H
hatsoff
Guest
Unfortunately this doesn’t make any sense. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with basic probability, and then re-evaluate whatever line of argument you wish to pursue.
- Status
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
And your counter examples rest on your proving your presupposition that dice and coins have a fixed number of sides. As the person making the assertion that dice or coins are finite, you would have the burden of proof. But when your opponent is a theist, then there is a different standard…
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
And your counter examples rest on your proving your presupposition that dice and coins have a fixed number of sides. As the person making the assertion that dice or coins are finite, you would have the burden of proof. But when your opponent is a theist, then there is a different standard…
But I’ll beat you at your own game. Quantum mechanics dictates that there were an infinite number of possible universes. In fact the Heisenberg principle means any object can have any property until it actually becomes fixed in one. That is why you have the burden of proof to demonstrate the finite nature of dice, coins or the Universe.
H
hatsoff
Guest
I hope you don’t think I’m calling you stupid! (That would not be a “good thing,” I might add.) I’m suggesting that you find out about how probability works before you make an argument relying on probability. I’m surprised you would find that suggestion objectionable.
L
LifeIsAbsurd
Guest
To anyone who has gambled or taken statistics, it should be obvious that because a variable is random does not imply that it can take on an infinite number of values. I could prove this, but I do not need to. Rather, it falls on you, the person attempting to prove something, to prove “random implies infinite” if you decide that’s indeed essential to your argument.
The burden of proof is always on the person trying to prove something. You claimed to have proof God exists. I did not claim to have proof God does not exist.
Your proof relies on three assumptions.
*]If the world’s not randomly created, then an intelligent, supreme being designed it.
*]There are a finite number of actual universes.
*]There are an infinite number of potential universes.
LifeIsAbsurd:
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Which is why I detoured into quantum physics.
2 and 3 are backed up by observation. 1 is a natural consequence of the Univere’s life-bearing characteristics, which are so precise so as to be either a glorious fortuity or a smoking gun.
L
LifeIsAbsurd
Guest
Many comologists have stated that multiple universes are possible. I will cite a few–Hawking, Mlodinow, Mathers, and Kaku. Obviously, you simply saying you’ve observed that there’s a single (or even a finite number of) universe(s) is not sufficient proof of that point. If you ever construct such a proof, notify one of these people immediately. You will probably become very famous overnight.
(And, of course, don’t neglect to prove your other points as well.)
G
grannymh
Guest
Human nature itself is the best argument for God’s existence.
T
tonyrey
Guest
- which is not surprising given that we are made in God’s image.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
But my point still holds unless there are infinite universes.Many comologists have stated that multiple universes are possible. I will cite a few–Hawking, Mlodinow, Mathers, and Kaku. Obviously, you simply saying you’ve observed that there’s a single (or even a finite number of) universe(s) is not sufficient proof of that point. If you ever construct such a proof, notify one of these people immediately. You will probably become very famous overnight.
(And, of course, don’t neglect to prove your other points as well.)
A
AcolyteLector
Guest
I don’t usually give people advice on how to manage their own affairs.
But if you think it is appropriate to chide someone on making assertions without their sources immediately cited, and then followup with a direct quote from WIKIPEDIA then I think you might want to revise how you support your own arguments.
T
Tonitz
Guest
God is not known or defined by argument and cannot be proved by those means. That course, even in the hands of the best theologians, is futile for a simple reason. It is an exercise of the lesser attempting to contain the greater. It cannot be done. Imo, whatever anyone thinks of the man himself, the ultimate statement in this matter was made by Walt Whitman. He said “I and mine do not convince by argument, similes or rhymes. We convince by our presence.”
All things invisible convince by presence. The wind moves the trees, the sailing ship and the grain. Gravity makes the water to fall and to flow. The EM spectrum gives us the ways we communicate. And we can utilize all of these by building a structure of attunement. The functioning of the structure is the proof of the attunement. That is true even if the function is the denial of the force empowering the structure by a part of it that has severely restricted perceptive limits, rendering it useless and vain in attempting to assess what is perforce beyond it.
The intellect may scope parts of the mechanics of the reaches of space and the particles of the atom, but it yet relies on the invitation of labor on the arrival of the unexpected from the invisible realm by means of intuition and insight. Arguments, logics, and calculations cannot embrace the Allness of the Plenum they might futilely attempt to contain. Impossible!
All things invisible convince by presence. The wind moves the trees, the sailing ship and the grain. Gravity makes the water to fall and to flow. The EM spectrum gives us the ways we communicate. And we can utilize all of these by building a structure of attunement. The functioning of the structure is the proof of the attunement. That is true even if the function is the denial of the force empowering the structure by a part of it that has severely restricted perceptive limits, rendering it useless and vain in attempting to assess what is perforce beyond it.
The intellect may scope parts of the mechanics of the reaches of space and the particles of the atom, but it yet relies on the invitation of labor on the arrival of the unexpected from the invisible realm by means of intuition and insight. Arguments, logics, and calculations cannot embrace the Allness of the Plenum they might futilely attempt to contain. Impossible!
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
T
Tonitz
Guest
Of course there is the weight and direction of internal experience. These may even be added to by seeking guidance or even simply pertinent ideas. But they are primarily of internal personal efficacy pertinent to one’s own experience. These cannot be effectively used as an intellectual argument or even necessarilly as proper assertions in an attempt to convince another individual other than by demonstrating one’s own fervor or conviction. That may or may not be useful in terms of winning over someone of contrary mind. Experience, mine at least, and anecdotally of many others says not so much. We as Catholics, after 2000 years, still comprise only some 20% of the world population, and Christians of any stripe total about 1/3. While most believe something theistic, we are yet in the minority.
Personally speaking? I have always been attracted to new ideas by the actions of others which prompted me to ask questions which then allowed me to effectively entertain new ideas. There is truth in the old adage. I don’t recall any situations other than rote learning in school or at work that was useful, and even some of that was dubious. And if we all became missionaries to do rote work with the non Catholics, it would be a thin 1 on 4 situation, person to person. And we are already not well received by dint of habitual thinking in some segments of society. So I’m kind of hard pressed to see anything that is more useful than the kind of exemplary living that attracts questions. but if someone asks, I do have all the means to express my convictions as the source of the felt attraction. Otherwise I might well be using the jawbone of an-- a donkey.
Personally speaking? I have always been attracted to new ideas by the actions of others which prompted me to ask questions which then allowed me to effectively entertain new ideas. There is truth in the old adage. I don’t recall any situations other than rote learning in school or at work that was useful, and even some of that was dubious. And if we all became missionaries to do rote work with the non Catholics, it would be a thin 1 on 4 situation, person to person. And we are already not well received by dint of habitual thinking in some segments of society. So I’m kind of hard pressed to see anything that is more useful than the kind of exemplary living that attracts questions. but if someone asks, I do have all the means to express my convictions as the source of the felt attraction. Otherwise I might well be using the jawbone of an-- a donkey.
- Status