" @EternalInfinity0: Who's arguing that free-will and the idea of case-and-effect are mutually exclusive? Of course any situation is predicated upon what led up to it, but at each turn a choice was made in reaction to each event or cause. Each moment is the result of countless decisions made by countless people. Our decisions might be swayed by our experiences, upbringing, and past events, but they're still decisions. "
I personally believe both exist simultaneously. It first appeared to me as a paradox but it really doesn't anymore. I'm a Christian myself, and find my worldview/religious beliefs coincide well with this co-existence of free will and predestination. I typically only have cause to disagree with those who embrace only one of the two sides exclusively with no acknowledgment of the other.
" I believe in something more than the physical realm, so I believe in free will. To me, the more things are predestined, the more difficult it is to explain the existence of anything at all. Only nothing can be without a cause. "
But isn't everything cause and effect. Nothing does anything without something else acting on it. "
That's why I mentioned that it makes the existence of anything absurd. A cause and effect system can be created, but it can't create itself. If I write a program, that program can't be the reason for its own existence. It couldn't have written itself. The more one relies on a purely cause-and-effect based mechanical understanding of the universe (which, as subsequent posts pointed out, is outdated), the bigger of a problem the existence of reality is.
I believe in something more than the physical realm, so I believe in free will. To me, the more things are predestined, the more difficult it is to explain the existence of anything at all. Only nothing can be without a cause.
@Ygg: Its called intellectual property, and by law it is just as much stealing as is getting a physical copy of something. There's been a debate about intellectual property for years now, but I'd wager to guess that if you weren't allowed to make money with what you created digitally, most of the stuff worth downloading wouldn't exist in the first place. People can't really work 40+ hours a week in large groups for no pay. So, grow up and pay for things that aren't yours.
So, all the opinions seem to fall into two categories:
1. No, its stealing. 2. Yes, because we can't afford it.
I'd like to see #2 taken to any logical extreme. "I need a car, and it doesn't cost the manufacturer $4000 to produce it. I'll just take it because I need it and I'm poor and can't afford it."
-Wanting- anything does not give you the right to break laws in order to get it. Grow up.
Based on the comments here and my own, carefully crafted personal views on the matter: as long as you continue to endorse Pizza flavored Pringles, I don't think you can do any wrong.
Starcraft has one of my favorite manuals. Honestly... wouldn't have been the same experience without dozens of pages of history and explanation about things.
Games (at least on the PC), used to be like records: the boxes were huge and were practically works of art. Now we're reduced to tiny, DVD sized containers and tiny, DVD sized images. I went out a couple weeks ago and picked up Duke Nukem 3D in the original box at a good will... and it just made me miss the old style that much more.
Getting Pokemon Yellow the day it came out when I was in eighth grade is one of the greatest memories I have. I spent the next week getting Haunter and dominating the Elite Four with him. Good times...
" @MarcusOfLycia: You're right about that. Clinton used the bombing as an excuse to bash his political opponents back in the 90s, but the reality is that there is a vast gulf between those critical of government policy and those who turn to violence. The distance between the current Tea Party and other anti-government extremists who use violence is so wide that only a political opportunist (and Bill Clinton certainly is one) could confuse them. The same was true of opportunists on the political right who wanted to tar anti-war protesters with the broad brush of violence associated with other leftist protests (like anti-globalization and anarchists). Clinton is just using those murdered innocent people for the benefit of his own political party. It's disgusting, but then we're talking about politicians, right? "
Log in to comment