Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.

[avxo]

no circular reasoning and no semantics, just me showing arrogant atheists how misguided they are with basic logic

Ahaha... that's so funny. At least you're good for something: making people laugh.

You haven't solved it. You don't even know that you have to prove that those are only solutions? Jesus, where did you learn math?

Oh noes. Some buffoon on the Interwebs has challenged my math skills. Time to tear my graduate degree in mathematics to shreds and go cry in the corner.

[E-Kul]

A father received yet another letter from his son asking for money. The father
was tired of doling out the cash. So, instead of money, the father sent the following
addition problem for his son to solve.

        S E N D
    +  M O R E
      -----------
     M O N E Y

He said that if his son could figure out which digit each of the letters stood for, he would send his son another installment of cash.

What does each letter represent to make this addition problem correct?

aNSWER THIS THEN WE CAN tALK!

Actually although I made simple mistake this is not the only solution...

9000 + 1000 = 10000
9001 + 1000 = 10001
9002 + 1000 = 10002
9003 + 1000 = 10003
9004 + 1000 = 10004
9005 + 1000 = 10005
9006 + 1000 = 10006
9007 + 1000 = 10007
9008 + 1000 = 10008
9009 + 1000 = 10009
9010 + 1090 = 10100
9011 + 1090 = 10101
9012 + 1090 = 10102
9013 + 1090 = 10103
9014 + 1090 = 10104
9015 + 1090 = 10105
9016 + 1090 = 10106
9017 + 1090 = 10107
9018 + 1090 = 10108
9019 + 1090 = 10109
9110 + 1001 = 10111
9111 + 1001 = 10112
9112 + 1001 = 10113
9113 + 1001 = 10114
9114 + 1001 = 10115
9115 + 1001 = 10116
9116 + 1001 = 10117
9117 + 1001 = 10118
9118 + 1001 = 10119
9120 + 1091 = 10211
9121 + 1091 = 10212
9122 + 1091 = 10213
9123 + 1091 = 10214
9124 + 1091 = 10215
9125 + 1091 = 10216
9126 + 1091 = 10217
9127 + 1091 = 10218
9128 + 1091 = 10219
9129 + 1081 = 10210
9220 + 1002 = 10222
9221 + 1002 = 10223
9222 + 1002 = 10224
9223 + 1002 = 10225
9224 + 1002 = 10226
9225 + 1002 = 10227
9226 + 1002 = 10228
9227 + 1002 = 10229
9230 + 1092 = 10322
9231 + 1092 = 10323
9232 + 1092 = 10324
9233 + 1092 = 10325
9234 + 1092 = 10326
9235 + 1092 = 10327
9236 + 1092 = 10328
9237 + 1092 = 10329
9238 + 1082 = 10320
9239 + 1082 = 10321
9330 + 1003 = 10333
9331 + 1003 = 10334
9332 + 1003 = 10335
9333 + 1003 = 10336
9334 + 1003 = 10337
9335 + 1003 = 10338
9336 + 1003 = 10339
9340 + 1093 = 10433
9341 + 1093 = 10434
9342 + 1093 = 10435
9343 + 1093 = 10436
9344 + 1093 = 10437
9345 + 1093 = 10438
9346 + 1093 = 10439
9347 + 1083 = 10430
9348 + 1083 = 10431
9349 + 1083 = 10432
9440 + 1004 = 10444
9441 + 1004 = 10445
9442 + 1004 = 10446
9443 + 1004 = 10447
9444 + 1004 = 10448
9445 + 1004 = 10449
9450 + 1094 = 10544
9451 + 1094 = 10545
9452 + 1094 = 10546
9453 + 1094 = 10547
9454 + 1094 = 10548
9455 + 1094 = 10549
9456 + 1084 = 10540
9457 + 1084 = 10541
9458 + 1084 = 10542
9459 + 1084 = 10543
9550 + 1005 = 10555
9551 + 1005 = 10556
9552 + 1005 = 10557
9553 + 1005 = 10558
9554 + 1005 = 10559
9560 + 1095 = 10655
9561 + 1095 = 10656
9562 + 1095 = 10657
9563 + 1095 = 10658
9564 + 1095 = 10659
9565 + 1085 = 10650
9566 + 1085 = 10651
9567 + 1085 = 10652
9568 + 1085 = 10653
9569 + 1085 = 10654
9660 + 1006 = 10666
9661 + 1006 = 10667
9662 + 1006 = 10668
9663 + 1006 = 10669
9670 + 1096 = 10766
9671 + 1096 = 10767
9672 + 1096 = 10768
9673 + 1096 = 10769
9674 + 1086 = 10760
9675 + 1086 = 10761
9676 + 1086 = 10762
9677 + 1086 = 10763
9678 + 1086 = 10764
9679 + 1086 = 10765
9770 + 1007 = 10777
9771 + 1007 = 10778
9772 + 1007 = 10779
9780 + 1097 = 10877
9781 + 1097 = 10878
9782 + 1097 = 10879
9783 + 1087 = 10870
9784 + 1087 = 10871
9785 + 1087 = 10872
9786 + 1087 = 10873
9787 + 1087 = 10874
9788 + 1087 = 10875
9789 + 1087 = 10876
9880 + 1008 = 10888
9881 + 1008 = 10889
9890 + 1098 = 10988
9891 + 1098 = 10989
9892 + 1088 = 10980
9893 + 1088 = 10981
9894 + 1088 = 10982
9895 + 1088 = 10983
9896 + 1088 = 10984
9897 + 1088 = 10985
9898 + 1088 = 10986
9899 + 1088 = 10987
9900 + 1199 = 11099
9901 + 1189 = 11090
9902 + 1189 = 11091
9903 + 1189 = 11092
9904 + 1189 = 11093
9905 + 1189 = 11094
9906 + 1189 = 11095
9907 + 1189 = 11096
9908 + 1189 = 11097
9909 + 1189 = 11098
9990 + 1009 = 10999

