Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 10:02 PM by OldThinker
Originally posted by ganja
.....

Also this will be my last post on this thread due to the "I know more than you do" comment (especially considering the remarks you made about the etymology of certain words such as theory and theology, when they OBVIOUSLY have the same Latin roots and have to do with matters of thought...



One more tonight....

Ganja, that's fine! Sleep well......

I know folks that know more than me....do you? Are you the smartest you know? Man, that must be great!!!!

Why are you so intimidated by those that know more? RU that insecure?

WHOOSAAA, relax, big boy....

Do your proper research, come back, and then be SO cocky....then I'll respect

You may not like me...that's ok...


I dare you.... put 25 yrs on it...u ready?

Match your worldview to mine....

Dare you!!!!


Please don't come by OT's thread with that false BS....I've got no time....go ahead... onto the 25/something yr old's UFO thread....they can take your emptiness, won't know any better...

Later!!!!!

OT

PS: Did I make any remarks on the source of those words??????? Absolutely, no!!!!!

OT just asked a question, since you are a student of language this quarter, pls enlighten as an expert/DOCTOR, we are listening....

Maybe when you get older and know, you'll say....I have been given the opportunity because of schooling, and this is what I've found....bla bla bla...

OT and the readers will say, wow, that guy's smart and honest, too....but now we are going, oh well, just another 2nd yr. student who can't even pay his bills...


reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 10:11 PM by googolplex
Originally posted by ganja
Oh, also, my thoughts on this as a whole.. I agree that math, as we understand it, can not tell us that much about the metaphysical. math has been developed by man for wordly causes, and differs from place to place. Who is to say that OUR math is right? What we see as something whole may in fact be two halves of a "proper" measurement, or any other number of fractions or multiples. Also, as I understand it this has a bit to do with probability... Thats all well and good on paper, but things don't always work out the way that probability says they will... it can only be used as a general guide and could in no way take into account EVERY variable needed to make an accurate, 100% model of anything.

Plato's Middle Period Metaphysics and Epistemology
First published Mon Jun 9, 2003; substantive revision Wed Dec 10, 2008
Students of Plato and other ancient philosophers divide philosophy into three parts: Ethics, Epistemology and Metaphysics. While generally accurate and certainly useful for pedagogical purposes, no rigid boundary separates the parts. Ethics, for example, concerns how one ought to live and focuses on pleasure, virtue, and happiness. Since, according to Plato (and Socrates), virtue and happiness require knowledge, e.g., knowledge of goods and evils, Plato's ethics is inseparable from his epistemology. Epistemology is, broadly speaking, the study of what knowledge is and how one comes to have knowledge. Among the many topics included in epistemology are logic, belief, perception, language, science, and knowledge. (‘Science’ derives from the Latin ‘scientia’, which in turn translates the Greek ‘episteme’, from which English derives ‘epistemology’.) Integral to all of these notions is that they (typically) are directed at something. Words refer to something; perception (aesthesis in Greek) involves perceptibles; knowledge requires a known. In this respect, epistemology cannot be investigated without regard to what there is.

Metaphysics, or alternatively ontology, is that branch of philosophy whose special concern is to answer the question ‘What is there?’ These expressions derive from Aristotle, Plato's student. In a collection of his works, the most detailed treatise on the general topic of things that are comes after a treatise on natural things, ta phusika (from which English derives ‘physics’). Since the Greek for ‘after’ is meta, this treatise is titled ‘Metaphysics’. In that work one finds the famous formula that (first) philosophy studies being—the Greek for which is on—qua being. Hence the account of being is ‘ontology’—the English suffix ‘-ology’ signifying ‘study of’: e.g., biology is the study of living things.

Metaphysics, then, studies the ways in which anything that is can be said or thought to be. Leaving to sciences like biology or physics or mathematics or psychology the task of addressing the special ways in which physical things, or living things, or mathematical objects, e.g., numbers, or souls (minds) come to have the peculiar qualities each, respectively, has, the subject-matter of metaphysics are principles common to everything. Perhaps the most general principle is: to be is to be something. Nothing just exists, we might say. This notion implies that each entity/item/thing has at least some one feature or quality or property. Keeping at a general level, we can provisionally distinguish three factors involved when anything is whatever it is: there is that which bears or has the property, often called the ‘subject’, e.g., Socrates, the number three, or my soul; there is the property which is possessed; e.g., being thin, being odd, and being immortal; and there is the manner or way in which the property is tied or connected to the subject. For instance, while Socrates may be accidentally thin, since he can change, that is, gain and lose weight, three cannot fail to be odd nor, if Plato is correct, can the soul fail to be immortal. The metaphysician, then, considers physical or material things as well as immaterial items such as souls, god and numbers in order to study notions like property, subject, change, being essentially or accidentally.


As for probability, the LAWS of Probability are build on model that is 100%.


