jcd11235 0
Recommended Posts
JackC 0
QuoteAs a person who values logic over religious superstition, I feel the probability of everything turning out like it has is to extreme to have happened by " chance occurrence". To steal an analogy it would be odds similar to a tornado going through a junk yard and instead of leaving a bigger mess than before it came, it instead left a completely assembled 747 jetliner.
And yet the odds of an entity powerful and smart enough to have created a universe out of nothing while simultaneously farting himslf into existence are a dead cert.
billvon 2,450
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>To steal an analogy it would be odds similar to a tornado going through
>a junk yard and instead of leaving a bigger mess than before it came, it
>instead left a completely assembled 747 jetliner.
Ah, but that's not how it works. No process imaginable can create, in one tornado, a 747 (or a human being.)
But imagine the same tornado hitting the same junkyard a million times in a row. And further imagine that just one time, it leaves a landing gear standing on its tires. Now it can roll back and forth. And from an evolutionary point of view, that's all it takes to start the process - one functioning bit.
>a junk yard and instead of leaving a bigger mess than before it came, it
>instead left a completely assembled 747 jetliner.
Ah, but that's not how it works. No process imaginable can create, in one tornado, a 747 (or a human being.)
But imagine the same tornado hitting the same junkyard a million times in a row. And further imagine that just one time, it leaves a landing gear standing on its tires. Now it can roll back and forth. And from an evolutionary point of view, that's all it takes to start the process - one functioning bit.
billvon 2,450
>And what objective method do you use to tell if you've arrived at
>some spiritual truth?
You do not. You use a subjective method, since spirituality is unique to each person.
> If you use morality, who's morality do you use?
Your own.
>It looks to me like spiritual reality is whatever you want it to be.
To a large degree, yes. It doesn't have to meet any standards of consistency or validity other than your own.
>If there is an intelligence at work in the universe, it should leave
>some discernable evidence.
Why? Even today, we could create a rock in a laboratory that is not measurably different than a rock from a quarry.
>some spiritual truth?
You do not. You use a subjective method, since spirituality is unique to each person.
> If you use morality, who's morality do you use?
Your own.
>It looks to me like spiritual reality is whatever you want it to be.
To a large degree, yes. It doesn't have to meet any standards of consistency or validity other than your own.
>If there is an intelligence at work in the universe, it should leave
>some discernable evidence.
Why? Even today, we could create a rock in a laboratory that is not measurably different than a rock from a quarry.
Lindsey 0
Quote>My pyramid analogy is in reference to how ordered states become
>disordered without the input of energy(entropy).
That's true. In order for life to have developed on earth, you'd have to assume there is some massive external source of energy driving the processes of life on this planet.
BWAHAHAHA!!!! I've heard that before, and it STILL cracks me up.
:)
linz
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
jakee 1,265
QuoteThe argument will never get resolved between religion & Science because the conflict doesn't exist in the first place.
Maybe in your particular brand of religion God has never tinkered with the running of the universe, but millions of people out there would beg to differ.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,265
Quote>Science works for exploring everything physical.
Yes. And religion/moralityworks to explore everything spiritual...
And physical.
Please, do not equate religion with morality. Unless you're working from your own dictionary they simply are not the same thing.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
billvon 2,450
>Please, do not equate religion with morality.
I would argue that one's personal views on religion and morality are quite close indeed - but that established religions are a completely different animal. (In some cases, the views of the established religion and one's personal views on religion are very congruent, but that's not universal.)
I would argue that one's personal views on religion and morality are quite close indeed - but that established religions are a completely different animal. (In some cases, the views of the established religion and one's personal views on religion are very congruent, but that's not universal.)
JackC 0
Quote>It looks to me like spiritual reality is whatever you want it to be.
To a large degree, yes. It doesn't have to meet any standards of consistency or validity other than your own.
If it has no objective coherence or validity, then spirituality is of limited use. For me it's of no use since it's essentially meaningless.
QuoteWhy? Even today, we could create a rock in a laboratory that is not measurably different than a rock from a quarry.
