keelanz

it would depend on which samurai and which ninja because if chuck norris is my ninja......ill take you on that bet Josh =D

After re-watching that video i realised how much fun it would be to work for google, the lulz

I can do certain aspects.

thats next level technology the advert is too funny LOOL i want me some E-ink

ostrov Kotel'nyy google it, IMO = eden

is this of any interest to you? http://www.inbiosa.e...article=acib-11 its from a thread in computer science but it seems to cross atleast 5 if not more subjects for example mathematics, computers, biology, physics and philosophy

genius

Okay so i was just reading a thread about Nooks and Kindle 2 which are different versions of an e-book reader (the latter developed by amazon) which got me thinking about other pieces of technology which is out there that i have absolutely no idea about. heres an example http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/ now if i knew anything about wii technology or had one myself i could explain a little about it and give my opinion on it unfortunately i dont and hence why i started the thread btw from reading a bit of the site i think all you need is a wii remote and a c# compiler heres another example http://www.netgadget...camera-pen.html this type of technology scares especially for the price but i suppose everyone is walking around with cameras on their phones anyway. oops i forgot there is some new technology that excites me, i cant wait for the new sony handheld ngp, its gona have dual analogue sticks which automatically makes me think COD aswell as having a quad core processor http://www.techradar...-to-know-921111 heres an interesting watch about the kindle, gives you a scientific explanation about the screen

Stop teasing me with technology i cant afford..... lol

ive just realised this thread has nothing to with the existence of our own "gods" that is mine, yours, the christians or the muslims but of the god of nature that rktro defines. it has been my personal opinion that nature is god and science our bible for a few years now however there are in my own view still philosophical concepts above and beyond science. i wouldnt like to define the concepts as religious but im sure they are metaphorically covered in most religions, the personal touches on life which make them our own, the trivialities and pursuit of existence as a human and all the deeper fundamental questions dont seem to have any objective answer and i think thats where the subjective god has come into existence also incase you dont read a few posts up (as i tend to do), would this be an accurate description of your general thinking? "really hes saying things exist that we know exist but are hard to prove or show E.G the very simple things in essence like the laws of physics (usually in scientific terms we borrow the hand of a genius). He then asserts that god is nature(undefined, un-explained), we collectively try to figure out what nature is by the use of science so he is asserting science is a means by which to reach god. ALSO he uses analogy's which are simple to grasp to back up his belief (no need to disagree with the premise) "

you have no idea what country she is from (originally or now) or what religion she could have been born into, keep the sly remarks away from religious posts as this is where it can cause the most offense. im sure you are aware that sexism is more than an occurrence almost everywhere but western civilization so please keep it in mind when your challenging people about what you think you know. EDIT: the reasons gods sex is important (why i originally pointed out your ignorance) is that if you dont change your outlook on simple things such as that then obviously from our point of view you havent shaken other deeply inserted religious traits that only proves your religious ignorance (theres plenty after reading the god delusion TWICE) as far as the religious aspect went i do not for one minute pretend to be a theologian however i have my own opinions on what religion "is" and what god "is" therefor ill make my own assertions about what god "is" defined as by abrahamic religion, if you dont agree with my assertion please state the facts of why rather than saying my god is the "BIG AND BEST" god, all im doing is being philosophical of religion rather than conformist, i can see truth in your religion but not as much as in my own reality of the modern day. in my answer to the existence of god you dont question my fundamental statement about it depending on "gods definition" but rather trivialities in my text about my own definition of abrahamic god, if you want to start getting technical i actually think alot of religious people have no idea whats going on, they are preached to each sunday and whole heartily believe what they are being told as fact, you could tell them god is a spinning tea cup or a spaghetti monster and they wouldnt disagree etc etc (this scares me) again this brings me back to my original post, in my own opinion if you believe in any deity or organised religion your definition of god is false on premise and therefor non existent however if you deduct your own definition of god then only you can decide weather it exists P.S i believe there is much to learn from organised religion I.E the metaphors and stories but theres too many contradictions in the bible for it to be taken factually ALSO its IMO that religion is a cover for spirituality for the benefit of the kids or the less educated. (only my opinion) EDIT EDIT: i think the simplest answer to this thread is "YES" but only by our own definition its not even a case of if "people" said it, its the fact science requires what he states as both visual and experimental proof to be valid, that which in most peoples definition of "god" is impossible to show(right now), also relative to his assertion that "god" is "nature" this only backs up his statement as nature is yet to be defined which only means its yet to be fully discovered for its absolute truth I.E "the natural universe" is almost endless. really hes saying things exist that we know exist but are hard to prove E.G the very simple things in essence like the laws of physics (usually in scientific terms we borrow the hand of a genius). He then asserts that god is nature, we collectively try to figure out what nature is by the use of science so he is asserting science is a means by which to reach god. ALSO he uses analogy's which are simple to grasp to back up his also belief (no need to disagree with the premise)

