Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-08-2015, 05:47 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Couldn't decide on which one, so I went with both:

[Image: th?id=JN.fd7FEoVC3flcXx9UtrLrrA&...;amp;h=300]

[Image: no-fucks-were-given-that-day_o_1520145.jpg]

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
15-08-2015, 05:50 PM
Rocks with bad intentions
[Image: a9c805d9973dca178d6610078c35dd2b.jpg]

[Image: 88553687673cfb2f3d1db2c4a6df2dac.jpg]

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, 05:53 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 02:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 02:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, your understanding of probability is poor. The probability of rolling a six is 1/6 every time the die is thrown.

Tell me which of these odds is better. Landing on tails on a single coin flip. Or that any one coin in a series of ten coin flips lands on tails.

T - you're still missing the point. You cannot infer backward, like that. Period. The odds of any given universe are the same. Just like the odds of any given dice-roll set are the same. Period.

You are inserting confirmation bias because you like the outcome (we are here). But there is no way to go from this set of laws arriving as the result of a random outcome to "it must have been this way" or "someone chose this particular result so we could be here". We are here because of the result, not the results were chosen to make us be here. It's really that simple.

Want to imagine that things were made for us? Great! But it does not follow logically. Quite the opposite. All that talk about "improbability" is irrelevant, since every single event that happens in the real world is "improbable", in some sense, until it happens. For example, if I find a flint arrowhead while digging in my back yard. REALLY low odds, given the square footage, even presuming there's an arrowhead in every few backyards all across the United States... but I found it, against all odds. We cannot go backward and say that some long-dead Native American put it there for me to find, just because the odds are long of it being there. It doesn't work backward, logically.

"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
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
15-08-2015, 06:09 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 04:42 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 03:37 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Why don't you back the f*** up off of people act like everybody's f****** lying cuz they don't agree with your dumbass chill the f*** out and f****** open your ears. Thank you

Medications wearing off again?
I am NOT on nor do I need any medication. It just really bothers me when people that are supposed to be free thinkers ridicule an agnostic or an atheist for thinking. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 06:19 PM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2015 06:26 PM by photon9.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 02:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Tell me which of these odds is better. Landing on tails on a single coin flip. Or that any one coin in a series of ten coin flips lands on tails.

Tomasia, which odds is better?

One coin in a series of ten coin flips lands on all tails.

One coin in a series of ten coin flips lands heads, tails, tails tails, heads, tails, heads, heads, tails, heads...

... Or any other particular sequence of heads/tails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 06:20 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 06:19 PM)photon9 Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 02:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Tell me which of these odds is better. Landing on tails on a single coin flip. Or that any one coin in a series of ten coin flips lands on tails.

Tomasia, which odds is better?

One coin in a series of ten coin flips lands on all tails.

One coin in a series of ten coin flips lands heads, tails, tails tails, heads, tails, heads, heads, tails, heads.

He's spent 400 posts carefully not answering those sorts of questions, mate. I wouldn't hold your breath.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
16-08-2015, 05:37 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 06:25 AM by Tomasia.)
Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 06:19 PM)photon9 Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 02:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Tell me which of these odds is better. Landing on tails on a single coin flip. Or that any one coin in a series of ten coin flips lands on tails.

Tomasia, which odds is better?

One coin in a series of ten coin flips lands on all tails.

One coin in a series of ten coin flips lands heads, tails, tails tails, heads, tails, heads, heads, tails, heads...

... Or any other particular sequence of heads/tails.


(15-08-2015 06:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 06:19 PM)photon9 Wrote:  Tomasia, which odds is better?

One coin in a series of ten coin flips lands on all tails.

One coin in a series of ten coin flips lands heads, tails, tails tails, heads, tails, heads, heads, tails, heads.

He's spent 400 posts carefully not answering those sorts of questions, mate. I wouldn't hold your breath.

I've answered the same question before, but I'll do so again. Provided they're standard coins, the odds would be the same.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 06:19 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 06:44 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 05:53 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  T - you're still missing the point. You cannot infer backward, like that. Period. The odds of any given universe are the same. Just like the odds of any given dice-roll set are the same. Period.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting here the existence of more than one universe. Or if you're suggesting there's only one, the one we currently find ourselves in, if so than I don't see how the odds of any other universe are the same. If we're suggesting there's only one universe the odds of any alternative universe wouldn't apply. Because here we would be suggesting that certain factors, are just present, those qualities just exist, and there is no possibility of it be any different.

Quote:You are inserting confirmation bias because you like the outcome (we are here). But there is no way to go from this set of laws arriving as the result of a random outcome to "it must have been this way" or "someone chose this particular result so we could be here". We are here because of the result, not the results were chosen to make us be here. It's really that simple.

