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: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 
Good work...here's some more for you.
galaxy size (9) (p = 0.1)
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and ignite deadly galactic eruptions
if too small: infusion of gas would be insufficient to sustain star formation long enough for life to form
galaxy type (7) (p = 0.1)
.b.l.a.b.l.a.b.l.a.b.l.a.b.l.a.b.l.a.b.l.a.b.l.a.b.l.a.b.l.a..................
would be insufficient for formation of life-supportable planets
z-axis range of star's orbit (9) (p = 0.1)
if too wide: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great
number of stars in the planetary system (10) (p = 0.2)
if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of life-supportable planets too unstable for life

source:www.godandscience.org...


this info is as bad for the subject as what a UFO researcher would provide.

Why are we so determined to find life as it is on this planet?
I'm sure a creature with human features exists out there, but the probability of its existence is SO low, I'd probably find diamonds in fish poop before its discovery.(please don't tell me that's happened
)

I respect a lot of what you posted above, with regerds to such cataclysmic changes, such as radiation and supernovae. Yet, my question remains... and then, why do we presume that our accepted table of elements and the subsequent life thereof, is universal?



Why do those who read the bible think that they are on higher ground somehow?
Why do those who read the bible think that they are the only ones whom god wishes to address?

Why do we bicker amongst eachother? Because we feel we're RIGHT? Because we feel WE have the correct answers and information? Because our data is more recent, or more ancient? Because it seems that god spoke to men whom relayed the information?


I'm sorry, where is your god? I believe in god, but I don't believe in a guy in the sky with a white beard waving his staff around to create and eventually lead man astray. I think that when you personify god even in having the ability to create the world in seven days you bastardize the belief and you prove yourself no better than all the pagans and heretics which your religion helped destroy and to this day still war against. Maybe not physicall war but mental, spriritual and political.

My god is the universe, or the multiverse if that's your persuasion.
The ever flowing energy both negatively and positively charged, breathing life and death in all things for all time in all space. Love and hate, fear and hope, sadness and joy. Never spiteful, never vengeful, never restraining, forever forgiving. And I as a mere mammal have only free will my friends. And only on the path which I choose to follow will I find what is wrong and what is right.
At the end of the day my greatest console is that I have god inside of me and that I can perceive god outside of me in the world around me, and it is beautiful. A beautiful world in which I see so much potential.

But that is my view, my path. You guys share yours all the time and I listen and I understand WHY you put faith in what you do and I sincerely am glad for you. I am only saddened by your lack of will to accept others beliefs and get on with this game of life. We can live with all of these beliefs, it's called understanding, ya know, love thy neighbour.

I do apologise for my rant, but I post it regardless. call me bipolar




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

“You see if RANDOMNESS created intelligent life here, it should create it 94% of the time EVERYWHERE.”

“Wow OT, I never thought about it that way…so are you saying the Bible is true?”

“Yep it is the only mathematical probability.”


When all else fails, use circular logic and disguise it with complete misunderstanding of probability and BAM! You've convinced yourself.




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
From Wikipedia:

Common-cause variation is characterised by:

* Phenomena constantly active within the system;
* Variation predictable probabilistically;
* Irregular variation within an historical experience base; and
* Lack of significance in individual high or low values.

Special-cause variation is characterised by:

* New, unanticipated, emergent or previously neglected phenomena within the system;
* Variation inherently unpredictable, even probabilistically;
* Variation outside the historical experience base; and
* Evidence of some inherent change in the system or our knowledge of it.



So, the Big Bang would be special-cause variation as well. When it was first proposed it was all 4 of the characterizations defined above, to the extent that the term "Big Bang" was originally meant to say the theory was ridiculous.

Good job, OP. You've proven that the universe was formed without a Deity.




[edit on 8/12/10 by mothershipzeta]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
Axial tilt and eccentricity of orbitThe earth is titled on its axis at an angle of 23.5°. This is important, because it accounts for the seasons. Two factors impact the progression of seasons. The most important is the location of land masses on the earth. Nearly all of the continental land mass is located in the Northern Hemisphere. Since land has a higher capacity to absorb the Sun's energy, the earth is much warmer when the Northern Hemisphere is pointing towards the Sun. This happens to be the point at which the earth is farthest from the Sun (the aphelion of its orbit). If the opposite were true, the seasons on the earth would be much more severe (hotter summers and colder winters).


Ever heard of plate tectonics, or the changes in our axial tilt? The land masses haven't always been where they now are, and the axial tilt of the earth has not always been 23.5°.

Animated reconstruction of continental drift due to plate tectonics

Axial tilt:
en.wikipedia.org...

This means a range of the obliquity from 22° 38’ to 24° 21’, the last maximum was reached in 8700 BC, the mean value occurred around 1550 and the next minimum will be in 11800. This formula should give a reasonable approximation for the previous and next million years or so.

Over the last 5 million years, the obliquity of the ecliptic (or more accurately, the obliquity of the Equator on the moving ecliptic of date) has varied from 22.0425° to 24.5044°, but for the next one million years, the range will be only from 22.2289° to 24.3472°.

...

The relatively small range for the Earth is due to the stabilizing influence of the Moon, but it will not remain so. According to Ward, the orbit of the Moon (which is continuously increasing due to tidal effects) will have gone from the current 60 to approximately 66.5 Earth radii in about 1.5 billion years. Once this occurs, a resonance from planetary effects will follow, causing swings of the obliquity between 22° and 38°. Further, in approximately 2 billion years, when the Moon reaches a distance of 68 Earth radii, another resonance will cause even greater oscillations, between 27° and 60°. This would have extreme effects on climate.


Looks like your God is a terrible designer.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Looks like your God is a terrible designer.


For more reasons that just this stuff also.

His argument also fails to address the obvious: that special cause would also have to be invoked for who or what exactly created the creator god. I guess he's not familiar with the infinite regress of the creation argument. I'm also not entirely certain he's familiar with the actual argument he presented.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
OT, you might wanna get your info from a REAL science source...not godandscience.com


I just read a few of their articles, and the amount of blatant misinformation is stunning! I mean, they state things that science has disproved YEEEEEARS ago.

NewScientist is a pretty good website that isn't biased like yours.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
You can never convince a religious zealot that his beliefs are inadequate because the very nature of faith is to hold on to beliefs with little validity other than the resolve one has from ancient scriptures and manifest sensations brought upon by a complex system of emotions, easily manipulated by the "mystical" or "fantastic". Human beings are creatures that have vast imaginations of wonder, and it's no surprise that many people fall into religions simply because they are filled with awe and it gives their life meaning. But the same thing can be found in artists, and musicians without faith but a belief in their practice with just as strong of a conviction.

This is creationism. It is adulterated by the bias that God exists. Rose colored lenses need be removed when examining the cosmos thank you very much. I think it's stupid to believe anything without proof, that's how fools get swindled you know.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by signoregregorio
You can never convince a religious zealot that his beliefs are inadequate because the very nature of faith is to hold on to beliefs with little validity


Personally this is not my goal. Rather, in this case the religious zealot claims to have a form of proof and invites skeptics to examine his case. It's actually the converse: that he's trying to assert that his beliefs are not only adequate but proven.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by signoregregorio
You can never convince a religious zealot that his beliefs are inadequate because the very nature of faith is to hold on to beliefs with little validity


Personally this is not my goal. Rather, in this case the religious zealot claims to have a form of proof and invites skeptics to examine his case. It's actually the converse: that he's trying to assert that his beliefs are not only adequate but proven.


It's a sign of a very weak faith. Someone has to lash out to PROVE that their idea of "God" exists. They want to convince YOU that there is a God so that they can convince themselves as well.

If you're a believer, and you have faith, there is no need to prove the existence of whatever deity you worship. It's right there in the definitions:

belief: 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

faith: belief that is not based on proof


Once you try to prove God exists, even if you're trying to prove it to someone else, you've shown your own lack of faith. Which your God finds disturbing.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Man drummer as much as you cherish that arguement of Who made who.
You really should drop it from your repretoire. as previously stated i have a great respect for you but that argument is diminishing to that fact.

You are asking a question no one can answer and it does nothing for your arguement. It's like asking an evolutionist to explain existence.

It is a ridiculous question for beginners. Let it go.

Another thing no need to sound insulting with that zealot crap. No one is insulting you partner.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





OT, you might wanna get your info from a REAL science source...not godandscience.com


Now that's a good post XYZ. You took some time to check out the source' Good for you.


I'm going to your link.

Wow that site speaks volumes dosn't it? Why didn't you link that on my thread or did I miss it? It's in my favorites I'll look at it extensivly tonight.


[edit on 12-8-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by signoregregorio
You can never convince a religious zealot that his beliefs are inadequate because the very nature of faith is to hold on to beliefs with little validity other than the resolve one has from ancient scriptures and manifest sensations brought upon by a complex system of emotions, easily manipulated by the "mystical" or "fantastic". Human beings are creatures that have vast imaginations of wonder, and it's no surprise that many people fall into religions simply because they are filled with awe and it gives their life meaning.


Case in point: SKY CAKE! (warning - NSFW language)

[O]ne of my ancestors, some weakling, said, "Look, there's no way I can beat that guy. But what if I trick him into thinking that if he doesn't kill and rape people while he's down here, when he dies, there's a magic city in the clouds, and he can go up and have all the cake he wants?!"

Now, that's not a very well-formed plan, but he went and told the big psycho, and the psycho heard that, and said, "Yeah, I like cake." BOOM! There ya go! That was the beginning of civilization. Now we can work on fire and writing and agriculture. That's religion! It's the old sky cake dodge. It worked!

But ... and, by the way, things were great for awhile. But then, what was happening was, that **** was going on all over the planet. Then we just used different desserts. They would tell 'em about sky cookies or sky pie or sky baklava. So, as each of these civilizations grew, they built ships, they'd go visit each other, and the one guy would walk off the boat and go, "Hey, did ya hear the good news about the sky baklava?" And the first guy went, "IT'S CAKE, ***********, YER DEAD!"
...

So the next time you see some douchebags in front of an abortion clinic, or trying to ban a Harry Potter novel, just go, "Oh, Sky Cake. Why are you so delicious?!"



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
The big point with this whole the universe is so fine tuned for life, is that we KNOW it did happen, so we KNOW it can happen again, it doesn't provide evidence for God at all, aslong as it CAN happen, it doesn't matter if it's 1:23232342451, it could still happen naturally.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Is the spirit woirld a possibility? Of course. Is there a possibility that any mothership would be just a manfestation of the darker side of that world ? Most assuredly. Stop being foolish.

Hippo



The big point with this whole the universe is so fine tuned for life, is that we KNOW it did happen, so we KNOW it can happen again, it doesn't provide evidence for God at all, aslong as it CAN happen, it doesn't matter if it's 1:23232342451, it could still happen naturally.


And that remains a two way street.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Is the spirit woirld a possibility? Of course. Is there a possibility that any mothership would be just a manfestation of the darker side of that world ? Most assuredly. Stop being foolish.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by randyvs]

Ofcourse it's all possible, personally I find reincarnation the most logical, but it still has no evidence and therefore no reason to believe and especially no reason to push it on others as though it has actual evidence.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Is the spirit woirld a possibility? Of course. Is there a possibility that any mothership would be just a manfestation of the darker side of that world ? Most assuredly. Stop being foolish.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by randyvs]


Is there a possibility that we all end up on personalized pizzas for giant robotic aliens that have eating disorders when we die? Of course. Is there a possibility that any mothership is just a manifestation of the flying spaghetti monster's meatballs hovering in orbit? Most assuredly.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Sorry, Randy, that you don't care for that argument, but those invoking a creator have subjected themselves to the fallacy and they must answer for it.

And if I seem rude, perhaps it's frustration because I was invited to the thread as a skeptic and have had to struggle repeatedly to get a simple question answered, something that still hasn't happened.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by Indellkoffer
 


Voyager is waaaaaayyy out there....

what has it seen?

Not much....


Oh honey, Voyager isn't way out there. It hasn't even left our solar system. The galaxy is bigger than you can imagine.


PS: Thanks for stopping by, how'd you like the music video...


Didn't watch it. Substituting music videos for conversation isn't terribly interesting. I'd rather sit and talk to people and learn what's in their hearts and in their thoughts than to have me flash a video on their computer or cell phone and play music at me instead of treating me as an intelligent equal capable of discourse.

And playing a music video for someone is just lazy. I care enough to read your words. I don't throw videos at you as an excuse to not speak to you and speak my little mind.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 





Ofcourse it's all possible, personally I find reincarnation the most logical, but it still has no evidence and therefore no reason to believe and especially no reason to push it on others as though it has actual evidence

Agreed. As far as I'm concerned. There is where you have to make your choice. I chose to believe the balance is evident in the debate as it is in everything else. It didn't just happen that way. As for your comment on pushing. It's your clicker. It's your finger.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DisappearCompletely
 





Is there a possibility that we all end up on personalized pizzas for giant robotic aliens that have eating disorders when we die? Of course. Is there a possibility that any mothership is just a manifestation of the flying spaghetti monster's meatballs hovering in orbit? Most assuredly

Nope no possibility of that one for sure . Sorry no.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join