Ooh…I'd have to say DC>Image due to the fact I could never really get into an Image comic. But the rest I agree with. Daft Punk>deadmau5>Zedd>Knife Party>Madeon>Skrillex. Hm…
...is it tomorrow already? Jeez, I gotta disprove the existence of God. Okay, firstly, God is not something we can empirically prove or disprove, because God is supernatural, and therefore immeasurable through conventional scientific means. However, using simple logic, we can show that in a theoretical environment, God almost certainly does not exist. Firstly, let us consider the initial complexity of God. God is claimed to be a being capable of creating the entire Universe, knowing everything, being everywhere within the Universe, being able to do everything and being able to sense everything. A being capable of all that (considering the sheer impossible-to-imagine size of the Universe) would have to be incredibly and ridiculously complex. It is a general rule that in theory, the more complex something is, the more unlikely it is to exist. So, since God is so ridiculously, incredibly complex, to understate it, he must also be ridiculously, incredibly unlikely, to the point he almost certainly does not exist. But that's not all. Proposing a God created the Universe is not a conclusive answer to the question of the Universe's origin. God himself needs a creator or a creating process. That is at least as complex as him. So now we have to imagine a being or process complex enough to create a being capable of creating the entire Universe, knowing everything, being everywhere etc. And then the question is raised as to what process or being created that process or being, and what process or being created that process or being, and so on, until infinity. Keep in mind that God must also be at least as improbable as his creator process or being, and his creator process or being must be as improbable as the creator process or being of the second process/being, and so on. The entire chain extends infinitely, meaning all creators/processes are infinitely improbable, including God himself. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist. Now consider all the Gods claimed to exist, by the world's thousands of religions. And now take all the possible ways you can claim a God exists, which is a truly staggering number. Take the infinitely small probability a God exists and divide it by the number of ways you could claim a God exists. Even if this infinitely small probability turns out to be true and a God does exist, there's an infinitely infinitely small probability that this God is anything like any religion in existence describes. And if we consider the sheer number of ways we can claim a God exists, all of them as unverifiable as the next and most conflicting with each other, there is no reason to believe any of these claims are true, because we can't empirically verify them in the first place. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I'll round this off by pointing out that the whole point behind the question of what created the Universe is to explain not only why the Universe exists, but why its complex and improbable nature has arisen. To answer this question of complexity with something even more improbable is positively ridiculous. Thank you and good day.
The answer is potato. Your argument is invalid. 72Volt, I've blown my mind just looking at your wall of text.
If you're an atheist, you should read it. And if you're not an atheist, you should definitely read it.
I personally do believe in God. Although, you certainly are a good writer and welcome to your own opinion. Also your theory raises way more questions than it does answers which actually makes me believe more, haha. On the thought that, there has to be an infinite creator, someone who created someone who created someone, it almost seems MORE impossible than there was just ONE already there. If one does not believe in God, that theory would still have to exist. So if we "evolved" from monkeys, they would have had to evolve from something else, which would have had to evolve from something else, etc. To me, the fact that the idea of that being possible makes my head explode, gives me reason to believe the answer is way simpler, even if it does take a little faith to see it. Just my opinion though and not trying to tell you that you're wrong for what you think.
I don't live in USA but I don't understand how the most advanced country in the world allows citizens the use of weapons.
Alrite let's get something clear. I am sick of people going like this "America needs to control their guns. America is stupid for letting people use guns." Say Americans don't have weapons and someone takes control of army. America now has dictator. Say Americans do have weapons and someone takes control of the army, the Americans can fight back! They can possibly overthrow the dictator. Also, almost all the guns used in mass killings are obtained illegally. Notice how in all circumstances, if a person had been carrying a concealed weapon, the gunman could have been shot down, saving lives. There should be better background checks for getting a gun, but seriously, they should not be banned.
If the gunman didn't have a gun there would be no need to save lives. I wasn't saying americans were stupid. Also, though the guns used in mass killings are obtained illegally I think that there would be a lot less mass killings if weapons were banned. I agree with you, there should be better background checks for getting a gun.
Okay, so, the same day that the Connecticut Elementary school was attacked by a gunman, which is what has really set off this most recent bout of gun ban talk, there was a mass killing in China. A man attacked and I believe killed around 20 kids, except with a knife. People will kill other people wether they use guns or some other weapon. The idea that banning guns will keep murderers from getting guns is just purely preposterous. If they were gonna obey the gun ban, they probably aren't the type of people who are gonna be murderers. It's kinda like how drugs are illegal, and so nobody uses them....oh wait, thats not how it works. The only affect of banning guns will be keeping them away from law-abiding citizens, who could use them to take out a killer with his illegally obtained gun, instead of being helplessly gunned down.
The idea is, any object could use to hurt someone and then be banned when we need it. Someone got punched in the face! Ban fists! See? Its all about control and the idiots who can't handle these items.
There's a lot of great and scenic hunting land in the US. I also sleep better at night knowing I have a way to quickly and effectively defend myself in the event of an intrusion. Twitch put it very well in the Moment of Silence thread... *repeatedly smacks Like button*
