(V): The post Ferris Bueller replied to was 100% copy and paste. You can't get “better” than 100%, can you? You don't even mention your source, making others believe the words are yours.

Ferris Bueller: I agree with most of what V has to say here.

But (V) doesn't say much here. Copy and paste are his best friends.

Artful Dodger: The idea is not bad, no doubt about it, but this would mean a significant breakthrough in the international law as we know it. The entire conflict-of-law area would have to be revised. Say, for example, that a child born in a particular country would become a national of that country only if its mother was not an illegal alien. But then – what nationality would the child have? The one of its mother? The one of the country from which the mother came to the country where the child was born? I am not against reconsidering the current system, but it would cause lots of problems.

(V): Forget about names. It doesn't matter what the Arabic word for “God” is. Take bread as an analogy. Go to a store in the UK and ask for a loaf of bread. Then do the same thing in the Czech Republic (using the Czech word for bread) and see what you get. Two different things.

Artful Dodger: There are a lot of Christian teachings that say that Jesus was a son of God, aren't there? These non-trinitarian beliefs don't view Jesus as the God himself. So this makes your argument a bit weaker. But I personally do agree that the Christian God and the Islamic God are two different entities. Wikipedia says that Islam teaches that God as referenced in the Qur'an is the only god and the same God worshipped by members of other Abrahamic religions such as Christianity and Judaism. and backs this claim by the following quote from the Qur'an (in three different translations):

“YUSUFALI: And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."
PICKTHAL: And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our Allah and your Allah is One, and unto Him we surrender.
SHAKIR: And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allah and your Allah is One, and to Him do we submit.”

However, I don't think it can be inferred from the above that the God is Allah and Allah is God.

In simple words, the two religions are too different to believe that they worship the same superpowerful being.

Artful Dodger: I have always found it interesting that North American liberals are actually not liberals, and on the contrary, they are socialists.

Bernice: Really? For the first time in such a long time? Interesting… hung Parliament is quite common here. As far I can see, the predictions say that Liberals should take the PM seat though… so it seems you're going to have your favorite politician there…

LOL, I like this conversation. Libs vs. Libs.

Bernice: I hear what you're saying, but you'd have to torture me to make me vote for the left… We also have a moronic leader of the strongest right-wing party here, but getting them elected was still better than the other option… :)

Bernice: Liberals…

AD: In my view, an all knowing all powerful First Cause created. In your view, it created itself.
PM: I also fail to imagine how anything can create itself.

Oops, I misunderstood you there. Got it now. 2:30 a.m. here, time to go to bed, I guess. :)

Artful Dodger: And by the way, by saying that an infinite temporal regress is not possible, you say that the original uncaused action “just happened“.

Artful Dodger: An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist.

But that's a philosophical premise. Based only on our extremely limited experience. I believe in the matter of creation of universe, it's not right to rule out a possibility just because it looks impossible to us. :)

Artful Dodger: I can live with the fact that I don't know how come that time and space and everything in it exists and that I will never know it either. It doesn't bother me. I do agree that the Big Bang theory is the most reasonable of all the theories out there, but there still are too many grey areas.

The problem with our view of the time as finite or unfinite is this: we cannot imagine either of these possibilities. Can you imagine the creation of time? To me, it seems exactly as impossible as infinity of time.

I also fail to imagine how anything can create itself. :)

Tuesday: Do believe that. You will never figure out that the Bible, as well as any other “holy book“, is a hoax and you will find comfort in the belief that God exists and will take you to his kingdom after you die.

Pedro Martínez: And, in addition to that, if I admitted for a moment that God indeed was the cause we're talking about, there would still remain a question to be answered: what was the cause of God's creation and existence?

Artful Dodger: I meant that we clearly agree that proving existence is easier than proving non-existence.

As for cosmological arguments, I'm not a big fan of them. First of all, even though I view the Big Bang theory as the most likely scenario, it still is only a theory. And there is a vast unexplained area in the theory, too. I have already found out that I will never fully understand what made the universe look the way it looks and how it actually looks. And nobody will ever understand that – it's simply beyond our limited thinking. Secondly and (maybe) more importantly, my problem with cosmological arguments is that I don't think there had to be a cause. I know that our experience tells us that every action brings reaction and that effect must have a cause, but how do we know this was also the case under as exteme conditions as at the time of the creation of time and space?

