unreality

About the religion coming from natural phenomena, mostly natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods, that was me Even the most stout Christian could tell you today that earthquakes happen when tectonic plates run into each other, and that lightning is static electricity jumping around from positive to negative or vice versa. But before they knew that, they had no answer for it... instead of figuring out the answer, they would say "Oh, God makes lightning strike sinners." Even though they now know that to be false. In the early early days, they had no way of explaining volcanoes- so the only explanation is the divine: "That's the Fire God inside that mountain, getting pissed off and spouting flame from the volcano." "Oh no, a flood- our god must be punishing us for our sins!" etc But now we know the truth. I think as science discovers new truths, religion quickly adapts. You dont see them sweating over how they used to think that lightning's purpose was to kill sinners. But eventually, as we discover new stuff, how much phenomena is left unexplained for religion to cover? Religion's food is dwindling. On another note, this is a question to all theists: How would you respond if I said "God made me atheist"? Why do you suppose god would make us atheists? Why would he punish us that way and take away His Divine Faith from us? If you think our purpose is so you can increase your own faith by knowing there are atheists or whatever, doesnt that go against God's benevolence by using us before we supposedly had a choice, if he indeed makes peole atheists, they dont have a choice. Think about that. The thing is, there is free will. That's what it boils down. So I hope your religion includes an openness that free will exists. Another thing, but very related: Why would be sent to an ETERNAL punishment in Hell if you didnt have a choice? Or eternal heavenliness in heaven? If god makes us the way we are, why would some of us be 'punished' and others 'rewarded'?

* Split them into five heats. Take the 3 fastest in each heat, meaning you now have the 15 fastest. * So do 3 heats now. Take the 3 fastest in each heat. You have the 9 fastest horses. * Do a single heat with 5 random horses of the 9, cutting out the 2 last-place horses, leaving you with 7. * Take another random 5 horses and do it again, cuttnig out 2, leaving you with 5 horses. * Do one final heat and take the top 3 from that race. Those top 3 horses will only have to race 5 times each.

Well this is what stood out (grammatically incorrect) which is what made me read that first part: and says to Greek men who stands upon the shore Though if you really want to go for grammar/englishness, my advice would be to ask Writersblock, he's the english guru here ;D

Oh I see now! Cool! thanks dude

Awww you have great english man but I did as you wish and found this (copied HTML source code from the Paradox page, near the top, the Liar Paradox) <h2>Liar Paradox (Eubulid or Epimenides Paradox)</h2> <p> This is a well known paradox written by the great stoical logician Chrysippos. The poet, grammarian and critic Philetus of Cos was said to have died of exhaustion attempting to resolve it. </p> <ol> <li>A Cretan sails to Greece and says to Greek men who stands upon the shore: "All Cretans are liars." Did he speak the truth or did he lie?</li> <li>A week later, the Cretan sailed to Greece again and said: "All Cretans are liars and all I say is the truth." Although the Greeks ashore weren't aware of what he said the first time, they were truly puzzled.</li> </ol> <p> If someone says about himself that he always lies, is this the truth or a lie? </p> I would recommend changing that to: <h2>Liar Paradox (Eubulid or Epimenides Paradox)</h2> <p> This is a well known paradox written by the great stoical logician Chrysippos. The poet, grammarian and critic Philetus of Cos was said to have died of exhaustion attempting to resolve it. </p> <ol> <li>A Cretan sails to Greece and says to some Greek men who are standing upon the shore: "All Cretans are liars." Did he speak the truth, or did he lie?</li> <li>A week later, the Cretan sailed to Greece again and said: "All Cretans are liars and all I say is the truth." Although the Greeks on the shore weren't aware of what he had said the first time, they were truly puzzled.</li> </ol> <p> If someone says "I always lie", are they telling the truth? Or are they lying? </p>

Alright, thanks I will get working on this

That doesn't prove anything. In fact that strengthens my point... he is more complex than the world. So ask yourself how 'God' got to be there? Has he always been there? - or - Was he created by something else? - or - He came about to exist some other way? ** In any of those three ways, that could have happened to the universe too. What are you saying is no proof that God exists. In fact it's digging yourself deeper into a hole. Do you have any proof that God exists or are we going to endlessly debate things that we both see differently. Either way, a universe or God could have existed forever. Neither of us are proving anything with that- except that I'm proving that you CANT prove something. See what I mean? So do you have a reason that we should believe in God just cuz he isn't physical?

