@moonbus said
Disambiguation:

Descriptive law does not imply intent. It implies only a perceived regularity. Science deals with descriptive laws exclusively.

Normative law implies intent. Morality is normative.

Absolute physical laws control and govern the physical universe, so that there's order. Destruction and death is under the control of the physical laws.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
In my life I have never had any addictions, but I knew as a kid that gambling could be my weakness. - I grew up in a seaside town with amusement arcades and while my friends spent their few coins on racing and fighting games, mine went into the gambling machines. (I liked, too much perhaps, the noise they made when you got nudges or had a pay out, small as it was in t ...[text shortened]... perhaps the rare lottery ticket). It's just one of those things I thought it wise to stay away from.

Good for you! I'm only "addicted to love."

Cross-threading your 80s music titles.

YouTube

@pettytalk said
Absolute physical laws control and govern the physical universe, so that there's order. Destruction and death is under the control of the physical laws.

Physical "laws" don't "control and govern" the physical universe; they simply describe the way it works.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Pleased those days are behind you Kelly.

Me too!

@pettytalk said
Absolute physical laws control and govern the physical universe, so that there's order. Destruction and death is under the control of the physical laws.

Didn’t you suggest laws of the universe were written?

@kellyjay said
Didn’t you suggest laws of the universe were written?

written

Ah yes, an anthropomorphization word.

@moonbus said
I once flipped a coin and it landed on edge. Really. It was standing edgewise (a British Pound coin, they're thick). So what's the probability of that, then eh? Did God make that happen?? Strange things happen, for no reason; just accept it. But you can't, can you? Everything has to have a reason for you. That speaks volumes about you and says nothing about the universe.

(After a guy jumped out of the bathroom with a "GD hand cannon" and missed them after emptying the gun at them.)

"Hey, Vincent, don't you see? That sh** don't matter. You're judging this sh** the wrong way.

I mean, it could be God stopped the bullets, or he changed Coke to Pepsi, he found my f***in' car keys...

You don't judge sh** like this based on merit.

Now, whether or not what we experienced was an According-to-Hoyle miracle is insignificant.

But what is significant is, I felt the touch of God. God got involved."

"But why?"

"Well, that's what's f***in' with me: I don't know why."

-- Jules to Viincent in Pulp Fiction (1994)

@ghost-of-a-duke said
In my life I have never had any addictions, but I knew as a kid that gambling could be my weakness. - I grew up in a seaside town with amusement arcades and while my friends spent their few coins on racing and fighting games, mine went into the gambling machines. (I liked, too much perhaps, the noise they made when you got nudges or had a pay out, small as it was in t ...[text shortened]... perhaps the rare lottery ticket). It's just one of those things I thought it wise to stay away from.

Oh, you're so lucky, never having had the "monkey on your back". It is not a kind master. It demands tribute for what little you get back.

Never had any issue with gambling, though. I once went with a friend to Vegas (I was about 25 at the time) with $100 to blow. We sat at a 21 table for 6 hours that night and into the morning. I sat down and changed that $100 for chips and walked away 6 hours later with $110 worth of chips. Cashed them in and blew the $10 at the buffet. I easily had more than $10 in free drinks while at the table, too. Six hours of fun was never as cheap again.

@suzianne said
Oh, you're so lucky, never having had the "monkey on your back". It is not a kind master. It demands tribute for what little you get back.

Never had any issue with gambling, though. I once went with a friend to Vegas (I was about 25 at the time) with $100 to blow. We sat at a 21 table for 6 hours that night and into the morning. I sat down and changed that $100 for c ...[text shortened]... ad more than $10 in free drinks while at the table, too. Six hours of fun was never as cheap again.

I'd say you made off like a bandit! You had a roof over your head, company, free drinks, dinner, and fun. All for free. Wow.

@suzianne said
(After a guy jumped out of the bathroom with a "GD hand cannon" and missed them after emptying the gun at them.)

"Hey, Vincent, don't you see? That sh** don't matter. You're judging this sh** the wrong way.

I mean, it could be God stopped the bullets, or he changed Coke to Pepsi, he found my f***in' car keys...

You don't judge sh** like this based on merit.

Now, ...[text shortened]... t's what's f***in' with me: I don't know why."

-- Jules to Viincent in Pulp Fiction (1994)

'Don't judge based on merit.' Just don't judge. I guess that's the message. Not even Jesus cast a stone at the adulteress, though he was without sin.

@moonbus said
Given enough flips, 100 coins could all land heads up. Laws of statistics do not represent any force or compulsion making coins fall heads or tails; they only represent averages without specifying how many "enough to get 100 heads" would be. That is why time matters, because it guarantees enough flips to get 100 heads, eventually.

Billions of years is ...[text shortened]... n[/i] happen, somewhere, in a universe consisting of billions and billions and billions of galaxies.

(1/2)100 are long odds which is what you start with at the beginning of the sequence.
So long odds, but that isn't even the real issue 100 coin flips are small compared to what we are talking about. Again, we can read the genetic code so it is not an analogy when we compare it to language, they are mathematically equal, because it is not that they have some common traits. Couple that with all of the code that we can read but also direct processes. Even if you keep denying it is there, those types of things don't just happen, because. Failure to do what life requires leads to death, just because is not a reason.

@kellyjay said
Is the universe information-rich?
Can we study meaninglessness and get meaning out of it?

If people say I don't know how God did that, but He did, are proposing, "God of the gaps", then wouldn't that also be true of people who say, we don't know how, but we know evolution did it, are proposing, "Evolution of the gaps?"

@kellyjay said
If people say I don't know how God did that, but He did, are proposing, "God of the gaps", then wouldn't that also be true of people who say, we don't know how, but we know evolution did it, are proposing, "Evolution of the gaps?"

'Evolution did it' is based on verifiable science. 'God did it' is based on wishful thinking, out of step with what we do know about the universe.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
'Evolution did it' is based on verifiable science. 'God did it' is based on wishful thinking, out of step with what we do know about the universe.

You believe that there is a distinction between the two that makes a difference? You are suggesting that because you don’t know the answers therefore what you believe in is the proper way of thinking about it?

Verification is not among your strong suits, difficult to come with a natural explanation for there was no life than there was, and the verification of how the universe started is found where?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
'Evolution did it' is based on verifiable science. 'God did it' is based on wishful thinking, out of step with what we do know about the universe.

Actually I believe what we know and are learning makes much more sense that a powerful intelligent Being is responsible than not. So I think you lose on two counts.