$$$

good stuff, thanks guys.

Ha! Existence is identity.

My understanding of the term universe was incorrect. I now accept that it means, all that exists. When scientists talk about multiple universes, I have to assume they are using the term universe incorrectly, or are stating incorrectly that there can be multiples of "all that exists". If Existence exists (it does) then it has identity. If the universe exists (it does) it has identity. The two identities are different? (Of course , if the universe is all that exists, and existence exists, then existence can not exist without the universe.) I know I'm having trouble trying to ask my question... Is existence a real different thing from the universe?

I could imagine a universe similar to ours except that gravity acts at a different speed? I'm confused on the concept of existence and universe being the same thing. If universe implies everything in existence, does that mean universe and existence are different?

You have confused me, or I have confused you. Is existence the same as the universe? If existence exists does it exist independently of a universe?

or is it that, to say there is existence means that there is a universe?

When people say universe, I assume "our" universe as in the stars, planets, natural laws, matter as we know it, etc... I have no direct proof of multiple universes, and I'm not sure anyone does. If I am able to grasp the idea that there could be another universe with it's own natural laws, then isn't the idea of universe different from existence? Any other universe would be in existence. Existence would exist with or without our universe. If the term universe is the same as existence then wouldn't the following sentences make sense?: Something came into universe today. Something came into the existence today. Even if there is one universe and it's definition is everything that is "in existence" , you have two different ideas there - existence and everything that is in it. (I don't want to get hung up on the multiple universe thing here. I can fully appreciate the idea that if we find another "something" that has it's own natural laws it is part of the "universe" as a whole. I don't see that the concept of "everything in existence" is the same as the concept of existence itself) Let me know your thoughts, thanks.

This seems completely wrong to me. Existence is not universe. There is only one existence, while there potentially could be many universes. It seems that we are pretty certain our universe came into existence. Therefore existence is different from universe.

Pakistan is a failed state. At some point we are going to have to secure their nuclear weapons by force. I'm not sure if it needs to be done now, or if it is better to wait until Pakistan descends into more chaos. Probably it is better to wait a bit, there is always the chance the country could improve and if the country is chaotic it allows more of an excuse for action, and maybe even get support from other islamic nations. In either case, Pakistan as it is today, and was 10 years ago, should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. A good chunk of their military are our enemy already. uh...ok, Pakistan is going to become a first world nation by 2015 and we have nothing to worry about. All these stupid studies intelligence agencies do, totally no use... I remember in 1996 when the taliban effectively took over Afghanistan and I told people we needed to overthrow them. I was told it would start WW3 and there was no good reason. It doesn't take rocket science to know that a religious run nation that obesseses about destroying the west would eventually do some damage. I'm pretty sure Objectivists had been saying that kind of logic long before 1996. Kind of like predicting that the USSR, with it's worldwide communist constitution, would probably try to control the world. Or Nazi Germany with it's racist anti-west doctrine would start a war. But hey, how can you know...How can we know that a nation where a good chunk of it's military support the Taliban, how can we know they will use nuclear weapons and material against the West? More likely they will see the light, or at least say to themselves, hey, using nuclear weapons against the west that just isn't nice you know. Lets just stick to regular bombs. In 2001 I was told invading would lead to ww3, and Iraq would too. No one would support the USA. Meanwhile as a coalition of what, 30+ nations?, landed in Iraq...no peep from the militaries of any islamic nation, Iran and perhaps Syria being the exception and even then, covertly. Russia, China and the EU and every single government would secretly breath a sign of relief if the USA took care of these problems. They'll raise a stink and people will march for anti-war and achieve the same results we see today, nothing. Probably better to wait until they develope longer range missiles I guess. Lets wait until they arm the nuclear launching subs they bought from France a few years ago, the Agosta 90B. They are silent runners that can sit off the coast of Asia, North America and Europe. A couple of well placed Al qaida and Taliban crew will be able to dictate their terms to us and we shall surrender our we'll be nuked. but what do I know, I have no proof this will happen, just like I had no proof in 1996 about the taliban being able to do anything to the West. better to wait and see I guess. what can one do. nothing. defeat.

No room for exaggeration on these forums! Should have known better. There is no need to start a full WW3. We just need to be able to secure Pakistan if it descends into chaos. Interesting that some of you decided WW3 means attacking all islamic nations. I guess there is no reason to stop Iran from getting nuclear power either since it's obviously a peaceful venture? I'm sure our governments know how best to deal with all these problems. well I'm off to a holiday inn apparently...

