Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-08-2015, 01:41 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 12:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 06:27 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Did you really just attempt to imply that religion has no direction as far as persons behaviour?

No, I did not. I specifically said deism does not inform one's behaviour.

Can you read?
The definition of deism isn't accurate in that it denies aspects that are unexplainable in a strictly material scope.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 01:45 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Our existence is almost inevitable, yet still miraculous in my opinion. It isn't the chance that proclaims God it is the whole of existence. The opportunity, if you will. The grandness of it all. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 02:03 PM
Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 01:26 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 06:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I guess I'm ignored now because I was too blunt in my assessment of his dishonesty and intellect. Weeping how will I go on?


Oh, I know Drinking Beverage

With coffee?

You have to combat stupidity somehow. Coffee for morning stupidity and whiskey for evening stupidity.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
15-08-2015, 02:12 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 06:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  What weighted die? I see no weighted die. Where in the universe do you perceive intent?

Of course you see a weighted die, we're the result of it.

What insured that conscious self-aware creatures, with moral and creative capacities would inevitably arise at some point, given enough time and space?

Nothing insured it. You are a pre-suppositional fool.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-08-2015, 02:13 PM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2015 02:21 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 01:34 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Of course you see a weighted die, we're the result of it.

What insured that conscious self-aware creatures, with moral and creative capacities would inevitably arise at some point, given enough time and space?

That's also why I use the term "fluke" with no qualms. Absolutely nothing said we would "invariably" arise.

What determined that we would arise?

Are you saying that it's not inevitable given enough time and space that conscious/self-aware creatures, with moral and rational ability would have arose? You can say it's a long odds, but time and space would make it inevitable? That even the long odds here approach draw closer to 1, over time? It might not of had to have been this planet, or even our universe, or even at the time frame in which it actually occurred.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 02:14 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Let’s ask a different question. Given a fairly weighted 6 sided die, let say that rolled a One, on the first roll, Two, Four, A Three, A Two on the subsequent rolls, if I keep on rolling the die, the probability that I’ll eventually roll a Six approaches 1, correct? But even though this approaches closer to 1 the more the dies are rolled, you wouldn’t say that rolling a six eventually, given enough time, is ensured?

No, your understanding of probability is poor. The probability of rolling a six is 1/6 every time the die is thrown.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
15-08-2015, 02:16 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 01:45 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Our existence is almost inevitable, yet still miraculous in my opinion. It isn't the chance that proclaims God it is the whole of existence. The opportunity, if you will. The grandness of it all. Thanks.

No, our existence is highly contingent - nothing inevitable about it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 02:25 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 02:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What determined that we would arise?

Are you saying that it's not inevitable given enough time and space that conscious creatures would have, with moral and rational ability would have arose? You can say it's a long odd, but time and space would make it editable? That even long odds here approach draw closer to 1, over time? It might not of had to have been this planet, or even our universe, or even at the time frame in which it actually occurred.

Are you seriously going to be the one arguing that chance alone would be a reasonable explanation for the emergence of life?

I mean, it's quite right. I just didn't expect you to make the argument for us.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
15-08-2015, 02:28 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 02:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Are you seriously going to be the one arguing that chance alone would be a reasonable explanation for the emergence of life?

I mean, it's quite right. I just didn't expect you to make the argument for us.

But it's not chance alone. Anymore so than it's chance alone in the Weasel Program.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 02:38 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
It's not about probabilities, that's the point we're making.

Indeed, the two things are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS. (Sorry about bold capslock, but it needs to be understood).

Conversation #1) The universe's physical laws are the result of random chance, and whether or not we can infer an influence over what outcome would emerge as our universe from all the possible combinations. In other words: was the universe random or were the settings chosen from an exterior Prime Mover before the Big Bang, and what can we know about it, or not?

Conversation #2) Based on the physical laws of this universe, somewhere around 10,000,000,000 years after the Big Bang, life emerges on earth through a highly-improbable (to some, though the best evidence seems to be that it's not improbable at all, but simply inherent in the way chemicals function in certain environments) series of chemical reactions, meaning, to some people, that it is too remote to have occurred through entirely-natural processes and thus had to be "helped" in some way to produce RNA/cells/DNA/life.

The Weasel program deals with conversation #2. It has naught to do with #1.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: