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.

 

‘Variability’ % proves God is the SPECIAL CAUSE, skeptics, why are you ignoring?

page: 28
16
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Indellkoffer
 


What is your proof of the 14 billion years??

What is the ruler that has the know start date upon it??

How did they find this ruler and how did they know that it was correct to begin with??

Why do you believe that men (women ) are the smartest beings around and

If you know everything you would be a god your self.

But since you nor does all of mankind know everything then is it possible for God to

EXIST in the regions of the

unknown knowledge of men




posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


No offense, but the sample size isn't large enough. There's more galaxies around than sand corns on planet earth. So if you randomly looked at 50 of them all located in relative vicinity of each other...do you really think you could make any assumptions from that that are reliable?

If we'd apply the universal scale of billions of light years...those sand corns in your "sample" had to be all within a few inches of each other. What you're claiming is equal to me saying there's no "corns made from gold" just because I've only looked at a tiny part of available sand corns. Add to this that in order to keep the "experiment" the same as in the universe one, you'd only be allowed to find and explore the really huge sand corns and not the smaller ones because our technology sucks.

Do you see why the whole base claim in the OP is flawed? It's pure speculation not based on any reliable statistics. The whole 94% stuff doesn't apply. You can speculate all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the whole claim is statistically irrelevant.

So no, the sample size isn't "waaaaaaaaaaay big enough".

I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just baffled that you refuse to acknowledge a basic statistical concept such as sample size.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by OldThinker
 


No offense, but the sample size isn't large enough. [edit on 22-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



Alright, I do sense you want to be constructively engaged....thank you.

Maybe I am not clear...enough.

Please forget the universe...I'll concede, its BIG...and more unknown then known.

Stay in our solar system...that what we can see with some clarity....

That's the sample size i am speaking of as waaaaaybig for the empirical rule.....please re-read my last technical post (about 5 back) and apply it to just our known universe...why are we the only one?

OT

[edit on 22-8-2010 by OldThinker]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


But even within our universe we don't know if we're the only life form. Even on moons/planets we landed we only examined a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the area.

Like, you can't claim "no life in our solar system apart from us" simply because we haven't examined it enough to make that claim. We can't even fully claim "no intelligent life other than us" simply because someone who'd be more intelligent than us wouldn't necessarily show him/her/itself to us.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I am not certain of course....but I think I am on to something mathmetically here....I know new ideas aren't accepted at first....I'm hoping someone way smarter then me stumples here and does some more research and runs with it...maybe this is just a spark....can you (or any reader) disprove my premise....with what we "CAN" see? I can't fight the universe size battle...but I think I'm on to something around common cause...my next thought is to tei DESIGN into the discussion....

Mr XYZ, this is a great discussion, thx again....and tell ya boys OT's just messing with um sometimes.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


But that's exactly my point, no one can prove/disprove your claim. The base statistics behind it isn't relevant or applicable in this case. So I'm really curious how you want to tie in intelligent design if the base claim is flawed already.

Mathematically you aren't on to something I'm afraid, because math certainly doesn't support your claims.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by Indellkoffer
 


What is your proof of the 14 billion years??

What is the ruler that has the know start date upon it??

How did they find this ruler and how did they know that it was correct to begin with??

Why do you believe that men (women ) are the smartest beings around and

If you know everything you would be a god your self.

But since you nor does all of mankind know everything then is it possible for God to

EXIST in the regions of the

unknown knowledge of men


You haven't figured out yet that atheists are both omniscient and omnipresent?

Just ask them.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by OldThinker
 


But even within our universe we don't know if we're the only life form. Even on moons/planets we landed we only examined a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the area.

Like, you can't claim "no life in our solar system apart from us" simply because we haven't examined it enough to make that claim. We can't even fully claim "no intelligent life other than us" simply because someone who'd be more intelligent than us wouldn't necessarily show him/her/itself to us.



Yet atheists will state dogmatically that God doesn't exist, even outside our solar system?

Interesting..



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Well, I for one don't claim that...I admit that I just don't know. But at the same time I don't just claim "there is a god, and he's the *insert religion* god" even though we have ZERO evidence of his/her/its existence. All we have are scriptures written by men, that's not evidence, that's fiction.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Well, I for one don't claim that...I admit that I just don't know. But at the same time I don't just claim "there is a god, and he's the *insert religion* god" even though we have ZERO evidence of his/her/its existence. All we have are scriptures written by men, that's not evidence, that's fiction.


How ignorant. For one thing, I admire your intellectual honesty, most "atheists" refuse to admit or see the glaring reality that for them to state dogmatically that God doesn't exist they'd need to have the attributes of God Himself. (Omniscience and Omnipresence). The most anyone could state with any degree of intellectual integrity is "to the best of my knowledge which is exponentially miniscule, God doesn't exist."

But you're grossly misinformed, while it takes empirical evidence for His non-existence to be true, it only takes minor evidence for one to have faith He exists. I've had the baptism of the Holy Spirit, (promised in ACTS), and I have a radically changed life by the regenerative and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. (promised as well)

Secondly, the Bible is 2/3s prophecy, only a book breathed into men by an omniscient god could document events hundreds/thousands of years before they happen. "Declaring the end from the beginning." That certifies His Word as being inspired by Him who claims omniscience.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


If I wrote a book full of prophecies, and would leave open the timescale, eventually, stuff would come true.

Let's try this, shall we?

"An simple man from Mongolia will save a princess."

There, totally random prophecy. But if you're willing to wait 100k+ years, chances of that happening aren't so bad.

The bible is full of contradictions too...why would they be in there if if an "omnipresent all-powerful" being gave the humans who wrote it down the idea?

Look, you clearly don't like atheists who state there is no god. But you are doing the EXACT same thing in reverse. Both groups have no evidence to support their claim...at least no hard scientific evidence. That means their claims are purely based on faith.

The fact that religion changed your life isn't surprising. No god is required for that, just a way of life.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


If I wrote a book full of prophecies, and would leave open the timescale, eventually, stuff would come true.

Let's try this, shall we?

"An simple man from Mongolia will save a princess."

There, totally random prophecy. But if you're willing to wait 100k+ years, chances of that happening aren't so bad.


You'd have an argument if the prophecies were extremely vague. The prophecies of scripture and the exact opposite, detailed to an extreme degree. While some are made hundreds of years out, others were made only a few years before.




The bible is full of contradictions too...why would they be in there if if an "omnipresent all-powerful" being gave the humans who wrote it down the idea?


There are none in the KJV, but I agree there are numerous ones in the modern versions. I believe it was done on purpose for the purpose of giving people the ammo you just used. I like to call the NIV the "Non Inspired Version". Sure, you can easily Google "Bible Contradictions" and a plethora of sites will return, but you can just as easily Google "Bible Contradictions Explained" and you'll find out every single alleged contradiction submitted by skeptics has a simple answer for it.



Look, you clearly don't like atheists who state there is no god.


Having issues with their rationalizations and presuppositions has nothing to do with not liking "them".


But you are doing the EXACT same thing in reverse. Both groups have no evidence to support their claim...at least no hard scientific evidence.


I couldn't disagree more, do you really think I'd believe in something that would radically change every facet of my life without a shred of evidence? What an absurd notion to think of someone! And I disagree, any book written by a scientist who believes in Creationism would disprove that claim. Skeptics and Creationists have the exact same scientific evidence to examine, the only difference is their presuppositions.


That means their claims are purely based on faith.


I utterly disagree.


The fact that religion changed your life isn't surprising. No god is required for that, just a way of life.


I disagree again. The regenerating work of the Holy Spirit changed my life. Just like Christ promised.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I don't think you understand what "facts", "evidence", and "proof" is. You BELIEVE there is a god, just like atheists believe there is none. In your mind, your belief might be based on facts, but scientifically speaking, it's simply not. If it were, it would be all over the news that we "proved the Christian god exists and is the right one".

You can twist and turn it as you want, in the end it's a belief and not based on facts...and a "but Jesus and God changed my life..." doesn't count as scientific evidence.

So I'm sorry, but you are doing EXACTLY the same thing as atheists...namely stating a BELIEF as fact. Anyone with a brain can see why that's wrong...



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Back to the OP:

a) where did you get the 6%?

b) what's the set of objects you want to apply the 94% to?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I don't think you understand what "facts", "evidence", and "proof" is. You BELIEVE there is a god, just like atheists believe there is none. In your mind, your belief might be based on facts, but scientifically speaking, it's simply not. If it were, it would be all over the news that we "proved the Christian god exists and is the right one".

You can twist and turn it as you want, in the end it's a belief and not based on facts...and a "but Jesus and God changed my life..." doesn't count as scientific evidence.

So I'm sorry, but you are doing EXACTLY the same thing as atheists...namely stating a BELIEF as fact. Anyone with a brain can see why that's wrong...


I'm only authorized to speak on my own behalf, and my salvation through Jesus Christ and every aspect of my life being radically changed because of it is a fact. I'm a completely new creature in Christ Jesus. Now, that's just me. The historical account of the Bible has been proved time and time again by archaeological finds, and the perfect accuracy of prophecy certifies the Word of God as coming from a deity that knows all things and knows the future in advance. It takes a complete fool to state "There is no God."

[edit on 24-8-2010 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


...just like it takes a complete fool to state there is a god. Both claim a belief as fact.

There's always 2 sides to a coin



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


...just like it takes a complete fool to state there is a god. Both claim a belief as fact.

There's always 2 sides to a coin


I'll be the first to stand upright and thank God Almighty that the world and her logic labels me a fool then!!!!!!! Praise the Lord!!

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." ~ 1 Corinthians 1:18

You just totally made my day Sir, thank you so very much.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
This thread is a complete fail that has turned into a religious sales pitch. It is void of facts and any form of rational thought from the OP or anyone else who is supporting the original topic.

Deny ignorance indeed.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
This thread is a complete fail that has turned into a religious sales pitch. It is void of facts and any form of rational thought from the OP or anyone else who is supporting the original topic.

Deny ignorance indeed.


I'll allow others to discuss what they like....your original "drive-by" post was appreciated...I responded on topic, floated some questions for you, did you miss the stats-related questions? Can you prove my math wrong?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Back to the OP:

a) where did you get the 6%?

b) what's the set of objects you want to apply the 94% to?



Thx, haven't forgot you...just been out of pocket a day or so....

Demmings premise was 94% of all variability (and the ability to improve it) is common, within, natural....as opposed to 6% which is "assignable"


This fit the empirical rule too



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join