Leaderboard

Because causal factors always operate through existents. Literal nonexistence, nothingness, has no causal efficacy. Take a Christian who holds that the universe as we know it today was created by a conscious God. God is the existent to which he appeals in order to explain the universe. Where did God come from? Well, he is eternal, uncaused. Or take a quantum mechanics researcher who posits that the universe as we know it popped out of a quantum fluctuation. In that case, the existent to which he is appealing is the quantum-mechanical nature and features of the 'wider universe', out of which popped this present universe. Where did that QM structure come from? Well, that's just the way it is. Maybe we can also explain that structure, but however we explain it, it will be through the causal processes of yet another existent. In any case, whatever it is that you appeal to to explain the creation of this universe, that thing is also part of existence as such. The relevant question re: supernatural is, are you proposing that the eternal existent has a definite nature, with definite capabilities, which works through definite causal processes to interact with and change (or in this case create) the world outside itself? If you are, then your deity is simply another existent with a definite nature. If not, if you're proposing literal magic, this deity can do things without any sort of causal process, then you're talking nonsense; hence, 'meaningless.'

Fortunately, you do not have the privilege of dictating who can reply to what post. Your conception of space is totally wrong. "In 1905, Albert Einstein published a paper on a special theory of relativity, in which he proposed that space and time be combined into a single construct known as spacetime. In this theory, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers—which has the result that two events that appear simultaneous to one particular observer will not be simultaneous to another observer if the observers are moving with respect to one another. Moreover, an observer will measure a moving clock to tick more slowly than one that is stationary with respect to them; and objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer. Over the following ten years Einstein worked on a general theory of relativity, which is a theory of how gravity interacts with spacetime. Instead of viewing gravity as a force field acting in spacetime, Einstein suggested that it modifies the geometric structure of spacetime itself.[19] According to the general theory, time goes more slowly at places with lower gravitational potentials and rays of light bend in the presence of a gravitational field. Scientists have studied the behaviour of binary pulsars, confirming the predictions of Einstein's theories and non-Euclidean geometry is usually used to describe spacetime." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space

while not a novel bioshock gives an amazing atmosphere and presents an amazing story, although I don't think it would turn out that way it's still an amazing game.

Well, that is all fine and dandy, but I dont think anyone should need *physics* to tell them that time travel is impossible , or at least not more than the most basic physics combined with metaphysics. Trust them to find a way to make this point that is about 50 times more compicated than it needs to be...

The government was scheduled to run out of money completely within a week give or take, within the confines of the law, provided the president didn't exert certain statutory powers (e.g. the $1T coin etc.). Clearly had the deal not been reached, the president would have been duty-bound to override congress' attempt at ending our democracy. Yeah, instantly removing the livelihood of tens of millions of people with no prior warning wouldn't have any bad effects at all. We should totally do that. *** Ayn Rand once called Objectivism, "a philosophy for living on Earth". I guess people are free to use it however they want, and some are perfectly happy using it as a mental exercise, or a puzzle, or a way to win meaningless arguments at cocktail parties. What a waste. OP

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opinion/the-new-resentment-of-the-poor.html?_r=1&hp Leave it to the Republicans, including the head of the moronic Tea Party Caucus to not support taxation of the rich but to be fine with taking some money from the poor. Because taking the last pennies people have will do a lot, but taxing the rich more would never help the country! This is just reverse class warfare.