several issues. It may be a good idea to back up all your data files (make sure you back up your e-mail and bookmarks as well) to an external hard drive, install more RAM, and reformat your hard drive, reinstall your operating system (and updates) and software, and restore the data files you need (and archive the ones you don't). If you don't feel confident you can do this yourself, it may be worth the extra few dollars to take your computer to a repair shop and have them do it. The benefits of performing these tasks will be a cleaner hard drive, a refreshed operating system, more free space, more memory, and the possibility of removing any viruses, spyware, and adware that may be adversely affecting system performance.

Just a couple of things if you do this: triple-check your data backup, be sure you have all software installation discs with serial numbers and activation codes, and check your data back up again (I really cannot emphasize this enough — your data backup is crucial if you want to retain your files, e-mail, bookmarks, etc.). I would also suggest getting an external hard drive if you do not have one already for regular backup and archival of files.

Good luck.

"Christ Chex" was a good bit, I must admit. Though I have to say that his "peace be with you" didn't strike me as being extremely funny. Jim Gaffigan does a really funny bit about that — about being pervy in church, "peace be with you, peace be with you, and an extra 'peace' for you."

("He's going to Hell in two religions. He's practically sprinting there!")

While I think he's funny, I think he's overrated by his diehard fans. Much of his comedy is funny mostly because of the antics he goes through and his body language, but the content of his jokes is often mediocre. It still takes a _lot_ of talent to do what he does, and to turn nearly anything (no matter how unfunny) into a funny joke through posture and flailing is impressive. That said, he definitely has a few really funny bits that are not based so heavily on physical presentation — and his joke about receiving oral sex in a car is simply masterful.

Agreed, LostInIndiana. However, he may need to do some script modification to do exactly what he's trying to do — and he'll still need access to a database (unless the script he uses writes to and reads from flat files). The first things he needs to find out are whether his host provider allows server-side scripting, which (if any) databases are available (as well as the information about how to access them), and whether they have ready-to-go bulletin board scripts that will work for his intended purpose. It sounds to me that sp1d3r is looking to implement something like a shout box rather than a separate, full-fledged bulletin board, which may require cannibalizing a script so it works within another page. If that's the case, the code for it should be very simple and relatively easy to port and modify as required.

Yeah, if you're already using VB, then ASP is probably easier to use (probably uses a lot of similar programming structures and so forth). I've used ASP only to fix/modify other people's code, but I found the learning curve to be significantly higher than when I learned PHP, and it seemed that comparable tasks (like sending e-mail) were more verbose in ASP than in PHP. I suspect that ASP has some nice features that I never had a chance to experience (because I don't often need to work in ASP).

I've never used it, but ColdFusion is supposed to be very nice. According to a developer I know, coding in ColdFusion reduced his development time by half or more (depending on the type of application he was developing). The obvious downside to using ColdFusion is price — PHP is free, and ColdFusion costs $1300 for the standard edition and $7500 for the enterprise edition. There is also a developer edition, but I didn't see any pricing for it.

Oops... Spidercmb beat me to it. I'm not a big fan of ASP (the scripting language Spidercmb uses in his example), but it works. I prefer PHP with MySQL, but that's just my personal bias.