Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 54921 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +8/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1334 on: July 30, 2014, 08:56:58 AM »
Don't say "before the Big Bang".

Time itself started ticking during it. There is no such thing as "before before was possible."

'Kay.

kape, sorry, of course you're correct.  let's ask 'was there an event that caused the big bang'...

better?
Cause and effect implies time.

yes, indeed, you are correct again.  time and space are contained in the universe and came into existence after the BB.  so then, the cause of the universe must not include them, it must come from outside our experience.

well, whatever it is, it would seem weird to us - an event outside of time and space.
Nope. For an event to "occur" time and space must be involved so it has a sequence (this leads to that, etc.)

If time only existed after t=0, then saying anything about t=-1 makes zero sense.

of course t=-1 makes no sense... that's why i said whatever "it" is, would seem weird to us.  what happened at t=0 is contrary to our common-sense expectation.  it wasn't an explosion, it wasn't contained or happening within something, all we know is that at t=0 everything we are familiar with started getting larger.  so time and space are contained within the universe,[pointless arrogance removed GB Mod] time and space are the universe - (whatever), the point is that time and space came into existence after the BB event.  so you see, "it" is very strange, and will make no sense to our brains because we cannot experience an event without a cause.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 02:52:09 PM by Graybeard »
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6778
  • Darwins +546/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1335 on: July 30, 2014, 09:00:51 AM »
I have read what OAA wrote and find the following incomprehensible unless it is supposed to be humorous - i which case it fails

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

so you’re basically saying that a dead unintelligent universe, by sheer random chance, bears intelligent life… and this intelligent life it bears is in the universe, completely and totally comprised of the universe, but completely different, unique and separate from the universe.  GOT IT!
so you’re basically saying that a dead unintelligent universe, by sheer random chance, bears intelligent life… -> Yes
and this intelligent life it bears is in the universe, -> Yes
completely and totally comprised of the universe, -> This is the start of your error. You have used words carelessly. You seem to think that OAA suggested that the universe and humans are identically equal in all respects. You will now see that this is not so. In fact, it sounds a little silly. Living things are simply a part of all that comprises the universes.
but completely different, unique and separate from the universe. -> This is where your error has led you - it a ridiculous conclusion. I'm not sure how you could conclude this. Perhaps you'll explain.

You also make the mistake of conflating the meanings of the word "life": on the one hand, it means "all living things" and on the other it means "the characteristic that divides the animate from the inanimate."

I hope this helps you come to a clearer image of what life (in both its meanings) and the universe are.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +8/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1336 on: July 30, 2014, 09:08:42 AM »
And you would be wrong.
A mind is required for intelligence
Dead/inanimate things do not have a mind.

indeed, defining intelligence is difficult, there are may aspects to it - social, logical, creative, emotional, practical, etc, etc...  when i made that statement i was thinking along the lines of AI.  to me, there are aspects of computing that i would classify as intelligent.

and when i mentioned the complexity of the universe comparatively with the human brain, i was simply contemplating the  phenomenon of consciousness.  consciousness being something that i believe to be true, but cannot prove.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 09:19:14 AM by frank callaway »
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +8/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1337 on: July 30, 2014, 09:17:25 AM »
I have read what OAA wrote and find the following incomprehensible unless it is supposed to be humorous - i which case it fails

Graybeard - humor is subjective... is it not?
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 09:19:31 AM by frank callaway »
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1338 on: July 30, 2014, 09:54:53 AM »
I don't like liars.

Please show where frank callaway lied, conclusively, or retract this statement.

He objected to my use of the phrase "those people" to refer to theists for whom "god" was a "sentient force" in the Universe. He also claimed that he did not belong to said group. A couple of posts later, he defended "those people"'s view by attempting to make mine sound ridiculous by comparison. If that's not conclusive enough for you, just to avoid you having to post again, I'll say this: I may be wrong about frank callaway being a liar and therefore am retracting my accusation.

However, I do want to note, since frank callaway seems to have a problem understanding what I say, that retracting my statement doesn't mean I have changed my mind.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 10:23:59 AM by One Above All »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +8/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1339 on: July 30, 2014, 10:21:57 AM »
I don't like liars.

Please show where frank callaway lied, conclusively, or retract this statement.

He objected to my use of the phrase "those people" to refer to theists to whom "god" was a "sentient force" in the Universe. He also claimed that he did not belong to said group. A couple of posts later, he defended "those people"'s view by attempting to make mine sound ridiculous by comparison. If that's not conclusive enough for you, just to avoid you having to post again, I'll say this: I may be wrong about frank callaway being a liar and therefore am retracting my accusation.

However, I do want to note, since frank callaway seems to have a problem understanding what I say, that retracting my statement doesn't mean I have changed my mind.

