John Adams

I like to think there is a god. I do. I really want to, so I hold out hope. But I think that people who believe in prophecy and some specific incarnation of god-as-father have a fatal flaw in their brains. That worries me. That's all. BTW, the person I love most in this world, my wife, has this flaw. So don't think I'm sort of zealot. I just play one on this board.

Really? The Bible's end of days passages are straightforward? Only really crazy people say that.

My point, and one you choose to ignore, is that not knowing an answer does not proove god's existence. In ancient Eqypt, people could not explain the sun so they made it the god Ra. Tree of the AQ "proofs" cannot understand infinite regression, and similarly decide to call it god. Both are leaps of faith. The first, the sun god Ra, is now widely accepted as debunked by our understanding of astronomy and physics. The second currently defies explanation--that does not mean it will always be so.

Just because you like to do the logic dance with AQ (who?) does not make those proofs demonstrative of god. Aquinas merely considered the problem of the infinite regression with his prime mover/first cause "proofs." Not finding an answer in nature to the problem of infinite regression, he chose to call the prime mover "god." That's well and good but all he's actually done is give a word answer to a problem of incomprehensibility. There are plenty of questions, that by the circular nature of the question, cannot be similarly answered. If asked, "What's beyond the edge of the universe (infinite progression question)," is it safe to assume his answer would be "god?" That answer, "god," is not a logical conclusion. It's a leap of faith. His questions, and Aristotle's before him, are intriguing because we cannot as yet comprehend the answers. Maybe we will have an answer someday to the prime mover question. Maybe it's god. Maybe it's something else. Right now, no one knows, including you, and Aquinas's "proofs" proove nothing. If you want them to be proof of god (sounds good to me), that's fine but again, that is faith. And you throw stones at my analogy?

I am dreaming that Hillary gets up and says, "Now that Michigan and Florida have their delegates, let's show the world democracy in action. All of you delegates have a vote. I encourage you to do what you feel is right with that vote. If you want Barrack Obama, I encourage you to vote for him. But if you want someone else, vote for her!" (Crowd goes wild. Political commentators orgasm.)

I was over in the Milton Friedman quadrant. My wife was right next to Gandhi (she's a much better person than me).

Here I was dreaming that Hillary gets in the mix at the Democratic Convention--it would be a ratings bonanza if McCain ends up being the nominee.

Any 10 year old gets the Aquinus proofs (that are really Aristotle's, but whatever). A consideration of those proofs leads an honest person to admit they don't know the answer to a question like "what moved the first moving thing?" Some people call not knowing the answer "god;" some call not knowing the answer "not knowing the answer." Those "proofs" are absolutely NOT demonstrative. They do not demonstrate "god." They are examples of questions that we cannot answer. Consider by analogy that when people didn't understand the Sun, it was god. Most people wouldn't say that now.

Dwight: you read the Bible and can interpret its prophecies? You do realize, don't you, that you're not the first person to read the Bible and think they are living in the end of days, don't you? Further, what makes you think Christians have a lock on the whole god/end-of-the-world thing?

I am desperate for Hillary to rally her supporters, especially in Michigan and Florida, and turn this convention on its head. It is not likely but it would make for great TV.

Hamstring injuries linger forever. I am not happy to be going through this.

Stuczynski defends her coach. I think he was out of line but maybe she is OK with it. http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3548240

You rule, but I can't imagine the pain of reading that blog every day.

Again, you're prioritizing that issue above others. Obama/Biden want to take your money if you're smart/productive enough to make more money. That's theft. They want to grow more government--which result in more debt and more taxes. That's also theft. For me, that's a bigger issue than abortion. McCain believes abortion is wrong--it's not pandering as much as stating his belief. He's going to state those beliefs because it's important to a certain voting block. Obama panders to the religious when he talks about his faith. By the way, there's a WSJ article today on how the Democratic Convention is highlighting religion and faith--trying to show how it's a God-fearing party. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219621246...ays_us_page_one

That's your point--that abortion is not that important an issue? But did you start this thread by saying McCain's abortion stance sealed your vote? Take a deep breath. Collect your thoughts. Try again. McCain is pro-choice and would like to send the abortion question back to states to decide. I disagree but think there are more pressing matters. So, I am sure, does McCain. Obama won't answer conception/life questions because "it's above his pay grade." That's annoyingly evasive, but I still don't care.

