Religion

D, I havn't heard that theory on predistination before. Have any links to some solid articles? Sounds interesting.

No articles on it, I just came up with it one day.

If there is, I'm claiming the Carmack Defense.


Besides, it's quite obvious if you think about it.

It's Derived from the Sanskrit word Sthaga and the hindi word Thag. They where an Assasains guild of sorts. Also considered the the world first Mafia.

Or just take a look at this. Thug

quote:

Originally posted by Tsukaggin No, it takes far more faith to beleive in religion then science. A scientist can tell me WHY he's not lying to me. A preacher can do what? Quote a book? Saying Science and Religion take the same amount of faith is the same as saying that it takes the same level of trust to beleive a man saying he has an object, SHOWING ME the object, as it does to beleive a man saying he has an object and won't (can't) show it to me. It's absurd.

First of all, that's a terrible analogy. It completely ignores any theoretical part of science, such as most astronomy is. It also assumes that a scientist will either be a.) always right or b.) always be able to provide solid, believable evidence for his claims. But no matter its flaws, it didn't answer my point. You say a scientist can tell you why he's not lying to you? You still have to have faith that he's telling the truth. For you to subscribe to a scientific theory without researching it yourself, you have to have ABSOLUT E faith in what the scientist says. You have to have faith that their research, hypothesis, theories, conclusion, etc. is accurate, that they haven't manipulated any information, are lying etc. They can give you evidence for their ideas, but you have to have faith to believe that that evidence is correct.

quote:

Going on THAT logic, how do you know that the human body is made up of mostly water? Have you done that research? How do you know the earth isn't hallow? Have you dug all the way through it? Have you done the tests with the machines?

Not sure what you're going for here. That was my point to you, so turning around on me means nothing, basically. I don't know any of that. I haven't done any research. I haven't done any tests. Most scientists say these things are the case, so I have FAITH that that's what is true. Do I know for certain? No. Do I have faith that they are correct? Yes. It's not like faith is some terrible thing. You argue like it's some horrible thing to have faith in something you can't prove, but it's just naturally human. I suggest you read my response thoroughly.

quote:

I'm reffering to the select indeviduals in places of power

Name me one without looking at anything on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by 088nd quote: I'm reffering to the select indeviduals in places of power Name me one without looking at anything on the internet.

Addendum: Bush does not count. Neither do those creepy mormon guys.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. D No articles on it, I just came up with it one day. If there is, I'm claiming the Carmack Defense. Besides, it's quite obvious if you think about it.

Well as far as I know the universe is Random though as well. There's a mathmatical infrastructure, which allows for several possobilitys. While the only way to test that on a large scale would be to have a time machine, and go back and repeat the same action several times, I beleive we've seen several times on microscopic scales that the exact same scenarios don't always result in the exact same reaction. So there for, there should be an ever expanding (Much to high to count) number of out comes, since the universe is ever expanding, and the universe's gravitational displacement (the distance between stars, planets, and everything else in space from one another) have an affect on the brain. Taking in to account random outcomes from the same scenario, there's no limit to the oputcomes. That's just talking about gravity.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. D quote: Originally posted by 088nd quote: I'm reffering to the select indeviduals in places of power Name me one without looking at anything on the internet. Addendum: Bush does not count. Neither do those creepy mormon guys.

Good call. I knew I should've put that.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. D quote: Originally posted by 088nd quote: I'm reffering to the select indeviduals in places of power Name me one without looking at anything on the internet. Addendum: Bush does not count. Neither do those creepy mormon guys.

The new pope, and the local preacher who runs the annual book burning.

quote:

Originally posted by Tsukaggin quote: Originally posted by Mr. D quote: Originally posted by 088nd quote: I'm reffering to the select indeviduals in places of power Name me one without looking at anything on the internet. Addendum: Bush does not count. Neither do those creepy mormon guys. The new pope, and the local preacher who runs the annual book burning.

Just because you're jealous because all leading "men of science" look like pedophiles(Dawkinslol)[/SERIOUSBUSINESS] and we have f***ing Palpatine doesn't mean you should diss em.

Also...Protestants.

quote:

Originally posted by Tsukaggin quote: Originally posted by Mr. D No articles on it, I just came up with it one day. If there is, I'm claiming the Carmack Defense. Besides, it's quite obvious if you think about it. Well as far as I know the universe is Random though as well. There's a mathmatical infrastructure, which allows for several possobilitys. While the only way to test that on a large scale would be to have a time machine, and go back and repeat the same action several times, I beleive we've seen several times on microscopic scales that the exact same scenarios don't always result in the exact same reaction. So there for, there should be an ever expanding (Much to high to count) number of out comes, since the universe is ever expanding, and the universe's gravitational displacement (the distance between stars, planets, and everything else in space from one another) have an affect on the brain.

I'm going to let you slide with ignorance and remind you that you can never get exact same results because, lol[sic] and behold, you can never get exact same scenarios. With our current tech, it is quite impossible to do so.

Randomization in the universe is a fun concept, because its laughable. Nothing is random. Nothing. Everything is resulted from a cause and effect from the source of origin (thats the Big Bang for those of you just tuning in). Don't you even think of mentioning that quarks appear in empty space (lol) because I'd remind you that human perception of the physical world is shamefully limited, and will always be so.

Also, I find those whose mission it is to "disprove" religion to be garbage. Carbon-based, red-blodded, human garbage.

What are you, a dot on a speck on a particle of a crumb in the vast ocean of mathematical chaos acting and reacting against a backdrop of even more equations.

Don't waste time.

quote:

Originally posted by Tsukaggin quote: Originally posted by Mr. D quote: Originally posted by 088nd quote: I'm reffering to the select indeviduals in places of power Name me one without looking at anything on the internet. Addendum: Bush does not count. Neither do those creepy mormon guys. The new pope, and the local preacher who runs the annual book burning.

Yeah man that local preacher...

XD

Heisenberg.

Until I see you with a diploma in Quantum Physics and a high standing reputation among the scientific community, I'll take a theory supported by several hundered thousand scientists over your sound but airy logic.

quote:

Originally posted by Tsukaggin Until I see you with a diploma in Quantum Physics and a high standing reputation among the scientific community, I'll take a theory supported by several hundered thousand scientists over your sound but airy logic.

If that was directed towards me, you TOTALLY misunderstood my argument. I'm not against science, I'm just trying to prove that faith exists in science as well.

No, D Boy. He's laughing in the face of respected science based on his theorys.

quote:

Originally posted by Tsukaggin Until I see you with a diploma in Quantum Physics and a high standing reputation among the scientific community, I'll take a theory supported by several hundered thousand scientists over your sound but airy logic.

You're point is completly and almost entirely irrelevant to what I just said. OK, I take back the ignorance claim, but thats really all you get by pulling that up.

Even with that Cophenhagen explanation you have little to challenge me on. Punch out the random bit, but the core message still stands.

I win.

Therfore...

Pool's closed.

AND IT'S MR. D.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. D Even with that Cophenhagen explanation you have little to challenge me on. Punch out the random bit, but the core message still stands. I win. Therfore... Pool's closed.

I do love arrogance. Show me some credentials and we'll talk. I mean diplomas. Research papers. Refrences. Stuff these people have had for years. Then we'll see.

Also, I don't grasp what you mean. The "random bit" is the whole argument. Random universe versus predistination. Decades of science 1, you 0.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. D AND IT'S MR. D.

Not untill you act like it D-boy =P.

It's funny how this stuff you defend is pretty much all hypothetical, as it can be neither proved or disproved. So your arguing something that may not even be true.

Common sense: 1, you: 0.

Leave now.

quote:

Originally posted by Tsukaggin quote: Originally posted by Mr. D Even with that Cophenhagen explanation you have little to challenge me on. Punch out the random bit, but the core message still stands. I win. Therfore... Pool's closed. I do love arrogance. Show me some credentials and we'll talk. I mean diplomas. Research papers. Refrences. Stuff these people have had for years. Then we'll see. Also, I don't grasp what you mean. The "random bit" is the whole argument. Random universe versus predistination. Decades of science 0, you 1. quote: Originally posted by Mr. D AND IT'S MR. D. Not untill you act like it D-boy =P.

I don't need no stinkin' credentials.

What do credentials have to do with it, honestly? If some two-bit average joe invented an anti-grav engine, I really doubt years of college will make a difference. Zomgwtfh4x? You betcha, but it doesn't make it any less real.

I for one side with Einstein on this.

quote:

God does not play dice with the universe.

But it doesn't satisfy you does it. You, with your blind faith in standard science and (I assume) lack of an actual degree in this.

quote:

...the physical universe does not exist in a deterministic form—but rather as a collection of probabilities, or potentials

The probablity that it could happen has little bearing on what is actually going to happen.

Again, stimuli, action, reaction, etc.

I realized I acted a bit humbly before, but hey, we all have our slips.


There. Is. Nothing. Random. In. Existence.


I'd like to see proof of your arguments. Clinching proof caught on a sunny day in Dallas on an 8 mm camera that there is little rhyme or reason to the occurences of existence.

Thus, you're "decades of science" mean jack. Occam's Motherf***ing Razor is with me on this one. It's quite simply fact, good sir.

I win.

SHE'S BACK MONEY!! HALLELUJAH! IT'S GONE!

The Big Bang was pretty random.