Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Question for ID-ists:

 Posts: 1,922 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/10/2011 7:49:42 PMPosted: 6 years agoI have yet to hear an ID proponent give an adequate response to my deck of cards example. It responds to the idea that the compounded probability of events leading to the arrangement of matter in the universe is so great that it forecloses the possibility of chance.Just to keep things simple, we will suppose that the universe has a finite amount of matter (i.e. only 52 cards in the deck), proceeds in linear time (i.e. only one card drawn at once), and has an *analytical* end - meaning now (i.e. we do actually stop dealing cards). These don't seem to be at all outrageous assumptions, but the only real difference they make in the form of analysis is to constrain it within easy-to-talk-about limits.So here is the deck of cards example:I have a machine that will shuffle a deck of cards completely randomly, and then deal them out one at a time. The probability of any one particular order of the cards is 1 over 52 factorial, or (1/52!), which is about 1 in 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.But the miraculous thing is that every time I put the cards into the machine and press the "Go" button (which I affectionately call the "big bang button"), the machine overcomes the astronomical odds and produces an arrangement of the cards.Let's suppose that any arrangement of the deck where the suits appear (regardless of suit order) arranged A, 2, 3, ... J, Q, K is a "living" deck. And where the suits appear in "living" format in the order Spade, Heart, Club, Diamond is an "optimally living" deck.The odds of getting an optimally living deck or any one of the normal living decks are of course 1/52!. But the fact that the machine actually spit out a living, or even optimally living deck doesn't mean that it was a designed event... it just means that this particular arrangement occurred out of equally distributed possibilities.So I'm curious how ID proponents respond to the idea that the universe could have formed any number of equally implausible arrangements of matter. Further, how do they know that we are not just one deck of many that have been made, collected, reshuffled, dealt... Or how do they know that there are not an infinite number of machines all dealing these decks?It seems that ID proponents are using the idea of compounding probability to impart false improbability where the truth is that life is equally as improbable as any other arrangement of matter...
 Posts: 2,394 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/10/2011 7:49:42 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:I have yet to hear an ID proponent give an adequate response to my deck of cards example. It responds to the idea that the compounded probability of events leading to the arrangement of matter in the universe is so great that it forecloses the possibility of chance.Just to keep things simple, we will suppose that the universe has a finite amount of matter (i.e. only 52 cards in the deck), proceeds in linear time (i.e. only one card drawn at once), and has an *analytical* end - meaning now (i.e. we do actually stop dealing cards). These don't seem to be at all outrageous assumptions, but the only real difference they make in the form of analysis is to constrain it within easy-to-talk-about limits.So here is the deck of cards example:I have a machine that will shuffle a deck of cards completely randomly, and then deal them out one at a time. The probability of any one particular order of the cards is 1 over 52 factorial, or (1/52!), which is about 1 in 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.But the miraculous thing is that every time I put the cards into the machine and press the "Go" button (which I affectionately call the "big bang button"), the machine overcomes the astronomical odds and produces an arrangement of the cards.Let's suppose that any arrangement of the deck where the suits appear (regardless of suit order) arranged A, 2, 3, ... J, Q, K is a "living" deck. And where the suits appear in "living" format in the order Spade, Heart, Club, Diamond is an "optimally living" deck.The odds of getting an optimally living deck or any one of the normal living decks are of course 1/52!. But the fact that the machine actually spit out a living, or even optimally living deck doesn't mean that it was a designed event... it just means that this particular arrangement occurred out of equally distributed possibilities.So I'm curious how ID proponents respond to the idea that the universe could have formed any number of equally implausible arrangements of matter. Further, how do they know that we are not just one deck of many that have been made, collected, reshuffled, dealt... Or how do they know that there are not an infinite number of machines all dealing these decks?It seems that ID proponents are using the idea of compounding probability to impart false improbability where the truth is that life is equally as improbable as any other arrangement of matter...First:This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.That leaves two