Artful Dodger: Well, sometimes it is possible, but I don't want to be a nitpicker. The important thing is we agree on the essence.

Tuesday:

Tuesday: There can be (and there probably are) billions of suns and planets like that in the universe. This has nothing to do with God. And by the way, if you wait long enough, you will see the Sun grow bigger and burn “us” up.

Artful Dodger: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so?

Artful Dodger: Oh I don't expect to find any proofs.
:)

edit: The above sentence is probably gramatically incorrect, but I hope my intentions are clear enough. lol

Jim Dandy: Yup, we're on the same page there.

Tuesday: Why? There is no reason why…

Jim Dandy: I agree. It has enormous advantages, and as I said, I would love to believe. From the point of view of an individual, religious beliefs are very helpful.

Tuesday: You know, I would love to believe in God. In my opinion, believers have, in general, a better life than non-believers. But I just can't lie to myself when I know that people created their Gods for the very purpose to make their lives happier. I can't give you the proof of non-existence, obviously, but the proof of existence should be much simpler and easier to do, right? The fact that nobody has come up with such proof makes my assumptions more probable.

Tuesday: And there is no God.

Tuesday: At the same time, however, God is not non-religious either.

Tuesday: Hillary (or anyone else) should take Barack's place for reelection.

Bernice: I love it… and I'd love to know who said that. It doesn't sound like any Czech politician I know, lol. I'll try to google it.

Bernice: Do you know whose quote it is?

Jim Dandy:

Artful Dodger: “VOTE FOR ME AND IF I WIN I WILL IMMUNE YOU FROM ALL STATE CRIMES FOR THE REST OF YOU LIFE!”

Tuesday: I don't believe there are other ppl on other planets. If so we would have known by now.

Joke of the day.

Tuesday: Your parents “must have been” siblings.

Tuesday: Sarah Palin report card/Sarah Palin’s high-school grades have apparently leaked onto the internet.The document claims to be Sarah Palin’s tenth grade report card and shows that the VP mostly had “B’s” and “C’s,” a “D” in foreign languages.

And the report card reads as follows:
English – B
Math – C
Foreign Language – D
Biological Sciences – B
Physical Sciences – C
Social Studies – C

You don't even read your own links…

(V): My post was a response to your statement that “It makes you wonder how much our reliance on big power plants could be reduced if they [electricity generating windmills] became a standard.”

As for my figures… my source is Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
(“A typical 1000-MWe nuclear reactor produces…”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine
(referring to this table indicating the outputs of different wind turbines)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
(see the part on capacity factor)

As regards the article on the Buena Vista wind farm… yes, there are larger and more efficient wind turbines, as well as there are larger and more efficient nuclear power plants. I was comparing the average figures.

(V):

Output of a typical nuclear power plant: 1,000 MW per hour.
Output of an average wind turbine: 600 kW per hour.

A typical wind farm of 70 turbines and 1,500 acres produces 25 MW per hour. So you would need 60,000 acres of wind turbines to equal 1,000 MW. At the capacity factor of 25%, you will need four times as large area, i.e. 240,000 acres = 375 square miles.

(V): You need about 400 square miles of wind turbines to equal 1 nuclear power plant.

Bernice: Yes. The price of water supply and sewerage in my area is CZK 56.57 (approx. AUD 3.10) per 1,000 liters.

(V): Brown is running brown…

Artful Dodger: So you're quoting Daily Mail… . Now I see where you look for info. What comes next? The Sun?

No book that says that night and day and evening and morning on the Earth existed earlier than the Sun, is worth reading.

I'm taking this board off my favorite boards list. I don't need to read who rules or owns this board, who makes what grammar or spelling mistakes, or the like.

baddessi: But they're both tall.

Artful Dodger: Please don't rape my language. Thank you.

Artful Dodger:

Please don't try that ever again.

Artful Dodger: I don't know, you tell me. We don't eat crows here.

Artful Dodger: Yes, I did hear of the telephone game, but wasn't it you who insisted on people backing their posts with sources and facts? I just wanted you to do the same thing you require from others, which you often do not. How typical. There is a proverb about it in Czech, but I guess you wouldn't understand it even if I translated it for you to one of those languages you speak. How many are they? I must have forgotten…

Artful Dodger: By the way, thanks for that “research” at Geocities. Your links are awesome. First you post a quote and refer to a Wikipedia site of Guizot which does not even remotely say anything about the quote you post, and then you refer to a non-existing research. But am I surprised?