[edit on 9-9-2009 by googolplex]


reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 01:41 AM by ganja
Ugh, i hate to do this but a certain person on here has taken it upon himself to try my patience, so sorry to disappoint you guys, but one more *FINAL* post. See this link:

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

..and try to remember that you are indeed NOT as smart as you have led yourself to believe. It will save you further humiliations in your life.



reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 06:26 AM by John Matrix
Originally posted by ganja
Ugh, i hate to do this but a certain person on here has taken it upon himself to try my patience, so sorry to disappoint you guys, but one more *FINAL* post. See this link:

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

..and try to remember that you are indeed NOT as smart as you have led yourself to believe. It will save you further humiliations in your life.


Thank you for that link. The explanation on that page makes sense to me, although I don't pretend to understand everything there is to know about the more complex math.

TangoVooDoo: I don't think anyone made the point that you are arguing against. The link posted by ganja should provide further insight. From my perspective, the complexity of DNA and the multiplicity of possible combinations/instructions, does prove intelligent design.

I still agree with OT and his OP.


reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 06:34 AM by John Matrix
Originally posted by TangoVooDoo
Originally posted by Gixxer
Originally posted by John Matrix
Your explanation concerning DNA and the billions of A,T, C, G, chemical instructors in every cell is proof of a creator/designer with purpose. I'm surpised the usual pro-evolutionists have not come out of the woodwork.


NO it doesn't prove anything, wake up.

Math proves Jesus Christ is the CREATOR! “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” –Apostle


No it does not prove that , because "people" invented math just like people invented jesus christ otherwise there is no link between the two.



This is incorrect.

2 plus 2 equals 4 is not created but rather it's discovered. Absolutes are never created but again discovered so math was in no way made up or designed by man but was discovered by man.

Now if you argue that the name or word "math" was created then we can agree.


Just to be clear, my post was as follows:

Your explanation concerning DNA and the billions of A,T, C, G, chemical instructors in every cell is proof of a creator/designer with purpose. I'm surpised the usual pro-evolutionists have not come out of the woodwork.

The rest of the quoted text above is not my words. I said nothing about Math being invented or discovered.

I feel a need to make that clear.


reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 06:54 AM by John Matrix
Originally posted by ganja
reply to
post by John Matrix



Plato and Aristotle never claimed to be the son of god as far as I know... Maybe I am missing the comparison? I have no problem believing that they lived and did what they did, as those actions would be in the possibility of REALITY. When you start claiming "son of a deity," it begs questioning. Also, as far as more being written about jesus than was written about those two, you could also claim the same about "harry potter."


You have to read the person's post that I was responding to in order to get the correct context. Once you understand the context, you will see clearly why I made the comparison. It has something to do with history. You cannot make the same claim about Harry Potter. If you knew a little about the history of Jesus and those followers (including many scholars) who have written about him over the past 20 centuries you would see.

All the knowledge of the world is foolishness to the Lord's simplest thought.


reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 08:37 AM by TangoVooDoo
Originally posted by John Matrix
Originally posted by TangoVooDoo
Originally posted by Gixxer
Originally posted by John Matrix
Your explanation concerning DNA and the billions of A,T, C, G, chemical instructors in every cell is proof of a creator/designer with purpose. I'm surpised the usual pro-evolutionists have not come out of the woodwork.


NO it doesn't prove anything, wake up.

Math proves Jesus Christ is the CREATOR! “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” –Apostle


No it does not prove that , because "people" invented math just like people invented jesus christ otherwise there is no link between the two.



This is incorrect.

2 plus 2 equals 4 is not created but rather it's discovered. Absolutes are never created but again discovered so math was in no way made up or designed by man but was discovered by man.

Now if you argue that the name or word "math" was created then we can agree.


Just to be clear, my post was as follows:

Your explanation concerning DNA and the billions of A,T, C, G, chemical instructors in every cell is proof of a creator/designer with purpose. I'm surpised the usual pro-evolutionists have not come out of the woodwork.

The rest of the quoted text above is not my words. I said nothing about Math being invented or discovered.

I feel a need to make that clear.


Thank you for that clarity. I think I may have gotten something mixed up with the quotes but either way thank you for making that clear.


reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 09:03 AM by googolplex
Originally posted by ganja
Ugh, i hate to do this but a certain person on here has taken it upon himself to try my patience, so sorry to disappoint you guys, but one more *FINAL* post. See this link:

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

..and try to remember that you are indeed NOT as smart as you have led yourself to believe. It will save you further humiliations in your life.
This is good,but what you have presented are mere oppinions, of people such as this Dr, Ken Melkendorf.
The matter of fact these numbers things have always been present and do not always need formulas to see what is being said.
There are many differnt methods to attain a answer, but the answer has always been there none the less.

And if you read the last statement from your own link.

If you read any of the popular histories of numbers like 'pi' , 'e' , or 'i' it
will be clear that there is much more discovery than invention.


[edit on 10-9-2009 by googolplex]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 17 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags
Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 19 days ago with 4 member flags
Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 15 hours ago, 68 replies