dan,
>>What would you conclude if you came upon a used deck of cards that were in perfect order? Would you assume they were shuffled once into order, or that someone put the that way? You wouldn't have to assume; of course someone put them that way. To assume otherwise would be ridiculous. The chances of the shuffle falling into perfect order is 1/8 to the sixty-seventh power. That's a big number.
Sounds good so far.
>>Now, we all know about the second law of thermodynamics, right? Entropy. The natural progression of all energy is from an organized state to one of disorganization. In order for order to happen something has to act upon the energy, or chance has to play a role. Some scientists don't like the idea of "God," so they assume chance is what organized matter, the universe, this planet, life, intelligence. Those are the only two options: God or chance. Wanna know what the odds are of chance having created and sustained (and continued to sustain) life on this planet? I do to;
Please enlighten us with your calculations. First off, scientists do not assume chance is what organized matter. Chance is only part of the equation - physical and mathematical laws work on chance in an algorithmic process to create what we see. Who or what created the physical and mathematical laws? Who knows? Maybe they always existed. Maybe there are other universes out there where they don't exist. Maybe they just are?
To posit a god is necessary just moves the question back one step - who created god? To claim only god can be eternal is special pleading. Did god just come about by chance? Please show us your calculations where god coming into existence by chance is more probable than the universe coming into existence by chance.
>>and so does the rest of the scientific comunity, but the numbers are too high. The fact is, science hasn't arrived at a number high enough to calculate those odds. You could shuffle a deck of cards into perfect order a million times in a row before a universe could be created out of chance, and yet, so many jump at that as the only solution.
You seem to know a lot about the universe. Did you create it or something?
>>Why? Because they just don't want to believe in God.
Your evidence?
>>If you say God doesn't exist it's just because you just don't want Him to exist.
Who says god doesn't exist? Atheists believe there is no reason to believe one or many gods exist. There is no proof a god doesn't exist. Many atheists such as myself would probably like there to be a god that exists, but then again, I would also like Santa Claus to exist.
>>God means responsibility, and most people don't like responsibility.
Maybe your god does, but not all definitions of god do.
>>William James says our "passional" nature has the most to do with our beliefs and conclusions in this life. Critical thinkers put aside their emotional and anecdotal reasoning to figure things out, but atheists often just go by their gut.
I think you have this reversed. Atheists go strictly on evidence. Without evidence there is no belief.
>>If you were a gambler you would put every dime you had on God existing, and you'd be giggling to yourself all the way to the bookie because you would know that your odds were unbeatable.
Are you proposing Pascal's Wager here? :) Actually I would bet there is no god. I'm confident my money would be safe. You haven't provided any evidence that the odds are in your favor yet.
>>So, you'll obviously disagree with me, but that's all right. Believers are always racked by the burden of proof, but since atheism is the newest brand of idolatry on the block, I throw the burden to you. Show me conclusive proof that God does not exist or I will have no choice but to call this argument forever concluded.
I will as soon as you prove to me that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. Deal?
>>By the way, lack of evidence that He does exist is not considered evidence at all. It is a lack of evidence, and only proves the need for further research. Show me conclusive proof, if you think it actually exists; and if it doesn't then your conclusion is just preposterous assumption.
No one has ever said otherwise. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But you don't worship Thor just because nobody has proven he doesn't exist... or do you?
rem
Posts by rem
-
101Atheist/Agnostics..you'r e in good company
by badwillie infamous people who were also atheists:.
simon bolivar, revolutionary of venezuela.
abraham lincoln, president.
-
-
rem
-
62
Even if a God did exist, there are no absolutes
by logansrun inthere is no objective standard for right and wrong even if a god did exist.
god's morality is nothing more than an opinion backed up by absolute power.
might does not make right.
-
-
rem
>>Y'know, Pyrrho would probably be disgusted with how far skepticism has come. It's a pretty useless branch of philosophy, and it just leads to uselessness in society.
???
Do you even realize what type of skepticism Pyrrho advocated? *That* was useless and self defeating. I don't know of any skeptics that follow in the steps of Pyrrho any longer.
Skepticism today is not so much a philosophy in a strict sense, but rather a practical way of filtering beliefs. Basically what skepticism comes down to today is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
rem -
101
Atheist/Agnostics..you'r e in good company
by badwillie infamous people who were also atheists:.
simon bolivar, revolutionary of venezuela.
abraham lincoln, president.
-
-
rem
God plays solitare?
rem
-
101
Atheist/Agnostics..you'r e in good company
by badwillie infamous people who were also atheists:.
simon bolivar, revolutionary of venezuela.
abraham lincoln, president.
-
-
rem
>>You may or may not agree with that but the book looks at boths sides a gives a fresh view of evolution as good science that actually supports a theistic view of the world
Now it sounds like special pleading. It's ok to use Evolution to support a theistic view of the world, but not an atheistic one? In practice, no scientist who studies Evolution I've heard of proposes that Evolution disproves god, but surely there is no problem showing how Evolution is consistent with an atheistic world view (and vice versa). I've read a lot of books about Evolution written by atheists and that seems to be par for the course.
There is a difference between showing how the facts are consistent with your belief (or non belief) and setting out to prove a positive assertion with those same facts. I believe atheist scientists are guilty of the former rather than the latter.
I may actually read the book as some favorable quotes were taken from it in a book I'm currently reading: Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennet.
rem -
101
Atheist/Agnostics..you'r e in good company
by badwillie infamous people who were also atheists:.
simon bolivar, revolutionary of venezuela.
abraham lincoln, president.
-
-
rem
"[Dr. Miller] takes issue with those scientists who claim that modern science has disproved God."
Does Dr. Miller often take issue with Strawmen?
rem -
16
my photo of Air Force One
by Mulan in.
here is the photo i took last week in buffalo ny, as air force one was taxiing in, as we awaited our flight home..
-
-
rem
You sure that wasn't the decoy? :-)
rem -
14
Expedition will search for Noah's Ark-
by IronGland inhttp://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040426/ap_on_sc/noah_s_ark
once this expedition is over, they will also search for the following:.
10. the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.. .
-
-
rem
"We are not excavating it. We are not taking any artifacts. We're going to photograph it and, God willing, you're all going to see it," McGivern said.
Great... guess we can look forward to some more blurry photos of snow and rock with arrows pointing to various parts of the "boat". LOL
rem -
101
Atheist/Agnostics..you'r e in good company
by badwillie infamous people who were also atheists:.
simon bolivar, revolutionary of venezuela.
abraham lincoln, president.
-
-
rem
Probably better to refer to most of them as non-christians or deists rather than atheists. Atheists were quite rare in most western societies until fairly recently.
rem -
40
Carl Jung and the Collective Unconscious,,Myths and Archetypes.
by frankiespeakin in.
leolaia...recomended to me carl jung so i did a little search,,i find his theory of the collective unconscious fasinating here is a neat essay on the subject:.
http://lcc.ctc.edu/faculty/dmccarthy/engl204/seven-lecture.htm
-
-
rem
Sirona,
::Two people have the same "feeling" at the same time to go somewhere to meet the other, who they haven't seen for 20 years? Both act upon that feeling? (IMO, that is one of the most amazing things about that story, that neither of them shoved the thought aside, and that they were even moved to write to each other after the event). THAT is not statistically likely AT ALL.
You would have to be able to accurately calculate the odds of such occurances happening to make such a claim.
People have "feelings" about other people all of the time. Usually the feelings are forgotten, but it is statistically inevitable that out of billions of people and hundreds of billions of relationships that two people will have "feelings" about one another at the same time. In fact, it probably happens more often then we realize - we only find it amazing when both parties act on their feelings at the same time.
Plus people tend to exagerate amazing stories such as these for dramatic effect. It's wise to take such stories with a grain of salt. Sure there is probably much truth to the core, but people can't help exagerating... It's human nature. We are story telling animals.
rem -
151
Astrology, the Zodiac, etc............
by Sunnygal41 ini know that this topic will be a draw to those who are truly interested in this subject, and for those who seem to feel that it is their "duty" to debunk untruth and myth, etc.
in their sphere of life.
let it so be stated that whoever is truly interested in this subject, and in having a "chart" done, etc.
-
-
rem
Little Toe,
I think it would be interesting to present your reading to a large random sample of people. Also present to them their own personal reading done by a professional Astrologer. Ask them to guess which one is their own reading. I predict that 50% of the time your reading will be chosen. Controlled experiments have shown that this is exactly what happens time and time again.
If only psychics could be as accurate in their predictions. ;)
rem