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.

 

Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

page: 22
8
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 


Friend, you are dancing!!!!


“Because the thing which can be known about God is evident in them, because God made it known to them.” (Romans 1:19)
When we witness to people, we don’t have to worry about proving God’s existence. According to this verse, God makes Himself evident, open, and plain to everyone. He literally placed evidence “in them.” Apparently God placed a knowledge of Himself within all men—inside their minds, in their hearts, in the very core of their being.

The verb is present tense. God did not reveal Himself in the past and then stop. He continues to reveal Himself within us now.

So when people like Epicurus try to appease their conscience and justify their sin, they must suppress their knowledge of God. They grab at straws to patch together a cage around the truth. But God’s truth breaks free, like a tiger ill-suited for captivity.

The King of Heaven does not rely on petty heralds to share who He is. Nor does He post little notes on bulletin boards, hoping we’ll see them. God Himself takes a personal interest in making sure that each one of us has knowledge of Him.

God knows that all people fight against this knowledge. Jesus could say to everyone what He once said to Saul, a zealous Pharisee, “It is hard for you to kick against the pricks” (Acts 9:5). He pricks every heart, letting each person know about Him.


more: www.answersingenesis.org...

OT




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


No evil? We'll see if you feel that way in ten years when you have to operate on an abused victim....


It won't make a difference. It won't be nice, that's for certain, and yet your god seem to have no great objection to it. I've been told that part of being a good person is fulfilling responsibility to fight evil. In that case god, by his own standards, cannot be good - he is indifferent to evil making him worse than satan because he has the power to do something about it all.

You could say that he wants us to have dominance over our destiny (not that we can with all things in the universe being predetermined) but still that isn't worth the evil by any stretch of the imagination.

God cannot care and be good.


God makes Himself evident, open, and plain to everyone.

But he doesn't.


Those who have never heard are willfully guilty for rejecting God because God has revealed Himself clearly in the wonders of creation.

No he doesn't.


God is angry with us. Notice why. God’s anger swells up because men are “suppressing the truth.

God seethes with anger because unbelievers attempt to “imprison” the truth by their wicked lives.”

He's not angry with Norway, the most atheistic country in the world.


Our sin against what we know about God has reached the point that it would be immoral for God not to act.

Yep and I bet he wouldn't even bother with death camps or gassing, he'd just drown us all.


God directs this wrath against two things—“impiety” and “injustice.” Impiety, or ungodliness, refers to mankind’s failure to fulfill his obligation to his Creator.

And yet the most atheistic countries are the happiest, most people and most well off.


When we witness to people, we don’t have to worry about proving God’s existence.

Because you can't.


Apparently God placed a knowledge of Himself within all men—inside their minds, in their hearts, in the very core of their being.

Mostly via indoctrination.


So when people like Epicurus try to appease their conscience and justify their sin

Epicurus is doing neither, don't change the subject.


God knows that all people fight against this knowledge.

Everyone reasons for themselves.

You see what happens here is that God gets shown to endorse "evil" and as a counter argument, you guys just claim that people who show this are actually trying to cover for guilt. You don't deal with the argument at all.

AT ALL!!

I don't need a sermon, it completely detracts from the discussion. Deal with the what Epicurus and nothing else.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


God is the embodiment of some supernatural entity with the all powerful ability to create a universe from nothing.

What I described is not an all powerful supernatural entity that can create a universe from nothing.

I simply postulate that the universe has always existed as it exists as there is no signs of non-existence being an alternative possibility.

Your god concept and the big bang theory both postulate that there was an era of non-existence that predated an era of existence and both theories further postulate that existence was created by some outside process from non-existence.

How in the hell you got that from what I stated is beyond me. We're either talking about a total inability to comprehend written language or a purposeful disregard of reading what I actually wrote. That is just amazing!

Now, if your considering the similarity as in an eternal "something", the two are still not mutually the same. For the above statement of your god theory and the big bang theory and also that an eternal universe requires no creation from an outside source. Hmm.. need to be created and not need to be created... Brain damage maybe? I still fail to see the similarity.

[EDIT TO ADD]

There is no inherent knowledge of right/wrong or good/evil in mankind. It's stupid to even argue so and I'm pretty sure we already went over this.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 29-9-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Answers in genesis....


The AiG Statement of Faith
Section 1: Priorities

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.
2. The doctrines of Creator and creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Section 2: Basics

1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.


And most disgustingly..


By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
AiG

So as we can see AiG have conclusions to start with and as such are completely and absolutely biased - making them, by default, wrong.

Bias induces blindness to evidence and evidence doesn't lie.

Also see:
OT's blindness




Edit to add. I have a personal objection to this detestable abandonment of reason and sense.


The only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. God has commanded that no sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage. Any forms of homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, incest, fornication, adultery, pornography, etc., are sinful perversions of God’s gift of sex.


Apparently I am condemned because I am the way god made me.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Hi John,

As a personal observation of the comments quoted of Missner, a number of them raise objections to his conclusions.

Missner:

Using the formula for alternate linear arrangements of these amino acids indicates that there are about 10 650 permutations possible, but only one of them is hemoglobin.


Is he stating that other permutations repeat a result, unlike the permutation in which hemoglobin only occurs; or am I right in thinking that any one of the permutations only produces a specific result, and is not repeated or found to occur by any other permutation? If this is the case, then surely it makes the hemoglobin permutation equally as valid as any other permutation. In other words, the result of any permutation is equal in both potential and occurrence as any other.


I'm hoping I understand your question. I see him as saying that only one linear arrangement of amino's (from a possible 10 650 combinations) form the DNA insruction for hemoglobin. It's an example to show specificity. Other types of cells also require a specificity of linear arrangements of amino's for each of the billions of instructions of the application.

Missner:

This is still a pretty good finite approximation for infinity! The likelihood of this specific sequence occurring by chance is clearly absurd.



I can't help feeling that there is something of error in this statement, because without being able to measure infinity as a whole, how can one arrive at a approximation of it...how is he able to gain a reference point to approximate infinity?
As for the likelihood of a 'specific sequence occurring by chance', again not knowing the true measure of infinity...one is not able to quantify the 'chance' potential.


I think he is saying that 10 to the 650 power is such a large number, that from our perspective, it represents an infinite number of possibilities.

Mathematicians say the likelihood of a single event occurring with 10 to the 50th power odds is impossible. With that in mind, I don't see 10 to the 650 power as a finite approximation for infinity as a mere speculation begging to be quantified or qualified.


Missner(?):

(In speculating about obtaining this precise sequence by 10 500+ random trials, remember that there have been only about 10 17 seconds in the generally accepted age of the universe, so you would have had to work rather quickly. Also, realize that there are only about 10 66 atoms in the universe, so you can't waste material on false tries!)



So, through speculation he arrives at a figure stating the age of the universe in seconds (10 to the power of 17 = 3.16887646 × 10,000.000.000 years). This huge figure is for the universe we know of and observe, and does not take into account the larger volume of the universe that we don't know...that existing beyond our ability to detect and observe. The same principle applies to his figure of atoms.


Difficult to quantify the unknown universe isn't it?
I see nothing wrong with his logic. He's attempting to demonstrate how utterly nonsensical it is to think life is the result of natural processes alone.

Missner:

If someone claims to be an atheist, ask him to prove it. It must include a claim to know everything - since God could be hiding behind any area of knowledge the claimant has overlooked.



Equally (and the more probable), is that God isn't hiding behind any area of knowledge simply because there is no knowledge empirically observed behind which God has been found to be hiding, and thus, there is no need to claim to know everything.
The claim is that God is omnipresent, and therefore, if God truly exists, there would be no knowledge behind which he isn't hiding...God would in fact be present in all knowledge, which clearly is not the case. This reasoning presents evidence (allbeit circumstantial) that the blindness and fallacies are maintained by the believers (not the atheists) by their ignoring the contradictions of their claims.


But there is Spiritual knowledge which is hidden from those who are perishing. For us this knowledge is eternal wisdom, and therefore more real than your finite knowledge of the physical which will some day be done away with. This physical life and all of the knowledge the world has gained concerning it, does not even cast a shadow on eternity.

I can see that you are a master debater and a cunning linguist.

I'm not sure I can compete with you.