HA!  i get it, it's kinda like you're entering a guilty plea to receive a lesser sentence, even though you're innocent.  just like most inmates in prison are innocent... just ask 'em. 

seriously though, putting quotations around words does not automatically mean that you're objecting to the words used.  whenever someone says "them people" or "those people" i always think... aren't we all just "people" trying to figure stuff out...?  i certainly didn't object to your use of the words, you can use whatever words you wish... and i don't belong to any "group"... i carry no "i believe in this or that" membership card in my wallet.  so i appreciate the public retraction of your accusation that i'm a liar.  i believe any honest review of our exchange would exonerate me of that charge anyway.  and even if you haven't changed your mind, just know that i don't harbor any ill will.  i love you brother, we're all in the same boat.
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1340 on: July 30, 2014, 10:26:15 AM »
HA!  i get it, it's kinda like you're entering a guilty plea to receive a lesser sentence, even though you're innocent.  just like most inmates in prison are innocent... just ask 'em. 

It's called "following a moderator's instructions". I suspect you didn't read the rules when you signed up.

i love you brother

The list of people who get to call me "brother" without my objection boils down to two. You are not one of them.

we're all in the same boat.

No we're not. Not even close.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +8/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1341 on: July 30, 2014, 10:37:57 AM »
Removed: Adds nothing to the debate
GB Mod
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 02:47:44 PM by Graybeard »
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1342 on: July 30, 2014, 10:40:00 AM »
Removed: Adds nothing to the debate
GB Mod
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 02:48:02 PM by Graybeard »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Online Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1564
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1343 on: July 30, 2014, 10:43:05 AM »
of course t=-1 makes no sense... that's why i said whatever "it" is, would seem weird to us.  what happened at t=0 is contrary to our common-sense expectation. it wasn't an explosion, it wasn't contained or happening within something, all we know is that at t=0 everything we are familiar with started getting larger.  so time and space are contained within the universe, or as the knucklehead stated above, time and space are the universe - (whatever), the point is that time and space came into existence after the BB event.  so you see, "it" is very strange, and will make no sense to our brains because we cannot experience an event without a cause.

Have you experienced natural radioactive decay? That has no cause.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
  • Darwins +61/-14
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1344 on: July 30, 2014, 10:44:11 AM »
liars tend to lie only about specific subjects...?  really...?  you have a source for that...?  because it is my personal experience that liars lie about EVERYTHING!

otherwise the rest of your post pretty much lulled me to sleep... zzzzzzzzzz

sniff

Frank,

I don't know if you are a liar, but  "OAA knows what is in peoples minds based upon what OAA thinks they may believe but not have said"  it is almost a clairvoyant tallent.
I reserve judgement on you until I know way way more.

That said.

Liars only lie about certain subjects.  They may be willing to tell the truth only when it suits them but I would have to say liars probably tell the truth frequently with strategic lies replacing what they feel is uncomfortable about or to gain advantage.  You can't trust a proven liar because it is impossible to tell when they have decided to lie vs tell the truth.  But most liars tell the truth frequently.


Online Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1564
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1345 on: July 30, 2014, 10:58:42 AM »
  consciousness being something that i believe to be true, but cannot prove.

It seems a bit egotistical for you to think that only you evolved consciousness, when humans evolved as a group.

And we do have brain scans now.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 11:02:35 AM by Foxy Freedom »
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1346 on: July 30, 2014, 11:01:41 AM »
  consciousness being something that i believe to be true, but cannot prove.

It seems a bit egotistical for you to think that only you evolved consciousness, when humans evolved as a group.

And we do have brain scans now.

Logic doesn't work on solipsists. Otherwise, there be no solipsists.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 11:03:44 AM by One Above All »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12577
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1347 on: July 30, 2014, 11:04:24 AM »
I'll say this: I may be wrong about frank callaway being a liar and therefore am retracting my accusation.

Thank you for that. It is much appreciated. 

...retracting my statement doesn't mean I have changed my mind.

Noted.  Thought control is not the goal here.  Just keeping civility.  
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1348 on: July 30, 2014, 11:08:49 AM »
Noted.  Thought control is not the goal here.  Just keeping civility.  

The note was for the appropriate member. I assume everyone else understands the connotations of "retracting". Since frank callaway hasn't even answered whether or not his first language is English, and has experienced problems understanding what, to me, are simple sentences, I decided to take precautions.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +8/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1349 on: July 30, 2014, 11:17:13 AM »
of course t=-1 makes no sense... that's why i said whatever "it" is, would seem weird to us.  what happened at t=0 is contrary to our common-sense expectation. it wasn't an explosion, it wasn't contained or happening within something, all we know is that at t=0 everything we are familiar with started getting larger.  so time and space are contained within the universe, or as the knucklehead stated above, time and space are the universe - (whatever), the point is that time and space came into existence after the BB event.  so you see, "it" is very strange, and will make no sense to our brains because we cannot experience an event without a cause.

