WSJ article:Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

[rapbeats]

Couple weeks ago. Girl from my job. Imo she is 'perfect' (physically) but to a guy who doesn't like black women, she probably isn't. That's why, again, what's "perfect" is a matter of perspective.

nope. not buying it.

lets use your analogy. a blazing hot chick. not just a solid 8 that you want to call"perfect" meaning you dont see any serious flaws. of course you see some but they are not serious enough for you to acknowledge them.so a blazing hot chick to me is pretty much a blazin hot chick to every single person on the planet. i didnt say a good looker. i didnt say kinda cute. i said BLAZIN hot. and we're talking about people telling one you one thing out of their mouths based on their racism(i dont like black girls). i dont date white chicks, but i wont front on a blazin hot white chick. i aint no fool. i have eyes to see for a reason.

if something is really that extreme on the beauty scale WE ALL KNOW IT.

but back to my original point. i didnt say what perfect is to you with all of your biases. i said TRUE perfection. we have not seen that with our own eyes so to speak. the closest thing to perfection we know of is the universe itself. when it comes to us being able to be alive at all. to have all of those things sitting juuuuuust right is about as perfect as we can see it. But if you believe in God you believe there is a perfection beyond what we have seen with our own eyes. and its something we will all recognize the moment we catch a glimpse of it. now if you dont believe in God. you wont believe that to be true. what can i tell you..it is...what it is. and we shall see.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

ay dont try to fill me up with that atheist nonsense talking about start at 16. stop it. what we're talking about started a bit after 16. but anyway, the guy was saying exactly what i've been saying. there's gaps to be filled but with what? some say God some say randomness.

It doesn't matter what "they say"

They're MOVING THE GOALPOSTS.

Notice, they're not entrenched in long dismissed bullshyt...but speculating into things we haven't delved into yet for their big A-ha! moment.

if we're going to hold onto filling said gaps with "randomness did it" then the God gappers are saying based on the same probability that the randomness folks are using the numbers are leaning a lot less towards randomness and since we're talking randomness vs God(intelligent design). then it of course leans more toward God..based on probability of today's science.

Theres already more evidence of "randomness" and rather some intelligent designer ON THE VIRTUE that our model has predictability, as all scientific theories do.

The "god" hypothesis makes no claims that can be supported nor does it make any predictions.

now like i said earlier, truth is neither side will know the truth until another earth is produced...or Not. as far as using probability. someone in here said probability of something happening x infinite= it will happen at some point. and i said no it wont if it has never happened before. what are you basing your probability on in reality? a guess, a hope, and a prayer.

Why does it have to be another earth?

that has not changed. so right now we're arguing over semantics. so i kept the argument within the semantics pararmeters. and said fine, its random vs God based on the same type of science probability that help write that article in the 60's that said no more god. thats what this is article is about. nothing more and nothing less. i think you guys are so use to arguing atheist vs believers. you dont realize thats not really the argument of the article. i said it before its not that hard to get. you guys think its a loss for you to concede this one. but in reality you should concede on this one.

You can't use statistics to say the improbable won't happened when in fact...it happened.

 

[blackzeus]

This is the entire point.

You can't know whats "random" until you know everything, and the methods they use to assert their "probabilities" aren't determined based on empirical and TOTAL understanding of all the components involved.

You an't just take how many things you know, slap a few fractions around and come up with answers.

Its a perversion of statistics. Take any class on modeling or statistical research.

The flaw is obvious here.

Yes, it's possible a fixed rate of cosmic expansion for the entire universe is random breh because we don't know everything Science makes logical assumptions every f*ckin' second, yet it's hands off when it comes to the accuracy of abiogenesis, yes it's science but no you can't question it, and if you do it's because your understanding is flawed and basic, no, we're not a religion, but don't question us

 

[BaldingSoHard]

nope. not buying it.

lets use your analogy. a blazing hot chick. not just a solid 8 that you want to call"perfect" meaning you dont see any serious flaws. of course you see some but they are not serious enough for you to acknowledge them.so a blazing hot chick to me is pretty much a blazin hot chick to every single person on the planet. i didnt say a good looker. i didnt say kinda cute. i said BLAZIN hot. and we're talking about people telling one you one thing out of their mouths based on their racism(i dont like black girls). i dont date white chicks, but i wont front on a blazin hot white chick. i aint no fool. i have eyes to see for a reason.

if something is really that extreme on the beauty scale WE ALL KNOW IT.

but back to my original point. i didnt say what perfect is to you with all of your biases. i said TRUE perfection. we have not seen that with our own eyes so to speak. the closest thing to perfection we know of is the universe itself. when it comes to us being able to be alive at all. to have all of those things sitting juuuuuust right is about as perfect as we can see it. But if you believe in God you believe there is a perfection beyond what we have seen with our own eyes. and its something we will all recognize the moment we catch a glimpse of it. now if you dont believe in God. you wont believe that to be true. what can i tell you..it is...what it is. and we shall see.

