Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 06-07-2017, 03:02 PM   #2536
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing View Post
Over billions of years - not trillions - the probability of something extraordinary happening becomes more likely. For example, if you flip a coin, the probability of it coming up heads 100 times in a row in a thousand flips is highly unlikely, almost zero. But if you flip the coin 15 billion times it is almost a certainty. If you understood probability, you'd understand that concept.

In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” The point, of course is that nobody has been able to demonstrate that any complex organ (including the eye) could not have been formed by small, successive modifications. On the other hand, evolutionists have been able to show how in nature you can find a gamut of complexity for sight, from only being able to distinguish light from dark to the human eye and everything inbetween. The explanation holds up under the greatest scrutiny.

If all you have to refute evolution is, "I've got a book and I don't even need to understand all the science" there is almost no probability that you will ever satisfactorily refute the theory. Again, the building argument is specious, ridiculous and irrelevant. You don't see that because you are incapable of seeing it. Apparently, your eye hasn't quite evolved to that level.
No, your complaint about my building analogy is specious because you compared my analogy to a mountain. But we're not talking about mountains; we're talking about the fine tuning that is observed throughout the entire universe. You must be closely related to the silver-tongued, smooth-talking Slick Willy or even more likely to the crafty serpent who deceived Eve.

Also, your coin-toss fairy tale is totally spurious because implicit in it is the due theory. I certainly would bet against that 15 billion coin tosses because there is no interconnected causality between one toss and other. I would in essence bet that the losing streak continues! Each coin toss is an independent event. Do you bet your ponies using the due theory?
If anything I would ag
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 03:04 PM   #2537
Light
Veteran
 
Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
"One" maybe can but that's not the issue! The issue is what did Jesus mean in the context of his words in Mat 21:43? You truly don't like understanding spiritual truth in its context, do you? Of course you don't. Once you ignore the speaker's context, then you think this gives you license to make up your own interpretation -- whatever tickles your ears.
I could say the same exact thing to you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
And besides, why would he tell the Jews that the kingdom would be taken away from them and given to another nation if he didn't mean that it would be taken away from the nation of Israel?
I never disputed that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Also, are you admitting now that there is an external, visible kingdom? Has it finally dawned on you that there is an external, visible kingdom?
Yes there is probably an external Kingdom as well. But as anybody can tell you, you can't appreciate a beautiful day if you don't feel good. You don't care how beautiful a day it is if you don't feel well. That is why the internal Kingdom is much more important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Be careful of who you call a fool:

Matt 5:22c
But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
NIV
And what do they say about people like you who call everyone much worse than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
I don't see the word "Israel" in this text:

Matt 21:43
43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.
NASB
No biggie. What Jesus said applies to all nations not just Israel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
You just invented an interpretation? Are you now you're saying that the "kingdom of God" is synonymous with Israel?
NO


Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Jesus told the Pharisees in LK 21:17 that "Israel" is within you?
He never said that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Once upon a time when we discussed the kingdom of God you insisted that the kingdom is love.
Correct
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
It appears the kingdom of God can morph into whatever you want it to be at any given moment.
Incorrect.



Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Also, who was the nation of Israel given to? You still haven't answered this question? Which Gentile nation was the lucky recipient of the nation of Israel?
How many points do I get if I answer correctly?



Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Very consistent with your perpetual state of spiritual death!
Very tasteless remark from a self proclaimed man of God who has been told by his teacher to judge not.
Light is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 03:43 PM   #2538
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light View Post
I could say the same exact thing to you.





I never disputed that.



Yes there is probably an external Kingdom as well. But as anybody can tell you, you can't appreciate a beautiful day if you don't feel good. You don't care how beautiful a day it is if you don't feel well. That is why the internal Kingdom is much more important.



And what do they say about people like you who call everyone much worse than that.



No biggie. What Jesus said applies to all nations not just Israel.



NO




He never said that.




Correct


Incorrect.





How many points do I get if I answer correctly?





Very tasteless remark from a self proclaimed man of God who has been told by his teacher to judge not.
I have also been taught by teacher to judge with a righteous judgment, which I have in your case (Jn 7:24). See what happens when you misinterpret one passage because you don't understand its larger context?

So, let's cut to the chase -- now that you have left the door open to an external, visible kingdom. Why don't you interpret Mat 21:43 for us in the context of what Jesus taught in the parable that immediately precedes his remarks in v.43ff.? The "therefore" in v.43 is very closely connected to that parable which immediately precedes this verse.. So, go for it. Make sure you identify all the cast of characters and historical events to which Jesus alluded to in the parable. Let me help you out because I know you don't have the first clue what I mean. The parable begins in v.33, so let me quote it its entirety:

Matt 21:33-42
33 "Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and rented it out to vine-growers, and went on a journey. 34 "And when the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce. 35 "And the vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third. 36 "Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them. 37 "But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' 38 "But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and seize his inheritance.' 39 "And they took him, and threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. 40 "Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?" 41 They said to Him, "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers, who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons." 42 Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures,

'The stone which the builders rejected,
This became the chief corner stone;
This came about from the Lord,
And it is marvelous in our eyes'?

NASB

Identify or answer the following:

1. Who is the "landowner"?
2. What (or where) is the rented "vineyard"?
3. When was the "vineyard" given to the tenants?
3. Who are the vine-growing tenants?
4. When was the "harvest time"?
5. Who are the landowner's "slaves" that he sent to the vine-growers?
6. Who is the landowner's "son"?
7. Why did the vine-growers kill the son?
8. Who are the new or "other vine-growers" in v.41?

Unless you're able to answer these questions, you will not be able interpret rightly Jesus' remarks that followed immediately after this parable.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 03:54 PM   #2539
HalvOnHorseracing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
No, your complaint about my building analogy is specious because you compared my analogy to a mountain. But we're not talking about mountains; we're talking about the fine tuning that is observed throughout the entire universe. You must be closely related to the silver-tongued, smooth-talking Slick Willy or even more likely to the crafty serpent who deceived Eve.

Also, your coin-toss fairy tale is totally spurious because implicit in it is the due theory. I certainly would bet against that 15 billion coin tosses because there is no interconnected causality between one toss and other. I would in essence bet that the losing streak continues! Each coin toss is an independent event. Do you bet your ponies using the due theory?
If anything I would ag
The coin flip has nothing to do with the due theory, nor is the fact that each flip is independent problematic. If you understood probability, you would know that things with a very low (but positive) probability are more likely to occur as you approach an extreme number of events. That is not the due theory, which is a total fallacy, it is simply an expression of the total probability of any event and it has nothing to do with causality. I can't imagine how you could have assumed it did. It is a result within a series of independent event. I'll try to explain, with the expectation you still won't get it.

The probability of, let's say, ten heads in a row is about 1 in 1,000. So if you flip the coin 1,000 times you may see ten heads in a row come up once or, say, three times or zero times. But if you flip the coin enough, the probability it will come up heads ten times in a row approaches certainty. Conversely, if you only flip the coin 10 times the probability of it coming up heads each time is almost zero.

The mathematics, which I'm sure would befuddle you, are based on the total probability of an event. In simple terms, an event which has a 1 in 1,000 probability suggests that with 1,000 flips of a coin you'd expect ten heads in a row to occur once. That doesn't mean it will occur once. It could occur multiple times or not at all. You get to the conclusion it should occur one in a thousand flips by taking the individual probability of each event and multiplying it ten times. So without doing the math, now consider flipping the coin a billion times instead of 1,000 and imagine what the probability of a 1 in 1,000 event occurring is. It approaches a certainty. If you don't believe me, why don't you try it. It's not voodoo or magic. It is a simple expectation based on individual probability extended to a very large number of independent events. No causality, not even an implied causality. Simple probability. By this time, I'm not amazed in the least you don't understand this.

As for your specious building argument, the intelligent design people look at everything and assume that with low probabilities of occurrence, there must be a better explanation, that of a supreme creator. Go back to the mountain. We know about how buildings occur. Mountains, nobody was around to actually watch it happen, so you have to speculate. It is different than the building because, assuming you have no geologic or scientific knowledge, you could look at the mountain and say, that's just too complicated for it to have occurred randomly. Someone with a plan must have made it. Those with geologic and scientific consciousness might say, that was simply the result of a sialic plate colliding with a basaltic plate and the sialic plate lifting over to form a mountain. There is science to explain complex organs (the eye, a flagellum motor, the venus fly trap), and ignoring the science is pretty much the only way you can come to the conclusion that a supreme creator is the only explanation. I have proof for plate tectonics or evolution. You have a book. Only equivalent in the mind of the dogmatist.

By the way, could you try understanding what specious means.

