13
   

the universe and space....?

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2003 10:52 am
Re: definition of god
Terry wrote:

It seems more likely to me that there is no god, the universe has no purpose, and that beliefs in supreme beings evolved to give meaning to our lives and control over the overwhelming forces of nature.


A purposeless universe evolving purposeful life is a strange universe. Rolling Eyes

A purposeless universe operating repeatedly according to the same laws, repeatedly evolving mostly the same kinds of flawed stuff is really a strange universe. Rolling Eyes

I think there may be a contradiction in there some place. Rolling Eyes

Well, at least our observable universe conforms to the "rule of its own law" for no other discernible purpose than its own repeatability. Rolling Eyes

We should be so purposeless. :wink:

But what if our observable universe WERE purposeful too? Surprised

Will we purposeful beings and our purposeful observable universe be held accountable for the consequences of our acts? Shocked

Naaaa! That would undermine too many of our long developing comforting thoughts. Sad
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2003 12:26 pm
ican's quote: "Will we purposeful beings and our purposeful observable universe be held accountable for the consequences of our acts?" Only by other humans willing to take action. c.i.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2003 12:32 pm
Here's one example of whether this Iraqi is held accountable for the consequences of his acts.
"Ali Hassan al-Majid, a cousin of Saddam Hussein, once ran Iraq's armed forces. Opponents dubbed him "Chemical Ali" for his role in 1988 chemical weapons attacks that killed thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq." He's now in US hands. c.i.
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2003 06:09 pm
Re: definition of god
ican711nm wrote:

A purposeless universe evolving purposeful life is a strange universe.

A purposeless universe operating repeatedly according to the same laws, repeatedly evolving mostly the same kinds of flawed stuff is really a strange universe.

I think there may be a contradiction in there some place.

Well, at least our observable universe conforms to the "rule of its own law" for no other discernible purpose than its own repeatability.
We should be so purposeless. :wink:

But what if our observable universe WERE purposeful too? Surprised



where do you get these ideas from; that life has a purpose; that there are 'laws' governing the operation of the universe; there is definitely a 'contradiction' there!
And, lack of purpose seems to be a kind of 'law'.
0 Replies
 
THe ReDHoRN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2003 06:23 pm
ARRRRRG I agree with BOgoogieWoggie! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2003 06:46 pm
Ican, re your post of Aug 21-11:52
From the top of your post

Strange, very likely unique. Who said Humans are purposeful and on what scale?

Repeatedly has not been shown to have occurred- - One point for Steady Staters. Smile

Contradictions may lie in the interpretations of observations, not necessarily in reality.

If it didn't we wouldn't exist at all- probably, not Absolutely.

We are probably purposeless, at least on a cosmic scale.

IF- What do you imagine the purpose could be Question

Last two, Pretty shakey either way.

Our friend Chaiyah has some interesting pictures on her web site.
Interpretations anyone?

http://abidemiracles.com/

Scroll down a little for some astronomical photography.
0 Replies
 
THe ReDHoRN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2003 07:05 pm
Purpose comes with conciousness and the way things work. If we had no purpose then why aren't there other beings on distant planets who don't exist? Why only do we survive in this solar system?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2003 07:11 pm
Re: definition of god
BoGoWo wrote:
where do you get these ideas from; that life has a purpose; that there are 'laws' governing the operation of the universe; there is definitely a 'contradiction' there!
And, lack of purpose seems to be a kind of 'law'.


I get my ideas from living my life. I managed to serve the purposes I assigned to me. Admittedly, I did that after much trial and error. But, ican do that.

E = Mc^2! What's that, the name of a scotsman?

How about F = G x M1 x M2/ D^2? Is that a new prescription drug?

Or, energy can be neither created or destroyed! What's that, the theme of a story about nothing?

Lack of purpose is a "kind of 'law' Rolling Eyes Was it a law passed by Congress? Laughing Did Clinton or Bush sign it? Laughing

Where do you get your ideas from, sonny?
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2003 08:05 pm
Redhorn, re Your post of Aug 21,8:04

We don't KNOW this. It is widely accepted that "absence of proof" is not the same as "proof of absence".

For instance Nobody (incl JL) can prove the the non existence of a God.

I can't and I've tried. Embarrassed Others have also, often.

But nobody has proved the existence of one either! Others have also tried, often.

But even we rabid Athiests accept that arguement. IMO it's valid Exclamation
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2003 08:22 pm
Mech, "rabid Athiests?" Didn't know we were so fondly classified by the 'other' side. LOL
0 Replies
 
THe ReDHoRN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2003 08:37 pm
I don't remember what I posted sorry! Smile REBUTTAL REBUTTAL!
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2003 08:41 pm
Heck Cav,
I classified myself as that. Frank accuses me sometimes of being a "closet agnostic" but my imagination is unequal to the task of even imagining a "prime mover". Since I am unable to even imagine one, let alone consider myself capable of "believing" in one I am forced by circumstances of random interactions to describe myself as an Athiest.
I can't play the piano either. :wink:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 03:19 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
Heck Cav, ...


Take heart Mech; I have it on good authority (you) that you play a good game of Adam Smith. Very Happy A guy that can do that cannot be all bad!

Just because I can't imagine omnipresence (e.g., infinite time and infinite space), I don't think those who can are "rabid".
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 03:55 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
Heck Cav,
I classified myself as that. Frank accuses me sometimes of being a "closet agnostic" . :wink:



Moi????

Izz nothing sacred?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 03:57 pm
P = N / D

IF
N = 10^99 genome edits (e.g., mutations).
D = D1 x D2 x D3 sequences.

PHASE 1 = EVOLUTION OF FIRST GENOME FROM SCRATCH.

PHASE 2 = EVOLUTION OF FIRST GENOME TO GENOME OF FIRST COMMON ANCESTOR OF MICE AND HUMANS.

PHASE 3 = EVOLUTION OF GENOME OF FIRST COMMON ANCESTOR OF MICE AND HUMANS TO GENOME OF FIRST HUMAN.


ASSUME THAT D1 =D2 =D3.

D3 =(((4^3)^9000)^300) = 10^4,876,685.9.

THEN
D = 10^(3 x 4,876,685.9) = 10^14,630,057.

THEN
P = N/D = 10^99/(10^14,630,057) = 10^(-14,629,158).

OR P = 10^(-14.629158 x 10^1,000,000) = 1 / (425.753 x 10^(12) x 10^1,000,000) = MORE THAN (1 / 425.753) x a TRILLIONTH x a MOOGOLTH.

THEN
P = less than 0.0023 trillionth moogolth.

Note: a trillionth = 10^(-12) and a moogolth = 10^(-1,000,000).

kinda small probability to hang your hat on.

thought you'd like to know. Smile
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 04:24 pm
Like analyzing a poker game after it is over -- and calculating the odds against the exact cards being dealt -- and then, when the odds are shown to be astronomical, asserting that the fix must have been in.

What an incredibly unimaginative corruption of probability theory!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 04:42 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Like analyzing a poker game after it is over -- and calculating the odds against the exact cards being dealt -- and then, when the odds are shown to be astronomical, asserting that the fix must have been in.

What an incredibly unimaginative corruption of probability theory!


No! Your statement is an incredibly stupid corruption of the probability problem under discussion.

I'm not discussing the probability of the occurrence of an event known to have occurred; I am discussing the probability of that known event having occurred by undirected chance within a specified time period.

I claim your poker game event, if draw poker, occurs by directed chance and not by undirected chance. The hand you end up with is a consequence of chance AND the decisions you make (I.E., directed chance).
0 Replies
 
THe ReDHoRN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 06:57 pm
WHOA THERE LET'S NOT GET INTO NAME CALLING! CALM CALM THERE CHILDREN IT'S NOT CALCULATING THE PROBABILITY OF A POKER GAME BUT THE KNOWN EVENT THAT HAS OCCURED BY UNDIRECTED CHANCE WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME! ENOUGH SAID, WE ESTABLISHED THIS CALM DOWN OR GO TO TIME OUT! Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 07:37 pm
THRDHRN, For a cowboy living in a Texas Hellhole, you sure are using your boots correctly! LOL
0 Replies
 
THe ReDHoRN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 07:40 pm
Actually im a cowgirl but thanx!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/09/2025 at 01:06:29