possible generators of the universe. That is a metaphysical number or mind.For chance to operate, as chance never generated anything by itself, it requires something to utilize it.Equally the value of the number 4 never generated anything either.The only metaphysical "thing" we know that generates is a Mind.Now we would need to deduce is that Mind intelligent or arbitrary? Did the mind generate the universe by chance? or was it all by design?We must look to the numbers.Concerning your analogy:When we calculate the probabilities of the deck the math looks like this.5251x 265250x 13260049x 649740048x 31187520047x 1465813440046x 6.74274E+1145x 3.03423E+1344x 1.33506E+1543x 5.74077E+1642x 2.41112E+1841x 9.88561E+1940x 3.95424E+2139x 1.54215E+2338x 5.86019E+2437x 2.16827E+2636x 7.80577E+2735x 2.73202E+2934x 9.28887E+3033x 3.06533E+3232x 9.80904E+3331x 3.0408E+3530x 9.12241E+3629x 2.6455E+3828x 7.4074E+3927x 2E+4126x 5.19999E+4225x 1.3E+4424x 3.12E+4523x 7.17599E+4622x 1.57872E+4821x 3.31531E+4920x 6.63061E+5019x 1.25982E+5218x 2.26767E+5317x 3.85504E+5416x 6.16806E+5515x 9.25209E+5614x 1.29529E+5813x 1.68388E+5912x 2.02066E+6011x 2.22272E+6110x 2.22272E+629x 2.00045E+638x 1.60036E+647x 1.12025E+656x 6.72151E+655x 3.36076E+664x 1.3443E+673x 4.03291E+672x 8.06582E+671x 8.06582E+67The reason for this reduction is that once a card is drawn from 1/52 is now there are only 51 cards. So the next draw is 1/51 on down to the last card of 1/1.None of these cards are independent of the deck.Now lets look at just a mere five of the independent fine tuning values. You could go all day long calculating these physical laws but we will just take five independent.There is no reduction in these calculations:Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10 to the 37Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10 to the 40Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10 to the 55Mass of Universe1 1:10 to the 59Cosmological Constant 1:10 to the 120So if we just calculate the astronomical odds by mulitiplying these independent constants and quantities.This would be 1 : 10 to the 576,312,000th power for all of these to simultaneously "pop" into existence by chance.That is beyond any deck card draw by hundreds of millions.So if we equate each deck card draw of living and optimal to the independent constant, then we would:1 : 10 to the 80 powerX 1 : 10 to the 80 powerX 1 : 10 to the 80 powerX 1 : 10 to the 80 powerX 1 : 10 to the 80 powerThese are aggregated numbers by each specific event we are discussing here.These numbers become rediculous.To give a comparison there is only 1 : 10 to the 17th power of seconds in the history of the earth.We are discussing very very very specific odds that are aggregated or compounded to produce this simply insane number.To summarize:But all of the numbers themselves simply ignore the fact that mere chance generates nothing.We are determining if the one metaphysical concept, a "Mind" that does generate things, generated the fine-tuning by chance alone.When we look at these numbers it begs the question. Why would chance behave in this very specific fine-tuned way.When we realize a Mind is in play we must remove pure chance from the argument.Same concept when we walk into a casino and a dealer lays out a living and optimal deck 5 times in a row there is only one conclusion that is justified.The metaphysical mind of the person caused it to happen. Chance simply does not behave that way.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/11/2011 11:30:00 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:First:This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 2,394 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/11/2011 12:28:56 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/11/2011 11:30:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:First:This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.It is a matter of logic.The first physical cause could not have had a physical cause.It would not then be the first.Of course you can postulate a multiverse or some such speculative non-sense, but you have nor reason but an athiestic stand-by to do so.At most you could state that both have presuppositions.But clearly the design conclusion has warrant to their presupposition.Any opposition does not.As to my knowledge, yes I do know. God told me. You can ask him too. He was there.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/11/2011 12:42:19 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/11/2011 12:28:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:At 11/11/2011 11:30:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:First:This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.It is a matter of logic.The first physical cause could not have had a physical cause.It would not then be the first.You are making invalid assumptions. You have extrapolated from the nature of the existence of this universe only, whose earliest point that we know is the big bang. You are however presuming absolute knowledge of reality from prior to the big bang. Upon what is this based?I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 2,394 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/11/2011 