Like Tree35Likes

God

This is a discussion on God within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; "For gods sake Clyde. I am so shocked. From a man as educated as you! Its kangaroo" Aaaaahhhh i have ...

  1. #166
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "For gods sake Clyde. I am so shocked. From a man as educated as you!
    Its kangaroo"

    Aaaaahhhh i have been bested! *hangs head* =)

    "Surely we all know the sun is an Emu's egg thrown into the sky by the kangaroo when they were fighting in the dreamtime. I'm sure the rainbow serpent would have something to say about the technicolour dream fur!"

    Yes YES finally someone sees the light!

    *Pats kangAroo*

    Sentak i'm taking PJ's advice and pulling out, its possible to go on forever in these types of debates (and i usually do), i fear that you are a lost cause, so sad already by the age of 16 the blinders seem well and truly down.... Education 0 : Religion 1.

    I would suggest you do some UNBIASED (ie. not from a religious perspective) reading into the areas we have discussed; evolution, methods of dating, and heh you might want to check out the historical accuracy of the bible too..

    Anyway cya later, i'm off to take my kangaroo for a walk.
    Last edited by Clyde; 11-18-2002 at 09:31 AM.
    the_jackass likes this.

  2. #167
    Cheesy Poofs! PJYelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,728
    Me too, I'm done. I'm sorry if at any time I offended anyone or acted like an arse. I really don't have anything against religion above and beyond that they aren't my particular beliefs. I respect other people's beliefs, but at the same time I think religion should respect my beliefs as well other religion's. Unfortunately I think that any religion that preaches that theirs is the only correct one and others will be damned for believing what they do does NOT respect others faith or beliefs. I was hoping somebody here would proove me wrong... but oh well.

    Again, sorry if I offended anyone.

    PJ
    the_jackass likes this.

  3. #168
    Registered User Aran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,301
    The fact that Sentaku hasn't even had the time to reason his sources out and come up with his own view makes him completely worthless to argue against, because he (himself) really has no stance.

  4. #169
    Blank
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,034
    Unfortunately I think that any religion that preaches that theirs is the only correct one and others will be damned for believing what they do does NOT respect others faith or beliefs.
    This is not christianity though. Any christians who say this
    are incorrect. The book of romans tells otherwise.

  5. #170
    cereal killer dP munky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    655
    i think George Carlin said it best "thou shal keep thy religion to thyself"
    guns dont kill people, abortion clinics kill people.

  6. #171
    Cheesy Poofs! PJYelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,728
    Dang, I'm back in
    This is not christianity though. Any christians who say this
    are incorrect. The book of romans tells otherwise
    Errr... but isn't true that one cannot make it into heaven with believing that Jesus is you messiah and savior? When I went to church I was taught that repenting ones sins doesn't mean much unless they are repented to Jesus.

  7. #172
    Blank
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,034
    In Romans, Paul makes
    the case that if you follow what god has written on your heart
    but do not know the rules you will be saved.
    Conversely, the Jews that have the rule and do not follow it will not be saved.

  8. #173
    Christian
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    618
    >The fact that Sentaku hasn't even had the time to reason his sources out and come up with his own view makes him completely worthless to argue against, because he (himself) really has no stance.<

    1. I belive that the 6 days is not the proper time for the creation of the earth.

    2. That the creation of the earth according to the bible is based upon the Hermitica (sp)

    3. DNA mutains can not be random

    Originally posted by lightatdawn


    The fact remains though that there is no "chaos" or "random". The only variation lies in our inability to accuratly measure to infinite precision. Should all data be entered correctly into the aforementioned calculating unit of sufficient capacity, it would then be able to perfectly calculate any point in the future. The paradox would then be that if someone gained knowledge of a calculated event, that would change the parameters of the universe and the calculated action could/would be different...
    -http://www.cprogramming.com/cboard/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24968&highlight=


    4. That it was on Gods command, not a random chance that the 'organic soup' created life.

    5. That Man was directly created by God

    6. That before the Sin of man animials could die.


    7. That 7 and 40 are very importent numbers
    I shall call egypt the harmless dragon

    -Isaiah 30.7

  9. #174
    Cheesy Poofs! PJYelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,728
    I belive that the 6 days is not the proper time for the creation of the earth
    Sentaki, would you make up your mind, just awhile ago you were arguing that the world was young (ie dinosaurs walking with people) now you are going to say that it is old?

