http://youtu.be/n32YYJW9y64
Fuck a duck, they disabled embedding... Anyway, great video.
Now a lot of you might be asking
How could women possibly enjoy porn?
To those people we say:
Have you seen porn?
How could we not enjoy it?
I mean, c'mon, it's great.
It's 2 people having awesome sex

Story of my life bro.

Uh, not much this weekend so far, of probably real interest to you guys.
I've been so fucking tired recently, I mean Jesus.
We'll see about that on Monday.

Um, other than that, school swimming starts on Monday. That might be pretty cool. I dunno, I don't have a lot of energy. But we'll see.

By the way, I'm worried that when I have my doctor's appointment on Monday to see why I've been so motherfucking tired, I hope it isn't actually because I've been drinking, as one of my friends has been saying...

On to the more cerebral stuff:
http://proofthatgodexists.org/
Now, it started out fine. The first question it asks is Does absolute truth exist? I, of course, answered that it doesn't.
Then to you it asks Absolute truth does not exist, and lets you say absolutely true, or false
Now, at face value I was pretty impressed with this.
But the more I look at it it appears to be a logical trick to me.
Here's an example of the same thing: A guy once said, anyone can imagine in their head a being of complete perfection of which no other thing is greater. However, that thing, if it doesn't exist, would be made more perfect by existing, and hey presto, by contradiction, God exists!
Now, that's just logical trickery I can't necessarily refute other than it makes no sense because it inputs no data whatsoever about the real world and then expects to get an answer about the real world.
But, my point was, yes, this points out a logical flaw in what I think, that there is no absolute truth, but then again I only have a limited number of buttons to press, what if what I believe is The only absolute truth that exists is that no other absolute truth exists?
It's just a more succinct way of putting the same thing.

It really depends on how you look at it though, I suppose that if you knew the position and velocity of every particle in the universe right now, you could probably predict and know all past and future events in their "absolute truth", but then again, reality only exists in the human mind, there isn't some "real world" elsewhere where "real things" happen, if there was no being to comprehend something, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.
And the truth is, for all humans, different, and therefore there is no absolute truth, I think.

But, I could possibly conceive of looking at it from the other way, that there is a "real world" where "real things" happen.

So moving on:
Then it goes on to ask if universal laws of logic exist.
Well, a few. It mentions the "law of non-contradiction", which is that something cannot logically contradict itself.
But people quite easily believe things that are self-contradictory, it just involves use of doublethink, which is to believe in things that are self-contradictory, and to believe both of them with the same fervor.
But that only makes logical sense to people that are illogical, but then how do you determine who is logical and who is illogical?
If something is perfectly logical to someone else and it's obviously self-contradictory to me, but they'll have none of it, who is to say who's the actual logical one?
I'm not so sure absolute laws of logic exist, they might exist in theory but not in practice, some people might say that in theory things should not self-contradict while believing at the same time many self-contradictory things.
So, I guess that's okay to say universal laws of logic exist, at least in theory.

Then it asks about laws of mathematics, do they exist?
Well, mathematics are a human invention, and they have rules that must be followed if they're to work right.
So yes, I agree, laws of mathematics do exist.

Then it asks if laws of science exist.
Well, it appears to me and there has never been any evidence to contradict that the natural world works by reliable laws that are not broken, even if we'll never quite know or understand all of them.
So yes, the laws of science probably do exist.

Then it asks if absolute moral laws exist, and here is by far my hugest objection to the whole scheme.
By no measure of anything could you say absolute moral laws exist.
For example, look, if you dare: http://www.bestgore.com/murder/dnepropetrovsk-maniacs-murder-guy-hammer-...
That's 3 guys 1 hammer right there, most fucked up thing I've seen in a long time.
And to me, that was totally morally wrong, but to those guys, if they could be said to have morals, that was obviously morally right...
Morals are a human invention, there was no moral law that stopped those guys, there's only the laws of physics, and they obeyed all of those. Those aren't a human invention.

So, moral laws are a human invention, and we all disagree on them.
Why does there have to be a standard?
Let me equate this to a subject I know well: hot boys.
So, there are many boys that I know and see a lot of the time, and some of them are hot, and some of them aren't.
But when I decide a boy is hot, there is no absolute standard of hotness to which I compare a boy before deciding he's hot, I just compare them between each other.
I don't even compare them to the hottest boy I know (which I don't know who it would be actually... Math Class Boy is probably the most pleasant to look at, but I'd probably most like to fuck this guy from my soccer team...)
If I lived on an island filled with only the less attractive half of the boys I know, I'd probably develop a new standard in which the higher ones on the island were now drop-dead sexy. Then if at some point I came into contact with like Math Class Boy, I'd immediately jizz, then reevaluate what I used to think of as hot, based on my new standards of comparison.

And so, back to morals, when I look at Hitler's moral philosophy, I don't have to compare it to The Universal Standard Morality, because there isn't one, in order to see that it's totally fucked up.
I can compare it to the moral philosophy of Kant, to Ayn Rand, to libertarianism, and then, comparing all of those decide which is best. Then I take the best of all of them and integrate it into my moral philosophy which has no name, I don't identify completely with basically any moral philosophy, I have my own.

So when I say Absolute Moral Laws do not Exist, it tells me to choose between Molesting Children for Fun is Absolutely Morally Wrong, or Not Wrong.
Well, other than the obvious cockery of only having those 2 choices, it doesn't change anything.
I think some moral philosophies are better and some are worse, but it's all a human invention and so a matter of opinion.
By what I view as the best moral philosophy, my own, molesting children for fun is morally wrong. By someone else's, it might not be.
There is no standard, but you can probably, if you're smart, see that some are better and some are worse.

But whatever, marching on:
Then it asks if these laws of logic, math, science, and morality are material or immaterial.
Well, despite the fact some of them don't exist, I can agree with this statement more than any previous one, because while immaterial things are not real, as much as theoligians might like to convince me that "souls" have no weight and are still real, they're not, but these laws are not things, they are properties of things, and therefore don't have to have material, so I totally agree.

Then it asks if these laws are universal or individual.
Again, the world exists in the only important sense in the human mind, there is no standard. If the world could talk, maybe there would be a universal standard, but it can't, so there isn't.
There's only our human interpretations of this standard (in math and science. Logic and morality, being human inventions, there is no standard), and so we can interpret them any way we want.
The only standard to which we can compare our interpretation of the laws of math and science is to the general consensus of the people.
If I said 2+2=5, we could evaluate that to be wrong, because most people would agree I'm wrong.
But if everyone in the world said 2+2=5, what is there to say it isn't? 2 plus 2 would equal 5, there would be no conflicting account, and unless the world grows a mouth to tell us about itself, there is no universal standard to make sure it's wrong.

So then, it asks if these laws are unchanging.
Well, considering they don't exist in an absolute sense, they can change whenever the fuck they want.
I would not have the hubris to be able to say that the laws of science have never changed and never will change, none of use understand the world well enough to know that.
The laws of math, being a human invention, maybe will never change, but they could, if all of a sudden everyone agreed they were wrong, because you know, they are a human invention.
And the universal laws of logic and morality don't exist at all, so it doesn't even matter.

So then, it's big finisher is The proof that God exists is that without him you couldn't prove anything.
Well, that means nothing, considering you can't prove anything.
I don't have much time left, so I'll explain briefly. Using ad hoc hypotheses, you can't prove anything.
I could say, this site exists. Then using ad hoc hypotheses, ridiculous and unwarranted leaps of faith, you could say it doesn't, the easiest in all cases being, you're hallucinating it.
Or you could say, invisible pink unicorns exist that are soundless and we can't detect them in any way.
So, using these possible yet unlikely cases, you can't prove or disprove anything with certainty. There's a reason they say that you must prove in court beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt because you could say if someone was found next to a murdered person with the murder weapon, the murder witnessed by a million people, full confessions, all the lot, you could still say evil aliens made a copy of you and did all that stuff and in the middle of the night after doing all the confessions snuck you into your cell.
But that's not a reasonable doubt, it's just an unreasonable one.
We can't prove it's not true, but it's not reasonable, so we assume it isn't.

So then it asks whether I believe God exists. Not in the Western sense, at least.
The whole site starts out okay, but then gathers more and more baggage of stupidity and cockery until it has a seemingly unconnected ending that's easily refuteable. I'll be the first to say though, before I thought about it, it looked good.
But it fell apart when I really thought about it.
Anyway, my computer shuts off at midnight (I've said 11 before because it does 12 instead on Friday and Saturday night, school nights you see).
So I really have to go. Sorry for the rushed end, night guys!