[edit on 29/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 



Discrediting a 'website' by ignoring the truth presented within is lazy...and mis-directed logic


Thx also for checking out OT's profile....




OT

PS: How is old GW?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Discrediting a 'website' by ignoring the truth presented within is lazy...and mis-directed logic


But it's claim of truth isn't based in reality. The unbiased pursuit of understanding, science, disagrees with this biased website.

Unbiased is always better than biased.


Surely god's creation cannot disagree with empiric and unbiased investigation of reality. That's just silly.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
......I don't need a sermon, it completely detracts from the discussion. Deal with the what Epicurus and nothing else.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Welfhard]


What you call a sermon, I call ROOT CAUSE my "brilliant rebel"

Heck that could be your next 'handle'


Is it time for some coffee, maybe



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


What you call a sermon, I call ROOT CAUSE my "brilliant rebel"

Still doesn't deal with the matter at hand no matter what you call it.


Heck that could be your next 'handle'

Unlikely.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



You are confusing opponents friend...

Have I endorsed the 'Big Bang'? Sounds like an adult film tho



OT


[edit on 29-9-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
......
I'm not sure I can compete with you.
....



Hey Buddy, No worries!!!!

Remember, "What can be so plain and evident, when we behold the heavens and contemplate the celestial bodies, as the existence of some supreme, divine intelligence, by which all these things are governed?"

Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 2.2

OT



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Are you incapable of arguing the point or do you just prefer to ignore the argument entirely? Again, I surprise myself by replying to these unintelligent style ramblings. Are you just refusing to read or do you just read what you want to see? Help me to help you!

Or more aptly, explain where you got the idea that I thought you were talking about the big bang specifically. Even though it is implicitly implied by your post in question, but that is beside the point as it was mentioned to make a point. Yikes, the total lack of regard for any logical deductive reasoning just scares the crap-doodles out of me!

I'm starting to think that you think I'm confusing because your confusing yourself which is confusing me and that in turns causes you to become further confused which then some how leads to the miraculous appearance of a tickle me Elmo right above an active before it goes kaboom just as a bird was about to fly over an go poop on it.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
....Or more aptly, explain where you got the idea that I thought you were talking about the big bang specifically.....



sirnex, did I misinterpret when you said, "...Your god concept and the big bang theory both postulate...."?????

Please, go back and your can read what you wrote, I'll wait my eager poster...

OT



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
.....
I'm starting to think that you think I'm confusing because your confusing yourself which is confusing me and that in turns causes you to become further confused which then some how leads to the miraculous appearance of a tickle me Elmo right above an active before it goes kaboom just as a bird was about to fly over an go poop on it.


Maybe, no more "miraculous" that an animal that grew bumps and starting flapping them...and wala...a BIRD!



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Read everything in it's entirety before you reply to it. This includes reading the *LINKED to post that was in reply*

You posted something saying I was describing something I wasn't describing. I replied with a wordy response indicating why I was not describing what you thought I was describing. It's not a hard concept. We just need to work with you a little more, then your reading comprehension skills will be up there. Just have patience and try, try, try again till you finally got it!



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Back to your future patients...and your love for science...ever thought about the family members? And what they will feel/think?

Heck, maybe even they'll be praying? Even praying for YOU?

See below...it works!!!!! Sure hope you will be receptive to wisdom, when its crunch time!!!


What scientific evidence do we have that God exists? Most skeptics would say "none." A crucial doctrine of Christianity is that God listens to and answers prayers. So why not test this doctrine scientifically, using a double-blind, clinical trial? This is the exact premise that groups of medical doctors used in double-blind "drug" studies of the efficacy of Christian prayer on healing. Papers are available online.

A Report on the Papers:
"Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population"2
"A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit"3
Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial.4
1. "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population"
MethodsCardiac patients from the San Francisco General Medical Center were randomly divided (using a computer-generated list) into two groups. The names of the patients in the "test" group were given to a group of Christians, who prayed for them while they were in the hospital. The intercessory prayer team members were chosen on the following basis:

Born again Christians on the basis of John 3:35
Led an active Christian life on the basis of
daily devotional prayer
fellowship in a local Christian church
The "placebo" group received no prayer. Neither the "test" nor the "placebo" group of patients knew if they were receiving prayer. Likewise, the hospital staff, doctors, or nurses were "blinded" since they did not know which patient belonged to which group.

ResultsStatistics were acquired from the prayer and placebo groups both before and after prayer, until the patients were discharged from the hospital. There were no statistical differences between the placebo and the prayer groups before prayer was initiated. The results demonstrated that patients who were prayed for suffered "less congestive heart failure, required less diuretic and antibiotic therapy, had fewer episodes of pneumonia, had fewer cardiac arrests, and were less frequently intubated and ventilated." Statistics demonstrated the the prayer group had a statistically significantly lower severity score based upon the hospital course after entry (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis of all the parameters measured demonstrated that the outcomes of the two groups were even more statistically significant (p < 0.0001). In science, the standard level of significance is when a "p value" is less than 0.05. A value of 0.01 means that the likelihood the result is because of chance is one in 100. A p value of 0.0001 indicates that in only one study out of 10,000 is the result likely to be due to chance. Table 2 from the study is reproduced below. The remarkable thing which one notices is that nearly every parameter measured is affected by prayer, although individually many categories do not reach the level of statistical significance due to sample size. However, multivariate analysis, which compares all parameters together produces a level of significance seldom reached in any scientific study (p < 0.0001). The author points out that the method used in this study does not produce the maximum effect of prayer, since the study could not control for the effect of outside prayer (i.e., it is likely many of the placebo group were prayed for by persons outside of the study). It is likely that a study which used only atheists (who had no Christian family or friends) would produce an even more dramatic result. However, since atheists make up only 1-2% of the population, it would be difficult to obtain a large enough sample size.


other studies here: www.godandscience.org...

Maybe bookmark, for when you are more OPEN



OT

[edit on 29-9-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Read everything in it's entirety before you reply to it. This includes reading the *LINKED to post that was in reply*

You posted something saying I was describing something I wasn't describing. I replied with a wordy response indicating why I was not describing what you thought I was describing. It's not a hard concept. We just need to work with you a little more, then your reading comprehension skills will be up there. Just have patience and try, try, try again till you finally got it!



I think I can, I think I can!


I have not got to the God part of your reply, probably will have to wait to later this week....

I would have hoped, "sorry, I replied too quick, wrong assumption."

And I would have said, "that's ok, I've done it, too"

Oh well


OT



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Maybe bookmark, for when you are more OPEN


The conclusion that it's god doing work is flawed because they didn't test the effects of prayer of other denominations/religions.

Meditation does similar things to be body in terms of medicine. The "god-spot" in the bible that christians use in prayer and 4 yearolds with their imaginary friends can alter their mental state and in turn their body and it's health.


I beat you again!! lol

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 



Oh SO much evidence!!!!!


Scientific Studies that Show a Positive Effect of Religion on Health
by Rich Deem
Scientific studies over the last four decades have examined the role of both public and private religious expression on health and longevity. The studies have shown that the practice of religious activity improves health and increases longevity. The effect is seen even when other social/psychological differences are taken into account. For example, one 16-year study examined mortality rates in 11 religious vs. 11 secular kibbutzim in Israel. Although both communities were demographically-matched and provided similar levels of social support, three time more people died in the secular kibbutzim compared to the religious kibbutazim. The following is a short list of some recent studies that have shown the positive influence of religion on health and longevity.

Tully J, Viner RM, Coen PG, Stuart JM, Zambon M, Peckham C, Booth C, Klein N, Kaczmarski E, Booy R. 2006. Risk and Protective Factors for Meningococcal Disease in Adolescents: Matched Cohort Study. BMJ 332: 445-450.

A study of meningococcal disease in adolescents in the UK showed that religious observance was as effective as meningococcal vaccination for preventing meningococcal disease.

O'Connor P.J., N.P. Pronk, A. Tan, and R.P. Whitebird. 2005. Characteristics of adults who use prayer as an alternative therapy. Am. J. Health Promot. 19:369-375.

A study of prayer use by patients showed that 47% of study subjects prayed for their health, and 90% of these believed prayer improved their health. Those who prayed had significantly less smoking and alcohol use and more preventive care visits, influenza immunizations, vegetable intake, satisfaction with care, and social support, and were more likely to have a regular primary care provider. The study concluded that those who pray had more favorable health-related behaviors, preventive service use, and satisfaction with care.

Krucoff, M. W., et al. 2005. Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study. Lancet 366:211-217.

This double blind study used prayer in combination with music, imagery, and touch in four randomly assigned groups of cardiac patients. Intercessory prayer groups included Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist religious traditions. Overall, the study found no significant effect of prayer. However, major adverse cardiac events were reduced in the prayer group (23% to 27%), as were death and readmission rates (33% to 35%). The inclusion of intercessors of multiple religious traditions may have reduced the effectiveness of prayer, especially since Buddhists (who do not believe in God) were included in the study.

D'Souza, R.F. and A. Rodrigo. 2004. Spiritually augmented cognitive behavioural therapy. Australas Psychiatry 12: 148-152.

This study used spiritually augmented cognitive behavior therapy in a mental health study. The study demonstrated that spiritually augmented cognitive behavior therapy helped reduce hopelessness and despair, improved treatment collaboration, reduced relapse, and enhanced functional recovery.

Palmer, R. F., D. Katerndahl, and J. Morgan-Kidd. 2004. A Randomized Trial of the Effects of Remote Intercessory Prayer: Interactions with Personal Beliefs on Problem-Specific Outcomes and Functional Status. J. Alt. Compl. Med. 10: 438-448.

A randomized clinical trial found a significant reduction in the amount of pain in the intercessory prayer group compared to controls. In addition, the amount of concern for baseline problems at follow-up was significantly lower in the prayer group when the subject initially believed that the problem could be resolved. Those who did not believe that their problem could be resolved did not differ from controls. Better physical functioning was observed in the prayer group for those with a higher belief in prayer. However, better mental health scores were observed in the control group with lower belief in prayer scores.

Krucoff, M. W., S. W. Crater, C. L. Green, A. C. Maas, J. E. Seskevich, J. D. Lane, K. A. Loeffler, K. Morris, T. M. Bashore, and H. G. Koenig. 2001. Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot. Am. Heart J. 142: 760-767.

A pilot study8 (limited to 150 patients) examining the efficacy of noetic (non-pharmacological) therapies (stress relaxation, imagery, touch therapy, and prayer) found that "Of all noetic therapies, off-site intercessory prayer had the lowest short- and long-term absolute complication rates." The results did not reach statistical significance due to the small sample size, but a full study is planned.

Pargament, K. I., H. G. Koenig, N. Tarakeshwar, J. Hahn. 2001. Religious Struggle as a Predictor of Mortality Among Medically Ill Elderly Patients A 2-Year Longitudinal Study. Arch. Intern Med. 161: 1881-1883.

A study examined the effect of "religious struggle" (defined by such things as being angry at God or feeling punished by God) was predictive of poorer physical recovery and higher mortality. According to the authors, "Our findings suggest that patients who indicate religious struggle during a spiritual history may be at particularly high risk for poor medical outcomes. Referral of these patients to clergy to help them work through these issues may ultimately improve clinical outcomes; further research is needed to determine whether interventions that reduce religious struggles might also improve medical prognosis."

Hughes M. Helma, Judith C. Haysb, Elizabeth P. Flintb, Harold G. Koeniga and Dan G. Blazera. 2000. Does Private Religious Activity Prolong Survival? A Six-Year Follow-up Study of 3,851 Older Adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 55: M400-M405.

A six year study of 3,851 elderly persons revealed that those who reported having rarely to never participating in private religious activity had an increased relative hazard of dying over those who participated more frequently in religious activity. Whereas most previous studies showed a positive effect for organized religious activities, this study showed that personal religious activity was also effective at reducing mortality.



much more here...MUCH! www.godandscience.org...

OT



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Scientific Studies that Show a Positive Effect of Religion on Health


BUT THAT'S NOT PROOF OF GOD!


Must you confuse religion and god? These results show that believers have a different mental state - hardly surprising - which effects their health.

NOT god.



Here is something you must understand. Even if evidence suggested a god, it doesn't imply that it's the christian god. There are thousands of deities out there, the chance that it's yours is incredibly unlikely.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Welfhard]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join