Moderator: Community Team
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
shickingbrits wrote:Small deities you fawn over. God is neither "deities" nor "small". God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Each part of each cell in your body is composed of God as is each each part of each cell of sand, each law which holds them together, allows them to interact, bring forth light is God.
Each scientific study is the study of God. I have no shrines to God, the whole universe is a shrine to God. That you choose to dismiss this is irrational, biased and self-defeating. The question is why you don't feel that you are allowing yourself to persecute yourself. What lack of understanding and imbedded hate has caused you to put every part of your being at the disposal of the abyss?
shickingbrits wrote:The theory of science is like this:
An infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount of typewriters could produce Hamlet.
The message is that randomness can produce anything. But there was nothing random about anything in the analogy. The choice of monkey was not random, only few creatures would even have the ability to type and humans are off the cards to make it random. The typewriter has a limited amount of combinations that can be produced. An infinite amount of monkeys could not exist and have the means to type in any observable conditions.
Instead of having real monkeys typing on keyboards, I have virtual, computerized monkeys that output random gibberish. This is supposed to mimic a monkey randomly mashing the keys on a keyboard. The computer program I wrote compares that monkeyās gibberish to every work of Shakespeare to see if it actually matches a small portion of what Shakespeare wrote. If it does match, the portion of gibberish that matched Shakespeare is marked with green in the images below to show it was found by a monkey. The table below shows the exact number of characters and percentage the monkeys have found in Shakespeare. The parts of Shakespeare that have not been found are colored white.
shickingbrits wrote:Small deities you fawn over. God is neither "deities" nor "small". God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Each part of each cell in your body is composed of God as is each each part of each cell of sand, each law which holds them together, allows them to interact, bring forth light is God.
Each scientific study is the study of God. I have no shrines to God, the whole universe is a shrine to God. That you choose to dismiss this is irrational, biased and self-defeating. The question is why you don't feel that you are allowing yourself to persecute yourself. What lack of understanding and imbedded hate has caused you to put every part of your being at the disposal of the abyss?
shickingbrits wrote:If you don't wish to participate in the infinite number of energy exchanges that God undergoes to create your life, then here's a wall, feel free to bang your head against it.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:I used "vagaries" twice on one page. I need a thesaurus or something.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
#shickingbrits wrote:I'm every word in the dictionary.
I don't suscribe to religion. I believe in the moral authority disclosed by Jesus and not whatever perverse purposes the different religions interpreted it to be.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Neoteny wrote:To where shall I mail her?
At your house.
Do you agree that IQ is largely determined by genetics? Before answering the rhetorical question, consider the following:
Sure, I don't know what the IQ tests of babies are, but from what I've heard, IQ is not something you can pump up as easily as muscles. There's some genetic constraint. E.g. if I drank all day, then my IQ would decrease. If i didn't, it would rise to my baseline IQ. If I spent more time researching it would increase by some small degree. Nevertheless, if I have an IQ of 130 at the age of 22, it's not like I can increase it to 160 because there's genetic constraints.
... which are changeable, though not without constraint.BigBallinStalin wrote:So, to wrap this around, we're all endowed with different IQs at birth.
Neoteny wrote:That's sort of cute, I guess. Randomness directed by competition and other selection pressures makes less intuitive sense than infinite Skybro? You aren't alone in thinking that, but you are otherwise adrift in petty vagaries. I feel certain pities that are unique to different religions; tell me which brand you are, SB. Are you missing out on fantastic sexual exploits? Lack of self worth and initiative? Bigotry? Jehovah's Witness? What minutiae of your silly life makes your Grand Deity grumpy?
shickingbrits wrote:shickingbrits wrote:The theory of science is like this:
An infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount of typewriters could produce Hamlet.
The message is that randomness can produce anything. But there was nothing random about anything in the analogy. The choice of monkey was not random, only few creatures would even have the ability to type and humans are off the cards to make it random. The typewriter has a limited amount of combinations that can be produced. An infinite amount of monkeys could not exist and have the means to type in any observable conditions.