Maybe you haven't, but I have.

Perspective.

 

[Kings County]

Didn read the article, but there's nothing in this world more unintelligent than NOT believing in God.

which one ?

 

[NoMayo15]

People are the greatest threat to other people.

So are you gonna continue to ignore me or what?

 

[Regular_P]

So are you gonna continue to ignore me or what?

What am I ignoring?

 

[NoMayo15]

What am I ignoring?

You never answered my question on page one.

 

[Regular_P]

You never answered my question on page one.

If you're referring to "so what?" there's nothing else to add.

 

[rapbeats]

It doesn't matter what "they say"

They're MOVING THE GOALPOSTS.

Notice, they're not entrenched in long dismissed bullshyt...but speculating into things we haven't delved into yet for their big A-ha! moment.

Theres already more evidence of "randomness" and rather some intelligent designer ON THE VIRTUE that our model has predictability, as all scientific theories do.

The "god" hypothesis makes no claims that can be supported nor does it make any predictions.

Why does it have to be another earth?


You can't use statistics to say the improbable won't happened when in fact...it happened.

it didnt happen YET. because it has happened again

Says who? Says math. And you say that like "making stuff up" is somehow a problem for theists.



Couldn't be more wrong. The existence of another Earth-like planet has zero to do with our observations of said planet or the fact that we're standing on one; it's Markovian. Either it exists or it doesn't, us knowing about it or not doesn't change a thing.

Unless I misunderstood what you're saying.

oh wow so we're going there. Obviously if it exists whether we know it or not isnt relevant to the truth. but guess what. if we never find it, WE will never know it exists. and if we dont know it exists. TO US, it has never existed.

semantics again. we're talking about this article. which is talking about what we do know now vs what we use to know when that statement was made in the 60's.

thats all this is about no more or no less. now if yall want to spin this thread into an athiest vs believers. thats fine. but say that before you reply. This is not that hard, i just dont see why yall keep trying to make it difficult.

Some say "mannnn making another earth is easy.. others says... now it aint" Team its easy was winning with the small amt of things that needed to be in place for a possible earth to be in space some where. nowadays team "it aint easy" is winning because we have had to add so much more to the list of what it would take to create yet another earth. on top of the fact we can see a lot more of outer space now then we could then and yet we still dont see another earth, nor do we see anything even close to the things we need to have another earth out there. thats all this article is about. thats it. sorry atheist. the other guy gets 1 point for the win today. let it go. if we're keeping count based purely on the 60's article and this one. The game is tied 1 to 1. thats it.

 

[NoMayo15]

If you're referring to "so what?" there's nothing else to add.

Okay, well can you at least acknowledge that the logical leap you attempted to make doesn't follow?

 

[Regular_P]

Okay, well can you at least acknowledge that the logical leap you attempted to make doesn't follow?

How so?

 

[NoMayo15]

How so?

That our uniqueness does not necessitate a god. That our ability to see beauty in a sunset does not necessarily mean a god had to imbue in us an idea of beauty.

 

[tmonster]

You're thekingsmen of Christianity. Your opinion on theological matters hold no weight outside of other Christians on this board. Every thread you come into that is based on Christianity, you take a hard line pro-Christian stance. The fact that you would post something as dumb as this:

Is an uneducated response that only serves to push your Christian faith. Nothing else. It doesn't account for a myriad of religions, philosophies, theories, cultures and thousands upon thousands of years of human societies with differing beliefs.

Clown.

but his gif game though

 

[BaldingSoHard]

oh wow so we're going there. Obviously if it exists whether we know it or not isnt relevant to the truth. but guess what. if we never find it, WE will never know it exists. and if we dont know it exists. TO US, it has never existed.

Thanks, I guess... for re-affirming what I already said.

semantics again. we're talking about this article. which is talking about what we do know now vs what we use to know when that statement was made in the 60's.

thats all this is about no more or no less. now if yall want to spin this thread into an athiest vs believers. thats fine. but say that before you reply. This is not that hard, i just dont see why yall keep trying to make it difficult.

Some say "mannnn making another earth is easy.. others says... now it aint" Team its easy was winning with the small amt of things that needed to be in place for a possible earth to be in space some where. nowadays team "it aint easy" is winning because we have had to add so much more to the list of what it would take to create yet another earth. on top of the fact we can see a lot more of outer space now then we could then and yet we still dont see another earth, nor do we see anything even close to the things we need to have another earth out there. thats all this article is about. thats it. sorry atheist. the other guy gets 1 point for the win today. let it go. if we're keeping count based purely on the 60's article and this one. The game is tied 1 to 1. thats it.

Truthfully, I didn't read the article. But I'd say there's a pretty good chance of us finding another planet that can support life. Just my opinion.