It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Your Theories Backed by Science or Faith?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   


Professionals choose to use odds as a tool that brings them the highest rate of success. But any hand in poker can win, even if the hand isn't actually better than the losing hand. If you get a good read on a player, then you won't be using odds very much. Odds are mostly used when you are on a draw. If I have an open ended straight flush draw, I have alot of ways to improve my hand, so my chances/odds increase. And so then if someone bets only a small % of the pot, say $5 on a $100 pot, then what you do is look at the % of the cost to stay in the hand and how much you can win, against what your chances are of improving the hand. They use odds as a way of making the best choice on how to play there hands. They are not the game, they are the players. The game works on the rules, the players try to make the best choices on the rules.


how can you not see that this is mearly a very complex differance engine.. comparing varibles in equations to find the highest percentage of success....

There is no random chance even in the deck of cards... its mearly your ignorance that makes it appear to be random.... if you had lived their lives you would know what they would do next.

Your using ignorance as proof that that there is a mystical magical conciousness that is outside of all reality that controls things.

Thats like saying Google must be a person because "it isnt the web pages. google works on the rules, google trys to choose the best websites based on the rules."

You have not explained how ANY part of your conciousness is free from casuality.. you just parrot that you are the ride not the rider. What does that even mean... could you explain such superstition.

You cannot say that the rider isnt just apart of a greater casuality. I also cannot say that it isnt.... there is no proof.. other than

"on earth as in heaven" "as above so below"

It would make sense to me that just as on earth we are a result of our experiances... that in the next reality.. we would be a compliations of all previous experainces. Being outside of time in one reality does not mean that you are outside time in ALL realitys, therefore you would not be free from casuality.


[edit on 6-1-2009 by Wertdagf]

[edit on 6-1-2009 by Wertdagf]




posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


yea and i get called nuts


Im having a bad day lol


I very much understand what you say...



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   


Cracks me up how brilliant this illustration/comic frames the subject.
Punchline aside, what do you guys think... is this theory based on science or faith?

[edit on 24-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Are these my only two choices?
Both have been disproved numerous times.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
I actually asked myself this a few months ago. I've always been a strong Christian, though I've been a rogue in that I can't identify with any church below that. At the same time, ever since I was a child I've had a strong thirst for scientific knowledge (facts and theories, not the math side of it). Up until a few months ago I kept these two sides apart, and examined situations as a Christian, a Scientist, and a Human being (ie gut instinct or worldly views), and using that to decide what was best. The problem that came into being was that there were questions science hadn't touched, but the Bible had its own views on, and vice versa. This led to ties and an inability to decide since one of the sides couldn't get an answer without pulling in from else where.

So I finally realized that the two sides actually fit together quite well. Science can tell you the process through which the Universe expanded after the Big Bang, but fails to tell you anything about before the Big Bang or what was the spark that set the stable piece of protomatter to explode out into everything we know today. Christianity (and all other religions) has a view on what happens to our being after we die, but science has nothing except what happens to our body.

Soon after I realized this, I arrived at a view of things that blew my mind:

Christianity, my beliefs: God created the world for us to inhabit in a manner that we can never duplicate because time is of little consequence to Him.

Science: The tools developed by man to understand the creation left for us and to see just how much we are loved because of the level of care seen in setting up the complex processes we now enjoy.

So now I study science all the more, I'm a Geographer with a diploma in a few months, so it has changed how I look at the world (instead of atoms, molecules, and reactions I see how people interact with each other and the planet given to them) and relate it back to the Bible which inspires me to think of a new way to approach a problem because of a random spark in my head caused by reading or listening to a random passage (I'm very busy so I have a good chunk of the Bible on my MP3 player). This cycle continues until I either reach a deadend, get a headache, or have to force myself to settle down and focus on homework or something else.

I know this is a rather long post, but I wanted to respond to what the original poster asked without being tainted by other people's views (so if I've said a lot of what someone else has, I'm sorry to have done so) or discouraged by response overall to the thread so I felt I needed to make sure to explain as best I could most of what I wrote.

Thank you all for reading.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I think i know where you are coming from.

Maybe the best approach to give this a little direction for clarity sake, is to present some theories of your own or that you share with others that you agree with and ask which are backed by science and which by faith.

For example, i see evolution as fact because it is based on science. Though i recognize that there are people who see creationism as fact because it's based on the bible... which would mean such a theory is backed by faith... though some would argue that i have it all backwards... regardless if i have objective logic on my side.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
I think i know where you are coming from.

Maybe the best approach to give this a little direction for clarity sake, is to present some theories of your own or that you share with others that you agree with and ask which are backed by science and which by faith.

For example, i see evolution as fact because it is based on science. Though i recognize that there are people who see creationism as fact because it's based on the bible... which would mean such a theory is backed by faith... though some would argue that i have it all backwards... regardless if i have objective logic on my side.


Well if you admit to evolution then you must aknowledge that life can evolve beyond earth in the universe. This means you have potentialy trillions of life inhabited planets at varying stages of evolution. Undertsanding that leads to the logical conclusion that one of those evolved life forms could possibly help create life its self.

If there are trillions of possible lifeforms at varying stages of evolution, even in a finite universe, then there would always be a form of order that emerges at the upper layers of evolution. Much like a universal UN... this would be only a logcial progression.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Thanks Wertdagf you got me thinking...
without faith, science theories look more like scifi as we look to the origins of life.

One could interpret the bible as a record of life being transported here by an alien (jesus) from another galaxy (heaven).

I see a parallel in experience for an animal we place in a conservation safari. Once in a blue moon we fly out of the sky by helicopter (spacecraft) and perform a checkup/study (abduction). This explains the sightings and abduction stories, our growth/evolution is being monitored.

So one could say that fiction based on science is appropriately called science fiction. Most of these stories could just as well be called theories... based on science.

As for the bible being fact, many believers claim it's based on history. Though those who know the origins and history of who wrote the bible, understand it's a mixed bag of fact and fiction... which requires in parts to believe in the supernatural.

The Mormon's version of what happened,
makes this reference to aliens as our god(s) more evident:



[edit on 6-2-2009 by The All Seeing I]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join