The online multiplayer is the worst out of the entire series. They let too many cooks into the kitchen by having that suggestion box for its development. It's also had the worst online support I've ever seen in a COD game. It puts the brokenness of WaW to shame. The story is pretty awesome though. Spec ops was only okay though. Nazi Zombies wins in the COD co-op department in my opinion.
The demo looked a little rough, but it still looks good. I'm still conflicted about given the DC Universe and FF14.
I actually never thought of it like that. Then again if the exhibit happens to pertain to the culture's customs, architecture, etc. the lore just happens to come with the things that are being exhibited. To understand why people made things or acted the way they did you do have to learn about what motivated them in their daily lives. And if it happened to be the belief in a certain religion, it is certainly acceptable to provide information on it as insight. There is however a difference to saying that "This ancient temple was designed as a shrine to Amaterasu, the Shinto goddess of the sun" and "This an exhibit that demonstrate the Christian god creating the universe and earth in 7 days".
But you're assuming that there was a nothing to begin with and that's not something you can fully motivate an argument for intelligent design with. It may just be the case that the universe has progressively expanded, contracted, and then expanded again in ad finitum in which each contraction provides the necessary stuff for the next expansion. It's certainly a question of where all that stuff for the first expansion began, but even then it provides an equally shaky ground for either side to presuppose anything. To assume that there was nothing and then something does not provide enough to make a convincing point about willful, intelligent design. it could have all been an accident for all we know. Moreover, should we even involve the possibility of a higher power we would have to clarify what we mean by that. By all rights we could still be referring to the Big Bang when we discuss higher power. For now it is something that we characterize as the near limitless of the expansion of the universe from an early point. But it's certainly possible for the bang to have provided the correct environment for atoms to form organic molecules. You've described something very similar to consciousness. And if the soul seems more or less the same as consciousness it seems difficult to parse the two and actually conceive of something spiritual like the soul. If we're still dealing with something that comes from the hardware we're endowed with--namely the brain-- an immaterial entity like the soul is either still without definition or we've just confused it with something else. I sort of see what you've tried to do. The analogy is wrong though. You've tried to compare the problem of the creation of the universe to the problem of our biological short comings. And it doesn't work. Moreover you assume that the problem and the solution for each of those three things is mapped like black and white. However, just as we eat because we're hungry, we're hungry because we need to eat. The problem of needing to eat can be solved with the purposeful behaviour and bodily responses of hunger. That is to say, the problem and the solution can be interchanged. Your reasoning hasn't solved anything.
If the universe began is a tight and densely packed entity of all the matter that is rapidly expanding and maintaining the current state of existence then it contained the base elements for organic life. How those elements found themselves organized into the first organisms remains much of a mystery still. But it still does not presuppose any form of intelligent design if that's what you're getting at.
Well that's the thing. The concept behind most museums is to present some form of factual account. Unless there's evidence to support Creationism's claims it's not something that should legitimately be put in a museum. The point of a museum is to present an accurate account of how it happened, not a belief of how it happened. The latter is what churches and temples are for, and that's where they should stay until proven otherwise. So you've read a little of the bible and that amounts to begin enough to prove that creationism is real? Also, the concept of prayer does nothing to motivate your argument.
The current view put forth by science neither presupposes the existence or non-existence of a god. something like that can't be ruled out. And to answer your question: Whether or not some form of higher power was responsible for all of existence contributes nothing to making sense out of that existence. Why would you think that either answer some how makes sense of everything? If it turns out that the big bang was responsible for all of existence then we simply exist as a result of a probabilistic event. If it was found that some higher power (depending on how we define higher power that could include the big bang) might be responsible for all existence, given our current limitations, would more or less fail to understand it in any conceivable means. Moreover, unless direct interference takes place (a highly unlikely event), we'd be no better off now than we are with most current religions taking a shot in the dark as to who/what that higher power is.
it doesn't rule out any compatibility of evolution begin set in motion by a higher power. Although it's essentially aimless, the outcomes might be considered intelligent in design.
Those are just quirky compulsive behaviours that everybody is capable of having in some form or another. The actual disorder is a little more severe.
Well, science hasn't flat out disproved the possibility of there being nothing akin to a higher power or god. Given it's current limitations it can't even begin to tackle the problem. It has only put forth a much more empirically acceptable alternative to creationism. Just because evolution works doesn't mean that there is no god.
Normality is a subjectively defined concept. Get over it.