    And I'm sure LightAtDawn will be real happy to hear that his argument was used to disprove evolution His point was that if one had a perfect computer one could simulate the universe thus removing all randomness and chaos. True, if one had a perfect machine that was able to calculate every atomic occurence in the universe, it would be able to predict whether or not the coin I'm about to flip will turn up heads or tails. But we don't have that computer, therefore it is random to us (go ahead and try to predict my coin!) Just like DNA mutation, a perfect comp could probably predict it, but we don't have one, therefore to us its random.

    Nevermind, don't answers these questions, I'm through arguing with ya.

    Back to somebody who knows what he's talking about...
    In Romans, Paul makes
    the case that if you follow what god has written on your heart
    but do not know the rules you will be saved
    Ok, I understand the concept that if one has never heard of Christianity that person cannot be judged for not following it. But my question is what constitutes knowing and not knowing? I mean the vast majority of the people on this world know about Christianity, so does someone who knows what Christians believe and yet does nothing to try and learn more get saved? Or does one need to be formally taught Christianity in depth and ultimately reject it?
    Last edited by PJYelton; 11-18-2002 at 09:41 PM.

  10. #175
    Christian
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    618
    >Sentaki, would you make up your mind, just awhile ago you were arguing that the world was young (ie dinosaurs walking with people) now you are going to say that it is old?<

    1. I never stated that Dinoosaurs walked the earth with people, that question was posted towards me and I answered how the sites I visited answer the question.

    Second it's quite strange that well Science can back up the history of the bible in everything I know from Exodus though it's probley sooner it's quite odd that Genises would be complety useless.

    Third I only recently found out about the hermatica<

    >And I'm sure LightAtDawn will be real happy to hear that his argument was used to disprove evolution His point was that if one had a perfect computer one could simulate the universe thus removing all randomness and chaos. True, if one had a perfect machine that was able to calculate every atomic occurence in the universe, it would be able to predict whether or not the coin I'm about to flip will turn up heads or tails. But we don't have that computer, therefore it is random to us (go ahead and try to predict my coin!) Just like DNA mutation, a perfect comp could probably predict it, but we don't have one, therefore to us its random.<

    But it's not real randomness it only appears to be random.

    >Ok, I understand the concept that if one has never heard of Christianity that person cannot be judged for not following it. But my question is what constitutes knowing and not knowing? I mean the vast majority of the people on this world know about Christianity, so does someone who knows what Christians believe and yet does nothing to try and learn more get saved? Or does one need to be formally taught Christianity in depth and ultimately reject it?<

    I personaly belive that knowing about Christianity requires
    1. To be old enough to understand the message
    - a 5 year realy does not comprehend what the message is.
    2. Knowing about the Resuraction
    - This is critical for without the Resuraction everything else is lost
    3. Knowing this by choice. This means you must not be forced to hear the Good news. Forced means to be forced to go to church, Jehovis Witness, ect. Someone spreading the Good News in a Public Place such as a Town Squre is not forcing you.
    I shall call egypt the harmless dragon

    -Isaiah 30.7

  11. #176
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    Must resist getting sucked back in...... must resist....... ahhh.

    "Second it's quite strange that well Science can back up the history of the bible in everything I know from Exodus though it's probley sooner it's quite odd that Genises would be complety useless"

    Well its good to see you still retaining your sense of humour: Science completely refutes the historical accuracy of the bible, Noahs ark? Please.