Last edited by HalvOnHorseracing; 06-07-2017 at 03:56 PM.
HalvOnHorseracing is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 05:29 PM   #2540
Actor
Librocubicularist
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
What has come to be has been caused.
Define caused.
__________________
Sapere aude
Actor is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 06:13 PM   #2541
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing View Post
The coin flip has nothing to do with the due theory, nor is the fact that each flip is independent problematic. If you understood probability, you would know that things with a very low (but positive) probability are more likely to occur as you approach an extreme number of events. That is not the due theory, which is a total fallacy, it is simply an expression of the total probability of any event and it has nothing to do with causality. I can't imagine how you could have assumed it did. It is a result within a series of independent event. I'll try to explain, with the expectation you still won't get it.

The probability of, let's say, ten heads in a row is about 1 in 1,000. So if you flip the coin 1,000 times you may see ten heads in a row come up once or, say, three times or zero times. But if you flip the coin enough, the probability it will come up heads ten times in a row approaches certainty. Conversely, if you only flip the coin 10 times the probability of it coming up heads each time is almost zero.

The mathematics, which I'm sure would befuddle you, are based on the total probability of an event. In simple terms, an event which has a 1 in 1,000 probability suggests that with 1,000 flips of a coin you'd expect ten heads in a row to occur once. That doesn't mean it will occur once. It could occur multiple times or not at all. You get to the conclusion it should occur one in a thousand flips by taking the individual probability of each event and multiplying it ten times. So without doing the math, now consider flipping the coin a billion times instead of 1,000 and imagine what the probability of a 1 in 1,000 event occurring is. It approaches a certainty. If you don't believe me, why don't you try it. It's not voodoo or magic. It is a simple expectation based on individual probability extended to a very large number of independent events. No causality, not even an implied causality. Simple probability. By this time, I'm not amazed in the least you don't understand this.

As for your specious building argument, the intelligent design people look at everything and assume that with low probabilities of occurrence, there must be a better explanation, that of a supreme creator. Go back to the mountain. We know about how buildings occur. Mountains, nobody was around to actually watch it happen, so you have to speculate. It is different than the building because, assuming you have no geologic or scientific knowledge, you could look at the mountain and say, that's just too complicated for it to have occurred randomly. Someone with a plan must have made it. Those with geologic and scientific consciousness might say, that was simply the result of a sialic plate colliding with a basaltic plate and the sialic plate lifting over to form a mountain. There is science to explain complex organs (the eye, a flagellum motor, the venus fly trap), and ignoring the science is pretty much the only way you can come to the conclusion that a supreme creator is the only explanation. I have proof for plate tectonics or evolution. You have a book. Only equivalent in the mind of the dogmatist.

By the way, could you try understanding what specious means.
As I said previously, slickster, we weren't discussing any particular aspect of the universe (such as a mountain) but rather the very long string of constants that are very finely tuned in order for this planet to support life. You''re comparing apples with oranges. Many non-believing scientists believe the improbability of all these constants occurring is so huge that they assign 0.00 chance that all those constants were just accidents or coincidences. And the by the way, the number of those constants is over 10 times greater than getting ten straight heads or tails to come up in coin tosses. The improbability number is so astronomically high it would dwarf your billions of years needed for a successful series of ten consecutive coin tosses. Some scientists have reckoned that the number is so high it would exceed the estimated number of atoms in the universe.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 06:16 PM   #2542
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor View Post
Define caused.
You claim to be a scientist and you don't know what the verb "cause" means? Seriously?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 06:39 PM   #2543
dnlgfnk
Registered User
 
dnlgfnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor View Post
The two astrophysicists have also [thank you for the "also"] ventured into philosophy. I put it to you that the entire Anthropic Principle is philosophy, not science[where did I deny that?]. If all these "coincidences" had been discovered by an intelligent species that did not have the religious gene[hypothesis-science of the gaps] it's very unlikely that they would have come up with the God Hypothesis as an explanation. They would probably have noted them as interesting and moved on..[Disagree. If they were as intelligent as the classical act/potency crowd tracing experiential reality to it's source, they would have found the coincidences a bit more than "interesting"].
That's an opinion, not a fact. Observations of the Hubble Deep Field indicate that the laws of the universe have been constant since the big bang. There is presently no evidence that they could once have been something else.[Constancy is irrelevant to "didn't have to be what they are 'at all'"].
Also an opinion, not a fact. If you are hung up on the idea that life has to consist of double helix hydrocarbon molecules, then that's also an opinion, not a fact. Life could very well take other forms. [Not "hung up" at all on coincidences that do not "prove" anything. if I'm hung up on anything, its the "mind-body" problem. And it's more than the hydrogen, as you know].
Of course these opinions lend themselves to a religious interpretation, particularly if you are predisposed to religious thinking. What else is new?[ And the rejection of such interpretations, if one presupposes that empiricism exhausts all there is that we can know. So what else is new? Can scientific empiricism establish itself as all we can know, by it's own methods?]
What this all comes down to is that not all scientists are atheists. No one is disputing that. Even among the top scientists (Nobel Prize material) around 5% are religious. That being the case it's not particularly hard to come up with a religious scientist of whatever field you desire.

Even if I were to grant that (1)the universe had a beginning, [doesn't affect classical theism either way] (2)this beginning had a cause, (3)this cause was a deity, it still does not follow that (A)said deity was the Christian god [nobody is saying that regarding anthropic coincidences], nor (B)any other deity worshiped by humans, nor (C)that said deity intervenes in human affairs, nor (D)that said deity intervenes in the affairs of any of billions of sapient species on billions of other planets throughout the universe.
The last section is opinion, as you say throughout. One of the relevancies of anthropic coincidences is that it can lead another individual to add it to his tool box of teleology and intention in the natural world, the great heresy to scientific materialists.

Undoubtedly you agree with the Wiki definition that scientific materialism is expressed as ""the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".

If I may ask again: Can the above statement be established using scientific methods?
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
dnlgfnk is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 06:53 PM   #2544
Actor
Librocubicularist
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
You claim to be a scientist and you don't know what the verb "cause" means? Seriously?
The question is "do you know what it means?"

Or do you just want to accept my definition?
__________________
Sapere aude
Actor is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 07:40 PM   #2545
dnlgfnk
Registered User
 
dnlgfnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap View Post
Religion is missing the mark whenever it tries to "logically" employ forced explanations for the "suchness" or Tathātā of things. Confusing ones own bias for that of "god's truth" is always present The antropic principle is an example of 20-20 hindsight and back-fitting theory as theology.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy

...The fallacy's name comes from a parable in which a Texan fires his gun at the side of a barn, paints a bullseye around the bullet hole, and claims to be a sharpshooter. Though the shot may have been totally random, he makes it appear as though he has performed a highly non-random act. In normal target practice, the bullseye defines a region of significance, and there's a low probability of hitting it by firing in a random direction. However, when the region of significance is determined after the event has occurred, any outcome at all can be made to appear spectacularly improbable.


I am also reminded of Voltaire's Candide and his satirical "best of all possible worlds.

in many teachings such as Zen we are warned about stretching the intellect to backbit the"suchness" or Tathātā of things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81t%C4%81

Remembering the human incapacity to know god is also Judaism contribution to western religion

Instead of painting a picture of outside us using so called philosophical principles, study of self can be much more useful and direct.
Greetings, hcap.

I've mentioned the esteem that many within my circle of resources have for Zen. However, in my "study of self", my fundamental truth is that I have experienced the love for other individuals, specifically family, with a description that is best described as "agape". And that love is often manifested, in this world, through the context of suffering.

In my study of self, The Buddha may as well have posited agape love as a sub-category under desire, as one of the causes of suffering. But I don't want to part with that suffering at the cost of parting with the agape love of my family. And for me, the historical writings that best describe that love, and its requisite suffering, are Christo-centric, and therefore historical and not at all exhaustively allegorical.
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
dnlgfnk is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 07:42 PM   #2546
HalvOnHorseracing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
As I said previously, slickster, we weren't discussing any particular aspect of the universe (such as a mountain) but rather the very long string of constants that are very finely tuned in order for this planet to support life. You''re comparing apples with oranges. Many non-believing scientists believe the improbability of all these constants occurring is so huge that they assign 0.00 chance that all those constants were just accidents or coincidences. And the by the way, the number of those constants is over 10 times greater than getting ten straight heads or tails to come up in coin tosses. The improbability number is so astronomically high it would dwarf your billions of years needed for a successful series of ten consecutive coin tosses. Some scientists have reckoned that the number is so high it would exceed the estimated number of atoms in the universe.
I'm not comparing apples with oranges. I'm trying to explain, against all odds of you understanding, that whatever the probability of an event occurring, as time goes by the likelihood of that event occurring is higher, even though the probability doesn't change. Hence the coin flip example.

Obviously, no matter what the probability, it happened. At that point, the probability became 100%. As an analogy, if a horse is 100-1 before a race, once it wins the probability becomes 100%. In other words, the probability of an event is only relevant until it happens. Your point about the scientists is totally irrelevant because it happened.

And no matter what the probability of life evolving on earth, it was a higher probability than the Genesis story, especially given the physical evidence within the universe. You'll never believe that, but you have zero, nil, nada zilch evidence for your story except a book that is countered by every measurement of the universe that science has made. It makes as much sense as believing airplanes fly because there is a guy up there with a string holding it up.