12:59:36 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/11/2011 12:42:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 11/11/2011 12:28:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:At 11/11/2011 11:30:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:First:This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.It is a matter of logic.The first physical cause could not have had a physical cause.It would not then be the first.You are making invalid assumptions. You have extrapolated from the nature of the existence of this universe only, whose earliest point that we know is the big bang. You are however presuming absolute knowledge of reality from prior to the big bang. Upon what is this based?Science has zero ability to extrapolate anything outside of this physical existence.Logic extrapolates based upon physics and metaphysics.Based upon understanding of metaphysics, the physical universe we can determine that pure chance generates nothing. The same as the value of the number four generates nothing.Only a metaphysical mind generates.Based upon the fact that we can look to to the essence of all things physical we know that all things physical need a physical cause.The Big Bang can only track us back to the singular event.Our understanding of metaphysics takes over.Since we can ascertain that all physical laws were generated at this singular event as well, we can rule out the first of the three, physical necessity.That leaves chance and design.Pure chance generates nothing. We have zero examples of chance generating.We do however have countless examples of one single metaphysical concept that indeed generates new things.The mind of person.Through these concepts we can see the logical flow of the teleological argument from fine-tuning.This leaves us with a logical conclusion that design from a metaphysical mind is the only option left.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/11/2011 1:08:56 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/11/2011 12:59:36 PM, Gileandos wrote:At 11/11/2011 12:42:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 11/11/2011 12:28:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:At 11/11/2011 11:30:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:First:This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.It is a matter of logic.The first physical cause could not have had a physical cause.It would not then be the first.You are making invalid assumptions. You have extrapolated from the nature of the existence of this universe only, whose earliest point that we know is the big bang. You are however presuming absolute knowledge of reality from prior to the big bang. Upon what is this based?Science has zero ability to extrapolate anything outside of this physical existence.Logic extrapolates based upon physics and metaphysics.Science employs logic and logic extrapolates upon logic.Based upon understanding of metaphysics, the physical universe we can determine that pure chance generates nothing. The same as the value of the number four generates nothing.Only a metaphysical mind generates.Generation =/= Formation.You have argued that the form of the universe can not be based upon chance but you have yet to say why. Now the generation of the universe is actually a seperate though overlapping question, upon which you have no evidence either do you?Based upon the fact that we can look to to the essence of all things physical we know that all things physical need a physical cause.The Big Bang can only track us back to the singular event.Our understanding of metaphysics takes over.Since we can ascertain that all physical laws were generated at this singular event as well,No but we can't though can we? Indeed by definition we know this is not the case.I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 734 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 9:58:22 AMPosted: 6 years agoWhenever I hear arguments similar to Gileando's I always think that it is vastly more improbable that a fully formed, omnipotent and omniscient mind capable of creating all of existence begins to exist rather than the current scientific theory, which can already explain a lot of how everything began to exist.
 Posts: 2,394 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 10:19:13 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/12/2011 9:58:22 AM, seraine wrote:Whenever I hear arguments similar to Gileando's I always think that it is vastly more improbable that a fully formed, omnipotent and omniscient mind capable of creating all of existence begins to exist rather than the current scientific theory, which can already explain a lot of how everything began to exist.Why? I found the Teleological arugment to be foundational. I had the direct opposite conclusion.Why is it an easier leap to believe the universe generated itself from nothing rather than believing a being who has a metaphysical mind.We have proof that metaphyics exist and minds exist.We know metaphysics exist like values of numbers.We all have metaphysical minds as well.What is the leap exactly?We have zero evidence that the universe is able to generate itself from nothing.
