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: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Hey, did you ever research the leader in your area of study?


Should I? Apart from the science, what can he possibly contribute? You're drawing on the old 'appealing to authority' logical fallacy rendering your argument null........




I must admit, your bias is well-documented.....

I wonder where and why would someone refer to wiki so often as an authority?

You keep looking to them...

OT will keep looking to real life examples....

AND WE'LL BOTH PUT THE HYPOTHESES TO LIFE, OK?

OT

btw, Dr. Ben C is the man, tho...right?




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by John Matrix
...With technical knowledge expected to double in a 72 hour period sometime during 2010 it is an exciting time to be around.....assuming that the exponential increase in knowledge continues on it's established course.



2010, huh? Where did you learn that?

Scripture definitely talks about..." knowledge will increase in the last days...."


....exponential curve.....????....sweet statistical term there friend!

OT

PS: U excited about NFL opening day...tonight...I hate the Steelers!


I'm not a sports fan...LOL.
Here is the video where I got the info regarding exponential increase in knowledge: www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


C and A, huh? Wouldn't that be about truths and concepts already real....???? Thus existed BEFORE???


Pardon?



I must admit, your bias is well-documented.

As an ex-fundamentalist, I find that insinuation rather insulting, not to mention very hypocritical.


I wonder where and why would someone refer to wiki so often as an authority?

I don't, at least not as an authority but even if I were to, it would still be better than say answersingenesis.com.


btw, Dr. Ben C is the man, tho...right?

-Fallacy: Argument from authority -
You're very good at avoiding, aren't you.


[edit on 10-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Wow! lotta wisdom with our old age huh? Young folks just won't listen.....?


That's rich coming from you, OT. Again and again in your threads, you ignore and avoid refutations against your arguments. You're the one who won't listen to the point of admitted bias.



Welfhard, do you realize that is was MATH, yes MATH...that turned the (Christian, God-fearing, greatest Neuro-surgeon this world has ever known)...around, yep, good ole MATH.....


Dare you to watch:
here: www.youtube.com...

OT ASQ CSSBB



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 



Welfhard, do you realize that is was MATH, yes MATH...that turned the (Christian, God-fearing, greatest Neuro-surgeon this world has ever known)...around, yep, good ole MATH.....


Dare you to watch:
here: www.youtube.com...

OT ASQ CSSBB


- Fallacy: Argument from authority -

Doing it more and more doesn't help your position. You said "Young folks just won't listen.....?" and yet twice you've used this fallacy even since I pointed it out. You don't listen and you don't learn.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 



Welfhard, do you realize that is was MATH, yes MATH...that turned the (Christian, God-fearing, greatest Neuro-surgeon this world has ever known)...around, yep, good ole MATH.....


Dare you to watch:
here: www.youtube.com...

OT ASQ CSSBB


- Fallacy: Argument from authority -

Doing it more and more doesn't help your position.


OT is in God's hands. His position is established.
But the unbeliever is dead already, until he repents.

It is the fool that says in his heart,"there is no God."
Perhaps your position needs to change.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


OT is in God's hands.

That's a matter of faith, i.e. a belief without evidence. I require more than that as foundation for my ecumenical beliefs.


It is the fool that says in his heart,"there is no God."

Well I never said that, so I don't think my position does. Perhaps you should explain what you believe my position to be.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 



Welfhard, do you realize that is was MATH, yes MATH...that turned the (Christian, God-fearing, greatest Neuro-surgeon this world has ever known)...around, yep, good ole MATH.....


Dare you to watch:
here: www.youtube.com...

OT ASQ CSSBB


- Fallacy: Argument from authority -

Doing it more and more doesn't help your position.


OT is in God's hands. His position is established.
But the unbeliever is dead already, until he repents.

It is the fool that says in his heart,"there is no God."
Perhaps your position needs to change.


John, you have no idea, what an encouragment your posts (support) are to OT...thank you!

Welfhard is a great adversary, God has great things in store for him, once he let's go....it may be a while...please keep praying with me, for him...and maybe we can see that time SHORTENED...

Now, back to the topic at hand...the CLT is great proof, that randomly, stratified data...will approximate the real population......so........where does DESIGN come from accordingly?


It CAN'T just happen, if you adhere to the theorem, right????????



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard......


It is the fool that says in his heart,"there is no God."

Well I never said that, so I don't think my position does. Perhaps you should explain what you believe my position to be.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Welfhard]



Wow, what a great point Welfhard, friend!

Three thumbs up!!!!!

Father
Son
Holy Spirit



OT



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Putting aside cause and effect here for a moment and assuming the idea that there is a design in the numbers, where is your evidence that that design has anything to do with the christian god? There are thousands of religions with 100's of thousands of Gods and even then, every single one could be wrong.

Design =/= Jesus (an evidence-less historical figure).



Father
Son
Holy Spirit


Or my favourite..

Ra
Horus
Amun (amen)

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard



Father
Son
Holy Spirit


Or my favourite..