Does this mean the Commoner wants to be married to the Princess and would thus answer the best way that he thinks he could be married to her? Does he try his hardest to make sure the King picks him? Or do you mean he basically answers randomly 'YES' or 'NO' for the purposes of this riddle?

Hey can you sticky this Martini or Rookie? I believe this could help some people: With the new forum boards, it's possible to vote topics on a scale of 1-5 stars. I've seen lots of different, seemingly random votes on different topics, so I thought I'd suggest some guidelines for people to follow that would make it more, I dunno, orderly and universal. A 5 to one person could mean a 3 to another person. Know what I mean? The Guidelines: * vote on the RIDDLE ONLY. Not if you like or don't like the person that posted the riddle. In other words, vote on the riddle itself, not the topic * vote based on this system Number of Stars: ***** 5- this riddle is amazing, and freshly original. It was challenging and you really had to wrack your brain to figure it out, and felt accomplished after doing so. Everyone should give a shot at this riddle, no matter your skill level. It was easy to read and understand. **** 4- this is a great riddle, one of the better ones on the site. It wasn't so easy that you got it within seconds- you definitely had to think about this one, and it was fun doing so. It was original, or at least you haven't heard it before, and the way the riddle was written was as clear as it needed to be. *** 3- a good riddle. Maybe not the best or even in the better set of riddles, but it wasn't too bad. It was a fun riddle, and maybe you got the answer very quickly, but that's okay. Maybe the person could've made the riddle clearer, or disguised the 'catch' better, or hidden the math or provided a better backdrop for the riddle, but it wasn't too bad. ** 2- a flawed riddle. The person that made this isn't hopeless of course, it was most likely just a failed attempt. Either it wasn't original at all, though at least changed a bit from something it was copied from, or it was presented horribly in your opinion and was confusing as to what it was about. The answer may have been hard or easy, though you think the riddle in general could have done a lot better. If you can think of ways that the riddle could be much better and gotten a higher rating, than it's probably a 2. * 1- a hopeless riddle. This is one of those riddles you see and go "Oh wow. That's $#!†." It should be scrapped right away, and it would probably be better if a moderator deleted it. Either the riddle is ridiculously confusing, ridiculously easy, or ridiculously random and unrelated to anything, or just... no. Just, no. It is clear to everyone that this is a poor riddle. To be considered even a 'mediocre' riddle it would need to be fixed up and changed quite a lot.

This is the same as the "Crocodile Sophism" / "Liar Island" / "Executioners of Crete", just different scenarios. It actually is the same thing, roolstar I hate to break it to ya.

Yep you guys all nailed it ;D

Hey rookie, what's up with the "QUOTE" button not working... its extremely annoying, at least to me anyway ;D

Once again you are MISSING MY POINT that I gave with my proof on page 8 or 9. I will spell it out simply in simple terms so that you can understand this time: TWO TRUTHS WE BOTH AGREE ON: * you believe that the universe is too complex to exist forever or to be created from nothing, therefore god created it! * obviously god itself would be more complex than the universe it created THEREFORE: * where did god come from? If god is more complex than his universe, it would MORE likely that the UNIVERSE came out of nowhere or has existed forever than some MAGICAL OMNIPOTENT MASTER ORGANISM existing forever or coming out of nowhere *** thats my point. The fact that anything is too complex or too outlandish so there must be a god is entirely false- the point of this is to show that in fact it is even MORE outlandish if you factor a "god" into the equation

