Chaos theory contains God of Theism

[joinfree]

1. Because any slight change in conditions (like the positions of the atoms) in billion years prior to the first cell creation will catastrophically change the outcome to “there is no first cell”, then the probability of atheism is exactly zero.
2. Therefore, the atheism does not exist, however atheism is the major problem: The war of Gods: idol of Atheists vs. God of Theists

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

1. Because any slight change in conditions (like the positions of the atoms) in billion years prior to the first cell creation will catastrophically change the outcome to “there is no first cell”, then the probability of atheism is exactly zero.
2. Therefore, the atheism does not exist, however atheism is the major problem: The war of Gods: idol of Atheists vs. God of Theists

You keep making these posts, but nowhere in any of them do you actually show how atheism doesn't exist just because you don't fully understand a scientific theory.
Like your first point makes literally no sense.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is the wrong forum for such nonsense.

 

[Belk]

1. Because any slight change in conditions (like the positions of the atoms) in billion years prior to the first cell creation will catastrophically change the outcome to “there is no first cell”, then the probability of atheism is exactly zero.
2. Therefore, the atheism does not exist, however atheism is the major problem: The war of Gods: idol of Atheists vs. God of Theists

 

[Paulos23]

1. Because any slight change in conditions (like the positions of the atoms) in billion years prior to the first cell creation will catastrophically change the outcome to “there is no first cell”, then the probability of atheism is exactly zero.
2. Therefore, the atheism does not exist, however atheism is the major problem: The war of Gods: idol of Atheists vs. God of Theists

Premise one fails.

So no.

Also two doesn't follow. So double no.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

1. Because any slight change in conditions (like the positions of the atoms) in billion years prior to the first cell creation will catastrophically change the outcome to “there is no first cell”, then the probability of atheism is exactly zero.
2. Therefore, the atheism does not exist, however atheism is the major problem: The war of Gods: idol of Atheists vs. God of Theists

The argument is neither valid (the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises) nor sound (the premises are false), and it is both incoherent and contradictory. As Wolfgang Pauli said, "Not even wrong."

Plus there's a hint of the lottery fallacy; e.g. "I don't believe that person won the lottery, the chances are tens of millions to one against it..."

 

[joinfree]

This is the wrong forum for such nonsense.

Our forum is perfect for absolutely any nonsense!!!!

 

[joinfree]

.... there's a hint of the lottery fallacy....

The word "hint" says it all. It is NOT the fallacy, because you have no proof of the fallacy. There is always God of Theism in Chaos Theory: from Chaos only Chaos (not life) comes.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

1. Because any slight change in conditions (like the positions of the atoms) in billion years prior to the first cell creation will catastrophically change the outcome to “there is no first cell”, then the probability of atheism is exactly zero.
2. Therefore, the atheism does not exist, however atheism is the major problem: The war of Gods: idol of Atheists vs. God of Theists

Chaos theory is, in fact, your first premise. Specifically, the initial conditions of a driven system (like creation) greatly affect the result of the system at any given parameter. So, yes - it is similar to the Butterfly/Hurricane example many often reference, because The Butterfly Effect is a part of mathematical chaos theory.

To be fair, I will say premise 1 does not guarantee that there is no god, although it does suggest that the order of the system as it exist to date was driven by an initial condition. You could say that is the big bang, but that is just the trivial solution; you are saying that the initial condition of the system contained all permutations of parameterization for the system. We know that; we model this structure in our ordered analysis.

So, to your OP: Chaos Theory does, in fact, demand that there is some "god," as it were - some external parameter that is significantly responsible for the system conditions at a given parameter.


This is gargantuan. It is implicit of, at least, a directed outside parameter that drives a dynamical system. A quasi-equilibrium system like the "energy" before the big bang is categorically non-dynamical except at a singularity parameter (i.e. the space and time for which the Big Bang happened - if you believe that.) But, then you would have to define how a quasi-equilibrium system (that existed before it created a time scale to measure progress) got the energy to drive the system from "existent" to "critical.

 

[Strathos]

Our forum is perfect for absolutely any nonsense!!!!

This is the best and truest post I have ever seen here.

 

[dgiharris]

There are those within this forum who are intent on declaring Atheism as some form of "religion". Atheism is not a religion, it is not because atheism is simply the belief that there is no god. It is, in effect a belief that XYZ does not exist. There are plenty of things for which we all believe do not exist. That "nonbelief" does not bind people together into some philosophy in which there are rules and weekly meetings and a cool handshake that they use when they pass each other in the streets.

Secondly, I am so tired of (some) theists completely butchering science in their hamfisted attempt to make an argument of equivalency (between science and religion) or to discredit the entire notion of science. It gets annoying when theists cherry-pick a contentious scientific principle or theory, butcher it, then use said butchery as "proof" that science is wrong or to establish some sort of equivalency between science and religion.