If I'm implying "it must have been this way", i'm would be implying in the sense that given enough time and space, the likelihood of sentient creatures, appearing somewhere in any one universe, approaches 1. That seems to be the basic underlying assumption, of assuming life could possibly exist on some other planet.

Quote:Want to imagine that things were made for us? Great! But it does not follow logically. Quite the opposite. All that talk about "improbability" is irrelevant, since every single event that happens in the real world is "improbable", in some sense, until it happens. For example, if I find a flint arrowhead while digging in my back yard. REALLY low odds, given the square footage, even presuming there's an arrowhead in every few backyards all across the United States... but I found it, against all odds. We cannot go backward and say that some long-dead Native American put it there for me to find, just because the odds are long of it being there. It doesn't work backward, logically.

There doesn't seem to be any relationship between finding the arrowhead, and the conclusion that it was a long-dead Native American who put it there. It could just have been unintentionally dropped there by someone. But suppose you found the arrowhead deep in the ground, perhaps in a chest. There's reason to assume that someone intentionally placed it there. It might not have been for the sake of you finding it. But there's reason to assume it was placed there intentionally. If we can agree on it being intentional in this case, there doesn't seem to be any reason to conclude that the person who did this is a long-dead person, or a Native American.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 06:34 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 06:09 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 04:42 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Medications wearing off again?
I am NOT on nor do I need any medication. It just really bothers me when people that are supposed to be free thinkers ridicule an agnostic or an atheist for thinking. Thank you.

First, it was a joke son.
Second, your posts are interspersed with ones that are totally incoherent and ones that are highly vitriolic. It appears that you deal with some pretty extreme personality changes. I really do think you need some help.
Third, you are not agnostic or atheist, you are either deist or theist (admittedly it is very hard to pin it down because the arguments have been so irrational).
Fourth, I would never ridicule anyone for thinking but you have not demonstrated the ability to do that. All you do is spout whatever random garbage comes into your head.
Fifth, go fuck yourself

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
16-08-2015, 07:11 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 06:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm not sure if you're suggesting here the existence of more than one universe. Or if you're suggesting there's only one, the one we currently find ourselves in, if so than I don't see how the odds of any other universe are the same. If we're suggesting there's only one universe the odds of any alternative universe wouldn't apply. Because here we would be suggesting that certain factors, are just present, those qualities just exist, and there is no possibility of it be any different.

Whether or not a multiverse exists (I never could make myself care about the answer to that question, though it does seem important to me), I'm saying that our universe could have been any one of the other roll sets on the "chart", and saying that because we got this result which had conditions for our type of life to form (and, likely, others) doesn't mean it had to be or was intended to be this way. It's not an inference that can be drawn simply from "a result on the chart was reached, and we like that result". Talking about what the odds are of getting one particular result on the chart--since all the odds of each of the possible results is exactly the same--is irrelevant.

(16-08-2015 06:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I'm implying "it must have been this way", i'm would be implying in the sense that given enough time and space, the likelihood of sentient creatures, appearing somewhere in any one universe, approaches 1. That seems to be the basic underlying assumption, of assuming life could possibly exist on some other planet.

Yes, given the conditions we have (the aforementioned results on the chart) in this universe, I think life is everywhere. Whether it's "complex" life like us anywhere nearby enough to be detectable by our current technology is a whole other question. Remember, life on this planet was nothing but bacteria for 3/4ths of its history, and we've had radio for only 100 years out of 4 billion; we could be looking at dozens of planets covered with mats of bacteria-type life, and it wouldn't show up with what we're currently using to look at those planets.


(16-08-2015 06:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There doesn't seem to be any relationship between finding the arrowhead, and the conclusion that it was a long-dead Native American who put it there. It could just have been unintentionally dropped there by someone. But suppose you found the arrowhead deep in the ground, perhaps in a chest. There's reason to assume that someone intentionally placed it there. It might not have been for the sake of you finding it. But there's reason to assume it was placed there intentionally. If we can agree on it being intentional in this case, there doesn't seem to be any reason to conclude that the person who did this is a long-dead person, or a Native American.

Yes, if we found a "time capsule" box. But that's exactly what we don't find in the universe. The universe, as far as we can see, shows exactly what we'd expect to find if it was the result of random laws at work. That's why I say that the evidence not only doesn't allow us to backwards-infer a designer, it seems to imply the opposite, that the Creator is non-existent or doesn't want to be found.

That's also why, when I'm talking to people who think that DNA is a "language" because it can encode information, I ask them why God blew that opportunity to leave a clear message of that sort. It's the ideal place for such a revelation, other than carving "El Shaddai loves you" on the moon in Hebrew in letters big enough to see from earth... "inspiring" human writers thousands of years ago (or in the Mormons' case, 180 years ago) seems like a poor method.

"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
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: