I really just did it because I had the song, and I think it's a kick-ass cover. So I think, "How can I play this forward to some high votes?" Then, easy as pie, I remember this .gif in my files, and 2+2=lotsa fives. I'm only making one of these. Plus, it's still art; it's just erotica. (lol, j/k yah itz pr0n :D)
Sadly, I watch what was once at least an attempt at maintaining unbiased logic (although it proved an ultimate failure the first time around) dissipating before my eyes. You've cited works mostly, if not all, originating from the same man (Shaw), neglected any mention of cases of the opposite, and completely side-stepped that dementia can befall the terminally ill. Stop preaching half-truths and thinly-veiled propaganda, and go back to the funny, please? You were good with the funny. I like the funny.
Sadly, I watch what was once at least an attempt at maintaining unbiased logic (although it proved an ultimate failure the first time around) dissipating before my eyes. You've cited works all originating from the same man (Shaw), neglected any mention of cases of the opposite, and completely side-stepped that dementia can befall the terminally ill. Stop preaching half-truths and thinly-veiled propaganda, and go back to the funny, please?
So whetstone's engaged in some religious f*cknuttery. He has other sites; good ones, too. At most, delete the annoying preachy ones. At least, just ignore them and focus on the good sites he made.
There's a problem with everyone else's arguments: you're assuming your working in the same rule system. The set-up involves a set of axioms that may or may not necessarily be true; you can't argue about triangles having 180 degrees outside of Euclidean geometry. To dismantle the system, you have to find INHERENT flaws, not flaws that depend on specific "truths" that the general axiom set does not account.
So, by claiming the existence of a "First Cause", you inherently break your own first axiom. This leaves 2 options: There is some event which is excluded from your axiom, destroying your analysis, or that there is no original source, and any attempt to pin one can be traced back in an infinite reduction of cause-effect relationships. Well done, and bravo for intelligent discourse, but your seams are showing.
OK then, let's continue with Axiom 1: all things are the product of a cause. And, according to your analysis, there is a "First Cause" that created the universe. But, then, by extension, what is reponsible for this; i.e. what is the Zero-th Cause, if you will? By relying specifically from this axiom in further attribution, the pattern extends backwards infinitely, beyond one point. So, any defined "First Cause" becomes arbitrary, since something must have caused that by your own axioms.
GasparLewis' recent comments: