Tits.
How dare you refute the doctrine of the Hidden iMom!
That’s a fair enough answer, Scylla, but the trouble with using God as the placeholder is that it does become difficult to replace the placeholder with fact/theory, for the simple reason that people will resist scientists trying to define God out of the world. What happens when we do discover the reason for the Big Bang and it’s not God?
Far easier to call it dark matter or Molecule X to avoid the overlap with religion.
NT Wright’s response to Hawking (I saw it on CNN.com last week) was better than Camerons. But you would expect that, Wright being a respected New Testament scholar and theologian and former bishop and Cameron being a former child actor.
That makes good sense. Still, if I can’t call a vastly powerful, nigh omnipotent creator of the universe “God,” than that’s just semantically silly.
*God *suggests the cause is intelligent. Only a complete idiot would assume that the universe was created by an intelligence without any evidence to that effect.
What possible use could tits be to spaghetti or navigation? When was the last time you heard somebody “I’d love some tits and pasta”? I wish you she’ites would think it through.
If there’s an intelligence behind it, sure, although calling it God implies a relationship I wouldn’t personally feel comfortable with, but that’s neither here nor there.
But if what caused the universe’s creation was the equivalent of a methane gas bubble popping on the surface of some cosmic swamp? I dunno, I’d feel even weirder about worshiping that than the other.
Tits are always a positive addition to any scenario - navigation, dining, window treatments, architecture, mathematics, bowling…
And let me be the first to tell you, apparently,
Bullshit!
What Einstein really said:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
*- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman *
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere… Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
*- Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930 *
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
- Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954
Beta and discount rates aren’t fudge factors - beta is the relationship between systematic risk and a given stock and discount rates are built on weighted average costs of capital calculating the impact of required returns on equity combined with long term debt rates adjusted for taxes.
Well, I’d love some tits and pasta.
What I don’t understand about Hawkins’ theory of Evilution is that if the Big Bang evolved from marmosets, why are there still marmosets?
If there is a hell you’ve got a seat reserved there too:D
You don’t seriously fucking believe that I mean I want him or you to suffer eternal damnation. You take things waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy too literally. Go take your meds now.
Some people can’t take a fucking joke.
Wow. You’re dumb.
if you think I’m actually going to post in your retarted dumbass thread then you’re even crazier than I thought.
[QUOTE=bup]
I would love some tits and pasta.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo]
Well, I’d love some tits and pasta.
[/QUOTE]
I’m going to pray for both of you in hopes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will sprinkle the parmesan of his forgiveness on you.
Are you implying that there are people who wouldn’t love tits and pasta?
I came here for tits and pasta, and I’m all out of pasta…
Well, every time I eat pasta I end up with marinara sauce on the tits…I’ve come very close to ruining some good shirts, and I would prefer to keep the two separate. I’m not familiar with the She’ites; I had always thought that the ‘meatballs’ were meant to represent balls.
Yes, thanks, I know. It’s a fucking fudge factor because the total usefulness of such a measurement is to apply it into the future. You look at what the risk was compared to the market in the past and assume or fudge that that will be relevant to the future. Historically it’s been a bad assumption, and it still doesn’t tell you anything about actual risk or volatility even if the relationship was relevant because the variance of the sequence of returns in the markets is so large.
It’s a fucking double fudge, again the concept that how much it cost to borrow money in the past is relevant to the future. If anything I’d assume an inverse relationship due to the market cycle. The required return for equities is a total fudge factor. How much you need to make in the future to justify taking the historical risk that existed in the past. But, again, you can’t invest in the past and the relevance is more than questionable.
Finally, you make it sound as if some major calculation was performed with all these numbers to give some scientific discount rate. Nothing of the kind happens. Fed governors consider these factors and take a guess and assign a rate.
People who design and build fixed income securities like CMOs and such look at what other people have decided to place as their discount rate and kind of play off that in their own expectations.
If you are doing present value calculations it’s even more difficult because there’s a subjective bird in the hand worth more than a bird and a bush. You takes your guess and you choose your number.
It is a total fudge factor.
Except, as I’m sure you know, the problem with positing a creator leads back to the question of what created it, which is where the trouble came in in the first place. At some point, you’ve got to admit something came into being without a creator. Might as well be the Big Bang, which we have evidence for, rather than God, which we don’t.