Science is not a singular "thing" that you can find a tiny fault in and proclaim "aha, this right here disproves all of science!!!". No. Science is a logical process that uses the scientific method. Does science get things wrong? Absolutely, mistakes are made all that time. But the "beauty" of science is that the process is merciless in its pursuit of the truth. Science may suffer from the occasional hiccup or ego-maniac scientist who fudges the data to validate his hack theory... but it never lasts because science --i.e. the process, i.e. the scientific method-- weeds that out.

Last but not least. For the love of heaven and earth stop equating science and religion. They are two completely different things and for the life of me I don't know what theists seem so intent on trying to equate the two.

Science is nothing more than an attempt to describe and characterize the workings of the universe based on observation and employment of the scientific method.

Religion is nothing more than the principles and beliefs governing our relationship with God who we believed created everything.

Science is concerned with this physical universe
Religion is concerned with our souls and our relationship with God

So why do so many theists insist on putting the two concepts in the same sandbox and making them fight?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The word "hint" says it all. It is NOT the fallacy, because you have no proof of the fallacy. There is always God of Theism in Chaos Theory: from Chaos only Chaos (not life) comes.

Excellent - so now you've proved that atheism doesn't exist, how long would you say atheists have got before we just disappear?

Incidentally, the same 'argument' you made in the OP also renders you non-existent:

"There are trillions of tiny events in the lives of your ancestors (as far back as you like - the further the better) which had to occur exactly as they did for the circumstances to occur that would result in you being born - if only one chance event in those trillions had been different, you would never have been born. So the chances that you don't exist are astronomically high... [which proves you don't exist.]"

Do you see the fallacy?

 

[joinfree]

..... if only one chance event in those trillions had been different, you would never have been born. ....

Guess what? We are part of divine wonder!

 

[HitchSlap]

Guess what? We are part of divine wonder!

Well, it is a wonder we're here at all. May as well call it divine.

 

[joinfree]

THANKS! LET ME INSERT MY REMARKS INTO YOUR COMMENT:

..... Atheism is not a religion, it is not because atheism is simply the belief that there is no god. ATHEISM TALKS ABOUT GODS, SO IT CLOSELY RELATES TO RELIGION. It is, in effect a belief that XYZ does not exist. There are plenty of things for which we all believe do not exist. That "nonbelief" does not bind people together into some philosophy in which there are rules and weekly meetings and a cool handshake that they use when they pass each other in the streets.

Secondly, I am so tired of (some) theists completely butchering science in their hamfisted attempt to make an argument of equivalency (between science and religion) or to discredit the entire notion of science. It gets annoying when theists cherry-pick a contentious scientific principle or theory, butcher it, then use said butchery as "proof" that science is wrong or to establish some sort of equivalency between science and religion. IT IS JUST YOUR EMOTIONS.

Science is not a singular "thing" that you can find a tiny fault in and proclaim "aha, this right here disproves all of science!!!". No. Science is a logical process that uses the scientific method. Does science get things wrong? Absolutely, mistakes are made all that time. But the "beauty" of science is that the process is merciless in its pursuit of the truth. THE RELIGION IS ALSO DEALING WITH TRUTHS. Science may suffer from the occasional hiccup or ego-maniac scientist who fudges the data to validate his hack theory... but it never lasts because science --i.e. the process, i.e. the scientific method-- weeds that out. SCIENCE HAS DEVELOPING METHODOLOGY, METHODOLOGY IS NOT UNCHANGEABLE.

Last but not least. For the love of heaven and earth stop equating science and religion. They are two completely different things and for the life of me I don't know what theists seem so intent on trying to equate the two. THE UNITY OF HEART AND MIND.

Science is nothing more than an attempt to describe and characterize the workings of the universe based on observation and employment of the scientific method. IT IS JUST PHYSICS, IS THERE A MATH OR BIOLOGY, OR PSYCHOLOGY TOO?

Religion is nothing more than the principles and beliefs governing our relationship with God who we believed created everything. FAITH IS FAITHFULNESS TO KNOWLDEGE. BLIND FAITH IS NOT TRUE FAITH. BLIND FAITH IS TRUST.

Science is concerned with this physical universe
Religion is concerned with our souls and our relationship with God

So why do so many theists insist on putting the two concepts in the same sandbox and making them fight? FOR THE SAKE OF THE BETTER WORLD.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you see the fallacy?

Guess what? We are part of divine wonder!

I'll take that as a 'No'.

 

[dgiharris]

THANKS! LET ME INSERT MY REMARKS INTO YOUR COMMENT:

Atheism is not a religion, it is not because atheism is simply the belief that there is no god. ATHEISM TALKS ABOUT GODS, SO IT CLOSELY RELATES TO RELIGION.


This is not true and not a very solid argument. Talking about the non existence of god does not make atheism closely related to religion.

Is there a book of atheism that all atheist adhere to?
Are there are set of principles they all adhere to?
Is their a hierarchy and rank they adhere to among each other?

This argument is at the root of the disparity between your beliefs about atheism and science and actual atheism and science. You seem to have an inability to understand correlation and logic based decision trees that expand and branch out logically.




Science is not a singular "thing" that you can find a tiny fault in and proclaim "aha, this right here disproves all of science!!!". No. Science is a logical process that uses the scientific method. Does science get things wrong? Absolutely, mistakes are made all that time. But the "beauty" of science is that the process is merciless in its pursuit of the truth. THE RELIGION IS ALSO DEALING WITH TRUTHS.

There can be no greater disparity than the Truth obtained via religion vs the Truth obtained via science.

Truth in religion is ONLY based on what a deity has declared is the truth. It is irrefutable, it is so sacrosanct that it is beyond the need for actual testing and verification. It doesn't require proof in the way of predictive models. God said XYZ is good and QRS is bad and that is that.

Truth in science only comes to pass after rigorous scrutiny and employment of the scientific method. It is tested, double blind tested, subjected to all types of conditions and boundaries and then after it has 'passed' it periodically is challenged again and again and again...

In the case of religion, anything dealing with the heart and soul and our relationship with God, I'm all for accepting as true. The problem lies when religious types try to apply biblical truth to the realm of science. The bible does not detail how to build a nuclear reactor nor does it even give you any basic laws of the universe as defined by science. And that is okay, that was never its purpose. But again, religious types (such as yourself) seem intent on trying to make religion and the "truths" declared by religion something it was never intended to be.

Science may suffer from the occasional hiccup or ego-maniac scientist who fudges the data to validate his hack theory... but it never lasts because science --i.e. the process, i.e. the scientific method-- weeds that out. SCIENCE HAS DEVELOPING METHODOLOGY, METHODOLOGY IS NOT UNCHANGEABLE.


I have no idea what your point is here????

Last but not least. For the love of heaven and earth stop equating science and religion. They are two completely different things and for the life of me I don't know [why] theists seem so intent on trying to equate the two. THE UNITY OF HEART AND MIND.

again, i have no idea what your point is here???

Science is nothing more than an attempt to describe and characterize the workings of the universe based on observation and employment of the scientific method. IT IS JUST PHYSICS, IS THERE A MATH OR BIOLOGY, OR PSYCHOLOGY TOO?

Biology is science, math can be considered "science" for the purpose of my argument. And yes, Psychology is science as well, though that is a science with big error bars and fuzzy probability clouds that are extremely complex. But it uses the scientific method

Religion is nothing more than the principles and beliefs governing our relationship with God who we believed created everything. FAITH IS FAITHFULNESS TO KNOWLDEGE. BLIND FAITH IS NOT TRUE FAITH. BLIND FAITH IS TRUST.

okay???? not sure what you are saying/arguing here


So why do so many theists insist on putting the two concepts in the same sandbox and making them fight? FOR THE SAKE OF THE BETTER WORLD.

I fail to see how making a mistake is for the sake of a better world.
The purpose of science is XYZ
the purpose of religion is QRS

the two are not meant to play or fight each other.
One is a fish, the other a bird

so why are you so intent on trying to force them to breed?

It is a form of hubris and actually leads to conflict that doesn't need to be.

What I see is my fellow Christians using their laymen interpretations of the bible and combining it with their grossly lacking understanding of science to create something that simply should not be.

Stop trying to turn Religion into a Science and Science into a Religion.

 

[joinfree]

.......
Truth in religion is ONLY based on what a deity has declared is the truth. It is irrefutable, it is so sacrosanct that it is beyond the need for actual testing and verification. .....

The faith is faithfulness to KNOWLEDGE, so the Dogmas are scientifically PROVEN KNOWLEDGE. Science is quest for knowledge, not a method.

 

[joinfree]

.....
Is there a book of atheism that all atheist adhere to? MOST POPULAR IS BIBLE. THEISTS READ THERE, THAT GOD IS INFINITELY GOOD, SO HE MUST EXISTS, ATHEISTS READ THERE, THAT GOD IS INFINITELY EVIL (FIGHTS THE HOMOSEXUALISM, ABORTS, ADULTERY, ATHEISM, ETC., AND SACRIFIED OWN SON) SO HE MUST NOT EXIST. THE BIBLE GIVES THE ATHEISTS THE CONFIDENCE IN ATHEISM.
Are there are set of principles they all adhere to? YES, THERE IS: 1) TO SAY, THAT THEIR GOD IN NON-EXISTENT, 2) NOT TO PRAY, NOT TO GO TO CHURCH, NOT TO REPENT.
Is their a hierarchy and rank they adhere to among each other? MOST POPULAR ATHEISTS ARE RICHARD DAWKINS AND STEVEN HAWKING......

 

[joinfree]

.....
Stop trying to turn Religion into a Science and Science into a Religion.

Knowledge of any human is the knowledge, which has his God. Any human has God in his heart, atheists have idol of atheism in their hearts. Look: Is atheism the World religion?