Have you experienced natural radioactive decay? That has no cause.

we're not talking about events within space and time.
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1350 on: July 30, 2014, 11:19:01 AM »
we're not talking about events within space and time.

Then we're not talking about events. Actions require three things:
Someone/Something to perform the action.
Space for the something/someone to exist in and be able to move through (you know, so that they can perform the action).
Time for the something/someone to exist in and be able to change things (change only occurs if there's time; if everything's frozen in place, nothing changes).
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +8/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1351 on: July 30, 2014, 11:20:43 AM »
  consciousness being something that i believe to be true, but cannot prove.

It seems a bit egotistical for you to think that only you evolved consciousness, when humans evolved as a group.

And we do have brain scans now.

first of all, i said i believe consciousness to be true.  i did NOT say i believed i was the only one who evolved consciousness.  and next time you're in for a brain scan, tell them you would like a scan of your consciousness...

kay?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1352 on: July 30, 2014, 11:23:31 AM »
and next time you're in for a brain scan, tell them you would like a scan of your consciousness...

kay?

We have those already. They're called "FMRI"'s. We also have computers that can record how you see things, then extrapolate from that and show a video of your thoughts.
Any more objections?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1353 on: July 30, 2014, 11:24:40 AM »
Hey frank,
Do you believe that Love exist?
Do you have proof for the existence of Love that wouldn't apply to God?
You're worth more than my time

Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +8/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1354 on: July 30, 2014, 11:36:39 AM »
we're not talking about events within space and time.

Then we're not talking about events. Actions require three things:
Someone/Something to perform the action.
Space for the something/someone to exist in and be able to move through (you know, so that they can perform the action).
Time for the something/someone to exist in and be able to change things (change only occurs if there's time; if everything's frozen in place, nothing changes).

yes, that's why i said it doesn't make sense... 
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +8/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1355 on: July 30, 2014, 11:39:01 AM »
and next time you're in for a brain scan, tell them you would like a scan of your consciousness...

kay?

We have those already. They're called "FMRI"'s. We also have computers that can record how you see things, then extrapolate from that and show a video of your thoughts.
Any more objections?

i'm talking about the sense of one's self, your inner life.  yes, FMRI & PET scans can map brain activity.  but i'm talking about the experience.
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1356 on: July 30, 2014, 11:43:28 AM »
yes, that's why i said it doesn't make sense... 

Then you were right: what you proposed makes no sense.

i'm talking about the sense of one's self, your inner life.  yes, FMRI & PET scans can map brain activity.  but i'm talking about the experience.

If we can connect a brain to a computer, connecting one brain to another is just a matter of time.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Online Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1564
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1357 on: July 30, 2014, 11:56:54 AM »
of course t=-1 makes no sense... that's why i said whatever "it" is, would seem weird to us.  what happened at t=0 is contrary to our common-sense expectation. it wasn't an explosion, it wasn't contained or happening within something, all we know is that at t=0 everything we are familiar with started getting larger.  so time and space are contained within the universe, or as the knucklehead stated above, time and space are the universe - (whatever), the point is that time and space came into existence after the BB event.  so you see, "it" is very strange, and will make no sense to our brains because we cannot experience an event without a cause.

Have you experienced natural radioactive decay? That has no cause.

we're not talking about events within space and time.

This guy is like a chameleon. He changes his story with every post.

Who would say this but a Christian?

i love you brother

Be frank, you said we cannot experience an event without a cause. Is it a true statement or not?
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +8/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1358 on: July 30, 2014, 12:01:35 PM »
yes, that's why i said it doesn't make sense... 

Then you were right: what you proposed makes no sense.


correct, what i proposed makes no sense... but it happened.
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1359 on: July 30, 2014, 12:04:40 PM »
correct, what i proposed makes no sense... but it happened.

What happened? A god poofing the Universe into existence? Because that's not what happened, and it is what you proposed.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1360 on: July 30, 2014, 12:31:22 PM »
frank callaway
Do you believe that Love exist?
Do you have proof for the existence of Love that wouldn't apply to God?
You're worth more than my time

Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +8/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1361 on: July 30, 2014, 12:39:51 PM »
correct, what i proposed makes no sense... but it happened.

What happened? A god poofing the Universe into existence? Because that's not what happened, and it is what you proposed.

i proposed no such thing... all i said was "it" happened.  that is all.  show me where i said "god" poofed the universe into existence... 
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12577
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1362 on: July 30, 2014, 12:49:35 PM »
Luk,

I don't know for sure, but I would guess frank has you on his ignore list and cannot see your posts.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.