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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
......


.If you say a creator is self evident, then can you honestly tell me some objective evidence with no other cause for it existing besides the universe. Can you HONESTLY and TRUTHFULLY tell me that life can't exist per the laws of physics despite our lack of full understanding of those laws and the processes at work.


.....


Sure, my new Dixon zero turn....

It was engineered....the universe didn't do a thing for it.

To your second question, no. Ignorance is null.




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
.... I'm sure I wouldn't be allowed one bit to 'misinterpret' scripture to show that satan is more good than the old testament god without getting an earful no matter the amount of times god kills compared to him. ...


Allowed?

Are you very young my friend?

Or have you thought some "fundamentalist" IS God...?

You are free, my friend, FREE to think what you will?

The OT God could be interpreted racist, as a Christian I have no problem with folks thinking that....just remember the Father was protecting one race, so He could protect all races...

It's all about messiah's family tree....protect it and ALL are protected, harsh world but God knows how to think longterm....do you?



This is fun and I'm glad you are engaged here!


OT

[edit on 21-9-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
.....
I won't get into great detail over the issue's of misinterpreting quantum physics and the use of the misinterpretation to prove the existence of one god out of many. ....



Granted I'll give you that one...

but what about the "missing" ingredient at the sub atomic level? As a math guy I have to agree it just doesn't add up? Right?

And why would the Apostle Paul say JC "holds" all things together? That doesn't sound very religious....sorta sounds like a science thing, huh?

OT

[edit on 21-9-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Your dixen zero was manufactured by man, this leave's nothing for a self-evident deity. Ignorance is a valid point in the argument, especially when ignorance of a process is being used to claim something that is not there.

What missing ingredient? Despite what Paul says in regards to JC 'holding' all thing's together, the statement is to vague to translate to modern day physics. The cosmology of the ancient world was much different than today's cosmology, what Paul stated was applicable to the views back then, not some future point in time. We can't put words in the mouths of people who knew nothing of modern day physics.

If we argue that line of reasoning, then we can claim that creation myths that involve a primordial egg exploding into the universe is proof positive of their religion because it accurately describes the big bang theory. So which religion is right when we look at it with modern day science? I can't think of the people with this creation myth, I'd have to search it if you want validation for this myth existing.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

What missing ingredient?



Mathematically, why doesn’t it all break apart? The more we learn about subatomic particles called ‘gluons’, the more the universe seems to be made of nothing at all? Scientist says that all the electrons and subatomic particles of an atom are held together in their precise position and orbit by an invisible force, by which without it, everything would fall apart and reality as we know it, would cease to exist in an instant.
Quotes from Discovery Magazine in 2000, “The weirdness comes from the gluons. Quantum chromodynamics, the force that holds protons together, is modeled closely on quantum electrodynamics, the force that holds atoms together—but the gluons change screening to antiscreening, intuitive to bizarre.” And, “The closer you look, the more you find the proton is dissolving into lots of particles, each of which is carrying very, very little energy," says Wilczek. "And the elements of reality that triggered the whole thing, the quarks, are these tiny little things in the middle of the cloud. In fact, if you follow the evolution to infinitely short distances, the triggering charge goes to zero. If you really study the equations, it gets almost mystical." More info here: discovermagazine.com.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Your dixen zero was manufactured by man, this leave's nothing for a self-evident deity. Ignorance is a valid point in the argument, especially when ignorance of a process is being used to claim something that is not there.



You missed my point friend...


You acknowledge a lawn mower is man-made...why?

Could it be the complexity?

The design?

The nice paint job?

= = = = =

Yet you are ready to say a the retina JUST HAPPENED? I'm at a loss????


The mammalian retina contains upward of 50 distinct functional elements, each carrying out a specific task. Such diversity is not rare in the central nervous system, but the retina is privileged because its physical location, the distinctive morphology of its neurons, the regularity of its architecture, and the accessibility of its inputs and outputs permit a unique variety of experiments. Recent strategies for confronting the retina's complexity attempt to marry genetic approaches to new kinds of anatomical and electrophysiological techniques.
source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I mean, let's be absolutely honest with ourselves and look around our universe. What do we ACTUALLY see around us? We see everything following specific laws of physics and not breaking those laws. We don't see anything else, no matter how much one wants to pretend they do.


Who, or what made those specific laws of physics?
Who, or what set the universe in motion?

We see design everywhere. Design indicates a designer.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Your missing the point of the entire argument.

I acknowledge the lawn-mower is man made, because it is man made. There is no other process that leads to the magical appearance of a lawn mower.

I'm not ready to say that a retina "just happened", while I will readily admit that I don't understand the entire process behind the formation of a retina. The eye argument of IDism has already been squashed, just like every other ID argument has gotten squashed. Not understanding a process doesn't make something designed.

Further to the point, while the diversity is not rare in the nervous system, to quote as much in the case of one organ because of it's 'privileged location' is ridiculous. It's like saying the index finger is more privileged than the ring finger due to it's physical location on the hand, or that the heart is more privileged than the spleen due to it's more important bodily function. You can't put attributes on things that don't exist on those things. I don't know is not a valid argument for god.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by sirnex
I mean, let's be absolutely honest with ourselves and look around our universe. What do we ACTUALLY see around us? We see everything following specific laws of physics and not breaking those laws. We don't see anything else, no matter how much one wants to pretend they do.


Who, or what made those specific laws of physics?
Who, or what set the universe in motion?

We see design everywhere. Design indicates a designer.


We don't see design anywhere, show one thing that is evident of requiring a designer, but try to leave out man made objects as a line of argument.

Perhaps the universe has just always existed the way it does, without beginning. We see nothing but beginnings and endings to things in our finite lives, so we assume the universe had to have a beginning. Then we need to figure out the answer to that beginning, so we come up with gods and big bangs while ignoring thing's that show otherwise.

You say it was your god, but you can't show me your reasoning or evidences for that belief outside your religious doctrine.

If we look at the problem logically we see three possible scenarios :

1. God did it
2. Big bang did it
3. Eternal universe

If we argue it was the big bang, then we're still left with the question of what preceded the big bang and what process lead to the big bang happening that created the universe.

If we argue god did it, then we're left with the question of where did god come from, yet if we argue god has always existed then we open up the third line of reasoning.

The eternal answer is by far the most simplest and the most self-evident answer. Deities are man made constructs and the big bang was developed by misinterpretations of the available data at the time it was conjured up. We've had deities through out all of mankind's history, from rain gods to your god. The big bang has problems with mature high density galaxies existing mere millions of years after it's supposed beginning.

With those two problems being the religious answer and the big bang answer, we're left with the only real answer. It just is what it is because it is. There was no beginning and there will be no end.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


No, I am not MISSING anything...

You not debating well friend..."squashed???" I was hoping, oh well?

OT



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by sirnex

What missing ingredient?



Mathematically, why doesn’t it all break apart? The more we learn about subatomic particles called ‘gluons’, the more the universe seems to be made of nothing at all? Scientist says that all the electrons and subatomic particles of an atom are held together in their precise position and orbit by an invisible force, by which without it, everything would fall apart and reality as we know it, would cease to exist in an instant.
Quotes from Discovery Magazine in 2000, “The weirdness comes from the gluons. Quantum chromodynamics, the force that holds protons together, is modeled closely on quantum electrodynamics, the force that holds atoms together—but the gluons change screening to antiscreening, intuitive to bizarre.” And, “The closer you look, the more you find the proton is dissolving into lots of particles, each of which is carrying very, very little energy," says Wilczek. "And the elements of reality that triggered the whole thing, the quarks, are these tiny little things in the middle of the cloud. In fact, if you follow the evolution to infinitely short distances, the triggering charge goes to zero. If you really study the equations, it gets almost mystical." More info here: discovermagazine.com.


I'll tackle this tomorrow morning, but I will say one thing, not even a QM theorist will admit to understanding the actual mechanics behind QM.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



Alright, that will be fine...thx!

OT



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
....If we look at the problem logically we see three possible scenarios :

1. God did it
2. Big bang did it
3. Eternal universe.....


Option 3 is not mutually exclusive of 1 and 2 is it?

Nor is 2 of 1...

OT



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



Here's a 9 minutes vid that may shed some light on the subject...please let me know your thoughts tomorrow, if you can Link: www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

We don't see design anywhere, show one thing that is evident of requiring a designer, but try to leave out man made objects as a line of argument.


The DNA program application with 3 million sets of intructions.
Need more evidence for design?
The galaxies, constellations, solar system, orbital paths, structure of atoms, laws of physics, grass, trees, water, air, fish, birds, animals, people....design is seen everywhere.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by sirnex

We don't see design anywhere, show one thing that is evident of requiring a designer, but try to leave out man made objects as a line of argument.


The DNA program application with 3 million sets of intructions.
Need more evidence for design?
The galaxies, constellations, solar system, orbital paths, structure of atoms, laws of physics, grass, trees, water, air, fish, birds, animals, people....design is seen everywhere.


I don't get the connection of complexity to designer...



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.


And your point is???

The science explains that life has been on the earth for the order of 4 billion years yet humans are only a very recent development in the order of maybe half a million years (depending on how far back you want to go in the family tree and where you draw the line between sapian and erectus) so even science says that we are astoundingly unlikely. Infact so unlikely that there are going to be millions of liferidden planets in our Galaxy and only a very small handful will have anything resembling humans at all, let alone exactly human.

You're problem is that you are looking at it from the wrong end. Let's take another unlikely thing to happen, the lottery. In a fair and blind lottery someone has to win but the probability of winning attached to any one individual ticket is practically negligible. But despite this, there will be a person who won with a ticket with a winning probability of next to zero and no matter who it is, they will consider themselves lucky.

The reality is that any thing that happens has an infinitesimally small chance of happening, but something did have to happen.

It's just that here, on this particular planet, you happen to stand thinking "I'm lucky." The bacterium don't think "I'm lucky." yet the probability of them evolving is exactly the same as you and indeed anything else that did not evolve.

"Monkeys and typewriters."


And lastly ...

This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123

Yeah and any particular score a blind man achieves playing darts is also extraordinarily against; it's doesn't mean anything.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Not only would you need to be lucky, your entire family tree would have to win the lottery every week for the next 100 billion years.

That's the kind of odds we are talking about here.
It's not the chance of getting lucky once in a million in a lottery where we know there is going to be one lucky number.
The odds are considerably more mind boggling.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Not only would you need to be lucky, your entire family tree would have to win the lottery every week for the next 100 billion years.


IF you were aiming for winning, and life isn't aiming for winning, i.e. us, it merely strives to replicate. We aren't lucky unless you think that we were actually trying to become what we are but we weren't. We could have just easily have been one of the other googolplex of non realised possibilities. Just because we became what we are in the end doesn't mean anything - it's not like the whole system would have failed if one simple interaction billions of years ago had been different. It doesn't mean anything.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


What your missing is a self-evident product of design in your argument. You can't bring up design of man made items as excuses to point to design from deities. That is the point your missing, your having trouble coming up with something, so you turn to other excuses trying to bury the original intent.

You can't point to something obviously man made and say look, because that lawn mower required a designer and no other process that follows the laws of physics can create a lawn mower just like it, then life must be the product of design.

When we get into the subject of life and the chemical processes at play that create and change it, we're in a new ball game compared to a lawn mower. The chemical reactions taking place within life follow the laws of physics, bonds are made and broken, food converted to usable energy etc. Life follows a specific set of laws that is not translatable to the production of a lawnmower.

This is what your missing.


Option 3 is not mutually exclusive of 1 and 2 is it?


All three options must be exclusive.

If option three, an eternal universe can be mutual with the big bang, then the universe wasn't eternal. The big bang describes a beginning of the universe, it throws out the concept of an eternal universe.

We run into the same problem if option three and one are seen together. If we take any religious text and their descriptions of a deity, we don't see an eternal universe. We see this deity existing within nothingness, a void, and creating the universe we see. So that also throws out the concept of an eternal universe.

In options one and two we see a beginning of some form to the universe, never a concept of it eternally existing. Both options create the universe from something else, and then we're left wondering what created that something else and so on to infinity.

Option three if stood alone, it is because it is, is the most simplest answer. Therefor, logically it must be the right answer. It's illogical to assume an infinite amount of causes leading to our universe with no cause being the actual beginning of our universe. If the universe were eternal and has always followed the same laws of physics, then we can start looking at what is more important rather than wondering which cause out of an infinite causes created our universe.

I wasn't able to view the video, my sound card is on the fritz, well... the whole pc is starting to die. I did look it up to see what you were trying to get across.

I'm going to assume you never actually looked into the claims laid out in that video. I looked up some information on laminin and found that it's actual form is not cross shaped at all. LINK What happens is, we try to create visualizations of these molecules so that we can better understand how they work. That one particular diagram appears cross shaped, another looks sword shaped, another looks like something else and so on. The person who is trying to push this across as proof of god is disregarding the person who drew out that diagram and disregarding what the actual molecule looks like. God didn't draw the diagram and the molecule doesn't naturally look like that.

reply to post by John Matrix
 



The DNA program application with 3 million sets of intructions.
Need more evidence for design?
The galaxies, constellations, solar system, orbital paths, structure of atoms, laws of physics, grass, trees, water, air, fish, birds, animals, people....design is seen everywhere.


This is not self evident at all as your disregarding the naturalistic laws of physics at play in all of those systems. Evidence would be something on the order of pointing to some system and showing that there is no other way it could possibly exist.

As for the lottery/chance line of argument, there is no such thing as chance. Chance is a term indicating extant causes not recognized or perceived. Your not recognizing the process involved that leads to life. Your disregarding the interactions of chemicals that first lead to life like properties and then eventually to life as we understand it.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by sirnex]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join