read up on what the protocol is, if you dont need it stop it in the services tab of msconfig

have you actually used regedit and got the area of the registry the spybot is in? its an mmc snap in just go to run and type regedit.

computer says NO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

My post was more a reference of general ignorance than directly at you but take it as you will. Yes most abrahamic gods are IMO BS, fairy tales and metaphors therefor i personally dont see much scientific proof of rising from the dead or turning water into wine so why should i take it as anything else? on another note abrahamic gods are always portrayed as the "good" and the "light" in the world so this can be added to that definition of god. To be fair i was trying to get people away from the idea of god "being" as defined in most religions because if we do that then god would certainly exist, we just get to subjectively define what "it" is.

I dont think god can change, only our perception of it, hence why now i call god "it" rather than "him" i have lost some of my ignorance but not all.

ovcourse this whole post depends on one simple question.......what is the definition OF god IMO all abrahamic gods are BS, fairy tales and metaphors but then again if we dont take any human definition of god then god can be anything and surely anything exists because its easier to comprehend than nothing which kinda makes us god..... and please guys stop saying "him" and "his" because it just makes me want to shoot you in the face much love =D

no i understand the definition of infinite, thanks, what i actually meant was obviously anything that exists doesnt exist anymore than it already existing, so our planet doesnt perceptually inflate to become infinite which means no matter how you look at it our physical existence is limited regardless if we cant express certain shapes or mathematical equations finitely. My question was actually asking if nothing could go for ever or would something have to fill the nothing for the nothing to be determined as something? because if you dont need something for nothing to be determined as infinite then space is certainly infinite from our own perspective?

it was my belief relativity created time, if time didnt exist then neither would relativity but the fact your able to think regardless of all the external physical evidence proves that even your brain is relative to something ....... POW

my first line shows that what we all agree or believe is still only subjective not objective on the second paragraph again i agree for the most part however killing evil isnt the evil but what it does do is destroys any concept of good, it would definitely destroy a few levels of consciousness in relation to weighing situations and such because for example if only good things existed it wouldnt really matter what you decided to do so thinking really wouldnt be needed. evil doesnt sit next to good in creation it sits because of good as creation. (so essentially they are one another and therefor we only have different perceptions of the same thing) i like your analogy about the fire i think it explains what you wanted to express very well, i think its probably a very accurate description of what JESUS himself may have been about.

and what homework is this for? ive never seen any sort of language like this, i dont get the syntax sorry. what level of language is this? im actually very interested =D ahh i get whats happening, your declaring things and asking some sort of propositional question in relation to certain areas of computing? i think theres some sort of mix up though html seems all over the place so it doesnt have any sort of logic that makes sense without taking out html? i dont really know any of the concepts at work here so ill let someone take over from where i left off, this is all rather confusing me. if you want to feed me more information ill have a go

I agree totally from my own point of view however if you philosophise a second you realise its only our intersubjective which is the wisdom to distinguish. # also the means by which to distinguish is different from actually being good, so god is still as much bad as good if with the knowledge of distinguishing we dont act upon it.

you say "his" and "him" far to much for me to take you seriously, the creator is what it created...its that simple it doesnt, it implies that you cant just be good, your the bad and the good, the down and the up etc

The logic is there in my text already. If god is EVERYTHING it cant be defined as just being "good" it would also encompass what is "bad" which according to abrahamic religion is the sins. So god is either EVERYTHING or he is everything that is GOOD, being both is a paradox.

hola nerds, im keelanz, im 19 and im from england. I currently study computer science at university but i have a deep interest in physics, philosophy & politics. Im currently in a deep philosophical battle(with myself) for understanding of our existence...=D Im also interested in economics, math tricks and illusions ;-)