You never said anywhere that those letters represent distinct digits.

Simple shit and everything it takes is checking every possible solution. 19 lines of code.

That is funny, I am unsure what problem you were solving.  Well it was an addition problem, what else could the letters represent: Anyway here are the steps taken to reach answer.You figure this out with a little trial and error and a smattering of reasoning things out. You’re pretty sure that the letter M represents 1, because it’s the carryover from adding the number that M represents to the number that S epresents. If M represents 1, then S must represent 8 or 9 in order for the sum to be large enough to have a carryover. Work your way backward, trying out different digits for the different letters until you find the solution.

[tbombz]

 

  There are only two possibilities here: either there is a first cause or there isn't. Saying that the first cause must be caused by God is a logical fallacy, since the first cause, as it is defined, can not have any cause that precedes it.

an uncaused cause is impossible within the laws of physics, hence someting supernatural is required. it is not that god caused the first cause, it is that god IS the first cause. if there was a first cause.

 Now, is it possible that God was the first cause? Sure. Maybe there was this super-magic being at the beggining which created everything.

wait, i though you said this was a logical fallacy? now its a possibility ?  


If the first cause turns out to be the most basic quantum fluctuation

what caused the quantum fluctuation ?  


  Now, the other possibility is for there to never have been a first cause, which is a real possibility.


your back tracking now. in your original post you said that existence demanded a first cause.  

  Finally, what I said about the building blocks of reality being close to thoughts. You completely miscontrued what I said. You created a straw man and attacked it. What I meant is that, when you dig deeper and deeper into the meaning of the ultimate substrate of reality, it comes closer and closer to being a pure abstraction, and thus more similar and similar to our thoughts. This doesen't mean that there is an intelligence behind everything. What I meant is that our minds are incapable of elucidating what the ultimate substrate of reality is because we base our thoughts having as the base our physical and sensorial Universe, and a pure abstraction is difficult for us to define within the confines of our thinking and vocabulary which is used to describe a tangible Universe to our senses. Kant said in his "Critique Of Pure Reason" how impossible it is to define the "thing in itself". It had nothing to do with saying that the ultimate substrate of reality are the thoughts of God, which is what you probably read. This is more an issue of philosophy and semantics than physics.

you have said multiple times that existence boils down to conceptual designs. this explanation makes much more sense.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[deceiver]

That is funny, I am unsure what problem you were solving.  Well it was an addition problem, what else could the letters represent: Anyway here are the steps taken to reach answer.You figure this out with a little trial and error and a smattering of reasoning things out. You’re pretty sure that the letter M represents 1, because it’s the carryover from adding the number that M represents to the number that S epresents. If M represents 1, then S must represent 8 or 9 in order for the sum to be large enough to have a carryover. Work your way backward, trying out different digits for the different letters until you find the solution.

There is no word even implying the fact that digits are pairwise distinct. Of course you could work this backwards, but since there is finite number of possibilites much faster way was just checking them all automatically via computer.

I'm really embarassed by the fact that you provide easy and brainless shit like this here. With enough time average polish 10 year old can solve shit like this...

[deceiver]

Ahaha... that's so funny. At least you're good for something: making people laugh.


Oh noes. Some buffoon on the Interwebs has challenged my math skills. Time to tear my graduate degree in mathematics to shreds and go cry in the corner.

I'm not challenging you. As a matter of fact I'm stating the obvious - you have mathmatical approach of a polish 10 year old. Smarter 14 year old know arleady that when solving equation/set of equation telling solution is not enough, you have to know it's every possible solution and prove it...

[CigaretteMan]

an uncaused cause is impossible within the laws of physics, hence someting supernatural is required. it is not that god caused the first cause, it is that god IS the first cause. if there was a first cause.


wait, i though you said this was a logical fallacy? now its a possibility ?    







your back tracking now. in your original post you said that existence demanded a first cause.  


you have said multiple times that existence boils down to conceptual designs. this explanation makes much more sense

  holy fuck....I think sukmuscle should report you for trolling...this can only be trolling because no one is this dumb.,,,,, for the upteenth time you quoted all the stupid points you made in your previous post and misenterpreted what he said.......can you read

[lovemonkey]

I got flamed on this thread about how I'm a asshole for pointing out that these threads always turn into a "intellectual dick measuring, copy/paste fest"





so, how am i a asshole again?

Because it's your personal opinion, it contributes nothing to the discussion and it got old a long time ago.

You're just passive-aggressively talking shit about people not buying in to the idea of 'god'.. you've said yourself you believe in a deity if I'm not mistaken. Apparently you're more comfortable talking shit than actually joining the discussion, and that's why you're a douche. Apparently the discussion is really lame and boring but at the same time you can't fucking keep your guido ass away from it and you have the nerve to complain.

[CigaretteMan]

 Ok, I had promised that I wouldn't address your ramblings full of semantic mistatements, logical fallacies and ex nihilo(actually, from the depth of your imagination) (mis)evidence to support your retarded arguments, but since you now have decided to make a straw man of one of my arguments and use it to attack me, I will explain this shit to you one last time and show my argument is nothing of what you claim and in no way is an argument for the support of God. Here it goes:

  There are only two possibilities here: either there is a first cause or there isn't. Saying that the first cause must be caused by God is a logical fallacy, since the first cause, as it is defined, can not have any cause that precedes it. This is an a priori conditione sine qua non for it to be the first cause. So, the argument boils down to whether something can spring from nothing or not. It doesen't matter if the first cause was the Big Bang or something else like quantum fluctuations. In the latter case if would be an occurence simultaneous to the appearance of matter since time cannot exist without it. I am digressing. The point is that the first cause can spring from nothingness, because the first cause is not only the first cause, but it also creates the very process of causality. This is a axiomatic, semantic and tautological condition of any logical(axiomatic) derived system, which includes our Universe. Let me give you an analogy that may help you understand. In mathematics, you have the number 1(quantity) and the number zero(nothingness) from which all mathematics derive. If you accept that there is something, then you also accept that there is nothing, and all more complex logical derivations arrive from that(calculus, algebra, etc). Likewise, since there was a first cause, you can say that it is something that stands in polar opposition to nothingness. Hence, the first cause can come forth from nothingness simply by being the logical antagonist of it. Hence, no God needed. Now, is it possible that God was the first cause? Sure. Maybe there was this super-magic being at the beggining which created everything. I find it hard because this would be a very complex thing and the general rule in the Universe is that complexity comes from simplicity. But do I rule out God? No, I just find it extremely unlikely. The thing is that no God is needed as the first cause, no supernatural capacity that cannot be logically defined and thus understood. If the first cause turns out to be the most basic quantum fluctuation standing in opposition to absolute nothingness(which can only exist as a concept), you can choose to call that God, but it wouldn't have any of the attributes of God, such as being self-aware and having a purpose in creation.

  Now, the other possibility is for there to never have been a first cause, which is a real possibility. Since quantum fluctuations do not occure in linear time - because linear time only exists where there is matter - if quantum fluctuations turn out to be responsible for all of reality you could say that there was no first cause, since the word "first" implies time, which doesen't exist in the quantum field. So an Universe without a first cause. In this case, there certainly is no God since there is no first cause, because the most important attribute of God is being the first cause. Hence an infinite time loop means that there is no God. There could be a being more powerful than any conception we might have of God, but this being wouldn't be God since it wouldn't be the first cause.

  Finally, what I said about the building blocks of reality being close to thoughts. You completely miscontrued what I said. You created a straw man and attacked it. What I meant is that, when you dig deeper and deeper into the meaning of the ultimate substrate of reality, it comes closer and closer to being a pure abstraction, and thus more similar and similar to our thoughts. This doesen't mean that there is an intelligence behind everything. What I meant is that our minds are incapable of elucidating what the ultimate substrate of reality is because we base our thoughts having as the base our physical and sensorial Universe, and a pure abstraction is difficult for us to define within the confines of our thinking and vocabulary which is used to describe a tangible Universe to our senses. Kant said in his "Critique Of Pure Reason" how impossible it is to define the "thing in itself". It had nothing to do with saying that the ultimate substrate of reality are the thoughts of God, which is what you probably read. This is more an issue of philosophy and semantics than physics.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  I said it before and I'm saying again,,,...just compare this to the stupid shit "tbombz" writes and youll understand....."bombz' has not even half the intelligence of sukmuscle, not even the half of it,,,,it's like watching an adult spanking a toddler,,..

[suckmymuscle]

  I think "Tbombz" should stick to anal deep tissue massage theory. At that, he is a master. At anything involving a complexity superior to what a child of primary school age can deal with and that doesen't involve men's assholes, he's a loser.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[deceiver]

 I said it before and I'm saying again,,,...just compare this to the stupid shit "tbombz" writes and youll understand....."bombz' has not even half the intelligence of sukmuscle, not even the half of it,,,,it's like watching an adult spanking a toddler,,..

Suckmymuscle is an idiot as well, he just sounds intelligent.

[E-Kul]

Suckmymuscle is an idiot as well, he just sounds intelligent.

Deceiver is an Idiot as well, he just sounds out his words so he can spell them   

[Man of Steel]

If we could somehow harnass the intellectual power of the contributors in this thread......

[kyomu]

Science cant prove everything because of the defect of our conciousness.

[E-Kul]

I cant prove anything because of the defect in my conciousness.

[deceiver]

Science cant prove everything because of the defect of our conciousness.

THIS.

You should really invest in SERIOUS education. Take philosophy of science classes, you really lack basic understanding of what is natural science. I dunno, but in Europe educated mature people know things like that and approach problems in more formal, systematic way... 50% of you write deosn't make any sense, 40% makes sense but reveals your complete ignorance  and the rest is just breaking through open door.

E-kul seriously, you shouldn't write anything more. All you can do is throw pathetic puzzles (and fail to write them strictly enough so there's no room for interpretation) that can be solved by 12 year old who know how to write code in fucking Pascal.

[kyomu]

I cant know presence. I cant know the things happen at my right side and left side at a time. I cant see and hear because of my prejudice. I cant know because..........

The quantum theory

[deceiver]

I cant know presence. I cant know the things happen at my right side and left side at a time. I cant see and hear because of my prejudice. I cant know because..........

The quantum theory

Yeah, do you know what is MOST funny about people like e-kul and suckmymuscle? They talk about science, they write what science can do and what it can't yet they

 - NEVER DID SCIENCE
 - NEVER SEEN SCIENCE IN ACTION
 - NEVER READ AND UNDERSTOOD SCIENTIFIC PAPER IN MATH, PHYSICS OR COMPUTER SCIENCE
 - NEVER EVEN DID ANY MATHMATICAL PROOF OF ANYTHING
 - NEVER STUDIED ANYTHING SERIOUS

You morons just live in illusion of understanding brought to you by brainwashers like "New Scientist"

[kyomu]

Yeah, do you know what is MOST funny about people like e-kul and suckmymuscle? They talk about science, they write what science can do and what it can't yet they

 - NEVER DID SCIENCE
 - NEVER SEEN SCIENCE IN ACTION
 - NEVER READ AND UNDERSTOOD SCIENTIFIC PAPER IN MATH, PHYSICS OR COMPUTER SCIENCE
 - NEVER EVEN DID ANY MATHMATICAL PROOF OF ANYTHING
 - NEVER STUDIED ANYTHING SERIOUS

You morons just live in illusion of understanding brought to you by brainwashers like "New Scientist"

Actualy thats true. I have many books about quantum theory and, ironicaly, all of those scientists suspect for "science".
Those who didnt read that much are still believeing that the science has all mighty power to resolve anything.

[CigaretteMan]

Suckmymuscle is an idiot as well, he just sounds intelligent.

  no, I dont think so....people who want to sound intelligent get in over their heads...,,,this dude keeps his arguments logically consistent even when argument gets complex,,,....he's not faking his smarts...he's really smart.

[deceiver]

 no, I dont think so....people who want to sound intelligent get in over their heads...,,,this dude keeps his arguments logically consistent even when argument gets complex,,,....he's not faking his smarts...he's really smart.

If he was at least clever he would have solved my problem from previous pages by now. He's just wannabe.

And no, it's nothing complex. It's fucking simple shit shitloads of people I know can solve in 10 minutes, I solved it without even fucking pen just looking at it.

[CigaretteMan]

If he was at least clever he would have solved my problem from previous pages by now. He's just wannabe.

And no, it's nothing complex. It's fucking simple shit shitloads of people I know can solve in 10 minutes, I solved it without even fucking pen just looking at it.

  your problem any child could solve......just because someone has no interest in solving not mean that he can't...,,.,,,this is like saying that because Andrew Wiles never solved a sudoku problem that he couldn't...,,,lack of interest and lack of capacity are different things..

[E-Kul]

E-kul seriously, you shouldn't write anything more. All you can do is throw pathetic puzzles (and fail to write them strictly enough so there's no room for interpretation) that can be solved by 12 year old who know how to write code in fucking Pascal.

Sorry dude, I just dont take it all too seriously. 

[lovemonkey]

If he was at least clever he would have solved my problem from previous pages by now. He's just wannabe.

And no, it's nothing complex. It's fucking simple shit shitloads of people I know can solve in 10 minutes, I solved it without even fucking pen just looking at it.

What is it with polish people and anger issues..? Why does everything have to be a dick-measuring contest?

[Devon97]

Dawkins should not even debate O'reilly. Oreilly is a total moron and totally get destroyed whenever he tries to debate someone like Dawkins.

YOu do realize he has the top rated cable news program in the country in the last ohhh.... 10 years! Or is it 8 years? I forget.

Not bad days work for a "fair & balanced" news program in a far left liberal nation. Eh?  

[Devon97]

Because it's your personal opinion, it contributes nothing to the discussion and it got old a long time ago.

You're just passive-aggressively talking shit about people not buying in to the idea of 'god'.. you've said yourself you believe in a deity if I'm not mistaken. Apparently you're more comfortable talking shit than actually joining the discussion, and that's why you're a douche. Apparently the discussion is really lame and boring but at the same time you can't fucking keep your guido ass away from it and you have the nerve to complain.

LOL @ a fellow who still lives at home w/ his parents calling someone else out for "contributing nothing"