What, am I not allowed to even look?
billvon 2,450
>For me it's of no use since it's essentially meaningless.
That's fine.
>What, am I not allowed to even look?
You are quite welcome to look!
That's fine.
>What, am I not allowed to even look?
You are quite welcome to look!
QuoteIt seems to me you have misunderstood two separate points about human evolution.
1. Did humans evolve from a non human ancestor?
2. What is the date and sequence for that evolution?
I have to admit that I'm a bit of a constructivist (in the sense that the term is used in mathematical philosophy). I do admit that it is possible to answer 1 without answering 2. But I tend to be much more comfortable with the answer to 1 when I see the answer to 2 as well. When I see the answer to 1 but not 2, I tend to continually say, in essence--yes, evolution may explain this but is there a third theory--neither evolution nor "creationism" that does even better? That might, in particular, do a better job of pointing us to an answer to 2? When I see the answer to 2 as well, I tend to be much more at ease with the answer.
Quote
In a similar way we might ask
1 did a murder take place? and
2 who committed the murder?
Lets assume we cannot answer question 2, that does not in any way imply that we cannot answer question 1 .
This is actually a good analogy in the sense that it perhaps illustrates the reasons for my unease. If you can answer 1 but not 2, then you have an unsolved crime on your hands. It is an uneasy, uncomfortable, situation. No one is going to be satisfied with a situation where you can answer 1 but not 2. If you are a detective in a position where you can answer 1 but not 2, it is a situation that calls for profound humility--not arrogance.
Quote
As to my boss’s so cavalier attitude, I can only assume I work at an institution that makes a lot more money than yours. 40 lots of Eurodollar futures has PV01 OF $1000 , last year I alone made several tens of millions of dollars trading so I and my boss would certainly consider that sort of position so negligible that we would ignore it. Perhaps for someone that makes very little money that might be considered a big position , for us, it is peanuts. I guess that backs up my point that 4% difference is not necessarily a big deal, it all depends. Again I feel I need to repeat the point . if we cant pin down when human and chimps split to within 4% difference that would have no bearing on whether or nor it happened.
The trading desk I worked on wanted all decisions to be impeccable whether the effect on the bottom line was $100M or just $100. Yes, if a reasoned decision was made to sacrifice $100 to make $100M, obviously they would make that tradeoff. But if someone made a careless error costing the desk $100 without a clear explanation, they tended to hear about it from the bosses, even if that person had an overall positive contribution to P&L many orders of magnitude larger.
I wasn't as successful as I could have been on that desk because I tended to make the assumption--I guess valid on your desk--that small errors would be overlooked if the overall results were good. That was a bad assumption to make on my trading desk though it might be valid elsewhere on Wall Street. On my desk they wanted all decisions, large and small, to be impeccable. It was simply the corporate philosophy at my firm and I didn't learn it well enough to be really successful at trading--though I can see where other firms might have a different philosophy. It has served that firm well, though--even though I still don't fully agree with it myself.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
jakee 1,265
Quote>Please, do not equate religion with morality.
I would argue that one's personal views on religion and morality are quite close indeed
How so?
At best, morality is but a small part of what comes under the umbrella of religion. Other parts of religion would usually include such things as how the universe was made, who or what made it, which bits of the universe they have since tinkered with etc. These are all physical things. So, while moral philosophy obviously does not conflict with science, it is simply bogus to equate religion with just moral philosophy.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
JackC 0
Quote>For me it's of no use since it's essentially meaningless.
That's fine.
>What, am I not allowed to even look?
You are quite welcome to look!
I'm glad that's settled. Now what were we arguing about again?
billvon 2,450
>Now what were we arguing about again?
I don't know, but it must have been _very_ important.
I don't know, but it must have been _very_ important.
Amazon 7
QuoteThe argument will never get resolved between religion & Science because the conflict doesn't exist in the first place. It's only fundamentalists who think that it does.
THey just cant get their heads around the fact that 3000 years ago.. the book as written and decipherd by the available intelligence of goat herders....may not be able to descibe time units in the context it was "revealed" to them.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites