I agree that a contingent God does not make sense since you go into an infinite regress. Instead if we must have a first cause (which is demanded by the Big Bang), then this cause must exist by necessity. Which isn't a far fetched idea. Numbers, for example, exist by necessity. Nobody created 4. It just is.

But now we're left with a problem. We need a causal something that exists by necessity. And given that the universe exists with contingent laws and contingent constants that just so happen to be necessary for even chemistry to happen, we have an intelligent causal entity that exists by necessity. Call that what you will, but I call it God.

If you take those three attributes away you get something that's worse than magic. Somehow a causal necessary thing just so happen to get the right laws and constants? Or an intelligent necessary thing with no causal power? Or a contingent causal thing (what you think about when you say God)? No. The prime cause of everything must have all three attributes.

They use natural process to exist and they come from naturally existing life. A scientist doesn't create a tomato from scratch. He reprograms existing life to manipulate life. Same with dogs. Dogs are breed using natural mechanism (fertilizing eggs, etc...) Nobody just builds a dog from scratch.

I doubt that could happen from scratch. So far humans have only been able to make life from life. Which makes sense.

But if one would build an organic cell from scratch, is it life or is it a gooey robot?

That is the question. I think what these scientist mean is that life is a "naturally occurring" complex and organized set of matter that can reproduce and consume energy. So naturally occurring mechanical entities may be alive where as a robot built by man wouldn't.

Then I read in the summary that they were talking about a woman.

A lot of states have laws in place that allows even people in poverty to vote without penalty. For example, in Missouri, you are required to notify your employer the day before the election that you are going to vote. They then are required to give you up to three hours of paid time off in order to vote. In order to get paid, you must have actually voted, though you are not required to give proof. So even if someone works for McDonalds or Walmart, they must be given three hours of time off to vote.

I know, right! Sometimes the most eloquent solution is right under our noses.

Nope. Not expensive at all. In most markets, Google will charge $300 to do this for you. In some markets they change $30. But if you subscribe to gigabit or gigabit+TV, they'll waive the fee.

You could just do what I did and switch to Google Fiber. It's pretty decent quality and you get free equipment like an 802.11n router. For cable, your remote control is a free tablet that you get to keep. Not sure why more people haven't done this...

You sir, are the only human on planet Earth that thinks MSNBC is centrist. MSNBC even admits that they are extreme leftists and that they're proud of it.

I simply do not think like you. I can imagine a sports conversation with you,

You "So do you like the 49ers?"
Me "No... I'm not into footb---"
You "I knew it! You're a Broncos fan!"
Me "Well, no... I just don't foll--"
You "You already said you didn't like the 49ers. So you must be asserting that you're a Broncos fan!"
Me "What?"

Not being swayed simply means that. If someone gives neither reasons nor citations (you just need one in informal conversation) for thinking something is true, it just doesn't sway me. It doesn't mean I took the other side. But at least the guy or gal in favor of the Fair Tax explained why he liked it.

There's quite a few complexes near where I live that have Google Fiber. It's proudly advertised on various complex's banners.

How do you figure? By my logic it says that you can't use "weasel words". It doesn't attempt to determine if the comment is correct or the opposite is correct.

"The Fair tax as been torn apart many times." By whom? What studies? Maybe it doesn't work, maybe it does. But just telling me that it's been torn apart many times doesn't convince people like me, nor does it persuade me in the opposite direction.

I don't get it when people say things like this. "X has been torn apart many time!" or "Scientists have already proven X!" Especially since your argument has been torn apart many times.