 Posts: 2,394 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 11:10:06 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/11/2011 1:08:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 11/11/2011 12:59:36 PM, Gileandos wrote:At 11/11/2011 12:42:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 11/11/2011 12:28:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:At 11/11/2011 11:30:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:First:This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.It is a matter of logic.The first physical cause could not have had a physical cause.It would not then be the first.You are making invalid assumptions. You have extrapolated from the nature of the existence of this universe only, whose earliest point that we know is the big bang. You are however presuming absolute knowledge of reality from prior to the big bang. Upon what is this based?Science has zero ability to extrapolate anything outside of this physical existence.Logic extrapolates based upon physics and metaphysics.Science employs logic and logic extrapolates upon logic.Science itself requires philosophy as a parent. Science itself cannot be done without philosophy.Logic is not necessary to do science, sadly. For example QM states time does not exist and everything is random. As Einstein pointed out that is absurd and illogical.The Logical rule of the lesser and the greater (if I can do fifty pushups, I certainly can do one).However, QM physicists claim they have illogical observations therefore logic does not have bearing.This is just bad math, but hey people listen to them. I believe 50 years from now they will be laughed at as poor inferior scientists like those of 1,000 years ago.Based upon understanding of metaphysics, the physical universe we can determine that pure chance generates nothing. The same as the value of the number four generates nothing.Only a metaphysical mind generates.Generation =/= Formation.You have argued that the form of the universe can not be based upon chance but you have yet to say why. Now the generation of the universe is actually a seperate though overlapping question, upon which you have no evidence either do you?It appears to me you are stating that they do overlap but are seperate?I will attempt to address though your response seems unclear.The generation of the universe is the causation of the forming elements of the universe. Every physically determined "formation" was a physically necessary consequence of the generation of the universe.That singular and complex event was the ground work for all the laws of physics, existence and nature of matter etc...So we just discuss the generation factor within the Teleological argument.Based upon the fact that we can look to to the essence of all things physical we know that all things physical need a physical cause.The Big Bang can only track us back to the singular event.Our understanding of metaphysics takes over.Since we can ascertain that all physical laws were generated at this singular event as well,No but we can't though can we? Indeed by definition we know this is not the case.I have over a zillion examples that indeed everything physical has a cause. It is why it is an Axiom.How many uncaused phyiscal things can you point to? Science has been unable to even assert one uncaused physical event, much less a dogmatic one.What is this evidence you feel makes this point is uncertain?Do you realize that zero theistic physicists deny this Axiom and hold to an eternal universe or a multiverse concept?Even many agnostics like Jastro do not hold to an eternal physical universe and such.It is clearly a atheistic bias that asserts theories that are unprovable and against sound observational science, reason and logic.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 11:36:12 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/12/2011 11:10:06 AM, Gileandos wrote:At 11/11/2011 1:08:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 11/11/2011 12:59:36 PM, Gileandos wrote:At 11/11/2011 12:42:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 11/11/2011 12:28:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:At 11/11/2011 11:30:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:At 11/11/2011 9:36:53 AM, Gileandos wrote:First:This whole position above does ignore the fact that chance generates nothing.Prior to the generation of the physical universe, physical necessity did not exist.You are making two many assumptions, there is possible way to determine that physical necessity did not exist prior to the big bang. It may 'seem' to you unlikely, but you speak as if you know.It is a matter of logic.The first physical cause could not have had a physical cause.It would not then be the first.You are making invalid assumptions. You have extrapolated from the nature of the existence of this universe only, whose earliest point that we know is the big bang. You are however presuming absolute knowledge of reality from prior to the big bang. Upon what is this based?Science has zero ability to extrapolate anything outside of this physical existence.Logic extrapolates based upon physics and metaphysics.Science employs logic and logic extrapolates upon logic.Science itself requires philosophy as a parent. Science itself cannot be done without philosophy.This is not in dispute.Logic is not necessary to do science, sadly.Yes it is.For example QM states time does not exist and everything is random. As Einstein pointed out that is absurd and illogical.Just saying something is absurd and illogical does not make it so, Einstein attacked QM because he did not like it, because it upset him. He never negated it.The Logical rule of the lesser and the greater (if