"In early 2005, a joint security assessment by the CIA and the U.S. National Intelligence Council predicted Pakistan would become "a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanisation" by 2015." There is no doubt in my mind now that al Qaida will get a hold of nuclear material and blast dozens of cities with dirty bombs around the world on the same day in the near future. I hate to say it, but we need to start WW3 before that happens. Pakistan should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, nor Iran. There can be no excuses.

Kind of related to shutting up atheists, I just read this stupid editorial: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=194951 "the very belief being attacked was absolutely and abundantly true. More than this, the reason it was under attack in the first place was precisely because it was true." So atheists are proof of his god's existence... "God makes himself just sufficiently evident to allow us freedom. If He were easy to find, we'd all believe and thus have no real choice." hahaha, I don't know what to say, hahahahahahahaha "absence of God could be an invention -- by scared and threatened people who are too weak to follow His laws and are terrified of judgement." "Be careful with the notion that knowledge means wisdom. 1930s Germany was one of the most educated and sophisticated cultures in human history." I'm guessing he has no knowledge of 1930s Germany. I've never heard such a statement, ever. "Thanks for the non-believers, the God-haters, the atheists and all of their kind. Yes, the greatest joke of all. " Kind of sounds like he is the one afraid.

Perhaps religion is more important today, however that statement almost gives the impression that more people are religious today as well. Surveys are finding an increasing number of non-religious people in the USA, and in other western nations. For example (USA) NONRELIGIOUS 8% (1990) (14.3 million) 14.3% (29.4 million)(2002) So, don't give up hope. It may also be religion is more important because more people are becoming non-religious.

I can not count the number of "economic experts" (co-workers, bloggers, etc...) up here in Canada who were so happy our dollar was at par and "beat" the American dollar. As even saying anything nice about America up here makes you a pro-American who deserves verbal abuse, I had people laughing at me for liking America now that our currency was "better". America is going down the tubes, it's over, it's "empire" is falling, blah blah blah... Well it took 30 years for the Canadian dollar to get to par, and it lasted about 2 months. Dollar is under par now. What a "victory".

"On Wednesday, Mr. Chavez broke off diplomatic ties with neighbouring Colombia and accused CNN of instigating his assassination, while his foreign minister threatened to expel a U.S. embassy official." It's only a matter of time until Chavez brings up some border dispute with Colombia and declares war. After his next few shipments of Russian made weapons perhaps.

it was a separate news story, not on planet earth. I mean, the story took place on this planet earth, but not the on the show... What a terrible reason not to have children, especially if you actually want some. Notice though that she did reach the logical conclusion of reducing a "carbon footprint" however. No humans. I wonder how long until we have suicide enviro bombers taking out as much carbon violators (humans) that they can. Watching Planet Earth again today, one scientist explains how it was whale songs that helped push the conservation movement. The beautiful songs that whales sing is what we are trying to save you know. Tell your children they must live in poverty so whales can sing songs beyond human comprehension. Another scene, a conservationist all happy they have kicked tribes out of elephant territory, sitting in his jeep with his son watching the elephants walk by with stupid looks of awe in their faces. Now you must understand, they have to sacrifice their lives and travel in that territory (in a jeep) and have the terrible burden of seeing elephants everyday. Their own virtual private play ground to go see elephants whenever they want it seems, but not other people. Same story of a guy who swam with the whales. Lucky him. He thinks it's amazing, better save the whales so HE can swim with them.

Woman Aborts Child To Help 'Save' the Planet...hopes her actions would ensure her carbon footprint would be kept to a minimum..."Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," I was watching the Planet Earth series...the last three episodes are about "the future" which is of course, bad because of humans...I heard comments similar to: a scientist saying, it's not that we have to stop scientific progress, we must roll back scientific progress a few others stating their "expert" opinion that the human race should be limited to .5 to 1 billion people a couple of EVIL corporate dressed types with real short hair (compared to the longer haired scientists and environmentalists) explaining how drilling for oil in Alaska would have a minial impact, as scenes of caribou (or whatever those things are) and their babies walk around an existing oil plant (more than likely they prefer the safety of the plant)

