Re: Peterson's Death Sentence
From: Kevin Aylward (salesEXTRACT_at_anasoft.co.uk)
Date: 01/29/05
- Next message: Michael Heiming: "Re: No access from remote networks"
- Previous message: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- In reply to: Noah Roberts: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Next in thread: Noah Roberts: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Reply: Noah Roberts: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:42:26 GMT
Noah Roberts wrote:
> John Woodgate wrote:
>
>> This is not inconceivable. But during this debate we have seen
>> evidence that such an entity has to have powers that preclude our
>> understanding *anything* about its nature, since it is not bound by
>> logic or any of what we observe as the laws of nature.
>
> Well, that seems to be true when speaking of god as omnipotent, which
> could be false or true, which can't be derived. I don't know what
> happens if you try to derive that God is limited, it appears that you
> can't tell either way if you try to tell if he is unlimited.
>
>>
>> Which is sufficient, hypothesizing this all-powerful, omnipresent,
>> omniscient entity, of which we can know nothing unless a priest
>> tells us what to believe by 'faith', or not hypothesizing it?
>
> I myself don't believe in taking as fact anything someone tells us.
ROTFLMAO
> That is to set asside our gift of reason, probably one of the most
> beutiful abilities God gave us.
Oh dear...
>
> There is logical evidence for the existance of intelligent design in
> the universe. This is taken (and drastically shortened) from
> http://www.yhwh.com/ :
Yeah, sure....
>
> Assume a function f() that on its first iteration adds the value x%
> and on the second iteration subtracts value x%. The limit of this
> function as it approaches infinite iterations is 0. -> 100 + 10% =
> 110, 110 - 10% = 99, ... <-
?
>
> Assume also that order and inorder are equal statistically.
They're not.
> That
> means it is equally likely and unlikely for mater to compose into
> complex forms, or even at all.
Nope. The laws of physics are not totally random. For example, Oxygen
likes to preferential form as O2, rather then o3, O4, O5 etc.
You way out of your depth sonny.
>This implies a function as described
> above. If you start with something you end up with nothing, if you
> start with nothing you never gain or loose anything.
You are clearly ill-equipped to apply mathematics to physics. You simply
don't have the background. Come back once you at least obtain a degree
in physics. Further discussion with you on this is quite pointless until
then.
>
> Therefor order must be more likely than disorder.
Nope. This is a totally meaningless idea. How do you propose to define
general disorder and order?
>
> or·der Audio pronunciation of "order" ( P ) Pronunciation Key
> (ôrdr)
> n.
>
> 1. A condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the
> separate elements of a group.
>
> The anti-thesis to this argument is that the universe is chaotic, not
> ordered.
The universe has some order and some disoredr.
>This would seem to imply unlogical and without systems. We
> seem to be petty sure this is not so, but I would be very interested
> in argument to the contrary.
You are not simply not equipped to understand physics arguments.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
- Next message: Michael Heiming: "Re: No access from remote networks"
- Previous message: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- In reply to: Noah Roberts: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Next in thread: Noah Roberts: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Reply: Noah Roberts: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|