I can do fifty pushups, I certainly can do one).However, QM physicists claim they have illogical observations therefore logic does not have bearing.It is illogical to ignore observation.This is just bad math, but hey people listen to them. I believe 50 years from now they will be laughed at as poor inferior scientists like those of 1,000 years ago.You don't get science do you? In even the most basic of ways?Based upon understanding of metaphysics, the physical universe we can determine that pure chance generates nothing. The same as the value of the number four generates nothing.Only a metaphysical mind generates.Generation =/= Formation.You have argued that the form of the universe can not be based upon chance but you have yet to say why. Now the generation of the universe is actually a seperate though overlapping question, upon which you have no evidence either do you?It appears to me you are stating that they do overlap but are seperate?Wow you are an idiot.I will attempt to address though your response seems unclear.The generation of the universe is the causation of the forming elements of the universe. Every physically determined "formation" was a physically necessary consequence of the generation of the universe.That singular and complex event was the ground work for all the laws of physics, existence and nature of matter etc...Repeating a blind assumption does not make it so, your argument is an argument from ignorance. You are assuming without evidence that the big bang is the first cause, we don't know this. It may just be the earliest event of our local universe.So we just discuss the generation factor within the Teleological argument.Based upon the fact that we can look to to the essence of all things physical we know that all things physical need a physical cause.The Big Bang can only track us back to the singular event.Our understanding of metaphysics takes over.Since we can ascertain that all physical laws were generated at this singular event as well,No but we can't though can we? Indeed by definition we know this is not the case.I have over a zillion examples that indeed everything physical has a cause. It is why it is an Axiom.So you just ignoring what I said now?How many uncaused phyiscal things can you point to? Science has been unable to even assert one uncaused physical event, much less a dogmatic one.What is this evidence you feel makes this point is uncertain?Do you realize that zero theistic physicists deny this Axiom and hold to an eternal universe or a multiverse concept?Even many agnostics like Jastro do not hold to an eternal physical universe and such.It is clearly a atheistic bias that asserts theories that are unprovable and against sound observational science, reason and logic.Wow... you just don't even care what it is people are saying to you?Fine I will leave you to your blind faith.I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 2,394 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 12:50:00 PMPosted: 6 years ago@C_NThank you for postulating that I lack understanding.Given that I am the more educated of the two of us, I believe the augury is in my favor as to overall undertanding.I am not saying that you are not intelligent or a bad person but that you may be the one lacking in understanding.I also encourage a more mature attitude as that will give your viewpoint more weight.If you feel that I am lacking in understanding I do not mind mature discussion.Given that athiests are not theists, it also would be wise to assume that the atheistic side does not understand the arguments of the theistic side and vice versa.Getting angry about my "lack of intellect" is not productive towards convincing me. If you are not here to convince me then you can feel free to stop posting.After all if both sides understood each other completely from the outset there would be only one side left.So please repost with a bit more decorum and explain what I do not understand.Please explain in a very basic way as that will increase my understanding, if you feel that I am deficient.
 Posts: 1,922 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 12:52:49 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/12/2011 10:43:55 AM, Gileandos wrote:Even in the trail of John Thomas Vaney the prosecuters utilized probability of 1 : 1.7 trillion that his house would burn down 7 times. It was beyond "bad luck".We use our cognitive skills here. The prosecutors let the Jury use their own cognitive skills to determine if a house burning down was mere chance.Ok, so you are admitting that 1:1.7 trillion is beyond the threshold of chance. Therefore, each arrangement of the deck is by design??Again as above, if you ran into any deck of cards laid out in a living and optimal alignment you would immediately "know" that the dealer did it. There is a zero practical chance of that happening.This just demonstrates two things. First, that you don't actually understand the analogy. And second, that you are presupposing that certain arrangements are special simply because they conform to your predetermined concept.If I went looking for any specific arrangement of the deck and found it, I would of course be surprised - the odds of it actually occurring are 1/52! of course. You are getting caught up in which specific arrangement you are looking for despite the fact that all arrangements are equally probable.Well, obviously if you actually understood what I was saying you would not be harping on this point of departure.I can only encourage you to attempt to continue to roll what these brilliant people are trying to relay, over and over until it clicks.This is quite humorous considering that it is obviously you who has not grasped this concept yet.
 Posts: 10,806 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 1:19:21 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/12/2011 12:50:00 PM, Gileandos wrote:@C_NThank you for postulating that I lack understanding.Thats okay...Given that I am the more educated of the two of us, I believe the augury is in my favor as to overall undertanding.1: You have no evidence to that effect.2: The truth exists independently of someone's level of education.3: These are basic concepts that a school child could understand.I am not saying that you are not intelligent or a bad person but that you may be the one lacking in understanding.I also encourage a more mature attitude as that will give your viewpoint more weight.If you feel that I am lacking in understanding I do not mind mature discussion.Given that athiests are not theists, it also would be wise to assume that the atheistic side does not understand the arguments of the theistic side and vice versa.Getting angry about my "lack of intellect" is not productive towards convincing me. If you are not here to convince me then you can feel free to stop posting.After all if both sides understood each other completely from the outset there would be only one side left.So please repost with a bit more decorum and explain what I do not understand.Please explain in a very basic way as that will increase my understanding, if you feel that I am deficient.No, what I will do is ignore you as being beneath my concern. Keep your blind faith and self delusion.I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
 Posts: 2,394 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 1:49:00 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/12/2011 12:52:49 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:At 11/12/2011 10:43:55 AM, Gileandos wrote:Even in the trail of John Thomas Vaney the prosecuters utilized probability of 1 : 1.7 trillion that his house would burn down 7 times. It was beyond "bad luck".We use our cognitive skills here. The prosecutors let the Jury use their own cognitive skills to determine if a house burning down was mere chance.Ok, so you are admitting that 1:1.7 trillion is beyond the threshold of chance. Therefore, each arrangement of the deck is by design??Again, you are pointing to a numerical threshold. It has been stated that each singular event is aggregated via pattern.This is easily understood through cognitive abilities. Again, read the card player analogy below.Again as above, if you ran into any deck of cards laid out in a living and optimal alignment you would immediately "know" that the dealer did it. There is a zero practical chance of that happening.This just demonstrates two things. First, that you don't actually understand the analogy. And second, that you are presupposing that certain arrangements are special simply because they conform to your predetermined concept.I disagree. It is not predetermined but cognitivly formulated.I had used with you in the past that a person may miss the significance of a perfect hand of cards being dealt ten times exactly the same.However, an experienced card player knows it was by design.If I went looking for any specific arrangement of the deck and found it, I would of course be surprised - the odds of it actually occurring are 1/52! of course. You are getting caught up in which specific arrangement you are looking for despite the fact that all arrangements are equally probable.Imagine using this argument after getting 10 perfect and exactly the same hands of cards in a row.Do you think you will not be "treated" as a card cheat? No matter how much you protest?Imagine you chuckle and state "Guys, heck! You are just predisposed towards the view this is against "all odds!"Well, obviously if you actually understood what I was saying you would not be harping on this point of departure.I can only encourage you to attempt to continue to roll what these brilliant people are trying to relay, over and over until it clicks.This is quite humorous considering that it is obviously you who has not grasped this concept yet.Again to be genuine to the converstation it is a potentiality that one of us is clearly not fully understanding the others point of view or potentially both of us do not understand each others view.I feel my continued explanations resolve all doubt. Nothing you have said have I felt is new to me or beyond my comprehension.Your responses seem to show that you are neglecting to weigh my very pointed responses.