-Removed-No, I am not. I am saying that the laws of physics, or any system that has laws results in patterns rather than the random distribution that results from pure randomness.
"Pattern therefore design", is bad logic because it is too specific. The correct logic is "Pattern therefore law" (or rule/function depending on what terminology you prefer).
Design is a law/rule/function that has been made by an intelligent entity with intent. You may have reason to think that a given law/rule/function is of intelligent origin (ie by design) but it is wrong to conclude that it is simply because of the existence of a pattern.
Originally posted by King TigerHow come you chose Christianity and not Islam, or Hinduism or Sikhism or any other religion? What led you to the Christian God?
continuing reading here.
chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
This was a huge tipping of the weight to me.
4) lastly for now. A philosopher once said, ...[text shortened]... happier. So that is a short bit of my testimony. Hope you find it intriguing and perhaps useful.
Originally posted by King TigerI would rather have told your friend that Russell’s stance is both mathematical and scientific: for example, I would propose him to consider the simplest element of reality (any exchangeable and finite packet of physical information), a bit, which takes solely two values: 0 and 1. When its value is known to us coherently, the bit is definitely 0 or 1; when its value is unknown, we remain with the indefinite state 0/1 (superposition). I would go on telling him that methinks Russell merely said that, whatever is in a superposition, its state cannot be definite -and I evaluate that this thesis holds due to the fact that the finiteness of the elements of reality imposes a restricted precision in the process of continuous quantities, which is indefinite beyond a scale that depends on the amount of accessible information. And, since it is indefinite, the speculation as regards its factual value 0 or 1 a speculation remains, and as such any comment about its factual value can be tossed, for all we have is just the superposition.
I noticed thread Thread 156175 and thought perhaps it would be good to share my own personal experience in a new thread (would likely receive more attention), yet without giving away too many personal details.
I have a bachelors, masters, and med degree and currently am working on a PhD. My academic background is Chemistry, Philosophy, tr ...[text shortened]... 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one cha...
Now my friend, since you are a Christian, a side question as regards the necessity of a “creator” external to the “created universe”. Since the evidence does indicate that something akin to intelligence internal to the Kosmos must be implicated, how can it prove or even indicate the forced necessity for a G-d as the one defined in the Christian theology?
Finally, as regards your thesis about objective and subjective truths, where exactly do you notice objectivity other than a collective subjectivity -and thus pure subjectivity? To me, it 's crystal clear that the root of the phenomena a sentient being perceives is no other than its mind; methinks there is no objectively preferred basis for the appearances of the differ phenomena we perceive, but a purely subjectively preferred basis that is a projection onto the perceived world of the consciousness basis of our mind. We human beings choose our specific reality simply because we are hard wired to choose this one instead of the one chosen, say, by an ant –and both of them purely subjective realities are different aspects of the same hologram that our mutual brains decode differently
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleDo you believe that "the mind" and "spirit" are two different things?
I would rather have told your friend that Russell’s stance is both mathematical and scientific: for example, I would propose him to consider the simplest element of reality (any exchangeable and finite packet of physical information), a bit, which takes solely two values: 0 and 1. When its value is known to us coherently, the bit is definitely 0 or 1; w ...[text shortened]... alities are different aspects of the same hologram that our mutual brains decode differently
😵
I suppose I should ask you if you believe in a "spirit" before I give you
the first question.
Kelly
Originally posted by King TigerI think everyone here has heard of Pascal's Wager and probably everyone has heard of its shortcomings. But in case not, here's one simple flowchart that demonstrates one of the problems:
And destiny...well, atheism gives no hope there. Ever heard of Pascal's Wager? Well, look it up if you like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logic_of_Religion.jpg
And your probability calculations are seriously out of wack!
Oh and evolution can and has been observed in real-time, in several different ways. Ever heard of antibiotic resistance?
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by KellyJayHey Kelly,
Do you believe that "the mind" and "spirit" are two different things?
I suppose I should ask you if you believe in a "spirit" before I give you
the first question.
Kelly
I see the connection I maintain with my spiritual teacher as auspicious and supportive on an essence-to-essence basis instead in the sense of a higher power I happen “to be in touch with”, therefore I see it as an experiential realization that my essence, nature and energy constitute the context, source and character of all my experiences. Any “spirit” “I” happen to “encounter” is to me merely a projection of my own mind, and as such I reject all kind of theistic thoughts and doctrines as regards this matter😵
Originally posted by black beetleMay I ask why you reject all theistic thoughts and doctrines with respect to
Hey Kelly,
I see the connection I maintain with my spiritual teacher as auspicious and supportive on an essence-to-essence basis instead in the sense of a higher power I happen “to be in touch with”, therefore I see it as an experiential realization that my essence, nature and energy constitute the context, source and character of all my experiences. A ...[text shortened]... mind, and as such I reject all kind of theistic thoughts and doctrines as regards this matter😵
'spirits'? Seems like you cut yourself off from something that could be very
important, and you put up blinders that would shield you from the ability
to even acknowledge any truth that may be there.
Kelly
Originally posted by King TigerYou disagree with him, therefore you must misunderstand.
twhitehead.
I understand probability just fine, and your approach is very reminiscent of Dawkins, who is losing credibility in the academic realm from creationists and evolutionists alike. You assume I misunderstand, meaning you somehow assume a doctoral student and M.D. is incapable of understanding rudimentary statistics.
There are many scientif ...[text shortened]... s right.
That is the basic argument. Again, not a logical treatise-so don't treat it as one.
That's pretty much the sum total of his argument.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobI do not mean to speak for him, so I won't. I'll only give you a measure of my own thinking on the subject. It's the same concept that leads us to regard science as 'correct'. It's an onboard preference towards a concept that it is the way towards 'what is most likely to be true'. Edit: I realize upon re-reading that that is not entirely clearly stated, but it is the best attempt I have at jamming my ideas down to one sentence.
How come you chose Christianity and not Islam, or Hinduism or Sikhism or any other religion? What led you to the Christian God?
Originally posted by SuzianneClear as mud that Suzianne. 🙂
I do not mean to speak for him, so I won't. I'll only give you a measure of my own thinking on the subject. It's the same concept that leads us to regard science as 'correct'. It's an onboard preference towards a concept that it is the way towards 'what is most likely to be true'. Edit: I realize upon re-reading that that is not entirely clearly stated, but it is the best attempt I have at jamming my ideas down to one sentence.