Ra
Horus
Amun (amen)

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Welfhard]



So, do you respect/believe in Ra, Horus and Amun?

OT politefully requests no cuteness, just an answer ok?

Me!



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Not really, respect and belief are two very different things. I like Sherlock Holmes aswell but I'm aware that he's a production of an imaginative Sir.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Not really. I like Sherlock Holmes aswell but I'm aware that he's a production of an imaginative Sir.



Cuteness


OT

PS: Will you ever be transparent



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I wasn't being cute, I was explaining my answer because things are not always as black and white as you would like them to be. I don't believe in them, but I respect the affect they had on the people of the time.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Late here, guys....


OT's gotta sleep....

Are there any ATS Statisticians out there?



If so, JOIN!!!!! ok?


Nite!

OT



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by TangoVooDoo
 


In the animal world who teaches a bird to fly? Flight is not taught. A bird has the knowledge of flight prior to actual flight. It's innate.


What about talking? There is much subconscious hardwired knowledge in the more archaic structures of our brain yet others have to be learned in every individual. Babies when exposed to it develop the ability to speak and understand speech, and those who don't (i.e. feral children) who miss the crucial period of learning will never be able to speak.

Instinct is a product of evolution, as is consciousness and awareness.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Welfhard]


Thanks for the reply.

Talking is not innate like flight. You're comparing apples to oranges. Humans seek to communicate but talking is not needed. There is sign language, clicks, art etc.

So again I ask, if knowledge comes by way of observation how does one KNOW they are observing if there is no knowledge prior to observation?

Let's take the word "instinct". If you hold to am empirical world view please tell me which of your senses told you what the word "instinct" means or how did you learn it?

Did you smell the word? Taste it? See it? Feel it? or perhaps hear it? Many may claim that they heard the word and they were then told what the word means. Yet this again places the cart before the horse because again observation does not bring about knowledge. Knowledge had to be pre-programmed into the brain prior to any observation.

Now please understand that I am seeking to go back to the very first "human". Was that sub-human born with a blank slate (mind) and through observation and experiences gained knowledge of his or her world?

If so then how was he or she able to understand, to grasp or to observe anything without knowledge prior to the act of observation? I claim that if mans first "sub-human" was born with a blank slate then we would not be here because that sub-human, without prior knowledge, would not even KNOW he or she is alive.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TangoVooDoo
 


Now please understand that I am seeking to go back to the very first "human". Was that sub-human born with a blank slate (mind) and through observation and experiences gained knowledge of his or her world?


There is no such thing as a blank slate/mind, it doesn't matter how far you go back. As you go back, the brain becomes less and less developed, the more primitive brain of our distant ancestors didn't have thinking or talking or reasoning, as these are higher brain functions. Instead they were more reactory, more impulse and instinct driven- mental presets that arose out of natural selection (different less successful presets die out).

In this way, what knowledge is changes; the things our reptilian ancestors "knew" they were not aware of and had no understanding of and were effectively just what their senses told other parts of the brain. The knowledge you're talking about is a different type of thing that most of what our knowledge actually is because when don't need to make observations to learn it, at least not conscious ones - most of it is stuff the brain learns automatically by experimenting with the environment (babies playing with hands and feet etc.).

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
Instinct is a product of evolution, as is consciousness and awareness.


From our modern day understanding the brain and cognitive ability I would actually argue that evolution is a product of "consciousness".



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Welfhard
Instinct is a product of evolution, as is consciousness and awareness.


From our modern day understanding the brain and cognitive ability I would actually argue that evolution is a product of "consciousness".


Ehm... scientific theory of evolution is a product of consciousness, but evolution itself was here before consciousness, it "created" the consciousness, because it "created" the brain.


OP: You still had not explained why/how CLT proves the creator... Whats so supernatural about it? I ask you again...



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Ehm... scientific theory of evolution is a product of consciousness, but evolution itself was here before consciousness, it "created" the consciousness, because it "created" the brain.



Well I would actually argue that what caused evolution and the driving force behind the development of the brain is what you call "consciousness".

Whether it was the leaning of a flower towards the sun, or the decision for a monkey to run or fight, the driving force behind natural selection is the observer's response to it's own brain or more basically it's own physical vehicle before life had a brain.

The more developed the brain became the more consciousness was expressed through it..but consciousness itself actually changes the physical structure of the brain as people grow.

The existence of consciousness is not a product of the brain but actually a power source of the brain.

What creates consciousness is the observing power's (soul?) response to the physical world.


Originally posted by Maslo
OP: You still had not explained why/how CLT proves the creator... Whats so supernatural about it? I ask you again...


Read my post again, I don't believe anything can be "super" natural. Everything that is, is natural.


Originally posted by Jezus
The Central Limit Theorem proves the existence of God if you consider the Universe and the domino effect of probability to be God...

But this doesn't have anything to do with intentions or purpose, it is simply the result of time and space.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join