Spirituality
12 May 12
13 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI had an idea you might say something about that but I decided to leave it that way. I understand not everyone is an engineer, not even myself. However. I learned my Physics studying to be one and I started writing from that point of view. By WE I meant mankind benefits from this knowledge in designing and creating, even if we are not the ones actually doing it. I was not trying to offend you because of your race or anything like that.
What do you mean WE, white man?
14 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI guess it's hard to see when someone is joking.
I had an idea you might say something about that but I decided to leave it that way. I understand not everyone is an engineer, not even myself. However. I learned my Physics studying to be one and I started writing from that point of view. By WE I meant mankind benefits from this knowledge in designing and creating, even if we are not the ones actually doing it. I was not trying to offend you because of your race or anything like that.
14 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseThere have always been some type of happy face since I have been chatting. But some jokes are easier to recognize than others and don't need any. But here, I have no idea what race you are and if I happen to say something that might be offensive in a racial way.
So in your world, if there is no happy face, it's serious? What did you do when presented with statements before there was such a thing as the happy face? Must have been tough trying to figure out what people meant.
14 May 12
Originally posted by boononput some numbers in a hat ... lets say 10 to the 13th.
I was listening to a Mathematician the other day and they said that it is generally accepted that anything with a probability of more than 10 to the 12th power is considered mathematically impossible to occur. Is this true?
.
pick one at random
you see where I'm going????????????????????
14 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by humyCan you think of a single mandate, dictate, law or edict that never had a law maker, no
really? Errr, no. It is the laws of physics that 'deals' with those things.
neither can I, your position is therefore both illogical and irrational! All laws require an
intelligence!
14 May 12
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsthat is just stupid religious propaganda that uses the common fallacy that you can say something about the probability of the value of a physical constant being what it is in the absence of any rational insight of what are the possible range of values it could have been if it didn't have that value and in the absence of any rational insight of if it is even possible for it to have a different value from what it has in the present.
http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning
To work out the 'probability' of that the value of a physical constant could have been different in the present from what it is you first need evidence that the physical constant could have been different from what it is in the present -so what evidence do we have that a physical constant could have ended up with a different value from what it actually has in the present? Answer, NONE!
So how do we know that the physical constants are not inevitably what they are i.e. could have been different? -answer, we don't. So, for all we know, the probability of the physical constants being what they are in the present is 100% and you have no evidence to contradict that.
In short, my assertion still stands unchallenged by reason or evidence:
There is no evidence for “fine-tuning” of the universe
14 May 12
6 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Can you think of a single mandate, dictate, law or edict that never had a law maker, no
neither can I, your position is therefore both illogical and irrational! All laws require an
intelligence!
Can you think of a single mandate, dictate, law or edict that never had a law maker
the laws of physics.
All laws require an
intelligence!
does the boolean law that you cannot have both p and ~p require an intelligence? Answer, no.
An intelligence will be needed to comprehend it but the fact remains that no intelligence is needed to 'create' that law for p and ~p is a contradiction.
So why shouldn't the laws of physics also require no intelligence to be 'created' ?
14 May 12
Originally posted by humydid i say both irrational and illogical, yes i said it!Can you think of a single mandate, dictate, law or edict that never had a law maker
the laws of physics.
All laws require an
intelligence!
does the boolean law that you cannot have both p and ~p require an intelligence? Answer, no.
An intelligence will be needed to comprehend it but the fact remains that no intell ...[text shortened]... a contradiction.
So why would the laws of physics require an intelligence to be 'created' ?