We all love that you reference "scientists" without one reference. Are they the same guys who think climate change is a Chinese hoax?
HalvOnHorseracing is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 08:03 PM   #2547
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlgfnk View Post
Greetings, hcap.

I've mentioned the esteem that many within my circle of resources have for Zen. However, in my "study of self", my fundamental truth is that I have experienced the love for other individuals, specifically family, with a description that is best described as "agape". And that love is often manifested, in this world, through the context of suffering.

In my study of self, The Buddha may as well have posited agape love as a sub-category under desire, as one of the causes of suffering. But I don't want to part with that suffering at the cost of parting with the agape love of my family. And for me, the historical writings that best describe that love, and its requisite suffering, are Christo-centric, and therefore historical and not at all exhaustively allegorical.
Zen Buddhism does not advocate "parting" with the tender emotions that we feel for our loved ones. Nor is the "agape/love" what falls under the Buddha's category of "desire". It's the CLINGING that these emotions often arouse in us that the Buddha has spoken against as the cause of life's "suffering".
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 08:10 PM   #2548
dnlgfnk
Registered User
 
dnlgfnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing View Post
I'm not comparing apples with oranges. I'm trying to explain, against all odds of you understanding, that whatever the probability of an event occurring, as time goes by the likelihood of that event occurring is higher, even though the probability doesn't change. Hence the coin flip example.

Obviously, no matter what the probability, it happened. At that point, the probability became 100%. As an analogy, if a horse is 100-1 before a race, once it wins the probability becomes 100%. In other words, the probability of an event is only relevant until it happens. Your point about the scientists is totally irrelevant because it happened.

And no matter what the probability of life evolving on earth, it was a higher probability than the Genesis story, especially given the physical evidence within the universe. You'll never believe that, but you have zero, nil, nada zilch evidence for your story except a book that is countered by every measurement of the universe that science has made. It makes as much sense as believing airplanes fly because there is a guy up there with a string holding it up.

We all love that you reference "scientists" without one reference. Are they the same guys who think climate change is a Chinese hoax?
Halv, I'm late to this, and not challenging per se, only that I'm interested in this:

"Whatever the probability of an event occurring, as time goes by the likelihood of that event occurring is higher, even though the probability doesn't change".

I'm sure I'm missing something, but how does this apply to, say, the Gambler's Fallacy?
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
dnlgfnk is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 08:45 PM   #2549
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing View Post
I'm not comparing apples with oranges. I'm trying to explain, against all odds of you understanding, that whatever the probability of an event occurring, as time goes by the likelihood of that event occurring is higher, even though the probability doesn't change. Hence the coin flip example.

Obviously, no matter what the probability, it happened. At that point, the probability became 100%. As an analogy, if a horse is 100-1 before a race, once it wins the probability becomes 100%. In other words, the probability of an event is only relevant until it happens. Your point about the scientists is totally irrelevant because it happened.

And no matter what the probability of life evolving on earth, it was a higher probability than the Genesis story, especially given the physical evidence within the universe. You'll never believe that, but you have zero, nil, nada zilch evidence for your story except a book that is countered by every measurement of the universe that science has made. It makes as much sense as believing airplanes fly because there is a guy up there with a string holding it up.

We all love that you reference "scientists" without one reference. Are they the same guys who think climate change is a Chinese hoax?
What happened?

All your high priests of scientism have to go on is their unshakeable faith in the improbable happening. They must believe that no matter what the organic miraculously evolved from the inorganic, that irrational begat the rational and the amoral gave rise to the moral. And that the 100+ constants that make life on the planet possible is made probable when make Time a god.

So...yes, I'll stick with the rational and logical explanation for the origin of the universewhich is creation by an all-wise, all-powerful, intelligent being who designed every facet of it.

By the way, Time has no causal power either. Moreover, what kind of time are you trusting in since Time didn't exist until the universe did?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 06-07-2017, 09:13 PM   #2550
dnlgfnk
Registered User
 
dnlgfnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
Zen Buddhism does not advocate "parting" with the tender emotions that we feel for our loved ones. Nor is the "agape/love" what falls under the Buddha's category of "desire". It's the CLINGING that these emotions often arouse in us that the Buddha has spoken against as the cause of life's "suffering".
If "clinging" is holding to things re: another person from the past, or hope for their future, I understand. I have seen positive writings of "hope" in Zen, although hope is presented as a brute fact. "It just is." How does one hope and live in the moment?
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
dnlgfnk is offline  
Closed Thread




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.