Belz...
Fiend God
Actually, if the guy goes up to a player to determine his exact position, he's interfering with the game. Same with science and particles.
Intelligent Design
- Thread starter codeblue
- Start date
-
- Tags
- design intelligent
Actually, if the guy goes up to a player to determine his exact position, he's interfering with the game. Same with science and particles.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Well, it isn't that he ignores the posts, as he quite often replies to them.
It's the content of the posts he seems to ignore.
Ahh, yes, indeed.
Am merely suggesting that a true random roll of the dice could only occur via a state of perfection. Which, of course we all know is not possible, correct? But then again, if the Creator Himself were perfect, as is often claimed, such a thing as true randomness could be possible ... I guess? Of course He would also have to exist outside of time and space, as is also claimed, otherwise He would be subject to the same laws of physics (as opposed to being the cause of) which govern the material realm. Yet that would seem to fit the bill quite nicely too. Remember as I said earlier, that the spiritual world exists in more of a state of perfection than the natural world?
No, it would just have to have no outside influences.
So? Pretend it is, and answer the bloody question.
So your argument for a spiritual relm is that true randomness exists? I'm pretty sure you don't think true randomness exists, Iacchus. How do you know the 'spirit world' is in a higher "state of perfection" then the 'natural world'?
Actually, it has more to do with starting a new page than anything else. While there's nearly a three hour gap between my first post at the top of the page (which was posted only a few minutes after my last post on the previous page) and the next post. While from there, there's a five hour gap between my second and third posts on this page.
So, does this mean I will go back and address them? I don't know? Who wants to eat a can cold of beans that have been sitting on the stove for the last two days?
Belz...
Fiend God
Actually, it has more to do with starting a new page than anything else. While there's nearly a three hour gap between my first post at the top of the page (which was posted only a few minutes after my last post on the previous page) and the next post. While from there, there's a five hour gap between my second and third posts on this page.
So, does this mean I will go back and address them? I don't know? Who wants to eat a can cold of beans that have been sitting on the stove for the last two days?
Well, I'd like to know how those beans taste. Otherwise I can assume that they taste nothing. In our case, I can assume you've got nothing to say about what I said.
Yes, and the game goes on, regardless of the "predictions" anyone might make.
Well, let's just say it's not fresh in my mind at the moment and, that I don't plan on spending the entire morning in front of the computer today. So, in that sense I can't assure you that I'll get back to it.
Hardenbergh
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,073
Actually, it has more to do with starting a new page than anything else. While there's nearly a three hour gap between my first post at the top of the page (which was posted only a few minutes after my last post on the previous page) and the next post. While from there, there's a five hour gap between my second and third posts on this page.
So, does this mean I will go back and address them? I don't know? Who wants to eat a can cold of beans that have been sitting on the stove for the last two days?
A three and five-hour gap between posts indicates that you're finding more constructive things to do with your time, like getting out for some fresh air. There's hope for you yet, Iacchus!
No, I wouldn't want to eat beans that have been sitting on the stove for two days. I don't like syrupy beans. I noticed that the beans in the deli at the supermarket are so thick, I can hardly get a spoon in them. So what's your favorite--yellow eye, pea beans or what?
A can of chili beans would suite me just fine, thanks.No, I wouldn't want to eat beans that have been sitting on the stove for two days. I don't like syrupy beans. I noticed that the beans in the deli at the supermarket are so thick, I can hardly get a spoon in them. So what's your favorite--yellow eye, pea beans or what?
Yes, and in response to what I was saying to kuroyume, the probability of a whale falling on his house (versus a 747) has nothing to do with the actuality of it happening. Things happen because they are set up to "behave" in certain fashion, not because of any probability factor.
Belz...
Fiend God
The point is, that by having the game stopped for a while may actually change the score, especially if one of the teams was on a roll. This is why coaches often ask for time-outs. Not only to confer with their players, but to get the opposing team to wind down a bit.
My point is, that merely observing a phenomenon changes its settings. This is the whole reason for the uncertainty principle.
Belz...
Fiend God
I think you may be confusing probability with randomness. As stated earlier, something that is "random" isn't happening for no reason. It's happening because of fixed, definite factors. However, since there's no way for us to know these factors, a number of things could happen and we can't predict them. However, we can assign probabilities to them.
As for true randomness, that is chaos in the quantum mechanics sense, that's actually completely random, uncaused and impossible to predict in any capacity.
Which is to say, you freely admit that a designer does not exist, correct? Do you have any proof? Surely, your implications that I don't know what I'm talking about is not the criteria to be used in determining whether something actually exists or not is it? How scientific is that?
Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I said?
Last edited:
Um....you forgot the other option. He did not make a claim one way or the other, but merely called you on yours. His stance may be that there is no designer, or merely that there is no evidence for one. His post did not make a claim of any certainty that a designer does not exist. Please read what he said, not what you wanted him to say.
The fact that you are unable to put together a cogent argument or the least bit of evidence is not the criterion for whether something exists. No one made the claim that it did not exist; the claim was that there is no evidence in support of that contention. There is a world of difference there. And your inability to give logical or evidential reasons to suppose that there is a designer merely is another case of "no evidence for this alleged entity."Surely, your implications that I don't know what I'm talking about is not the criteria to be used in determining whether something actually exists or not is it? How scientific is that?
Which is to say, the non-existence of a designer has already been established. This in fact is what you believe, correct?
If, in fact there was a designer (supreme conscious being), then everything by necessity, must entail some element of consciousnes.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Where do you find stuff like this?Iacchus said:
~~ Paul