If you need God for Morality, why are Atheists so underrepresented in prison pop.?

[selfinflikted]

I apologize, you are correct, I did use the term "theoretical possibility" (or a derivative thereof) in the common relativistic way, rather than giving it the respect it deserves. I would hate for you to draw the conclusion that I, therefore, that evolution is a "mere" theory, which is not the case (although there is a of missing information in this theory, which allows an amazing array of beliefs).

What classification should I have used? Perhaps "reasonable hypothesis" over the given time frame?

Wait, did you just say (in not so many words) that evolution is fact?

Also, I can't tell if your response was a facetious one, but I'm not sure how I would have worded your proposition... I suppose I would have simply said that there is, given enough time, a possibility that a marble could fall through a solid desktop surface.

 

[LittleNipper]

Aside from this being entirely irrelevant to everything I said in my last post...

What about Shiva? Care to read the rest of my post, which offered you an example where you weren't required to use quite so much imagination?

Perhaps your post is irrelevant... Sheva, who carves her statues? What exactly has she done for India? I have very much to be thankful to GOD for living in The United States.

 

[cantata]

Perhaps your post is irrelevant... Sheva, who carves her statues? What exactly has she done for India? I have very much to be thankful to GOD for living in The United States.

I give up. There's no point in arguing with you if you keep changing the subject.

 

[fated]

Wait, did you just say (in not so many words) that evolution is fact?

Also, I can't tell if your response was a facetious one, but I'm not sure how I would have worded your proposition... I suppose I would have simply said that there is, given enough time, a possibility that a marble could fall through a solid desktop surface.

Evolutionary theory contains what is almost assuredly fact. Remember, I am Catholic, I can, even under the Providence of the Catechism, fit evolution into my understanding of the Creation. In fact, the Pope all but insists that Evolution be taught to some extent. Of course, Evolution, as you see it, through your perspective, may well differ from how "it can be seen."

 

[TheManeki]

The significant figures point directly to what is not yet measured. Thus, possibility always remains unless as definitive is reached. Thus, I ask as a probability over the time span "infinity" thus resulting in an absolute value of 1 or 0 as the ultimate answer.

I don't think you're looking at it correctly. In the case of your hypothetical experiment, where 1 is defined as the marble passing through the table and 0 as the marble not passing through the table, 1 and 0 can be considered to have infinite significant digits because there are no intermediate steps between them. It's either one or the other.

What would determine your number of significant figures would be the accuracy of how you measured time. Considering it is possible to easily measure time intervals of 1/10 of a second and lower (atomic clocks are accurate down to 10e-9 seconds), you should have enough significant figures to accurately determine the probability over 10,000 years.

For example, the Mega Millions Lottery reports that the odds of winning the jackpot are 1 in 175,711,536. That translates to P=5.69114597e-9. Even if you reduced that to 1 significant digit, you'd still have P=6e-9. While small, this is greater than 0.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

 

[selfinflikted]

Evolutionary theory contains what is almost assuredly fact. Remember, I am Catholic, I can, even under the Providence of the Catechism, fit evolution into my understanding of the Creation. In fact, the Pope all but insists that Evolution be taught to some extent. Of course, Evolution, as you see it, through your perspective, may well differ from how "it can be seen."

Well, at the risk of going completely off-topic, you've certainly piqued my interest. Please, explain how my view of evolution and yours would differ.

 

[cantata]

Well, at the risk of going completely off-topic, you've certainly piqued my interest. Please, explain how my view of evolution and yours would differ.

Lots of my Catholic friends believe in evolution. (One of them has a room full of fossils and wants to be a palaeontologist.) Go, Catholics!

 

[LittleNipper]

I give up. There's no point in arguing with you if you keep changing the subject.

Please don't give up on my account. My answers are exactly what they are ---- my honest opinion in light of GOD's WORD.

 

[fated]

I don't think you're looking at it correctly. In the case of your hypothetical experiment, where 1 is defined as the marble passing through the table and 0 as the marble not passing through the table, 1 and 0 can be considered to have infinite significant digits because there are no intermediate steps between them. It's either one or the other.

What would determine your number of significant figures would be the accuracy of how you measured time. Considering it is possible to easily measure time intervals of 1/10 of a second and lower (atomic clocks are accurate down to 10e-9 seconds), you should have enough significant figures to determine the probability over 10,000 years.

For example, the Mega Millions Lottery reports that the odds of winning the jackpot are 1 in 175,711,536. That translates to P=5.69114597e-9. If 1 were treated as having only one significant digit, then P would equal 0.0 (because you could only express probabilities in multiples of 0.1). There is a difference between P=0.0 and P=5.69114597e-9 -- the first means that no one can win the lottery, while the second means that someone can win the lottery but it probably won't be you.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

I would take the position that one cannot immediately conclude that "every" 1 or 0 is known to have infinite significant figures without inspection.

 

[LittleNipper]

Lots of my Catholic friends believe in evolution. (One of them has a room full of fossils and wants to be a palaeontologist.) Go, Catholics!