You say infinity has no beginning and no end. You are wrong. There are many types of infinity. Infinity could start at 7 and go on forever. it has a beginning- but no end. There is also infinity of decimal numbers in between 0 and 1... this type of infinity has a beginning and an end... 0 is the beginning, 1 is the end- yet there is still an infinite number of numbers between them. Maybe the universe is like that. Maybe not. by the way, carlos72n, I found your post refreshing. You are one of the few religious people that do not name their god or declare that it is either gender, and you are very open minded. Kudos to you! as to the God-creation thing, sorry I have no answers for you there, I do not believe in God. But good luck finding your spiritual, er, answers, or whatever

I definantely agree that something must have always existed. According to physics, it is impossible for the universe to have always existed, therefore, making necessary some sort of deity. You clearly misunderstood me. I do not believe in any god (other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster of course, the evidence is tremendous ) You and me both agree on one thing: "that something must have always existed". Then your next sentence you contradicted yourself, saying that just that is impossible... lol. But back to us both thinking that something must have always existed: if that is true (i dont know if it is or isnt), then the whole point is that shows that the "life is too complex for there NOT to be a god" theist arguement HAS NO MERIT... my proof that you quoted shows that that is NO proof at all. It's not necessarily an atheism proof (but it could be), but rather a fix to a proof that theists sometimes used. I believe that the universe and time has always existed... the whole point is, that's easily possible without a god. If "god" could exist forever, assuming god is as complex or more complex than the universe, or at least more complex than nonexistance, then the universe could certainly exist forever as well. DUH! that was the whole point of what i said. If god can exist forever than the universe without a god can too.

Ah yes. Thanks dude. My mistake! So you can chop off the very bottom part of my spoiler after the following: TLR TRL LRT and thats what ur left with 2/3 is pretty good but not good enough for me

... what if it was L, making novel? or M, making venom? put it into numbers: 15-5-14-22-? hmmm I dont know

is it one word after 'every letter' or multiple words, like "every letter bla bla and bla bla and bla bla or bla bla which is bla bla"?

they don't You mean when it has been screwed off by 50 prisoners? How does each prisoner know the exact amount needed to spin it? Well they don't... as the OP said. And they can't change the lightbulb or leave any mark of their passing... otherwise they could just scratch the bulb on their first visit, and if they count at least 99 scratches (100 if they have been there before) then they can just tell the warden. But they cant Good idea.... except you cannot touch the bulb, or anything else, except flick the ON/OFF switch. You cannot leave marks of your passing.... otherwise it would be very easy, if you CAN scratch the bulb like you did, you can get rid of the fifty-twists thing and just have each person scratch the bulb on their FIRST AND ONLY FIRST visit, and when someone counts 99 (if this is their first visit) or 100 (a later visit so they've already scratched), everyone has been there at least once. Easy. That's why the OP said you cant do stuff like that

I'm gonna to color this: No doubt here, people: I'm not food savvy, could never be a gourmet. Give me bread in my cupboard and steak on my plate! Sushi sets me on edge - it's fish bait! Broil me two salmon instead. Indict me if you will for a recent faux pas. At the Indonesian restaurant I coughed up my rijstafel and sent a debris of rice to the floor. Aye, and you know they run a tight ship there! For all I've been through, I'd write me a column - but I'm not great with words, either. I'm rescued often by mnemonic aids for Worsecter, halfpenny, rendezvous and others. But one task I've almost completed: I'll finish it now. Question: Why is it so noisy at Wimbledon? Answer: you can't play there without raising a racquet! Now ... what have I done? i.e. what is special about the paragraph above? So where are we analyzing up to inside the paragraph? Red? Red and green? Red, green and cyan? or all of your post (red, green, cyan, blue)?

(okay pointless post, lol)

This is the solution: EDIT: for some reason the square root symbol became a question mark, so I changed it from the square root symbol to 'v'

ah okay. I had that in my answer, I just went a step further and assumed we should give the best answer, which was LLK, I didnt know we could do a ?LK and stop there. I see now. Good riddle bonanova!