Not quite sure you got what I was saying. As an ambassador to the aliens, the person to go in the pod had to represent everything about humanity EQUALLY: it's accomplishments, scientific achievement, it's beliefs, desires, dreams, etc. It had nothing to do with what god may or may not have done. When 85% of a species/people believe something that their ambassador doesn't (namely in a god) the ambassador isn't going to be able to do their job: namely represent their species/people.
Most parapsychology and super-natural research is pseudoscience or poorly conducted science at best. Much of the findings in each field respectively have been fueled by effect biases and misinterpretation of data. But that's beside the point. Really the issue is that there's no reliable way to measure something like astral projection and out-of-body experiences without coming to several conclusions that are at odds with one another. Science operates on the principle of parsimony. to put it another way, the simplest answer is usually the most likely. Given how parapsychology and paranormal-research are flawed in their methods to begin with it's difficult to accept something like spiritual projection of one's consciousness over lucid dreaming of sleep paralysis. Either of which were probably what you were experiencing. Also Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
She was disqualified because not having a belief in some form of higher power made her an inappropriate choice to represent all of humankind. The idea was to send someone that represented everything that humans have accomplished.
That's slightly fallacious. You assume that each present moment will eventually become the past or was a possible future at some point. But you can never be sure of that because both the event that seems to become the past and the event that seemed to be a future are only ever available to you as the present. The future and past are words used to describe the concepts of moments to come and moments that past but from our current experiential level they technically don't exist. Besides how can you be more sure of something you're no longer experiencing than of something you are experiencing Our conception of time and how it is organized follows a logical pattern in which the solar system has organized itself. Even if we neglected our concept of time the solar system and presumably the universe would maintain its constant pattern. Also, how can you honestly deny the present reality of what I am typing, let alone of what you just typed. You were there, and you typed it. How can you deny it? it's difficult to use typing here as an example because everything you read here is after the fact. it was typed in a present that technically no longer exists. But the fact that I am sitting here and typing now, experiencing this behaviour attests to the fact that I am currently experiencing a present in which I am typing. There is no need to for time to come to a halt because I am experiencing it right before me RIGHT NOW. It's what's to come and what has past that are the issue. After typing this all I will have to remind me of this experience is this post and possibly a memory. But what if my memory of typing this post was fake? How would I know that it was something I experienced in some present time? Living through the entire timeline is no different. The second you move on to experience something else you are no longer experiencing anything that you were doing previously to what you are doing now. What you are doing now is what you are experiencing. You would have to be virtually omniscient to always experience everything simultaneously. Because that quite impossible, all you have to define experiences of the past and future are things like ideas, beliefs and memories. That's it. for example, you're sitting at your computer and typing. That is something you are presently doing. But if you get up to get a snack, you're activity at the computer no longer exists; you're not simultaneously sitting at the computer and typing AND going to the kitchen to get a snack. Once you start one the other ceases to exist. All you have is a memory, belief, etc. that you were sitting at your computer and typing. Nothing else proves that that event actually happened, as you are presently in the kitchen.
Nobody ****s with Dr. Fate. NOBODY!
And this right here is an example of much of the futility of this kind of debate. The ultimate goal here is to try and have a rational discussion about something that is irrationally motivated. It would seem now that either side is just yelling at a brick wall. But do keep the chatter going if you must. It does offer some interesting insight into what we each believe.
Vietcong zombies. That is all.
The thing is, some of these people are genuinely down and out of luck because **** does genuinely happen. But there are many out there that aren't. I clear my conscience every year by assigning the homeless people I see numbers, drawing one randomly and buying him or her a full meal with drink from a reasonable place of their choice. I'm a poor student, so that satisfies me enough to ignore any street corner charity or other homeless people for the rest of the year.
That's where the more theoretical aspect of evolution comes into play. What you're asking is for a feasible connection between every organism, which isn't something that the current scientific rigor can produce. Maybe with time genetic projections and deviations might reveal sub-categorization. That being said, despite this theoretical perspective there has been enough evidence uncovered that links a fair number of phyla through common structures. Given recurrence in form we can infer that a similar pattern occurred with other organisms. By that reasoning, any argument for why abortion might be considered wrong would be void. There can still be faith with logic, as faith usually entails a conclusion of unshakable belief. But I digress. Logic leans more towards the most likely outcome in terms of how the world is, as opposed to personal thought patterns. We genuinely come to accept and reject things that fit into a wider world view that all are able to grasp in some way. It is simply the fact that the understanding of the world comes into conflict with much of what religion puts forth. And given what we know about the world compared to what we used to know, entailments and conclusions using the former for points in a causal chain appear more absurd.
