17 Oct 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitHow about this one:
This is clearly wrong.
Let's say I buy a lottery ticket. There are two possible results; I either win, or I don't win. Does that mean I have a 50/50 shot of winning?
Or let's say I roll a standard 6-sided die, and I want to know the probability of getting:
a) A roll of 5 or higher
b) A roll less than 5
Again, only two possible results, but is the probability 50/50?
a) c guy1 doesn't understand anything about probability.
b) c guy1 knows at least something about probability.
Therefore there is a 50/50 chance that he hasn't got a clue- meaning that his estimate for the existence of God only has a 50% chance of being right, and when we add these probabilities together, the chance of God existing has already dropped to a mere 25% or 1 in 4.
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by c guy1By golly, you could increase the chances of atheists being wrong simply by rephrasing your question to the following:
ok...fair question
Options
A) a "God' exists
B) he doesn't
seeing how there are two possibilities, sounds rather 50-50 to me....and 50-50 is alot better than the odds most athiests throw at me
personally, I don't see any "proof" that says a god has to exist or not...there is no one thing in my opion that can difinitivly prove he does or does not...fo ...[text shortened]... a creator....from their picking the right one is a matter of belief, experience, and faith
A) a Christian god exists
B) a Muslim god exists
C) no gods exist
You see? Now the atheists only have a 33% chance of being right. Oh...but the chance of the god of your choice being right also dropped. Oh well, at least it's a victory for theism in general. You could make theism more probable simply by adding more gods to the list.
A) a Christian god exists
B) a Muslim god exists
C) Odin exists
D) no gods exist
Now the atheists are down to 25%, right?
Actually, if your god had only a 50% chance of existing, don't you think committing to a belief in his factual existence would be unwarranted?
18 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by c guy1I just bought a lottery ticket. Options
ok...fair question
Options
A) a "God' exists
B) he doesn't
seeing how there are two possibilities, sounds rather 50-50 to me....and 50-50 is alot better than the odds most athiests throw at me
personally, I don't see any "proof" that says a god has to exist or not...there is no one thing in my opion that can difinitivly prove he does or does not...fo ...[text shortened]... a creator....from their picking the right one is a matter of belief, experience, and faith
A) I'll win
B) I'll lose
Woohoo! I now have a 50% chance of winning the lottery! 😉
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAt least you are secure in your delusions.
this question has long plagued me, considering that it is well understood that humans definitely have a spiritual side. For example, we have a universal conscience in which we try to determine through our perceptions what is good and wrong, we are endowed for example with the capacity to love, which we need and thrive upon, we have a sense of justic ...[text shortened]... he entire inhabited earth, for it is known every where to have been spoken against. Acts 28:22
20 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonGarbage absolutely one hundred percent pure and utter unadulterated garbage, you guys really should do your homework before posting accusations of misrepresentation, and i would be pleased if YOU would get your basic scientific facts correct, or what is it that you are trying to hide
You are correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid
robbie carrobie
Please get your basic scientific facts correct before making quotes about it -it is not nice misrepresenting science.
I do not misrepresent the Bible by quoting fictitious “Bible verses” that don’t exist in the Bible!
'Hundreds of types of non-protein amino acids have been found in nature and they have multiple functions in living organisms. Microorganisms and plants can produce uncommon amino acids. In microbes, examples include 2-aminoisobutyric acid and lanthionine, which is a sulfide-bridged alanine dimer. Both these amino acids are found in peptidic lantibiotics such as alamethicin. While in plants, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid is a small disubstituted cyclic amino acid that is a key intermediate in the production of the plant hormone ethylene.',
taken from the same article i believe,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid
how did these believers if the god of science fail to to read this, simply because it does not fit into their absurd preconceptions and scientific dogma, they really should try harder!
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by black beetle'oh beetle of the great pudding race,
God of Science -Pure dead humour;
And ...safer yes, wiser never!
how is that you deem to grace,
the forum with your words of wisdom
for everywhere it is known its full of schisms',
giggled away at your poem for ages my friend, infact i have just calmed down! awesome !
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh these were not words of wisdom
'oh beetle of the great pudding race,
how is that you deem to grace,
the forum with your words of wisdom
for everywhere it is known its full of schisms',
giggled away at your poem for ages my friend, infact i have just calmed down! awesome !
they were words that sprung from Malt
Surpised ye wi my sac attack?
Then land at ...wan c five kingdom
😀
21 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIts funny, only the religious set wants to denigrate science by calling it faith, and the 'god of science'. Real scientists regard science as a fight waiting to happen, every new discovery has to undergo rites by fire, the fire of other scientists. There is no god involved. If something wins out it is because that scientist put out evidence the others cannot destroy by scientific means, that is to say, more pertinent data, better math, etc. That is not godly, that is science fight club pure and simple.
lol, safer than if i put faith in the God of Science, thats for sure!
21 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseWhats even funnier is that robbie carrobie will quite happily put down science and any findings of science in one thread and then claim that genesis is scientifically accurate in another thread, ie he seeks the support of science to prop up his own ridiculous beliefs.
Its funny, only the religious set wants to denigrate science by calling it faith, and the 'god of science'. Real scientists regard science as a fight waiting to happen, every new discovery has to undergo rites by fire, the fire of other scientists. There is no god involved. If something wins out it is because that scientist put out evidence the others canno ...[text shortened]... rtinent data, better math, etc. That is not godly, that is science fight club pure and simple.
21 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseas i clearly stated in another part of this forum, belief that life has arisen from non living matter, that the material universe was the result of an accident, that god does not exist etc etc etc are all acts of faith, because they cannot be proven, is they can, then create life from non living matter, prove mathematically that the chances of an accidental occurrence of the physical universe was probable, otherwise get real! and what is more, the evidence seems to indicate otherwise, what is it you don't like, your cherished beliefs and philosophy being put to the question, and why ever not, you yourselves are used to doing it to others, are you not?
Its funny, only the religious set wants to denigrate science by calling it faith, and the 'god of science'. Real scientists regard science as a fight waiting to happen, every new discovery has to undergo rites by fire, the fire of other scientists. There is no god involved. If something wins out it is because that scientist put out evidence the others canno ...[text shortened]... rtinent data, better math, etc. That is not godly, that is science fight club pure and simple.
21 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo ye really gave up chess, robbie? And ...spiritualism became a full time habit, no?!
as i clearly stated in another part of this forum, belief that life has arisen from non living matter, that the material universe was the result of an accident, that god does not exist etc etc etc are all acts of faith, because they cannot be proven, is they can, then create life from non living matter, prove mathematically that the chances of an acc ...[text shortened]... to the question, and why ever not, you yourselves are used to doing it to others, are you not?
😀