    "DNA mutains can not be random"

    There are two problems with your quote from lightatdawn, 1 is it doesnt say what you think it does, and 2 is that whilst i greatly respect lightatdawn i don't actually agree with him on this.

    Now point 2 is totally irrelevent given point 1.

    Just because something is theoretically predictable does not mean it is controlled!!

    So DNA mutations can be predicted by slotting all the information in the universe into a computer...... and? Gravity can be predicted to, so can laminar fluid flow, your point?

    Mutations are a result of physical processes, photons produced at specific wavelengths by chemical and nuclear reactions hit DNA causing mutations, it is random in so far as no one mutation is more likely than another, even if it is theoretically possible to predict which ones will occur given the knowledge of exactly where each and every atom in the universe is, how fast its going (which is inherently impossible anyway) etc. However you could claim that God made the first replicator even though we know it could have formed of its own accord, and you could say that God guides evolution, even though we know evolution would proceed unguided. Well done you have moved up from stupidly ignorant to simple denial, excellent progress.

    " That it was on Gods command, not a random chance that the 'organic soup' created life"

    Of course you believe that, because you've already formed your conclusions you are not working out conclusions based on the evidence you are bending the facts to fit the conclusion you want!

    The point here is this: Why the hell would God use a mechanism that requires him to control each and every photon, know where each and every atom is, that SPECIFICALLY makes it look like life originated by non divine means when he could just have clapped his hands and made the world the way genesis says he did?

    Either God is specifically trying to hide himself in which case clearly we shouldn't believe in him (if he doesn't exist you shouldn't believe in him, and if he does exist clearly he doesn't want you to believe in him so atheism is the way to go). OR he's just totally and utterly incompetant....... your choice.

    "That Man was directly created by God"

    Hold on, a giant step backwards..... so man didn't evolve then? no? Not even via God guiding evolution?........ see whilst "guided evolution", is a foolish idea there is no evidence to the contrary, where-as the idea that man just jumped into existent is completely contrary to all the evidence available. Further more its just plain silly, presumeably you realise that we share 98.5% of our DNA with apes.......
    Last edited by Clyde; 11-19-2002 at 08:01 AM.

  12. #177
    Cheesy Poofs! PJYelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,728
    ****MUST RESIST COMING THROUGH COMPUTER AND STRANGLING SENTAKI....*****
    Well we have the flood witch would of killed of the dinasours
    You are absolutely right you never mentioned dinosaurs walking with man. This is your exact quote, stating dinosaurs being killed off by the flood - so now you are saying that there were no humans before the flood???

    And as for the second point, I'll just shut up now since you'll just take one of the sentences out of 50 that Clyde and I write, say some stupid two word sentence back that means nothing, and act as though thats proof enough.

    Welcome back Clyde You know, if I didn't know any better I'd say Sentaki was a troll

    Anyways, I'm disregarding anything he says and waiting for Nick or someone else to answer my question(s).
    the_jackass likes this.

  13. #178
    Cheesy Poofs! PJYelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,728
    And you had better provide us a link with what you mean by the hermatica. Because if its what I think it is, I'm VERY sure christianity would deeply disapprove, considering Hermeticism is based off the greek god Hermes, rooted in paganism, and among other things preaches polytheism <---- a big no-no to christians!

  14. #179
    Peace
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,510
    Wow. A little surprised to see a quote from an old thread being used here. I did a double take, thinking: "Where have I seen that before?"

    >>But it's not real randomness it only appears to be random.

    That was my point [in that thread] exactly.

    >>There are two problems with your quote from lightatdawn, 1 is it doesnt say what you think it does,

    Yup. If anything, it provides a reasonable argument that there is no god. It seems to me that a lack of "chaos" or true randomness would indicate a lack of outside interferance.

    >>and 2 is that whilst i greatly respect lightatdawn i don't actually agree with him on this.

