I'm skeptical of the peaceful nature of a religion founded by a warlord; but at this stage we don't know that it's not some nut-job who is trying to capitalise on the ISIS popularity.

(I'm writing from one of the buildings currently in lock-down because of this situation)

Vah, amicus! Et dedisti mihi, squilla, rudis! 'Pissed' plures significationes. Tu magis sonant plus sicut a doletium 'pom', Britannus.
Ego obtuli, 'aerogard' ultimum volutpat vestibulum.
Si non intelligitur, spero gallina ad 'emus' pullis vestra delenda ad latrina.

Disclaimer: my Latin is terrible.

It's a little bit crass, I agree.

I thought that too... but then I realised that even though I've never seen it used before, I still know what it means. Metric is awesome!

To be perfectly honest, I would rather not be dragged through either of them.

Can we not find a better way?

I have a world map by an Australian company which doesn't include Tasmania... It has Campbell Is. (NZ), but not Tasmania.

It's either the thing you launch coming back down on the head of a young child; or its that the thing you launched is found by a group of people who think it's the most wonderful thing ever until it starts causing societal break down and leading to one of those people embarking on a journey to the edge of the earth to dispose of it.

I really don't get this build quality argument. Up until recently the main consideration in my laptop purchases was price: whatever was cheapest was what I bought. All of those laptops lasted for at least 6 years before they were discarded - not because of failures, but because they were replaced with something faster. My brother dropped one of my laptops from a height of about 2 metres onto a tiled floor: the screen cracked, but the computer continued to work fine.

Seriously, what is so magical about Mac build quality?

The worst thing I've ever seen was on the hilly motorway between Wollongong and Sydney, in rain where I could barely see out of the front wind-shield with the wipers on the fastest setting. I'm usually a faster driver, but I slowed down in those conditions (but was still going about 100km/h ;) ). Coming up behind me was a Land-cruiser doing a much higher speed than I was. They either didn't know or didn't care that they were snaking across both lanes - and sometimes venturing into the stopping lanes. Given the way this car was going, both I and the only other car I could see pulled off the side of the road until it had passed. As it passed I had a look; the lady behind the wheel had one hand holding a phone to her ear, the other was waving around just above the wheel.

Worst driver ever.

You misunderstand me. My point is not that you should believe something without evidence - that is obviously stupid. My point is that miracles do not have to screw up our understanding of the universe. Further, I am saying it may not be a case of 'there is no evidence', but possibly 'there is no clear evidence' - which in such cases is a significant difference.

I think you're living in the 'ad absurdum' world; where things must be one extreme or the other. If God exists, he could use the universe how we use a computer: as in, most of the actual instructions to the CPU are predefined software, and any interaction by the user usually goes through that. In such a case, the rules would look very consistent even if the user was actually doing something.

But perhaps the reason you haven't seen something requiring God is that he's left the universe on overnight whilst it does something that doesn't require interaction...

Yes, I did not forget that. It's just not helpful. Non-falsifiable means 'no answer; and no way to find the answer.'

What I was pointing out was that 'no answer' does not mean 'automatically false'.

I can't say that is false, no. If it is true, and you are trying to save me from myself: thank you.

But my point is that it is the burden of the claimant to prove their claims true: but only for themselves. It is the burden of the listener to come to their own conclusion. If they need further proof from the claimant, then they should press them for it. If the claimant fails to provide further proof, the listener can ignore the claimant's claims, but still can't disprove it on lack of evidence alone. That is the point I am trying to address.

This is my view of things also. But I do not make any sort of final judgements about things I cannot demonstrate one way or the other. Admittedly I tend to give them a mental grading of how likely they are; but I try not to let that guide my reaction when I find someone who is sure about it. I would rather be wrong because I failed to understand something someone said to me, than be wrong because I rejected it out of hand as being impossible.

I am not saying you have to believe what they are saying is true. What I am saying is that what they believe isn't your responsibility, (nor, as some seem to believe, the right of intelligent people).

If God is there, he seems has a history of doing things in a scientifically consistent way. And that makes some sense: why would you create a hammer, and then continue to push the nails in with your hand? But even if he did circumvent the system, science would then be studying the new state; and would be looking for whatever answers are available.

Regardless, it's my opinion that if you ever stop looking for answers and say "God did it", you fail as a scientist and should hang up your coat and goggles.