Lieberman is riskier and also turns off a lot of people (Jewish Democrat will alienate a lot of the more conservative Repubs). Ridge was governor of an important state and is somewhat left-leaning on social issues (pro-choice). Still, I think it will be Romney. He fills in an important McCain weakness: the economy. And he gives him a chance at Michigan. If McCain wins Michigan, he probably wins. I don't like Romney either.

Go figure. I think life begins at some point near conception too, and I don't care AT ALL about the abortion issue. If you base your vote on someone's abortion view, your right to vote should be revoked.

"Scarppy kid from Scranton" is the line that gets me. If McCain picks Romney, we'll be hearing something about how he's a "Son of Michigan" or some sh--. Obama's choice is a good one. It doesn't ruffle any big feathers and Obama can stand above the fray when Biden attacks McCain. (Similar to the Bush/Cheney relationship.) McCain's up next. Lieberman is the most interesting choice. Romney's the easy pick. Ridge is somewhere between them. Not sure I've heard other realistic options.

Not relevant in either case. Most people running for president are rich. Who cares?

What is it with your obsession with other's material wealth? Some rich people are good people--I'm guessing you like JFK for example. Some rich people are cocks. Same goes for poor people. 5 Million sounds good but it doesn't sound wealthy to me. If you have 5 mil, living on the 6% interest a year--300K/year--you could have a fair but not nice apartment in Manhattan. Or you could have a nice 3,000sf home in a suburban east coast city and more modest one near (but not beachfront) the shore. You could take a couple nice vacations a year--maybe 2-2 week trips abroad. With 5 million in the bank, you'd have to budget. You'd have to make responsible money decisions. You'd have to manage your money. Life would be good, but you wouldn't be living without a care. McCain and his wife are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He can afford $10,000 shoes, 25 houses, 14 yachts, and a lot more. How he governs is all that matters to me. You think Obama buys off the rack K-Mart shoes--and even if he does, do you think it's particularly relevant? No wonder you're obsessed with taking my money--your jealousy consumes you. jjamie12 can keep saying it. Elitism is a state of mind. I don't think either candidate is an elitist. Both are pretty well off.

No, but your government is making it so. All these government bailout plans are exactly that. Making me foot the bill. Is there some relevant point to be made by pointing out that McCain is rich? I'm just trying to get the thread back on target. He's rich. Obama's rich (even by the McCain definition). Who gives a sh--?

So. What. Am I supposed to foot the bill for that? McCain can afford his homes. Obama may or may not be overextended on his 1.5 million dollar house. Either way, how is it my problem that people are going to have to sell their homes? Tough sh--. That's life. We all have to deal with our money problems--why do I have to foot the bill for your financial irresponsibility?

Back to this point. I am sure there are plenty of CEOs who are liberal arts majors. Do you think they attribute their success in business to the fact that they read Kierkegaard? I have seen little evidence that this "critical thinking" that is absent from many high school graduates requires 4 years in college to teach, or, if indeed colleges are even really able to pass that skill (if it can be defined) on. Dumb people at age 18 often stay that way. The number of years of education is not directly correlated to intelligence.

The mortgage crisis is something the government should stay away from to the extent it can. Banks took on risky loans. Let them suffer a bit. People overborrowed. Let them lose their homes. To the extent I can, I don't want to foot the bill for this mess. "Struggling" to save homes they couldn't afford for the most part. Too effing bad. I could have bought a home worth triple what I did. And you know what? I still wish I hadn't spent as much as I did. It's the over-extended who are getting sacked. Color me not sorry for them. Somehow, I get by on my .25 acre 1900sf home. And another guy in Brooklyn gets by in his 500sf walk-up, while Joey Jerkoff who makes 80K/year lives in a 600K 300sf McMansion that boo hoo, he can't make a payment on. Guess what Joey Jerkoff: time to downsize.

Stem cell creation from other tissue has been breaking for a while. I wonder how long before we can affordably create stem cells en masse.