    Ooh ooh! *tries not to hijack the thread with new topic* I'd love to debate that one further (somewhere else though, I suppose). Though my rusty grasp of quantum mechanics is no better than it was at the time of that thread, so its possible I would run into the same barrier and be forced to bow out due to uncertainty. I still think my arguments hold/held water.

    >>****MUST RESIST COMING THROUGH COMPUTER AND STRANGLING SENTAKI....*****

    Here (dont dig this up though...)
    "There's always another way"
    -lightatdawn (lightatdawn.cprogramming.com)

  15. #180
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "Ooh ooh! *tries not to hijack the thread with new topic* I'd love to debate that one further (somewhere else though, I suppose). "

    Blah, its hardly a high quality thread, besides perhaps changing the topic will stop me getting sucked back into Sentak's piffle:

    The reason i disagree with you is due to Heisenberg, and chaos theory...... ish.

    Chaos theory is not "real" randomness, its simply a measurement problem, it is inherently impossible to measure a chaotic system accurately enough to predict it long term, to do so would require an infinite number of infinitely accurate measurements, however as i said its not "real" randomness, there is no uncertainty in the values themselves merely in our ability to measure them.

    Another problem with prediction are 3 body problems, for which analytical solution is impossible due to the number of unknown variables, like chaos theory this is a predicting problem but does not equate to "real" randomness.

    Quantum mechanics however and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a whole different kettle of fish. Rather than merely being a measuring problem it is far more intrinsic, the limit of certainty is the limit of information that actually exists in the system. This is another weird quantum idea that doesnt tally up with common sense, but is due to the nature of wave-particle duality and the schrodinger wave equation used to model it (which i'm continually being told is the sum total of all information in the system).

    The tempting way of thinking about uncertainty is to think of a smallball whizzing around which you have to throw other balls at in order to acertain its position, but when you do so you deflect the original ball, hence uncertainty........ unfortuneately thats not how it works: There is no ball, there is a wavefunction, where electrons take the form of a smeared out probability cloud.

    "Real" randomness is part of the nature of this probability cloud, it is possible to give values for probability of finding the particle at points in space it is not possible to give absolute values, because absolute values do not exist untill they are measured.

    I can try to give you some of the mathematical reasons, but it might be a little too high in level....... well you can quiz me on bits if you don't understand them.

    The mathematics of the wavefunction itself predicts this because of the way it relates to probability and to kinetic energy: The probability is psi (the wavefunction) multiplied by the complex conjugate of psi which basically equates to psi squared when dealing with real numbers. The kinetic energy is the second derivative of the wavefunction ie. the curvature.

    Ok now the integral of the wavefunction squared (the area underneath the curve) has to be made to equal 1 so that the probability of finding the electron somewhere is 1. There are also a bunch of other constraints on the nature of the wavefunction which i wont go into.

    Any given wavefunction can be reduced to a linear combination of sin and cos functions, each representing a possible value for the momentum ( each has a different 2nd derivative). For the electron to be in a specific place the probability of finding it at that place must be equal to 1, and the probability of finding it anywhere else must be equal to 0 ie the graph must look like a sharp vertical line. To do that you need an infinite number of sin/cos components, (the more you use the sharper your peak becomes).

    If you use fewer components there are less values for the momentum but the peak becomes less and less sharp and looks more and more like a sin wave, for a single component (ie. y= sin x)you can measure the K.E with 100% accuracy but you have no certainty in position, because there is no peak, its just a spead out sin function.

    Now thats not to say that i can rule out a neoclassical physics revolution that reinvokes newtonian certainty, i can't, however at this point it is believed that randomness is a real property of quantum systems.
    Last edited by Clyde; 11-19-2002 at 12:18 PM.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. what race is god?
    By Leeman_s in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-22-2004, 05:38 PM
  2. God II
    By Leeman_s in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-09-2003, 01:42 AM
  3. GOD and religion
    By Unregistered in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-14-2001, 06:13 PM
  4. Foundations
    By mithrandir in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-05-2001, 03:18 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21