The funny thing with Catholics is that they can accept TRANSUBSTANTIATION and sainthood but somehow, seem to take issue with miracles GOD performed.

 

[cantata]

Please don't give up on my account. My answers are exactly what they are ---- my honest opinion in light of GOD's WORD.

Your opinion of what? Certainly not of anything I have been trying to discuss with you.

I will frame this one more time, although I confess I'm not really interested in your response any more; I think others will better clarify your general position than you. Here we go:

Your claim: So-called atheists shake their fists at God.

Others' response: They don't, any more than you shake your fist at gods you don't believe in. Atheists can't shake their fists at God because they don't believe in him, just as you can't shake your fist at Zeus because you don't believe in him.

Your response, as I understand it: Atheists discuss God, even though they claim not to believe in him, yet you do not discuss Zeus or Shiva or any other gods you do not believe in.

My response: If you were in a situation where a large number of people who believed in a god in whom you do not believe were in the position of power which many Christians are in Western society today, I consider it likely that you would discuss those gods, the holy texts and precepts of the religions in question, and so on. In other words, if you existed in relation to Hinduism in the way that many atheists exist in the West in relation to Christianity, you would want to discuss Hinduism in much the same way as many atheists wish to discuss Christianity.

I would add that many atheists also want to understand the mind of faith - another reason why they engage in what they view as hypothetical discussion of gods in whom they do not believe.

Would you care to address any of this?

 

[cantata]

The funny thing with Catholics is that they can accept TRANSUBSTANTIATION and sainthood but somehow, seem to take issue with miracles GOD performed.

*waits for the "NO TRUE CHRISTIAN..." gun*

 

[fated]

Well, at the risk of going completely off-topic, you've certainly piqued my interest. Please, explain how my view of evolution and yours would differ.

Well, Catholic freedom on the Creation is given in the Catechism, here:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p4.htm
You would have to spend quite some time here to understand what is not implied (I suppose thats the best way I can describe the theology here).

But specifically here (the Catechism is organized by paragraph not page):
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements . . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121

284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?

285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watchmaker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.

 

[fated]

The funny thing with Catholics is that they can accept TRANSUBSTANTIATION and sainthood but somehow, seem to take issue with miracles GOD performed.

We see the Creation itself as the act of an All-Good God.

 

[Jacey]

He needs to ask it then.

It was asked, you ignored it.

Are you a fairyist, one who believes and worships fairies, or are you an afairyist?

 

[fated]

The funny thing with Catholics is that they can accept TRANSUBSTANTIATION and sainthood but somehow, seem to take issue with miracles GOD performed.

Since I love you, I should point out that the ancient Hebrews of the time of Genesis where not really interested in "when and how" but rather "who and what." So, you have to understand this and how it plays in with the Creation in Genesis.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, Catholic freedom on the Creation is given in the Catechism, here:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p4.htm
You would have to spend quite some time here to understand what is not implied (I suppose thats the best way I can describe the theology here).

But specifically here (the Catechism is organized by paragraph not page):
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements . . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121

284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?

285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watchmaker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.

Hmm. Interesting. Although, this is not exactly what I meant when I asked how evolution is different for you than it would be for me. Evolution is roughly defined as the changes in genetic composition of a population over time as a result of natural selection. It, in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with "origins" or a genesis for any sort. So my question wasn't phrased with any type of theories of origins in mind, but rather from a biological standpoint of how the ToE could differ between individuals.

 

[fated]

Hmm. Interesting. Although, this is not exactly what I meant when I asked how evolution is different for you than it would be for me. Evolution is roughly defined as the changes in genetic composition of a population over time as a result of natural selection. It, in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with "origins" or a genesis for any sort. So my question wasn't phrased with any type of theories of origins in mind, but rather from a biological standpoint of how the ToE could differ between individuals.

Doesn't this answer your question in a better way, as in, not my personal belief, but rather within the confines of all the brains that follow the Catechism's teaching?

 

[LittleNipper]

Since I love you, I should point out that the ancient Hebrews of the time of Genesis where not really interested in "when and how" but rather "who and what." So, you have to understand this and how it plays in with the Creation in Genesis.

All I know is that when the Hebrew says "...and the evening and the morning was the first day." That always means exactly, specifically and categorically only a 24 hour period. Evolution teaches that "creation" is expanding, maturing, and growing. The Bible say that the FALL has brought about degeneration and disorder of the creation. Christians cannot have it both ways. I believe there is much to learn but we all know what an assumption makes of the assumer. GOD's does not have to tell me, "I told you so!"

 

[selfinflikted]

Doesn't this answer your question in a better way, as in, not my personal belief, but rather within the confines of all the brains that follow the Catechism's teaching?

You said...

Of course, Evolution, as you see it, through your perspective, may well differ from how "it can be seen."

I see evolution as a change in genetic composition of a population through successive generations due to natural selection. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless you are talking about some other ToE, I don't understand how else "it can be seen"... unless you mean, "Well, god was the one who put evolution in motion, etc etc". Then, yeah, obviously we differ there.