My comment in brackets here kind of bugged me. I should have said I don't worry too much about troops in Iraq being killed. The mission is not exclusively American of course, and I'm not indifferent to American soldiers. I completely disagree that soldiers should have a choice whether to go on a mission or not. Thats what mercenaries are for, and they are unreliable. If you can't rely on your troops then you are toast. A libertarian-anarchist style army is completely useless. I'm not sure that I even agree that a soldier should be able to express an opinion on a mission. A bunch of soldiers going around telling everyone how much they disagree with the command? Stirring up dissent? Leave that for the libertarian anarchists. A soldier is to do the job. If their position is one in which they are required to express an opinion, then that is fine. I still don't get why people are banging their heads against the wall with Iraq. There have been what, 3000-4000 casualties caused by combat? In a nation of 30+ million people who apparently are out to kill every westerner they can? And the nation has been occupied for 3 or 4 years now with only 100-200 thousand troops? Pretty amazing if you ask me. An enemy of the West, the baathist government, has effectively been taken out, Iraq is now flypaper for terrorists who mainly blow up rival islamic radicals, and the west has a military position in the middle east. While the situation is not perfect, I really don't see the problem.

More decisive action would certainly be nice. I don't worry much about American troops being killed (mind you I am not American) because soldiers should know that is one of the risks of the job. You might be sent into a nation you don't care about for a job you disagree with and potentially be killed, but that is the job. If you don't like that you shouldn't have joined up. The amount of money spent on Iraq is more troubling I think.

"Humanity is the greatest challenge," says Colorado environmental activist John Feeney We must end world population growth, then reduce population size. That means lowering population numbers in industrialised as well as developing nations.

"Look at the mess the neo-cons made in Iraq," ...what mess? Radicals bombing radicals? It's not a democracy yet? A Mddle East culture that has no respect for individual rights? Big surprise. Iraq is shining example to the islamic world what we can do to your country if you piss us off. If Iran turned into a big Iraq, I'd be happy enough

For sure. Even casting a shadow on a patch of grass interferes. The very "waste" of material used in creating a human must disturb some of them at night. In the future though, being an environmentalist won't be about stopping mankind form interfering, but about how to best interfere to achieve desired results. Environmental engineers. It is coming, thanks to all the knowledge we are currently gathering due to pressure from environmentalists.

Not sure if this has been mentioned before... Environuts don't want humans to interfere with the environment. For the last 20+ years, billions of dollars have been spent studying the earth's environment and how it works in an effort to prove we are interfering. This works against the environuts' desires. We now understand the Earth's environment much better. So much better that we probably have enough knowledge to actually change the Earth's environment. While there certainly isn't any political or social will right now to start changing the planet's environment to suit human needs, the fact is we are gathering so much information that at some point soon we will have to ability to alter weather patterns, shrink deserts, increase fresh water, etc, and not adversely affect other areas of the planet. At some point in the future, people are going to think maybe it would be better to alter the climate. One other thought. People have mentioned to me there seems to be some growing acceptance by religious leaders in theories of evolution,big bang and the age of the earth, while still keeping god in the picture. Besides an increase in the percentage of "non-religious" people in the West , fed up with dogma that clearly flies in the face of knowledge , who are no longer sending MONEY to their previous religious organizations, I was thinking there would be another reason for more acceptance of science by religious institutions. That reason is global warming. All religions love piety, and global warming is a lovely pious doctrine. However, if religious leaders start promoting man made global warming, they can't very well deny other areas of science. So don't be surprised when you start hearing religious people say they believe in evolution, the big bang and especially, man made global warming.

ha ha, I'll try to think up a joke seriously though, when I was a kid in say 1981, I was told, acid rain would destroy all the world's forests, that water levels would be several metres higher, that smog would kill millions and we'd need air masks, mass starvations, mineral oil and gas shortages, blah blah blah, and all this by the year 2000 when jesus was coming back on a ufo to celebrate the victory of the ussr over capitalism.

oh goody, just to add some more mysticism to it all... Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists...on a ship in the Arctic... religious leaders gathered to make a silent "prayer for the planet". They stopped short of openly asking a deity to reverse global warming, but their vigil symbolises a growing consensus between religions on the seriousness of global warming. "Whatever denomination we are, we will try to proclaim loud and clear that we should, we must, pay attention to the water resources and climate change," said Cardinal Thomas McCarrick, who represented the Roman Catholic church.