And thereby you neatly explain WHY evolution is not, and never truly has been, scientifically considered a mathematically random event. All referrals to such are methods of explanation, discussion and comparison to other ideas. Sort of like saying "this coat is bluer than that one"... but not considering if its green-blue or purple-blue. There are times when that is perfectly valid, but it should not be confused with a true analysis of either coat's color.shickingbrits wrote:You have cherry-picked the randomness of it and set it outside of observable conditions. What appears to be a logical statement cannot be produced and if produced would not prove the thesis, that anything can be produced by randomness.
ONLY the very, very beginning processes are possible random. In that, it is not different than asking "where was God.. before".
The answer is essentially axiomatic, inherent. God must, essentially by definition, have always existed. Without God, there must have been some sort of initial event approaching randomness.
Neither can be proven and neither is really of relevance to what exists today, to the processes that exist today.
A truer analogy to the scientific explanation of the world we live in is more like, I can convince you that I'm pulling a rabbit out of my hat if you willfully ignore information.
PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Neoteny wrote:To where shall I mail her?
At your house.
Do you agree that IQ is largely determined by genetics? Before answering the rhetorical question, consider the following:
Sure, I don't know what the IQ tests of babies are, but from what I've heard, IQ is not something you can pump up as easily as muscles. There's some genetic constraint. E.g. if I drank all day, then my IQ would decrease. If i didn't, it would rise to my baseline IQ. If I spent more time researching it would increase by some small degree. Nevertheless, if I have an IQ of 130 at the age of 22, it's not like I can increase it to 160 because there's genetic constraints.
I think you just hoisted yourself on your own petard... mucles are limited by genetics, too. Whether they are more or less limited than IQ is another question. The best answer is "maybe, depending on other genetics"... which are changeable, though not without constraint.BigBallinStalin wrote:So, to wrap this around, we're all endowed with different IQs at birth.
BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Neoteny wrote:To where shall I mail her?
At your house.
Do you agree that IQ is largely determined by genetics? Before answering the rhetorical question, consider the following:
Sure, I don't know what the IQ tests of babies are, but from what I've heard, IQ is not something you can pump up as easily as muscles. There's some genetic constraint. E.g. if I drank all day, then my IQ would decrease. If i didn't, it would rise to my baseline IQ. If I spent more time researching it would increase by some small degree. Nevertheless, if I have an IQ of 130 at the age of 22, it's not like I can increase it to 160 because there's genetic constraints.
I think you just hoisted yourself on your own petard... muscles are limited by genetics, too. Whether they are more or less limited than IQ is another question. The best answer is "maybe, depending on other genetics"... which are changeable, though not without constraint.BigBallinStalin wrote:So, to wrap this around, we're all endowed with different IQs at birth.
Do you feel that your comments are in any way incoherent?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Do you feel that your comments are in any way incoherent?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Neoteny wrote:That's sort of cute, I guess. Randomness directed by competition and other selection pressures makes less intuitive sense than infinite Skybro? You aren't alone in thinking that, but you are otherwise adrift in petty vagaries. I feel certain pities that are unique to different religions; tell me which brand you are, SB. Are you missing out on fantastic sexual exploits? Lack of self worth and initiative? Bigotry? Jehovah's Witness? What minutiae of your silly life makes your Grand Deity grumpy?
Except, in the case of evolution, (any long term event most likely) there are so many directing factors that the whole idea that mathematical randomness might apply is ludicrous... with or without God.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, you hold a bias similar to many antagonistic of theistic beliefs... namely that presence of God MUST, inherently mean breaking any set system. Most Christians would argue the opposite. God created all around us, including the systems and processes, so why would God subvert them?
Note.. I am in no way suggesting you have to believe in God or any such. (that debate we have had ... and it belongs in other threads) I am saying that to make that assumption and pretend it is a necessary pretext is, at best a straw man argument, at worst, plain insulting and ignorant.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users